open All Channels
seplocked Ships and Modules
blankseplocked [Statistics] ECM and ECCM: Facts instead of feelings.
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5

Author Topic

Multimorph
Gallente
Federal Defence Union
Posted - 2008.09.11 14:47:00 - [31]
 

Originally by: Crazy Tasty
Originally by: Multimorph
Edited by: Multimorph on 11/09/2008 08:32:19
Edited by: Multimorph on 11/09/2008 08:12:44
d) Again the battleship fits an eccm-II, the ewar ship still uses 5 jammers with strenght 15


With 5 jammers, the effect of a single eccm is a lot weaker here. The expected value is still clearly over 90% and being jammed for less than 60% is
unlikely. The chance for being permajammed dropped to 30%, but still the most likely results are jamming times over 90%.



I fail to see the issue there. If I had fit my EW ship completely to deal with a single ship why should he not be perma-jammed? You can do basically the same thing with EW Recons when you fit 100% to disable 1 other ship.


I agree with this completey! The figure was made to explore the more extreme scenarios possible, it is not meant as an argument that ECM is "overpowered". I dont share this opionion (yet?), I am just trying to get a more complete picture of what ECM can do and what it can't do.

Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
Posted - 2008.09.11 14:54:00 - [32]
 

Originally by: Multimorph
Originally by: Crazy Tasty
Originally by: Multimorph
Edited by: Multimorph on 11/09/2008 08:32:19
Edited by: Multimorph on 11/09/2008 08:12:44
d) Again the battleship fits an eccm-II, the ewar ship still uses 5 jammers with strenght 15


With 5 jammers, the effect of a single eccm is a lot weaker here. The expected value is still clearly over 90% and being jammed for less than 60% is
unlikely. The chance for being permajammed dropped to 30%, but still the most likely results are jamming times over 90%.



I fail to see the issue there. If I had fit my EW ship completely to deal with a single ship why should he not be perma-jammed? You can do basically the same thing with EW Recons when you fit 100% to disable 1 other ship.


I agree with this completey! The figure was made to explore the more extreme scenarios possible, it is not meant as an argument that ECM is "overpowered". I dont share this opionion (yet?), I am just trying to get a more complete picture of what ECM can do and what it can't do.


this made me lol :-) it's the most irrelevant argument you can present to somebody who wants ECM nerfed. they do not accept the proposal that your glass ECM ship SHOULD be able to jam somebody when they dedicate all slots to the task ... same for passive tanked Drakes and other things :-)

Crazy Tasty
Beyond Divinity Inc
Beyond Virginity
Posted - 2008.09.11 15:01:00 - [33]
 

Originally by: Hugh Ruka
Originally by: Multimorph
Originally by: Crazy Tasty
Originally by: Multimorph
Edited by: Multimorph on 11/09/2008 08:32:19
Edited by: Multimorph on 11/09/2008 08:12:44
d) Again the battleship fits an eccm-II, the ewar ship still uses 5 jammers with strenght 15


With 5 jammers, the effect of a single eccm is a lot weaker here. The expected value is still clearly over 90% and being jammed for less than 60% is
unlikely. The chance for being permajammed dropped to 30%, but still the most likely results are jamming times over 90%.



I fail to see the issue there. If I had fit my EW ship completely to deal with a single ship why should he not be perma-jammed? You can do basically the same thing with EW Recons when you fit 100% to disable 1 other ship.


I agree with this completey! The figure was made to explore the more extreme scenarios possible, it is not meant as an argument that ECM is "overpowered". I dont share this opionion (yet?), I am just trying to get a more complete picture of what ECM can do and what it can't do.


this made me lol :-) it's the most irrelevant argument you can present to somebody who wants ECM nerfed. they do not accept the proposal that your glass ECM ship SHOULD be able to jam somebody when they dedicate all slots to the task ... same for passive tanked Drakes and other things :-)


Ya, i suppose its right align the same vein as my Gank Mega shouldn't 2 volley Cruisers. Tbh its the same argument, both ships do 1 thing and they do it well, if either ship is fit 100% to do what its bonused for then almost any single ship is ****ed trying to beat it at its own game. But I don't expect any ECM whiner to see either of my points.

I did assume all the OPs numbers were theoretical maxes anyway, my ECM skills are maxed but my ECM ships still don't hit 15 ECM strength just because there are other thing just as important as the ECM number.


Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
Posted - 2008.09.11 15:14:00 - [34]
 

Originally by: Crazy Tasty
Originally by: Hugh Ruka
Originally by: Multimorph
Originally by: Crazy Tasty
Originally by: Multimorph
Edited by: Multimorph on 11/09/2008 08:32:19
Edited by: Multimorph on 11/09/2008 08:12:44
d) Again the battleship fits an eccm-II, the ewar ship still uses 5 jammers with strenght 15


With 5 jammers, the effect of a single eccm is a lot weaker here. The expected value is still clearly over 90% and being jammed for less than 60% is
unlikely. The chance for being permajammed dropped to 30%, but still the most likely results are jamming times over 90%.



I fail to see the issue there. If I had fit my EW ship completely to deal with a single ship why should he not be perma-jammed? You can do basically the same thing with EW Recons when you fit 100% to disable 1 other ship.


