Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Severice
Crushed Ambitions
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 20:17:00 -
[1]
I don't want to see ECM reduced to the level that Sensor Dampening currently is. It gets really old really fast. What pilots need isn't a way to break or fix ecm, what we need is a TRUE ECCM. Just like with nano's that answer to nano's was "use nanos" and the counter to ECM shouldn't be "more falcons". senor boosters and sensor dampeners are easy to work out. a SB doesn't quite completely negate a SD, however, ECCM doesn't negate ECM at all.
What if ECCM reduced the amount of time you were jammed for, but not the ECM cycle? These numbers are all for explanation purposes but lets use 50% as the nice round number. If you're a falcon you throw a jammer at me and i'm jammed for 20 seconds. I activate my ECCM and instead of being jammed for 20 seconds it's 10. So after ten seconds if you wanted me to still be jammed you'd have to throw another jammer at me. If i had 2 eccm moduels, it would further reduce it to say 5 seconds (stacking penalties ect are not accounted for as this is just an example) so it would require 4 eccm to permanently jam me.
|
mcnuggetlol
Amarr Outlandish Operations
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 20:40:00 -
[2]
cow go moo |
Fullmetal Jackass
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 20:43:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Severice I don't want to see ECM reduced to the level that Sensor Dampening currently is. It gets really old really fast. What pilots need isn't a way to break or fix ecm, what we need is a TRUE ECCM. Just like with nano's that answer to nano's was "use nanos" and the counter to ECM shouldn't be "more falcons". senor boosters and sensor dampeners are easy to work out. a SB doesn't quite completely negate a SD, however, ECCM doesn't negate ECM at all.
What if ECCM reduced the amount of time you were jammed for, but not the ECM cycle? These numbers are all for explanation purposes but lets use 50% as the nice round number. If you're a falcon you throw a jammer at me and i'm jammed for 20 seconds. I activate my ECCM and instead of being jammed for 20 seconds it's 10. So after ten seconds if you wanted me to still be jammed you'd have to throw another jammer at me. If i had 2 eccm moduels, it would further reduce it to say 5 seconds (stacking penalties ect are not accounted for as this is just an example) so it would require 4 eccm to permanently jam me.
You realize ECM is chance based right? And you wan't ECCM to always be effective? Um, no.
Your resistance to jamming and the effectiveness of ECCM and back up arrays is based on the sensor strength of your ship. Generally the bigger and higher tech your ship the more sensor strength it has. Race also plays in, Caldari ships having the highest strength and minmatar the lowest.
It's possible to make battleships and many t2 ships all but immune to jamming. Unlike nano fittings before the nerf, ECM has many counters. ECCM, Remote ECCM, back up arrays, sensor damps, counter ECM, ect.
Learn to play. |
lecrotta
Minmatar lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2009.02.09 20:45:00 -
[4]
Edited by: lecrotta on 09/02/2009 20:46:18
Originally by: Severice I don't want to see ECM reduced to the level that Sensor Dampening currently is. It gets really old really fast. What pilots need isn't a way to break or fix ecm, what we need is a TRUE ECCM. Just like with nano's that answer to nano's was "use nanos" and the counter to ECM shouldn't be "more falcons".
The counter to falcons is NOT falcons due to their base sig str, but if you want to use falcons to counter falcons LESS falcons are more effective as a few falcons with pure caldari jammers in the mids will counter 2 other falcons each.
So less falcons > more falcons... |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |