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) |
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 09:12:00 -
[1]
I'm serious: ECM sucks. I've used it a lot, in lots of different situations, and contrary to what some might think, I have been thinking a lot about what people have said in the various threads. I have come to the conclusion that ECM is horrible.
The effect, as many have noted, is too powerful compared to other EW. The balancing characteristic, that it is chance-based, makes it too unreliable to use as any kind of serious protection unless the chance of failure is so small that the ship is overpowered, or unless the range is so high that the ECM ship isn't in danger anyway. ECM ships have to be useless for everything but ECM, but or ECM ships to be worth flying at all that means they have to be too good at ECM. In the various ECM/Falcon whinethreads, a large number of people who know a lot about the game have comprehensively and consistently failed to come up with a way of making ECM ships useful for anything except ECM. Long range, unanswerable, fun destroying. In short ECM is either overpowered, or it is overpowered and useless (ie: it cripples the enemy in a situation where they would lose anyway), or it is useless. What it isn't, ever, is fun. For anyone. I have in the past argued that eg: Falcons are balanced because they have so many weaknesses and such specific utility. Whilst I still believe that this is true, I have come to the conclusion that the problem with them is not so much that they're imbalanced, but that their balance balance comes from being so rigidly specialised that they are either ridiculously good or ridiculously bad in a given situation. On average, they're not "overpowered". But what they never are is fun, either to fly or to fight.
So let's junk ECM and the current concept of hyper-specialised ECM ships and start from scratch. We need a completely different EW concept for Caldari ships. My thought is that it should have the following characteristics:
(1) Get rid of chance based effects, at least within optimal range. If it's reliable, it can be less powerful. If it's less powerful, then we can reasonably give Caldari EW ships stuff like drone bays or secondary E-War
(2) Caldari EW should still be the "best" EW, but by a much smaller margin than is currently the case. If Caldari recons are to get a secondary E-War, it should be the least powerful, and maybe a buff effect rather than an offensive one (eg: a range/effect bonus to remote sensor boosters or trackng links?) or something Caldari-flavoured like the equivalent of a tracking disruptor for missiles.
(3) Either drop the scorpion's EW role altogether, and buff it's drone bay and give it some weapon bonuses so that Caldari have 1 decent solo ship (and a tier 1 BS that can deploy a set of heavy drones like every other race has) or, if the new Caldari EW is worthwhile on a BS, give all the other races a tier 1 EW BS, and create a decent soloable (or at least multirole) t1 BS for Caldari to use. Currently the Scorpion Fails ItÖ and I say this as someone who dearly wants it to be a good ship.
tl;dr: drop ECM, rework Caldari ECM ships, let's hear your thoughts. |
hellsknights
SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 09:16:00 -
[2]
BLAH BLAH BLAH......
NOS is to powerful, it gets reworked and NOS sucks.
Damps are to powerful, it gets reworked Damps suck.
Can Caldari recons be the best recon for crowd support i say sure why not. Every race has a ship in every class thats better then the other races.
Quit your damn complaining and fit ECCM like most people do in PVP situations.
Whine on!
|
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 09:19:00 -
[3]
Originally by: hellsknights BLAH BLAH BLAH......
NOS is to powerful, it gets reworked and NOS sucks.
Damps are to powerful, it gets reworked Damps suck.
Can Caldari recons be the best recon for crowd support i say sure why not. Every race has a ship in every class thats better then the other races.
Quit your damn complaining and fit ECCM like most people do in PVP situations.
Whine on!
Thank you for not reading my post.
|
NoNah
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 09:22:00 -
[4]
Originally by: hellsknights BLAH BLAH BLAH......
NOS is to powerful, it gets reworked and NOS sucks.
Damps are to powerful, it gets reworked Damps suck.
Can Caldari recons be the best recon for crowd support i say sure why not. Every race has a ship in every class thats better then the other races.
Quit your damn complaining and fit ECCM like most people do in PVP situations.
Whine on!
Ironicly both the ew you mention were overpowered when fitted on ships that were not specialized for it. And since ECM got a number of boosts. And still the problem is only the specialized ships. These cycles apply to all ships and all balances, they more or less have to be there.
Solution is in my eyes kind of simple. Boost counters for it or rework it more. Making it reduce the number of locked ships for example would be a great way of doing it. And it would put more use to signal amplifiers and auto-targeters.
Best solution still is simply to arrange damp ranges so they can affect falcons where they are at, and remove the option of jamming while warping or cloaked. That done I'd say it's all fine and dandy - the only risk being to counter all the fotm pilots with ready falcon alts forcing an overnerf - again. Parrots, commence!
Postcount: 93926
|
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 09:31:00 -
[5]
Originally by: NoNah
Originally by: hellsknights BLAH BLAH BLAH......
NOS is to powerful, it gets reworked and NOS sucks.
Damps are to powerful, it gets reworked Damps suck.
Can Caldari recons be the best recon for crowd support i say sure why not. Every race has a ship in every class thats better then the other races.
Quit your damn complaining and fit ECCM like most people do in PVP situations.
Whine on!
Ironicly both the ew you mention were overpowered when fitted on ships that were not specialized for it. And since ECM got a number of boosts. And still the problem is only the specialized ships. These cycles apply to all ships and all balances, they more or less have to be there.
Solution is in my eyes kind of simple. Boost counters for it or rework it more. Making it reduce the number of locked ships for example would be a great way of doing it. And it would put more use to signal amplifiers and auto-targeters.
Best solution still is simply to arrange damp ranges so they can affect falcons where they are at, and remove the option of jamming while warping or cloaked. That done I'd say it's all fine and dandy - the only risk being to counter all the fotm pilots with ready falcon alts forcing an overnerf - again.
That doesn't answer my argument: that ECM inherently sucks. It's balanced by being either overpowered or useless. Whilst this is balanced, it's balanced by being fun-destroying; either the ECM pilot makes other ships useless, or the ECM pilot is himself useless. And ECM ships aren't fun to fly, not really. You spend 90% of your time passively waiting. You can't do a goddamb thing on your own. You are vulnerable - hilariously slow, tanked like a hauler, armed like a hauler - to the point of uselessness unless you can get enough range or unless you outnumber the enemy enough to make sure everyone in weapon range is jammed - in which case you were going to win anyway and you're still pretty useless. And if you do have the range, you then become so useful that FCs won't let you fly any other ships so all you ever do is get to jam the enemy while you watch other people having the actual fun. |
hellsknights
SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 09:32:00 -
[6]
I dislike the Scorp, but its efective at what is does. Do we need an ECM BS i think we could do without.
If your using a Scorp for ecm support why not use a recon, i know the scorp will push out more DPS but still.
Maybe i just have Scorp hate. |
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 09:35:00 -
[7]
Originally by: hellsknights I dislike the Scorp, but its efective at what is does. Do we need an ECM BS i think we could do without.
If your using a Scorp for ecm support why not use a recon, i know the scorp will push out more DPS but still.
Maybe i just have Scorp hate.
The scorp is not effective at anything. It can be mediocre at several things.
I suppose it could be just about useful for ganking mission runners, where you know in advance what flavour of ECM to bring. And then only if you cant bring a domi. |
P'uck
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 09:38:00 -
[8]
Sure, everybody hates to be jammed. It's the least fun way of being ewar'ed.
Still, the only thing that really irks me, is how ridiculous the other specialized ewar/combat utility ships look compared to the falcon. |
Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 09:44:00 -
[9]
I wouldn't mind it being replaced by something else - I agree, both as user and victim, that it is the least 'fun' of the e-war. |
hellsknights
SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 09:45:00 -
[10]
I can fly a Falcon and the Rook, i never do but i can. I would trade those 2 ships to be able to fly the Amarr recons any day.
The Scorp can be very effective at jamming and or be very effective tank the number of mids on the ship make it swing either way. |
|
TimMc
Gallente Brutal Deliverance OWN Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 09:51:00 -
[11]
Edited by: TimMc on 09/01/2009 09:53:47 /signed
ECM is boring for both sides.
How about buff defender missiles and make that the recons secondary ewar? How about making ECM work 100% of time on all ships within optimal, but making the effect simply break target locks instead of the 20 second jam? More like ECM bursts I suppose. It would cripple battleships and low scan res ships, but ceptors could still operate quickly enough to tackle.
And for the scorpian? It does sound like a very scary ship, alot of dps with no tank. Solo torp, heavy drone bs for caldari sounds great.
Edit: Could make al the black ops BS extremely ewar heavy, like the scorpian is now. Redeemer with neut and tracking disruptor bonus, Sin with warp disruptor and damp bonus, Widow with ECM and defender bonuses and finally panther with Web range and target painting bonuses. |
hellsknights
SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 09:56:00 -
[12]
Originally by: TimMc Edited by: TimMc on 09/01/2009 09:53:47 /signed
ECM is boring for both sides.
How about buff defender missiles and make that the recons secondary ewar? How about making ECM work 100% of time on all ships within optimal, but making the effect simply break target locks instead of the 20 second jam? More like ECM bursts I suppose. It would cripple battleships and low scan res ships, but ceptors could still operate quickly enough to tackle.
And for the scorpian? It does sound like a very scary ship, alot of dps with no tank. Solo torp, heavy drone bs for caldari sounds great.
Edit: Could make al the black ops BS extremely ewar heavy, like the scorpian is now. Redeemer with neut and tracking disruptor bonus, Sin with warp disruptor and damp bonus, Widow with ECM and defender bonuses and finally panther with Web range and target painting bonuses.
If ECM was like a burst it would make the caldari recons useless and ECM as well. As for a defender bonus sounds useless and your too far from the fight to use those defenders anyhow.
Defender bonus would have to be on a close range ship not a recon. |
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 09:56:00 -
[13]
Originally by: hellsknights I can fly a Falcon and the Rook, i never do but i can. I would trade those 2 ships to be able to fly the Amarr recons any day.
The Scorp can be very effective at jamming and or be very effective tank the number of mids on the ship make it swing either way.
I can strongly advise training Amarr Cruiser V, since all their T2 Cruisers are fantastic, with the possible exception of the Devoter (and that's pretty good at least).
The scorp can be moderately effective at jamming, at the expense of any other utility. In which case, why not fly a Rook, which is better at jamming, locks faster and has better range. It can tank pretty well, at the expense of being able to do aanything else. I guess I should modify my statement to add that it makes a good bait/decoy ship. |
P'uck
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 09:57:00 -
[14]
There is some stuff I could think about:
Introduce "hit quality" like with turrets, which determines how long that jam cycle lasts, modify it in falloff.
Dont make people really lose their locks, but add a white noise effect on the targetted icons for the duration of the cycle. As long as this effect is active, all your mods set on that target deactivate. Maybe randomly disable the white noise effect during the jam period so people could still get a (partial) volley or some other modules in, if they react quick enough. At least that way you wouldnt be completely disabled, and it would feel more fun.
The falcon pilot still has no extra excitement, but meh, I'll think about THAT one, when I get my webstrength bonus on the specialized minnie ships, thankyouverymuch |
Krystal Demishy
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 09:57:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Krystal Demishy on 09/01/2009 09:58:23 Why should they give you a caldari solo ship while they nerfed all the others?! Caldari got way too much to perform perfectly in every role; if you trained another race you are tempted to cross-train another race to fill the holes of your race, but this is not for caldari! Tell me 1 single role that you cannot perform with caldari ships....
And about the ecm problem, the solution is simple: remove that ridicolous huge range, make it a very close range ship to be effective, and give it 2 different bonuses, like every other recon ship. ("made of paper" ?? stfu, the other recons are too). |
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 09:59:00 -
[16]
Originally by: hellsknights
Originally by: TimMc Edited by: TimMc on 09/01/2009 09:53:47 /signed
ECM is boring for both sides.
How about buff defender missiles and make that the recons secondary ewar? How about making ECM work 100% of time on all ships within optimal, but making the effect simply break target locks instead of the 20 second jam? More like ECM bursts I suppose. It would cripple battleships and low scan res ships, but ceptors could still operate quickly enough to tackle.
And for the scorpian? It does sound like a very scary ship, alot of dps with no tank. Solo torp, heavy drone bs for caldari sounds great.
Edit: Could make al the black ops BS extremely ewar heavy, like the scorpian is now. Redeemer with neut and tracking disruptor bonus, Sin with warp disruptor and damp bonus, Widow with ECM and defender bonuses and finally panther with Web range and target painting bonuses.
If ECM was like a burst it would make the caldari recons useless and ECM as well. As for a defender bonus sounds useless and your too far from the fight to use those defenders anyhow.
Defender bonus would have to be on a close range ship not a recon.
The idea is to bring Caldari recons into the fight, not have them just sat at 170Km. That means making them useful - low slots, speed, drones.
But "burst" ECM still fails because it's chance based, and therefore useless. |
Soporo
Caldari The Graduates Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 09:59:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Soporo on 09/01/2009 10:01:13
Yes, yes let's nerf the last thing Caldari has left that's better than everyone else.
Bring it in line with our sucky lolflight-time missiles, our crap dps rails, our ever vanishing mid-slots, our crawling speed, miniscule grid and microscopic dronebays.
FFS just remove the jam cycle when the jammer cloaks, tone down the Falcons range (let the Rook rule the roost for range), and all will be fine. |
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 10:01:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Krystal Demishy Edited by: Krystal Demishy on 09/01/2009 09:58:23 Why should they give you a caldari solo ship while they nerfed all the others?! Caldari got way too much to perform perfectly in every role; if you trained another race you are tempted to cross-train another race to fill the holes of your race, but this is not for caldari! Tell me 1 single role that you cannot perform with caldari ships....
And about the ecm problem, the solution is simple: remove that ridicolous huge range, make it a very close range ship to be effective, and give it 2 different bonuses, like every other recon ship. ("made of paper" ?? stfu, the other recons are too).
Take the ECM from your falcon or rook. I will remove the EW from any other recon ship of your choice.
We will 1v1
if you win, I will give you all my stuff then biomass my characters. |
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 10:01:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Soporo Edited by: Soporo on 09/01/2009 10:01:13
Yes, yes let's nerf the last thing Caldari has left that's better than everyone else.
Bring it in line with our sucky lolflight-time missiles, our crap dps rails, our ever vanishing mid-slots, our crawling speed, miniscule grid and microscopic dronebays.
FFS just remove the jam cycle when the jammer cloaks, tone down the Falcons range (let the Rook rule the roost for range), and all will be fine.
Thank you for not reading my post. |
Deltronious
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 10:02:00 -
[20]
(3) Either drop the scorpion's EW role altogether, and buff it's drone bay and give it some weapon bonuses so that Caldari have 1 decent solo ship (and a tier 1 BS that can deploy a set of heavy drones like every other race has) >Seriously. Caldari have the best solo ship in the game ie. the raven, and if you're talking pvp, well who's taking battleships pvp anyway?
Agree with the ewar sucks thing though. Hey I get the lachesis and arazu and while I may be useful in fleet situations my ewar capabilities are next to useless solo.
|
|
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 10:05:00 -
[21]
Originally by: P'uck There is some stuff I could think about:
Introduce "hit quality" like with turrets, which determines how long that jam cycle lasts, modify it in falloff.
I did consider a sort of "universal tracking disruptor", and it could work well.
Another thing I thought of was to make ECM protect a specific friendly ship rather than cripple a specific hostile ship, but that should be a secondary EW rather than the primary IMO. I dunno, maybe it could work. It would certainly make Falcons as welcome as Gaurdians and Scimitars, but I didn't train Recon V to fly a disguised Logistics ship. |
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 10:09:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Deltronious >Seriously. Caldari have the best solo ship in the game ie. the raven, and if you're talking pvp, well who's taking battleships pvp anyway?
wat? The raven isn't the best solo ship in PvP or PvE. By a long way.
|
TimMc
Gallente Brutal Deliverance OWN Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 10:09:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Malcanis The idea is to bring Caldari recons into the fight, not have them just sat at 170Km. That means making them useful - low slots, speed, drones.
But "burst" ECM still fails because it's chance based, and therefore useless.
I said it would work 100% of the time. Lets just throw some stat ideas around...
5 second cycle time? Breaks lock on firing within optimal (30km without skills (15km falloff without skills))
Then boost these ewar ships so they can survive in the new close ranges: more hp, more speed and maybe a set of light drones.
Then work on a second ewar. I said defender missiles because they already exist, but it could be anything. Defenders should be able to lock down a single missile ship anyway imo.
|
P'uck
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 10:14:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Malcanis I did consider a sort of "universal tracking disruptor", and it could work well.
what you think about my white noise idea? I like it because it still is jamming but the jammed guy needs to pay attention and isnt completely disabled. So jamming sort of becomes a mini game.
only downside i see, it doesnt promote teamplay with damping guys anymore... but I dont see falcons and arazus teaming up to maximize jam effect anyway.
|
Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 10:14:00 -
[25]
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). --- SIG --- CSM: your support is needed ! |
Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 10:15:00 -
[26]
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.
-------- Ideas for: Mining
|
Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 10:18:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Krystal Demishy Edited by: Krystal Demishy on 09/01/2009 09:58:23 Why should they give you a caldari solo ship while they nerfed all the others?! Caldari got way too much to perform perfectly in every role; if you trained another race you are tempted to cross-train another race to fill the holes of your race, but this is not for caldari! Tell me 1 single role that you cannot perform with caldari ships....
And about the ecm problem, the solution is simple: remove that ridicolous huge range, make it a very close range ship to be effective, and give it 2 different bonuses, like every other recon ship. ("made of paper" ?? stfu, the other recons are too).
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). |
Gabriel Karade
Celtic Anarchy
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 10:18:00 -
[28]
Originally by: TimMc Edited by: TimMc on 09/01/2009 09:53:47 /signed
ECM is boring for both sides.
How about buff defender missiles and make that the recons secondary ewar? How about making ECM work 100% of time on all ships within optimal, but making the effect simply break target locks instead of the 20 second jam? More like ECM bursts I suppose. It would cripple battleships and low scan res ships, but ceptors could still operate quickly enough to tackle.
And for the scorpian? It does sound like a very scary ship, alot of dps with no tank. Solo torp, heavy drone bs for caldari sounds great.
Edit: Could make al the black ops BS extremely ewar heavy, like the scorpian is now. Redeemer with neut and tracking disruptor bonus, Sin with warp disruptor and damp bonus, Widow with ECM and defender bonuses and finally panther with Web range and target painting bonuses.
I'd say go the opposite way, instead make ECM not break locks, rather during the jam cycle the target can't activate modules on any of it's locked targets, but it's target locks return to normal as soon a jam cycle fails.
It's the old 'jammed again while spending 10 seconds re-acquiring locks' that makes ECM a little too powerful IMO - Keep breaking locks the role of ECM burst's and RSD's. |
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 10:20:00 -
[29]
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. |
hellsknights
SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 10:21:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Deltronious (3) Either drop the scorpion's EW role altogether, and buff it's drone bay and give it some weapon bonuses so that Caldari have 1 decent solo ship (and a tier 1 BS that can deploy a set of heavy drones like every other race has) >Seriously. Caldari have the best solo ship in the game ie. the raven, and if you're talking pvp, well who's taking battleships pvp anyway?
Agree with the ewar sucks thing though. Hey I get the lachesis and arazu and while I may be useful in fleet situations my ewar capabilities are next to useless solo.
With the new Scram nulling out MWD it makes the Lach and Razu better at solo PVP. Fit your recon with a mwd and a bit of speed Scram at 20km away, damp them and they cant even lock you. You might have a hard time breaking there tank but you can keep them from locking you with your speed. |
|
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...
|
|
lebrata
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 12:46:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Murina
/points
HE started it...
|
Beverly Sparks
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 12:56:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Sedious Bloke 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.
Only you can waste your internet. If you don't like the show, change the channel.
|
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 13:01:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Sedious Bloke 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.
Allow me to assist.
|
daisy dook
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 13:10:00 -
[64]
Edited by: daisy dook on 09/01/2009 13:11:18 The OP has a point, it is either overpowered (dominates the engagement most likely because precautions have not been taken), overpowered and useless (because the engagement would be won without ECM) or just useless (you had no effect on the engagement).
As a Falcon pilot, the must fun is slipping through a gate camp to get to my optimal. Once there I either dominate a small scale engagement or have no effect (depends on my luck for the day) but I'm certainly not having the same fun as the guys doing the shooting.
Reducing the power level of Caldari e-war would allow CCP to give the Caldari recons a role other than ranged ewar.
Just to clarify: 1. I am not whining that a Falcon is overpowered 2. I am not supporting people that say ECM can not be countered 3. I am agreeing that ECM is a very powerful effect that CCP has chosen to balance by making any ECM ship only to be effective as an ECM ship. 4. I am agreeing that I would like to fly a Caldari recon that has a chance to actually use its weapons systems.
--Edits for formatting
|
Venomae
Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 13:12:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Malcanis Whine Whine Whine Whine Whine...
Bring Your Own Falcon. Enough said.
|
Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 13:27:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Venomae
Originally by: Malcanis Whine Whine Whine Whine Whine...
Bring Your Own Falcon. Enough said.
This very same argument already failed in the speed nerf discussion and is equally invalid for solution acquisition. |
Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 13:30:00 -
[67]
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.
Ewar =/= ECM ... the problem with ECM is that it does scale very well with more ECM ships used, much better than any other ewar form ... |
Omarvelous
Destry's Lounge
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 13:30:00 -
[68]
Edited by: Omarvelous on 09/01/2009 13:31:43 Well, I like to defend ECM - but I'll at least grant you its boring as anything to fly (I hate giving up a dps boat and flying a falcon).
That said, I disagree with your replacement ideas.
NO DRONE BONUS TO CALDARI SHIPS. I hate suggesting drones as a weapons platform for a caldari ship - its not their racial flavor whatsoever. If you want to give the falcon weapons - stick to hybrids or missiles - there's a reason why I bothered investing 11 million skillpoints between gunnery and missiles and only a shade over 1 million in drones. Its the equivalent of saying the Lachesis/Arazu should get a hybrid range bonus - wrong racial bonus.
A defender missile bonus - meh - then the recons would only be useful against other caldari ships (or the phoon).
One idea I can think of, that wouldn't step on any other race's shoes would be to alter ECM into dropping the number of targets the opponent can lock down to 1, and removing the chance factor. It would act like a burst and drop all their locks at first - then as they try to re-lock they can only lock 1 target. It would be very effective against remote repping gangs, and it wouldn't ruin small gang/solo warfare.
If range annoys people - fine, make it so this module doesn't need signal distortion amps, and give the Caldari recons some weapon bonuses to hybrids and missiles.
Or we could just leaves things alone. |
CAiNE999
Beyond Divinity Inc
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 13:50:00 -
[69]
(qouted) `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.`
Yeah thats all very well in that aspect, enabling small gangs to fight larger ones, but unfortunatly thats in one situation and in a fair world where larger blobs dont take falcon ewar.....but oh wait they do in this age of taking no risk because people cant stand dying, despite cheap market and lvl 4 isk fountains rant over
So what you get is people being ewar ****d by falcons and rendered completely useless, i second this white noise idea, in the fact that instead of lock, it fluctuates modules that are active to be enabled/disabled for a length of time 10-20 secs?, maybe blue flashing when its being tampered with. and altho it would be a bit lag enducing, some nice gfx effect on the affected ship would be nice, like sparks or stuff. this way your still being ewar-ed, but your not sitting there watching youself die
Any takers on tampering with modules, blue flashing, unactivatable, chosen at random from activable modules
|
Jonny Nova
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 13:51:00 -
[70]
An EWar variety that disables modules rather than loosing lock would be a good game mechanic.
There might also be a place for modules that disrupt incoming remote boosts like remote repairers and rechargers. To bust repair gangs, you would shut down your primary, rather than having to have some mechanic that shuts down multiple other ships; which is a little unreasonable.
|
|
Confessor
ANZAC ALLIANCE Southern Cross Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 14:02:00 -
[71]
lets push you off a cliff.
|
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 14:39:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Venomae
Originally by: Malcanis Whine Whine Whine Whine Whine...
Bring Your Own Falcon. Enough said.
Thank you for not reading my post, made as it was by someone who spent most of 2008 in a Falcon. |
Ancy Denaries
Caldari Solaris Operations
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 14:41:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Confessor lets push you off a cliff.
Wow. Just wow. That was so constructive that I have to break down and cry now.
On a more serious note, the suggestion of a burst kind of mechanism that breaks your lock and allows you to relock at a reduced number of targets (perhaps an equal reduction in the amount of ECMS used on you) is a sane one, but I can't really tell how well it would work. |
kyrv
Caldari hirr Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 14:41:00 -
[74]
There should be a highslot module that sends noise at Ecm from a ship that in a group of people causes the ship to overheat mid slot modules kinda like a counterwave, infact why not make it base AOE and in conjunction with a bufed up Automatic targeter boost its range with automatic lock to 150km's on anyship useing ecm on you upto three additional targets which cannot be shot at.
This may mean sustained use of ecm, kills the target ships modules.
Also pilots using ecm may need to be very selective about who is jammed instead of spamming many ships, perhapse hone that to only FC's or logitics. |
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 14:42:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Omarvelous Edited by: Omarvelous on 09/01/2009 13:31:43 Well, I like to defend ECM - but I'll at least grant you its boring as anything to fly (I hate giving up a dps boat and flying a falcon).
That said, I disagree with your replacement ideas.
NO DRONE BONUS TO CALDARI SHIPS. I hate suggesting drones as a weapons platform for a caldari ship - its not their racial flavor whatsoever. If you want to give the falcon weapons - stick to hybrids or missiles - there's a reason why I bothered investing 11 million skillpoints between gunnery and missiles and only a shade over 1 million in drones. Its the equivalent of saying the Lachesis/Arazu should get a hybrid range bonus - wrong racial bonus.
A defender missile bonus - meh - then the recons would only be useful against other caldari ships (or the phoon).
One idea I can think of, that wouldn't step on any other race's shoes would be to alter ECM into dropping the number of targets the opponent can lock down to 1, and removing the chance factor. It would act like a burst and drop all their locks at first - then as they try to re-lock they can only lock 1 target. It would be very effective against remote repping gangs, and it wouldn't ruin small gang/solo warfare.
If range annoys people - fine, make it so this module doesn't need signal distortion amps, and give the Caldari recons some weapon bonuses to hybrids and missiles.
Or we could just leaves things alone.
I didn't ever say drone bonus, just a drone bay. You know, like every other race has on it's recons.
I mean just because Amarr recons have the 2nd best EW, the best secondary EW, the best tanks, the best damage and a drone bonus to go with their massive BS-class drone bays.... |
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 14:43:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Confessor lets push you off a cliff.
Thank you for making the best contribution you are capable of. |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 14:50:00 -
[77]
Removing ECM would push the game even more towards the gank/tank slug fest kinda deal that sucks gigantic donkey balls.
Keep it and we force ppl to be more mobile and versatile in their combat choices and strategies. |
daisy dook
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 14:56:00 -
[78]
Originally by: Murina
Removing ECM would push the game even more towards the gank/tank slug fest kinda deal that sucks gigantic donkey balls.
Keep it and we force ppl to be more mobile and versatile in their combat choices and strategies.
But I want an ECM ship to do more than just ECM; I want to shoot things and have a chance of surviving *sob* *sob* |
Lord CH0w
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 15:00:00 -
[79]
hi there - new here but might as well drop and idea
how about making ecm disable some of the systems in your vicitm ship? weapons, tank, cap regen, tank, target range or number of max targets? now we have 4 racials + 1 multi ecm module: how about make it one module with scripts for different types of modules, 5 choices we have and also we could make it for example also scale down from most possible (f.e cap regen) to least possible (gun disable or whatever) also we could have propose a strengh of such warfare (least possible = disabling 75% of system we are jamming - complete jam would be too harsh maybe???) i mean i m not into making ewar 100% possible, if more uncertain it is the better for me couse actually u would have to guess/hope what have u done to ur target or on what scale hence not 100% possible with max 75% of system possibilities
its just an idea from newb :) c u in space
|
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 15:01:00 -
[80]
Edited by: Malcanis on 09/01/2009 15:04:04
Originally by: CAiNE999 (qouted) `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.`
Yeah thats all very well in that aspect, enabling small gangs to fight larger ones, but unfortunatly thats in one situation and in a fair world where larger blobs dont take falcon ewar.....but oh wait they do in this age of taking no risk because people cant stand dying, despite cheap market and lvl 4 isk fountains rant over
So what you get is people being ewar ****d by falcons and rendered completely useless, i second this white noise idea, in the fact that instead of lock, it fluctuates modules that are active to be enabled/disabled for a length of time 10-20 secs?, maybe blue flashing when its being tampered with. and altho it would be a bit lag enducing, some nice gfx effect on the affected ship would be nice, like sparks or stuff. this way your still being ewar-ed, but your not sitting there watching youself die
Any takers on tampering with modules, blue flashing, unactivatable, chosen at random from activable modules
What if an ECM module caused a CPU penalty proportional to the strength of the ECM module vs that targets sensor strength. With random modules being temporarily offlined, with a probability equal to their CPU consumption until all the "lost" CPU is accounted for. ECCM modules to increase sensor strength to reduce the effect.
If the CPU penalty was a percentage then you would have small and large ships relatively equally affected. Small ships would still be somewhat more vulnerable as they have fewer modules and lower sensor strength, so the granularity of the effect is larger. Stacking penalties would apply, so little point putting more than 3 jammers on a ship unless it's the only target (and therefore probably doomed anyway)
eg: a T2 racial jammer causes a base 25%* CPU penalty, modified by jam strength/sensor strength. Putting a jammer on a Megathron jam str 14.1, sensor strength 21 = 16.78% CPU penalty. The Mega 'loses' modules until 228.08 CPU worth have been offlined - probably 2-3 turrets and a low slot or 2. If the Mega had ECCM fitted it would lose only only about half as much CPU.
The main problem I see with this idea is that it might make ECM worth fitting on non EW ships. But that's true of tracking disruptors and target painters too, whether people realise it or not.
*I say 25% just as a number pulled from the air. Suggest better numbers.
|
|
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 15:03:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Murina
Removing ECM would push the game even more towards the gank/tank slug fest kinda deal that sucks gigantic donkey balls.
Keep it and we force ppl to be more mobile and versatile in their combat choices and strategies.
Removing is not a synonym for replacing.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 15:03:00 -
[82]
Edited by: Murina on 09/01/2009 15:04:04
Originally by: daisy dook
Originally by: Murina
Removing ECM would push the game even more towards the gank/tank slug fest kinda deal that sucks gigantic donkey balls.
Keep it and we force ppl to be more mobile and versatile in their combat choices and strategies.
But I want an ECM ship to do more than just ECM; I want to shoot things and have a chance of surviving *sob* *sob*
Buy a rook or a scorp, work at closer ranges and stay aligned or work with RR gangs.....
|
BiggestT
Caldari Resurrection Skunk-Works
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 15:05:00 -
[83]
I am in agreement.
I fly falcons myself and find them boring and obligatory.
For too long have I wanted to bring a blokh yet been denied due to my falcon being exploited.
They also make PVP in general boring. Who cares if we start seeing RR bs gangs, at least its a fun change.
EVE history
t2 precisions |
Beverly Sparks
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 15:08:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Murina
Removing ECM would push the game even more towards the gank/tank slug fest kinda deal that sucks gigantic donkey balls.
Keep it and we force ppl to be more mobile and versatile in their combat choices and strategies.
That is quite close minded. What if they replaced ECM with something better, wouldn't that make the game better? Lets add diversity and create different combat situations for the pilots to adapt to. Lets not simply take people out of the battle, because as noted, that is not fun. Having your Armor repairer, or you damage mods go offline in the middle of a fight causes you to have to adapt, causes the better pilots to rise to the top. Instead of a binary fit ECCM or don't, and we don't care about the pilot skill, because you can't target anything anyway.
|
Omarvelous
Destry's Lounge
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 15:08:00 -
[85]
Originally by: Malcanis
I didn't ever say drone bonus, just a drone bay. You know, like every other race has on it's recons.
I mean just because Amarr recons have the 2nd best EW, the best secondary EW, the best tanks, the best damage and a drone bonus to go with their massive BS-class drone bays....
Meh - no drone bay on HACs - same for the recons - Id rather they boost the actual weapons platform.
What do you think about my suggestion about ECM bursting your lock - then allowing you to only relock 1 target. ECCM could allow you to lock more than 1 target, and give a 50:50 chance you don't get bursted in the first place (without it you're 100% bursted).
