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

Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
Posted - 2008.09.14 15:08:00 - [91]
 

a quick fix to falcons could be to disable the jam when the falcon cloaks ?

atm the jam lasts full cycle even when the falcon cloaks

Etho Demerzel
Gallente
Holy Clan of the Cone
Posted - 2008.09.14 18:58:00 - [92]
 

Originally by: Hugh Ruka
a quick fix to falcons could be to disable the jam when the falcon cloaks ?

atm the jam lasts full cycle even when the falcon cloaks


That would be a good and sensible change. And the only one really needed.

KD.Fluffy
Caldari
Sacred Templars
Black Swan.
Posted - 2008.09.14 20:04:00 - [93]
 

your math is completely wrong bud.

Corstaad
Minmatar
Vardr ok Lidskjalv
Posted - 2008.09.14 20:53:00 - [94]
 

One thing I'd like to see though is some sort way to train your sensor str up. It doesn't have to be anything great maybe 5% bonus for each level. It seems like it could be a missing support skill.

Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
Posted - 2008.09.14 20:57:00 - [95]
 

Originally by: Corstaad
One thing I'd like to see though is some sort way to train your sensor str up. It doesn't have to be anything great maybe 5% bonus for each level. It seems like it could be a missing support skill.


that would make no sense ... it would just be another must-have skill ... like navigation. there is a differnce between skills that affect module performance and skills that affect ship stats ... common ship stat improving skills are found on all chars (engineering, eletronics, mechanic, hull upgrades, navigation etc ...).

Corstaad
Minmatar
Vardr ok Lidskjalv
Posted - 2008.09.14 21:05:00 - [96]
 

Why wouldn't it make sense its like any other skill you train to increase your ships capabilitys.

Cautet
Celestial Apocalypse
Posted - 2008.09.15 14:50:00 - [97]
 

Originally by: Cpt Branko
Originally by: Corstaad
The real issue is these ships are flown to much for dual boxxing. Since its a alt made for straight jamming most likely it will have extreme max skills and max jamming fits. When I get into my falcon I won't want my ship nerfed because of lame arse dual boxing



Dual boxing falcons it is only really popular due to covops cloak+range (in combination with high jam str). It is a different issue then the increased effectiveness (by 40-50% from it's 'on paper' effect) of ECM when jam chances are low due to locktime.




Why would people dual box with falcons? I can think of tons of ships better to dual box with.

Rapier plus arazu
Rapier plus interdictor
Rapier plus cloaked sniper BS
interdictor plus cloaked sniper BS
arazu plus cloaked sniper BS

..

I think if anything needs to be changed (which I don't think it does) then hitting the falcon only (i.e. reducing to 17% jam str per level, or the cloaking suggestion above).

In small gang pvp they are used alot because RR BS are used alot. ECM is a counter to this. The counter to the counter is rep drones plus ECCM, but luckily the counter to the counter doesn't completely negate the counter. It's a good thing, no?

I would though really love for Damp optimal range to be increased. Keep the strength the same, just increase the range. This would be good on it's own and good vs ECM. And good for me. Everyone wins.

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2008.09.15 16:21:00 - [98]
 

Originally by: Cautet
Originally by: Cpt Branko

Dual boxing falcons it is only really popular due to covops cloak+range (in combination with high jam str). It is a different issue then the increased effectiveness (by 40-50% from it's 'on paper' effect) of ECM when jam chances are low due to locktime.



Why would people dual box with falcons? I can think of tons of ships better to dual box with.

Rapier plus arazu
Rapier plus interdictor
Rapier plus cloaked sniper BS
interdictor plus cloaked sniper BS
arazu plus cloaked sniper BS



Of course, but they're all inferior choices. Falcon alts are simpler and have a wider range of application (which is why you can see truckloads of them). To go over your list:

- Rapier + Arazu; works in 0.0 only or low-sec belts/etc due to range, takes quite long to kill targets, but a workable combo. Definitely requires more care in case **** hits the fan given both ships are closer-ranged (and therefore, have less time to bug out when things go ugly).

