EVE Search - ECM: Balance Required?

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

ECM: Balance Required?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Camilo Cienfuegos Earned In Blood	Posted - 2009.01.13 15:43:00 - [1] Problem: Electronic Counter Measures (ECM) are unique amongst forms of Electronic Warfare (EW) in that they are the only school that operates on a chance based mechanism and do not suffer from a stacking penalty.* Tracking Disruptors (TD), Remote Sensor Dampeners (RSD) and Target Painters (TP) all apply an effect on their target and have a stacking penalty dependant on the number of times the effect is applied to the target ship. This means that in principle RSD and TD would be the best for shutting down large numbers of ships and ECM would work best for removing single key targets, but in reality ECM performs better in both roles. Solution: Apply a stacking penalty to ECM based on the number of targets current locked down. ECM jamming is currently based on the following formula Quote: C=J/S100 or Chance to Jam = Jammer Strength / Target Signal Strength 100 My proposal is that one more variable be added to this so the formula would read like this: Quote: C=J/S(100/N) or Chance to Jam = Jammer Strength / Target Signal Strength (100 / Number of ships jammed) What this would mean is that the more targets the pilot tried to lock down with ECM, the less effective they would become and the less chance they would have to get off a successful cycle but without infringing significantly on it's ability to lock down one or two ships. This would allow RSD and TD to play a more integral part in what EW does go on, as ECM would be best used in situations where (for example) a logistics ship needed to be taken out of the fight, whereas the RSD and TD would be used to reduce the amount of damage the enemy puts out. Please feel free to experiment with this simple addition to the formula for ECM jamming and see how it works and I'll get the figures together to put a few more examples in this thread of possible scenarios. * ECM does indeed suffer a form of stacking penalty, but not in the context discussed here. Imagine three ships, two with ECM. Ship 1 attempts to jam Ship 3 and succeeds. Seconds later, Ship 2 attempts to jam Ship 3 but fails as Ship 2's jam would have 0% effectiveness - a "stack nerf" of sorts, but not particularly limiting if the group has any form of coordination.
Camilo Cienfuegos Earned In Blood	Posted - 2009.01.13 16:12:00 - [2] Now for the EFTwarrioring. Firstly, the Falcon (without a doubt the current king of all ECM ships), fitted with 3x Signal Distortion Amplifier II, 1 x each Racial Jammer II and 1x Multispectral Jammer and max skills. The target here will be a Hyperion and a Megathron battleship without ECCM. Falcon Jamming Stats Multispectral: 108Km optimal, 9.41599 strength Racial: 162Km optimal, 14.12399 strength Defender's Sensor Strength Megathron: 21 Magnometric Hyperion: 23 Magnometric If we use the propsed formula to calculate the Falcon's chance of jamming just the Megathron, we see this: 14.12399 / 21 * (100/1) = 67.25709% (chance to jam Mega with racial) 14.12399 / 23 * (100/1) = 61.40865% (chance to jam Hyp with racial) 9.41599 / 21 * (100/1) = 44.83804% (chance to jam Mega with multi) 9.41599 / 23 * (100/1) = 40.93908% (chance to jam Hyp with multi) As you can see, using racials the odds of jamming the Megathron or Hyperion alone with a racial jammer are fairly high and reasonable enough with the multispectral. If we accept that for the sake of argument the Falcon successfully jammed the Hyperion, the following would be true of any attempt to jam the Megathron whilst the Hyperion is under the effects of an ECM jammer: 14.12399 / 21 * (100/2) = 33.62854% (chance to jam Mega with racial) 9.41599 / 21 * (100/2) = 22.41902% (chance to jam Mega with multi) As you can see, this significantly reduces the chances of a succesful cycle. Let's assume another Megathron turns up and the Falcon wants to try and jam it too: 14.12399 / 21 * (100/3) = 22.41902% (chance to jam Mega with racial) 9.41599 / 21 * (100/3) = 14.94601% (chance to jam Mega with multi) The interesting thing about these figures is it in fact argues for a buff to ECM, allowing them a much higher chance (in the region of 75%+ perhaps) of jamming a single battleship target should such a stacking penalty system be introduced.