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 15:23:00 -
[86]
Edited by: Murina on 09/01/2009 15:26:23
Originally by: Beverly Sparks
Having your Armor repairer, or you damage mods go offline in the middle of a fight causes you to have to adapt.
Nuets already have that effect on active tanks, and having dmg mods go offline is hardly the end of the world.
Originally by: Beverly Sparks Instead of binary situations, fit ECCM or don't. With ECM we don't care about the pilot skill, because you can't target anything anyway.
I never fit ECCM as my gangs use repositioning/maneuverability and versatile fittings plus a good amount of teamwork to beat ecm heavy gangs. |
Esk Esme
Caldari Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 15:34:00 -
[87]
Edited by: Esk Esme on 09/01/2009 15:34:39 never thought i see u whine mal
but bolla<s m8
all caldari got left is ew also no drone's on these ships they r purly suport ship only
get a grip ppl all this crap about nurfing, boost other ships mods not nurf its not over powerd
shocking just shocking btw there are mods to counter ECM try fitting them if u think u might come across EWAR in hostie gang tbh didnt even bother to read all post as its just another whine |
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 15:43:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Omarvelous
Originally by: Malcanis
I didn't ever say drone bonus, just a drone bay. You know, like every other race has on it's recons.
I mean just because Amarr recons have the 2nd best EW, the best secondary EW, the best tanks, the best damage and a drone bonus to go with their massive BS-class drone bays....
Meh - no drone bay on HACs - same for the recons - Id rather they boost the actual weapons platform.
What do you think about my suggestion about ECM bursting your lock - then allowing you to only relock 1 target. ECCM could allow you to lock more than 1 target, and give a 50:50 chance you don't get bursted in the first place (without it you're 100% bursted).
It would make ECm way too weak.
And say that because long range HACs have no drone bay that medium range recons shouldn't either is not a stron argument IMO. |
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 15:45:00 -
[89]
Originally by: Esk Esme Edited by: Esk Esme on 09/01/2009 15:34:39 never thought i see u whine mal
but bolla<s m8
all caldari got left is ew also no drone's on these ships they r purly suport ship only
get a grip ppl all this crap about nurfing, boost other ships mods not nurf its not over powerd
shocking just shocking btw there are mods to counter ECM try fitting them if u think u might come across EWAR in hostie gang tbh didnt even bother to read all post as its just another whine
It's not really a whine you welsh get. I don't want to nerf Caldari ships, I want to make them more fun.
And you've asked for a drone bay on the rook more times than I can remember you. |
RD Jenka
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 15:55:00 -
[90]
I have a better idea, let's get rid of guns and missiles and add bumping damage so ECM would be useless as you don't have to lock your target at all. Or just use smartbombs on all ships + bumping damage so it would be like in an amusment park.
ECM is fine as it is. |
|
Cade Morrigan
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 16:05:00 -
[91]
Originally by: Malcanis It's not really a whine you welsh get.
What's this? |
BiggestT
Caldari Resurrection Skunk-Works
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 16:06:00 -
[92]
Hehe, Ive been wanting to make a thread like this for quite a while.
Thankfully, Malc beat me to it and I can see why I didnt do it.
Unfortunately, most ppl on this forum simply read one or two sentances, or even just the thread title and post some semi-witty but quite pointless junk and even "gb2wow" or "stfu noob" type posts.
Your taking one for the team here, which I believe is true as almost all falcon pilots I know (who use htem on their mains and dont have other pvp alts) hate using them and wld like them to be funner.
Id personally love to see ecm booted, and shield/armour dampeners put in their place, the scorp + recons get a drone bay and a nice buffer tank to boot. But who am I kidding all the "ECM is fine" arguers dont want change .
Troll away. |
Wannabehero
Absolutely No Retreat
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 16:16:00 -
[93]
What If...
ECM had a random chance to jam PER TARGET rather than all targets in a lump. The possibilty to still have some targets to shoot/rep/counter EW would then remain, while still reducing the capability of the jammed ship significantly.
ECM, when jamming a ship, didn't break locks but instead simply prevented activation of any "On target" effect modules during the duration.
ECM numerically reduced the effectiveness of any "On target" effect modules by the jam strength of the ECM. A 30% ECM would reduce the damage, remote rep strength, and EW effect of the jammed ship by 30%. Stacking penalized for sure.
Ideas just for fun. |
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 16:20:00 -
[94]
Originally by: BiggestT Hehe, Ive been wanting to make a thread like this for quite a while.
Thankfully, Malc beat me to it and I can see why I didnt do it.
Unfortunately, most ppl on this forum simply read one or two sentances, or even just the thread title and post some semi-witty but quite pointless junk and even "gb2wow" or "stfu noob" type posts.
Your taking one for the team here, which I believe is true as almost all falcon pilots I know (who use htem on their mains and dont have other pvp alts) hate using them and wld like them to be funner.
Id personally love to see ecm booted, and shield/armour dampeners put in their place, the scorp + recons get a drone bay and a nice buffer tank to boot. But who am I kidding all the "ECM is fine" arguers dont want change .
Troll away.
Shield/armour damps would be barely better than target painters - worse in some respects. That might work as a funky secondary EW, but even then, meh. |
BiggestT
Caldari Resurrection Skunk-Works
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 16:27:00 -
[95]
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: BiggestT Hehe, Ive been wanting to make a thread like this for quite a while.
Thankfully, Malc beat me to it and I can see why I didnt do it.
Unfortunately, most ppl on this forum simply read one or two sentances, or even just the thread title and post some semi-witty but quite pointless junk and even "gb2wow" or "stfu noob" type posts.
Your taking one for the team here, which I believe is true as almost all falcon pilots I know (who use htem on their mains and dont have other pvp alts) hate using them and wld like them to be funner.
Id personally love to see ecm booted, and shield/armour dampeners put in their place, the scorp + recons get a drone bay and a nice buffer tank to boot. But who am I kidding all the "ECM is fine" arguers dont want change .
Troll away.
Shield/armour damps would be barely better than target painters - worse in some respects. That might work as a funky secondary EW, but even then, meh.
Aye, true.
Especially when neuting will bugger up resists anway once cap is gone. So what to replace it with... /scratches head EVE history
t2 precisions |
Isabelle Sparks
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 16:38:00 -
[96]
I think Beverly had some excellent points all the way through this discussion. On or off mechanics never work particularly well. It is the shades of grey that make a game interesting.
|
Karash Amerius
Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 16:47:00 -
[97]
People are forgetting that ECM *was* 100% effective if your total points were over their radar strength. Back then you had to use multiple ECM modules to completely disable a BS, but smaller ships were generally no problem. People whined, and now we have the chance based system.
The problem isnt that its 100% effective or chance based, the problem is that you cannot do anything in this game without locking a ship in a pvp situation. Its pretty simple, and why I generally agree with the OP.
If you can't lock anyone in PVP, all you do is just sit there watching your tank (if you have one). No other EW is as effective in a PVP fight than ECM, and no matter how many tweaks you give it, it will continue to be numero uno unless the mechanics are changed in regards to breaking locks. |
Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 16:52:00 -
[98]
Originally by: BiggestT Hehe, Ive been wanting to make a thread like this for quite a while.
Thankfully, Malc beat me to it and I can see why I didnt do it.
Unfortunately, most ppl on this forum simply read one or two sentances, or even just the thread title and post some semi-witty but quite pointless junk and even "gb2wow" or "stfu noob" type posts.
Your taking one for the team here, which I believe is true as almost all falcon pilots I know (who use htem on their mains and dont have other pvp alts) hate using them and wld like them to be funner.
Id personally love to see ecm booted, and shield/armour dampeners put in their place, the scorp + recons get a drone bay and a nice buffer tank to boot. But who am I kidding all the "ECM is fine" arguers dont want change .
Troll away.
you know this is nothing new ? go have a look at the ECM threadnought cca 2 years ago, prior the last ECM nerf that introduced SDAs and other changes ... there are many many more ideas from that time for refinement/replacement ...
I did not see anything new in this thread (I even suggested many of the ideas myself, just got shot down in Features and Ideas).
|
Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 16:56:00 -
[99]
Originally by: Karash Amerius People are forgetting that ECM *was* 100% effective if your total points were over their radar strength. Back then you had to use multiple ECM modules to completely disable a BS, but smaller ships were generally no problem. People whined, and now we have the chance based system.
The problem isnt that its 100% effective or chance based, the problem is that you cannot do anything in this game without locking a ship in a pvp situation. Its pretty simple, and why I generally agree with the OP.
If you can't lock anyone in PVP, all you do is just sit there watching your tank (if you have one). No other EW is as effective in a PVP fight than ECM, and no matter how many tweaks you give it, it will continue to be numero uno unless the mechanics are changed in regards to breaking locks.
this could be somewhat mitigated with a simple gang mechanic change:
you don't need a lock for remote assist modules if targeting a gang mate. basicaly instant rep/boost ...
so ECM only shuts down the offensive modules or non-ganged targets. however rr gangs would be crazy and this would force more blobs (you can still neut and damp them) |
Karrade Krise
Galatic P0RN Starz
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 16:59:00 -
[100]
Edited by: Karrade Krise on 09/01/2009 17:06:33 You forgot your flamer3tardant suit...
ECM is part of the game, there are counters for it...taking it out now will royally **** off the people that have specc'd for ECM. What will you do? Take away those skills? Give them points to place elsewhere?
That's just gamebreaking right there...(Not litterally, just exaggerated)
If anything they should just tone down the strength a bit or...Go back to where it's not chance based anymore, and you have to have combined greater strength in jammers to jam a single ship.
for example. Ship A has 28 Sensor Strength. Falcon has to use at least 2 racial jammers in order to jam that particular ship.
More jammers per ship means less people jammed by single falcon/ecm ship. Of course with this I feel they would need to boost sensor strength on a few ships. |
|
Connner
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 17:03:00 -
[101]
Hm, if only there was some other module one could fit to somehow counter the effects of ecm?
As for it being not fun, well thats a matter of opinion. I agree its not fun to get jammed, but its loads of fun being the jammer. Immagining the stream of curses being hurled in my direction as gang mates lesiurly destroy your ship.
That being said, I would support an eccm buff but not an ecm nerf (or elimination in this case). |
Colonel Xaven
Decadence. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 17:05:00 -
[102]
Afaik CCP is working on ECCM. But it won't stop the whine. I'll buy some cheese. |
Isabelle Sparks
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 17:36:00 -
[103]
Edited by: Isabelle Sparks on 09/01/2009 17:38:15
Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 09/01/2009 15:34:52
Originally by: Beverly Sparks
Having your Armor repairer, or you damage mods go offline in the middle of a fight causes you to have to adapt.
Nuets already have that effect on active tanks, and having dmg mods go offline is hardly the end of the world.
Originally by: Beverly Sparks Instead of binary situations, fit ECCM or don't. With ECM we don't care about the pilot skill, because you can't target anything anyway.
I never fit ECCM as my gangs use repositioning/maneuverability and versatile fittings plus a good amount of teamwork and a whole bunch more falcon's to beat ecm heavy gangs.
Plates and hardeners do not give invulnerability to damages so ppl use other things and ways to win fights why should eccm do so against ecm and why shouldn't ppl need to use tactics against it?.
FTFY
Stop being so obtuse. Armor repairer and damage mods are just examples. What if it shut down half your guns, or maybe your MWD and disrupter. Also, I would say that on a gank build damage mods may be fairly significant. Perhaps, you could load scripts, and actually target different types of weapon modules, or maybe you could load scripts that made it kn**** off either High slots, mid slots or low slots.
There are a million possibilities, that add more to the game then someone being able to do something, or not.
Fitting ECCM should protect you versus ECM, because you are using up a slot in your build to counter a single other module in the game. What would be the point of fitting it if it did not work?
Damage is hardly comparable to electronic warfare. ECCM is the counter for ECM, it should most definitely work, just as ECM should work in the absence of ECCM.
And lastly
|
Spartan dax
Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 17:38:00 -
[104]
I posted a suggestion in "features and ideas" recently about a new ECM mechanic.
Well thought out and stunning mechanic
It solves everything, the middle east crisis, dependancy on oil and also answers the question of "WTF!?!"
Change ecm BUT ABOVE ALL BOOST THE SHIPS! They're frickin dreadfull and boring to fly.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 17:46:00 -
[105]
Originally by: Isabelle Sparks
There are a million possibilities, that add more to the game then someone being able to do something, or not.
It would add the ability to make ecm useless for ppl who are emo about getting jammed.
Originally by: Isabelle Sparks Fitting ECCM should protect you versus ECM, because you are using up a slot in your build to counter a single other module in the game. What would be the point of fitting it if it did not work?
Hardeners take up a slot and do not give the sort of immunity your talking about.
Originally by: Isabelle Sparks Damage is hardly comparable to electronic warfare. ECCM is the counter for ECM, it should most definitely work, just as ECM should work in the absence of ECCM.
It does work.
|
a'akanelle
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 17:58:00 -
[106]
Originally by: Isabelle Sparks I think Beverly had some excellent points all the way through this discussion. On or off mechanics never work particularly well. It is the shades of grey that make a game interesting.
Beverly certainly does make some good points but if you are going to compliment yourself at least make an alt with a completely different name. |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 18:15:00 -
[107]
Originally by: a'akanelle
Originally by: Isabelle Sparks I think Beverly had some excellent points all the way through this discussion. On or off mechanics never work particularly well. It is the shades of grey that make a game interesting.
Beverly certainly does make some good points but if you are going to compliment yourself at least make an alt with a completely different name.
|
Isabelle Sparks
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 18:29:00 -
[108]
Originally by: a'akanelle
Originally by: Isabelle Sparks I think Beverly had some excellent points all the way through this discussion. On or off mechanics never work particularly well. It is the shades of grey that make a game interesting.
Beverly certainly does make some good points but if you are going to compliment yourself at least make an alt with a completely different name.
Now what fun would that be if you didn't know it was me.
|
Aerin Cloudfayr
the evil ones Burning Horizons
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 18:37:00 -
[109]
Edited by: Aerin Cloudfayr on 09/01/2009 18:39:32 I wouldn't mind if it simply broke the lock like ECM Bursts do, but even then the sensor strength would have to be double or something in order to be predictably effective.
at least this way, with the cycle times being what, 20secs? it doesn't make the thing too OP...will it? it's then just a matter of consistently breaking locks, rather than RUINING someone's day...
And base it off the ratio between sensor strength and scan resolution, so that frigates etc with a high scan res, and low sensor strength will be more difficult to jam, and vice versa. |
Ahmadiyya
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 20:40:00 -
[110]
Originally by: hellsknights I dislike the Scorp, but its efective at what is does. Do we need an ECM BS i think we could do without.
If your using a Scorp for ecm support why not use a recon, i know the scorp will push out more DPS but still.
Maybe i just have Scorp hate.
But its so awesome for rr gangs :( |
|
Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 21:10:00 -
[111]
Originally by: Spartan dax I posted a suggestion in "features and ideas" recently about a new ECM mechanic.
Well thought out and stunning mechanic
It solves everything, the middle east crisis, dependancy on oil and also answers the question of "WTF!?!"
Change ecm BUT ABOVE ALL BOOST THE SHIPS! They're frickin dreadfull and boring to fly.
your idea has several flaws ...
and basicaly it's the same system as was present before ECM became chance based in the sitaution where you want a permajam ... and you improved on it by adding a partial jam possibility ... that's all I can see there ... |
Amira Shadowsong
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 21:30:00 -
[112]
Originally by: Murina
Removing ECM would push the game even more towards the gank/tank slug fest kinda deal that sucks gigantic donkey balls.
Keep it and we force ppl to be more mobile and versatile in their combat choices and strategies.
No it won't, we will just see all sorts of ewar used instead of one dominating and overpowered one.
|
Yakov Draken
Minmatar Tides Of War
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 21:32:00 -
[113]
Originally by: Malcanis ECM inherently sucks
Nice to see another pilot getting it - ECM is anti-combat and anti-fun. Yes we use/abuse them but we don't have any choice because all our serious opponents have them in numbers.
Given the changes to the game making mid slots more valuable the whole "fit ECCM" argument has become one of the sadest parts of the whole deal. Yeah we fit ECCM which means less tackle and less combat.
I don't think that ECM is just unfun - Falcons are also really obviously overpowered. If they weren't there wouldn't be a problem because we simply wouldn't use Falcons.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 21:37:00 -
[114]
Edited by: Murina on 09/01/2009 21:44:33
Originally by: Murina
Removing ECM would push the game even more towards the gank/tank slug fest kinda deal that sucks gigantic donkey balls.
Keep it and we force ppl to be more mobile and versatile in their combat choices and strategies.
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong No it won't,
It already does, well at least it does for those with the teamwork and individual skill to do so....
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong we will just see all sorts of ewar used instead of one dominating and overpowered one.
But you think removing ecm means ppl will fly other recons more?.
Gratz on the stupidest post and most pitiful reasoning ever.
|
Amira Shadowsong
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 21:47:00 -
[115]
Originally by: Murina
But you think removing ecm means ppl will fly other recons more?.
Gratz on the stupidest post and most pitiful reasoning ever.
Wich means ecm is overpowered. Quite excellent logic tbh. |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 21:51:00 -
[116]
Edited by: Murina on 09/01/2009 21:51:48
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
Originally by: Murina
But you think removing ecm means ppl will fly other recons more?.
Gratz on the stupidest post and most pitiful reasoning ever.
Which means ecm is overpowered. Quite excellent logic tbh.
Logic how is that logic, ppl fly the other recons as solo ships or tacklers in certain gang scenarios cos that is where their str lies and ppl fly ecm ships in gangs cos that is where their str lies.
Try this logic, falcons are underpowered cos they cannot fly solo while the others can.....fact. See what i did there?.
You really have no clue do you?. |
daisy dook
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 21:55:00 -
[117]
Nice to see the Falcon haters are in; Falcons and ECM can be countered with modules, ships and tactics.
The point still stands that once i've got my Falcon to 170km then it's a pretty dull life for me.
|
Myrfrost
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 22:03:00 -
[118]
I think it's kind of funny a guy from Recon wants to nerf ECM.
I'm all in favor of dumbing down the game so I need fewer skills and have fewer choices when fitting my ship. I really just want to need to get the biggest ship I can fly with the biggest guns I can get and learn how to push fire first.
I'd honestly hate to see the game dumbed down. |
Noisrevbus
Caldari Breams Gone Wild
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 23:13:00 -
[119]
I'm not sure if i agree on any of the suggestions really (overall, i think most ideas are a bit too drastic), but i agree with the general consensus that ECM is A) very volatile to balance and B) pretty boring to use yourself (not face, i have no quarrel with other people using ECM, i have just grown bored of flying it myself). I'm pretty sure a made a similar thread to this one, outlining the same 'problems' and suggested a solution to it, a couple of weeks back.
On a second note, someone made a point about the Caldari HACs not having drone-bays either. That is why they 'suck' as well. The only reason people don't complain louder about the Caldari HACs is because they (just like ECM) can fill a nische. In EVE, having role through such a ship's nische being well adaptable to a given role in a gang becomes pretty important. In theory however, they are weaker ships. They gain their role thanks to their bonuses, but they don't have more bonuses than any other HAC. They don't have more slots (afaik), just less dronebay (which equate into slots).
Now i'm not saying Caldari HACs need changes and need them now. As stated, a nische can take you a good bit on the way if the nische itself works well in the game environment, and you can have fun with it. But i think it's very rash to point out a weakness in a certain shipclass and argue that another shipclass should be able to bare with similar issues - because having an equal ship 'slot' displacement is important. Caldari HACs make do without it, just as one BS can make do with being slightly worse than another as long as it function within it's role of being a BS.
The last comment there is also important when it comes to ECM, because ECM-ships can't. If you take away their ECM, or trivialize it, the ships will have no role. Putting a drone-bay on the Eagle, despite they fact that it has a role (albeit and extremely narrow one) would definately not make the ship overpowered in any sense of the word. Even if some people can enjoy it in it's nisched support-sniper role today, people would most likely have more fun with in other ways if it had some more flexibility and it can easily gain that without overpowering it.
Correct me if i am wrong about the HACs, perhaps they have gained something in exchange for their lack of dronebays, and i just forgot about it right now. Interesting thread overall, i hope some better suggestions pop up.
|
Noisrevbus
Caldari Breams Gone Wild
|
Posted - 2009.01.09 23:39:00 -
[120]
Oh oh, before i forget (double post here, but i didn't want to add yet another argument to that already pretty long post, which already changes focus enough, already).
That is a common design issue with most of the Caldari ships. CCP seemingly took a decision sometime back that Caldari ships should be very specialized into certain roles, and that these nisches in turn should weigh up to a lower general performance (usually in example of not compensating for the drone bay in conventional slots, but rather in having strong nisches). That works where the nische is strong, such as in ECM-ships and doesn't work as well when the nische isn't very strong, such as in the Eagle's case.
"But it's the only Cruiser that can snipe up to BS range!". So? That is just words with very little practical application. I, at the very least, do not buy my ships based on them being Cruisers or Battleships. I don't sit down and think "I would like to fly a Cruiser". I buy a ship to fill a role, whatever the name of the hull type. I think "I would like to do 'this' right now, and i need a ship that can do it". The second another ship fill your nische role just as well (even almost as well), your ship suddenly become pretty unappealing, if it isn't interesting outside of it's nische.
Especially if we are talking tech two ships that don't even have cost to argue on their side. Then it's not only a Caldari design issue, but also a general Tech two design issue now in the wake of "overpowered speed HACs". "The only Cruiser that can snipe as a BS" would hold some merit if it didn't cost more than a BS (in cost-replacement spread), did similar damage or could fill as many flexible roles.
Anyway, im drifting off topic. My excuses! I just wanted to expand on that whole HAC drone bay comment, because i found it very interesting (even if i didn't agree with it).
|
|
SirMoric
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 00:24:00 -
[121]
What do we have to counter ECM?
Information Warfare Link - Sensor Integrity
Ship Equipment: Electronic Warfare: ECCM
Ship Equipment: Electronic Warfare: Projected ECCM
Ship Equipment: Electronic Warfare: Sensor Backup Arrays
The tools are there, use them before complaining.
rgds
|
Colonel Xaven
Decadence. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 00:43:00 -
[122]
omg noez /o\ that uses teh slots, i want to be immune !!1111
Proud member of RZR - Decadence. |
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 00:50:00 -
[123]
The warfare link doesnt need a slot, except from the high slot on the Eos or Brutix/Myrm, lol.
I know most people think the Eos sucks, but augmenting the whole fleets sensor strength is worth something, its just not that obvious to notice the effect.
Have a few pilots that can take booster roles, have a good booster structure and you always can fit an Eos in between somewhere.
Also that bonus adds up with eccm making it more effective, also remote eccm.
|
Amira Shadowsong
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 00:57:00 -
[124]
Originally by: daisy dook Falcons and ECM can be countered with modules, ships and tactics.
No they can't.
|
SirMoric
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 00:59:00 -
[125]
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
Originally by: daisy dook Falcons and ECM can be countered with modules, ships and tactics.
No they can't.
What do we have to counter ECM?
Information Warfare Link - Sensor Integrity
Ship Equipment: Electronic Warfare: ECCM
Ship Equipment: Electronic Warfare: Projected ECCM
Ship Equipment: Electronic Warfare: Sensor Backup Arrays
The tools are there, use them before complaining.
rgds
|
Amira Shadowsong
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 01:00:00 -
[126]
Originally by: SirMoric
What do we have to counter ECM?
Information Warfare Link - Sensor Integrity
Ship Equipment: Electronic Warfare: ECCM
Ship Equipment: Electronic Warfare: Projected ECCM
Ship Equipment: Electronic Warfare: Sensor Backup Arrays
The tools are there, use them before complaining.
rgds
Welcome to eve: Those do not work.
|
Karrade Krise
Galatic P0RN Starz
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 01:01:00 -
[127]
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
Originally by: SirMoric
What do we have to counter ECM?
Information Warfare Link - Sensor Integrity
Ship Equipment: Electronic Warfare: ECCM
Ship Equipment: Electronic Warfare: Projected ECCM
Ship Equipment: Electronic Warfare: Sensor Backup Arrays
The tools are there, use them before complaining.
rgds
Welcome to eve: Those do not work.
ECCM has worked for me in the past...but I guess it must have just been a bug
Voluntold, New Webcomic
|
SirMoric
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 01:18:00 -
[128]
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
Originally by: SirMoric
What do we have to counter ECM?
Information Warfare Link - Sensor Integrity
Ship Equipment: Electronic Warfare: ECCM
Ship Equipment: Electronic Warfare: Projected ECCM
Ship Equipment: Electronic Warfare: Sensor Backup Arrays
The tools are there, use them before complaining.
rgds
Welcome to eve: Those do not work.
Yes they do.
rgds |
unloadedx16
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 04:51:00 -
[129]
Why not make them work 100% of the time but jam less time, like 5 sec or something, and waste alot more cap.
or
make them waste even more cap and jam for like 3 sec and give the ecm ships a dps boost or more tank
This would make ecm suck less and ecm ships funner to fly. |
Dasalt Istgut
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 05:42:00 -
[130]
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: hellsknights I dislike the Scorp, but its efective at what is does. Do we need an ECM BS i think we could do without.
If your using a Scorp for ecm support why not use a recon, i know the scorp will push out more DPS but still.
Maybe i just have Scorp hate.
The scorp is not effective at anything. It can be mediocre at several things.
I suppose it could be just about useful for ganking mission runners, where you know in advance what flavour of ECM to bring. And then only if you cant bring a domi.
I disagree. Likewise, why screw over ECM pilots who haven't done Cruiser/Recons 5 yet? A scorp is still a lot better than a blackbird. Scorps are fine to be honest, there's just a lot of really bad scorpion pilots out there. Is it a rook? No, but it can do a lot of things a rook can't as well (like run a decent spider tank, tank a doomsday, etc). |
|
Dasalt Istgut
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 05:50:00 -
[131]
Edited by: Dasalt Istgut on 10/01/2009 05:52:56 Edited by: Dasalt Istgut on 10/01/2009 05:51:25
Originally by: Isabelle Sparks
Stop being so obtuse. Armor repairer and damage mods are just examples. What if it shut down half your guns, or maybe your MWD and disrupter. Also, I would say that on a gank build damage mods may be fairly significant. Perhaps, you could load scripts, and actually target different types of weapon modules, or maybe you could load scripts that made it kn**** off either High slots, mid slots or low slots.
There are a million possibilities, that add more to the game then someone being able to do something, or not.
Give me one tactical reason why I'd fly a ship that can disable half of another ship - when I could instead simply fly a ship that does the full damage of a gank ship?
ECM is fine.
Edited to add: Its funny that the topic is "ECM is balanced but not fun, lets make it fun" but all the suggestions amount to "let's gimp ECM to the equivalent of a 100 mil isk shuttle". |
Thorek Ironbrow
Caldari Ironbrow Industries Co.
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 08:56:00 -
[132]
Edited by: Thorek Ironbrow on 10/01/2009 09:03:34 The worst thing about the Scorpion is that since it takes up all it's mid slots with it's EWar then it has to use low slots for tanking, which is kind of annoying since Caldari ships are always shield tankers.
Lets not get rid of ECM. ____________________________
Originally by: Elirel this thread is about serious Internet Spaceship stuff.
[/ |
daisy dook
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 10:18:00 -
[133]
Originally by: Dasalt Istgut
Edited to add: Its funny that the topic is "ECM is balanced but not fun, lets make it fun" but all the suggestions amount to "let's gimp ECM to the equivalent of a 100 mil isk shuttle".
That's because most people don't read. A lot of people what to whine about how overpowered ECM is (because they don't fit the counters) and some just read the 'lets get rid of ECM' and replied based on it being an ECM whine.
One of the problems is that ECM is powerful and CCP has chosen to balance it by making all the ships useless at anything other than ECM (with the exception of the scorpion which, I'm sure you'll all agree, would not be your first choice for any role). The OP is sugesting that by reducing the power of ECM so that the difference could be added to the Caldari ships as combat abilities. |
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 10:29:00 -
[134]
Originally by: Dasalt Istgut Edited by: Dasalt Istgut on 10/01/2009 05:52:56 Edited by: Dasalt Istgut on 10/01/2009 05:51:25
Originally by: Isabelle Sparks
Stop being so obtuse. Armor repairer and damage mods are just examples. What if it shut down half your guns, or maybe your MWD and disrupter. Also, I would say that on a gank build damage mods may be fairly significant. Perhaps, you could load scripts, and actually target different types of weapon modules, or maybe you could load scripts that made it kn**** off either High slots, mid slots or low slots.
There are a million possibilities, that add more to the game then someone being able to do something, or not.
Give me one tactical reason why I'd fly a ship that can disable half of another ship - when I could instead simply fly a ship that does the full damage of a gank ship?
Because with 5 jammers fitted, you could cripple 5 enemy ships. Every time. No chance based crap: you will definitely offline some of their mods.
|
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 10:31:00 -
[135]
Originally by: daisy dook
Originally by: Dasalt Istgut
Edited to add: Its funny that the topic is "ECM is balanced but not fun, lets make it fun" but all the suggestions amount to "let's gimp ECM to the equivalent of a 100 mil isk shuttle".
That's because most people don't read. A lot of people what to whine about how overpowered ECM is (because they don't fit the counters) and some just read the 'lets get rid of ECM' and replied based on it being an ECM whine.
One of the problems is that ECM is powerful and CCP has chosen to balance it by making all the ships useless at anything other than ECM (with the exception of the scorpion which, I'm sure you'll all agree, would not be your first choice for any role). The OP is sugesting that by reducing the power of ECM so that the difference could be added to the Caldari ships as combat abilities.
Don't forget "while increasing it's reliability, so that it actually makes sense for the ECM ships to have combat ability".
|
lebrata
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 12:06:00 -
[136]
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
Welcome to eve: Those do not work for me cos i do not fit them as its easier to cry for a nerf than to use upa slot or be more maneuverable....
Fixed.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 12:08:00 -
[137]
Edited by: Murina on 10/01/2009 12:13:17
Originally by: Malcanis
Because with 5 jammers fitted, you could cripple 5 enemy ships. Every time. No chance based crap: you will definitely offline some of their mods.
A utterly useless "crap shoot" of a ability as you do not know what modules you are effecting woulds make it worthless. Ppl know how damps and TD's exactly effect ships so they can structure their tactics and combat around the results.
But to make ECM a moronic "crap shoot" module that effects unknown modules would make it a useless if not dangerous to rely on if your looking for good skilled and teamwork reliant pvp.
|
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 12:27:00 -
[138]
Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 10/01/2009 12:13:17
Originally by: Malcanis
Because with 5 jammers fitted, you could cripple 5 enemy ships. Every time. No chance based crap: you will definitely offline some of their mods.
A utterly useless "crap shoot" of a ability as you do not know what modules you are effecting woulds make it worthless. Ppl know how damps and TD's exactly effect ships so they can structure their tactics and combat around the results.
But to make ECM a moronic "crap shoot" module that effects unknown modules would make it a useless if not dangerous to rely on if your looking for good skilled and teamwork reliant pvp.
Well I'm going to go ahead and assume that the majority of PvP ships are fitted with modules that the pilots think they need, and that their ships will be significantly impaired if they lose a good number of them. |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 12:32:00 -
[139]
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: Malcanis
Because with 5 jammers fitted, you could cripple 5 enemy ships. Every time. No chance based crap: you will definitely offline some of their mods.
A utterly useless "crap shoot" of a ability as you do not know what modules you are effecting woulds make it worthless. Ppl know how damps and TD's exactly effect ships so they can structure their tactics and combat around the results.
But to make ECM a moronic "crap shoot" module that effects unknown modules would make it a useless if not dangerous to rely on if your looking for good skilled and teamwork reliant pvp.
Well I'm going to go ahead and assume that the majority of PvP ships are fitted with modules that the pilots think they need, and that their ships will be significantly impaired if they lose a good number of them.
Not knowing exactly what you are disrupting would make ecm a crap, pointless and stupid module and you know it. |
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 12:38:00 -
[140]
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: Malcanis
Because with 5 jammers fitted, you could cripple 5 enemy ships. Every time. No chance based crap: you will definitely offline some of their mods.
A utterly useless "crap shoot" of a ability as you do not know what modules you are effecting woulds make it worthless. Ppl know how damps and TD's exactly effect ships so they can structure their tactics and combat around the results.
But to make ECM a moronic "crap shoot" module that effects unknown modules would make it a useless if not dangerous to rely on if your looking for good skilled and teamwork reliant pvp.
