open All Channels
seplocked Test Server Feedback
blankseplocked ECM Ships II - Looking at better defined roles
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (20)

Author Topic

CCP Chronotis

Posted - 2009.03.31 10:50:00 - [1]
 

Following on from the previous round of feedback which was very good. I wanted to update you all on the proposed changes to ECM and ECM specialised ships.

The main changes following the first round of feedback are as follows in summary:

1. The base ECM jammer optimal and falloff ranges have been changed so there is a shorter optimal range but longer falloff range which is affected by numerous bonuses.

2. Signal Distortion Amplifiers (low slot ECM enhancers) have been changed to provide a bonus to both ECM strength and range and their bonus changed respectively.

Currently, the SDA II will give a 10% ECM optimal range and 10% ECM strength

3. Caldari Recon ships (Falcon & Rook) will have their ECM range reduced so they will not be effective at such huge distances any more but will still be much longer range than any of the other recons are capable off. In lieu, they will gain a ECM strength bonus increase and a small damage increase through addition of drone bay and the some additional bonus changes such as heavy missile velocity to increase the range at which they can damage targets as well as being able to jam them.

Without any other rigs or modules fitted with max skills, the BZ-5 (caldari jammer) will have an optimal range of 48km and falloff of 53km with a strength of 11.25 to gravimetric. The same bonuses are applied to the Rook.

4. The scorpion will be kept in the role of long range ECM platform useful in the longer range fleet fights. This made more sense as the ship is large and not very agile and is better able with its higher number of slots to reach the required distances. The max range will be the same as before but it will operate more in ECM falloff range now.

The scorpion with max skills and a BZ-5 (caldari racial jammer) will have a optimal range of 72km and a Falloff range of 80km with a ECM strength of 7.875 without any other modules or rigs fitted.

Feedback is welcome on these latest changes and as ever, this is not set in stone and things may change following further playtesting and feedback.



Sidus Isaacs
Gallente
Posted - 2009.03.31 10:55:00 - [2]
 

Edited by: Sidus Isaacs on 31/03/2009 10:58:31

Keeping the Scorp as a fleet ECM ship is nice actually. Cheaper then a Falcon.

SDA givng strength bonus is ok as well, kinda, but read below.

But will SDA's still be mandatory like now, and the recons more or less paper thin with no damage mods? After all since ECM is chance based, you should try to increase your chances as much as possible unless you end up with a fail boat that just dies :S. Thats why I liked the inbuilt strenght bonus, and SDA giving range bonus, that gave the ECM ships the ability to be fitted for samll gang, and open up different fittings for them, now they have 1 fittgn that jams from long range, I am affraid now they will have 1 fitting that jams for medium range, and imo that is a bit boring :(.

Or do, i.e. the Rook gain the needed grid to fit guns/launchers?

I would like to see some stats if all possible to give further feedback and satesfy my curriosity ;)

Oh, drone bays are win, nice! :)

Vigaz
Posted - 2009.03.31 11:00:00 - [3]
 

Edited by: Vigaz on 31/03/2009 11:24:12
Scorpion Ė Widow
I donít understand why we cannot have the right progression from T1 to T2.
Can we have the 5th launcher removed from Widow to get the same ECM optimal bonus of the new Scorpion? After all itís the same ship with 800M ISK cloaking feature.

Rook:
Rook doesn't need missile velocity bonus ! please consider to add 5 % resistances per level.

EDIT: a max skilled Rook pilot can use heavy from 88km in TQ atm (without rig/imp), adding a velocity bonus this value will increase up to 120km - 130km -> much more than required; also considering the new drone bay (max range 60/70km?) it sounds wrong to me.

Haramir Haleths
Caldari
Nutella Bande
Posted - 2009.03.31 11:07:00 - [4]
 

We need more Info on the Widow changes please

Spartan dax
Posted - 2009.03.31 11:17:00 - [5]
 

I'm telling you right now, having SDA's give a range bonus is bad enough but a strength bonus as well?

This will do nothing but weaken the ships and make them stock up more jammers to capitalize on their low slot sacrifice. You will still have hyper specialized ECM ships with 5-6 jammers ****ing people off and making them go cry on the forums. I know I know, that was the direction CCP chose to go almost 3 years ago but it's high time it changed.

It all comes down to fitting strategies, if you give up lows you're going to make sure you get the best use out of them. That, coupled with the fact that the minimum amount of jammers is 4 due to racials and you will always have ECM modules in absurdum fitted to ECM ships. Stop this! Less jammers = less whining.

End ECM ships low slot Sacrifice NOW!