Arous Drephius Perkone	Posted - 2009.01.13 17:54:00 - [3] Nope, no change is needed.
Camilo Cienfuegos Earned In Blood	Posted - 2009.01.13 17:55:00 - [4] Edited by: Camilo Cienfuegos on 13/01/2009 18:21:27 Quote: Nope, no change is needed. Thank you for the constructive feedback... Oh, and PWYM? Hardpoint Rigs ECM Balancing
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.01.13 18:11:00 - [5] ECM is fine as it forces ppl to be more mobile and versatile in their fittings and mobile in their tactics instead of just fitting gang/tank setups and sitting at close range.
darkmancer	Posted - 2009.01.13 18:22:00 - [6] Edited by: darkmancer on 13/01/2009 18:23:41 Theory wise: ECM doesn't benefit for a stacking penalty but its effect arenÆt accumulative, you either jammed or not. With a sensor damp you get even more damped for each module added, although the effect is less and less due to stacking. Ingame The benefit of ecm is it mixes up pvp combat and is the only effective counter to rr'ing bs fleets. The problems associated with ECM don't lie in its power (you donÆt see many t2 griffin (cant think of its name), blackbirds or scorpions about do you? but its combination of cloak and extreme range and lack of desire to fit eccm. Your suggestion would exacerbate the range problem (changing being close range from undesirable to suicidal), and generally wipe ECM out of the game. ECM tends to less of a problem as the number of combatants increase anyway I don't think there needs to be another encouragement to blob. --------------------------------- There's a simple solution to every problem. It is always invariably wrong
Camilo Cienfuegos Earned In Blood	Posted - 2009.01.13 18:31:00 - [7] Quote: ECM is fine as it forces {people} to be more mobile and versatile in their fittings and mobile in their tactics instead of just fitting {gank}/tank setups and sitting at close range. That's a rather wishy-washy retort to be honest... Mobility and versatility have little to do with the current ECM mechanics. Provided the ECM ship keeps it's range and fits an MWD, they can keep themselves out of the fight. Granted by forcing the ECM ship to move away you can neutralize it's effect up on the battlefield, but given the strength of ECM jammers, the current formula for jamming and the current strength of most ships capable of making the 70-200Km required to tackle a ranged ECM ship in the time required to get there before the ship warps (or in the case of the Falcon, cloaks and warps) the ECM ship can simply jam the inbound ship and take it's time repositioning. With the above proposal, ECM takes on a new dimension: It's the ECM pilot that must become more versatile and mobile as they either have to sacrifice jamming on some targets to ensure their survival against a bigger threat (an incoming tackler or that pesky sniper) or risk trying to jam one more target. Again, thank you for the constructive feedback and PWYM. Hardpoint Rigs ECM Balancing
Camilo Cienfuegos Earned In Blood	Posted - 2009.01.13 18:40:00 - [8] The Ship you're thinking of is the Kitsune. Quote: Your suggestion would exacerbate the range problem (changing being close range from undesirable to suicidal), and generally wipe ECM out of the game. What this change would mean is that it'd be wasteful to run more than 2 or 3 ECM modules concurrently (just like it is for RSD or TD), and so the fitting paradigm for most ECM ships would have to change to suit. It'd be no more or less risky for an ECM ship to come in at close range than it currently is (arguably less, as the ship would have freed up mids for other purposes) and it certainly wouldn't eradicate the use of ECM; as you mentioned it's a key component in breaking remote rep gangs (as I said in my first post) and that role would stay the same. I also mentioned in my second post that I feel such a change would also have to accompany an overall boost to the strength of a single ECM jammer, making ECM ships more valuable than they currently are (as their single and perhaps even double target efficacy would be increased), whilst reducing - but not removing - their effectiveness against more than two simultaneous targets. Again, thank you for the feedback. Hardpoint Rigs ECM Balancing
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2009.01.13 18:45:00 - [9] ECM is fine how it is, no change is needed.