Well I'm going to go ahead and assume that the majority of PvP ships are fitted with modules that the pilots think they need, and that their ships will be significantly impaired if they lose a good number of them.
Not knowing exactly what you are disrupting would make ecm a crap, pointless and stupid module and you know it.
Whereas not knowing if you're going to disrupt them at all is just fine...? |
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 12:54:00 -
[141]
Originally by: Malcanis
Whereas not knowing if you're going to disrupt them at all is just fine...?
You know as soon as you activate the module if its worked or not with ALL ewar as it is and you know the exact effect they have. |
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 13:04:00 -
[142]
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: Malcanis
Whereas not knowing if you're going to disrupt them at all is just fine...?
You know as soon as you activate the module if its worked or not with ALL ewar as it is and you know the exact effect they have.
Well ECM is gonna be nerfed, since CCP have low resists to whining. So you can have uncertain and weak or certain and weak.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 13:08:00 -
[143]
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: Malcanis
Whereas not knowing if you're going to disrupt them at all is just fine...?
You know as soon as you activate the module if its worked or not with ALL ewar as it is and you know the exact effect they have.
Well ECM is gonna be nerfed, since CCP have low resists to whining. So you can have uncertain and weak or certain and weak.
Link to the announcement pls?.
I have seen a lot of threads started (by the same ppl over and over again) but all those threads would have died if it had not been for ppl saying ECM was fine.
Your argument and idea has failed try not to be so bitter about it.
|
CAiNE999
Beyond Divinity Inc
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 14:21:00 -
[144]
`Removing ECM would push the game even more towards the gank/tank slug fest kinda deal that sucks gigantic donkey balls.
Keep it and we force ppl to be more mobile and versatile in their combat choices and strategies.`
lol, what like blobbing falcons instead? it needs to be redone, ive seen and known people over my 2 years who refuse to fly any size op/fleet without falcon support, either to face blobs or other falcons, in essence this is the same to the this ideaology
Side A omg they have more people/too many we are brave enough to fight we need more people! Side B we need more people theyve just got more, get the falcons! Side A omg they have falcons, we need more/some falcons! Side B we need more falcons! Side A Moar falcons! Side B MOAR!
Its bad enough as it is, but alteast people wont be completely removed from a fight ` whilst the other side eventually primaries them if ECM was reworked, not removed :)
"ECM is balanced but not fun, lets make it fun" but all the suggestions amount to "let's gimp ECM to the equivalent of a 100 mil isk shuttle"
Right, because thats not what a falcon does to every other ship, 250m semi faction fitted command ship? more like 250m shuttle with a tank and nice loot drop i surpose its even funnier when the falcon is just a blackbird, and that it does it from a 2-3 month character
That speaks balance to me
BIG
`But to make ECM a moronic "crap shoot" module`
Rofl, what was this some snippet the design phase? because thats what it does,to everything else, its the equivilent of holding a midget at arms length, and punching him in the face with the other, leaving him unable to retaliate other than hurl abusive language. like shooting ducks in barrel, quite a effective `crap shoot` i would say
As for fitting ECCM? id like to see a active tanking, tackling shield tanking ship with mwd ignoring buffer bs, which can loose a slot to ECCM?, nothing smaller than a bs afaik certainly no t2 ship. ECCM is a armor tankers pleasure but even then most of them sacrifice an injector or tackling gear, perhaps a low slot version or buffing the sensor booster to give both scripted bonuses and a increase to sensor strength race regardless. And after that the gimping of setup with current ECCM your still not that safe, maybe taking up one more jammer, that saying if the falcon actually jams you through a fight in the first place
`It would add the ability to make ecm useless for ppl who are emo about getting jammed.`
Of course, everyone loves being jammed, and those who dont, are obviously wrist slitting emos, not normal players being completely removed from a fight by an overpowered ship and module in their XYZ ship because it doesnt matter unless its gimp fitted with ECCM (if it works or they get ECM`d in the first place)
Basically id like to see a rework of ECM, along this white noise idea, like real ECM, disrupting equipment.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 14:30:00 -
[145]
Edited by: Murina on 10/01/2009 14:30:57
Originally by: CAiNE999
lol, what like blobbing falcons instead?
Blobs of falcons are pointless as you cannot assign so many individual jams to so many individual ships while in combat, its imposable.
Originally by: CAiNE999 Basically id like to see a rework of ECM, along this white noise idea, like real ECM, disrupting equipment.
Targeting systems are "equipment" and ECM disrupts them, so yay its fine.
PS: You need to work on your quoting as you are barely understandable and seem like your ranting.
|
Pen Dulum
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 14:43:00 -
[146]
Fix ECCM.
Then you wont see as many whines about falcons, cause lets face it eccm just doesnt work.
Like last week me and some mate's went to fight a alliance we dec'd, 4 of us vs 12 of them (they had 12 on gate) we jump in in domi's fitted with a ECCM t2 in mid slot. A Falcon uncloaks 150k away and even with eccm fitted STILL jammed us so we just soaked up the dps and jumped out as quite frankly there is no point even fighting. |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 14:49:00 -
[147]
Edited by: Murina on 10/01/2009 14:50:46
Originally by: Pen Dulum Fix ECCM.
Then you wont see as many whines about falcons, cause lets face it eccm just doesnt work.
Like last week me and some mate's went to fight a alliance we dec'd, 4 of us vs 12 of them (they had 12 on gate) we jump in in domi's fitted with a ECCM t2 in mid slot. A Falcon uncloaks 150k away and even with eccm fitted STILL jammed us so we just soaked up the dps and jumped out as quite frankly there is no point even fighting.
ECCM should not make you immune to ECM just make you harder to be jammed and it works fine.
And it serves you right for flying one race of ship using static, immobile and predictable tactics and giving them the option to fit one type of racial jammer at max str against you.
Lack of versatility and mobility was your problem not ecm.
|
Fuazzole
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 14:53:00 -
[148]
buff eccm!
|
Xtreem
Gallente Knockaround Guys Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 14:54:00 -
[149]
agree with the op
and i have stated this before, my mains points are always, i dont mind it can jam alot, or i dont mind it can jam a little at 150km.. just dont like it can do both!
if it had alot more sting in its falloff, ie it would lost 90% strenth at 150km, or somthing like that, it just sits 170km away messing with things and u have to sit there and watch the rest of the fight.
if does make me laugh when im gate camping or camping a station when a fight kicks off, and they insta jam me then attack then call me a wimp in local for not fighting and just docking or jumping! im always WTF i CANT lock u, u have me jammed, drop the ewar and ill fight you, damned idiots!
|
CAiNE999
Beyond Divinity Inc
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 14:58:00 -
[150]
Targeting as in locking a ship is not equipment, modules are equipment in that sense your saying ECM should shut off propulsion, your hud, and your overview, as those are `equipment` on ships as well
As for my lack of quote usage, perhaps I`don't choose to use the annoying qoute format that ends up pyramiding and chooose to seperate them like titling headings
And ranting, try making a contribution to the ECM problem, because you know it is, why everyone and their mother has a character solely devoted to flying one specific ship is just a big FOTY.
instead of calling someone emo, Try not trolling and be productive
ECM IS NOT FINE! |
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 15:01:00 -
[151]
Edited by: Murina on 10/01/2009 15:02:40
Originally by: CAiNE999 Targeting as in locking a ship is not equipment, modules are equipment in that sense your saying ECM should shut off propulsion, your hud, and your overview, as those are `equipment` on ships as well
RL ecm effects targeting systems.
THIS?.
Originally by: CAiNE999 instead of calling someone emo
THEN THIS LOL.
Originally by: CAiNE999 ECM IS NOT FINE!
No no not emo at all...... |
CAiNE999
Beyond Divinity Inc
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 15:04:00 -
[152]
Oh of course i forget, caps mean emo rage not trying to draw attention to something |
Jonas Barcal
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 15:05:00 -
[153]
The only way this rubbish idea would have any use is if the ecm pilot could choose what modules to shut off.
i.e. scripts to turn of weapons, tanking, scramblers or propulsion (yes you can't move) etc
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 15:07:00 -
[154]
Edited by: Murina on 10/01/2009 15:09:17
Originally by: CAiNE999 Oh of course i forget, caps mean emo rage not trying to draw attention to something
Yea on a forum its the same as stamping your little foot.... |
CAiNE999
Beyond Divinity Inc
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 15:21:00 -
[155]
Edited by: CAiNE999 on 10/01/2009 15:24:35 Edited by: CAiNE999 on 10/01/2009 15:22:50 Because caps drawn attention *edit forgot something - again*
Right then lets hear your views on why ECM is balanced in the following
Vs other Ecm - Energy Ewar only draining 1-2 ships but having injectors to counter, and able still to fight as cap drains, or after in some cases
- Tracking Disrupting Ewar Reducing turret accuracy, but still the ability to fire and lock, point etc, and if transversal and speed is reduced, lessened effect, and why drone and missile boats are excluded and totally immune
- Sensor Dampening Ewar Reducing locking range/speed of at best, 1 ship to the point where it cannot lock a few KM away or take several times as long, only a danger to long range bs and small stuff, ie blasterthrons dont give a toss to range dampening and i dont see many if any speed damp fits
Then explain and justifiy why ECM can then completly shut down 1-4 ships either partially/extensively, or 1-2 give or take permantly throught a duration of a fight, and this is enough time to die in, not literally forever
Oh and why its not mainstream to train an alt solely for another recon ship
|
Iva Soreass
Corporation456
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 15:21:00 -
[156]
Edited by: Iva Soreass on 10/01/2009 15:26:21
Originally by: Murina
Bull**** - ECM//Falcons ARE Overpowered and anyone who says they aint fly the FOTM peice of ****e, the last time a ship//mod was as OP as the falcon//ecm is it was nerf'd back to the stone age (Damps//Arazu).
I have tryed to stay away from these falcon whine threads as i dont fly them and nor will train my alt for them as they are a plague and a stupid OP FOTM ship. |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 15:28:00 -
[157]
Originally by: Iva Soreass
Originally by: Murina
Bull**** - ECM//Falcons ARE Overpowered and anyone who says they aint fly the FOTM peice of ****e, the last time a ship//mod was as OP as the falcon//ecm is it was nerf'd back to the stone age (Damps//Arazu).
Damps were nerfed cos they were way too effective on non bonused ships and like a lot of ppl i think the bonused ships like the arazu needs a buff to damp str/range.
Try to contain your emo and language pls. |
SirMoric
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 15:40:00 -
[158]
Originally by: Iva Soreass Edited by: Iva Soreass on 10/01/2009 15:26:21
Originally by: Murina
Bull**** - ECM//Falcons ARE Overpowered and anyone who says they aint fly the FOTM peice of ****e, the last time a ship//mod was as OP as the falcon//ecm is it was nerf'd back to the stone age (Damps//Arazu).
I have tryed to stay away from these falcon whine threads as i dont fly them and nor will train my alt for them as they are a plague and a stupid OP FOTM ship.
It is obviously above your level of comprehension to fit the equipment needed to counter ECM, I've stated it before, and I'll spam every thread with it until people start using it.
Just because it's easier to get things nerfed, than infact using the part of your body that is located in you scull and equip countermeasures, doesn't make it overpowered. It's you, who are underpowered, my dear friend.
rgds |
tymus procura
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 15:43:00 -
[159]
With the removal of nano ecm if the only chance of small gang warefare ( 3-5 ships is small gang warfare not 10-20) you remove that and your left with blob warfare. Any further nerfs to combat ships is going to kill skirmish gangs and restrict it too much if anything ewar ships should be given a boost to keep up with the falcon/rook. thats my two cents now spend the next few pages flaming me for not getting on the nerf train. |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 15:45:00 -
[160]
Edited by: Murina on 10/01/2009 15:48:26
Originally by: CAiNE999
- Energy Ewar only draining 1-2 ships but having injectors to counter, and able still to fight as cap drains, or after in some cases
Superb effect when used in solo combat and on the recons with 2 ewar bonuses. Also highly effective and regularly used on non bonused ships its effect is also 100% guaranteed within its effective range.
Originally by: CAiNE999 - Tracking Disrupting Ewar Reducing turret accuracy, but still the ability to fire and lock, point etc, and if transversal and speed is reduced, lessened effect, and why drone and missile boats are excluded and totally immune
Another specific ewar system used effectively on solo ships especially the recons that have 2 ewar systems. Also effective on non bonused ships its effect is also 100% guaranteed within its effective range.
Originally by: CAiNE999 - Sensor Dampening Ewar Reducing locking range/speed of at best, 1 ship to the point where it cannot lock a few KM away or take several times as long, only a danger to long range bs and small stuff, ie blasterthrons dont give a toss to range dampening and i dont see many if any speed damp fits
A great system when used on non bonused ships even after the nerf due to its effect being 100% guaranteed within its effective range.
Originally by: CAiNE999 Then explain and justify why ECM can...blah blah.
ECM is useless when used on non bonused ships due to its chance based mechanic, it is also useless in solo combat and close range combat for the same reason (unlike all the other ewar systems that work fine on non bonused ships).
It is a gang ship/module pure and simple and the only way it can KILL another ship is if it has at least one more ship along to tackle and do dmg.
|
|
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 15:45:00 -
[161]
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: Malcanis
Whereas not knowing if you're going to disrupt them at all is just fine...?
You know as soon as you activate the module if its worked or not with ALL ewar as it is and you know the exact effect they have.
Well ECM is gonna be nerfed, since CCP have low resists to whining. So you can have uncertain and weak or certain and weak.
Link to the announcement pls?.
I have seen a lot of threads started (by the same ppl over and over again) but all those threads would have died if it had not been for ppl saying ECM was fine.
Your argument and idea has failed try not to be so bitter about it.
Did you miss the part where I said I have flown falcons a lot? I have. I still do sometimes, when there's no reasonable alternative. I have pretty good skills and a lot of experience with Caldari ECM ships. I'm not theorycrafting about some ship I know nothing about here. I'm speaking for personal knowledge: Falcons are bloody boring ships to fly and they're boring to fight. I do NOT believe that ECM ships are overpowered, I believe that they're bad ships because they're dull.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 15:51:00 -
[162]
Edited by: Murina on 10/01/2009 15:55:08
Originally by: Malcanis
Did you miss the part where I said I have flown falcons a lot? I have. I still do sometimes, when there's no reasonable alternative. I have pretty good skills and a lot of experience with Caldari ECM ships. I'm not theorycrafting about some ship I know nothing about here. I'm speaking for personal knowledge: Falcons are bloody boring ships to fly and they're boring to fight. I do NOT believe that ECM ships are overpowered, I believe that they're bad ships because they're dull.
You can apply that logic to any ship that works at long range, warp in, align out/lock and fire is hardly exciting.....on the other hand the actual combat can be, especially if you have a ECM ship along for some tactical jamming against high risk assets.
|
Iva Soreass
Corporation456
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 16:03:00 -
[163]
Edited by: Iva Soreass on 10/01/2009 16:05:56 I say it again BULL****E and getting emo lol? next you will be saying go back to WoW huh ?
As for damps being op yes they was never said they wasnt, but the nerf made arazu's absoulute peices of ****e.
You know it and i know it the failcon is overpowered and eccm does NOT work properly.
You can sit there and be the failcon fanboy all you want but you know it's gonna get nerf'd its just a matter of when.
So have fun flying it in its current state while you can cause it wont be for long.
|
CAiNE999
Beyond Divinity Inc
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 16:08:00 -
[164]
I asked for a comaparison of ECM vs Other EWAR
your talking about solo, sure they can solo, but that again is 1-2 targets at best, and not bc or above at once, whereas ECM users like the falcon can do way more, and totally shut them down, neuts can do, in circumstances where the target isnt passive or fitted with autos/launchers. as for not being able to fly solo in them, thats a racial trait, which can be adapated to. Also how many FC will take another recon over a falcon if presented with that choice for general purpose fleets?
Onto that racial trait, lets take the caracal and the falcon, the caracal in general opinon, cant solo, but with tackle, prop mod and a buffer tank it is capabale, to the falcon this tank is its ECM as a tank equivalent a racial problem with caldari is they cant tank and tackle as well as the other 3. thats not a problem with its ewar field the ECM, thats the race, fit a prop mod and a scram to a falcon and know knows, you can probably kill cruisers, like most recons.
And whats this about Non bonused ships? im not talking about non bonused ships
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 16:09:00 -
[165]
Edited by: Murina on 10/01/2009 16:16:35
Originally by: Iva Soreass You know it and i know it the failcon is overpowered and eccm does NOT work properly.
The falcon is fine and eccm can give a 90+% boost to str, a rather larger boost than any other mod gives to a stat....
Originally by: Iva Soreass You can sit there and be the failcon fanboy all you want but you know it's gonna get nerf'd its just a matter of when.
I doubt it but if your right there's no need for you to bleat out any more emo hate rants then....
Originally by: Iva Soreass So have fun flying it in its current state while you can cause it wont be for long.
I will and it will not be changed just so ppl like you can run around in your limited gank gangs.
Originally by: Iva Soreass I say it again BULL****E and getting emo lol? next you will be saying go back to WoW huh ?
After reading your posting style id say that will be your probable next line..
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 16:15:00 -
[166]
Edited by: Murina on 10/01/2009 16:15:59
Originally by: CAiNE999 I asked for a comparison of ECM vs Other EWAR
Then your asking a stupid question as the systems are not alike nor should they be.
Originally by: CAiNE999 your talking about solo, sure they can solo
Not effectively they cannot, while the other recons are great solo ships.
Originally by: CAiNE999 Also how many FC will take another recon over a falcon if presented with that choice for general purpose fleets?
That depends on the gang setup, purpose and content.
Originally by: CAiNE999 And whats this about Non bonused ships? im not talking about non bonused ships
You should be as you are preaching about ALL ewar systems including ECM and ALL the others apart from ECM are very effective on non-bonused ships while ecm is a waste of time on anything but a bonused ship.
|
CAiNE999
Beyond Divinity Inc
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 16:17:00 -
[167]
`I doubt it but if your right there's no need for you to bleat out any more emo hate rants then....`
Rofl is like everyone emo to you?
`I will and it will not be changed just so ppl like you can run around in your limited gank gangs.`
So people like you can run around in your boring ECM gangs where half the players sit around staring at each other like gormless ****s where the lucky few (probably the side with more falcons) shoot them in the face
kind of reminds me of some crazy FPS game where one team picks up a powerup denying the other side the ability to shoot back and then watch them run around screaming till they die
Give us ECM that doesnt flick the damn off switches on our targetting systems and deny us PvP
Id rather have my ship being gimped by Ewar that disrupts systems, targeting range, cap, tracking, than sit there like a gormless **** and watch myself dying
As for fighting big gangs, chances are, yes they have falcons too Small gang with falcons vs Big gang with Falcons = death
|
CAiNE999
Beyond Divinity Inc
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 16:20:00 -
[168]
Edited by: CAiNE999 on 10/01/2009 16:21:20 *edit typos suck* Preaching about other Ewar? there are whole threads about this i was stating them to be used as a comparison im talking about ECM, thats the falcon, rook, scorp, and BB`s field i dont want them `alike` i want them balanced
Also wow, the scorp needs love |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 16:22:00 -
[169]
Originally by: CAiNE999
Rofl is like everyone emo to you?
Bad language is a sign of poor self control.
Originally by: CAiNE999 ....like gormless ****s......than sit there like a gormless ****
Try to chill.
|
CAiNE999
Beyond Divinity Inc
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 16:42:00 -
[170]
I could say the same about shameless presumptions of someone IRL but i cba to go on about that stuffs anymore
As for chill, im perfectly fine ty, seems forums dont like the T word
Its true though, that's all you end up doing, standing there staring gormlessly as you go down |
|
Terianna Eri
Amarr Scrutari
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 17:34:00 -
[171]
Originally by: Murina The falcon is fine and eccm can give a 90+% boost to str, a rather larger boost than any other mod gives to a stat....
MWD gives you a 500+% velocity increase AB gives you over 100% velocity increase 1600mm armor plates can double the armor HP of a cruiser
The only reasons the ECCM gives such a proportionately high boost compared to other modules (Sensor Booster, Tracking Computer) are that those modules would be overpowered if they had a 90% boost, since those modules actually do something when you're not facing their corresponding ewar. |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 17:52:00 -
[172]
Originally by: Murina The falcon is fine and eccm can give a 90+% boost to str, a rather larger boost than any other mod gives to a stat....
Originally by: Terianna Eri MWD gives you a 500+% velocity increase
And has a proportionate effect on cap and sig and PG/CPU..
Originally by: Terianna Eri AB gives you over 100% velocity increase
Similar boost that eccm gives.
Originally by: Terianna Eri 1600mm armor plates can double the armor HP of a cruiser
ECCM doubles (*ok 96% but meh) the sig of a ship and has much less fitting problems than a 1600 plate on a cruiser would give.
|
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.
|
Posted - 2009.01.10 18:20:00 -
[173]
Again, I say that my problem with ECM is not that it's overpowered or uncounterable - I have argued at length against both of those points - but that it's not fun.
|
The Tzar
Malicious Intentions The Church.
|
Posted - 2009.01.11 11:51:00 -
[174]
Yah and being primaried at close range is great fun. \end sarcasm
At least with a falon you can have a major effect on the outcome of tbe battle rather than say popping in 10 seconds because this time you decided to come out in your leet absolution pvp ship.
If its not much fun for you..., dont fly one fella! But dont deny the rest of us that option because you dont enjoy flying them.
Does that seem reasonable? |
Aeronarr
|
Posted - 2009.01.11 15:36:00 -
[175]
I tend to agree with the OP. In most strategy games, there is a semblance of rock paper scissors; one unit is good at one thing, but weak against another, and this makes it fun and interesting. However, I have played a few strategy games where the units' strengths and weaknesses are so exaggerated, so specialized, that it just boils down to dumb luck as far as who happens to build what. It's not fun.
I think that's the problem with ECM in its current form. The ships that are good at it are really good at it, and every other ship may as well not fit it.
I envisioned ECM originally to be the kind of thing a player might decide to throw on their ship for an extra little benefit, something like a webbifier or target painter.
What if ECM worked as such:
*** If ECM targets a ship, it always works, period. However, the lock disruption is very temporary, the duration modified slightly by ship bonuses and ECCM. Then something would need to be put into place to prevent permanent disruption from multiple ECMs, perhaps a "buff" that prevents ECM from affecting a ship more than every so many seconds (lets say your ship's sensors calibrate to the ECM, so you are immune until the enemy ECM recalibrates, a la Borg shields).
***
This would make it less important to build a pure ECM boat, and would make ECM something the average ship might not mind having onboard. I'm imagining the disruption being very short though, perhaps 5 seconds without bonuses. Annoying, effective, but not all-or-nothing. Basically, ECM always works (just like a webbifier), but the duration is the variable. |
Mysis
|
Posted - 2009.01.11 16:32:00 -
[176]
Originally by: Malcanis ECM ships have to be useless for everything but ECM, but or ECM ships to be worth flying at all that means they have to be too good at ECM.
I have an alt that flies an officer fitted Rook (hence posting with alt) i personally love ECM.
Your point is completly stupid and you need to learn to play, the ship is good at 1 thing and 1 thing only jamming, if someone fits ECCM i instapop if i fail. i say fighting passive tanks arnt fun and drake is (basicly) useless without passive tank so remove it from game.
tl;dr You suck, learn to play or i will come jam you. |
Scarlet Pimpdaddy
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.01.11 16:35:00 -
[177]
Let's get rid of ECM whines! |
Mysis
|
Posted - 2009.01.11 16:36:00 -
[178]
Originally by: Aeronarr I tend to agree with the OP. In most strategy games, there is a semblance of rock paper scissors; one unit is good at one thing, but weak against another, and this makes it fun and interesting. However, I have played a few strategy games where the units' strengths and weaknesses are so exaggerated, so specialized, that it just boils down to dumb luck as far as who happens to build what. It's not fun.
I think that's the problem with ECM in its current form. The ships that are good at it are really good at it, and every other ship may as well not fit it.
I envisioned ECM originally to be the kind of thing a player might decide to throw on their ship for an extra little benefit, something like a webbifier or target painter.
What if ECM worked as such:
*** If ECM targets a ship, it always works, period. However, the lock disruption is very temporary, the duration modified slightly by ship bonuses and ECCM. Then something would need to be put into place to prevent permanent disruption from multiple ECMs, perhaps a "buff" that prevents ECM from affecting a ship more than every so many seconds (lets say your ship's sensors calibrate to the ECM, so you are immune until the enemy ECM recalibrates, a la Borg shields).
***
This would make it less important to build a pure ECM boat, and would make ECM something the average ship might not mind having onboard. I'm imagining the disruption being very short though, perhaps 5 seconds without bonuses. Annoying, effective, but not all-or-nothing. Basically, ECM always works (just like a webbifier), but the duration is the variable.
Yes please do this then i can fly arzu with scripted sensor damps for locking time and fit these jammers, try thinking of ballance or other specialty ships aswell not just T1 pvp ships.
When thinking ballance most make there basis of current fittings but you need to consider that fittings would change to take advantage of good combinations. |
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.
|
Posted - 2009.01.11 16:44:00 -
[179]
Originally by: Mysis
Originally by: Malcanis ECM ships have to be useless for everything but ECM, but or ECM ships to be worth flying at all that means they have to be too good at ECM.
I have an alt that flies an officer fitted Rook (hence posting with alt) i personally love ECM.
Your point is completly stupid and you need to learn to play, the ship is good at 1 thing and 1 thing only jamming, if someone fits ECCM i instapop if i fail. i say fighting passive tanks arnt fun and drake is (basicly) useless without passive tank so remove it from game.
tl;dr You suck, learn to play or i will come jam you.
You say my point is completely stupid and then in the same sentence, reiterate it. Your debate tactics baffle and confuse me.
PS Drakes should have a buffer tank and a rack of HAM II for PvP. |
Uncle Smokey
|
Posted - 2009.01.11 16:45:00 -
[180]
i got better idea lets get rid of WCS. |
|
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.
|
Posted - 2009.01.11 17:15:00 -
[181]
Originally by: Uncle Smokey i got better idea lets get rid of WCS.
Quote this if you're down
|
Zephyr Rengate
Caldari Wrath of Fenris
|
Posted - 2009.01.11 17:32:00 -
[182]
Falcon is OP simply because it operates out of the range of anything that can tackle and kill it.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.11 17:35:00 -
[183]
Originally by: Zephyr Rengate Falcon is OP simply because it operates out of the range of anything that can tackle and kill it.
So every ship that can operate at sniper range is OP?.
|
Zephyr Rengate
Caldari Wrath of Fenris
|
Posted - 2009.01.11 17:37:00 -
[184]
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: Zephyr Rengate Falcon is OP simply because it operates out of the range of anything that can tackle and kill it.
So every ship that can operate at sniper range is OP?.
Everyship that can disrupt so many ships with no effective counter is op, sniper ships cannot easily deal with multiple threats nor do they cloak or have the agility to warp off at the first sign of trouple, unless fully aligned.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.11 17:43:00 -
[185]
Edited by: Murina on 11/01/2009 17:45:01
Originally by: Zephyr Rengate
Everyship that can disrupt so many ships with no effective counter is op,
Define effective as dmg hardeners could be considered ineffective as they do not FULLY block dmg, just like eccm does not FULLY prevent being jammed.
Originally by: Zephyr Rengate
nor do they cloak
I fit a cloak on my sniper regularly its very handy.
Originally by: Zephyr Rengate have the agility to warp off at the first sign of trouble, unless fully aligned.
No ship can warp off "at the first sign of trouble" unless its fully aligned lol, oh and a sniper BS can land and be aligned and ready to warp in around 10 seconds btw.
|
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.
|
Posted - 2009.01.11 18:22:00 -
[186]
Originally by: Zephyr Rengate
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: Zephyr Rengate Falcon is OP simply because it operates out of the range of anything that can tackle and kill it.
So every ship that can operate at sniper range is OP?.
Everyship that can disrupt so many ships with no effective counter is op, sniper ships cannot easily deal with multiple threats nor do they cloak or have the agility to warp off at the first sign of trouple, unless fully aligned.
Falcons can't cloak if they're being targetted, and they have pretty bad agility too. Not as bad as a sniper BS, but bad enough to be hit twice buy a lot of long range ships (eg: tachypoc, sniper cerb) |
Wardeneo
DEATHFUNK Doctrine.
|
Posted - 2009.01.11 20:09:00 -
[187]
WHINE THREAD DETECTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!
carry on
wardeneo
|
Xiaodown
coracao ardente Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.01.11 20:46:00 -
[188]
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Krystal Demishy Edited by: Krystal Demishy on 09/01/2009 09:58:23 Why should they give you a caldari solo ship while they nerfed all the others?! Caldari got way too much to perform perfectly in every role; if you trained another race you are tempted to cross-train another race to fill the holes of your race, but this is not for caldari! Tell me 1 single role that you cannot perform with caldari ships....
And about the ecm problem, the solution is simple: remove that ridicolous huge range, make it a very close range ship to be effective, and give it 2 different bonuses, like every other recon ship. ("made of paper" ?? stfu, the other recons are too).
Take the ECM from your falcon or rook. I will remove the EW from any other recon ship of your choice.
We will 1v1
if you win, I will give you all my stuff then biomass my characters.
Careful; the rook has 7 midslots for tanking; add that to 3 BCU's in the lows, and I'm fairly confident that I could beat up a curse before its drones got through my rook's shields. |
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.
|
Posted - 2009.01.11 21:03:00 -
[189]
Originally by: Xiaodown
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Krystal Demishy Edited by: Krystal Demishy on 09/01/2009 09:58:23 Why should they give you a caldari solo ship while they nerfed all the others?! Caldari got way too much to perform perfectly in every role; if you trained another race you are tempted to cross-train another race to fill the holes of your race, but this is not for caldari! Tell me 1 single role that you cannot perform with caldari ships....
And about the ecm problem, the solution is simple: remove that ridicolous huge range, make it a very close range ship to be effective, and give it 2 different bonuses, like every other recon ship. ("made of paper" ?? stfu, the other recons are too).
Take the ECM from your falcon or rook. I will remove the EW from any other recon ship of your choice.
We will 1v1
if you win, I will give you all my stuff then biomass my characters.
Careful; the rook has 7 midslots for tanking; add that to 3 BCU's in the lows, and I'm fairly confident that I could beat up a curse before its drones got through my rook's shields.
Good luck doing much damage to an AB Curse...
|
Yakov Draken
Minmatar Tides Of War
|
Posted - 2009.01.11 22:15:00 -
[190]
So why do you guys respond to Murina? Murina trolls and talks absolute nonsense - just ignore. |
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.11 22:24:00 -
[191]
Originally by: Yakov Draken i am a clueless noob troll
My arguments are valid, insightful and educational (for those willing to learn instead of just running str8 to ccp for a nerf), but if they are beyond your understanding i suggest you learn a little more before you post ad hominem attacks. |
Layrex
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.11 22:32:00 -
[192]
I always thought of ECM as a method of ensuring as minimal ships are lost as possible, even if you'd win the fight anyway. |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.11 22:35:00 -
[193]
Originally by: Layrex I always thought of ECM as a method of ensuring as minimal ships are lost as possible, even if you'd win the fight anyway.
That is because of the mentality in eve that makes ppl only engage in fights they know they are gonna win. Doing anything to ecm will not change that and anybody who thinks it will is stupid. |
Galia Bonaventure
|
Posted - 2009.01.11 22:48:00 -
[194]
Originally by: Malcanis
So let's junk ECM and the current concept of hyper-specialised ECM ships and start from scratch. We need a completely different EW concept for Caldari ships. My thought is that it should have the following characteristics:
(1) Get rid of chance based effects, at least within optimal range. If it's reliable, it can be less powerful. If it's less powerful, then we can reasonably give Caldari EW ships stuff like drone bays or secondary E-War
(2) Caldari EW should still be the "best" EW, but by a much smaller margin than is currently the case. If Caldari recons are to get a secondary E-War, it should be the least powerful, and maybe a buff effect rather than an offensive one (eg: a range/effect bonus to remote sensor boosters or trackng links?) or something Caldari-flavoured like the equivalent of a tracking disruptor for missiles.
(3) Either drop the scorpion's EW role altogether, and buff it's drone bay and give it some weapon bonuses so that Caldari have 1 decent solo ship (and a tier 1 BS that can deploy a set of heavy drones like every other race has) or, if the new Caldari EW is worthwhile on a BS, give all the other races a tier 1 EW BS, and create a decent soloable (or at least multirole) t1 BS for Caldari to use. Currently the Scorpion Fails ItÖ and I say this as someone who dearly wants it to be a good ship.