I agree with this completey! The figure was made to explore the more extreme scenarios possible, it is not meant as an argument that ECM is "overpowered". I dont share this opionion (yet?), I am just trying to get a more complete picture of what ECM can do and what it can't do.


this made me lol :-) it's the most irrelevant argument you can present to somebody who wants ECM nerfed. they do not accept the proposal that your glass ECM ship SHOULD be able to jam somebody when they dedicate all slots to the task ... same for passive tanked Drakes and other things :-)


Ya, i suppose its right align the same vein as my Gank Mega shouldn't 2 volley Cruisers. Tbh its the same argument, both ships do 1 thing and they do it well, if either ship is fit 100% to do what its bonused for then almost any single ship is ****ed trying to beat it at its own game. But I don't expect any ECM whiner to see either of my points.

I did assume all the OPs numbers were theoretical maxes anyway, my ECM skills are maxed but my ECM ships still don't hit 15 ECM strength just because there are other thing just as important as the ECM number.




15 jammer strength is a bit overboard ... but 12-14 is completely realistic for the average falcon fit ... I have no clue if the EAS can beat that in strength ... I lost interest in ECM when I left my last corp (no mates to fly with, no use for ECM).

Ampoliros
Aperture Harmonics
K162
Posted - 2008.09.11 15:17:00 - [35]
 

Originally by: Crazy Tasty

I fail to see the issue there. If I had fit my EW ship completely to deal with a single ship why should he not be perma-jammed? You can do basically the same thing with EW Recons when you fit 100% to disable 1 other ship.


Oh, certainly - if you're taking most ECM specialized boats vs an un-ECCM'd ship. I think that any overpowered-ness (if it exists), however, is based on the interaction of ECM with ECCM. In other words, if you fully fit your mids with racial jammers and I fully fit my mids with racial ECCM, who wins? Who *should* win?

I think that part of the issue as well is that the counters to most DPS-reducing ewar (Damps, turret damps, nos/neut and web to some extent) have counters that most ships will be fitting anyway (sensor boosters, tracking computers/enhancers, cap injectors and MWDs/overdrives). ECCM is a situational module - if you're not being ECM'd, it's pretty much useless.

TimMc
Brutal Deliverance
Gypsy Band
Posted - 2008.09.11 15:21:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: Evanade
Originally by: Cpt Branko

In light of the data, I really like a suggestion someone posted about ECM mechanics: keep locks active, but prevent use of guns/RR/EW while jammed (thereby removing relock time).

Relocking time appears to increase the effects of jamming at lower chances (so something like every second/third jam happening) too much (while having less of a effect with multiple jammers).



Agreed, it would balance out ECM nicely if it would only inactivate all mods affecting others and not brak the lock. That, or ECCM could give a boost to scan resolution as well.


/signed.

Seeing EyeDog
Posted - 2008.09.11 15:21:00 - [37]
 

Originally by: Loree
eccm isnt ment to make 1 ship immune to ewar. Its ment to ensure that a falcon is forced to use ALOT more jammers on you, ensuring that less people in your gang are subjected to ewar.


nevertheless...a ship should not be entireley removed from the field of play. We're playing a GAME here people, and when you address me with "theres a good chance you'll lose ur ship while unable to fight back" theres a fundamental flaw with the game mechanics, whether or not you think so

Kagura Nikon
Minmatar
Emptiness.
Posted - 2008.09.11 15:22:00 - [38]
 

If a falcon all fit for ECM should have ab solute effectivnes (100% or near it) I what a rapier to have as well! I want that a rapier with 5 target painters be able to make the target hit possible for any ship in game at any speed and range. So if I put 5 TP on a raptor a naglfar should be able to easily track him

THAT is the SAME reasoning behind the concept of a falcon being full ECM oriented gives it right to be 100% effective.

ECM is overpowered, anyone with brain and decency can see that.

Trevor Warps
Posted - 2008.09.11 15:29:00 - [39]
 

This Multimorph's thread gets the Trevor Warps stamp of approval.

*STAMP*

Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
Posted - 2008.09.11 15:43:00 - [40]
 

Originally by: Kagura Nikon
If a falcon all fit for ECM should have ab solute effectivnes (100% or near it) I what a rapier to have as well! I want that a rapier with 5 target painters be able to make the target hit possible for any ship in game at any speed and range. So if I put 5 TP on a raptor a naglfar should be able to easily track him

THAT is the SAME reasoning behind the concept of a falcon being full ECM oriented gives it right to be 100% effective.

ECM is overpowered, anyone with brain and decency can see that.


Your comparison manifests your idiocy ... sorry but I have to say that ...

ECM is an "end effect" module. TP is an enhancing module that just improves a variable for other ships. You cannot compare them even indirectly (but something similar to waht you wrote was alrady proposed a few times).