Camilo Cienfuegos Earned In Blood	Posted - 2009.01.13 18:50:00 - [10] Originally by: Robert Caldera ECM is fine how it is, no change is needed. Thank you for the constructive feedback, and PWYM. Hardpoint Rigs ECM Balancing
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2009.01.13 18:53:00 - [11] Edited by: Robert Caldera on 13/01/2009 19:01:12 Fit ECCM if you dont want to get jammed, they are there for exactly this reason. I dont see any real arguments why ECM should get nerf... ehhhmm balanced, excepting that you are p*ssed about getting jammed and wish broader use of less harmful TD and RSD. No stacking? So what?? ECM is chance based instead...
Camilo Cienfuegos Earned In Blood	Posted - 2009.01.13 19:08:00 - [12] Originally by: Robert Caldera Fit ECCM if you dont want to get jammed, they are there for exactly this reason. Hyperion with ECCM: 45.1 Magnometric If we use the propsed formula to calculate the Falcon's chance of jamming just the one ECCM'd Hyperion (which is identical to the current mechanics for all jamming attempts), we see this: 14.12399 / 45.1 * (100/1) = 31.31705% (chance to jam Hyp with racial) 9.41599 / 45.1 * (100/1) = 20.87802% (chance to jam Hyp with multi) As you can see, using racials the odds of jamming the ECCM'd Hyperion alone with a racial jammer are still one in three and reasonable enough with the multispectral. If we accept that for the sake of argument the Falcon successfully jammed the Hyperion, the following would be true of any attempt to jam a second Hyperion whilst the first Hyperion is under the effects of an ECM jammer: 14.12399 / 45.1 * (100/2) = 15.65852% (chance to jam Hyp with racial) 9.41599 / 45.1 * (100/2) = 10.43901% (chance to jam Hyp with multi) If we add the proposed buff to ECM strengths - let's say 50% overall increase in ECM jammer strength - we get these figures: 21.18599 / 45.1 * (100/1) = 46.97559% (one hyp, racial) 14.12399 / 45.1 * (100/1) = 31.31705% (one hyp, multi) 21.18599 / 45.1 * (100/2) = 23.48779% (two hyp's, racial) 14.12399 / 45.1 * (100/2) = 15.65852% (two hyp's, multi) these figures are to my mind a far more balanced approach to the way ECM works and ties them in more closely to the other forms of EW available. There's no disputing that ECM is FotM, and that's surely for a reason which would entail that some form of modification is required. Hardpoint Rigs ECM Balancing
Camilo Cienfuegos Earned In Blood	Posted - 2009.01.13 19:12:00 - [13] Quote: I dont see any real arguments why ECM should get nerf... ehhhmm balanced, excepting that you are p*ssed about getting jammed and wish broader use of less harmful TD and RSD. Ah yes, the troll in you couldn't resist commenting ;) Broader use of TD would be catastrophic when you consider that I'm an Amarr laser specialized pilot, and given that I'm taken to flying HACs and Battleships RSD can be equally painful, so it's not from some selfish, loss-induced delirium that I'm posting these thoughts. Check me up on Griefwatch if you don't believe me (hence all the PWYM comments!) The bottom line is that you ONLY see ECM as EW and never see TD and RSD now. That either means either TD and RSD are massively underpowered (and I'm sure proposing boosting them would get a big whinefest on the go) or that ECM is a flawed system. Hardpoint Rigs ECM Balancing
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2009.01.13 19:17:00 - [14] Edited by: Robert Caldera on 13/01/2009 19:22:40 uhm... so what now? I still dont see any reason for nerfing except it works not the way you wish. What all these numbers are good for? In my opinion numbers are only a valid argument if you have a clue which are correct and which are not, what is not the case here. A falcon is a jamming ship and it were a pity it weren't able to do it's job effectively. Exactly like a hyperion unable to do damage.