Couldn't agree more with Mal, the ECM mechanic should be fundamentally changed to one less uncertain, arbitrary, and dull. Likewise Caldari EW ships should be redesigned to fulfill more than simply the long-range EW role (they should be able to REALISTICALLY contribute something more to the fight other than jamming, in that jamming should not be the only desired role of these ships).
In the spirit of the OP by Malcanis, I will throw my theory in with the lot, flaming trolls be damned!
Change ECM to not effect targeting, but module success rate. That is, rather than jamming the targeting sensors of the affected ship, ECM interfers with the abilities of "on target" modules. Jam strength / Sensor strength = % chance of on target modules to have no effect per cycle.
ECM would be the true "debuffing" EW, reducing the offensive, remote-rep, and EW capabilities of enemies significantly, but those enemies still would have the ability to perform actions while under the effects of ECM, rather than the helpless feeling of having your sensors locked down.
Values of ECM jam strength and ECCM strength could then be adjusted accordingly (most likely down in strength).
Oh, and just an odd thought, if you removed ECM as the "lockbreaking" EW, perhaps ECM bursts could be buffed, and perhaps renamed. Maybe also a script for remote sensor damps that gives a chance to break target locks...
|
Xelek
Gallente Capital Punishment.
|
Posted - 2009.01.12 02:00:00 -
[195]
Edited by: Xelek on 12/01/2009 02:01:53 I agree with the OP. As far as finding new uses for ECM, I've had a few.
First, I like the 'lowering the max number of lockable targets' idea. But it's already what it does, except it drops to it to zero. Although this is wrong in the case of an RR fleet and some other cases, not lowering the amount of locks to zero still gives an ECM'ed ship a lot of freedom.
So, my other idea is that it lowers drone bandwidth on an ECM'ed ship. Since there are very few good counters to drones I think it would be a good idea. Not a straight instant 0, but say, between 20 to 40%. Stops a drone or two instantly unless they aren't using all their bandwidth.
Other stats that currently aren't really affected by any race's ECM is: mass and resists. No way to reduce resists or increase mass. My only problem with ECM affecting these stats is that instead of somehow reducing the amount of damage the enemy can do, playing with these would only make killing the enemy easier, which is VERY different.
Would be interesting to see resist-reducing EW.
I also don't like the whole 'randomly shuts down some modules' idea. Mostly because it's random again, but also because that's also even more overpowered OR useless depending on the situation. Think about it, on most passive fits, it won't do much good. On others however, it could litterally kill you. Imagine a cap booster stopping at the worst possible moment, or MWD turning off, reppers, hardeners, etc...
Might be interesting if it was limited to remote modules. Everything that affects ships other than your own, which means, guns, launchers, neut, nos, everything with a range basically. Doesn't solve the randomness problem, though.
Hope this helps figuring out a way to balance ECM...
/wall of text PS.: Got bored after reading 3 pages, sorry if someone suggested the same things already.
|
Radcjk
Caldari Prox XII Collidable Objects
|
Posted - 2009.01.12 02:01:00 -
[196]
Originally by: Galia Bonaventure
Couldn't agree more with Mal, the ECM mechanic should be fundamentally changed to one less uncertain, arbitrary, and dull... .
Oh, and just an odd thought, if you removed ECM as the "lockbreaking" EW, perhaps ECM bursts could be buffed, and perhaps renamed. Maybe also a script for remote sensor damps that gives a chance to break target locks...
I see what you did there...
|
Galia Bonaventure
|
Posted - 2009.01.12 02:27:00 -
[197]
Originally by: Radcjk
Originally by: Galia Bonaventure
Couldn't agree more with Mal, the ECM mechanic should be fundamentally changed to one less uncertain, arbitrary, and dull... .
Oh, and just an odd thought, if you removed ECM as the "lockbreaking" EW, perhaps ECM bursts could be buffed, and perhaps renamed. Maybe also a script for remote sensor damps that gives a chance to break target locks...
I see what you did there...
Sensor Damp boost
|
Galia Bonaventure
|
Posted - 2009.01.12 02:32:00 -
[198]
Originally by: Xelek Might be interesting if it was limited to remote modules. Everything that affects ships other than your own, which means, guns, launchers, neut, nos, everything with a range basically.
Yes, that is what I was saying, only modules that effect a target, not yourself. ECM could cause these modules to have a chance to fail per cycle, and thus have no effect.
To give a rather obtuse example. Rather than being jammed, say 75% of the fight with nothing to do, you could instead be active the entire fight but at 75% reduce potency. Not quite the same thing, but gets about the same result (not entirely, but meh).
Just putting it out there.
|
Undertow Latheus
|
Posted - 2009.01.12 03:03:00 -
[199]
NO
Rebalance. Don't Remove.
I absolutely hate ECM but I don't support removing anything out of the game. |
SirMoric
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.01.12 08:07:00 -
[200]
What do we have to counter ECM?
Information Warfare Link - Sensor Integrity
Ship Equipment: Electronic Warfare: ECCM
Ship Equipment: Electronic Warfare: Projected ECCM
Ship Equipment: Electronic Warfare: Sensor Backup Arrays
The tools are there, use them before complaining.
rgds |
|
Delichon
The First Foundation SOLAR FLEET
|
Posted - 2009.01.12 09:17:00 -
[201]
Edited by: Delichon on 12/01/2009 09:17:57 Trained Caldari Cruiser 5 and Recons to 5 about 9 month ago. Flown Falcon for less than a month. Never set foot in it again.
Flying a Falcon requires so little skill that best Falcon pilots are alts. Compare to pre-QR nano-Curse, or nano-Rapier. Now here you have some ships that require actual piloting, not "uncloak, align, F1-F5, warp off if anything is closer than 50km"
And although posting on Eve-o is an exercise in futility, I can't help but support this thread.
As I said before: 1) Introduce mini-remote ECM burst - highslot cruiser sized variant of a mothership module. 2) Change Falcon/Rook E-War bonus from ECM to ECM burst. 3) Give them big dronebays, adjust agility and velocity, so that Falcon and Rook are relatively fast. 4) Make Falcon/Rook nano remote-ECMing drone fielding beasts :)
(On a serious note - remote ECM burst is potentially much more piloting-intesive module, as it causes "friendly fire", requires cap. management and enforces other players to think while they "F1-F8") ------------------------------------------ "Russian is an unusual language if you're not used to it. It is like speaking to angry aliens from the planet of Murder or something" Nick Breckon |
Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2009.01.12 10:25:00 -
[202]
Originally by: Delichon Edited by: Delichon on 12/01/2009 09:17:57 Trained Caldari Cruiser 5 and Recons to 5 about 9 month ago. Flown Falcon for less than a month. Never set foot in it again.
pretty much this :-) --- SIG --- CSM: your support is needed ! |
Grames Specthor
|
Posted - 2009.01.12 11:26:00 -
[203]
Originally by: Egenli 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.
Best proposal so far. I like how it makes ECM a counter to target painters, which currently have no counter. |
Karii Ildarian
Caldari Eve University Ivy League
|
Posted - 2009.01.12 11:28:00 -
[204]
Originally by: Malcanis Again, I say that my problem with ECM is not that it's overpowered or uncounterable - I have argued at length against both of those points - but that it's not fun.
Well, that's fairly subjective, I must say. I suppose you could just refuse to fly ECM ships.
How about instead of jamming the targeting system, it ejects the targeted ship's pilot?
Maybe you would enjoy that more. |
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.
|
Posted - 2009.01.12 11:43:00 -
[205]
Originally by: Karii Ildarian
Originally by: Malcanis Again, I say that my problem with ECM is not that it's overpowered or uncounterable - I have argued at length against both of those points - but that it's not fun.
Well, that's fairly subjective, I must say. I suppose you could just refuse to fly ECM ships.
How about instead of jamming the targeting system, it ejects the targeted ship's pilot?
Maybe you would enjoy that more.
What I'd really like would be if it automatically unsubscribed the target, and could be used via the forum interface.
But I recognise that this would cause a lot of extra programming work for the devs.
|
Karii Ildarian
Caldari Eve University Ivy League
|
Posted - 2009.01.12 11:50:00 -
[206]
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Karii Ildarian
Originally by: Malcanis Again, I say that my problem with ECM is not that it's overpowered or uncounterable - I have argued at length against both of those points - but that it's not fun.
Well, that's fairly subjective, I must say. I suppose you could just refuse to fly ECM ships.
How about instead of jamming the targeting system, it ejects the targeted ship's pilot?
Maybe you would enjoy that more.
What I'd really like would be if it automatically unsubscribed the target, and could be used via the forum interface.
But I recognise that this would cause a lot of extra programming work for the devs.
Nah, I suppose that the devs and mods already have that ability, no programming necessary. Maybe you could petition for equality, or something... |
Grendelsbane
|
Posted - 2009.01.12 16:37:00 -
[207]
Edited by: Grendelsbane on 12/01/2009 16:41:23 Edited by: Grendelsbane on 12/01/2009 16:39:57 The biggest problem with electronic warfare in general in EVE is that their concept of it, and how it works, sounds like something someone's grandmother or 5 year old kid thought up.
The EVE e-war system is seriously lacking in depth and complexity compared to real, current technology, and has only the most superficial sci-fi basis. It's the straight up fantasy MMO buff-debuff game with technical sounding terms slapped on top.
Take a look at the e-war setup in Independece War 2, a game which is overall creepily similar to EVE. Your ship has a certain signature, indicated by the brightness of a light-bulb symbol in the HUD; this is changed by type and amount of weapon fire at the time, type and amount of propulsion operating, specialized e-war modules and active jammers, and even whether or not you are radiating with "active" sensors. Your ship also has a certain amount of sensor sensitivity and accuracy, based on type, sensor upgrades, whether or not you're being acted upon by enemy ECM, and most of all whether you are using active sensors or passive. How far you can spot or target someone, and vice versa, is based on a combination of these two things. It permeates the entire game, it works, and it makes sense in terms of real world physics and contemporary technology.
With real technology, large vessels have by far the most powerful sensors - high wattage radar with a long range and great sensitivity - but in e-war terms they're lit up like a christmas tree when their sensors are in active mode. The decision to radiate or not is important. On the other hand, small vessels (particularly aicraft, and stealth aircraft) have less powerful sensors that have shorter range and less power, but they're far harder to detect. Large vessels often can't detect smaller ones without radiating, but the small vessels with their inferior sensors will still detect them first if they do radiate.
EVE has this partly bass-ackwards; aside from actual sensor strength and targeting range, larger sensor platforms just suck, being slowwwww to target, not even counting target size (as opposed to real systems being fast and accurate within their operating range, but making the large platform visible to others far outside their detection range; think playing hide and seek at night using a flashlight). E-war and ECM is, generally, simply a matter of singling out one opponent and hitting him with generic magical de-buff beams with technical-sounding names. No broad jamming, no concerns with stealth, no meaningful trade-offs in detection speed vs. your own visibility. If you're on the grid, you're on the overview, period.
It seems to me that there were obviously no Tom Clancy fans around when they laid out EVE's e-war and sensor mechanics; they simply make no sense, other than someone just pulling technical-sounding stuff out of their ass to slap on standard fantasy MMO gameplay. The hilarious irony here is that CCP needs to read "Red Storm Rising"; Clancy fans will get the joke.
|
Amira Shadowsong
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.12 16:57:00 -
[208]
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: Yakov Draken i am a clueless noob troll
My arguments are valid, insightful and educational (for those willing to learn instead of just running str8 to ccp for a nerf), but if they are beyond your understanding i suggest you learn a little more before you post ad hominem attacks.
Oh the irony...
|
Skerrd
|
Posted - 2009.01.12 17:42:00 -
[209]
I don't really know if ECM is OP or not. Some people say it is, they may be right. Some say ECM is just fine, I don't know, maybe it is. How do you quantify that against other warfare anyway? (ECM is 85% OP to TD?)
In my opinion, there are two things with ECM that makes people don't like it:
1) The Falcon. There are several minor problems associated with this, like the range and cloak combo which makes really hard to have a fast response against the initial ECM attack. If the Falcon would lose it's range though, it would have to use a some mid slots for a tank and lose racial diversity which would reduce it's usefulness a lot. It's kind of a lose-lose situation.
2) The worst problem is not in game at all. It's the same problem people at WoW have with fear, some games have with stun, and Morrowind have with Paralysis. It's the psychological effect of having the power of control taken away from you. You have someone who wants to pvp, fits his ship for pvp, goes out in a pvp mood and when it's pew pew time he has to wait 20 seconds while there's pew pew all around him. It's like when you were a kid and you went to the pool, but your mom made you wait 30 minutes because you just ate. 20 seconds where you cannot function the way you want to function is really demoralizing and not fun.
|
Aeronarr
|
Posted - 2009.01.12 18:55:00 -
[210]
In mmo terms, ECM in this game is similar to knockdowns/disables in other games, which are often very easy to abuse. Just go read Warhammer forums, knockbacks and disables seem to frustrate people to no end.
I would much rather see ECM have some sort of negative affect on ship performance rather than a complete shutdown of the ship's offensive capabitlities.
ECM right now is like Russian roullette. Sometimes absolutely nothing happens, but there's a 1/6th chance you're instantly dead. I'd rather be guaranteed punched at 6 times than a 1/6th chance of shot at.
Lower ECM's impact, increase its chances, and I think it would be accepted by more people. |
|
Sidus Isaacs
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.01.12 18:55:00 -
[211]
Originally by: Malcanis I'm serious: ECM sucks. I've used it a lot, in lots of different situations, and contrary to what some might think, I have been thinking a lot about what people have said in the various threads. I have come to the conclusion that ECM is horrible.
The effect, as many have noted, is too powerful compared to other EW. The balancing characteristic, that it is chance-based, makes it too unreliable to use as any kind of serious protection unless the chance of failure is so small that the ship is overpowered, or unless the range is so high that the ECM ship isn't in danger anyway. ECM ships have to be useless for everything but ECM, but or ECM ships to be worth flying at all that means they have to be too good at ECM. In the various ECM/Falcon whinethreads, a large number of people who know a lot about the game have comprehensively and consistently failed to come up with a way of making ECM ships useful for anything except ECM. Long range, unanswerable, fun destroying. In short ECM is either overpowered, or it is overpowered and useless (ie: it cripples the enemy in a situation where they would lose anyway), or it is useless. What it isn't, ever, is fun. For anyone. I have in the past argued that eg: Falcons are balanced because they have so many weaknesses and such specific utility. Whilst I still believe that this is true, I have come to the conclusion that the problem with them is not so much that they're imbalanced, but that their balance balance comes from being so rigidly specialised that they are either ridiculously good or ridiculously bad in a given situation. On average, they're not "overpowered". But what they never are is fun, either to fly or to fight.
So let's junk ECM and the current concept of hyper-specialised ECM ships and start from scratch. We need a completely different EW concept for Caldari ships. My thought is that it should have the following characteristics:
(1) Get rid of chance based effects, at least within optimal range. If it's reliable, it can be less powerful. If it's less powerful, then we can reasonably give Caldari EW ships stuff like drone bays or secondary E-War
(2) Caldari EW should still be the "best" EW, but by a much smaller margin than is currently the case. If Caldari recons are to get a secondary E-War, it should be the least powerful, and maybe a buff effect rather than an offensive one (eg: a range/effect bonus to remote sensor boosters or trackng links?) or something Caldari-flavoured like the equivalent of a tracking disruptor for missiles.
(3) Either drop the scorpion's EW role altogether, and buff it's drone bay and give it some weapon bonuses so that Caldari have 1 decent solo ship (and a tier 1 BS that can deploy a set of heavy drones like every other race has) or, if the new Caldari EW is worthwhile on a BS, give all the other races a tier 1 EW BS, and create a decent soloable (or at least multirole) t1 BS for Caldari to use. Currently the Scorpion Fails It™ and I say this as someone who dearly wants it to be a good ship.
tl;dr: drop ECM, rework Caldari ECM ships, let's hear your thoughts.
Lets go play wow! |
Atlanton Marcus
Caldari Veto. Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2009.01.12 21:01:00 -
[212]
People who think that ECM should offline certain modules need to rethink that little idea, particularly those who think scripts should be used to designate which modules to offline. Offlining modules would not only be terribly confusing (I would guess), but horribly overpowered. Why would anyone fit target disruptors, neutralizers, or any other type of EWAR if ECM could just offline a target's tank, propulsion, or other essential module. However, I doubt many people think that offlining modules would be a good idea anyway.
So far, I think that either reduction of max targets or a form of EW specific to missiles would be the best route for ECM currently. I'm leaning towards anti-missile EW, because currently, there really isn't a module specifically meant for countering missiles. However, there would have to be some other strength for this to be useful. E.G. the pilgrim has a target disruption bonus, but it also has a nosferatu and neutralizer bonuses to make it worthwhile.
To all those who say that ECM is working as designed and it has its counters, I respectfully disagree. In every single remote-repairing battleship setup that I have, I fit an ECCM. However, I don't always fit a target enhancer, a cap injector, a sensor booster, or any other module meant to combat the EW of non-Caldari races. The reason for this is twofold. I don't have to anticipate fighting a pilgrim, curse, rapier, huginn, lachesis, or arazu in every single large gang fight. This is not to say other recons are useless, because the contrary is true; any combination of recons can ruin someone's day. However, the falcon and its ECM are consistently used and therefore, must be consistently countered with ECCM and other falcons which as other posters have noted, creates a Catch-22. Falcons have reached this level of popularity because ECM is very consistent regardless of the make-up of your gang or your opposing gang. Every single ship in the game requires a lock to fight (barring FOF missiles, smartbombs, and interdictors), so a ship that can consistently disrupt a ship's lock can consistently disrupt its ability to fight. This is why ECM became so popular, because as I've consistently stated before, ECM consistently ruins peoples' day.
I'm not a forum warrior or a number-cruncher or even a great pilot, so I'm sure that other posters will use their far superior intellect and linguistic skills to show how my opinions are a large mass of foul-smelling excrement. |
Karl Luckner
|
Posted - 2009.01.12 21:02:00 -
[213]
Well, at first I think we should apply a module limit for e-war to every ship. Let's say 1 to every standard ship, 2 to the blackbird, 3 to the recons and 4 to the Scorpion. This way we could at least see something like a shield tank on our caldari e-war ships. Then ECM should just break lock. This way it is more powerful against bigger ships, and countered by sensor boosters. It could remain chance based. Replace racial jammers with scripts for the multispectral jammers. As second e-war I would like a signature reduction field. Practically the opposite of a target painter.
|
Aeronarr
|
Posted - 2009.01.12 22:36:00 -
[214]
Originally by: Atlanton Marcus Why would anyone fit target disruptors, neutralizers, or any other type of EWAR if ECM could just offline a target's tank, propulsion, or other essential module.
I consider my high slots essential, which is what ECM completely disables (including quite a few mid slot modules).
|
daisy dook
|
Posted - 2009.01.12 22:36:00 -
[215]
Originally by: Atlanton Marcus People who think that ECM should offline certain modules need to rethink that little idea, particularly those who think scripts should be used to designate which modules to offline. Offlining modules would not only be terribly confusing (I would guess), but horribly overpowered. Why would anyone fit target disruptors, neutralizers, or any other type of EWAR if ECM could just offline a target's tank, propulsion, or other essential module. However, I doubt many people think that offlining modules would be a good idea anyway.
So far, I think that either reduction of max targets or a form of EW specific to missiles would be the best route for ECM currently. I'm leaning towards anti-missile EW, because currently, there really isn't a module specifically meant for countering missiles. However, there would have to be some other strength for this to be useful. E.G. the pilgrim has a target disruption bonus, but it also has a nosferatu and neutralizer bonuses to make it worthwhile.
To all those who say that ECM is working as designed and it has its counters, I respectfully disagree. In every single remote-repairing battleship setup that I have, I fit an ECCM. However, I don't always fit a target enhancer, a cap injector, a sensor booster, or any other module meant to combat the EW of non-Caldari races. The reason for this is twofold. I don't have to anticipate fighting a pilgrim, curse, rapier, huginn, lachesis, or arazu in every single large gang fight. This is not to say other recons are useless, because the contrary is true; any combination of recons can ruin someone's day. However, the falcon and its ECM are consistently used and therefore, must be consistently countered with ECCM and other falcons which as other posters have noted, creates a Catch-22. Falcons have reached this level of popularity because ECM is very consistent regardless of the make-up of your gang or your opposing gang. Every single ship in the game requires a lock to fight (barring FOF missiles, smartbombs, and interdictors), so a ship that can consistently disrupt a ship's lock can consistently disrupt its ability to fight. This is why ECM became so popular, because as I've consistently stated before, ECM consistently ruins peoples' day.
I'm not a forum warrior or a number-cruncher or even a great pilot, so I'm sure that other posters will use their far superior intellect and linguistic skills to show how my opinions are a large mass of foul-smelling excrement.
ECM off-lining modules is certainly less powerful than the current incarnation of taking a ship out of the fight and yet we still see neuts and target disruptors in use.
I am glad to see you fit ECCM because it does exactly what it says on the tin and increases your sensor strength.
What it doesn't do is give you immunity to ECM (which some people think is should for some misguided reason) but it does mean that if a Falcon truly wants to jam you then it must devote more modules to achieve that goal (assuming it has multiples of the correct racial jammer) meaning it can not affect as many of you gang mates.
The point still stands that ECM is not fun to use, what the OP appears to want is a way to beef up Caldari Recons by reducing the power of ECM so that the ship itself can have a use other than ECM.
It serioulsy looks like this has decended to the pits of ECM whine regardless whether that was the original posters intention.
|
Atlanton Marcus
Caldari Veto. Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2009.01.12 23:27:00 -
[216]
Originally by: daisy dook
Originally by: Atlanton Marcus stuff
ECM off-lining modules is certainly less powerful than the current incarnation of taking a ship out of the fight and yet we still see neuts and target disruptors in use.
Well it certainly depends on what you mean by offlining modules. If ECMs would be changed to offlining 1 or 2 high-slot modules, then yes, it would be much less powerful. I'm not sure that I really like the offlining concept yet, but I will say that it would be an interesting way to balance ECM. However, previous posters that ECM should use scripts to offline tank, propulsion, warp disruptors, etc. If this was to go into effect, it would be ridiculously overpowered, because you could just turn off someone's tank as opposed to drain their cap or you could turn off their propulsion as opposed to using scramblers and webs.
Quote: I am glad to see you fit ECCM because it does exactly what it says on the tin and increases your sensor strength.
What it doesn't do is give you immunity to ECM (which some people think is should for some misguided reason) but it does mean that if a Falcon truly wants to jam you then it must devote more modules to achieve that goal (assuming it has multiples of the correct racial jammer) meaning it can not affect as many of you gang mates.
I completely agree that ECCM shouldn't immune you from ECM. What I dislike is that it has become almost necessary for large RR gangs to always fit an ECCM and have a large number of falcons to counter any enemy ECM. The popularity of jammers has brought this trend to existence and as I said in my original post, jammers are popular for their consistent effectiveness.
Quote: The point still stands that ECM is not fun to use, what the OP appears to want is a way to beef up Caldari Recons by reducing the power of ECM so that the ship itself can have a use other than ECM.
It seriously looks like this has descended to the pits of ECM whine regardless whether that was the original posters intention.
In general, I think that we agree on the current state of ECM. I hate "nerfs" with a passion, and completely destroying ECM's usefulness would be worse than the current situation. However, ECM in its current form has shaped PvP in a way that no one single module should, and I believe that CCP should consider rebalancing ECM and EWAR so that more variety can be introduced into PvP combat.
|
Stuart Price
Caldari The Black Rabbits The Gurlstas Associates
|
Posted - 2009.01.12 23:28:00 -
[217]
I like the idea of ECM. I like the idea that you can use electronic warfare to destabilise a ships targeting and weapons ability. What I'm not 100% happy with is the current mechanic.
Now let me preface this by saying that I own and fly a Falcon. I also fit ECCM to my battleships. Most t2 bc's and some t2 cruisers also benefit from ECCM but the rest are entirely crippled and fitting an ECCM doesn't help a whole hell of a lot. Fitting an ECCM to an interceptor for example, is an exercise in futility, whereas dual ECCM'ing an Abaddon allows you to laugh at ECM the majority of the time as you continue to melt things.
I've seen a lot of ideas (and had a few) but I'm currently favouring any of the following, possibly in combination:
1. ECM breaks locks but does NOT prevent relocking for 20 seconds. It will therefore function as a directed ECM burst. This will allow small, fast ships with high sensor strengths to close with and engage Falcons with a degree of success. A lone interceptor is not foolproof since the Falcon can align and warp as soon as the jam hits (before the inty can relock), assuming epic bumpage is not ensuing. Two interceptors becomes a definite threat though. Same with fast cruiser hulls (Vagabond).
2. Comparative Sig radius affecting the success of ECM attacks made against the ship. This means that a Kitsune is more effective against smaller ships, where a Falcon has a weaker ECM effect and a Scorpion has a vastly reduced chance. Dedicated ECM ships could then have a bonus switched over to affect this attribute, making them more effective at jamming smaller targets. Or you could reverse this, so that a Kitsune or Falcon has a terrible chance of jamming larger ships, requiring the use of a Scorpion, whichever actually makes more sense since you can argue it either way.
3. Replace the Falcon's ECM range bonus with an ECM falloff bonus. It can still attempt to jam at 200km, but in falloff, where its chances fall considerably.
4. Introduce a new skill, 'Hardened Electronics', which increases Sensor Strength by 5% per level.
5. Reduce the cycle time to 10 seconds and half the cap activation cost to compensate.
6. Conversely, MASSIVELY increase the cap usage of ECM so that it can't be permarun.
I dunno, maybe all these ideas are just trash. I am very tired after all. Putting the 'irate' into 'Pirate' |
SirMoric
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.01.12 23:35:00 -
[218]
You know, ECCM isn't the only counter towards 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
|
daisy dook
|
Posted - 2009.01.12 23:46:00 -
[219]
Originally by: SirMoric You know, ECCM isn't the only counter towards 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
You, sir, deserve a cookie
|
Atlanton Marcus
Caldari Veto. Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2009.01.13 02:05:00 -
[220]
Originally by: daisy dook
Originally by: Atlanton Marcus
I completely agree that ECCM shouldn't immune you from ECM. What I dislike is that it has become almost necessary for large RR gangs to always fit an ECCM and have a large number of falcons to counter any enemy ECM. The popularity of jammers has brought this trend to existence and as I said in my original post, jammers are popular for their consistent effectiveness.
We broadly agree, however I take exception to your assertion that ECM is consistently effective against battleships and ECCM does not further reduce ECM's effectiveness.
If everyone is packing ECCM then that is a good thing because people are fitting against what they expect to fight rather than putting their hands in the air and screaming 'NERF'.
I think I may have not communicated my point clearly. :)
I do believe that ECCM are effective modules. If I didn't think so, I would not fit them. And I will say that remote-repairing battleship gangs benefit greatly from ECCM, to the point where ECM is less of an issue.
However, what I feel is wrong with ECM is its fundamentals. Without any form of ECCM or sensor strength boosting, any ship in the game will most likely be helpless against a falcon. Jamming effectiveness scales to small gang, large gang, and fleet warfare. No matter what ship is brought to an engagement, a falcon can take it completely out of the fight. If a battleship without ECCM cannot be consistently jammed by a falcon, then I guess I have just been unlucky.
If CCP intended for jamming to be such an integral part of PvP where every ship must fit for ECCM and/or bring falcon support, then I guess the current situation is a good representation of that. However, I would rather have to adapt on the field to different types of EWAR as opposed to fitting a module to counter the most effective EW.
|
|
Mystic Pete
|
Posted - 2009.01.13 03:43:00 -
[221]
No.
I did read your post (but not the replys) and I get wherre you're coming from but no. If you've got to the point where ECM is dull to you then use something else. Currently the Falcon (and whole BB line) are considered an I win button so there far too numerous. The people who don't like ECM being used on them will never be happy. The people who love using it won't be happy with a substandard replcement. I think that ECM counters perhaps need a look at, I'm talking ECCM and FoFs here although other option could be possible.
I could write an essay on this but I'll just say no. |
Radcjk
Caldari Prox XII Collidable Objects
|
Posted - 2009.01.13 03:51:00 -
[222]
Originally by: Galia Bonaventure
Sensor Damp boost
Um, no ? Not because I oppose boosting sensor damps, but because making them scripted ecm, after removing ecm, isn't a very well thought out boost.
"Remove Caldari ECM and change it to a new system, and oh btw make Sensor Damps like old ecm!" is like Caldari player wanting drone bays and damage bonuses and armor tanks. |
Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2009.01.13 10:18:00 -
[223]
Originally by: Grendelsbane Edited by: Grendelsbane on 12/01/2009 16:41:23 Edited by: Grendelsbane on 12/01/2009 16:39:57 The biggest problem with electronic warfare in general in EVE is that their concept of it, and how it works, sounds like something someone's grandmother or 5 year old kid thought up.
The EVE e-war system is seriously lacking in depth and complexity compared to real, current technology, and has only the most superficial sci-fi basis. It's the straight up fantasy MMO buff-debuff game with technical sounding terms slapped on top.
Take a look at the e-war setup in Independece War 2, a game which is overall creepily similar to EVE. Your ship has a certain signature, indicated by the brightness of a light-bulb symbol in the HUD; this is changed by type and amount of weapon fire at the time, type and amount of propulsion operating, specialized e-war modules and active jammers, and even whether or not you are radiating with "active" sensors. Your ship also has a certain amount of sensor sensitivity and accuracy, based on type, sensor upgrades, whether or not you're being acted upon by enemy ECM, and most of all whether you are using active sensors or passive. How far you can spot or target someone, and vice versa, is based on a combination of these two things. It permeates the entire game, it works, and it makes sense in terms of real world physics and contemporary technology.
With real technology, large vessels have by far the most powerful sensors - high wattage radar with a long range and great sensitivity - but in e-war terms they're lit up like a christmas tree when their sensors are in active mode. The decision to radiate or not is important. On the other hand, small vessels (particularly aicraft, and stealth aircraft) have less powerful sensors that have shorter range and less power, but they're far harder to detect. Large vessels often can't detect smaller ones without radiating, but the small vessels with their inferior sensors will still detect them first if they do radiate.
EVE has this partly bass-ackwards; aside from actual sensor strength and targeting range, larger sensor platforms just suck, being slowwwww to target, not even counting target size (as opposed to real systems being fast and accurate within their operating range, but making the large platform visible to others far outside their detection range; think playing hide and seek at night using a flashlight). E-war and ECM is, generally, simply a matter of singling out one opponent and hitting him with generic magical de-buff beams with technical-sounding names. No broad jamming, no concerns with stealth, no meaningful trade-offs in detection speed vs. your own visibility. If you're on the grid, you're on the overview, period.
It seems to me that there were obviously no Tom Clancy fans around when they laid out EVE's e-war and sensor mechanics; they simply make no sense, other than someone just pulling technical-sounding stuff out of their ass to slap on standard fantasy MMO gameplay. The hilarious irony here is that CCP needs to read "Red Storm Rising"; Clancy fans will get the joke.
welcome to the club ... I tried to propose a more sensible and detailed sensor warfare system several times ...
truth is, it would complicate the game even more ... but while we still have local channel as it is now, there is no need for that ...
f.e. stealth ships would only be detectable by normal sensors when they lock and fire (as they are now) and we could introduce special sensors and countermeasures for detection .... and there are more things possible ... just it will never happen because it was a design decision at the start and now all things would need to change ... would be a far bigger change than enything we have seen yet ... |
daisy dook
|
Posted - 2009.01.13 10:23:00 -
[224]
Originally by: Atlanton Marcus
I think I may have not communicated my point clearly. :)
I do believe that ECCM are effective modules. If I didn't think so, I would not fit them. And I will say that remote-repairing battleship gangs benefit greatly from ECCM, to the point where ECM is less of an issue.
However, what I feel is wrong with ECM is its fundamentals. Without any form of ECCM or sensor strength boosting, any ship in the game will most likely be helpless against a falcon. Jamming effectiveness scales to small gang, large gang, and fleet warfare. No matter what ship is brought to an engagement, a falcon can take it completely out of the fight. If a battleship without ECCM cannot be consistently jammed by a falcon, then I guess I have just been unlucky.