- Rapier + interdictor; 0.0 only, also tons of stuff it just won't kill.

- Rapier + cloaked BS; works only in 0.0 and low-sec belts/etc with the added penality (applies for all places) of a cloaking BS being spotted when it actually moves around, Rapier being not so hard to chase off, and a cloaking BS being way more bulky in case you need to actually move around.

- Interdictor + cloaked BS: 0.0 only, all other disadvantages of hauling a cloaking BS around apply

- arazu plus cloaked sniper BS; works in belts/etc only, unless you can instapop targets or arazu has domination web or something, all penalities of hauling a cloaking BS around apply

At any rate, I don't think the point of this discussion was 'omg, Falcon alts' - I was just trying to point out why Falcons alts are so popular. To get back on topic, the OP has gone to some lengths to show that ECM in cases where it has low jam probability is actually 40-50% more effective then on paper. Why are you so patently against bringing ECM in line with its on paper efficency?



Originally by: KD.Fluffy
your math is completely wrong bud.


You must've been trying to say "I'm a dim-witted troll who can't say anything except 'you're wrong'.", because that is what came across.

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2008.09.15 16:23:00 - [99]
 

Originally by: Corstaad
Why wouldn't it make sense its like any other skill you train to increase your ships capabilitys.


Well, it would be a de-facto ECM nerf. Just like introducing 'advanced long range targetting' would be a damp nerf, for instance. Even more so then buffing ECCM (which is a counter-module which may or may not be fitted) because, well, everyone would have +20/+25% sensor strength.

Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
Posted - 2008.09.15 19:18:00 - [100]
 

Originally by: Cpt Branko
Originally by: Corstaad
Why wouldn't it make sense its like any other skill you train to increase your ships capabilitys.


Well, it would be a de-facto ECM nerf. Just like introducing 'advanced long range targetting' would be a damp nerf, for instance. Even more so then buffing ECCM (which is a counter-module which may or may not be fitted) because, well, everyone would have +20/+25% sensor strength.


thx Branko ... you put that into better words than I did :-)

Semkhet
Dark Tornado
Ethereal Dawn
Posted - 2008.09.15 20:35:00 - [101]
 

Edited by: Semkhet on 15/09/2008 20:41:27
Since ages, I've trained an alt specifically maxed on LR falcons. By LR I mean optimal at 200 Km and over, with ECM strength just below 15 with racials or T2. Why ?

Because it's the only sensible way of using them if you fight outnumbered, besides using them at close range means probable destruction as soon you miss a cycle.

Using it as LR jamming platform brings several advantages. You fight on one account and from time to time quietly switch to the falcon to readjust your targets. The distance gives a safety buffer and you usually have time to relocate the ship if some bugger gets a landing point nearby. It's particularly efficient either as dedicated anti-jamming platform by going against other bb's/falcons/rooks/scorps hence preventing your RR battleships to get jammed, or can inversely prevent remote repping of opponent RR BS's.

But it's of little use in almost any other active engagement profile under the perspective of survivability. Can't warp off fast, can't travel fast, and doesn't have enough cap to use a MWD decently, which are all big no-no for roaming. And a falcon can't kill a fly either...

Anyhow we get always to the same point. Why is ECM quite effective ? Simply due to the amount of geniuses who think that fitting sensor boosters is more pertinent than fitting ECCM. Frankly, it won't help much your fight to be able to instalock if any ECM boat switches you off the action half of the time. Some of my boats fit dual-ECCM Laughing

Derek Sigres
Posted - 2008.09.15 20:55:00 - [102]
 

After much consideration on the subject I believe I've come up with the "compromise" that everyone is looking for. Most of the "ECM is overpowered" crowd essentially want a module or set of modules that make them IMMUNE to ECM - a scenario that reduces the effectivess of ECM to the category of "dubious". Some people want a massive boost of for ECCM making a single module achieve "near immunity from a single jammer" - again this removes the point of the entire thing.

The solution is two fold:

ECCM becomes a sensor booster stat. Unbonused it provides a 60% boost to sensor strength, bonused it provides a 120% bonus (a substantial boost in general).