Camilo Cienfuegos Earned In Blood	Posted - 2009.01.13 19:32:00 - [15] PWYM. Quote: I still dont see any reason for nerfing except it works not the way you wish. The way I wish? I've outlined many reasons above why discussion of possible ECM mechanics is beneficial and outlined that personally I have little to gain from it. My impetus for starting this thread was the myriad of threads on ECM, Falcons and so on in the various forums around here. Given all the proponents of nerfing the crap out of ECM, I'm surprised that a solution that would actually increase the effectiveness of ECM ships meets with your disapproval. Quote: What all these numbers are good for? In my opinion numbers are only a valid argument if you have a clue which are correct and which are not, which is not the case here. The numbers are there to demonstrate how the mechanic could work, and to invite constructive criticsm of the proposed changes. It's clearly apparent that you're little more than a troll hiding behind an alt with little clue of the impact changes might make or you'd be commenting on those figures rather than going "what all these numbers, ugh?" Hardpoint Rigs ECM Balancing
Roozu Valentine Gallente University of Caille	Posted - 2009.01.13 19:37:00 - [16] Originally by: Arous Drephius Nope, no change is needed. Flies a falcon.
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2009.01.13 19:42:00 - [17] Edited by: Robert Caldera on 13/01/2009 19:43:17 yeah and because there are myriads of ECM whin... threads, we start another one. well, I see some kind of hypocricy - first you state the superiority of ECM in comparison to the other EW, then you pretend to discuss how ECM could be more effective? Something wrong here I believe...
Camilo Cienfuegos Earned In Blood	Posted - 2009.01.13 19:45:00 - [18] PWYM. Quote: I see some kind of hypocricy - first you state the superiority of ECM in comparison to the other EW, then you pretend to discuss how ECM could be more effective? Pretend? Are you high? I proposed a 50% increase in ECM effectiveness and a simultaneous stacking penalty to reduce the effectiveness against multiple ships. In simple terms, against one ship ECM would be even more powerful, against two ships it would be almost as powerful as it is now but against three or more it would be less powerful. Do you understand, or would you like me to draw you a picture? Hardpoint Rigs ECM Balancing
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2009.01.13 20:05:00 - [19] well, honestly, what kind of discussion do you actually expect here?? Crying ECM victims wishing a nerf vs. ECM users is the only one I can imagine for this topic. Like in any other thread about ECM. Futher, nobody needs effeciency boost for a single target ECM, its efficient enough as it is now.
Camilo Cienfuegos Earned In Blood	Posted - 2009.01.13 20:25:00 - [20] PWYM. Originally by: Robert Caldera well, honestly, what kind of discussion do you actually expect here?? Crying ECM victims wishing a nerf vs. ECM users is the only one I can imagine for this topic. Like in any other thread about ECM. Given that this ain't Ships and Modules or General, some feedback is the kind of thing I expect - not the tripe the other forums get filled with. Quote: Futher, nobody needs effeciency boost for a single target ECM, its efficient enough as it is now. It's efficient enough, but the only way to balance and retain a stacking penalty mechanic would be to increase the single target effectiveness and reduce the multiple target effectiveness as per my first post or to propose another formula.