I think that is where we disagree, I a single Falcon devoting 8 slots (5 mid and 3 low is my current configuration) plus rigs to ECM should be able to take out a single ship even if it has fitted an ECCM or two. The key being that you are protecting the rest of your gang by taking all the ECM (or forcing th Falcon/BB to warp off).
Originally by: Atlanton Marcus
If CCP intended for jamming to be such an integral part of PvP where every ship must fit for ECCM and/or bring falcon support, then I guess the current situation is a good representation of that. However, I would rather have to adapt on the field to different types of EWAR as opposed to fitting a module to counter the most effective EW.
ECM is only so effective because people refuse to fit counter measures; if ECCM became mandatory (like the Mandatory (micro) Warp Drive) then we would see a massive drop in Falcon usage.
Adapting on the field to ECM is somewhat problematic, I would suggest that you consider ECM when putting your gang together. Off the top of my head counters: 1. Everyone fits ECCM (or variant there of) 2. The gang is of a single racial type (a single Falcon is going to pack 1-2 jammers for a particular race) 3. Have a single ship dedicated to anti ECM, this should have high sensor strength (supported with ECCM) and long range weaponary. |
Psiri
|
Posted - 2009.01.13 11:46:00 -
[225]
The changes I'd like to see would be
- Cut the jam cycle and chance base in half.
- Due to the higher frequency of lost locks the above change would imply, I'd like to see a slight increase to sensor strength scaling upwards as you go up in hull sized. This is due to for instance Battleship times having fairly long locktimes and therefore would be hurt more by the proposed change.
- Give a small boost to ECCM, it's already useful but many are reluctant to use it. A domi with a ECCM fitted will have a sensor strength of 40+, this makes Falcons lose much of their edge in gang warfare (they'd still be ***** in small engagements though).
|
Dasalt Istgut
|
Posted - 2009.01.13 12:23:00 -
[226]
Originally by: daisy dook
One of the problems is that ECM is powerful and CCP has chosen to balance it by making all the ships useless at anything other than ECM (with the exception of the scorpion which, I'm sure you'll all agree, would not be your first choice for any role).
I disagree. My anti-ECM Scorpion is one of my most flown and most effective ships. Jams out to 250km, 50k EHP, has a MWD fit and with overloaded ECCM over an 80 sensor strength. It jams out enemy ECM and lets my gang do what it needs to do and its got enough EHP to burn within range of my remote repping gang - unlike a falcon.
Gang jumps into gate camp (at that point we usually have a warp in already on enemy falcons because either a cov ops ship has created one for us already or has bookmarked 4 points around the gate). Engages enemy. Enemy falcons decloak and start jamming. Once someone calls 'jam', scorps jump the gate, reapproach gate, lock and jam falcons and rely on remote reppers to keep them alive while the primary goes down.
Yeah, if you fight in low sec it doesn't do anything that I couldn't do with a falcon. But if you're fighting in a scenario where you control the terms of engagement (like low sec), you don't have anything to complain about anyway. |
Xavier Saskuatch
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.13 12:28:00 -
[227]
I say boost Scorpians to give bonuses to remote ECCM strength and range as well keeping its existing abilities. That way fleet engagements have to weigh up the use of ECM, counter ECM against more DPS in the fleet.
Offlining modules with ECM *May break solo pirate attacks. I.e. you keep jamming until one of his mid slots goes down, (web / scram / MWD) and escape.
my 2 cents. |
DarkSpiralMoon
|
Posted - 2009.01.13 12:41:00 -
[228]
Leave my ECM alone!
It will eventually get changed, get over it! Constant whines on the forums...
Have been using ECM for over 2 years now. Way before the changes and everyone and his dog getting a Falcon. The Rook was and still is, a very underestmated boat. (Especially in low sec )
Dark
|
Misina Arlath
Amarr
|
Posted - 2009.01.13 12:47:00 -
[229]
Amarr is supposed to use disruptors as their EW.
Problem is, the majority of Amarr ships don't have the mids to fit them anyways.
So yeah, either get rid of ECM or give Amarr a midslot extra on, nearly, all their ships, starting with Retribution. |
daisy dook
|
Posted - 2009.01.13 13:08:00 -
[230]
Originally by: Misina Arlath Amarr is supposed to use disruptors as their EW.
Problem is, the majority of Amarr ships don't have the mids to fit them anyways.
So yeah, either get rid of ECM or give Amarr a midslot extra on, nearly, all their ships, starting with Retribution.
Nice random Amarr whine...
Buff Amarr, esp their recons!
|
|
Sambo Stone
|
Posted - 2009.01.13 13:49:00 -
[231]
Wow, 8 pages so far, read each single post, and I've been following this whole ECM debate for quite a while. From what I gather, there are two sides to this conflict: the people who want to see ECM changed in some way, largely due to the falcon, and most of them propose solutions to this problem. Some ideas may seem silly or incomplete, but at least the effort is there. On the other side, there are people who say that ECM is fine and that have 2 major arguments: ECCM works perfectly fine and STFU NooB, except for SirMoric who copy/pasted the same reply 4 times in this thread.
So far, the ideas put forward have been abundant: - Boost ECCM - ECM should only randomly disable some modules - ECM should work like Burst and remove a lock, forcing the target to relock - ECM should lower the max number of targets to 1 - ECM should prevent a target from locking on for 10 or so seconds, while keeping the cycle time to 20 seconds - Stop ECM effect when jammer cloaks, warps off or loses target - ECM should prevent module from being used, but not disable lock
of course, as long as we're throwing ideas out there: - ECM should randomly disable half of the target's high slot, cumulatively, so that 8 becomes 4, 4 becomes 2, 2 becomes 1, and 1 becomes 0, so 4 jams would be needed to completely take an 8 slotted ship out of the fight but only one or 2 for a frig - ECM should prevent the target from locking the jammer, thus making it immune but not disabling the target
I believe that ECM as it is is too powerful. However, it would sadden me to see it nerfed to oblivion, or even reduced to the same effectiveness as other EW. Caldari are supposed to have better EW, just as Gallente has better drones and so on. It should not mimick other modules also, so making it able to disable a MWD or AB sounds like scram or web to me.
Anyway, just take this post as what has been said as far as solutions proposed. I believe it needs a change. Some don't. I remember people whining on this forum about nano and how it was overpowered, half the people screamed "adapt and use nano yourself" and now that it is changed most people agree that it's better that way. So yes adapting is mandatory. But remember that this is still a game, and games do have to be fun. |
Atlanton Marcus
Caldari Veto. Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2009.01.13 22:01:00 -
[232]
Originally by: daisy dook
Originally by: Atlanton Marcus
I think I may have not communicated my point clearly. :)
I do believe that ECCM are effective modules. If I didn't think so, I would not fit them. And I will say that remote-repairing battleship gangs benefit greatly from ECCM, to the point where ECM is less of an issue.
However, what I feel is wrong with ECM is its fundamentals. Without any form of ECCM or sensor strength boosting, any ship in the game will most likely be helpless against a falcon. Jamming effectiveness scales to small gang, large gang, and fleet warfare. No matter what ship is brought to an engagement, a falcon can take it completely out of the fight. If a battleship without ECCM cannot be consistently jammed by a falcon, then I guess I have just been unlucky.
I think that is where we disagree, I a single Falcon devoting 8 slots (5 mid and 3 low is my current configuration) plus rigs to ECM should be able to take out a single ship even if it has fitted an ECCM or two. The key being that you are protecting the rest of your gang by taking all the ECM (or forcing th Falcon/BB to warp off).
Once again, I failed to articulate my point. I don't think it's a problem that a falcon can disable an ECCM battleship if it really wants to. My problem is that the jamming mechanic itself is not interesting or fun. As it stands now, if you get jammed, all of your combat functionality is gone completely. Basically, all that a jammed ship can do is look at his pretty hud buttons, maybe maintain his fleet position, and pray that the jam doesn't hit in the next cycle. There aren't any tactics to avoid getting jammed except for fitting ECCM (and the other things you mentioned), and hoping that luck is in your favor. CCP may have balanced this by giving it a percentage chance for success, but I feel that it complicates the issue, putting many engagements in the hands of chance.
Basically, I just don't like a game mechanic where a player with absolutely no combat skill can make an ace pilot completely helpless should they get lucky with the RNG. It's not a falcon issue for me, it's a jamming issue. I would rather have a jamming mechanic that would severely hamper the combat abilities of an opponent, but wouldn't make them completely useless. I would also support a removal of the probability system, so that luck is not a deciding factor in the EWAR's effectiveness.
Originally by: daisy dook ECM is only so effective because people refuse to fit counter measures; if ECCM became mandatory (like the Mandatory (micro) Warp Drive) then we would see a massive drop in Falcon usage.
Adapting on the field to ECM is somewhat problematic, I would suggest that you consider ECM when putting your gang together. Off the top of my head counters: 1. Everyone fits ECCM (or variant there of) 2. The gang is of a single racial type (a single Falcon is going to pack 1-2 jammers for a particular race) 3. Have a single ship dedicated to anti ECM, this should have high sensor strength (supported with ECCM) and long range weaponary.
I do fit an ECCM on every ship that I can and I would say that every large gang that I've been in has had minimum 5 or 6 pilots dedicated to anti-ECM/support. That is just adapting to the meta-game and I am not bothered by that. FOTM ships will exist as long as the Eve servers are online, and it would be ignorant to not make changes accordingly. The part that you quoted isn't bothered by that, but rather with the role of jamming in Eve. As it stands now, gank, tank, and ECM (note: not EWAR) are the basic key factors of gang warfare (you could probably include range and speed but I can't be arsed). Maybe jamming is supposed to be a huge part of gang combat in the way, but I would rather have all forms of EWAR be equally important.
|
Amira Shadowsong
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.13 22:45:00 -
[233]
Most powerful EWAR has the longest range. A range farther then most sniping battleships even. Ewar so powerful it can cripple even the biggest ships even if they have eccm fitted. Ewar that cant be protected against if you are in a small ship (this works against all other ewar).
You have to be utterly DAFT beyond any hope to think ECM is fine right now. |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.13 22:52:00 -
[234]
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong The only chance based EWAR has the longest range as a buffer.
Fixed.L2P |
Amira Shadowsong
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.13 22:55:00 -
[235]
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong The only chance based EWAR has the longest range as a buffer.
Fixed.L2P
It does not matter that it is chance based if the chance is high enough it will still be too powerful. Go read about chance, community college has lots of great courses on this I've heard. They also teach things like difference between the words "your" and "you're". |
Jonas Barcal
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.13 22:57:00 -
[236]
Oh while we're nerfing things nerf dps by 95% I want active tanking to be viable again.
|
Amira Shadowsong
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.13 23:01:00 -
[237]
Originally by: Jonas Barcal Oh while we're nerfing things nerf dps by 95% I want active tanking to be viable again.
It is viable in smaller gangs and solo.
|
Jonas Barcal
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.13 23:07:00 -
[238]
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
Originally by: Jonas Barcal Oh while we're nerfing things nerf dps by 95% I want active tanking to be viable again.
It is viable in smaller gangs and solo.
Firstly solo doesn't exist unless there is a 4am crew of solo artists out there I never meet and small gangs still bring enough dps to kill any attempt at active tanking unless you end fighting a bunch of noobs with 1/10th of your SP/skill and in which case I still be better off buffer tanked/gank fit.
|
Amira Shadowsong
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.13 23:09:00 -
[239]
Originally by: Jonas Barcal
Firstly solo doesn't exist unless there is a 4am crew of solo artists out there I never meet and small gangs still bring enough dps to kill any attempt at active tanking unless you end fighting a bunch of noobs with 1/10th of your SP/skill and in which case I still be better off buffer tanked/gank fit.
Uhm, alot of people solo. Just because you and your buddies around you suck doesn't mean there is no solo pvp. Forum people are hardly the elite either if you look at the daft posts on here lately. Besides if you didnt want a race good at solo/small gang stuff why the **** did you train gallente? Fail.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.13 23:15:00 -
[240]
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
Originally by: Jonas Barcal Oh while we're nerfing things nerf dps by 95% I want active tanking to be viable again.
It is viable in solo.
So head to sissi as its the only place you find solo pvp.
|
|
Atlanton Marcus
Caldari Veto. Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 00:04:00 -
[241]
Originally by: Jonas Barcal Oh while we're nerfing things nerf dps by 95% I want active tanking to be viable again.
Because sarcasm is always a worthy equivalent to a well-founded argument. |
Jonas Barcal
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 00:06:00 -
[242]
Originally by: Atlanton Marcus
Originally by: Jonas Barcal Oh while we're nerfing things nerf dps by 95% I want active tanking to be viable again.
Because sarcasm is always a worthy equivalent to a well-founded argument.
No violence is a worthy equivalent to a well-founded argument.
I actually gave my preferred changes to ECM ships earlier in the thread but a certain someone couldn't make up their mind whether or not they wanted to nerf range or ECM itself. |
Atlanton Marcus
Caldari Veto. Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 00:14:00 -
[243]
Originally by: Jonas Barcal
Originally by: Atlanton Marcus
Originally by: Jonas Barcal Oh while we're nerfing things nerf dps by 95% I want active tanking to be viable again.
Because sarcasm is always a worthy equivalent to a well-founded argument.
No violence is a worthy equivalent to a well-founded argument.
I actually gave my preferred changes to ECM ships earlier in the thread but a certain someone couldn't make up their mind whether or not they wanted to nerf range or ECM itself.
I guess violence could fill that gap, but unfortunately, I can't find a place for it in this context.
I have stated that I personally would prefer a balance to ECM than anything, so I can't be arsed to find who you're referring too.
And I did read your preferred changes to ECM, and as a matter of fact I dedicated the first paragraph of my first post to them. |
Jonas Barcal
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 00:19:00 -
[244]
I doubt if any changes come to ECM to 'fix' the issue some people have we'll end up with a balanced solutions, most likely ECM will end up unsable for the next year or so with CCP busy doing the ongoing T3 development and ambulation. |
Jonas Barcal
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 00:22:00 -
[245]
Originally by: Atlanton Marcus
I have stated that I personally would prefer a balance to ECM than anything, so I can't be arsed to find who you're referring too.
Three threads going on and I'm not even sure which one I made the post in
I'd said as most people complained about range I'd personally prefer to turn ECM and ewar generally into highslot 'weapons' and then balance the ships out to be in the thich of the battle with proper tanks.
|
SirMoric
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 01:25:00 -
[246]
Oh, did I mention these countermeasures, try them, they work if you know how to fit them:
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 - 2009.01.14 02:07:00 -
[247]
Originally by: SirMoric Oh, did I mention these countermeasures, try them, they work if you know how to fit them:
Information Warfare Link - Sensor Integrity
Ship Equipment: Electronic Warfare: ECCM
Ship Equipment: Electronic Warfare: Projected ECCM
Ship Equipment: Electronic Warfare: Sensor Backup Arrays
rgds
Nope, they don't work.
|
Ross Ahearn
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 03:31:00 -
[248]
Ummm
No. Lets keep ECM. I like it. It works. Its not 100 % gaurenteed but there are ships with specific role bonuses that make this work. If you train up even more EW skills the CHANCED based EW plus fittings increases the chance that your very low hitpoint ECM will work. I like ECM. ITs like saying we should scrap mining barges and do away with those. We have the ubber Orca now, so lets just fit one super mining laser that consumes all the veldspar in one belt in 90 seconds. Ummm....yeah i completely disagree with the getting rid of ECM. It was much more deavasting about 2 years ago when getting jammed ( maybe longer) ment certian death. Getting jammed now takes alot of skills and alot of mods + ships to pull it off right. Read up on ECCM if you dont like death by jamming Syndrome. Also if your jammed it probally means some fleet commander brought a fleet with a better setup than yours. Would you walk down a dark alley at night with no friends in a potentially dangerous situation? Same rules apply in eve, but it is after all a game with internet space ships :)
|
Amira Shadowsong
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 03:37:00 -
[249]
Originally by: Christari Zuborov
Yes they do work, depending on what ship you have them equipped on, and your gang compliment.
You somehow are convinced they work when they obviously barely only work on BS and recons.
|
Atlanton Marcus
Caldari Veto. Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 04:50:00 -
[250]
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
Originally by: SirMoric Oh, did I mention these countermeasures, try them, they work if you know how to fit them:
Information Warfare Link - Sensor Integrity
Ship Equipment: Electronic Warfare: ECCM
Ship Equipment: Electronic Warfare: Projected ECCM
Ship Equipment: Electronic Warfare: Sensor Backup Arrays
rgds
Nope, they don't work.
Please stop arguing, step back, and work out the math for jamming, sensor strength, and modules that boost sensor strength. You will find that ECCM does in fact reduce your chance to get jammed, so it is absolutely pointless to argue that ECCM "doesn't work".
I agree that ECM requires some balancing or adjustments, but your methods of supporting change is just as repetitive and ineffective as SirMoric's copy/paste.
|
|
Syn G
Gallente Interstellar eXodus
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 07:43:00 -
[251]
why not just make it have a reactivation time like cloaks do? and take away the 20 second duration. make it just drop all locks. or at least lower it to 5 sec or something.
|
PsychoBones Jr
THE INTERNET.
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 07:54:00 -
[252]
Just wanted to throw out there for the "Fit ECCM you noobs" crowd that this Falcon hit 75% of it's jams on my 101 sensor strength Curse |
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 09:26:00 -
[253]
Originally by: PsychoBones Jr Just wanted to throw out there for the "Fit ECCM you noobs" crowd that this Falcon hit 75% of it's jams on my 101 sensor strength Curse
How was the falcon fitted?
Was the falcon trying to jam any other ships or just you? |
PsychoBones Jr
THE INTERNET.
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 09:28:00 -
[254]
Edited by: PsychoBones Jr on 14/01/2009 09:28:39
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: PsychoBones Jr Just wanted to throw out there for the "Fit ECCM you noobs" crowd that this Falcon hit 75% of it's jams on my 101 sensor strength Curse
How was the falcon fitted?
Was the falcon trying to jam any other ships or just you?
No idea.
Should it matter? I had 101 Snsor strength ffs.
Edit: You can see from the killmail that he wasn't using exclusively amarr jammers. |
daisy dook
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 11:44:00 -
[255]
Originally by: PsychoBones Jr Edited by: PsychoBones Jr on 14/01/2009 09:28:39
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: PsychoBones Jr Just wanted to throw out there for the "Fit ECCM you noobs" crowd that this Falcon hit 75% of it's jams on my 101 sensor strength Curse
How was the falcon fitted?
Was the falcon trying to jam any other ships or just you?
No idea.
Should it matter? I had 101 Snsor strength ffs.
Edit: You can see from the killmail that he wasn't using exclusively amarr jammers.
Must have been his lucky day then; though I would surmise that if he's using off racial jammers then he was throwing everything at you.
|
Caldess
The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 11:54:00 -
[256]
i really think somethink needs to be done just maybe even nerf the range a little. or boost every ship in game sensor strength by even 1 or 2
|
Awesome Marie
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 13:00:00 -
[257]
I believe that much of the arguments about falcons NOT being overpowered comes from 0.0-massive-fleet-dudes. And you are correct, in those situations, falcons are not owerpowered, they do their job just like any other ship. In small gang warfare, wich A LOT of us still are trying to do, falcons are completely stupidly and utterly ragingly crazy good. Falcons needs to be balanced so they still do their job well in 0.0, but also is a sane ship in small gang. Not the super crazy pimpmobile it is at the moment.
|
Etho Demerzel
Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 13:09:00 -
[258]
Originally by: PsychoBones Jr Just wanted to throw out there for the "Fit ECCM you noobs" crowd that this Falcon hit 75% of it's jams on my 101 sensor strength Curse
If he was using 5 Amarr racials on you (a VERY unlikely fitting for the falcon), he would have 54% of chance of jamming you.
If he had 2 gravimetric and 1 of each other race (much more common) he would have 24% or chance to jam you.
With 5 multspecs he would have 38% of jamming you.
So you either was VERY unlucky (a thing that could have happened to him as well), or you are lying about the 75%... =====
"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... |
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 13:15:00 -
[259]
Originally by: PsychoBones Jr Just wanted to throw out there for the "Fit ECCM you noobs" crowd that this Falcon hit 75% of it's jams on my 101 sensor strength Curse
Just cos you have a kill mail and a falcon is on it does not mean you were jammed it just means he tried to jam you.
Also its imposable for you to be able to tell if he hit 75% of his jams.
And last but not least look at the dmg done by the ships you were fighting, the ishkur, raven and Lachesis did between 3-4k dmg each so it was hardly a long drawn out battle.
|
SirMoric
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 13:41:00 -
[260]
Originally by: PsychoBones Jr Just wanted to throw out there for the "Fit ECCM you noobs" crowd that this Falcon hit 75% of it's jams on my 101 sensor strength Curse
You got killed by a gang of 5 ships? And you blame the Falcon?
Did you expect to win if the Falcon wasn't there? Did you expect to kill any of them if the Falcon wasn't there?
rgds
|
|
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 14:16:00 -
[261]
Originally by: PsychoBones Jr Edited by: PsychoBones Jr on 14/01/2009 09:28:39
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: PsychoBones Jr Just wanted to throw out there for the "Fit ECCM you noobs" crowd that this Falcon hit 75% of it's jams on my 101 sensor strength Curse
How was the falcon fitted?
Was the falcon trying to jam any other ships or just you?
No idea.
Should it matter? I had 101 Snsor strength ffs.
Edit: You can see from the killmail that he wasn't using exclusively amarr jammers.
Um, yeah it should matter. It would change your chance of being jammed.
Most people don't understand chance very well at all.
Did you know that the chance of a dice rolling 10 6s in a row is exactly the same as it rolling 6.1.6.4.2.4.1.3.6.2? Most people don't, or if they "know" it, they don't really believe it.
Did you know that if you roll 10 6s in a row, that your chance of rolling another 6 is.... exactly the same as rolling any other number? Again, most people will "know" this if the question is asked in that way - but hardly any of them will act is if it were true.
You remember the 10 6s. You don't remember all the times the dice just rolled a bunch of different numbers. It's human psychology. It's also the reason casinos make so much money: people just don't believe in randomness. You're one of them as your "I had 101 Snsor strength ffs" comment demonstrates.
|
PsychoBones Jr
THE INTERNET.
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 14:23:00 -
[262]
Originally by: SirMoric
Originally by: PsychoBones Jr Just wanted to throw out there for the "Fit ECCM you noobs" crowd that this Falcon hit 75% of it's jams on my 101 sensor strength Curse
You got killed by a gang of 5 ships? And you blame the Falcon?
Did you expect to win if the Falcon wasn't there? Did you expect to kill any of them if the Falcon wasn't there?
rgds
Actually it was originally just the Ishkur and Ares there, which is why I engaged. I knew about the Falcon being nearby, thus the fitting. I took Ares into armor before the Falcon decloaked and jammed me, enabling the Ares to warp off. The Lachy came in about a minute into the fight, and eventually the Ares warped back in. The Raven then jumped in and I burned towards the Falcon (which is why he was in range to do damage to me). He missed a jam cycle as I closed in, but due to damps from the Lachy I was unable to get a lock before the next jam cycle. Getting hit by the Raven's cruises I decided to burn away and try to get out of jam range (lol). The Ares and the Warrior 2s from the Ishkur where the only thing able to keep pace with me, but due to jamming, I was unable to do anything to break his tackle. Eventually the Warrior 2s wore me down and I died.
So to answer your question, yes, I do blame the Falcon for that ship dying, in spite of my insane sensor strength. I kept the Fraps of the fight (2 and a half minutes-ish) for a few months but lost it when I reformatted my HD recently.
|
Etho Demerzel
Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 14:38:00 -
[263]
Edited by: Etho Demerzel on 14/01/2009 14:38:00
Originally by: PsychoBones Jr
Actually it was originally just the Ishkur and Ares there, which is why I engaged. I knew about the Falcon being nearby, thus the fitting. I took Ares into armor before the Falcon decloaked and jammed me, enabling the Ares to warp off. The Lachy came in about a minute into the fight, and eventually the Ares warped back in. The Raven then jumped in and I burned towards the Falcon (which is why he was in range to do damage to me). He missed a jam cycle as I closed in, but due to damps from the Lachy I was unable to get a lock before the next jam cycle. Getting hit by the Raven's cruises I decided to burn away and try to get out of jam range (lol). The Ares and the Warrior 2s from the Ishkur where the only thing able to keep pace with me, but due to jamming, I was unable to do anything to break his tackle. Eventually the Warrior 2s wore me down and I died.
So a gang of 5 people were able to hold you when you decided to disengage a fight you looked for. Seems perfect to me. You shouldn't be able to disengage a fight at will.
And the lachesis alone could have dampened you to oblivion and deactivated your MWD thus pinning you down.
Quote:
So to answer your question, yes, I do blame the Falcon for that ship dying, in spite of my insane sensor strength. I kept the Fraps of the fight (2 and a half minutes-ish) for a few months but lost it when I reformatted my HD recently.
How convenient, isn't it? But I am sure we will take your word for the recounting of the events.
Originally by: Malcanis
It has nothing to do with believing whether I got unlucky that one time. If it was just one time, we wouldn't have about several 5-10+ page threads regarding the overpoweredness of Falcons on the first 10 pages of this forum.
There are 200K players in this game, probably around 10-20K come to these forums, especially when they are ****ed. If the chance of this happening was 1% per event that would make 200 disgruntled peoplesupposing each of the 20 k encountered a falcon only once.
Accounting for multiple encounters it is not hard to predicted a few thousand disgruntled people that are too stupid to remember about the other 99% of the time their 101 str ship was NOT jammed. |
PsychoBones Jr
THE INTERNET.
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 14:45:00 -
[264]
Originally by: Etho Demerzel
So a gang of 5 people were able to hold you when you decided to disengage a fight you looked for. Seems perfect to me. You shouldn't be able to disengage a fight at will.
And the lachesis alone could have dampened you to oblivion and deactivated your MWD thus pinning you down.
Pre-QR, so no deactivation of MWD. I was also well out of his damp range by the time the fight ended. Regardless of whether a pre-QR nano-Curse should have been able to disengage from that fight or not, a pre-QR nano-Curse could disengage from that fight at will. The only reason I couldn't was because of the Falcon.
At any rate, I'm not going to argue with you about whether it actually happened or not, because I don't really care whether you believe me or not. I've made my argument against the Falcon, you'll make yours for it. |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 15:38:00 -
[265]
Originally by: PsychoBones Jr
At any rate, I'm not going to argue with you about whether it actually happened or not, because I don't really care whether you believe me or not. I've made my argument against the Falcon, you'll make yours for it.
Your not the first and i doubt you will be the last to make claims about a falcon, not so long ago a carrier pilot made claims of having 500+ str and being"perma" jammed.
He even took a screen shot of his setup and showing that he was jammed although as soon as he was challenged to make fraps to prove it was a "perma" jam and not just a screenie of a single lucky cycle he went kinda quiet and stopped posting...........
|
Etho Demerzel
Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 15:56:00 -
[266]
Originally by: PsychoBones Jr Regardless of whether a pre-QR nano-Curse should have been able to disengage from that fight or not, a pre-QR nano-Curse could disengage from that fight at will. The only reason I couldn't was because of the Falcon.
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. Fortunatelly there are counters as the falcon on this case.
|
SirMoric
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 15:59:00 -
[267]
Originally by: Malcanis Um, yeah it should matter. It would change your chance of being jammed.
Most people don't understand chance very well at all.
Did you know that the chance of a dice rolling 10 6s in a row is exactly the same as it rolling 6.1.6.4.2.4.1.3.6.2? Most people don't, or if they "know" it, they don't really believe it.
Did you know that if you roll 10 6s in a row, that your chance of rolling another 6 is.... exactly the same as rolling any other number? Again, most people will "know" this if the question is asked in that way - but hardly any of them will act is if it were true.
You remember the 10 6s. You don't remember all the times the dice just rolled a bunch of different numbers. It's human psychology. It's also the reason casinos make so much money: people just don't believe in randomness. You're one of them as your "I had 101 Snsor strength ffs" comment demonstrates.
You're right, but the chance of rolling 11 6s in a row, is alot less than rolling a 6, after having rolled the first 10 6s.
Which means the chance of a succesfull jam, with 50% chance, is like flipping a coin, for each flip there's a 50% chance of succes, but for 4 jams in a row the probability is a lot less than the probability for a succesfull 4. jam, after 3 succesfull ones.
Get the drift?
rgds |
daisy dook
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 17:19:00 -
[268]
Originally by: SirMoric
Originally by: Malcanis Um, yeah it should matter. It would change your chance of being jammed.
Most people don't understand chance very well at all.
Did you know that the chance of a dice rolling 10 6s in a row is exactly the same as it rolling 6.1.6.4.2.4.1.3.6.2? Most people don't, or if they "know" it, they don't really believe it.
Did you know that if you roll 10 6s in a row, that your chance of rolling another 6 is.... exactly the same as rolling any other number? Again, most people will "know" this if the question is asked in that way - but hardly any of them will act is if it were true.
You remember the 10 6s. You don't remember all the times the dice just rolled a bunch of different numbers. It's human psychology. It's also the reason casinos make so much money: people just don't believe in randomness. You're one of them as your "I had 101 Snsor strength ffs" comment demonstrates.
You're right, but the chance of rolling 11 6s in a row, is alot less than rolling a 6, after having rolled the first 10 6s.
Which means the chance of a succesfull jam, with 50% chance, is like flipping a coin, for each flip there's a 50% chance of succes, but for 4 jams in a row the probability is a lot less than the probability for a succesfull 4. jam, after 3 succesfull ones.
Get the drift?
rgds
I think you missed his point; each jam is an independent event.
In the sequence of jam, jam, jam and jam the chance of your next jam is 50%
In the sequence of fail, fail, fail and fail the chance of your next jam is 50%
In the sequence of jam, jam, fail, fail, fail and jam the chance of your next jam is still 50% because each event is independent of the preceeding event. |
Cohkka
Celestial Apocalypse
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 17:23:00 -
[269]
Originally by: Etho Demerzel
So a gang of 5 people were able to hold you when you decided to disengage a fight you looked for. Seems perfect to me. You shouldn't be able to disengage a fight at will.
But I guess a falcon should be able to do it? Now that makes sense...
Your logic is way off. If someone took precautions and carefully choose his fight he should be able to disengage when he meets a certain point (like killing off the scramblers). In a fight taking that long its not unusual when the attacker disengages as reinforcement arrives. This is just a perfect example of a Falcon destroying small scale/solo PvP.
As someone posted aboth, I too don't care what a falcon does to larger fleets because there it's somehow ballanced, there it's just support. It's what it does to small gangs what gets people upset. |
daisy dook
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 17:31:00 -
[270]
Originally by: Cohkka
Originally by: Etho Demerzel
So a gang of 5 people were able to hold you when you decided to disengage a fight you looked for. Seems perfect to me. You shouldn't be able to disengage a fight at will.
But I guess a falcon should be able to do it? Now that makes sense...
Your logic is way off. If someone took precautions and carefully choose his fight he should be able to disengage when he meets a certain point (like killing off the scramblers). In a fight taking that long its not unusual when the attacker disengages as reinforcement arrives. This is just a perfect example of a Falcon destroying small scale/solo PvP.
As someone posted aboth, I too don't care what a falcon does to larger fleets because there it's somehow ballanced, there it's just support. It's what it does to small gangs what gets people upset.
He took precautions the best he could, he just happened to be unlucky that the Falcons whole suite of ewar was devoted to him (5-6 jammers); maybe if he'd have had a friend then all the jammers wouldn't have been devoted to him and he would have escaped.
A cautionary tale for solo PvP, don't stay in range of a point. |
|
Vietone
Gallente Mercury Industries
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 17:38:00 -
[271]
You must have been one unlucky curse.
Even with just a single ECCM on my falcon, I am able to see a huge difference in my chance of being jammed.
Also, having an insanely high sensor strength never guarantees that you will never be jammed, but will ensure that the chances are lower.
If a falcon puts all his jammers on you just to get one cycle to get through, guess what, ECCM worked. Because without those ECCM, it would have taken maybe 1-2 instead of the 5-6 he might have equipped.
Might as well nerf and freelance sensor dampeners as well cause no matter how many Sensor boosters you equip on a ship, 3-4 sensor dampeners will easily put you in the same situation as ECMs would. |
Cohkka
Celestial Apocalypse
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 17:38:00 -
[272]
Originally by: daisy dook
A cautionary tale for solo PvP, don't stay in range of a point.