Roemy Schneider
Vanishing Point.
Posted - 2008.09.11 15:50:00 - [41]
 

i'd like to check my own stochastic results... could you plot me

14.5 jam
2 jammers (any more racial jammers isnt plausible)
4sec relock
17 and 33.3 sensor (scimitar and overloaded eccm)
200 sec battle

and

1.5 jam (ec-600)
20 jammers
4 sec relock
17 & 33.3 sensor
200 sec battle

Multimorph
Gallente
Federal Defence Union
Posted - 2008.09.11 16:10:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: Roemy Schneider
i'd like to check my own stochastic results... could you plot me

14.5 jam
2 jammers (any more racial jammers isnt plausible)
4sec relock
17 and 33.3 sensor (scimitar and overloaded eccm)
200 sec battle

and

1.5 jam (ec-600)
20 jammers
4 sec relock
17 & 33.3 sensor
200 sec battle


I will glady do this - but tomorrow. I dont have Matlab installed at home, so I have to run it at work tomorrow.

Originally by: Trevor Warps
This Multimorph's thread gets the Trevor Warps stamp of approval.

*STAMP*


What ever that means - thank you very much ;)

SoftRevolution
Posted - 2008.09.11 16:20:00 - [43]
 

Cheers for posting some actual numbers instead of just wailing about it. Intelligent reply when I've finished reading.

Bronson Hughes
ADVANCED Combat and Engineering
Posted - 2008.09.11 16:22:00 - [44]
 

Very nice analysis by Multimorph. Good work.

I do want to contribute to the ensuing discussion. I feel that a large portion of the appearance of ECM being overpowered is that often times less experienced pilots will simply forget to re-lock their targets when ECM doesn't successfully jam them. This is purely subjective and there's no real way to measure it, but I know from experience that I've seen targets be 'permajammed' after only one or two successful cycles because they don't think to try re-locking their targets.

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2008.09.11 16:23:00 - [45]
 

Edited by: Cpt Branko on 11/09/2008 16:25:09
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 11/09/2008 16:24:43
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 11/09/2008 16:23:10
Originally by: Hugh Ruka

A skilled ECM pilot is actuay living on the relock times in case of failed jams. You have to space out your jammers so that you are always getting a jammers to end of cycle shortly after each other ...



No he's not. Most of the time he's living on pure range really. You're speaking like it's a trivial matter to fire at Falcon ranges. In way, yes, it is. For fleets.

I'm sure you wouldn't go so far as to claim that range (+covops cloak, etc) is irrelevant. The mere fact we're discussing mostly Falcons, not Rooks, not Scorpions or Blackbirds or Kitsunes, should tell you something about the power of range + covops cloak.

If range is not its tank (rather then relock time!) why not remove its bonus? Wait, that creates an outrage - everyone says then it'd be useless! So obviously relock times are just a additional bonus to jammer efficency (and last ditch defence) rather then 'the falcon's tank'.

Originally by: Crazy Tasty

I fail to see the issue there. If I had fit my EW ship completely to deal with a single ship why should he not be perma-jammed? You can do basically the same thing with EW Recons when you fit 100% to disable 1 other ship.


Originally by: Hugh Ruka

this made me lol :-) it's the most irrelevant argument you can present to somebody who wants ECM nerfed. they do not accept the proposal that your glass ECM ship SHOULD be able to jam somebody when they dedicate all slots to the task ... same for passive tanked Drakes and other things :-)


You're both intentionally mis-constructing the issue. The issue is that 1 jammer is too effective vs 1 ECCM-ed BS, thanks to relock times. Name one other EW recon which can knock out 5-6 other BS out of 40-50% of the fight. None? That's the point.

The issue isn't bringing one ship out of the fight with a fully dedicated ship. Every force recon short of a Rapier (which will put out 1-2 nanos out of the fight or assist in tackle) / Pilgrim (which can only shut down one turret ship out of the fight, or heavily impact two) can bring one ship out of the fight completely (well, OK, that leaves us with the Arazu, but yeah). The issue is the too good effect vs 5-6 targets who are using a counter-module - relock times help Falcon pilots here to achieve even better efficiency then their on paper jam chance says (even when we do accept ECCM as a mandatory module which I personally do).

Burn Mac
Minmatar
The Tuskers
Posted - 2008.09.11 20:50:00 - [46]
 

Originally by: Crazy Tasty
Originally by: Multimorph
Edited by: Multimorph on 11/09/2008 08:32:19
Edited by: Multimorph on 11/09/2008 08:12:44
d) Again the battleship fits an eccm-II, the ewar ship still uses 5 jammers with strenght 15


With 5 jammers, the effect of a single eccm is a lot weaker here. The expected value is still clearly over 90% and being jammed for less than 60% is
unlikely. The chance for being permajammed dropped to 30%, but still the most likely results are jamming times over 90%.



I fail to see the issue there. If I had fit my EW ship completely to deal with a single ship why should he not be perma-jammed? You can do basically the same thing with EW Recons when you fit 100% to disable 1 other ship.


If i fit a ship fully to counter ECM then i should never be jammed but then it doesnt work either, and hey i have had ships fully set up to gank but yet they cant kill everything?

Besides what the data showed to me was that 1 racial jammer on a falcon can take out 1 ship for 50% of the time so with 5 jammers its more like 2.5 ships it can take out from a battle with 1 ships.

Etho Demerzel
Gallente
Holy Clan of the Cone
Posted - 2008.09.12 00:32:00 - [47]
 

Originally by: Burn Mac

If i fit a ship fully to counter ECM then i should never be jammed but then it doesnt work either, and hey i have had ships fully set up to gank but yet they cant kill everything?


