open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Change to ECM Mechanics
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Phantom Slave
Universal Pest Exterminators
Posted - 2010.01.26 20:31:00 - [1]
 

First of all, I'd prefer a rational discussion on this rather than a flame war, but I do know what forum I'm on and not very optimistic for such.

Current Mechanics

ECM modules (when they work) remove the ability of the victim to lock any targets, and they lose all locks that they have currently. Repeated ECM means the ship cannot fight back. ECCM modules are not very effective, and being jammed completely still happens.

Originally by: "Example"
Player A in a Blackbird jams player B. Player B cannot fight back aside from already aggressed drones and smartbombs.


My Proposal

Change the way ECM works. Instead of removing all locks, it removes a random one half of the ship/skills maximum (with a minimum of 1 lock). It also stops new locks from occurring while the ECM cycle runs its course.

Originally by: "Example 1"
Player A in a Blackbird jams player B (who has 4 ships locked, out of 4 maximum). Player B loses 2 of his locks, and cannot re-target any ships. Player A hits player B with another ECM cycle from a second module, Player B loses remaining 2 locks and is now jammed exactly like current mechanics. One module kept on the target will keep him from locking more targets, and the second module can be used to hit other ships.


Originally by: "Example 2"
Player A in a Blackbird jams player B (who has only the BB locked). Because of the minimum 1 target jam, player B is now jammed exactly like current mechanics.


The single ECM module, when it refreshes its cycle (assuming it doesn't fail) keeps the current target from locking any new targets, but does not (by itself) remove the rest of the locks. This leaves the jamming ship with a 50/50 chance of still being targeted if it was targeted before beginning its jamming cycles (also assuming the ECM ship isn't the only ship targeted).

What this accomplishes

One single module can no longer take a ship completely out of a fight as long as the victim has 2 or more ships locked. Some may argue that TD/Damps do the same thing, but ECM is the only module that requires zero effort from gang mates to not die from the jammed ship. TD/Damps still require your gang mates to keep out of range or keep up transversal, while ECM jammed ships cannot do anything threatening aside from using Smartbomb and Drones, which TD/Damps have the same issues with.

ECM Burst and ECM Drones are both fine as is.

Making Modules Useful

My proposal will most likely make ECM modules/ships more nerfed than intended. Changing the ECM module as such should help alleviate this:

Originally by: "ECM Module Changes"
10 second reactivation (from 20 seconds currently)
50% reduction in activation costs (compensate for 2x activation speed)


There would be no real change to ECCM, except the possibility of making them a little less effective than they are now, since ECM itself is less effective.

In Conclusion

This isn't so much a nerf whine, as it is an open topic of discussion. People do not like the helpless feeling of being jammed, but is there really anything we can change about ECM that won't completely destroy all the training done by all those ECM platform pilots?


mchief117
Posted - 2010.01.26 20:38:00 - [2]
 

you ever notice how most ecm ships have paper thin armor , and are the first to die most of the time. if you read my posts im all about coming up with new ideas to make the gave rock even more than it allready does. but facts are its hard enought staying alive in a ecm boat in fleet , making it so that it only removes 2 of 2-8 ships mean that the second a ship is ecmed it will fire on the ecmr

Silver Tongues
Posted - 2010.01.26 20:43:00 - [3]
 

Originally by: mchief117
you ever notice how most ecm ships have paper thin armor , and are the first to die most of the time. if you read my posts im all about coming up with new ideas to make the gave rock even more than it allready does. but facts are its hard enought staying alive in a ecm boat in fleet , making it so that it only removes 2 of 2-8 ships mean that the second a ship is ecmed it will fire on the ecmr


Maybe increasing the EHP of ECM ships could also be done, because with my proposed changes they would be more vulnerable. Also, if a ship has 8 targets locked, and is jammed, then my proposal is it loses 4 of those locks (50%) and cannot lock any more while it is still being ECM'd. A second ECM module would take that ship out of the fight completely, as it does now (removing the other 50% of locks). The ECM ship could then focus its second module on another target while the first module keeps the first target out of the fight (no more locks).

darius mclever
Posted - 2010.01.26 20:44:00 - [4]
 

on top of mchief said ... your proposal doesnt count in that the whole thing is *chance* based. so if you take away its power your proposal should somehow cover the replacement for the chance based thingie. last but not least for perma jamming you normally dedicate 1-3 jammer per ship. so not much would change to the current system.