Priceless, keep em coming. |
daisy dook
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 17:39:00 -
[273]
Originally by: Cohkka
Originally by: daisy dook
A cautionary tale for solo PvP, don't stay in range of a point.
Priceless, keep em coming.
Glad you approve. |
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 17:43:00 -
[274]
Originally by: PsychoBones Jr Just wanted to throw out there for the "Fit ECCM you noobs" crowd that this Falcon hit 75% of it's jams on my 101 sensor strength Curse
Hmm, if true that is indeed very odd, from the killmail I'd estimate the falcon had probably a 2/1/1/1 setup, so he had 1 amarr racial and 4 others.
The amarr racial would have less than 15% success ratio per cycle, and the others around 4%.
You dont even need to go any further to see there is no way he can get that lucky without trying for a million years.
So there must have been something else wrong, and if we run the numbers for his jammers against a Curse without ECCM fitted (50% amarr racial, 15% others) we end up suspiciously close to the 75% chance to jam (if he focuses all jammers on you) you experienced.
Conclusion: you simply forgot to turn on the midslot eccm modules in the heat of combat, or capped out to a point where they turned off (unlikely though).
!Lowslot eccm is always active, for midslot eccm modules remember you need to turn them on so they take effect! |
Rogue Lilly
Caldari Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 17:43:00 -
[275]
Edited by: Rogue Lilly on 14/01/2009 17:46:34 I agree that the best way to fix ecm is to get rid of it and replace caldari specialty with another form of Ewar. I've used ecm myself many times, but i find that it disgusts me to use as i feel no challenge. When i fly a falcon i feel as if i have a win-button. I know a majority of MMO players want the win-button and somehow have more fun if they have it easy but to me the joy in a game is challenge, which i don't feel with ecm. Every other Ewar is circumstantial and adds a little bit to battle, while ecm is a game-breaker that allows a single ship to effectively remove 4 other ships from combat.
lets be realistic, it is chance based but with the ship bonus, the skills that effect it and the almost nill chance of anyone equipping the stupid eccm the chance of someone not being perma-jammed is pretty slim.
simple proof that it is a problem:
when you're in a fleet do you have to have target painters, or sensor dampers, no. you do have to have ecm though, in fact most battles i've seen lately include the statement "we have more ecm, we win"....or "they have more ecm, they win." have you ever heard this about any other ewar?
I know i shouldn't be complaining as missles are hated in pvp so at least with ecm i as caldari don't get kicked out of every fleet and people actually want me around. (yay i'm wanted) But frankly i feel as if i'd have much more fun with a module that had less drastic effects and needed to be used under specific circumstances to be well played.
if ecm in general was changed to act like burst ecm where it only breaks the locks instead of jamming for 20 seconds. The target would still lose valuable dps waiting to reacquire a lock and there would be some challange to playing, but it would need to be targeted and ranged like direct ecm. |
Etho Demerzel
Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 18:27:00 -
[276]
Originally by: Cohkka
But I guess a falcon should be able to do it? Now that makes sense...
The day you find a solo Falcon let me know.
Quote:
Your logic is way off. If someone took precautions and carefully choose his fight he should be able to disengage when he meets a certain point (like killing off the scramblers). In a fight taking that long its not unusual when the attacker disengages as reinforcement arrives. This is just a perfect example of a Falcon destroying small scale/solo PvP.
No amount of precautions should enable you to solo prevail against a 5 people gang or even escape from it after engaging.
That said, if it was just the falcon he would have escape just fine. What got him was a combination of tacklers and the falcon, which is perfectly fair on my view.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 18:30:00 -
[277]
Originally by: Etho Demerzel
That said, if it was just the falcon he would have escape just fine. What got him was a combination of tacklers and the falcon, which is perfectly fair on my view.
Their would be summat wrong with the game if a single ship could beat or even escape a BS, 2 ewar fitted recons and a couple of frigs unless it was uber tanked and station/gate hugging. |
Thetys
Caldari Breed of Malakka
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 18:59:00 -
[278]
the whole EW thing is unbalanced because of the falcon. the ugly mix of range of 200km and more and the ability to warp cloak is just too sweet. bring the falcon range in line with the other recons and everything will be fine. i do not think EW is overpowered in general but the falcon is.
i barely see scorps in pvp, but whenever i stick out my nose of the station i get swarmed by falcs. soo many sweet fights have been destroyed because of falcons, our falcs and theirs.
counterfalcons? - oh yeah! from my point of view everyone has at least ONE falcon alt (i refused to hop on the train till now, but i consider training one). we put up a small gang of 10 peeps, we got 2-4 alt falcons. this is BS!
at the moment we decided to use our falcs as emergency button or to counterjam other falcons. this shows how powerfull the falcon is and how it is used as an we-win-button.
put up a 10 vs 10 pvp thing with even skills/ships/fitting and give team a 1 or 2 falcs. the falcon team will not loose a single ship - we did that soo many times.
falcon pvp is almost riskless, like nano***s earlier, 200km, jam-jam-jam, "..oh that ship is aproaching me..", cloak - bye sucker
wait there is ECCM, fit that! - what a joke!
no single ship in eve has that important role as the falcon, check killboards, if gangs have to relay that hard on one single ship - something is wrong
try to pvp without falcs, you'll be soo dead!
i wish my pilgrim could take out 2 bs from 200km, prevent the BS from doing DMG, prevent the BS from doing EW things like web, scram and prevent the BS from remote rep - oh wow!
enough whining :) but it's nothing but the ugly truth
so long Thetys
------ |
Tank CEO
Caldari Dark Cartel
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 19:29:00 -
[279]
I agree, get rid of ECM. .
Teamspeak Rumble Recording! Vote for homepage
|
Cohkka
Celestial Apocalypse
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 20:11:00 -
[280]
Originally by: Etho Demerzel
No amount of precautions should enable you to solo prevail against a 5 people gang or even escape from it after engaging.
Why? Because you're scared of what a capeable PvPer could do to you and your friends? Like I said in another post a lot of players don't want to work for their kills, they want it the easy way - removing risks at ALL costs. These people wouldn't even dare to undock years ago when their numbers weren't at least three fold of the enemy. Smart players can deal with multiple targets on their own, there are ways and means. As soon as a Falcon comes into the equation it's not even worth trying only a big portion of luck will help you.
Quote:
The day you find a solo Falcon let me know.
Pretty rubbish excuse for being untouchable, don't you think?
Don't speak english, just F5, F5, F5... |
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 20:16:00 -
[281]
Originally by: Cohkka Smart players can deal with multiple targets on their own, there are ways and means.
Smart players can SOMETIMES deal with multiple idiots with no clue how to pvp, but with piloting skills and game knowledge equal the solo player will always lose to multiple ships.
|
Cohkka
Celestial Apocalypse
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 20:30:00 -
[282]
Originally by: Murina
Smart players can SOMETIMES deal with multiple idiots with no clue how to pvp, but with piloting skills and game knowledge equal the solo player will always lose to multiple ships.
There is a biiiig gap between skilled PvPers and your ordinary gank bangers. Rarely you'll find a good solopilot up against equal players (just because there aren't that many), but yeah if he does he's toast, that's to be expected. Maybe the abscence of solo PvP caused a temporary loss of memory or something, but it's still very true. Don't speak english, just F5, F5, F5... |
Etho Demerzel
Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 20:32:00 -
[283]
Edited by: Etho Demerzel on 14/01/2009 20:34:00
Originally by: Cohkka
Why? Because you're scared of what a capeable PvPer could do to you and your friends? Like I said in another post a lot of players don't want to work for their kills, they want it the easy way - removing risks at ALL costs. These people wouldn't even dare to undock years ago when their numbers weren't at least three fold of the enemy. Smart players can deal with multiple targets on their own, there are ways and means. As soon as a Falcon comes into the equation it's not even worth trying only a big portion of luck will help you.
On the contrarie, my dear, I want to ADD risks. Engaging when you are in advantage while being always able to bail out when the situation change is a risk free endeavor. If you engage and things turn to be not what you expect them to be, bad luck for you, time to die.
And please, it is only possible to deal with multiple opponents solo if they are complete idiots. A game shouldn't ever be balanced based on aberrant behavior born in stupidity.
Quote:
Pretty rubbish excuse for being untouchable, don't you think?
First a Falcon is hardly untouchable. Look at any killboard of any big alliance and you will see hundreds of them dead.
Second, as long as it is not able to engage alone it means that the opponent is a gang. So in the eventuality the falcon decides to run, it will leave its allies pined and probably dead, therefore incurring in losses for its side, which is the desirable result for anyone who decices to engage and is outplayed. Who cares if the falcon ran when the ships it was trying to help died?
Quote: There is a biiiig gap between skilled PvPers and your ordinary gank bangers. Rarely you'll find a good solopilot up against equal players (just because there aren't that many), but yeah if he does he's toast, that's to be expected. Maybe the abscence of solo PvP caused a temporary loss of memory or something, but it's still very true.
There is no such a thing of ubber skilled pvpers, sorry, there is just dellusional people who think too much of themselves. This game is hardly brain surgery or rocket science. Being good at it is as difficult as being a tic tac toe champion.
=====
"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... |
Amira Shadowsong
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 20:39:00 -
[284]
ECM is overpowered. You have to real stupid to not understand that. Just to put it out there.
|
Major Celine
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 20:43:00 -
[285]
Originally by: Thetys i barely see scorps in pvp, but whenever i stick out my nose of the station i get swarmed by falcs.
Posts experiences with not being able to handle falcons...
You should stay docked because you are terrible at pvp.
|
Etho Demerzel
Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 20:45:00 -
[286]
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong ECM is overpowered. You have to real stupid to not understand that. Just to put it out there.
If your inference is correct you would have a better case if you didn't understand that ECM is overpowered, Amira. Then you wouldbe able to show by 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 - 2009.01.14 20:46:00 -
[287]
Originally by: Cohkka
Originally by: Murina
Smart players can SOMETIMES deal with multiple idiots with no clue how to pvp, but with piloting skills and game knowledge equal the solo player will always lose to multiple ships.
There is a biiiig gap between skilled PvPers and your ordinary gank bangers. Rarely you'll find a good solopilot up against equal players (just because there aren't that many), but yeah if he does he's toast, that's to be expected. Maybe the abscence of solo PvP caused a temporary loss of memory or something, but it's still very true.
Solo pvp is more simple math and opportunity than actual skill, unless you count in game knowledge and target choice as a skill. EVE has become rather predictable as far as ship fittings are concerned so a solo pvper if he is experienced should know pretty much exactly what he can and cannot beat before he decides to engage.
That is why certain types of ppl dislike falcons cos they add unpredictability into a fight that these so called skilled pvpers are unwilling to adapt to on the fly.
Personally i love gang combat on the other hand and especially when falcons/ecm are involved as they throw a spanner in the works and force me and my gangs to think fast and adapt during a fight instead of us just knowing exactly how we are gonna win before we even engage.
|
Amira Shadowsong
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 20:50:00 -
[288]
Originally by: Etho Demerzel
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong ECM is overpowered. You have to real stupid to not understand that. Just to put it out there.
If your inference is correct you would have a better case if you didn't understand that ECM is overpowered, Amira. Then you wouldbe able to show by example.
There is a good reason why I trained recon 5 and all jamming skills to 4-5. There is also a good reason that thousands of new accounts are created to train the exact same thing in only a few months time. This is the real reason why ccp is not nerfing falcons because it gives them more money. Everyone has to get a falcon alt to be viable soon = ccp collects cash.
Sorry but you and your squad here are very naive. ECM, esp falcons, are very much overpowered and are so for a very good reason. Wich is, ccp likes to hoe for money instead of actually making this game enjoyable.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 21:07:00 -
[289]
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
There is a good reason why I trained recon 5 and all jamming skills to 4-5. There is also a good reason that thousands of new accounts are created to train the exact same thing in only a few months time.
Cos like command ships, logistics and cyno skills....ect ect, its a good support skill to have on a ALT but not so great and pretty useless to have on a main. |
Etho Demerzel
Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 21:10:00 -
[290]
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
There is a good reason why I trained recon 5 and all jamming skills to 4-5. There is also a good reason that thousands of new accounts are created to train the exact same thing in only a few months time.
This is the real reason why ccp is not nerfing falcons because it gives them more money. Everyone has to get a falcon alt to be viable soon = ccp collects cash.
You already need a second account to scout, open Cynos, etc. I don't see how exactly Falcons changed this.
Quote:
Sorry but you and your squad here are very naive. ECM, esp falcons, are very much overpowered and are so for a very good reason. Wich is, ccp likes to hoe for money instead of actually making this game enjoyable.
ECM does what is meant to do. It is not overpowered in the slighest, unless the opponent lacks a brain, but then again anything would be overpowered against such unfortunate person. Thinking about it you have my sympathy, Lyria, you are an example of perseverance. |
|
Amira Shadowsong
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 21:12:00 -
[291]
Originally by: Etho Demerzel
ECM does what is meant to do. It is not overpowered in the slighest, unless the opponent lacks a brain, but then again anything would be overpowered against such unfortunate person. Thinking about it you have my sympathy, Lyria, you are an example of perseverance.
Yes ECM does what it is meant to do. To bring in more money for CCP. I'm feel sorry for you that fails to realise this. |
Jonas Barcal
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 21:13:00 -
[292]
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
Yes ECM does what it is meant to do. To bring in more money for CCP. I'm feel sorry for you that fails to realise this.
LOL.. That's the only thing CCP exists to do it's a company. |
Etho Demerzel
Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 21:14:00 -
[293]
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
Yes ECM does what it is meant to do. To bring in more money for CCP. I'm feel sorry for you that fails to realise this.
As about everything they put in the game, unless CCP has turned into a philantropic institution and I missed the memo. |
Amira Shadowsong
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 21:15:00 -
[294]
Originally by: Jonas Barcal
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
Yes ECM does what it is meant to do. To bring in more money for CCP. I'm feel sorry for you that fails to realise this.
LOL.. That's the only thing CCP exists to do it's a company.
Wich is why they make ECM and falcons overpowered so many people feel forced to train a falcon alt = more money to ccp. I just want people in here to admit it. ECM is overpowered right now. |
Amira Shadowsong
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 21:16:00 -
[295]
Originally by: Etho Demerzel
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
Yes ECM does what it is meant to do. To bring in more money for CCP. I'm feel sorry for you that fails to realise this.
As about everything they put in the game, unless CCP has turned into a philantropic institution and I missed the memo.
Making the game alot worse for many just to squeeze and extra buck is not the same thing as not making money at all. You like in some sort of black and white world? You know many of us humans have evolved to something that uses greyscales and colors instead of digital black and white reasoning. In short, you are fail. |
Etho Demerzel
Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 21:20:00 -
[296]
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
Making the game alot worse for many just to squeeze and extra buck is not the same thing as not making money at all. You like in some sort of black and white world? You know many of us humans have evolved to something that uses greyscales and colors instead of digital black and white reasoning. In short, you are fail.
If they make the game worse for most they will lose more money than win, so rest assured they won't do it. But if they make the game worse for some, like you, while making it better for most, they will be just fine, as is the case with ECM. |
Jonas Barcal
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 21:22:00 -
[297]
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
Making the game alot worse for many just to squeeze and extra buck is not the same thing as not making money at all.
Actually it's CCP's legal duty to maximise revenue if making the game alot worse for you will bring in more money long term for them that's what they have to do.
Whether or not ECM does that is another matter and whether or not ECM gets nerfed will largely depend on times scales on ambulation, T3 etc as they're big ticket items atm not small gang warfare.
|
Amira Shadowsong
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 21:22:00 -
[298]
Originally by: Etho Demerzel
If they make the game worse for most they will lose more money than win, so rest assured they won't do it. But if they make the game worse for some, like you, while making it better for most, they will be just fine, as is the case with ECM.
You are forgetting the addiction. Your life as a ****** addict will always get worse but it doesn't mean you just quit if it gets too crappy. ECM is not annoying enough to make most people mass quit because of only that but it is enough overpowered for many to open another account and give ccp more money. That's why it works out. As said, it's not a black and white world like you like to portrait it. |
Jonas Barcal
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 21:25:00 -
[299]
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
You are forgetting the addiction.
which is why selling drugs is the best business on earth.
CCP sell digital crack which is the next best thing. |
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 21:28:00 -
[300]
Originally by: Jonas Barcal
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
You are forgetting the addiction.
which is why selling drugs is the best business on earth.
CCP sell digital crack which is the next best thing.
^^ Win. |
|
Etho Demerzel
Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 21:32:00 -
[301]
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
You are forgetting the addiction. Your life as a ****** addict will always get worse but it doesn't mean you just quit if it gets too crappy. ECM is not annoying enough to make most people mass quit because of only that but it is enough overpowered for many to open another account and give ccp more money. That's why it works out. As said, it's not a black and white world like you like to portrait it.
I see you are talking from experience. I won't dispuse your chemical preferences, but there are a myriad of failed MMORPGS in the game industry's recent history to dispute your idea that no matter what is done the player base will remain unchanged on the face of game breaking decisions.
But that is not relevant here. What is relevant here is IF ECM is a deleterious feature to Eve. I and several people here dispute this concept. Your assertions based on this premise are therefore void. |
CAiNE999
Beyond Divinity Inc
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 22:09:00 -
[302]
Edited by: CAiNE999 on 14/01/2009 22:10:54 *Edit typos suck*
`That is why certain types of ppl dislike falcons cos they add unpredictability into a fight that these "so called skilled pvpers" are unwilling to adapt to on the fly/during actual combat.`
If you mean by unpredictability in the sense that oh i wonder whos gonna get perma jammed during this fight then sure top marks, also i like this word unpredictability for falcons, falcons are about as predictable as there are asteroids in asteroid belts. everyone has them, and you always face them vs anyone other than clueless noobs, who *cough* LOL *cough* go and train them afterwards
As for skilled pvp`ers sure its this adapt thing again, everyone loves saying it, id love to adapt to the I-WIN button if it didnt involve gimping setups for a chance of working or taking 10x as many guys to literally rambo the things. alot of these falcon reliants who cant fight any other way, i know entities in eve who WILL NOT fly without falcons in any numbers
The current adaptation i have atm is to bring falcons ourselves :( or try and ninja the odd solo gank which is boring
`Personally i love gang combat and especially when falcons/ecm are involved as they throw a spanner in the works and force me and my gangs to think fast and adapt during a fight, instead of us just knowing exactly how we are gonna win before we even engage.`
Right if you love gang combat you`d love half your gang being shut down, i love small roamy like gangs too and this is one of my top favourite things, see you take idk 5 guys for a roam, load them in hacs/cs/bc`s maybe a rapier thats always nice or just go dirt cheap cruisers whatever . then go down to the local hotspot for some fun and or hit up some high concetrations of pilots in local, then sooner or later, wham, straight into a falcon and we cant do jack **** then promptly die to who evers falcon alt weve just be pwn`d/baited by, and no, were not noobs, tis just everywhere these days, greatest spanner-in-the-works i ever saw .
As for knowing were gonna win, that never happens unless 1) you have lots of falcons 2) you have alot more people 3) you totally outsize them (but even then :) )
PvP is not a sure win, thats what we have PvE for
Id say falcons are more of a `sure win` than most things tbh
Id also reckon falcons are doing a nice dent to solo`ing too, cant find much who doesnt have a falcon around, tried engaging a ****y hurricane in my vaga not long ago, turns out to have a falcon, big surprise there. would train one myself but i refuse to pay a extra sub for that, also the idea of 1v1+falcon bores me immensely
Lets realise falcons and their ecm are a issue and change them please?
|
CAiNE999
Beyond Divinity Inc
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 22:10:00 -
[303]
*expects epic war with murina again*
|
Jonas Barcal
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 22:19:00 -
[304]
Originally by: CAiNE999 nice dent to solo`ing
Something always is.
|
SirMoric
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 22:32:00 -
[305]
Originally by: daisy dook
Originally by: SirMoric
Originally by: Malcanis Um, yeah it should matter. It would change your chance of being jammed.
Most people don't understand chance very well at all.
Did you know that the chance of a dice rolling 10 6s in a row is exactly the same as it rolling 6.1.6.4.2.4.1.3.6.2? Most people don't, or if they "know" it, they don't really believe it.
Did you know that if you roll 10 6s in a row, that your chance of rolling another 6 is.... exactly the same as rolling any other number? Again, most people will "know" this if the question is asked in that way - but hardly any of them will act is if it were true.
You remember the 10 6s. You don't remember all the times the dice just rolled a bunch of different numbers. It's human psychology. It's also the reason casinos make so much money: people just don't believe in randomness. You're one of them as your "I had 101 Snsor strength ffs" comment demonstrates.
You're right, but the chance of rolling 11 6s in a row, is alot less than rolling a 6, after having rolled the first 10 6s.
Which means the chance of a succesfull jam, with 50% chance, is like flipping a coin, for each flip there's a 50% chance of succes, but for 4 jams in a row the probability is a lot less than the probability for a succesfull 4. jam, after 3 succesfull ones.
Get the drift?
rgds
I think you missed his point; each jam is an independent event.
In the sequence of jam, jam, jam and jam the chance of your next jam is 50%
In the sequence of fail, fail, fail and fail the chance of your next jam is 50%
In the sequence of jam, jam, fail, fail, fail and jam the chance of your next jam is still 50% because each event is independent of the preceeding event.
Yes, that's what I said, each cycle is an independent event.
But the chance of getting 3 jams in a row is still 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 = 12.5%
If you want to get 10 jams in a row the chance of this is even less... As is 10 fails in a row.
So the chance of being jammed succesfully is 50% per jam, but the chance for being permajammed for, say, 2 minutes is only 1.5625%, if the cycle is 20 seconds.
Saying otherwise is only a demonstration of very poor math-skills.
So yes, permajams will occur, but, like in the case above only 1.5 times out of 100 will you be permanently jammed for 2 minutes.
The same goes for not being jammed, the chance to stay unjammed for 2 minutes is only going to happen 1.5 times out of 100 as well.
rgds |
CAiNE999
Beyond Divinity Inc
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 22:42:00 -
[306]
Trying to think of how to counter a falcon here
For example
Your gang is engaging a hostile gang of equal sizes and numbers a falcon deloaks and starts jamming 3-4 of your guys, your job is to remove him
Send 2-3 appropriately fast ships after him, lets say inties catch the falcon or at least distract him and causing him to warp or to jam inties instead
(+5 Points for no more ecm on fighting gang, yay )
tackle and hold him long enough to call in 2-3 *insert ships here idk* begin shooting if he hasn't warped
pray your in 0.0 if hes not flasy O_o otherwise -10 points your all sentried and the support ships land on your wrecks
if not,or your using something larger than inties and hes pointed and engaged by support (+3 Points for buggering him up / whatever you feel like giving yourself for killing him ) considering he hasn't escaped during supports warp in delay
Congrats youve killed a falcon with 3-6 people say, taking that many pilots away from your main gang doing dps, giving rep etc etc ( - however points because you lacked pilots in main gang and possibly suffered greater losses or failed to point as many targets )
Just realised this probably counts as blobbing :(
Ive spent in the past whole battles in my sleipnir chasing various falcons in and out of battlefields, god its boring, did barely and dmg to their fleet
Guess ill have to resort to ganking solo targets and hoping the falcons out of position
Also, pointless post ftw
|
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 22:45:00 -
[307]
Originally by: CAiNE999
pray your in 0.0 if hes not flasy O_o otherwise -10 points your all sentried and the support ships land on your wrecks
Well this should not be an issue as falcons exclusively operate at 200km+ where sentries do not hit.
If you dont mind the sec hit
|
Jonas Barcal
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 22:46:00 -
[308]
Get a Cerb throw missiles without having to chase and go straight back to doing dps on the enemy rinse and repeat if the falcon returns until it's dead.
I'm sure you'll find a Caldari pilot or two willing to kill to feel useful in a gang using missiles.
|
SLIM
Slacker Industries
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 22:48:00 -
[309]
It's funny how you hear the ecm apologists spouting the exact same type of arguments that the nano apologists had. They always boil down to these:
1) It's easy to counter, just use your own ecm! - Um, if the only counter to ecm is MOAR ecm, then that doesn't work. That's what happened to nano gangs, the only thing that could counter them easily was other nanos and rapiers, a specialized ship. We all know how that ended up (wts: snakes).
2) Get some friends and gang up noob! - Right, more blobbing. Excellent idea. Not everyone likes running in larger gangs. Some of us like to solo, and falcons get really old.
3) ECM ships have no hp! - Who cares, if it gets shot by a sniper, it warps out. The range, especially post speed nerf, makes them virtually untouchable. Plus plates will protect you easily from eccm snipers.
4) Adapt or die! - Nice sentiment. If something is overpowered, rather than get it fixed, it's better to just use it. The game is definitely more fun that way Nanos made me want to quit they were so goddamn predictable and boring, just like falcons are getting.
ECCM for anything bar battleships and recons is fairly useless as a difference of 11 vs 20 str for a falcon is nothing whatsoever. Remember, the thing has 7 damn mids (6 if you sensor boost). What eve has still not managed to grasp is that the defense should always be stronger than the offense, because the defense works against CERTAIN ships, the offense always works (obviously, not well against a ship set to counter it, but it does still work). The only things not affected by ECM are interdictors/hics, moms/titans, and smartbombers. Pretty rare. ECCM is ONLY useful against ECM ships, see the difference now?
ECM is also overpowered because it breaks the fight/flight balance. Remember how nanos could kill stuff AND run if there was trouble. Same thing with warp core stabbing clowns before that. Well ecm is the current flavor of this. It has got to be modified.
There have been many excellent solutions proposed. My personal one would be to make size based ecm. Make falcons work good on cruisers and perhaps bcs. Make them suck less effective against bs. So 1/4 strength on frig sized ecm, 1/2 on cruiser ecm (like the falcon would carry), and keep the strength the same for the scorp and widow, so they can have a purpose again.
|
CAiNE999
Beyond Divinity Inc
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 22:55:00 -
[310]
Edited by: CAiNE999 on 14/01/2009 22:56:25 *edited to save double post* True but im seeing alot at 150, also me being flashy most falcons dont care about GCC and would rather stay closer so any tacklers recieve sentry fire
Hmm jonas, interesting ill note that
|
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 22:58:00 -
[311]
Edited by: Murina on 14/01/2009 23:01:39
Originally by: SLIM
1) It's easy to counter, just use your own ecm! - Um, if the only counter to ecm is MOAR ecm, then that doesn't work.
You need your eyes testing cos most of the posts here say nothing about using more ecm.....poor try at trolling considering the thread is here to read and hardly anybody is saying that....
Originally by: SLIM 2) Get some friends and gang up noob!
Correct, but a gang is not a blob and if your up against a falcon you can bet its part of a team/gang as they do not solo.
Originally by: SLIM 3) ECM ships have no hp! - Who cares, if it gets shot by a sniper, it warps out.
That applies to every ship in the game that can operate at sniper/long ranges.
Originally by: SLIM 4) Adapt or die! - Nice sentiment.
Its and its also better than crying to CCP cos your enemies will not fight in your preferred close gank/tank optimal ranges
Originally by: SLIM ECM is also overpowered because it breaks the fight/flight balance.
ECM is fine in fact it makes pvp a lot more interesting instead of being predictable.
|
Amira Shadowsong
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 23:01:00 -
[312]
Originally by: Murina
ECM is fine in fact it makes pvp a lot more interesting instead of being predictable.
Nope, it makes it boring and it requires less skill from all parts. The only reason it is allowed to be overpowered is that ccp makes alot of money off the hordes of falcon alts.
|
Etho Demerzel
Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 23:02:00 -
[313]
Originally by: SLIM
1) It's easy to counter, just use your own ecm! - Um, if the only counter to ecm is MOAR ecm, then that doesn't work. That's what happened to nano gangs, the only thing that could counter them easily was other nanos and rapiers, a specialized ship. We all know how that ended up (wts: snakes).
You said well, IF the ONLY counter to ECM was ECM, that would be true. Fortunately that is not the case.
Quote:
2) Get some friends and gang up noob! - Right, more blobbing. Excellent idea. Not everyone likes running in larger gangs. Some of us like to solo, and falcons get really old.
Actually, if you go solo and find several opponents you must be prepared to lose. Falcons AND tacklers AND damage ships together (because, you know, falcons won't be able to do anything to you alone) are just one of the several horrible things that can happen to you.
Quote:
3) ECM ships have no hp! - Who cares, if it gets shot by a sniper, it warps out. The range, especially post speed nerf, makes them virtually untouchable. Plus plates will protect you easily from eccm snipers.
If it gets shoot by a sniper it dies.
Quote:
4) Adapt or die! - Nice sentiment. If something is overpowered, rather than get it fixed, it's better to just use it. The game is definitely more fun that way Nanos made me want to quit they were so goddamn predictable and boring, just like falcons are getting.
Actually it is the opposite. Falcons make fights LESS predictable, and that is a very good thing.
Quote:
ECCM for anything bar battleships and recons is fairly useless as a difference of 11 vs 20 str for a falcon is nothing whatsoever. Remember, the thing has 7 damn mids (6 if you sensor boost). What eve has still not managed to grasp is that the defense should always be stronger than the offense, because the defense works against CERTAIN ships, the offense always works (obviously, not well against a ship set to counter it, but it does still work). The only things not affected by ECM are interdictors/hics, moms/titans, and smartbombers. Pretty rare. ECCM is ONLY useful against ECM ships, see the difference now?
You fail at math, ECCM is very effective for HACS and battlecruisers too, it is only ineffective for frigs, but then agains frigs are very vulnerable to all kinds of EW.
Quote:
ECM is also overpowered because it breaks the fight/flight balance. Remember how nanos could kill stuff AND run if there was trouble. Same thing with warp core stabbing clowns before that. Well ecm is the current flavor of this. It has got to be modified.
Actually there was a guy in this VERY thread complaining that Falcons are bad because one of them prevented his nanocurse from getting away.
Quote:
There have been many excellent solutions proposed. My personal one would be to make size based ecm. Make falcons work good on cruisers and perhaps bcs. Make them suck less effective against bs. So 1/4 strength on frig sized ecm, 1/2 on cruiser ecm (like the falcon would carry), and keep the strength the same for the scorp and widow, so they can have a purpose again.
Best solution of all: do nothing. =====
"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. The Firm.
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 23:02:00 -
[314]
Listen you fail****s
ECM is NOT overpowered. That was not my point.
ECM is BORING. That was my point.
|
Amira Shadowsong
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 23:04:00 -
[315]
Originally by: Malcanis Listen you fail****s
ECM is NOT overpowered. That was not my point.
ECM is BORING. That was my point.
It's both. ECM got overpowered in general with speed nerf and QR. Falcon is in a special OP league of its own tbfh.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 23:04:00 -
[316]
Edited by: Murina on 14/01/2009 23:05:32
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
Originally by: Murina
ECM is fine in fact it makes pvp a lot more interesting instead of being predictable.
Nope, it makes it boring and it requires less skill from all parts. The only reason it is allowed to be overpowered is that ccp makes alot of money off the hordes of falcon alts.
So ban capitals cos they need cyno alts?, or logistic ships?, or CS as they can all be trained on the same "falcon alt" account?.
Your idea as per usual fails to show any logic as most players have 2 accounts because of the reasons above.
|
Camilo Cienfuegos
Earned In Blood
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 23:05:00 -
[317]
Originally by: SirMoric the chance of getting 3 jams in a row is still 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 = 12.5%
If you want to get 10 jams in a row the chance of this is even less... As is 10 fails in a row.
So the chance of being jammed succesfully is 50% per jam, but the chance for being permajammed for, say, 2 minutes is only 1.5625%, if the cycle is 20 seconds.
Saying otherwise is only a demonstration of very poor math-skills.
So yes, permajams will occur, but, like in the case above only 1.5 times out of 100 will you be permanently jammed for 2 minutes.
The same goes for not being jammed, the chance to stay unjammed for 2 minutes is only going to happen 1.5 times out of 100 as well.
You're forgetting that in many situations of course that a falcon could have more than one jammer on you. Using the appropriate formula with your base 50% chance to jam but using three jammers rather than one:
(1-0.5^3)*100 = (1-0.125)*100 = 0.875*100 = 87.5% (chance over 20 seconds)
With that in mind, 3 jams in a row using 3 jammers cycled would be:
(0.875*0.875*0.875)*100 = 0.67*100 = 67% (chance over 60 seconds)
Is it just me, or is that pretty powerful? Maybe it's better if we only use two jammers. That way a Falcon could only jam three ships simultaneously rather than two:
(1-0.5^2)*100 = (1-0.25)*100 = 0.75*100 = 75% (chance over 20 seconds) (0.75*0.75*0.75)*100% = 0.42*100 = 42% (chance over 60 seconds)
So that means one falcon has a 42% chance per ship to jam three ships... not quite the 12.5% you're quoting above! Hardpoint Rigs ECM Balancing |
SLIM
Slacker Industries
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 23:08:00 -
[318]
Originally by: Murina
You need your eyes testing cos most of the posts here say nothing about using more ecm.....poor try at trolling considering the thread is here to read and hardly anybody is saying that....