In the same way you can't kill everything it can't permajam everything. But you can DAMAGE anything, as the ECM ship can scramble anything, at least part of the time.


Quote:

Besides what the data showed to me was that 1 racial jammer on a falcon can take out 1 ship for 50% of the time so with 5 jammers its more like 2.5 ships it can take out from a battle with 1 ships.


One tracking disruptor can take a turret ship from the fight 100% of the time. One 90% web can stop about anything to a crawl. One damp.. err, oh well, those are broken :P

And in the same way tracking disruptors are unable to affect missile and drone ships, so is ECM (FoF and drones). Worse, a single ECM will IN ADDITION allow the ship to attack 50% of the time with its turrets as well.

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2008.09.12 00:47:00 - [48]
 

Originally by: Etho Demerzel

One tracking disruptor can take a turret ship from the fight 100% of the time.



Orly? Laughing

Yeah, killed tons of ships who thought it does. In a turret ship. Countered decently well by TCs/TEs except in case of the broken falloff reduction, fully countered by coming close (in case of range reduction) or controlling transversal (tracking reduction), and they sure as hell don't stop me from using ewar, tackle, remote repping and so on.

Originally by: Etho Demerzel

One 90% web can stop about anything to a crawl.



(a) At 10+3km range except on a Rapier.

(b) Some ships just don't care anyway. Hell, I like my bigger ships slowed down to a crawl. Reduces all the tracking-related misses from my own movement.

(c) They're getting nerfed to 60%. So no more of 'one webs stops you to a crawl' - enter the world of 'AB counters web'.

Originally by: Etho Demerzel

One damp.. err, oh well, those are broken :P



They're *almost* fine. If I'm in a sniping/etc setup, they hurt me a lot. If there's a lot of them on me, then I'm screwed even in a short range fit. They just need to be a bit stronger on recons really.

Originally by: Etho Demerzel

And in the same way tracking disruptors are unable to affect missile and drone ships, so is ECM (FoF and drones).



Oh, really. I didn't know that TDs prevent you from shooting (because they don't, duh - there's ample ways for a turret ship to negate TD effects anyway), remote repping, webs, scrams, etcetera.

Originally by: Etho Demerzel

Worse, a single ECM will IN ADDITION allow the ship to attack 50% of the time with its turrets as well.


Only if you fit ECCM.


You're just painting a very silly picture there, really - ECM is only good vs turret ships? Seriously now Very Happy

Etho Demerzel
Gallente
Holy Clan of the Cone
Posted - 2008.09.12 01:51:00 - [49]
 

Edited by: Etho Demerzel on 12/09/2008 01:57:22
Originally by: Cpt Branko
Originally by: Etho Demerzel

One tracking disruptor can take a turret ship from the fight 100% of the time.



Orly? Laughing



Lol, your ignorance is impressive. A single tracking disruptor in an Amarr Recon takes 62.81% of your tracking. Due to stacking penalties, it is impossible to compensate for a single tracking disruptor no matter how many TCs and TEs you use.

The very best you can do is to have 80% of your original tracking back with FIVE TRACKING COMPUTERS. In this extreme case, with 4-5 tracking computers, IF YOU ARE AMARR, you can still hit things, but considering your falloff will still be screwed, if you are using blasters or ACs you can forget it.

Now if he uses 2 tracking disruptors against you, no matter which turret type you have or how many TCs or TEs you equip you will hit exactly nothing.


Quote:

Yeah, killed tons of ships who thought it does. In a turret ship. Countered decently well by TCs/TEs except in case of the broken falloff reduction, fully countered by coming close (in case of range reduction) or controlling transversal (tracking reduction), and they sure as hell don't stop me from using ewar, tackle, remote repping and so on.



I am sure you did, even if math says otehrwise. Maybe in your dreams...

Quote:

Originally by: Etho Demerzel

One 90% web can stop about anything to a crawl.



(a) At 10+3km range except on a Rapier.

(b) Some ships just don't care anyway. Hell, I like my bigger ships slowed down to a crawl. Reduces all the tracking-related misses from my own movement.

(c) They're getting nerfed to 60%. So no more of 'one webs stops you to a crawl' - enter the world of 'AB counters web'.




a) We are talking about recons.

b) As some ships simply don't care about ECM. As drones ships, guided missile ships, smartbomb ships, etc.

c) They aren't nerfed yet. When and IF they are minnie recons should be adjusted accordingly, which they "forgot" to do with gallente recons...

Quote:

Originally by: Etho Demerzel

One damp.. err, oh well, those are broken :P



They are *almost* fine. If I'm in a sniping/etc setup, they hurt me a lot. If there's a lot of them on me, then I'm screwed even in a short range fit. They just need to be a bit stronger on recons really.



They need to be A LOT stronger on recons to be of any use at all. The first part of this quote just show how clueless you are, though. They are NOT almost fine.

Quote:

Originally by: Etho Demerzel

And in the same way tracking disruptors are unable to affect missile and drone ships, so is ECM (FoF and drones).



Oh, really. I didn't know that TDs prevent you from shooting (because they don't, duh - there's ample ways for a turret ship to negate TD effects anyway), remote repping, webs, scrams, etcetera.



Oh you can shoot as much as you please, you just won't hit anything. It negates your damage completely.