A NEW module is added - a true backup sensor array. The backup array would occupy a low power slot and have a substantial CPU cost associated with it. The module would, in effect offer a replacement set of sensors if your primary set were taken offline by ECM. One could "balance" this if necessary by providing a degredation of lock range/time if necessary. In effect a low slot sacrifice will negate (to an extent) one ECM.

If you want complete immunity you'll have to fit 8 backup arrays (at the expense of tank and damage for most ships), and substantial CPU costs mean that ships will have to make concessions for the fitting - downgrading where necessary and possibly resorting to fitting mods. If you want immunity however there OUGHT to be a steep price to pay.

Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
Posted - 2008.09.16 06:42:00 - [103]
 

Originally by: Derek Sigres
After much consideration on the subject I believe I've come up with the "compromise" that everyone is looking for. Most of the "ECM is overpowered" crowd essentially want a module or set of modules that make them IMMUNE to ECM - a scenario that reduces the effectivess of ECM to the category of "dubious". Some people want a massive boost of for ECCM making a single module achieve "near immunity from a single jammer" - again this removes the point of the entire thing.

The solution is two fold:

ECCM becomes a sensor booster stat. Unbonused it provides a 60% boost to sensor strength, bonused it provides a 120% bonus (a substantial boost in general).

A NEW module is added - a true backup sensor array. The backup array would occupy a low power slot and have a substantial CPU cost associated with it. The module would, in effect offer a replacement set of sensors if your primary set were taken offline by ECM. One could "balance" this if necessary by providing a degredation of lock range/time if necessary. In effect a low slot sacrifice will negate (to an extent) one ECM.

If you want complete immunity you'll have to fit 8 backup arrays (at the expense of tank and damage for most ships), and substantial CPU costs mean that ships will have to make concessions for the fitting - downgrading where necessary and possibly resorting to fitting mods. If you want immunity however there OUGHT to be a steep price to pay.


Actualy this is not a new idea. One could create a backup sensor array with normal sensor properties like lock range, scan res, sensor strehgth ... But there are a few distinct problems ...

Can you fit and use a different racial backup array ? I mean you fit a ladar one on a magneto ship ... this means the jamming ship has a hard time guessing you backup system.

How does the switch to normal sensors take place ? Is it automatic once the jam cycle ends ? Do you loose all locks acquired by the backup array as you switch sensor clusters ?

While this could be a nice addition to the game, it incorporates a new set of problems ...

Rajere
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
Posted - 2008.09.16 07:37:00 - [104]
 

Quote:
But it's of little use in almost any other active engagement profile under the perspective of survivability. Can't warp off fast, can't travel fast, and doesn't have enough cap to use a MWD decently, which are all big no-no for roaming. And a falcon can't kill a fly either...

you're doing it wrong. It's as survivable if not more so than any other force recon ship, which are extremely survivable ships with the cov ops cloak. Like all other covops cloak ships, it enters warp the instant you press warp, because you are aligned and at full speed before you uncloak. It travels fine, doesn't have enough cap to make really long (100+ au) warps, but alot of ships especially recons have this problem. Not enough cap to use a mwd decently? What are you trying to do? nano it? Other than huge warps, i've never run out of cap, ever. In fact my biggest gripe about the falcon is how long it takes to intentionally empty your cap burning the mwd, when you're trying to land short of a gate. Need to fit mwd+smart bomb or two to really empty your cap before it regens :/

Magestic
Posted - 2008.09.16 09:06:00 - [105]
 

Some of u guys crack me up

there are 2 camps, those who fly falcons and those who don't

even with my 150 mill full t2 fit falcon with recon lvl 4 i get a racial strenght of just under 12

which means my ship has 1600hp shield, and 1300 odd armour

i tend to fit 2/2/1/1 jammers and a booster to get over the 180km range, and my optimal is 180km
so i dont get fked at gate

if i'm lucky and i get 2-3 bs of different races with no eccm i may be able to jam 2-3 50-70% of the time, now add any fast ship to that group and these days a vaga gets to me in 12 sec and i die in less than 20, once my jammer is cycling i cant set it on the vaga/ishtar/demios/curse/rapier - any ship that does 4k/s even frigates to break a lock or warp, i just sit and die

the assumption that falcons perma jam is false its the relock time of a BS that makes it seam so ,

with multis , on a falcon i have str of 7.2, not 15, nobody in there right mind fits 6 of the same jammer umless u are sure that u have 1 target and its a carrier, and then see how well u can do at perma jamming , and if that has eccm u might get a jam 1/6