John Blackthorn
Foundation
Posted - 2010.01.26 20:47:00 - [5]
 

The reason most jamming ships are paperthin is because most people don't tank. Throw in a mwd and all jammers in mid. If most rook/falcon pilots tossed on 2 large extenders, mwd, invulbity field and went with 3-4 jammers they'd live a bit longer and you'd have less jamming going on ;P


Meeko Atari
Posted - 2010.01.26 20:47:00 - [6]
 

Why not just make the ECM module a high-slot module?

But to your points, ECCM is effective, its just not 100% and either is the ECM module, unlike all other e-war modules.

ECM ships have NO tank so if they do miss a cycle...your done.

ECM modules are "racial" all other forms of e-war are not.

Dedicated e-war ships do not need more randomness or nerfs, I understand your frustration of being jammed but counters to ECM ships currently exist in game ( even while jammed ) you just have to "learn" how to deal with them.

Silver Tongues
Posted - 2010.01.26 20:51:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: darius mclever
on top of mchief said ... your proposal doesnt count in that the whole thing is *chance* based. so if you take away its power your proposal should somehow cover the replacement for the chance based thingie. last but not least for perma jamming you normally dedicate 1-3 jammer per ship. so not much would change to the current system.


This could be another topic of discussion we can look at, the chance based effects. What ways could this be changed without making ECM more powerful than it is now (and possibly not nerfing it too)? Guaranteed to jam a target, but ECCM allows 1 extra locked target to be kept? Or 25% of current max available?

Also, perhaps an ECM module that jams the target could *guarantee* that the ECM ship is removed from the target list. Not much would be changed from the ECM ships point of view as it would still be invulnerable from its current target, but his gang mates may still have issues.

Phantom Slave
Universal Pest Exterminators
Posted - 2010.01.26 20:54:00 - [8]
 

Just realized that my market alt was selected for my previous 2 posts. Silver Tongues is me.

Phantom Slave
Universal Pest Exterminators
Posted - 2010.01.26 20:59:00 - [9]
 

Edited by: Phantom Slave on 26/01/2010 21:02:21
Originally by: Meeko Atari
Why not just make the ECM module a high-slot module?

But to your points, ECCM is effective, its just not 100% and either is the ECM module, unlike all other e-war modules.

ECM ships have NO tank so if they do miss a cycle...your done.

ECM modules are "racial" all other forms of e-war are not.

Dedicated e-war ships do not need more randomness or nerfs, I understand your frustration of being jammed but counters to ECM ships currently exist in game ( even while jammed ) you just have to "learn" how to deal with them.


I actually haven't died to being jammed, ever, I don't think. I was just reading the forums and had an idea, so I figured I'd share it and see if we could all discuss it and see if there's any way to change current ECM mechanics without nerfing ECM platforms into the ground.

If there is no way to change them without nerfing them completely then I think they shouldn't be changed at all. I don't like nerfs, even if they are towards ships that make you feel helpless.

*edit* Oh, and the possibility of having ECM not being chance based (as my previous post pointed out) only affects ECM dedicated platforms (Blackbird, Rook, Falcon, Scorpion, and the EW frigate [can't remember its name]). Other ships that use ECM modules get to deal with current chance based mechanics.

Veldsparmonster
Posted - 2010.01.26 21:02:00 - [10]
 

Personally, I'd do it by saying that each lock has to be jammed seperately (note: each jammer can jam more than one lock under this idea) but they have sensor strength in proportion to their order in the lock sequence. I.e. Something like this:

1st lock: 2*sensor strength
2nd Lock: 1*sensor Strength
3rd lock: 0.5*sensor strength
4th lock: 0.25*sensor strength
5th lock: 0.125*sensor strength
etc...

And each jammer rolls, and then sees if how many of the locks it would have jammed.

That's better than half, as you can still fully jam a target, but you can also only manage partial jams, but even a few partial jams would muck up a gang.

darius mclever
Posted - 2010.01.26 21:03:00 - [11]
 

well if you ask me ECM is fine. chance based gives you a chance to gain lock. if you take that away you would need to increase the strength of jamming drones. and i highly doubt you want that.

if your are roaming in a gang you should have a plan how to handle ECM boats on the field.

Phantom Slave
Universal Pest Exterminators
Posted - 2010.01.26 21:05:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Veldsparmonster
Personally, I'd do it by saying that each lock has to be jammed seperately (note: each jammer can jam more than one lock under this idea) but they have sensor strength in proportion to their order in the lock sequence. I.e. Something like this:

1st lock: 2*sensor strength
2nd Lock: 1*sensor Strength
3rd lock: 0.5*sensor strength
4th lock: 0.25*sensor strength
5th lock: 0.125*sensor strength
etc...