Quote:

Originally by: Etho Demerzel

Worse, a single ECM will IN ADDITION allow the ship to attack 50% of the time with its turrets as well.


Only if you fit ECCM.



The lock times in the OP analysis are exagerated. But even by then it is more than 50% with an ECCM equiped for most battleships...




You're just painting a very silly picture there, really - ECM is only good vs turret ships? Seriously now Very Happy



Basically against targeted weapons. There are untargeted weapons made specifically to be used in these situations, though (FoF missiles), and others that can be used well (drones and smartbombs, bubbles, ECM bursts, etc. ECM does not negate everything a ship can do, far from it.

Multimorph
Gallente
Federal Defence Union
Posted - 2008.09.12 07:04:00 - [50]
 

Edited by: Multimorph on 12/09/2008 07:10:40
Edited by: Multimorph on 12/09/2008 07:09:17
Originally by: Roemy Schneider
i'd like to check my own stochastic results... could you plot me

14.5 jam
2 jammers (any more racial jammers isnt plausible)
4sec relock
17 and 33.3 sensor (scimitar and overloaded eccm)
200 sec battle

and

1.5 jam (ec-600)
20 jammers
4 sec relock
17 & 33.3 sensor
200 sec battle


Here we go (results binned into 0-10%, 10-20%, ... , 90-100% because this way they are much easier to compare).

a)

Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.

(no eccm) and

Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.

(overloaded eccm)

b) (ECM Drones)

Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.

(no eccm) and

Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.

Wow, the ECM drones do a nice job. But how do get 20 of these little things out there?


@Discussion:

I really do not see why it is a problem, if a ECM ship pointing all his jammers onto a single target can put this target out of fight for nearly 100% of the time?! In my opinion, the ECM pilot would be plain stupid to do this, so if i was the victim I would sit back happily and watch my fleet members melt the enemies faces while every one of our ECM ships takes out 3-4 ships for 50-60% of the fight.

To be honest, if anyone wants to argue for the "overpowerdness" of ECM, I would follow the line of Cpt Branko and stick to the figures with a single jammer. Especially the point that a eccm-fitted battleship is still very likely jammed for around 50% of a fight with a single jammer is worth discussing I think.

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2008.09.12 07:51:00 - [51]
 

Edited by: Cpt Branko on 12/09/2008 07:51:21
Originally by: Etho Demerzel

Now if he uses 2 tracking disruptors against you, no matter which turret type you have or how many TCs or TEs you equip you will hit exactly nothing.



Wait, you said 'one'.

By the way. 67.5% less tracking is something which doesn't stop you from fighting or killing said ship. As long as you can control transversal, you will fight at reduced DPS, but it won't incapacitate your turrets (and you sure as hell get to use webs / neuts / RRs / etc).

Originally by: Etho Demerzel

I am sure you did, even if math says otehrwise. Maybe in your dreams...



Math says otherwise? Fine, sure. I'll have about 0.047732 tracking on a, say, 220mm AC II Hurricane after being TD-ed by a max bonused recon. Which stops me from shooting a webbed cruiser/BC (or said recon)... right? Not really.

Hell, it's only somewhat worse then Hail tracking. You can fight - it reduces your DPS somewhat, but you're far from powerless. Gives you no problems vs a double webbed target, too. People who like 425mm canes + Hail are fighting self-TDed all the time Very Happy

Originally by: Etho Demerzel

b) As some ships simply don't care about ECM. As drones ships, guided missile ships, smartbomb ships, etc.



All ships care about ECM. Unless they fit nothing but drones (lol), or are content with their FOFs shooting random crap (guided missile ships). I won't even discuss smartbomb ships. They're that relevant for combat.

Originally by: Etho Demerzel

They need to be A LOT stronger on recons to be of any use at all. The first part of this quote just show how clueless you are, though. They are NOT almost fine.



Yes, they are. All they need is a somewhat bigger bonus on recons. Damps were horribly overpowered at the time, I guess that was 'fine' for you ;)

Cutting someone's lockrange by 50% is a big thing. If you're a ranged ship, you've just been screwed over preety badly.

Originally by: Etho Demerzel

Oh you can shoot as much as you please, you just won't hit anything. It negates your damage completely.



Really?

Want to test it on TQ?

You've just said something like "omg, using Hail negates your damage completely". The effect isn't that far off.

Please, don't be absurd.

Originally by: Etho Demerzel

The lock times in the OP analysis are exagerated. But even by then it is more than 50% with an ECCM equiped for most battleships...



They're not really exagerated. Effectively, you need 8s to lock and start firing after jam fails in a, say, geddon. Get in a fight once, you'll see what I mean ;P

Originally by: Etho Demerzel

Basically against targeted weapons. There are untargeted weapons made specifically to be used in these situations, though (FoF missiles), and others that can be used well (drones and smartbombs, bubbles, ECM bursts, etc. ECM does not negate everything a ship can do, far from it.


It negates far more then any other sort of EW, with the ability to partially lock out far more ships then any other sort of EW. Saying "oh, but FOFs work", well, I can claim TDs are 100% useless because after I get ten webs of you and stick 100 meters off, it takes a infinite (considering stacking penalities) number of TDs to reduce damage. It's a equally good argument (read: worthless).