I love the falcon, suits my play style [ sneaky beaky ], but i take a hell of a risk evry time i undock in it

Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
Posted - 2008.09.16 10:04:00 - [106]
 

Originally by: Magestic
Some of u guys crack me up

there are 2 camps, those who fly falcons and those who don't

even with my 150 mill full t2 fit falcon with recon lvl 4 i get a racial strenght of just under 12

which means my ship has 1600hp shield, and 1300 odd armour

i tend to fit 2/2/1/1 jammers and a booster to get over the 180km range, and my optimal is 180km
so i dont get fked at gate

if i'm lucky and i get 2-3 bs of different races with no eccm i may be able to jam 2-3 50-70% of the time, now add any fast ship to that group and these days a vaga gets to me in 12 sec and i die in less than 20, once my jammer is cycling i cant set it on the vaga/ishtar/demios/curse/rapier - any ship that does 4k/s even frigates to break a lock or warp, i just sit and die

the assumption that falcons perma jam is false its the relock time of a BS that makes it seam so ,

with multis , on a falcon i have str of 7.2, not 15, nobody in there right mind fits 6 of the same jammer umless u are sure that u have 1 target and its a carrier, and then see how well u can do at perma jamming , and if that has eccm u might get a jam 1/6

I love the falcon, suits my play style [ sneaky beaky ], but i take a hell of a risk evry time i undock in it



sorry to say this, but without recon 5 the falcon is an unusable ship. your cloak takes too much CPU to make any reasonable set-up fit on the ship ... and with recon 5, your jammer strength looks quite a bit different.

Cautet
Celestial Apocalypse
Posted - 2008.09.16 10:18:00 - [107]
 

Edited by: Cautet on 16/09/2008 10:19:45
Cpt. branko -

I don't know so much about low-sec dual boxing. However Arazu plus rapier actualy isn't bad damage - does enough damage to kill most BS quick, can tackle at safe distance and prevent any ship closing that distance, can speedtank med drones, can ignore light drones long enough.

Cloaked BS - yep it has to travel which is a downside until you remember that a arazu or rapier or a dictor can scout for it. Plus you tend to park them at a 0.0 gate with a cloak on the dictor and support ship and you get damage and safe tackle with those combos. With falcon your dual box ship needs to be close range and cant gtfo if it goes pear shaped. Much more risk, especially if you get blobbed.

But, having said that maybe in lowsec falcon + other is a better bet due to needing to
move around more?

---
Other posters:

Another solution: make the low ECCM have same strength as the mid ECCM. And same with sensor boosters and amps.

15 sensor strength + 200km - please no more of this. It got old the first time. 14.1 is not near 15. I don't know where this 15 figure comes from really, though it smells pretty bad.

Hugh - really interesting idea.

puppylvr
Posted - 2008.09.16 10:47:00 - [108]
 

Alt of magestic

I know recon 5 would be nice But I have soooooo many other skills i need first and at 22mil

24 days for a ship i do very nicely in , ask the guys whose asses i save evry day Laughing

normally i'm in a cerb/NH/mega

but when in fleet having 1 more falcon makes all the difference YARRRR!!

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2008.09.16 12:02:00 - [109]
 

Originally by: Cautet

But, having said that maybe in lowsec falcon + other is a better bet due to needing to
move around more?



Basically, this. Plus, it does a good job outside sentry ranges (which is 150km, preventing the use of rapier+arazu combos for anything other then belt work - or killing us poor pirates) - the sub-150km and over 150km divide is very important within that framework.