Robert Caldera
Posted - 2009.03.31 11:18:00 - [6]
 

Edited by: Robert Caldera on 31/03/2009 11:23:33
Originally by: CCP Chronotis

1. The base ECM jammer optimal and falloff ranges have been changed so there is a shorter optimal range but longer falloff range which is affected by numerous bonuses.

2. Signal Distortion Amplifiers (low slot ECM enhancers) have been changed to provide a bonus to both ECM strength and range and their bonus changed respectively.

3. Caldari Recon ships (Falcon & Rook) will have their ECM range reduced so they will not be effective at such huge distances any more but will still be much longer range than any of the other recons are capable off.


what numbers are we talking about? Are there some defined bonus percentages?

Antioch Red
Posted - 2009.03.31 11:18:00 - [7]
 

Edited by: Antioch Red on 31/03/2009 11:19:47
It's difficult to comment in a meaningful way without some numbers to start us off; any chance of providing some please?

Originally by: CCP Chronotis

but will still be much longer range than any of the other recons are capable off.


And what is the reasoning behind ecm having this much longer range? It may be chance based but it's effect is comensurately greater in prportion upon success, so why does it need this longer range? Give all the ew comparable ranges and then you begin to achieve balance.

Robert Caldera
Posted - 2009.03.31 11:18:00 - [8]
 

Edited by: Robert Caldera on 31/03/2009 11:23:07
Originally by: CCP Chronotis

1. The base ECM jammer optimal and falloff ranges have been changed so there is a shorter optimal range but longer falloff range which is affected by numerous bonuses.

2. Signal Distortion Amplifiers (low slot ECM enhancers) have been changed to provide a bonus to both ECM strength and range and their bonus changed respectively.

3. Caldari Recon ships (Falcon & Rook) will have their ECM range reduced so they will not be effective at such huge distances any more but will still be much longer range than any of the other recons are capable off.


what numbers are we talking about? Are there some defined bonus percentages?

TZeer
BURN EDEN
Posted - 2009.03.31 11:19:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Vigaz
Scorpion Ė Widow
I donít understand why we cannot have the right progression from T1 to T2.
Can we have the 5th launcher removed from Widow to get the same ECM optimal bonus of the new Scorpion? After all itís the same ship with 800M ISK cloaking feature.

Rook:
Rook doesn't need missile velocity bonus ! please consider to add 5 % resistances per level.



What`s the point with a Widow that does the same as the falcon? Just cant warp cloaked.

Take away it`s damage and you are left with a ****ty ship with no real purpose.

TZeer
BURN EDEN
Posted - 2009.03.31 11:23:00 - [10]
 

Quote:
Signal Distortion Amplifiers (low slot ECM enhancers) have been changed to provide a bonus to both ECM strength and range and their bonus changed respectively.


Any numbers?

And any info on the comming black op changes?



Marn Prestoc
Minmatar
Maelstrom Crew
Paradigm Alliance
Posted - 2009.03.31 11:28:00 - [11]
 

Edited by: Marn Prestoc on 31/03/2009 11:33:45
Originally by: CCP Chronotis



I prefer the previous idea, was more like mine...

Quote:
Kitsune - Frig gangs, can keep a bit of range, around 100km lock range so 4km/s inties arn't on you in under 10 secs like now. Quick lock so should target and have a chance at jamming a bigger ECM ship if in range.

Rook - Best Ranged ECM ship. Offers an additional ECM, some personal defense and a bit more range over a Falcon. 170 Kind of range.

Falcon - Cloaker, around 150 (before ecm range rigs) so not got as many jam chances (1 less mid) as Rook, the range, or personal defence but you do cloak.

Scorpion - Close range ultimate ECM. Best jam chance of the lot, but easy to counter with longer ranged ECM so pilot might have to sacrifice number of ECM for ECCM. Also slowest locking since its a BS so other have chance to jam you first. Decent armour tank and doesn't need sig amps cos of bonus, but can sacrifice tank for ecm strength.


Hence each has it area of control and counter in ECM vs ECM. Smaller ship can jam you before you have a chance. Longer ranged can jam you while you can't reach it. Ultimate strength might have to sacrifice to limit effect of quicker lock+longer range but has slots to do so and does better at jamming stuff it can target+reach.


To me it sounds like your going more back to the: high range+strength ship > med range+strength ship > small range+strength ship. Rather than High range + lower strength / mid range+strength / Low range + High strength.