Now, can you please stop derailing the discussion with your stupid comments? Seriously, comparing ECM with other forms of EW is rather laughable.

Burn Mac
Minmatar
The Tuskers
Posted - 2008.09.12 08:01:00 - [52]
 

I just want to say thanks to Cpt. Branko for representing my oppinion without even knowing it and doing a good job so we seem to totally agree on the ecm issue. If you wont watch it im voting you in to the CSM.

Etho Demerzel
Gallente
Holy Clan of the Cone
Posted - 2008.09.12 08:16:00 - [53]
 

Edited by: Etho Demerzel on 12/09/2008 08:17:43
Quote:

Wait, you said 'one'.

By the way. 67.5% less tracking is something which doesn't stop you from fighting or killing said ship. As long as you can control transversal, you will fight at reduced DPS, but it won't incapacitate your turrets (and you sure as hell get to use webs / neuts / RRs / etc).



One is enough to hinder you greatly if you use lasers, and to complete disable you if you use blasters or ACs. Two are enough to completely disable lasers.

And 67.5% does incapacitate you, even if you can control transversal. Unless you are firing with small weapons in a battleship target, then by controllign transversal you won't hit snything...

Quote:

Math says otherwise? Fine, sure. I'll have about 0.047732 tracking on a, say, 220mm AC II Hurricane after being TD-ed by a max bonused recon. Which stops me from shooting a webbed cruiser/BC (or said recon)... right? Not really.



That proves you never tried to do it. Use the tracking guide and you will understand. As if you can reach an amarr recon to web it or have the energy to keep it webbed. lol. Good try...

Quote:

Hell, it's only somewhat worse then Hail tracking. You can fight - it reduces your DPS somewhat, but you're far from powerless. Gives you no problems vs a double webbed target, too. People who like 425mm canes + Hail are fighting self-TDed all the time Very Happy



Hail is THE suck unless you are firing at a webbed battleship with medium weapons you won't hit. This youa re suggesting is WORSE than rail. Laughing



All ships care about ECM. Unless they fit nothing but drones (lol), or are content with their FOFs shooting random crap (guided missile ships). I won't even discuss smartbomb ships. They're that relevant for combat.



The fact that you are limited in your ability to think does not mean that others also are...

Quote:

Yes, they are. All they need is a somewhat bigger bonus on recons. Damps were horribly overpowered at the time, I guess that was 'fine' for you ;)



Dampeners were perfectly fine in gallente recons. They were out of place in other ships. Gallente recons should have been fixed. As it is now they are useless.

Quote:

Cutting someone's lockrange by 50% is a big thing. If you're a ranged ship, you've just been screwed over preety badly.



That is a very ignorant statement. DAMPENERS DON'T HAVE ENOUGH RANGE TO AFFECT SNIPERS. Get it now?

Quote:

Really?

Want to test it on TQ?

You've just said something like "omg, using Hail negates your damage completely". The effect isn't that far off.

Please, don't be absurd.



I already tested it. You are the absurd one. And completely clueless. the one who should test how well a hurricane does against a curse is you, my friend. You will be surprised...

Quote:

They're not really exagerated. Effectively, you need 8s to lock and start firing after jam fails in a, say, geddon. Get in a fight once, you'll see what I mean ;P


No you don't. lock time against battleships is around 6 seconds. 10 seconds is almost the double.

Quote:

It negates far more then any other sort of EW, with the ability to partially lock out far more ships then any other sort of EW.


Laughing

Quote:

Saying "oh, but FOFs work", well, I can claim TDs are 100% useless because after I get ten webs of you and stick 100 meters off, it takes a infinite (considering stacking penalities) number of TDs to reduce damage.


I really want some of whatever you are drinking. This is not even an argument. Doesn't make any sense.

Quote:

Now, can you please stop derailing the discussion with your stupid comments? Seriously, comparing ECM with other forms of EW is rather laughable.



You are derailing the discussion spiting nonsense into it. Your preconcepted ideas of how EW work are ridiculous. It seems, the only thing you know how to do (and barely) is how to flame in forum

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2008.09.12 08:49:00 - [54]
 

Edited by: Cpt Branko on 12/09/2008 08:49:07
Originally by: Etho Demerzel

One is enough to hinder you greatly if you use lasers, and to complete disable you if you use blasters or ACs. Two are enough to completely disable lasers.

And 67.5% does incapacitate you, even if you can control transversal. Unless you are firing with small weapons in a battleship target, then by controllign transversal you won't hit snything...



Ever used high damage T2 ammo instead of faction? Does it disable you if you control transversal? The effect is highly comparable.



Quote:

That proves you never tried to do it. Use the tracking guide and you will understand. As if you can reach an amarr recon to web it or have the energy to keep it webbed. lol. Good try...



You mean the Pilgrim (Amarr Falcon equalivent)? Hmmmm.... something tells me that webbing them is not a big deal. Very Happy

If you mean a nano-Curse, then yes, it's powerful due to the ability to fly preety fast while neuting (and TD-ing), so you're not catching/killing it solo. In a gang fight, you just pick something else (closer to you) to shoot. That TD doesn't do much when shooting webbed targets. Play with the tracking guide to find out why Laughing

Originally by: noob

Hail is THE suck unless you are firing at a webbed battleship with medium weapons you won't hit. This youa re suggesting is WORSE than rail. Laughing



Let me guess, you've never used it. Tip: the biggest consideration when using Hail is range (and ensuring you get in that range relatively quickly). After that, just control transversal (I know, you're probably a nano-curse pilot so orbit is the only button you have) and you're relatively ok.