Vietone Gallente Mercury Industries	Posted - 2009.01.13 21:16:00 - [21] Edited by: Vietone on 13/01/2009 21:17:43 Whats the difference between ECM and other forms of EWAR? ECM is only good on ECM ships. Every other form of EWAR is still useful on ships that are not specialized for it. For example, Energy Neuts are useful on just about every ship. Most PvP combat is well within range of Energy Neuts and almost everyone uses them. Webbers are also used on many ships that get no bonus to them. Same goes with almost all propulsion jamming. Sensor Dampeners are useful on any ship as well especially missile boats. You fly within your max optimal or max range of sensor dampener and that gives you first strike abilities. ECM on the other hand is not used on anything but specialty ships. If you want a nerf on ECM to put it in line with all other EWAR, then you also have to make it a viable module to equip on any ship much like all other forms of EWAR. I remember reading about complaints that ECM was used too much because of its effectiveness on any ship and now its still getting complaints on the few ships that its even used on. People suggested making the ECM range closer and putting falcons within attack range of every other EWAR. But then you also have to give the falcon more high slots for DPS and give it a better tank. People suggested sizing the modules but I guess that means the same should be done for Sensor dampeners and propulsion jammers and target painters. As far as the effectiveness of ECCM goes, its highly effective on cruisers and above. Yes you will still get jammed but much less likely or the falcon will have to use more jammers on you and therefore cutting off its ability to jam multiple targets. I for one will use a falcon on my other character with a T2 ECCM and get a sensor strength of 54. I dont whine because of the fact that if I see another falcon, he/she will more than likely be one able to jam me and not anyone else and mostly, wont be able to jam me at all. I propose if they are going to change ECM, it should be in line with all other forms of ewar. Effective on any ship fitting but better on specialty ships. I mentioned in another thread that ECM should still mess with a ships electronics. But instead of targets, it should affect high slots. ECM should increase the cycle time of all high slot modules. A tech1 variant should be 25% increase while a Tech2 variant should be 40% increase with specialty ships and a max skilled pilot should be able to 100% increase in cycle time. The range of the modules should be 20km Tech 1 to 25km Tech 2 with recon bonus getting as much as 50-70km. This put it closer to the battle and out of range of Pure close range DPS ships and more inline with balance fitted ships. With the falcon being more within range of using heavy missiles it can do a little damage, tank also needs an increase cause it will certainly be taking more. With this kind of idea, almost all ships would benefit from using an ECM because it reduces DPS by increase cycle time. You could also apply stacking penalties to this kind of ECM. Much like how a curse can affect a couple ships or just purely neut a single ship, a falcon using all ECM on a single ship would cause such an increase in cycle time of high slot modules that it would be rendered almost useless. Its an idea, but it would be better than removing the effectiveness of the few ships caldari even have left in PvP.
Camilo Cienfuegos Earned In Blood	Posted - 2009.01.13 21:40:00 - [22] Quote: ECM ... is not used on anything but specialty ships. If you want a nerf on ECM to put it in line with all other EWAR, then you also have to make it a viable module to equip on any ship much like all other forms of EWAR. The beauty of increasing the overall efficacy of ECM in a single target situation but penalising it multiple target scenarios as per the original proposal is that it does render it useful on any ship. Looking at the Raven: Raven: Racial ECM Strength: 6.75 (up from 4.5) Multispectral ECM Strength: 4.5 (up from 3) Sensor Strength: 22 This means that currently a raven using ECM against another raven would have the following chance to jam: Racial: 4.5 / 22 * 100 = 20.45% Multispectral: 3 / 22 * 100 = 13.64% Under the proposed changes, this would become: Racial: 6.75 / 22 * 100 / 1 = 30.68% Multi: 4.5 / 22 * 100 / 1 = 20.45% From a better than 1 in 5 chance to jam the target up to nearly 1 in 3 would render ECM a viable option on many ship setups. The figures are much more appealing when you thing about a battleship trying to use an ECM module to get a tackler off it's back. In this case, we'll use the 12 sensor strength of the Crow as an example as it currently stands: Racial: 4.5 / 12 * 100 = 37.5% Multi: 3 / 12 * 100 = 25% Whereas under the proposed change: Racial: 6.75 / 12 * 100 / 1 = 56.25% Multi: 4.5 / 12 * 100 / 1 = 37.5% I'd say better than 2 to 1 odds on that a battleship with a single ECM module could break a solo interceptor's lock on it could certainly count as solo viable!