And each jammer rolls, and then sees if how many of the locks it would have jammed.

That's better than half, as you can still fully jam a target, but you can also only manage partial jams, but even a few partial jams would muck up a gang.


The problem is that most gangs call Primary targets. Getting partial jams but leaving the ECM platforms themselves open to attack by being Target #1 would only hinder ECM usefulness.

Allan Sheperd
Posted - 2010.01.26 21:12:00 - [13]
 

Don't nerf ECM, buff sensor damps & TP's so instead of making all the ewar ships useless, all of them will be useful.

Phantom Slave
Universal Pest Exterminators
Posted - 2010.01.26 21:18:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Allan Sheperd
Don't nerf ECM, buff sensor damps & TP's so instead of making all the ewar ships useless, all of them will be useful.


How do you propose we change Damps/TP's to make them as effective as ECM (and I guess TD's if you feel that way)? Maybe make TP's from dedicated platforms increase damage above normal damage output? Maybe 1% per level, so your fleet could theoretically do 5% more damage to a target, on top of the increased damage the TD already gives by increasing sig radius? Maybe change damps so that they can reduce the total number of locked targets available, on top of increased lock time and/or reduced lock range?

I'm now into idea spouting mode and am derailing my own thread.

el caido
School of Applied Knowledge
Posted - 2010.01.26 21:36:00 - [15]
 

I do not have a problem with ECM. In fact, I think it is fairly balanced, all things considered. If we are comparing against the over-nerfed damps and the long cycle timer on painters, I can admit there are some problems. But a better ship bonus can solve the former, and a simple halfed cycle timer and cap use can solve the latter.

EW drones are vastly out of balance, however, and that requires more attention than the EW mods, imo.

What I do have a problem with, however, is chance-based game mechanics. Rolling the dice in EVE is poor form. Current implementation of ECM, salvaging, hacking, invention, etc should all go the way of the T2 lottery. There are smarter (and more fun) ways to implement these things.

Allan Sheperd
Posted - 2010.01.26 22:36:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Phantom Slave
Originally by: Allan Sheperd
Don't nerf ECM, buff sensor damps & TP's so instead of making all the ewar ships useless, all of them will be useful.


How do you propose we change Damps/TP's to make them as effective as ECM (and I guess TD's if you feel that way)? Maybe make TP's from dedicated platforms increase damage above normal damage output? Maybe 1% per level, so your fleet could theoretically do 5% more damage to a target, on top of the increased damage the TD already gives by increasing sig radius? Maybe change damps so that they can reduce the total number of locked targets available, on top of increased lock time and/or reduced lock range?

I'm now into idea spouting mode and am derailing my own thread.


How I see the problem as is:
As it stands right now I don't think I've ever seen a pilot fly a Celestis or Bellicose into a small gang PVP (5-10 people per side) engagement and be useful at all. The common question is why bring either when you could have another Blackbird? Which I hate to say is awfully true. The problem is as follows, a TD or ECM cruiser can completely remove the effectiveness of at least 2 enemies in a combat situation with fairly low skills.

This is not the case for a Celestis or Bellicose. Sensor damps are practically useless, and target painting is only helpful on specific ships (mwd frigs, mwd cruisers mainly), in conjunction with other specific ships (missile boats mainly). This of course excludes the Arazu.

Why are sensor damps practically useless?

It just limits what a target can shoot at, and as such does not truly negate any damage potential in most fleet situations. While some could argue that it could increase lock time and therefore removes some DPS, the argument is rather poor as you are not limited to how many targets you can attempt to lock at a time. Or in other words, if your range is being damped, shoot something you can shoot, and if your scan res is damped, keep your targets full. This makes it so that a fleet would have to be based around using sensor dampeners to make them effective and using almost all long ranged ships. Once again, ECM and TD do not suffer from this problem and are effective in nearly any fleet composition.

Now let's take a peek at the range, energy use, and ships associated with these electronic warfare types.

For respective T1 cruisers with LVL 5 skills.
Range: (Optimal+Falloff Total) Energy Use: (Per second per module with T2 mod)
ECM: 72+80 152 2.1 (Racial)
ECM: 48+53 101 3 (Multi)
TD: 72+36 108 1.4
SD: 45+90 135 2.7
TP: 45+90 135 1.8

Since all the ships use midslots for their Ewar...
ECM: 6 mids
TD: 4 mids
SD: 5 mids
TP: 4 mids

So what can we see from these numbers?
Tracking disruption and ECM both have the best optimal range, and ECM has the longest range. Even with multispectrals ECM comes in second place for optimal. Sensor damps and TP's have the shortest optimal and take up the most power besides multi's. ECM boats have the most mids available, followed by SD but wait I forgot something.

