open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [Proposal] New ECM mechanic
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Daedalus II
Helios Research
Posted - 2011.01.20 16:31:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Daedalus II on 20/01/2011 17:15:55
TL;DR:
* The aim of this proposal is to make the ECM mechanic less random while not changing the relative balance between ECM ships and their targets. It's neither a nerf nor boost, just a change.
* Sensor strength is multiplied with max number of targets giving a Tempest 7*19 = 133 combined sensor strength.
* ECM jammers get a higher number than today, around 20 for a T2 module.
* Each point of jamming from an ECM cancels out one point of sensor strength on the target.
* Each time more than 19 sensor strength (for a Tempest) is removed his max number of targets is reduced by one. If this happens while the Tempest had something locked the lock might drop.
* If the Tempest receives more than 133 points of jamming he's totally locked down.


Long version:

Imagine that EVE ships have one targeting radar per available target slot. Each of these radars have the sensor strength currently displayed in the sensor strength field.

Example: Minmatar Tempest
Max locked targets (number of targeting radars or LADARs in this case): 7
Sensor strength: 19 (type LADAR)

Combined sensor strength: 7*19 = 133

In comes the new ECM mechanic; each ECM module has a certain ECM jamming value; say 20 against their racial opposite and 5 against anything else for a T2 version.

Now for each LADAR ECM applied to our Tempest above we remove 20 sensor strength. Each time we pass 19 sensor strength we remove one of his max targets.

Example: Two T2 LADAR ECM is applied to Tempest.
40 points of sensor strength is removed, we passed 19 twice, hence two of his max targets is removed and he now has 5 max targets and 17 sensor strength left until the next target slot is removed.

If the Tempest at this time had something locked he has a 2/7 chance of losing that lock. However given that he still has 5 available slots he can immediately re-lock if he lost the lock.

If he had all 7 targets locked he WILL lose two random locks and will not be able to re-lock unless another lock is dropped first.

If the Tempest was hit by 7 T2 LADAR ECM modules for a total of 20*7 = 140 points of jamming it will have a remaining -7 points of sensor strength meaning it has 0 max targets left. It is now truly jammed with no chance of getting out of it. Any more jamming makes no difference what so ever.

ECM ships such as Falcons and Scorpions could (like today) get a bonus towards ECM jamming strength, making a single ECM module on a Falcon being able to maybe take out as much as 3 target slots at once.

Notice how chance is removed from the equation (except for which lock drops).

AtheistOfFail
AoF Lottery Services
Posted - 2011.01.20 16:50:00 - [2]
 

Nope. Sorry. Either adapt or die.

/me tends to run his MWD drake right at the falcon pilot while spraying FoF Missiles.

It's a rather quick "Leave or die" message.

You should do the same.

Daedalus II
Helios Research
Posted - 2011.01.20 17:05:00 - [3]
 

Originally by: AtheistOfFail
Nope. Sorry. Either adapt or die.

/me tends to run his MWD drake right at the falcon pilot while spraying FoF Missiles.

It's a rather quick "Leave or die" message.

You should do the same.

What do you insinuate? that I fail against ECM ships or fail in ECM ships? This suggestion will not modify the effectiveness of ECM in either direction, all it does is making it more predictable, more in line with other EWAR systems.

Personally I love flying Falcons and would not see this as neither a boost nor nerf of them.

Also what makes you think the Falcon doesn't have an MWD of his own and keeps out of range? Razz

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2011.01.20 17:47:00 - [4]
 

It's an interesting idea, but there's plenty of situations where still being able to lock one target results in a negligible loss of combat ability. So it still suffers from a binary nature - the difference between being able to lock one target and being able to lock none is too great. In your case, a Tempest would require 7 S20 jammers to be locked down - applying 6 would often have very little effect - which is just silly.

Daedalus II
Helios Research
Posted - 2011.01.20 18:50:00 - [5]
 

Originally by: Gypsio III
It's an interesting idea, but there's plenty of situations where still being able to lock one target results in a negligible loss of combat ability. So it still suffers from a binary nature - the difference between being able to lock one target and being able to lock none is too great. In your case, a Tempest would require 7 S20 jammers to be locked down - applying 6 would often have very little effect - which is just silly.

Very true, but consider this:

Each time one of the ECM modules cycle it will remove one of two available target slots (the one itself just let go of, and the previously untouched one). This results in a 50% probability of the Tempest losing its current target when the new jam goes through.

If the six ECM modules were spread out evenly and the cycle time of each is 20 seconds an ECM module will cycle every 3.3 seconds. Typically 50% of those cycles will result in a target loss for the Tempest = he will have to re-lock his target every 6.6 seconds. He's not out of the fight, but he sure isn't very effective either.

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2011.01.20 19:06:00 - [6]
 

Few things you need to consider:
- You need to find a solution for light ships (cruiser down) which are currently more or less useless with ECM on the field.
- You need to be able to shut most targets down completely without using an entire rack. Compare to effect of 2-3 damps/TD's.
(If not then it becomes a massive nerf which is neither needed nor wanted).
- You need to account for ECCM and what effect it should have in relation to ECM.

Personally think that the idea of ECM manipulating max targets is the best one that has been brought up so far, been sniffed at a few times in other threads.

Omara Otawan
Posted - 2011.01.20 19:28:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Hirana Yoshida

Personally think that the idea of ECM manipulating max targets is the best one that has been brought up so far, been sniffed at a few times in other threads.



It is only a good idea if your agenda is a complete removal of ECM.

If max locked targets is not zero for damage dealers, the jammed ship is free to shoot the primary and the jammer did not accomplish anything.

Support such as logistics can conveniently operate at full efficiency with 2-3 target slots, and even having only a single slot doesnt render them inoperable.