Camilo Cienfuegos Earned In Blood	Posted - 2009.01.13 22:09:00 - [23] Edited by: Camilo Cienfuegos on 13/01/2009 22:13:02 Added an edit to the original post and some further figures to the second post outlining the effects of the proposed additional 150% increase in jammer strength to compliment the stacking penalty. Also drawing reference to this post regarding ECM (specifically the Falcon here) and the proposal to make the modules (and presumably ECCM) scriptable, much like RSD. Hardpoint Rigs ECM Balancing
Mike C Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.13 22:19:00 - [24] A synopsis: Let ECM be, there are more important things that need change. This does not Long version: ECM is fine the way it is. At the moment anyone with decent skills, a good ship and moderate fittings can easily jam a battleship. Fit two racial amplifiers and you will able to jam a carrier 3/5 times on average. However, if one is to fit ECCM, this counters that "problem" and completely forsakes said ECM. Now for those who ask "why the hell should I have to sacrifice my tank / damage to not be jammed," well, ECM should be effective in its job as it currently is. Oh, and double-double post much? __________________________________________________ Originally by: Mike C Trolls - We keep Humanity alive... and kicking...
Camilo Cienfuegos Earned In Blood	Posted - 2009.01.13 23:02:00 - [25] Edited by: Camilo Cienfuegos on 13/01/2009 23:08:16 Originally by: Mike C ECM is fine the way it is. At the moment anyone with decent skills, a good ship and moderate fittings can easily jam a battleship. Fit two racial amplifiers and you will able to jam a carrier 3/5 times on average. However, if one is to fit ECCM, this counters that "problem" and completely forsakes said ECM. Now for those who ask "why the hell should I have to sacrifice my tank / damage to not be jammed," well, ECM should be effective in its job as it currently is. The proposal above does not forsake ECCM at all, and in fact improves upon ECM in the scenario you list here (jamming a carrier). Some figures for a current Falcon with a single racial trying to jam a carrier: Chimaera current: 14.12399 / 80 * 100 = 17.65% Chimera proposed: 21.185985 / 80 * 100 = 26.48% This of course forsakes the fact that any ECM pilot attempting to do this would be using multiple jammers, for which the equation changes slightly by becoming (1-(1-J/S)^x)(100/n)% with x being the number of jammers used. If for example we were using 3 jammers, that would work out as: (1 - (1 - 14.12399 / 80) ^ 3) ( 100 / 1 ) = (1 - (1 - 0.176549875) ^ 3) * 100 = (1 - 0.823450125 ^ 3) * 100 = (1 - 0.56) * 100 = 44% and (1 - (1 - 21.185985 / 80) ^ 3) * ( 100 / 1 ) = (1 - (1 - 0.2648248125) ^ 3) * 100 = (1 - 0.7351751875 ^ 3 * 100 = (1 - 0.4) * 100 = 60% Which of course would become 50% as effective if asked to jam two concurrent ships, and the strength split 33% if asked to jam 3 etc, etc. If we perform the same calculations on a Chimera using just a single ECCM (and if you don't mind, I'm going to round down to two decimals): (1 - (1 - 14.12 / 157) ^ 3) * ( 100 / 1 ) = (1 - (1 - 0.09) ^ 3) * 100 = (1 - 0.91 ^ 3) * 100 = (1 - 0.75) * 100 = 25% and (1 - (1 - 21.19 / 157) ^ 3) * ( 100 / 1 ) = (1 - (1 - 0.13) ^ 3) * 100 = (1 - 0.87 ^ 3 * 100 = (1 - 0.66) * 100 = 34% Here we so how much more effective the proposed new ECM would be when focused, whilst how limited it would be when trying to lock down entire fleets. Hardpoint Rigs ECM Balancing