Plenty say that, check this and the falcon thread. And post with your main instead of your alt, please.
Quote:
Correct, but a gang is not a blob and if your up against a falcon you can bet its part of a team/gang as they do not solo.
The point being, if you want to solo you should be able to do it without running into an ecm alt every 5 minutes. Falcons require no babysitting since they have the covops cloak, and they are almost impossible to find before one shows up and jams you. Having to bring your own falcon alt setup for anti-falcon is kind of pointless.
Quote:
Its and its also better than crying to CCP cos your enemies will not fight in your preferred close gank/tank optimal ranges
Um, my corp uses more falcons than most people in eve. You can ask minnie militia or anyone else we run into. Part of the reason we do is to surprise pirates using their own falcons. Notice how the most effective counter to ecm is ecm itself?
I'm saying I want the game more fun. You apparently want to troll with worthless replies using an alt. To each his own.
Quote:
ECM is fine in fact it makes pvp a lot more interesting instead of being predictable.
Um, back up your point with evidence please. How does ECM NOT break the fight/flight balance. Be specific. Also, how are falcon alts not predictable? I can pretty much guess how many falcons a gang has by how many mains it has. |
Amira Shadowsong
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 23:12:00 -
[319]
Edited by: Amira Shadowsong on 14/01/2009 23:12:33
Originally by: Murina
So ban capitals cos they need cyno alts?, or logistic ships?, or CS as they can all be trained on the same "falcon alt" account?.
Your idea as per usual fails to show any logic as most players have 2 accounts because of the reasons above.
Nope, my idea as per usual doesn't fail to show any logic. It is your narrow minded view of things and ad hominem ways of debating that is at fault here. There are a large amount of pilots that do not fly capitals and these people do train falcon alts. See? The world is not black and white. Your way of logic is something along these lines "You count 4 legs on an animal and say: Well a horse has 4 legs so every time I count 4 legs on something it is a horse" or like saying "Person A is not angry, therefor he must be happy" when in fact he could be in a 3rd of 4th mood like tired or excited. You'd do well in politics tbfh. |
Jonas Barcal
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 23:14:00 -
[320]
Originally by: Malcanis Listen you fail****s
ECM is BORING. That was my point.
Yeah I can see how pressing F1 and watching those little guns firing is so much more intresting than me pressing the button to activate a jam.
|
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 23:18:00 -
[321]
Originally by: SLIM
Plenty say that, check this and the falcon thread. And post with your main instead of your alt, please.
I have and very very few have said anything of the sort.
Originally by: SLIM The point being, if you want to solo you should be able to do it without running into an ecm alt every 5 minutes.
Solo pvpers already have to be careful when they pick targets so they do not suffer that much, and screwing over a great ship that makes gang pvp highly varied and unpredictable just so a few solo pvpers can have a easy life is wrong.
Originally by: SLIM Um, back up your point with evidence please. How does ECM NOT break the fight/flight balance.
For starters its chance based unlike all the other ewar systems so you never know if your gonna get a jam cycle or not. As most ships and fits in eve are well documented most gangs know what they can and cannot beat even before they engage, ecm breaks that rule as your tacklers or dmg dealers or even logistics could be jammed for 20 secs (or not) forcing players to adapt pro-actively actually in combat. |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 23:20:00 -
[322]
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
Originally by: Murina
So ban capitals cos they need cyno alts?, or logistic ships?, or CS as they can all be trained on the same "falcon alt" account?.
Your idea as per usual fails to show any logic as most players have 2 accounts because of the reasons above.
rant
Go play your new game. |
SLIM
Slacker Industries
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 23:21:00 -
[323]
Quote: You said well, IF the ONLY counter to ECM was ECM, that would be true. Fortunately that is not the case.
Nice try, but it's still the most EFFECTIVE counter, and therefore still broken. If someone talks about damp arazus at 200k, they are going to go sit in a goddamn corner.
Quote:
Actually, if you go solo and find several opponents you must be prepared to lose. Falcons AND tacklers AND damage ships together (because, you know, falcons won't be able to do anything to you alone) are just one of the several horrible things that can happen to you.
Difference being vs two opponents non ecm there are ways and fits around this. Falcon + dmg dealer can handle more opponents than any other two man combo.
Quote:
If it gets shoot by a sniper it dies.
No, try again. If it's aligned it will get out. And of course it's aligned, it will be when it's uncloaking.
Quote:
Actually it is the opposite. Falcons make fights LESS predictable, and that is a very good thing.
Just because you say it doesn't make it so. Falcons are so goddamn predictable its sad. If I have 3 falcons I know I'll win my medium sized gang engagement.
Quote:
You fail at math, ECCM is very effective for HACS and battlecruisers too, it is only ineffective for frigs, but then agains frigs are very vulnerable to all kinds of EW.
You fail at fitting. Throw a backup array on a zealot and let me know how it goes for you. Throw an eccm on a muninn while you're at it. Remember, individual slots are more precious on smaller ships. You need to pvp more and post less.
Quote:
Actually there was a guy in this VERY thread complaining that Falcons are bad because one of them prevented his nanocurse from getting away.
I hardly see how this helps your argument. |
Amira Shadowsong
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 23:23:00 -
[324]
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
rant
Go play your new game.
Running out of arguments? ....REAL arguments? |
Etho Demerzel
Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 23:23:00 -
[325]
Originally by: SLIM
Um, back up your point with evidence please. How does ECM NOT break the fight/flight balance. Be specific. Also, how are falcon alts not predictable? I can pretty much guess how many falcons a gang has by how many mains it has.
You are asking him to back her point when you did nothign to back yours? Look at the miror before crying ugly. But I will be kind and answer your question, even if it was not meant to me. ECM actually CAN be used to break commitment to a fight, but its capacity to accomplish that is limited. If can't permajam several ships, and if those ships are prepared for it, it can only jam one or two at most. On the other had ECM can prevent Neut ships like Curses or Pilgrims from doing exactly the same, or even Rapiers and Huggins. It is actually a very good counter to these ships capability of hit and run.
Now about predictability. The existance of Falcon ALTS may be predictable, as is the existence of Cyno Alts. But then again that means nothing. Falcon, Rooks and Scorpions, on the other hand, add one more vulnerability to the ships involved in a fight and make the fight dependent not onlyon damage and tank but on EW superiority as well, thus making the outcome a lot LESS predictable. |
SLIM
Slacker Industries
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 23:23:00 -
[326]
Originally by: Murina
For starters its chance based unlike all the other ewar systems so you never know if your gonna get a jam cycle or not. As most ships and fits in eve are well documented most gangs know what they can and cannot beat even before they engage, ecm breaks that rule as your tacklers or dmg dealers or even logistics could be jammed for 20 secs (or not) forcing players to adapt pro-actively actually in combat.
Oh yea, I'm in goddamn suspense over whether my combined 70 jam strength is going to break these two intys' locks. |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 23:25:00 -
[327]
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
rant
Go play your new game.
Running out of arguments? ....REAL arguments?
I consider making references to 4 legged animals in a total mind wipe of a troll but only a real fool would do that....
Just go away your arguments are non existant and getting more absurd as you go on. |
Amira Shadowsong
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 23:27:00 -
[328]
Originally by: Murina
For starters its chance based unlike all the other ewar systems so you never know if your gonna get a jam cycle or not.
All other ewar is stacking nerfed. ECM is not BECAUSE it is not stacking nerfed. You seem to think that ECM being chance based is something bad when in fact it is something good because you can with enough ecm power do your job just fine and better because it is not stacking nerfed. It is actually better to have a chance based ew without stacking penalty then a non chance based one with a stacking penalty. You really need more understanding of eve game mechanics, your arguments are total bogus tbh.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 23:27:00 -
[329]
Originally by: SLIM
Originally by: Murina
For starters its chance based unlike all the other ewar systems so you never know if your gonna get a jam cycle or not. As most ships and fits in eve are well documented most gangs know what they can and cannot beat even before they engage, ecm breaks that rule as your tacklers or dmg dealers or even logistics could be jammed for 20 secs (or not) forcing players to adapt pro-actively actually in combat.
Oh yea, I'm in goddamn suspense over whether my combined 70 jam strength is going to break these two intys' locks.
So you use the most extreme and almost lowest sig str gang ships to give your argument credence?.
I think its you who needs help with his arguments pal.
|
Amira Shadowsong
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 23:28:00 -
[330]
Originally by: Murina your arguments are non existant and getting more absurd as you go on.
Anyone else see the irony in this?
|
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 23:30:00 -
[331]
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
Originally by: Murina
For starters its chance based unlike all the other ewar systems so you never know if your gonna get a jam cycle or not.
All other ewar is stacking nerfed. ECM is not BECAUSE it is not stacking nerfed. You seem to think that ECM being chance based is something bad when in fact it is something good because you can with enough ecm power do your job just fine and better because it is not stacking nerfed. It is actually better to have a chance based ew without stacking penalty then a non chance based one with a stacking penalty.
So falcon deliberately fight at close range cos their ewar system is chance based and so better at those ranges than those that work 100% guaranteed?.........hey wait....
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong You really need more understanding of eve game mechanics, your arguments are total bogus tbh.
I suggest you take your own advise tbh...
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 23:31:00 -
[332]
Edited by: Murina on 14/01/2009 23:32:00
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
Originally by: Murina your arguments are non existant and getting more absurd as you go on.
Anyone else see the irony in this?
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong "You count 4 legs on an animal and say: Well a horse has 4 legs so every time I count 4 legs on something it is a horse" or like saying "Person A is not angry, therefor he must be happy" when in fact he could be in a 3rd of 4th mood like tired or excited.
IM SURE THEIRS SOMEBODY OUT THEIR THAT LOVES HORSES WHO THINKS SO.....
|
Etho Demerzel
Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 23:32:00 -
[333]
Edited by: Etho Demerzel on 14/01/2009 23:32:14
Originally by: SLIM Nice try, but it's still the most EFFECTIVE counter, and therefore still broken. If someone talks about damp arazus at 200k, they are going to go sit in a goddamn corner.
No it is not the most effective counter, I am sorry to inform you.
Quote:
Difference being vs two opponents non ecm there are ways and fits around this. Falcon + dmg dealer can handle more opponents than any other two man combo.
False again. Falcon + dmg dealer is definitely not better than Curse + Damage dealer for example. Falcon + damage dealer can be tanked forever by some fittings for example. Additionally the damage dealer can be killed by non targetable weapons, and its tackle can be broken in several ways.
Quote:
No, try again. If it's aligned it will get out. And of course it's aligned, it will be when it's uncloaking.
You said shot, as in receiving a volley from a full rack of 1400mm. Sorry, but that means dead falcon.
Quote:
Just because you say it doesn't make it so. Falcons are so goddamn predictable its sad. If I have 3 falcons I know I'll win my medium sized gang engagement.
It goes both ways. Just because you said the opposite it does not make it truth either. If you have 3 falcons in addition to WHAT and against WHAT? If you are saying that in addition to anything and against anything, you are insane.
Quote:
You fail at fitting. Throw a backup array on a zealot and let me know how it goes for you. Throw an eccm on a muninn while you're at it. Remember, individual slots are more precious on smaller ships. You need to pvp more and post less.
If you decide that you can't throw a slot for ECCM it certainly is not important enough for you, thus ECM must be severily UNDERPOWERED. See when there is a counter to something and people DON'T USE it, it means that this thing is not that dangerous at all OR it means the people in question are very very stupid.
Quote:
I hardly see how this helps your argument.
Basically it proves falcons help to prevent people from disengaging as well, and not only help them to do so, which pretty much invalidades your argument. =====
"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... |
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 23:32:00 -
[334]
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
All other ewar is stacking nerfed. ECM is not BECAUSE it is not stacking nerfed.
ECM is actually naturally stacking nerfed. Do the math and you'll see.
|
Amira Shadowsong
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 23:33:00 -
[335]
Originally by: Murina
IM SURE THERE'S (=THERE IS) SOMEBODY OUT THEIR THAT LOVES HORSES WHO THINKS SO.....
I'm so nice so I will fix your post.
|
Amira Shadowsong
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 23:34:00 -
[336]
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
All other ewar is stacking nerfed. ECM is not BECAUSE it is not stacking nerfed.
ECM is actually naturally stacking nerfed. Do the math and you'll see.
Hahaha, ECM is stacking nerfed? Hahahaha, no it's not. Please go away.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 23:35:00 -
[337]
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
Originally by: Murina
IM SURE THERE'S (=THERE IS) SOMEBODY OUT THEIR THAT LOVES HORSES WHO THINKS SO.....
I'm so nice so I will fix your post.
That hard up and desperate to get summat right are you?.
|
Amira Shadowsong
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 23:37:00 -
[338]
Originally by: Murina
That hard up and desperate to get summat right are you?.
What does summat mean? I can't find that in an english dictionary. |
Etho Demerzel
Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 23:37:00 -
[339]
Edited by: Etho Demerzel on 14/01/2009 23:37:19
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
Hahaha, ECM is stacking nerfed? Hahahaha, no it's not. Please go away.
It is more stacking nerfed than anything else. Once a single one takes effect all others are rendered useless, they don't add anything. Now if each ECM that succeeded added + 20s of jam, THEN they wouldn't be. |
Jonas Barcal
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 23:37:00 -
[340]
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
All other ewar is stacking nerfed. ECM is not BECAUSE it is not stacking nerfed.
ECM is actually naturally stacking nerfed. Do the math and you'll see.
Hahaha, ECM is stacking nerfed? Hahahaha, no it's not. Please go away.
Well it kind of is if we're talking probability, what's the chance of me rolling a 6 on a die 20 times in a row.
Gief stacking nerfing on guns tbh.. first gun full damange then down hill from there |
|
Amira Shadowsong
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 23:39:00 -
[341]
Originally by: Etho Demerzel Edited by: Etho Demerzel on 14/01/2009 23:37:19
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
Hahaha, ECM is stacking nerfed? Hahahaha, no it's not. Please go away.
It is more stacking nerfed than anything else. Once a single one takes effect all others are rendered useless, they don't add anything. Now if each ECM that succeeded added + 20s of jam, THEN they wouldn't be.
Haha, no you're wrong. ECM has no stacking nerf.
Besides your example is moot. You dont just activate all your ecm modules on the target. You activate one and one and therefor you dont get overlapping successes. But I can see why you would think that when looking at the other non sense you have written here. |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 23:40:00 -
[342]
Edited by: Murina on 14/01/2009 23:41:17
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
Originally by: Murina
That hard up and desperate to get summat right are you?.
What does summat mean? I can't find that in an english dictionary.
You must have put t with your eve tech manual......"perma" jamming ships with high sig str indeed... |
Cedric Diggory
Perfunctory Oleaginous Laocoon Mugwumps
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 23:40:00 -
[343]
Quote: ECM is actually naturally stacking nerfed. Do the math and you'll see.
Only as much as a lottery draw is "stacking nerfed". The chances of the same numbers coming up in the lottery two weeks in a row are astronomical when viewed one way, but in reality the chances of the same numbers coming up are exactly the same in both draws. |
Etho Demerzel
Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 00:02:00 -
[344]
Edited by: Etho Demerzel on 15/01/2009 00:03:13
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
Haha, no you're wrong. ECM has no stacking nerf.
They are in several ways. If you consider the effectiveness of it the time it will keep you jammed, then they are by the nature of probabilities themselves, as Jonas pointed. The more ECMs you put in a target the less will be the additional average jam time you will get.
Quote:
Besides your example is moot. You dont just activate all your ecm modules on the target. You activate one and one and therefor you dont get overlapping successes. But I can see why you would think that when looking at the other non sense you have written here.
My example was perfect, IF you have a LOT of targets you can do it. If you don't, oh well, you just got yourselfs a full rack of non useable ECMs the moment one of them hits. =====
"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... |
SirMoric
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 00:16:00 -
[345]
Originally by: Camilo Cienfuegos
Originally by: SirMoric the chance of getting 3 jams in a row is still 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 = 12.5%
If you want to get 10 jams in a row the chance of this is even less... As is 10 fails in a row.
So the chance of being jammed succesfully is 50% per jam, but the chance for being permajammed for, say, 2 minutes is only 1.5625%, if the cycle is 20 seconds.
Saying otherwise is only a demonstration of very poor math-skills.
So yes, permajams will occur, but, like in the case above only 1.5 times out of 100 will you be permanently jammed for 2 minutes.
The same goes for not being jammed, the chance to stay unjammed for 2 minutes is only going to happen 1.5 times out of 100 as well.
You're forgetting that in many situations of course that a falcon could have more than one jammer on you. Using the appropriate formula with your base 50% chance to jam but using three jammers rather than one:
(1-0.5^3)*100 = (1-0.125)*100 = 0.875*100 = 87.5% (chance over 20 seconds)
With that in mind, 3 jams in a row using 3 jammers cycled would be:
(0.875*0.875*0.875)*100 = 0.67*100 = 67% (chance over 60 seconds)
Is it just me, or is that pretty powerful? Maybe it's better if we only use two jammers. That way a Falcon could only jam three ships simultaneously rather than two:
(1-0.5^2)*100 = (1-0.25)*100 = 0.75*100 = 75% (chance over 20 seconds) (0.75*0.75*0.75)*100% = 0.42*100 = 42% (chance over 60 seconds)
So that means one falcon has a 42% chance per ship to jam three ships... not quite the 12.5% you're quoting above!
I wasn't really making any statements about the effectiveness of the Falcon, only showing the math behind how to calculate permanent jamming.
The 50% chance is just a number actually, just like flipping a coin, there are two sides, hence 50%.
But you're quite right in your calculations, if 50 is in fact the number.
rgds |
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 00:19:00 -
[346]
Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 15/01/2009 00:23:15 Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 15/01/2009 00:22:47 Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 15/01/2009 00:19:28
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
Besides your example is moot. You dont just activate all your ecm modules on the target. You activate one and one and therefor you dont get overlapping successes. But I can see why you would think that when looking at the other non sense you have written here.
This demonstrates you dont know how ecm even works.
In other words, no you cant fool probability by turning them on one by one, the same laws apply
The reason why falcon pilots cycle their jammers one by one is you can actually see which one is the lucky one, and if it happens to be the first one you saved a few jammers. |
Colonel Xaven
Decadence. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 00:29:00 -
[347]
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
Originally by: Etho Demerzel Edited by: Etho Demerzel on 14/01/2009 23:37:19
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
Hahaha, ECM is stacking nerfed? Hahahaha, no it's not. Please go away.
It is more stacking nerfed than anything else. Once a single one takes effect all others are rendered useless, they don't add anything. Now if each ECM that succeeded added + 20s of jam, THEN they wouldn't be.
Haha, no you're wrong. ECM has no stacking nerf.
Besides your example is moot. You dont just activate all your ecm modules on the target. You activate one and one and therefor you dont get overlapping successes. But I can see why you would think that when looking at the other non sense you have written here.
Please prove it (in an actual formula to compute chances with independent attempts) that there is no "stacking mode" in the chance based mechanic of ECM. I'm just curious if you really know it or if you know someone who knows someone who knows how to...
Proud member of RZR - Decadence. |
Camilo Cienfuegos
Earned In Blood
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 00:29:00 -
[348]
Edited by: Camilo Cienfuegos on 15/01/2009 00:32:41
Quote: The reason why falcon pilots cycle their jammers one by one is you can actually see which one is the lucky one, and if it happens to be the first one you saved a few jammers.
That and assuming you're using the 5 second rule and even if you miss the fact that the first jam worked, the 20 second effect will override the 15 seconds remaining on the previous jammer, freeing up the first one 5 seconds before the second is due to expire.
It's a very elegant combat style compared to most ships really
Quote: Please prove it (in an actual formula to compute chances with independent attempts) that there is no "stacking mode" in the chance based mechanic of ECM. I'm just curious if you really know it or if you know someone who knows someone who knows how to...
Given that I and I assume many others have demonstrated that formula and the equation for combined jam attempts as well in both active threads, doing so would really be an exercise in seeing how well they listened in math class - ECM Balancing Proposal - 50% increase in effectiveness! |
Dasalt Istgut
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 01:38:00 -
[349]
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong ECM is overpowered. You have to real stupid to not understand that. Just to put it out there.
You got soloed by a stabber. Just to put that out there. |
Dasalt Istgut
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 01:44:00 -
[350]
Originally by: SLIM It's funny how you hear the ecm apologists spouting the exact same type of arguments that the nano apologists had.
At least the curse is still a good ship without being nano'd. Remove Caldari ECM and they've got like, what? The Rokh, Onyx and Blarpy, amirite? |
|
Amira Shadowsong
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 04:55:00 -
[351]
Edited by: Amira Shadowsong on 15/01/2009 04:58:18 Edited by: Amira Shadowsong on 15/01/2009 04:56:06
Originally by: Camilo Cienfuegos
Given that I and I assume many others have demonstrated that formula and the equation for combined jam attempts as well in both active threads, doing so would really be an exercise in seeing how well they listened in math class
Yeah, math that is faulty. Someof us went to something better then community college (I'm even being generous with that statement by the looks of the posts in this thread) my friend, read and weep:
Originally by: chrisss0r Edited by: chrisss0r on 15/01/2009 01:01:04 Edited by: chrisss0r on 15/01/2009 01:00:29 What people always miss out and what really makes the computing of permajamchances difficult (and no i don't mean difficult in like people cannot compute chances....) is the fact that you can try a single jammer and if you don't succeed you can add another.
This has 2 major effects: 1. If the falcon misses a cycle on you you don' get a full cycle of not beeing jamed. You earn the second of not beeing jammed till more jammers are applied which is why there are many more "permajams" experienced than on paper.
2. To compute the jamming chances for every single jammer u add you need the bayesian probability calculus. it's a bit complicated to explain it to such fools as you are but i'll try:
The moment you put a jammer on a ship and get a success or a fail u have gathered information. This results in not adding a second jammer in the moment of success or adding a second jammer in the moment of fail. The fact that you don't add your space jammers in a moment of success leads to the higher propabilities of permajamming This game has as many stages as a falcon has jammers free and together with (1) it is why so many more permajams occur than the (1-jamchance)^number of jammers fumula returns The formula is still true but only after you have all your jammers applied. So to speak the chance of jamming someone if highly biased into the beginning of a fight, and most of eves fights don't last long enough
So please shut the **** up if you have no clue
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability
Oh and I dare you to refute this tbh, you'll just make a fool out of yourself. You know why? Many of us have studied maths on college level here, we kow when you are putting up bull**** maths.
2nd. Let me put this short and clear: 3 Sbs can fend off 100 damps on any ship. Why? Because damps are stacking nerfed. 3 ECCM do not fend off 100 ECM. Why? Because ECM is not stacking nerfed. Can you get this into your skull?
It's been fun having you in this thread but it is time for you to go troll somewhere else. |
Spaztick
Canadian Imperial Armaments Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 05:28:00 -
[352]
1 > .999999.... discuss ...but on a serious note, more people should have some type of spacer in their sigs to show it's not part of the post.
|
Major Celine
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 06:02:00 -
[353]
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong 2nd. Let me put this short and clear: 3 Sbs can fend off 100 damps on any ship. Why? Because damps are stacking nerfed. 3 ECCM do not fend off 100 ECM. Why? Because ECM is not stacking nerfed. Can you get this into your skull?
Let's say 3 ECM-racials make 45% chance each. And now you are telling me that using those at the same time or in a row makes 135% chance in total? Or a 100% at least because it's not kinda stacked?
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong Many of us have studied maths on college level here, we kow when you are putting up bull**** maths.
Quoted for future reference. |
Amira Shadowsong
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 07:38:00 -
[354]
Originally by: Major Celine
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong 2nd. Let me put this short and clear: 3 Sbs can fend off 100 damps on any ship. Why? Because damps are stacking nerfed. 3 ECCM do not fend off 100 ECM. Why? Because ECM is not stacking nerfed. Can you get this into your skull?
Let's say 3 ECM-racials make 45% chance each. And now you are telling me that using those at the same time or in a row makes 135% chance in total? Or a 100% at least because it's not kinda stacked?
No, let's not "say".
It is really really really simple:
3 SBs can fend off 100 damps, because damps ARE STACKING NERFED. 3 ECCM CANT fend off 100 ECMs, because ECM is NOT STACKING NERFED.
Comprende?
|
Major Celine
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 07:44:00 -
[355]
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong It is really really really simple:
3 SBs can fend off 100 damps, because damps ARE STACKING NERFED. 3 ECCM CANT fend off 100 ECMs, because ECM is NOT STACKING NERFED.
Comprende?
Hmm, you compare apples and pies. It's like comparing missile mechanics and turret mechanics. No argument.
|
Amira Shadowsong
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 08:09:00 -
[356]
Originally by: Major Celine
Hmm, you compare apples and pies.
BINGO!
A break through! Yes, it is like comparing apples and pies because ECM is not stacking nerfed unlike other EW like damps.
|
Major Celine
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 08:47:00 -
[357]
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
Originally by: Major Celine
Hmm, you compare apples and pies.
BINGO!
A break through! Yes, it is like comparing apples and pies because ECM is not stacking nerfed unlike other EW like damps.
And it works in a completely different mechanic that doesn't need stacking penalty but has the similar effect. Not hard to understand, is it?
|
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 08:52:00 -
[358]
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
Originally by: Etho Demerzel Edited by: Etho Demerzel on 14/01/2009 23:37:19
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
Hahaha, ECM is stacking nerfed? Hahahaha, no it's not. Please go away.
It is more stacking nerfed than anything else. Once a single one takes effect all others are rendered useless, they don't add anything. Now if each ECM that succeeded added + 20s of jam, THEN they wouldn't be.
Haha, no you're wrong. ECM has no stacking nerf.
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.
|
Camilo Cienfuegos
Earned In Blood
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 11:15:00 -
[359]
Quote: Oh and I dare you to refute this tbh, you'll just make a fool out of yourself. You know why? Many of us have studied maths on college level here, we kow when you are putting up bull**** maths.
I don't refute the mathematical principles behind the bayesian method at all, but until we have data to do the calculations with there is simply no argument. You've also managed to get your knickers into so much of a twist that you've started arguing with everyone in the thread, be they for or against changes to ECM.
I do hope sleeping has managed to calm you down. - ECM Balancing Proposal - 50% increase in effectiveness! |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 11:31:00 -
[360]
Edited by: Murina on 15/01/2009 11:32:13
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
Originally by: chrisss0r
What people always miss out and what really makes the computing of permajamchances difficult (and no i don't mean difficult in like people cannot compute chances....) is the fact that you can try a single jammer and if you don't succeed you can add another.
This has 2 major effects: 1. If the falcon misses a cycle on you you don' get a full cycle of not being jamed. You earn the second of not beeing jammed till more jammers are applied which is why there are many more "permajams" experienced than on paper.
2. To compute the jamming chances for every single jammer u add you need the bayesian probability calculus. it's a bit complicated to explain it to such fools as you are but i'll try:
The moment you put a jammer on a ship and get a success or a fail u have gathered information. This results in not adding a second jammer in the moment of success or adding a second jammer in the moment of fail. The fact that you don't add your space jammers in a moment of success leads to the higher propabilities of permajamming This game has as many stages as a falcon has jammers free and together with (1) it is why so many more permajams occur than the (1-jamchance)^number of jammers fumula returns The formula is still true but only after you have all your jammers applied. So to speak the chance of jamming someone if highly biased into the beginning of a fight, and most of eves fights don't last long enough
So please shut the **** up if you have no clue
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability
Oh and I dare you to refute this tbh, you'll just make a fool out of yourself. You know why? Many of us have studied maths on college level here, we kow when you are putting up bull**** maths.
So you studied maths at college, and what you gained from it is the ability to figure out that if a ECM ship fits a full rack of a single race of jammers (say gallente) that he will have a better chance of jamming gallente ships than a player who's ECM ship fitted 1 jammer of each race.......
WOW...did they also show you this amazing invention called the wheel while you were at college?.
|
|
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. |
|
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?
|
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 00:01:00 -
[421]
Edited by: Murina on 16/01/2009 00:05:57
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
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?
Exactly my point, a well setup gang can adapt to a situation, while solo fighting is totally about if the ship you are fighting is fitted so your fitting and ship can beat it or not.
A unexpected fitting and the solo player dies cos as i said he already knows what ships and standard fits he can beat.
That is not pvp it is target selection for easy kills. |
Jonas Barcal
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 00:03:00 -
[422]
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
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?
I'd assume it means the larger the group the more variety of setup in the fleet allowing flexibility in offence/defence that you can't get in a solo ship.
*** While personally I'm not much into solo stuff I appreciate those who try.
As a general rule tho I'll bring a kitchen sink and a nuclear weapon to a fist fight if I can |
Etho Demerzel
Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 00:07:00 -
[423]
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
1. This has nothing to do with stacking penalty.
Sure it has, the difference between 10 jammers and 9 jammers in this same scenario is of 4%, while the difference in effectivety between 1 jammer and 2 would be of 87%.
Can you see the benefits decreasing as the number of jammers increase? ECMs have natural stack penalties. Those penalties may not be strong enough for YOUR tastes, but they DO exist.
Quote:
2. The 3xSBs is just an example, dont be so anal.
Your example was about 3 SB in a frigate. It is impossible to fit 3 SB in a frigate and in MOST CRUISERS, without completely gimping them. So what is exactly the point of your example? Do you want to show that if you totally gimp yourself, sensor dampeners can't gimp you much further? Well done!
Quote:
3. 10km frigs are not useless. Did you get that memo about QR and web nerfs? You fail.
10 km lock frigs without ANYTHING BUT SB in their mids actually are COMPLETELY useless.
Quote:
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?
Read above for your continuing education. |
Amira Shadowsong
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 00:07:00 -
[424]
Originally by: Murina
Exactly my point, a well setup gang can adapt to a situation, while solo fighting is totally about if the ship you are fighting is fitted so you can beat it or not.
A unexpected fitting and the solo player dies cos as i said he already knows what ships and standard fits he can beat.
That is not pvp it is target selection for easy kills.
Sorry but a mixed fleet is less skill. Why? Because it CAN kill any encounter as long as it is big enough. Yeah good skill. We all know blobbing is the best tactic to win, sad thing is that you are proud of it. A little memo for ya also: Solo pvpers win alot of engagements eventhough they have non optimal fits and non optimal engagement terms. How you call that less skill then blobbing is beyond me. |
Amira Shadowsong
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 00:08:00 -
[425]
Originally by: Etho Demerzel
10 km lock frigs without ANYTHING BUT SB in their mids actually are COMPLETELY useless.
That's not what you said. You said a 10km frig is useless. |
Amira Shadowsong
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 00:10:00 -
[426]
Originally by: Etho Demerzel
Your example was about 3 SB in a frigate. It is impossible to fit 3 SB in a frigate and in MOST CRUISERS, without completely gimping them. So what is exactly the point of your example? Do you want to show that if you totally gimp yourself, sensor dampeners can't gimp you much further? Well done!
The core point still holds if you fit one single sensor booster. Allthough I'm not surpised that you are not capable of understanding this. One single SB will help to certain degree against 1000 damps. It will boost your lock range by noticable amount.
One ECCM will not do you jack good against 1000 ECM. DO YOU UNDERSTAND? IS THIS DIFFICULT? |
Etho Demerzel
Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 00:13:00 -
[427]
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
Originally by: Etho Demerzel
10 km lock frigs without ANYTHING BUT SB in their mids actually are COMPLETELY useless.
That's not what you said. You said a 10km frig is useless.
What I said is a 10 km frig using 3 SBs (I actually made a type and wrote 2). After all I had no motive at all to refer to any frig but the comedy one you proposed.
If you didn't understand that is just one more thing you don't understand, no big deal as your collection is quite large.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 00:15:00 -
[428]
Edited by: Murina on 16/01/2009 00:16:24
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
Sorry but a mixed fleet is less skill. Why? Because it CAN kill any encounter as long as it is big enough. Yeah good skill. We all know blobbing is the best tactic to win, sad thing is that you are proud of it.