Mistress Valkyrie
Posted - 2011.01.20 20:22:00 - [8]
 

Edited by: Mistress Valkyrie on 20/01/2011 20:26:57
Edit: oops, posted with alt Wink

Originally by: Omara Otawan
Originally by: Hirana Yoshida

Personally think that the idea of ECM manipulating max targets is the best one that has been brought up so far, been sniffed at a few times in other threads.



It is only a good idea if your agenda is a complete removal of ECM.

If max locked targets is not zero for damage dealers, the jammed ship is free to shoot the primary and the jammer did not accomplish anything.

Support such as logistics can conveniently operate at full efficiency with 2-3 target slots, and even having only a single slot doesnt render them inoperable.

I can't say this change wouldn't affect users with small amounts of ECM. The cost of removing randomness is less efficiency at smaller numbers and higher at high numbers.

But remember that even though not all target slots are jammed, there is still a chance on each cycle for each ECM module to break a random lock. Even if the target can re-lock, it will still take him time, and in combination with a locking time jammer it will be even more severe. So just because all slots aren't taken out doesn't mean the ECM is totally ineffective.

Example; how much different EWAR affects a target with 6 target slots:

# of....Range.....ECM
mods..jammer
----------------------
1........light........light
2........medium..light
3........heavy.....medium
4........overkill...medium
5........overkill...heavy
6........overkill...totalhelldeath

While a target range jammer reach its peak at around 2-3 modules, ECM won't reach its peak until 6 modules. BUT when the target range jammer peaks, the target can still fight at close range, it's not taken out entirely and no amount of target range jamming can change this. However ECM at 6 modules WILL take the entire target out and that is better than the target range jammer can do. Therefore it should be more "expensive" to use the ECM.

Is it more reasonable that a frigate with a single ECM module might get a lucky jam and totally disable an entire battleship for 20 seconds? Or that a Falcon fails to jam a frigate?

Muskogee
Posted - 2011.01.20 21:26:00 - [9]
 

Edited by: Muskogee on 20/01/2011 21:28:59


First I tell you my experience:

When is jamming annoying? in small scale PVP

i.e. sabre/falcon. That is quite common to camp in 0.0 and it is very effective. 1 Recon, 1 interdictor. Now you want to break the camp. Well, you can break the camp by taking a ship, which can permatank the sabre and sit on the gate, wait until the falcon misses a jam cycle and drive the sabre off. (usually he calls then his friends) But that's it. There is no way to catch the sabre or falcon. The falcon will jam the tackler and they are gone and no more come out of their SS before you are gone. You will need 3+ fleet members, so the falcon can not jam all of you.

When is flying a falcon annoying? when it becomes bigger than small scale

It is too often jam everything or nothing and die first. I lose falcons faster than any other recon or any other ship class at all. It can only jam, nothing else. if you shield tank it, it is bad at jamming, too. If you armor tank it, it aligns too slow. If there is no shield tank, it is paper thin, far worse tank than other Recons have. So if there are 2-3 BC on the enemy side, I start already thinking about becoming primary. I will be primary and be the first, who dies, if I do not leave the field before they reach me or I jam them all.

Sometimes it is even 1 ship too much. Once I disconnected after a jump, it took me 10 sec to log back in. The Falcon was already killed by a single vaga and the logs showed nothing. GG CCP.

So some things can be said for sure:

- it is too strong against small ships or single ships
- it is too weak, especially the falcon, if there are more than just 2-3 enemies and they get a lock

Btw. ECM Drones are also sometimes superannoying in 1v1 or 2v2, especially if enemies recall them until they get a cycle. I hate those guys, who pull them out, when they see they lose the fight. Somehow they always seem to get the jam and escape.

Maybe I would take ECM out of the game. If I look at NPCs: Guristas EW are the most annoying EW. The other NPCs EW has also effects, but you do not lose a whole 20 sec per cycle.



Joethelions
Caldari
Perkone

Posted - 2011.01.20 21:29:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: AtheistOfFail
Nope. Sorry. Either adapt or die.

/me tends to run his MWD drake right at the falcon pilot while spraying FoF Missiles.

It's a rather quick "Leave or die" message.

You should do the same.

oh look one race that can reliably counter ECM.

what do you suggest for the other races?

OPs suggestion makes sense, but could use some polish.

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2011.01.20 21:45:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Daedalus II
Very true, but consider this:

Each time one of the ECM modules cycle it will remove one of two available target slots (the one itself just let go of, and the previously untouched one). This results in a 50% probability of the Tempest losing its current target when the new jam goes through.

If the six ECM modules were spread out evenly and the cycle time of each is 20 seconds an ECM module will cycle every 3.3 seconds. Typically 50% of those cycles will result in a target loss for the Tempest = he will have to re-lock his target every 6.6 seconds. He's not out of the fight, but he sure isn't very effective either.


No, you're working off the assumption that the Tempest would have locked the maximum number of targets possible. In reality, it would have, say, the primary and another locked. Taking the maximum number of locks available down to five from seven when you're only locking two targets to start with is basically meaningless - it's unnoticeable. Ships are quite capable of operating even with one lockable target, which is why you end up with the current binary effect/no-effect system being unchanged, except that it's a lot harder to actually "jam" a target.

The current chance-based system is crappy, but this isn't an improvement. And whatever changes you propose, you need to leave the Caldari ewar as the most powerful, because ewar is a Caldari racial thing. They have a full line of ewar ships, almost equal in stature to the missile and rail lines.

Anubis Xian
Ministry of War

Posted - 2011.01.20 22:10:00 - [12]
 

Having two ECCM IIs running a geddon and still being very nearly permajammed by a single Falcon... yeah ECM needs a change. Maybe the change should be a debuff like the other EW are. Being totally jammed is no fun for anyone.


 

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