James Lyrus Lyrus Associates The Star Fraction	Posted - 2009.01.13 23:16:00 - [26] Edited by: James Lyrus on 13/01/2009 23:18:09 Nope. Redesign required. ECM drops a targets locks for 20s. This is both too powerful, and not powerful enough - a ECM pilot _must_ maintain a jam unless he wants to die (or just not be useful, which sucks). However the person getting permajammed doesn't have much fun. That's pretty much regardless of what percentage chance you apply to it. So I'd like to propose looking at ECM as to how it could still fill it's 'fleet suppresion' role as it does, but at the same time not being 'dull'. The best I've managed to come up with so far, is apply ECM at a 'per active module' level. So you maintain target locks, you maintain jam strength. But each module you're fitting has 'ECM str / sensor str' chance of not being possible to activate for 20s. Now the idea is that in this way, the ECM ship is much more reliably able to do _something_ useful, but at the same time is much less likely to achieve any form of crippling lockdown. You still will significantly reduce the capabilty of a fleet that you're jamming, but ... well, if you've ever been on the receiving end a fight where you spend most of it jammed and smashing your keyboard in frustration is just not a lot of fun. Alternatively, I'd like to see the ECM 'jam time' be affected by the relative 'jammy ness' of the ECM - so ships with a higher sensor strength will be jammed for shorter time periods than 20s. Ideally based on some kind of variable numeric mechanic, which means there's a range of 'just about jammed them' to 'no problem jamming that guy all day'. -- 249km locking?
Robert Caldera	Posted - 2009.01.13 23:28:00 - [27] Edited by: Robert Caldera on 13/01/2009 23:33:54 fleet suppressing without getting dull... ehm. I guess you're trying into water without getting wet. Fit ECCM, fly support ships for countering jammers, play caldari if you think ECM is omgwtfoverpowered but stop f*cking annoying whine-nerf-threads about ECM!!11 You guys unwillingly to sacrifice your ubapwn-tank for ECCM make me sick, defending only pure damage simply MEANS BEING VULNERABLE to another forms of warfare, including ECM!!!
Camilo Cienfuegos Earned In Blood	Posted - 2009.01.13 23:57:00 - [28] Oh for the love of all that's cruel... Quote: unwillingly to sacrifice your ubapwn-tank for ECCM make me sick I'm an armor tanker, and have no trouble fitting ECCM when required without sacrificing any gank or tank whatsoever. Sure, I lose a sensor booster but hey - you win some you lose some. Regardless, your foaming-at-the-mouth defense of ECM really doesn't help your own image (not that you care - PWYM!) or the argument for keeping ECM as it is. Anyway, now I'm done with the troll... Originally by: James Lyrus Nope. Redesign required. ECM drops a targets locks for 20s. This is both too powerful, and not powerful enough - a ECM pilot _must_ maintain a jam unless he wants to die (or just not be useful, which sucks). However the person getting permajammed doesn't have much fun. That's pretty much regardless of what percentage chance you apply to it. This is one of the reasons why I'm looking at this as a focused suppression role. the principle is simply that an ECM ship can pick one ship only and eliminate it from the fight, leaving it incredibly vulnerable to attacks from other ships or it can sacrifice it's effectiveness and attempt to take out 2, 3 even 4 ships and stand a reasonable chance of eliminating them from the fight. Quote: So I'd like to propose looking at ECM as to how it could still fill it's 'fleet suppresion' role as it does, but at the same time not being 'dull'. The best I've managed to come up with so far, is apply ECM at a 'per active module' level. So you maintain target locks, you maintain jam strength. But each module you're fitting has 'ECM str / sensor str' chance of not being possible to activate for 20s. Whilst this idea is nice (and might I add not mutually exclusive to my own!), I suspect that having to perform calculations for every module on every ship under the effect of an ECM jammer would put a strain on the server to say the very least. The original proposal here requires using a data that is already tracked in game and performing a slightly more complex computation on it. Quote: Now the idea is that in this way, the ECM ship is much more reliably able to do _something_ useful, but at the same time is much less likely to achieve any form of crippling lockdown. You still will significantly reduce the capabilty of a fleet that you're