I never said anything about blobbing i was refering to fighting equal and greater numbers. But as per usual you try to troll and manipulate your way out of a ass kicking...
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong Solo pvpers win alot of engagements even though they have non optimal fits and non optimal engagement terms.
Solo pvpers roam around looking for ratters (you know the guys with no tackle/web lol) or sit waiting travelers.....so real hard targets, and they still lose ship when faced with summat fitted differently that they expected.
A good pvp gang roams around looking for or provoking corps/alliances into sending pvp fitted gangs after them, then using team work and skill to kick ass. |
Etho Demerzel
Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 00:20:00 -
[429]
Edited by: Etho Demerzel on 16/01/2009 00:25:36
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong The core point still holds if you fit one single sensor booster. Allthough I'm not surpised that you are not capable of understanding this. One single SB will help to certain degree against 1000 damps. It will boost your lock range by noticable amount.
Sure and this degree would be...? Oh let me tell you, in our nice malediction example that is about 4.5 km. Niiiice target range!!!!!
And bear in mind that dampeners are THE worst form of EW at the moment, god help you if you start comparing trackign disruptor effectiveness, where ONE tracking disruptor can't be countered by any number of tracking modules.
Quote:
One ECCM will not do you jack good against 1000 ECM. DO YOU UNDERSTAND? IS THIS DIFFICULT?
It will. Actually the more ECM that are thrown at you the better an ECCM module gets. For 1000 ECMs Your chances of NOT BEING JAMMED improve around 10^32 times if you have an ECCM fitted. |
Amira Shadowsong
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 00:22:00 -
[430]
Originally by: Murina
A good pvp gang roams around looking for or provoking corps/alliances into sending pvp fitted gangs after them, then using team work and skill to kick ass.
But that is not what you do. |
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 00:26:00 -
[431]
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
Originally by: Murina
A good pvp gang roams around looking for or provoking corps/alliances into sending pvp fitted gangs after them, then using team work and skill to kick ass.
But that is not what you do.
Its exactly what i do and have done for a very long time, a solo noob and carebear ganker like you could never understand high spec pvp and the naivety of your posting makes that obvious. |
Amira Shadowsong
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 00:27:00 -
[432]
Originally by: Murina
Its exactly what i do and have done for a very long time, a solo noob and carebear ganker like you could never understand high spec pvp and the naivety of your posting makes that obvious.
No one is buying your "skill". Why? You don't have anything to show. Empty perpetual babble.
|
Etho Demerzel
Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 00:29:00 -
[433]
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
Originally by: Murina
Its exactly what i do and have done for a very long time, a solo noob and carebear ganker like you could never understand high spec pvp and the naivety of your posting makes that obvious.
No one is buying your "skill". Why? You don't have anything to show. Empty perpetual babble.
Hey focus in the discussion, I want to see how many absurdities you still have in storage. =====
"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 - 2009.01.16 00:31:00 -
[434]
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
Originally by: Murina
Its exactly what i do and have done for a very long time, a solo noob and carebear ganker like you could never understand high spec pvp and the naivety of your posting makes that obvious.
ad hominem
Any body reading your posts sees how noob you are i do not need to point it out, il just stay on topic i think.
So tell us more about how you "perma" jam 3-4 BS in your falcon, or how you think its a good idea to split fit racial's between 2 falcons in 10 man gangs.....
|
Amira Shadowsong
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 00:32:00 -
[435]
Originally by: Etho Demerzel
Hey focus in the discussion, I want to see how many absurdities you still have in storage.
Easy to say I got the biggest house when you don't even show a picture of it. Sry but I smell alot of bull**** from both of you.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 00:36:00 -
[436]
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
Originally by: Etho Demerzel
Hey focus in the discussion, I want to see how many absurdities you still have in storage.
Easy to say I got the biggest house when you don't even show a picture of it. Sry but I smell alot of bull**** from both of you.
If you cannot discount the posting try to discount the poster hey pal????....
Come on tell us more about you perma jamming all those multiple BS in your falcon again i need a laugh....
|
Christari Zuborov
Amarr Ore Mongers
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 00:38:00 -
[437]
*snip - Mitnal* |
Etho Demerzel
Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 00:45:00 -
[438]
*snip - Mitnal* |
Amira Shadowsong
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 00:47:00 -
[439]
Originally by: Etho Demerzel Truth is, you are a small button presser.
Truth is that you have no skill. You think I'm gonna be bullied by your little special people squad? Don't make me laugh.
|
|
CCP Mitnal
C C P CCP
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 00:48:00 -
[440]
Cleaned.
Please stay on-topic, discussing other players' posting style is not on-topic.
Mitnal Community Representative CCP Hf, EVE Online Email |
|
|
Jonas Barcal
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 00:54:00 -
[441]
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
Truth is that you have no skill.
Truth is skill doesn't matter if you lose..
MMO bring friends solo might not be dead yet but we're trying
|
Amira Shadowsong
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 00:55:00 -
[442]
Originally by: Jonas Barcal
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
Truth is that you have no skill.
Truth is skill doesn't matter if you lose..
MMO bring friends solo might not be dead yet but we're trying
I don't lose. My kill stats are quite positive.
|
Jonas Barcal
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 00:56:00 -
[443]
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
I don't lose. My kill stats are quite positive.
Give it time. The numbers game gets them all in the end
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 01:00:00 -
[444]
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
Originally by: Jonas Barcal
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
Truth is that you have no skill.
Truth is skill doesn't matter if you lose..
MMO bring friends solo might not be dead yet but we're trying
I don't lose. My kill stats are quite positive.
Solo ganking nubs and carebears who do not even have tackle fitted so even if you get into trouble you can bail is hardly summat to be proud of, or particularly skillful..... |
Etho Demerzel
Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 01:01:00 -
[445]
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
I don't lose. My kill stats are quite positive.
Positive as in ganking a lot of people to get a good K/D ratio? When was the last time you won an even fight? Let me guess, you don't even remember it... |
Amira Shadowsong
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 01:03:00 -
[446]
Originally by: Murina
Solo ganking nubs and carebears who do not even have tackle fitted so even if you get into trouble you can bail is hardly summat to be proud of, or particularly skillful.....
Wait so solo is harder then what you do? You sit in a gang of 20 and kill one ship. Humor me and show me 10 of your kills that is not a gank. You can't. Why? Because you are full of it. GO away. |
Amira Shadowsong
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 01:04:00 -
[447]
Originally by: Etho Demerzel
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
I don't lose. My kill stats are quite positive.
Positive as in ganking a lot of people to get a good K/D ratio? When was the last time you won an even fight? Let me guess, you don't even remember it...
Uhm I win even fights. How about you? Show us 10 even fights. Come on, with several years of playing you must be able to show 10 leet kills. You sure talk like you have alot of them. Show us your skill. You can't I bet. Why? Because you are full of it. Go play tough amongst special people, you might succeed if you are lucky. Here, you are out of luck. |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 01:08:00 -
[448]
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
Wait so solo is harder then what you do?
Nope solo is target selection...thats it.
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong You sit in a gang of 20 and kill one ship.
Actually 20 man gangs are a bit larger than i like, upto a max of around 10 is preferable as with the right setup it has good alpha/dps for hit and run against larger gangs while also not being to blobby and uncontrollable.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 01:17:00 -
[449]
Edited by: Murina on 16/01/2009 01:21:54
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
Wait so solo is harder then what you do?
No solo is math and fitting for a specific target/ship type...here listen to somebody who claims to be a expert...
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
This is a cruiser killer fit and it has a fighting chance against ceptors aswell.
I know how to ****ing fit a pure anti inty crusader.
Problem is that the anti inty fit is absolutely crap against cruisers and AFs.
|
Amira Shadowsong
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 03:07:00 -
[450]
Originally by: Murina
No solo is math and fitting for a specific target/ship type...here listen to somebody who claims to be a expert...
My records are in the open for everyone to see. Unlike your leet skills that we only "hear" about. You fail troll. |
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 09:33:00 -
[451]
Edited by: Murina on 16/01/2009 09:34:22
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
Originally by: Murina
No solo is math and fitting for a specific target/ship type...here listen to somebody who claims to be a expert...
My records are in the open for everyone to see. Unlike your leet skills that we only "hear" about. You fail troll.
Oh oh...your posting is open to others as well pal...you are the one that needs specific "i-win vs X" fits to get kills, and you call that skill?.
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
This is a cruiser killer fit and it has a fighting chance against ceptors aswell.
I know how to ****ing fit a pure anti inty crusader.
Problem is that the anti inty fit is absolutely crap against cruisers and AFs.
|
Camilo Cienfuegos
Earned In Blood
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 09:41:00 -
[452]
Originally by: CCP Mitnal Cleaned.
Please stay on-topic, discussing other players' posting style is not on-topic.
Please just kill this topic. No good can come of it now, as it's long since decended past every form of fallacial argument and the only remaining debaters are completely entrenched with no real desire to discuss the mechanics of ECM and ECM ships at all. There are surely enough rule breaking posts within this thread to justify it, and you'd be doing the rest of us a favour by closing it.
Please, end it now. ECM is far to polarized an issue for some people to discuss. |
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N.
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 10:15:00 -
[453]
I doubt that any further value will be obtained from this thread.
Please close it. |
Irida Mershkov
Gallente Noir.
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 10:35:00 -
[454]
O Mitnal! Purge this thread! |
Jonas Barcal
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 10:37:00 -
[455]
Agreed time for a close..
|
mcnuggetlol
Amarr Cold Blooded Killers
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 10:38:00 -
[456]
Let's take as much variety and tactical thinking out of PVP as possible dammit! I WANNA BE ABLE TO CIRCLE AT MY OPTIMAL, PRESS F1 AND NOT HAVE TO THINK ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE UNTIL I'VE WON |
Joe Martin
Gunship Diplomacy
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 17:38:00 -
[457]
Edited by: Joe Martin on 16/01/2009 17:47:11 ECM just makes it that much more thoughtless; I don't even get to press F1 anymore because I can't get a lock on anything.
I have several problems with falcons that have probably been beaten to death, but what the hell. Toss me the bat, I'm going at this horse.
1) The totality of the effect. Every other method of Ewar (which we'll generalize into non-damaging combat abilities) is manageable to a greater or lesser degree through basic game mechanics. ECM removes you from the fight COMPLETELY. Not only is there no active counter for it, but the ONLY counter (ECCM) has no predictable chance to actually work. When jammed there is quite literally NOTHING you can do, aside from watching yourself die while being unable to even attempt to maneuver yourself out of the situation.
1.A) This is not fun. At all. How the idea for a game mechanic that completely and entirely removes people from the fight (other than the ability to die) even got added to the game in the first place is beyond me.
2) ECCM as it stands is NOT an effective counter. ECM is, in and of itself, a benign combat ability (not damaging, as we already went over); a gang of falcons won't be able to do much besides jam targets and then stare at them. The problem is there's no such thing as a gang of falcons. Ships that actually shoot at you are more of a primary concern. People like to suggest, however, that we sacrifice combat effectiveness (and in ships smaller than a battlecruiser hull, a LOT of combat effectiveness via limited slots and lower base sensor strength) on the offchance that an opposing gang may or may not have a falcon. And even then, all that combat effectiveness you gave up doesn't ensure that you won't ever get jammed, and since it is purely a matter of probability, no amount of piloting skill will assist in preventing jams either. What a horrible solution.
3) Risk vs. Reward. Understanding that ECM is too deeply rooted for a lot of people to let go of, I realize that it will probably never be removed from the game in its current incarnation (a shame, really). But EVE at its heart has always been about risk vs reward. Want to fly expensive T2 ships for that extra combat edge? Fine, you'll pay for it AND not get insurance. The problem with the falcon is that there is almost ZERO risk for the monumental impact it has on fights. Again, dead horse here, but they just warp on grid cloaked, uncloak 200km away, align, start jamming. If anything gets too close for comfort, warp off. Even if other ships get a warp in on it he can warp off as soon as they land. Even assuming that someone does get a tackle, they'll just drop all their other targets and jam that guy THEN warp off. Any falcon pilot that's at all paying attention is NOT going to die.
3.A) The low risk we already covered. The reward is also part of the problem. Any given falcon pilot will likely be able effectively remove 3 pilots from the fight. Not only will they be removed from the fight, unable to act or fight back, but they'll get the pleasure of dying along with the rest of their gang. Another problem is that this effect scales massively the less people there are in the gang. The smaller the opposing gang the more effective the falcon is, and a LOT of people have falcons today.
4) "Without ECM the game would be 'whoever has the better tank wins.'" Take a vacation from the forums, delete EFT, and actually PVP for a change. If I really need to explain to you how utterly garbage this argument is then you have no right to be in any PVP mechanics related discussion period.
5) This is not a whine. Play to win, I know; I read all of Sirlin's blogs too. Falcons are always welcome in any gang I fly in. They are a HUGE combat advantage. But that doesn't mean I have to like or necessarily agree with the way they work. I play games, this game in particular, for two reasons: A) To have fun B) To compete. Falcons as they stand are a detriment to both
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 17:55:00 -
[458]
Edited by: Murina on 16/01/2009 18:04:09
Originally by: Joe Martin
1) The totality of the effect. Every other method of Ewar (which we'll generalize into non-damaging combat abilities) is manageable to a greater or lesser degree through basic game mechanics. ECM removes you from the fight COMPLETELY.
FOF, drones, non-static/stationary combat tactics or variable range fittings/setups.......
Originally by: Joe Martin 2) ECCM as it stands is NOT an effective counter.
Its a buffer against ecm and very effective when used on certain ships it is not a 100% guaranteed counter nor should it be.
Originally by: Joe Martin 3) Risk vs. Reward.
Ships that operate at long range all share a certain amount of invulnerability to getting hit (by ppl with limited range fits) or caught. The effect of ECM is very frustrating but it is also something that if relied on can lose a fight as well as it can help win it with a simple missed jam.
Also ECM ships are highly ineffective in large numbers as well as the fact that ECM modules are virtually worthless on non bonused ships while other ewar systems work rather well on any ship. |
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 18:12:00 -
[459]
Originally by: Murina
Also ECM ships are highly ineffective in large numbers as well as the fact that ECM modules are virtually worthless on non bonused ships while other ewar systems work rather well on any ship.
Exactly, compare with TDs and then talk about overpowered |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 18:21:00 -
[460]
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
Originally by: Murina
Also ECM ships are highly ineffective in large numbers as well as the fact that ECM modules are virtually worthless on non bonused ships while other ewar systems work rather well on any ship.
Exactly, compare with TDs and then talk about overpowered
Fitted on a non bonused or solo ship?....sure..
TD's are better by far. |
|
Joe Martin
Gunship Diplomacy
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 18:32:00 -
[461]
Edited by: Joe Martin on 16/01/2009 18:32:29
Originally by: Murina FOF, drones, non-static/stationary combat tactics or variable range fittings/setups.......
Assuming you're in a ship with drones/missiles, sure. I'm also not quite sure what not being stationary has to do with not being able to lock anything. Though adding tracking to ECM modules would be a comical (if not slightly effective?) fix.
Originally by: Murina Its a buffer against ecm and very effective when used on certain ships it is not a 100% guaranteed counter nor should it be.
I wasn't suggesting that it should be. The point was that too much combat viability must be sacrificed (especially on ships smaller than a battlecruiser hull) to really make ECCM worth its role. Re(actually)read my post about that if you want clarification on this point.
Originally by: Murina Ships that operate at long range all share a certain amount of invulnerability to getting hit (by ppl with limited range fits) or caught.
Yes all ships that operate at range share a certain degree of invulnerability. But what the falcon does not share with them is that other ships must also sacrifice a load of effectiveness to get that range. Why should the falcon be any different?
What I'd like to see is a falcon that has an outstanding jam strength from 30km and but also has a rough time keeping a rifter jammed from 200km. Risk vs. reward.
Originally by: Murina The effect of ECM is very frustrating but it is also something that if relied on can lose a fight as well as it can help win it with a simple missed jam.
The "putting all your eggs in one basket" syndrome. If a game mechanic relying purely on chance will make or break your gang and you know this going into a fight then I'd say that the problem is your FC, not ECM.
Originally by: Murina Also ECM ships are highly ineffective in large numbers as well as the fact that ECM modules are virtually worthless on non bonused ships while other ewar systems work rather well on any ship.
ECM is effective all the way up to fleet fights. Neutralized DPS is neutralized DPS. However you're correct in that it's curve of effectiveness gets exponentially larger as the number of targets decreases. What other ship can render a small gang dead in the water from 200km?
Perhaps having ECM be effective on non-bonused ships would bring the much needed changes more quickly.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 19:02:00 -
[462]
Edited by: Murina on 16/01/2009 19:06:42 Edited by: Murina on 16/01/2009 19:02:49
Originally by: Joe Martin
Assuming you're in a ship with drones/missiles, sure. I'm also not quite sure what not being stationary has to do with not being able to lock anything. Though adding tracking to ECM modules would be a comical (if not slightly effective?) fix.
Mobility is the most effective counter to ewar heavy gangs.
Originally by: Joe Martin Yes all ships that operate at range share a certain degree of invulnerability. But what the falcon does not share with them is that other ships must also sacrifice a load of effectiveness to get that range. Why should the falcon be any different?
Because unlike the other systems that operate and get more effective at close range, ECM gets less effective due to its chance based mechanic.
Originally by: Joe Martin The "putting all your eggs in one basket" syndrome. If a game mechanic relying purely on chance will make or break your gang and you know this going into a fight then I'd say that the problem is your FC, not ECM.
Exactly..the close range gankers and tankers in this thread and others are claiming that ECM (a chance based system) is causing them to lose..and you are also right it is their FC's not ecm.
Originally by: Joe Martin ECM is effective all the way up to fleet fights.
High numbers of ecm ships in large fleet ops are ineffective as target assignment is imposable.
Originally by: Joe Martin What other ship can render a small gang dead in the water from 200km?
No ship can do it not even the falcon, a gang always has the option to reposition and use hit and run tactics. PPL really need to be mobile in combat as lock target f5 is not skill.
|
Joe Martin
Gunship Diplomacy
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 19:33:00 -
[463]
Edited by: Joe Martin on 16/01/2009 19:33:12
Originally by: Murina Mobility is the most effective counter to ewar heavy gangs.
If by mobility you mean to move out of the effective range of the falcon, I see several problems with that argument. Namely that the falcon's range is dictated by its own gang. If you want to move out of range of the falcon then you're likely going to move out of the range of the people you're shooting at in tandem.
Falcon pilots also have this nasty habit of having tactical warps just about everywhere, which further removes your ability to move completely out of range of a falcon. A lot of ships are just too slow, at that.
Originally by: Murina Because unlike the other systems that operate and get more effective at close range, ECM gets less effective due to its chance based mechanic.
Buh? Are you saying that ECM gets less effective the closer you are? I was unaware.
Originally by: Murina Exactly..the close range gankers and tankers in this thread and others are claiming that ECM (a chance based system) is causing them to lose..and you are also right it is their FC's and skills not ecm that is the problem.
I think you misunderstood me, or rather missed the "make or break" part of my comment. If the falcon is your veritable ace in the hole, the crux of your gang to the point that perma-jams are required for victory then yes, you have a bad FC. A gang engaging not having previously seen falcons, when 2 of them then decloak after aggro has been established, its just ends up as one of those "welp" scenarios as you watch your gang get executed with its hands tied.
And don't suggest that we can just burn after the falcon everytime it shows up on grid. It takes a LONG time for even a ceptor to make it 200km to a falcon. God help anything else that tries to boat after one.
Originally by: Murina High numbers of ecm ships in large fleet ops are ineffective as target assignment is imposable.
Or, if you instead take full advantage of everything vent has to offer, all the ECM can sit in a different channel and talk targets amongst themselves while still being able to hear the FC from another channel.
Plus ECM in fleet fights isn't so much concerned with who in particular is jammed, just that DPS is jammed.
Originally by: Murina No ship can do it not even the falcon, a gang always has the option to reposition and use hit and run tactics. PPL really need to be mobile in combat as lock target f5 is not skill.
Hit and run only really works if your targets decide to engage back, and as soon as aggression has been established on both sides (unless you're ganking t1 frigs) an opposing gang's falcon will have ample time to uncloak and jam.
And if you're suggesting that you "get mobile" on a falcon, well, I think we already went over how even a half awake falcon pilot can very easily avoid death.
And stop associating the word "skill" with activating modules. The actual combat mechanics in EVE are not complicated. 95% of the time once both sides have aggressed the fight is already decided. The hard part, the fun part of EVE, is maneuvering your enemy into a position such that they're on the losing end of the deal while still getting them to stick around for a fight. That's what takes skill.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 20:00:00 -
[464]
Edited by: Murina on 16/01/2009 20:06:05
Originally by: Joe Martin
If by mobility you mean to move out of the effective range of the falcon, I see several problems with that argument. Namely that the falcon's range is dictated by its own gang. If you want to move out of range of the falcon then you're likely going to move out of the range of the people you're shooting at in tandem.
EVE is a 3d game and as such you can be in a position outside the range of a falcon while also within range of his buddies, also warpins and out in hit and run attacks are very useful against larger numbers no matter how many falcons they have.
Originally by: Joe Martin Falcon pilots also have this nasty habit of having tactical warps just about everywhere, which further removes your ability to move completely out of range of a falcon.
Tactical warp points around gates or stations ect ect are available for everybody to make, just because the falcon pilot was smart enough and industrious enough to have some is to that pilots credit and if another player does not that is hardly a ship issue.
Originally by: Joe Martin Buh? Are you saying that ECM gets less effective the closer you are? I was unaware.
YUP, at close range all other systems work 100% and you know what to expect from them, but because ecm is chance based it cannot be predicted and as such at close range if you miss a jam you are dead.
Originally by: Joe Martin I think you misunderstood me, or rather missed the "make or break" part of my comment. If the falcon is your veritable ace in the hole, the crux of your gang to the point that perma-jams are required for victory then yes, you have a bad FC.
I understood the "make or break" comment perfectly (although i disagree with it tbh) but it is a two edged sword that cuts both ways as the falcon is a chance based mechanic.
Originally by: Joe Martin Or, if you instead take full advantage of everything vent has to offer, all the ECM can sit in a different channel and talk targets amongst themselves while still being able to hear the FC from another channel.
In a fleet fight and i will be generous and say its only 100 vs 100 assigning that many individual jams to so many individual jam ships each with a rack of jammers over vent is imposable, the fight would be over before you got half way down the list.
The tactic i developed for using high numbers of falcons in fleet ops had falcon pilots fitted for a specific race each and then i gave then instruction to use the overview to select their own targets, IE: I told them to set overview by race then 5 with amarr jammers fitted i told to start jamming amarr ships at certain parts of the overview so pilot number 1 started at the top number 2 started 6 ships down ect ect and i did this per race.
And even that was not perfectly effective as missed jams and forced warpouts left holes and the bigger the holes the more warp outs, the bigger the holes and on and on ect ect....
Originally by: Joe Martin The hard part, the fun part of EVE, is maneuvering your enemy into a position such that they're on the losing end of the deal while still getting them to stick around for a fight. That's what takes skill.
So picking a spot that falcons have a bunch of 200km BM's is the FC's rather silly idea?.
Originally by: Joe Martin The actual combat mechanics in EVE are not complicated. 95% of the time once both sides have aggressed the fight is already decided
Maybe and maybe not, things change in a fight and any gang (or even individual player in the gang) that is not prepared to disengage and re-engage if they are caught flat footed or out maneuvered is a poorly skilled player/gang. |
Joe Martin
Gunship Diplomacy
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 20:18:00 -
[465]
Edited by: Joe Martin on 16/01/2009 20:18:35
Originally by: Murina stuff.
Well I really didn't come in with the intention of arguing with a straw man troll, so I won't.
"Progress is impossible without change; those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything." - George Bernard Shaw
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 20:24:00 -
[466]
Edited by: Murina on 16/01/2009 20:26:17
Originally by: Joe Martin
Well I really didn't come in arguing as i am a straw man troll, so I won't.
Fixed.
Now go away or add content troll.
PS: are you another of lyria's (the i-win ship vs X uber ganker) alts or just a pet?
|
Joe Martin
Gunship Diplomacy
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 21:22:00 -
[467]
Originally by: Murina Fixed.
Now go away or add content troll.
PS: are you another of lyria's (the i-win ship vs X uber ganker) alts or just a pet?
Confirming that I am Lyria.
Lyria and I are in the same corp (if you hadn't noticed already), but we rarely play together due to timezone differences.
@ the pet comment, sounds like someone's been reading CAOD a little too much, eh?
I believe I had enough content in my OP to substantiate my points, as well as the posts following. People can take it for what they want, but like I said, I'm not here to argue with trolls.
"Discontent is the first necessity of progress" - Thomas Edison
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 21:28:00 -
[468]
Originally by: Joe Martin
Confirming that I am Lyria.
Originally by: Joe Martin Lyria and I are in the same corp (if you hadn't noticed already), but we rarely play together due to timezone differences.
Yup, contradicting yourself and looking kinda stupid....its confirmed your definatly who you say you are.....and say you are not as well....
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong Solo is all about skill not ship fits
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong The anti inty fit is absolutely crap against cruisers and AFs.
|
Camilo Cienfuegos
Earned In Blood
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 21:32:00 -
[469]
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: Joe Martin
Confirming that I am Lyria.
Originally by: Joe Martin Lyria and I are in the same corp (if you hadn't noticed already), but we rarely play together due to timezone differences.
Yup, contradicting yourself and looking kinda stupid....its confirmed your definatly who you say you are.....and say you are not as well....
Just seeing whether it's possible to get the last word in a thread that should've died a long, long time ago?
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 21:59:00 -
[470]
|
|
|
CCP Mitnal
C C P CCP
|
Posted - 2009.01.16 23:00:00 -
[471]
Removed off-topic posts.
Please note that discussing anything to do with other posters or their style of posting is not on-topic, is subject to removal and potentially forum warnings/bans issued.
Mitnal Community Representative CCP Hf, EVE Online Email |
|
Ione Hunt
Imperial Shipment
|
Posted - 2009.01.18 06:16:00 -
[472]
Originally by: Joe Martin Edited by: Joe Martin on 16/01/2009 17:47:11 ECM just makes it that much more thoughtless; I don't even get to press F1 anymore because I can't get a lock on anything.
I have several problems with falcons that have probably been beaten to death, but what the hell. Toss me the bat, I'm going at this horse.
1) The totality of the effect. Every other method of Ewar (which we'll generalize into non-damaging combat abilities) is manageable to a greater or lesser degree through basic game mechanics. ECM removes you from the fight COMPLETELY. Not only is there no active counter for it, but the ONLY counter (ECCM) has no predictable chance to actually work. When jammed there is quite literally NOTHING you can do, aside from watching yourself die while being unable to even attempt to maneuver yourself out of the situation.
1.A) This is not fun. At all. How the idea for a game mechanic that completely and entirely removes people from the fight (other than the ability to die) even got added to the game in the first place is beyond me.
2) ECCM as it stands is NOT an effective counter. ECM is, in and of itself, a benign combat ability (not damaging, as we already went over); a gang of falcons won't be able to do much besides jam targets and then stare at them. The problem is there's no such thing as a gang of falcons. Ships that actually shoot at you are more of a primary concern. People like to suggest, however, that we sacrifice combat effectiveness (and in ships smaller than a battlecruiser hull, a LOT of combat effectiveness via limited slots and lower base sensor strength) on the offchance that an opposing gang may or may not have a falcon. And even then, all that combat effectiveness you gave up doesn't ensure that you won't ever get jammed, and since it is purely a matter of probability, no amount of piloting skill will assist in preventing jams either. What a horrible solution.
3) Risk vs. Reward. Understanding that ECM is too deeply rooted for a lot of people to let go of, I realize that it will probably never be removed from the game in its current incarnation (a shame, really). But EVE at its heart has always been about risk vs reward. Want to fly expensive T2 ships for that extra combat edge? Fine, you'll pay for it AND not get insurance. The problem with the falcon is that there is almost ZERO risk for the monumental impact it has on fights. Again, dead horse here, but they just warp on grid cloaked, uncloak 200km away, align, start jamming. If anything gets too close for comfort, warp off. Even if other ships get a warp in on it he can warp off as soon as they land. Even assuming that someone does get a tackle, they'll just drop all their other targets and jam that guy THEN warp off. Any falcon pilot that's at all paying attention is NOT going to die.
3.A) The low risk we already covered. The reward is also part of the problem. Any given falcon pilot will likely be able effectively remove 3 pilots from the fight. Not only will they be removed from the fight, unable to act or fight back, but they'll get the pleasure of dying along with the rest of their gang. Another problem is that this effect scales massively the less people there are in the gang. The smaller the opposing gang the more effective the falcon is, and a LOT of people have falcons today.
Quote worthy. I took a 1 year break from EVE, and spent the past 2 days flying around looking for fights. I like fighting outnumbered, and like taking risks, but EVERY BLOODY GANG I run into has a falcon. You can still find 1on1 fights, but forget about engaging a gang solo, if they have more than 3ppl in gang, they'll have at least 1 falcon and you can watch yourself die a slow death while not being able to counter it at all. Speed was nerfed, fine, I can deal with that, even if it makes roaming solo harder...but this ECM crap, and lack of counters kills all the fun.
ECCM does NOT work as intended...pls fix CCP _______________
My nerfed sig showed Angelina Jolie's lips with blood running out of her mouth |
Chacha Aha
|
Posted - 2009.01.18 06:42:00 -
[473]
i dont understand your argument murina. youre predicting that an unpredictable, chance based system loses effectiveness as range decreases? how are you able to know so well that it does lose its effectiveness if its chance based? the whole idea of "chance" just boggles the mind.
how does a chance based system lose effectiveness as range decreases? the chance to jam stays the same. the only things that change are the danger to the falcon and the range itself. if greater danger = loss in effectiveness, then yes, indeed falcons lose effectiveness as they close in. but in fact shouldnt it be the other way around? as range increases, shouldnt ECM lose effectiveness? like every other module in the game?
|
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.
|
Posted - 2009.01.18 06:57:00 -
[474]
Originally by: Chacha Aha
how does a chance based system lose effectiveness as range decreases? the chance to jam stays the same. the only things that change are the danger to the falcon and the range itself. if greater danger = loss in effectiveness, then yes, indeed falcons lose effectiveness as they close in. but in fact shouldnt it be the other way around? as range increases, shouldnt ECM lose effectiveness? like every other module in the game?
Look at what happened to the arazu/lachesis after the rsd nerf, they lost their range up to a crucial point as dampner efficiency got reduced and thus targets can lock further out, and suddenly changed from solopwnmobile to virtually extinct.
There is more to range in electronic warfare than you might think, look at TDs for example and how their optimal range is suspiciously close to where you are safe from the bulk of turrets after 1-2 mods are applied.
|
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. Dara Cothrom
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 14:51:00 -
[475]
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: Malcanis
Whereas not knowing if you're going to disrupt them at all is just fine...?
You know as soon as you activate the module if its worked or not with ALL ewar as it is and you know the exact effect they have.
Well ECM is gonna be nerfed, since CCP have low resists to whining. So you can have uncertain and weak or certain and weak.
Link to the announcement pls?.
I have seen a lot of threads started (by the same ppl over and over again) but all those threads would have died if it had not been for ppl saying ECM was fine.
Your argument and idea has failed try not to be so bitter about it.
I'd just like to say: nyah nyah I was right and you were wrong. Instead of being an arrogant, argumentative git, you could have made useful and constructive contributions, but no, you chose to just be totally negative.
And now look what you've got. The Falcon is still a crappy ship AND ECM has been nerfed. Nice one.
|
Colonel Xaven
Decadence. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 15:01:00 -
[476]
Originally by: Malcanis And now look what you've got. The Falcon is still a crappy ship AND ECM has been nerfed. Nice one.
ECM still jams people, people still won't fit ECCM. Whine posts will go on every now and then. Nothing changes.
Proud member of RZR - Decadence. |
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. Dara Cothrom
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 15:10:00 -
[477]
Originally by: Colonel Xaven
Originally by: Malcanis And now look what you've got. The Falcon is still a crappy ship AND ECM has been nerfed. Nice one.
ECM still jams people, people still won't fit ECCM. Whine posts will go on every now and then. Nothing changes.
Who cares - I won an argument on the internet!
|
Cletus Graeme
Caldari Duty.
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 16:16:00 -
[478]
What's the problem with ECM ships?
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: [one page] |