Disregarding Falcons (and their superiority to non-cloaking ECM ships such as the Rook), I would still like a 'blackout time' mechanic to reduce the effect of relocking time (and jamming in low success chance scenarios) on combat. Relock time (particularly considering BS) effectively lenghtens cycle time to 20+relock which is a big improvement when jam chances are low, and a fairly small one when jam chances are high - which really devalues the power of ECCM (it makes it comparatively worse, as relock times boost ECM performance at low jamming probabilities).

People would still whine about Falcons (of course) because they're cloaky and nasty, but it'd would lower the effects of (insufficent) jamming vs a counter-fit gang, while still keeping ECM as effective as it is when you bring enough of it and would make it less effective to stick one jammer on each ship regardless of ECCM (which is, provided you're not forced to jam a specific ship or if you have less ships facing you then you have jammers, matemathically the best option thanks to relock times for supressing overall DPS/RR/whatever).

I think it's a welcome change overall.


Semkhet
Dark Tornado
Ethereal Dawn
Posted - 2008.09.16 21:23:00 - [110]
 

Edited by: Semkhet on 16/09/2008 21:25:23
Originally by: Cautet

15 sensor strength + 200km - please no more of this. It got old the first time. 14.1 is not near 15. I don't know where this 15 figure comes from really, though it smells pretty bad.


And maybe you should learn to play the game before spitting nonsense on forums. To start with, except for dictors & HIC's, I don't put neither my butt nor my alts in ships without enjoying lvl5 and most if not all the related support skills maxed.

Without being in gang, that Falcon alt achieves optimal of 213 Km with over 30 Km falloff with a strength of 13,58. Guess you forgot what Sig Distortion Amps II and Particle Dispersion Projectors are for.

Then we get to the stats when your booster is an EOS fitting an Information warfare link, giving you 10% more strength without even requiring the EOS pilot to have excellent skills nor using a mindlink. This gives just below 15...

So, get back to me about that bad smell when you actually have a clue what you're talking about Laughing

Bellum Eternus
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2008.09.16 22:48:00 - [111]
 

Originally by: Semkhet
Edited by: Semkhet on 16/09/2008 21:25:23
Originally by: Cautet

15 sensor strength + 200km - please no more of this. It got old the first time. 14.1 is not near 15. I don't know where this 15 figure comes from really, though it smells pretty bad.


And maybe you should learn to play the game before spitting nonsense on forums. To start with, except for dictors & HIC's, I don't put neither my butt nor my alts in ships without enjoying lvl5 and most if not all the related support skills maxed.

Without being in gang, that Falcon alt achieves optimal of 213 Km with over 30 Km falloff with a strength of 13,58. Guess you forgot what Sig Distortion Amps II and Particle Dispersion Projectors are for.

Then we get to the stats when your booster is an EOS fitting an Information warfare link, giving you 10% more strength without even requiring the EOS pilot to have excellent skills nor using a mindlink. This gives just below 15...

So, get back to me about that bad smell when you actually have a clue what you're talking about Laughing


Cautet just doesn't want anyone to know about the reality of the stats so he tries to bury it with misinformation.

200km+ ranges and jam strengths approaching 15 are a common thing in my gangs.

Cautet
Celestial Apocalypse
Posted - 2008.09.16 23:42:00 - [112]
 

Edited by: Cautet on 17/09/2008 00:05:43
Originally by: Cautet

15 sensor strength + 200km - please no more of this. It got old the first time. 14.1 is not near 15. I don't know where this 15 figure comes from really, though it smells pretty bad.


And maybe you should learn to play the game before spitting nonsense on forums. To start with, except for dictors & HIC's, I don't put neither my butt nor my alts in ships without enjoying lvl5 and most if not all the related support skills maxed.

Without being in gang, that Falcon alt achieves optimal of 213 Km with over 30 Km falloff with a strength of 13,58. Guess you forgot what Sig Distortion Amps II and Particle Dispersion Projectors are for.

Then we get to the stats when your booster is an EOS fitting an Information warfare link, giving you 10% more strength without even requiring the EOS pilot to have excellent skills nor using a mindlink. This gives just below 15...