Edit: I sort of understand the poor agility = needs more range logic, but I'd prefer just being with other close range BS who can remote rep. Warping in and out in a BS so poor agility, poor warp speed, plus longer lock times just seems a waste, even if it is cheap compared to recons. Using them in sniper fleets is just a waste to, just like using a falcon/rook is because co-ordinating the jamming of potentially hundreds of 200km+ snipers just isn't possible. Its not like the days of <50 man 0.0 sniper fleets.

Frug
Omega Wing
Snatch Victory
Posted - 2009.03.31 11:29:00 - [12]
 

Ugh. The scorpion needed the proposed boost...

Alex Harumichi
Gallente
Gradient
Electus Matari
Posted - 2009.03.31 11:32:00 - [13]
 

Edited by: Alex Harumichi on 31/03/2009 11:39:59
SDA gives strength and range. Wow. So it remains a "must-fit" module -- wasn't the whole point to make it optional? Why on earth would anyone ever not fit SDAs in all lows?

Where are the SDA-equivalents for other forms of ewar?

As a whole, this looks even worse than the previous suggestion. In essence, you're changing nothing. Falcons will still be superior to any other recon, there is no reason whatsoever to fly a Rook, and Scorp remains very borderline.

This will not fix the Falcon problem.

The first outline was by far the best one. Every change since, you've gone back towards not actually changing anything that actually matters. Currently, you're actually boosting the Falcon, when everyone and their pet monkey agrees that it's a horribly overpowered ship. Wth?

Alex Harumichi
Gallente
Gradient
Electus Matari
Posted - 2009.03.31 11:36:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Frug
Ugh. The scorpion needed the proposed boost...


Yes. I was looking forward to actually seeing Scorps in pvp, and I liked the close-range torp ecm brawler idea. Guess that's not to be. Not much reason to fly a scorp now, except maybe in some specific longrange fleet battles. Disappointing.

Alex Harumichi
Gallente
Gradient
Electus Matari
Posted - 2009.03.31 11:38:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis

3. Caldari Recon ships (Falcon & Rook) will have their ECM range reduced so they will not be effective at such huge distances any more but will still be much longer range than any of the other recons are capable off.



This (still) makes no sense. Why is (by far!) the most powerful form of ewar also much longer ranged that the others? Why is the one form of ewar which only works against ranged targets (damps) severely limited in range?

Tital
Posted - 2009.03.31 11:39:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
still be much longer range than any of the other recons are capable off.


Token reduction of range with compensation of extra jam strength... There have been so many good suggestions to counter ECM boats and this is the best you guys can come up with?

Alex Harumichi
Gallente
Gradient
Electus Matari
Posted - 2009.03.31 11:43:00 - [17]
 

Edited by: Alex Harumichi on 31/03/2009 11:45:00
Chronotis, why would anyone fly a Rook over a Falcon, with this proposal? Seriously?

Nobody flies Rooks now, and if this goes through nobody will. The problem isn't ECM as such. The problem is the Falcon: it's much, much too good compared to the others (covops cloak is a massive bonus), plain and simple.

Drop Falcon down to close range and things may work out. Let it keep any amount of range, and it will continue to be a problem.


Perry
Amarr
The X-Trading Company
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2009.03.31 11:44:00 - [18]
 

Scorpion as long range Turret based ECM support, please. Add 1 or 2 Turrets and a bit Powergrid for large caliber Railguns, give it hybrid and ecm optimal range bonus and done, perfect Fleet BS.

Lindsay Logan
Posted - 2009.03.31 11:45:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Alex Harumichi
Originally by: CCP Chronotis

3. Caldari Recon ships (Falcon & Rook) will have their ECM range reduced so they will not be effective at such huge distances any more but will still be much longer range than any of the other recons are capable off.



This (still) makes no sense. Why is (by far!) the most powerful form of ewar also much longer ranged that the others? Why is the one form of ewar which only works against ranged targets (damps) severely limited in range?



Remember that Caldari is supposed to have the best ewar, Caldri got 7 ecm specced ships!

Lord Eremet
Posted - 2009.03.31 11:46:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis

2. Signal Distortion Amplifiers (low slot ECM enhancers) have been changed to provide a bonus to both ECM strength and range and their bonus changed respectively.



CCP Chronotis, you should scrap SDA's totally or let them only affect range, or any falcon/rook pilot will just fill up all his lows with them and there won't be a difference from how they are used today.

Teach those falcon alts how to fit a <gasp> tank, like the other races recon pilots have to do. Now that would be shocking, wouldn't it?


Originally by: CCP Chronotis

3. Falcon/Rook changes...



You should use those new Rook/Falcon bonuses you had in your first thread. I especially like the new Rook. It will no longer feel ashamed over that it is not a falcon.