jamming, but ... well, if you've ever been on the receiving end a fight where you spend most of it jammed and smashing your keyboard in frustration is just not a lot of fun. Everyone at one time or another has been caught without ECCM and has spent a fight jammed to the eyeballs. Provided you're not scrammed as well it's not such a problem of course - frustrating, but you can work around it, especially if you're in something smaller than a battleship. Quote: Alternatively, I'd like to see the ECM 'jam time' be affected by the relative 'jammy ness' of the ECM - so ships with a higher sensor strength will be jammed for shorter time periods than 20s. Ideally based on some kind of variable numeric mechanic, which means there's a range of 'just about jammed them' to 'no problem jamming that guy all day'. Now this idea I like. It would I'm sure mean completely reworking ECM rather than simply modifying it, but given that as a rule larger ships have stronger sensor arrays and longer lock times, having a 20 second cycle time but only being able to jam for a percentage chance of that time based off the ship's sensor strength does make a lot of sense. It would mean double the calculation and that might prove an obstacle, but it's an intriguing prospect! However, I do feel that the simplest way to "fix" ECM here and now would be to use the suggestion in the OP.
Red Flag	Posted - 2009.01.14 07:35:00 - [29] ECM ships have a critical weakness. ECM ships have no tank! This means that if the ECM ship can't jam, s/he's dead! If your getting ganked by a fleet of ships, your solo and they've got ECM your pretty much screwed. However, 1v1 the ECM ship has very little chance of survival. Also, in a fleet vs. fleet situation, ECM ships can be targeted by ships that they can't jam. No one runs around in ECM ships by themselves soloing, and if your soloing and end up against a fleet your S.O.L. anyway. Leave ECM alone. Fix the dang de-agression timer! (Make it longer.) Red Flag Poet, Prophet, Pirate
Camilo Cienfuegos Earned In Blood	Posted - 2009.01.14 09:17:00 - [30] Originally by: Red Flag ECM ships have a critical weakness. ECM ships have no tank! This means that if the ECM ship can't jam, s/he's dead! If your getting ganked by a fleet of ships, your solo and they've got ECM your pretty much screwed. However, 1v1 the ECM ship has very little chance of survival. Also, in a fleet vs. fleet situation, ECM ships can be targeted by ships that they can't jam. No one runs around in ECM ships by themselves soloing, and if your soloing and end up against a fleet your S.O.L. anyway. Leave ECM alone. Fix the dang de-agression timer! (Make it longer.) PWYM, and what does the aggro timer have to do directly with ECM? ECM ships do have very little other forms of defenses (although the Scorpion can fit a fair bit of tank and some ECM whilst the Falcon has it's cloak and the Kitsune has it's speed, so they're not completely defenseless - mostly, not completely) and have dreadful to poor damage output, making them utter unviable as solo ships. So much so that the (arguably) most powerful of these vessels - the Falcon - is used more by alt characters than it is by mains. As a self professed pirate, I can tell you just how reassuring it is to know that I've got that Falcon sat cloaked 180km away ready for if I bite off more than I can chew, and so fare it's never let me down. The proposal here would put me in a situation though where I might be let down by it; Whilst the Falcon would be able to jam any single ship into last year, given the stacking penalty proposed it would create the dilemma of attempting with a low percentile chance to jam multiple ships, to keep the jam in place on the current target or to try and move the cycles to another ship. It provides much more engaging mechanics than "target hostiles, activate ECM" as it currently is and would be both a boost where ECM is weakest and a nerf where it's at it's strongest. Hardpoint Rigs ECM Balancing

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.