Quote:

The fact that you are limited in your ability to think does not mean that others also are...



You mean "I have no argument, so I will just insult your ability to think". Fine, be a dumb idiot.


Quote:

I already tested it. You are the absurd one. And completely clueless. the one who should test how well a hurricane does against a curse is you, my friend. You will be surprised...



Want to test how it does vs a Pilgrim? Very Happy
It is more relevant since we're discussing Falcons, anyway, which are the cloaky recons Very Happy

Yeah, a nanoed TD ship with range bonused neuts is sortof impossible to fight off solo for a lot of ships. Of course, you see it on scanner and avoid it.


Quote:

No you don't. lock time against battleships is around 6 seconds. 10 seconds is almost the double.



It's not. Sig analysis V gives you about 6.5s (and more if you're flying a Tier 2 BS). Given module activation times / the small delay you need to start locking after cycle finishes, it's easily 8 seconds. It'll take you a extra second if you need to lock more targets (for RR-ing).

Quote:

Quote:

It negates far more then any other sort of EW, with the ability to partially lock out far more ships then any other sort of EW.


Laughing



"I have no argument, so I will just laugh". You really insist on dragging the discussion to idiot level Very Happy

Quote:

Quote:

Saying "oh, but FOFs work", well, I can claim TDs are 100% useless because after I get ten webs of you and stick 100 meters off, it takes a infinite (considering stacking penalities) number of TDs to reduce damage.


I really want some of whatever you are drinking. This is not even an argument. Doesn't make any sense.



Makes as much sense as claiming "oh, but FOFs and smartbombs work".


Quote:

It seems, the only thing you know how to do (and barely) is how to flame in



Yeah, it applies to you quite well.



Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2008.09.12 08:58:00 - [55]
 

Edited by: Cpt Branko on 12/09/2008 09:01:23
Originally by: Bronson Hughes

I do want to contribute to the ensuing discussion. I feel that a large portion of the appearance of ECM being overpowered is that often times less experienced pilots will simply forget to re-lock their targets when ECM doesn't successfully jam them. This is purely subjective and there's no real way to measure it, but I know from experience that I've seen targets be 'permajammed' after only one or two successful cycles because they don't think to try re-locking their targets.


This is somewhat true - many newer players won't in fact notice they're not jammed after two successive cycles with all the commotion happening to a fight. It's not, however, something which we can really balance things on, but it's probably the source of a lot of 'I was permajammed' forum whines. Which is why analysis like these are useful, because all the stories of 'permajamming' are quite dubious (then again, sometimes true - chance based mechanics mean anything is possible, and when you get jammed thrice in a row even with ECCM, it creates the impression of 'overpoweredness').

Younger players without thermodynamics (for ECCM overheating) also get hit a bit harder - but I've always said, thermodynamics is a core skill nowdays.

Felix Dzerzhinsky
Caldari
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
Posted - 2008.09.12 09:45:00 - [56]
 

Originally by: Hugh Ruka
Edited by: Hugh Ruka on 11/09/2008 14:45:08
Edited by: Hugh Ruka on 11/09/2008 14:43:40
Originally by: Cpt Branko
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 11/09/2008 13:03:09
In light of the data, I really like a suggestion someone posted about ECM mechanics: keep locks active, but prevent use of guns/RR/EW while jammed (thereby removing relock time).

Relocking time appears to increase the effects of jamming at lower chances (so something like every second/third jam happening) too much (while having less of a effect with multiple jammers).



This was proposed before ECM nerf in RMR (don't remember, it was long ago). People screamed that it won't have any effect on the resulting situation ...

A skilled ECM pilot is actuay living on the relock times in case of failed jams. You have to space out your jammers so that you are always getting a jammers to end of cycle shortly after each other ... 3-4 seconds is ideal when dealing with cruisers, about 6-7 for battleships (assuming you are flying a falcon). This way you have time to relocate jammers in case even multiple cycles fail.

Actualy the best scenario is a recalibration time dependant on the ratio of jammer/sensor strength.

If I black out a frig that has lower sensor strength than my jammer, he gets hit by a sensor cluster recalibration and then relock time. His relock time is short, so most of the penalty comes from the jamming. A BS on the other hand, most of the penalty comes from relocking as the sensors are much more resistant, so I actualy only may break his locks but he can start relocking instantly ... but this was also propsed long ago ... This even forces falcons to work side by side with gallente recons for better effect ...


Add RSDs to that. . .and it all makes sense.

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2008.09.12 10:16:00 - [57]
 

Originally by: Felix Dzerzhinsky

Quote:

Actualy the best scenario is a recalibration time dependant on the ratio of jammer/sensor strength.

If I black out a frig that has lower sensor strength than my jammer, he gets hit by a sensor cluster recalibration and then relock time. His relock time is short, so most of the penalty comes from the jamming. A BS on the other hand, most of the penalty comes from relocking as the sensors are much more resistant, so I actualy only may break his locks but he can start relocking instantly ... but this was also propsed long ago ... This even forces falcons to work side by side with gallente recons for better effect ...