Originally by: CCP Chronotis

4. No Scorpion change.



Good that you keep the Scorpion as a fleet ship. But if you nerf/remove SDA's a increase to 20% ECM strenght per level could be in order.

Alex Harumichi
Gallente
Gradient
Electus Matari
Posted - 2009.03.31 11:47:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Lindsay Logan
Originally by: Alex Harumichi
Originally by: CCP Chronotis

3. Caldari Recon ships (Falcon & Rook) will have their ECM range reduced so they will not be effective at such huge distances any more but will still be much longer range than any of the other recons are capable off.



This (still) makes no sense. Why is (by far!) the most powerful form of ewar also much longer ranged that the others? Why is the one form of ewar which only works against ranged targets (damps) severely limited in range?



Remember that Caldari is supposed to have the best ewar, Caldri got 7 ecm specced ships!


Still doesn't answer why damps, the one theoretical anti-range and anti-sniper ewar, are crippled with low range (no range bonuses on ships, no modules to add to range).

CCP Chronotis

Posted - 2009.03.31 11:47:00 - [22]
 

stats overview coming up for the changes in terms of ECM strength and ranges for the ships and modules.


Gloria Lewis
Caldari
GoonFleet
Posted - 2009.03.31 11:48:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis

1. The base ECM jammer optimal and falloff ranges have been changed so there is a shorter optimal range but longer falloff range which is affected by numerous bonuses.

3. Caldari Recon ships (Falcon & Rook) will have their ECM range reduced so they will not be effective at such huge distances any more but will still be much longer range than any of the other recons are capable off.



You are making very small changes to a hugely overpowered mechanic. ECM needs to become a close-range thing, like the web range of a Rapier, otherwise it will always stay as an "instant-win button" in smaller gangs and drastically affect the outcome of larger fleet battles with enough numbers.

The first changes you suggested (removing optimal + falloff bonuses completely) were the best solution but you decided otherwise because of the communitys negative feedback? There was a much bigger opposition when CCP first announced the speed nerf but that went through (and it's a good thing it did)

Vigaz
Posted - 2009.03.31 11:50:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: TZeer
Originally by: Vigaz
Scorpion Ė Widow
I donít understand why we cannot have the right progression from T1 to T2.
Can we have the 5th launcher removed from Widow to get the same ECM optimal bonus of the new Scorpion? After all itís the same ship with 800M ISK cloaking feature.

Rook:
Rook doesn't need missile velocity bonus ! please consider to add 5 % resistances per level.



What`s the point with a Widow that does the same as the falcon? Just cant warp cloaked.

Take away it`s damage and you are left with a ****ty ship with no real purpose.


No real purpose? sniper ECM with cloak and no target delay(like a t1 Scorpion but with cloak -> that's the BO field).

Enemy FC: feel free to call my Widow primary... ops it's cloaked. once the battle begin declock and use the surprise effect.

Try on your own to fight at zero with a sub-capital ship of 800-900M value. with less tank then any common t1 BS. The Op is telling us that is better to leave the Scorpion as ECM sniper due to its low agility/DPS etc... so a Milion ISK ship with almost the same attributes should be in the front line? I hope to be in grid for the KM if it will happen. YARRRR!!

So at the end, cheaper Scorpion can sit @ 150-200km while high price Widow have to stay into close range? Evil or Very Mad

Alex Harumichi
Gallente
Gradient
Electus Matari
Posted - 2009.03.31 11:52:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: Gloria Lewis
Originally by: CCP Chronotis

1. The base ECM jammer optimal and falloff ranges have been changed so there is a shorter optimal range but longer falloff range which is affected by numerous bonuses.

3. Caldari Recon ships (Falcon & Rook) will have their ECM range reduced so they will not be effective at such huge distances any more but will still be much longer range than any of the other recons are capable off.



You are making very small changes to a hugely overpowered mechanic. ECM needs to become a close-range thing, like the web range of a Rapier, otherwise it will always stay as an "instant-win button" in smaller gangs and drastically affect the outcome of larger fleet battles with enough numbers.

The first changes you suggested (removing optimal + falloff bonuses completely) were the best solution


100% agree.

The first set of changes were by far the best ones; i.e. the ones which would actually fix the problem.

For some unknown reason you're now dumped those, and are going to a model which, to be blunt, changes nothing. It will still be Falcons Online, no reason not to fly them over the other recons (and over other ECM ships). Sad.