So, get back to me about that bad smell when you actually have a clue what you're talking about Laughing



Wow, I got another "learn to play". My second learn to play in this thread. I must be popular.

Instead of my insulting you, please check this thread very carefully. You will see a post from me which shows you the maximum jam strength at 200km. This strength is 14.1. I think you will find it is correct, and in my earlier post stated the setup used to make this calculation, but read my posts anyway. You might learn something.

If the real problem is that you feel the need for some reason to pretend that 14 = 15 to make ecm seem overpowered then you clearly have missed the point of this thread. It was intended to be a non emotional statistical look at ecm. If you are unable to perform basic maths without emoraging AND getting the maths wrong then maybe another thread would be to your choosing.

Oh, I also posted a nice killboard link to my favourite kill in a falcon. Maybe one day you will have an experience like that to look back on with fondness.

if, after realising that I am always right, you feel the need to appologise, then of course I will accept appologies by evemail or in the forum.

Semkhet
Dark Tornado
Ethereal Dawn
Posted - 2008.09.17 00:09:00 - [113]
 

Originally by: Cautet

Oh, by the way I have better ECM skills than you. Always nice to know how uber I am.


Dude, I'm a bit old to lie for pixels. That difference is due to the last lvl on Sig Dispersion, which is not essential since an EOS with a good pilot + mindlink can push you up to 25% further. But I guess you're one of these geniuses who still thinks that EvE is a solo player game. SP's are definitely no cure for a missing brain, specially when you don't factorize the effective efficiency ratio vs time spent on gaining said sp's in some fields... And by the way, just two days ago my alt jammed another falcon at over 200 Km. The poor sod then warped out since he could not counterjam at that range. I dunno, maybe was it you ? LaughingLaughingLaughing

So you will excuse me if, when you pretend that a falcon can't jam at 15 strength over 200 km, I either consider that you have no clue, or post in bad faith. But whatever, in both cases, you just lost a golden opportunity to STFU Wink

Cautet
Celestial Apocalypse
Posted - 2008.09.17 00:12:00 - [114]
 

Edited by: Cautet on 17/09/2008 08:36:50

It is pointless arguing with you.

So your point is now that mindlinks push ECM up? Ok, I accept that. You suggest it is below but very close to 15, and I am not going to go on sis to check, because I don't care. They have mindlinks that change the stats on most ships. I must remember to put a * for mindlinks as well as gang bonuses and faction equipment in any post I make so you go into an emorage.

Perhaps your next issue is with sensor strength? Or with sensor locking time? No-one factored in projected effects such as remote sensor boosters, remote ECCM, gang boosts, or mindlinks.

Oh, we flew together previously when you were in tri and I was in insrg, though I couldn't find you on any shared killmails and I noticed you missed the titan kill (unlucky). Haven't flown against you yet that I can tell, but eve is a small game and I am sure we will at some point.

And no, you didn't jam me. But I have been jammed before by blackbirds, scorps, rooks, and falcons.

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2008.09.17 09:47:00 - [115]
 

Edited by: Cpt Branko on 17/09/2008 09:47:45
First off, falcon jam str is not what the OP pointed out - he was pointing out how much lock time boosts Falcon's performance at supressing hostiles. Wether the jam str is 15 (mindlinked ships) or 14.1 is totally irellevant (I lie, it isn't - relock time is a bigger relative efficency boost at lower jam str, directly hurting the 'no, 14.1' attack on the OP's calculations).

Point is the following: you get a (relatively) 40% boost to 'out of action' time when jamming BS at low jam chances (one racial jammer, one ECCM-ed BS with average sensor str) thanks to relocking time (while the impact is quite minimal at high jam chances relatively speaking). Do I need to use h3 tags for someone to notice what the issue is?

I'd say that part is relatively broken regarding ECM in general. As for Falcons specifically, I do believe need some sort of rebalancing on their own, starting with the ability to re-cloak while targets are still jammed and one of its ECM bonuses, but that's not the point of this discussion.

Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
Posted - 2008.09.17 10:27:00 - [116]
 

Edited by: Kazuo Ishiguro on 17/09/2008 10:27:39
If you have time to work on the figures, I'd still like to know whether someone in a battleship is better off trying to counter-jam rather than fit ECCM in terms of time spent being jammed.

Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
Posted - 2008.09.17 10:29:00 - [117]
 

Originally by: Cpt Branko
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 17/09/2008 09:47:45
First off, falcon jam str is not what the OP pointed out - he was pointing out how much lock time boosts Falcon's performance at supressing hostiles. Wether the jam str is 15 (mindlinked ships) or 14.1 is totally irellevant (I lie, it isn't - relock time is a bigger relative efficency boost at lower jam str, directly hurting the 'no, 14.1' attack on the OP's calculations).

Point is the following: you get a (relatively) 40% boost to 'out of action' time when jamming BS at low jam chances (one racial jammer, one ECCM-ed BS with average sensor str) thanks to relocking time (while the impact is quite minimal at high jam chances relatively speaking). Do I need to use h3 tags for someone to notice what the issue is?

I'd say that part is relatively broken regarding ECM in general. As for Falcons specifically, I do believe need some sort of rebalancing on their own, starting with the ability to re-cloak while targets are still jammed and one of its ECM bonuses, but that's not the point of this discussion.



Reading your summary, I realised we went the wrong way with the relock time reduction. Since the jammed ship also is affected by target size for relock time.

f.e. if a ECM ship jams a BS that is fighting a recon gang, the BS is in a worse situation than one fighting other battleships (it is targeting smaller hulls).

I guess the jammed ship should get a short term boost in scan res after a jam cycle ends (let's say residual energy from sensor recalibration) until first lock is acquired or 5 seconds (which ever happens first). This can be misused for lock time boosts on friendlies, but it takes a 20 second penalty on the jam so I don't think this is an issue.

Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
Posted - 2008.09.17 10:43:00 - [118]
 

Edited by: Cpt Branko on 17/09/2008 10:45:13
Originally by: Hugh Ruka
Originally by: Cpt Branko
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 17/09/2008 09:47:45
First off, falcon jam str is not what the OP pointed out - he was pointing out how much lock time boosts Falcon's performance at supressing hostiles. Wether the jam str is 15 (mindlinked ships) or 14.1 is totally irellevant (I lie, it isn't - relock time is a bigger relative efficency boost at lower jam str, directly hurting the 'no, 14.1' attack on the OP's calculations).

Point is the following: you get a (relatively) 40% boost to 'out of action' time when jamming BS at low jam chances (one racial jammer, one ECCM-ed BS with average sensor str) thanks to relocking time (while the impact is quite minimal at high jam chances relatively speaking). Do I need to use h3 tags for someone to notice what the issue is?

I'd say that part is relatively broken regarding ECM in general. As for Falcons specifically, I do believe need some sort of rebalancing on their own, starting with the ability to re-cloak while targets are still jammed and one of its ECM bonuses, but that's not the point of this discussion.



Reading your summary, I realised we went the wrong way with the relock time reduction. Since the jammed ship also is affected by target size for relock time.

f.e. if a ECM ship jams a BS that is fighting a recon gang, the BS is in a worse situation than one fighting other battleships (it is targeting smaller hulls).

I guess the jammed ship should get a short term boost in scan res after a jam cycle ends (let's say residual energy from sensor recalibration) until first lock is acquired or 5 seconds (which ever happens first). This can be misused for lock time boosts on friendlies, but it takes a 20 second penalty on the jam so I don't think this is an issue.


Well, that part is true - but I don't mind increased penalities vs smaller ships (as long as locking ships your own size is largely unaffected). Battleships are not very well designed to fight them in the first place, so I don't see a really big issue. Besides, if said recons are MWD-ing (which is not uncommon, in case of all the Rapiers/etc) it's actually quite fast to lock one.


Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro
Edited by: Kazuo Ishiguro on 17/09/2008 10:27:39
If you have time to work on the figures, I'd still like to know whether someone in a battleship is better off trying to counter-jam rather than fit ECCM in terms of time spent being jammed.