Add RSDs to that. . .and it all makes sense.


Actually, when I read that again - it is very interesting. RSDs + ECM would achieve very very good synergy (as with a single bonused RSD, a few seconds of jamming (vs a ECCM-ed BS with high sensor str) + relock time is somewhere close to the 20s cycle), while bringing ECM alone would not do *that* much to ECCM BS, while low sensor str ships would get jammed (recalibration time) for quite a while, possibly longer then the 20s cycle if they have really low sensor str.

It's a interesting idea, if I'm reading it correctly. Would make ECM + Damps a very awesome combination, while increasing the importance of high sensor str.


Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
Posted - 2008.09.12 10:27:00 - [58]
 

Originally by: Cpt Branko
Originally by: Felix Dzerzhinsky

Quote:

Actualy the best scenario is a recalibration time dependant on the ratio of jammer/sensor strength.

If I black out a frig that has lower sensor strength than my jammer, he gets hit by a sensor cluster recalibration and then relock time. His relock time is short, so most of the penalty comes from the jamming. A BS on the other hand, most of the penalty comes from relocking as the sensors are much more resistant, so I actualy only may break his locks but he can start relocking instantly ... but this was also propsed long ago ... This even forces falcons to work side by side with gallente recons for better effect ...


Add RSDs to that. . .and it all makes sense.


Actually, when I read that again - it is very interesting. RSDs + ECM would achieve very very good synergy (as with a single bonused RSD, a few seconds of jamming (vs a ECCM-ed BS with high sensor str) + relock time is somewhere close to the 20s cycle), while bringing ECM alone would not do *that* much to ECCM BS, while low sensor str ships would get jammed (recalibration time) for quite a while, possibly longer then the 20s cycle if they have really low sensor str.

It's a interesting idea, if I'm reading it correctly. Would make ECM + Damps a very awesome combination, while increasing the importance of high sensor str.




finaly somebody :-) actualy the cycle time would need to be shortened on the ECM modules. there's also the problem of jammer stacking. right now they do not, but the statistical mechanics make up for the lack of stacking. in case the relation sensor/jammer also determines the effect (how much blackout time), there needs to be some change in jammer stacking.

would be great if our matlab genius could plot some graphs for that system. I am terribly weak at matlab :-)

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2008.09.12 10:48:00 - [59]
 

Edited by: Cpt Branko on 12/09/2008 10:50:22
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 12/09/2008 10:49:37
Originally by: Hugh Ruka

finaly somebody :-) actualy the cycle time would need to be shortened on the ECM modules. there's also the problem of jammer stacking. right now they do not, but the statistical mechanics make up for the lack of stacking. in case the relation sensor/jammer also determines the effect (how much blackout time), there needs to be some change in jammer stacking.



No need if you just make blackout additive. It's the same as jammer stacking (for blackout purposes), in fact.

If we give blackout a base value modified by jammer strenght / sensor strenght, then:
blackout=((jammer_str/sensor_str)*base_blackout)*N (if you simply make blackout times additive)

in case of jammer stacking (so 2 jammers get double jam str), then:
blackout=(((jammer_str*N)/sensor_str)*base_blackout)

Which are obviously the same (depending on potential stacking penalities of course). Additive blackout solves the issue of spread out (time-wise) jams better, too, since a jammer hitting at T and another hitting at T+1 would create some problems regarding jammer stacking.

Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
Posted - 2008.09.12 12:16:00 - [60]
 

Originally by: Cpt Branko
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 12/09/2008 10:50:22
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 12/09/2008 10:49:37
Originally by: Hugh Ruka

finaly somebody :-) actualy the cycle time would need to be shortened on the ECM modules. there's also the problem of jammer stacking. right now they do not, but the statistical mechanics make up for the lack of stacking. in case the relation sensor/jammer also determines the effect (how much blackout time), there needs to be some change in jammer stacking.



No need if you just make blackout additive. It's the same as jammer stacking (for blackout purposes), in fact.

If we give blackout a base value modified by jammer strenght / sensor strenght, then:
blackout=((jammer_str/sensor_str)*base_blackout)*N (if you simply make blackout times additive)

in case of jammer stacking (so 2 jammers get double jam str), then:
blackout=(((jammer_str*N)/sensor_str)*base_blackout)

Which are obviously the same (depending on potential stacking penalities of course). Additive blackout solves the issue of spread out (time-wise) jams better, too, since a jammer hitting at T and another hitting at T+1 would create some problems regarding jammer stacking.



hey that's a good idea actualy ...

now we need a working envelope for the formula ...

do we keep current jammer cycle ?
should there be a maximum blackout time ?
should there be an imunity level ? I mean if the sensor strength is that much higher, no blackout time ever occurs, just lock break if successfull...

my orgiginal proposal was to equalise the jam penalty on the jammed ship.

f.e 10 second jam and a frig can relock instantly, however a BS takes 6 seconds to relock ... so a frig is taken out for longer + short relock = bs only lock break (or minimal jam) + long relock

whatever ... I am out of ideas ... I have to think this through in more detail ..


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5

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