Roemy Schneider
Vanishing Point.
Posted - 2009.03.31 11:53:00 - [26]
 

* SDAs - have them boost all EW
* jammers in-line with other EW optimals+falloff: 30+60. will accept racial base jam strengths of 5 for t2/best named in return
-- alternatively, will accept 48+40 for all EW, once SDAs help
* if you must add drones.... 20m≥ max - no web drone for these guys!
* yes, long range scorp for fleets plz. i have no idea what people were going to do with their meds up close and a virtual 5 launchers... one of those horrible caldari tanks w/o damage? no change there -.-

TZeer
BURN EDEN
Posted - 2009.03.31 11:56:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Alex Harumichi
Originally by: Gloria Lewis
Originally by: CCP Chronotis

1. The base ECM jammer optimal and falloff ranges have been changed so there is a shorter optimal range but longer falloff range which is affected by numerous bonuses.

3. Caldari Recon ships (Falcon & Rook) will have their ECM range reduced so they will not be effective at such huge distances any more but will still be much longer range than any of the other recons are capable off.



You are making very small changes to a hugely overpowered mechanic. ECM needs to become a close-range thing, like the web range of a Rapier, otherwise it will always stay as an "instant-win button" in smaller gangs and drastically affect the outcome of larger fleet battles with enough numbers.

The first changes you suggested (removing optimal + falloff bonuses completely) were the best solution


100% agree.

The first set of changes were by far the best ones; i.e. the ones which would actually fix the problem.

For some unknown reason you're now dumped those, and are going to a model which, to be blunt, changes nothing. It will still be Falcons Online, no reason not to fly them over the other recons (and over other ECM ships). Sad.



One simple reason ECM has a longer range then other E-war.

If you activate a damp, web or scram, you know!! what that module will do.

If you activate a jammer, you know what that jammer will do, IF it activates.

Vir Hellnamin
Gradient
Electus Matari
Posted - 2009.03.31 12:02:00 - [28]
 

Edited by: Vir Hellnamin on 31/03/2009 13:00:26

mmmmmm. examples are good.

(still no need to train Rook *shrug*)

TZeer
BURN EDEN
Posted - 2009.03.31 12:03:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Vigaz
Originally by: TZeer
Originally by: Vigaz
Scorpion Ė Widow
I donít understand why we cannot have the right progression from T1 to T2.
Can we have the 5th launcher removed from Widow to get the same ECM optimal bonus of the new Scorpion? After all itís the same ship with 800M ISK cloaking feature.

Rook:
Rook doesn't need missile velocity bonus ! please consider to add 5 % resistances per level.



What`s the point with a Widow that does the same as the falcon? Just cant warp cloaked.

Take away it`s damage and you are left with a ****ty ship with no real purpose.


No real purpose? sniper ECM with cloak and no target delay(like a t1 Scorpion but with cloak -> that's the BO field).

Enemy FC: feel free to call my Widow primary... ops it's cloaked. once the battle begin declock and use the surprise effect.

Try on your own to fight at zero with a sub-capital ship of 800-900M value. with less tank then any common t1 BS. The Op is telling us that is better to leave the Scorpion as ECM sniper due to its low agility/DPS etc... so a Milion ISK ship with almost the same attributes should be in the front line? I hope to be in grid for the KM if it will happen. YARRRR!!

So at the end, cheaper Scorpion can sit @ 150-200km while high price Widow have to stay into close range? Evil or Very Mad



If thats the use you can just fit a cloak on the scorpion. And the widow cant warp while cloaked, so it wont be of any surprise.

And in your scenario you are already set up on the gate waiting for someone to come fight. Gatecamping or whatever.

I fly the widow quite often, yes it`s been in some hairy situations, but I have managed to get it out in one piece.

Taking away it`s damage just so it can sit a 150km jamming is waste of a good ship IMO.

And Widow is not a fleet ship. To many variables in action to use it for that, lag is one of them.

Alex Harumichi
Gallente
Gradient
Electus Matari
Posted - 2009.03.31 12:04:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: TZeer

One simple reason ECM has a longer range then other E-war.

If you activate a damp, web or scram, you know!! what that module will do.

If you activate a jammer, you know what that jammer will do, IF it activates.


Not a valid argument.

ECM effect is vastly more powerful. That's the reason why there's a random factor, it balances for the fact that the others are much weaker.

Ewar range should be the same(ish) for all. But they aren't, not by a long shot. This is especially galling for damps, since in theory they work specifically to counter ranged stuff... but can't do that in practice, due to weak range.

And you do know that all the other forms of ewar become chance-based too, outside their (small) optimals? Right?


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (20)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only