No, because unbonused jammers don't do anything and don't have a range to do anything.

Derek Sigres
Posted - 2008.09.17 14:57:00 - [119]
 

Originally by: Hugh Ruka
Actualy this is not a new idea. One could create a backup sensor array with normal sensor properties like lock range, scan res, sensor strehgth ... But there are a few distinct problems ...

Can you fit and use a different racial backup array ? I mean you fit a ladar one on a magneto ship ... this means the jamming ship has a hard time guessing you backup system.

How does the switch to normal sensors take place ? Is it automatic once the jam cycle ends ? Do you loose all locks acquired by the backup array as you switch sensor clusters ?

While this could be a nice addition to the game, it incorporates a new set of problems ...


This is an example of a red herring argument, in spite of being well meaning. The issue you bring up is in fact a minor one of balancing that is easily resolved and distracts from the question at hand: that is, is the solution presented a feasable one that would resolve the issues of the two camps in question. In short, by both boosting ECCM and creating a true perfect counter one can in fact satisfy both of the more reasonable nerf falcon's camps while creating a scenario that still requires compromises on the part of the defending pilot.

In the above examples, we can start with a the first question regarding sensor type. While it may not seem "realistic" to dictate that a backup array is the exact same type of sensor (and therefore arguably just as vulnerable to the exact same jammer already directed at your ship) it would instantly resolve the question. Any other solution presents the problems you mentioned, and since Eve has no way of demonstrating the types of targeting system a ship has other than it's assumed default by race.

The secondary issues of course involve the issues of stacking. In short, without considerations regarding the mechanics of a backup array, ECM counermeasures could in fact be stacked to the point that removing the ship from the fight with ECM becomes progressively more difficult to the point that it may take MANY well skilled ECM ships with perfect jammers to remove a ship from the fight. On the one hand, after a sufficient allotment of slots the defending ship becomes so weak in general that it's immunity to a support skills is basically irrelevent as it's going to be flimsy and weak. On the other hand, there is not a comperable system in the game for defense against firepower, and there is no sub capital ship that can simply ignore damage from even a handful of battleship indefinitely. If this problem needs to be resolved it's done rather simply - the backup array, when in place does NOT get ECCM bonuses and it by default has a VERY low sensor strength. For the sake of a number let's say that number is somewhere under 10 or so. This strength is low enough that a semi-skilled pilot using a racial jammer can now use one jammer per backup array and still achieve a high probability of jamming. This essentially means ECCM insulates you from the probability of a permajam under the worst case scenario while a backup array provides a perfect counter on a slot by slot basis (I.E. with one backup array, if two jammers are applied you are now perma jammed. If you add a second array you will never be jammed until a third jammer is applied). There are of course other ways to balance this as well. Subsequent backup arrays can have progresively worse statistics in terms of lock range and speed until a battle ship on it's 8th array has the lock range of a dampened ibis and the scan res of a seiged dred. While this doesn't put a cap on the problem, the ship becomes progressively less effective as more jammers are applied.

As far as the mechanics of the switch go, there really is nothing I can say here. Presumably the mechanisms are in place that would allow eve to understand the basic scenario at play. All stats in quesiton are inheritly modifiable and as such it becomes a programming challenge, not one of game balance.

Presidio
Minmatar
Phantom Squad
Posted - 2008.09.17 16:16:00 - [120]
 

Edited by: Presidio on 17/09/2008 16:18:29
Originally by: Nikunai
Doesn't all this rely on the fact the falcon is left alone for the entire fight?

Wouldn't the data completely change if one person in the gang MWD's towards it or makes any attempt to force it to cloak or leave the field?

Oh wait, that would mean someone might lose out on a kill mail if they have to go after the falcon. It all makes sense now. Shocked


Yes it also relies on the fact that you are fighting exactly the race ships equal to the racial jammers you have equipped. And that you are completely left alone since falcon has no tank whatsoever.

Another thing to note is that in fleet engagements it is harder to stack EWAR ships then any other ships. Because you don't want to have multiple pilots jamming the same ship as it would waste your EWAR capabilities.


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