Now with some low slots and rigs...
Range: (Optimal+Falloff Total) Energy Use: (Per second per module with T2 mod)
ECM: 118+80 198 2.1 (Racial)
ECM: 78+53 131 3 (Multi)
TD: 113+36 149 1.4
SD: 71+90 161 2.7
TP: 71+90 135 1.8

Oh yeah that's right, unlike all the other electronic warfare systems, for some reason ECM gets low slot modules that increase it's effectiveness AND range! The others either get nothing, or are forced to use scripts which make them select a single effect. Also I don't quite think this chart is fair yet, since we forgot to take targeting range into account.

Now with targeting range...
Range: (Optimal+Falloff Targeting Range) Energy Use: (Per second per module with T2 mod)
ECM: 118+80 93.75 2.1 (Racial)
ECM: 78+53 93.75 3 (Multi)
TD: 113+36 62.5 1.4
SD: 71+90 81.25 2.7
TP: 71+90 53.13 1.8

Luckily the Blackbird gets an extra slot, so it can fit a sensor booster.

Hold on I'm going somewhere with this...

darius mclever
Posted - 2010.01.26 22:44:00 - [17]
 

and what do we get with a blackbird and a celestis with scan res damp?

Allan Sheperd
Posted - 2010.01.26 23:01:00 - [18]
 

Edited by: Allan Sheperd on 26/01/2010 23:02:10
Originally by: darius mclever
and what do we get with a blackbird and a celestis with scan res damp?


Something not as useful as another blackbird?

So in short, the Blackbird is the most fit cruiser for electronic warfare, and as such it is simple to see ECM as over powered. Once again, I am NOT condoning a nerf to the BB as some may think. Onto solution time!

Sensor Damps:
I am not suggesting the implementation of all these at the same time.

1: Give sensor damps the ability to lower sensor strength with a script for it.
Explanation: Gives damps a role in fleet combat, and would let them be useful in coordination with ECM other than the targeting delay that we see now.

2: Give other Ewar systems those lovely low slot modules.
Explanation: Why don't they have them already? Does only ECM need help? I think not.

3: Boost some of the T1 ewar cruisers.
Explanation: Even with max targeting range, the TD and TP are cut off severely by their respective ships locking ranges. Give them more midslots, give them more targeting range to bring them in line with the glorious blackbird.

4: Change the scripts for sensor damps.
Explanation: Choosing between ONLY max range or scan resolution seems to be the only way to go with SD's, and at the moment scan resolution dampening is practically useless. Give the scripts a boost in their numbers, and don't entirely cut off the other effect, maybe make it 125%/50% or 150%/25%.

5: Increase optimal for SD's.
Explanation: Having the lowest range when the system is designed to prevent locking at range is a moronic concept. What are you gonna do at 45 KM in a Celestis? Hit them with unbonused missiles, or Iron charges from your railguns? Blasters maybe? I think not.

6: Give TP the ability to increase max damage. (Stolen from Phantom Slave)
Explanation: Target paint supercapital ships and Triage carriers for the win! But no seriously it's useless on larger ships. If you wanted to kill small things you'd probably be better off fitting guns on a rupture.

Yeah, I think that's about it.

Robert Hansson
Caldari
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
Posted - 2010.01.27 01:38:00 - [19]
 

Edited by: Robert Hansson on 27/01/2010 01:39:39
What every one here fail to even mention is that ECM has the strongest counter too,
A single ECCM module makes it more then twice as hard for somebody to jam you.
If we look at the worst ewar, (imo anyway) TPs they don't have a counter module at all and if we move up the ladder one step the counter to the SD is a sensor booster that gives you a 30% effectiveness (math stuff below) and the second best thing (the tracking disruptor) has maby not the better counter but fails to work against some ships (drones and missiles)

ok so about that 30% of the sensor booster
The t2 sensor booster give you with script 60% improvement, now that is fine but a module that removes 50% of you lock range (or scan res for that matter) would remove half of this bonus as well

Example
Unboosted ship
Targeting 100km
SD 50%
=Targeting 100*0.5=50km

Boosted ship
Targeting 100km
SB effect 60%
Targeting 100*1.6=160km
SD 50%
=Targeting 160*0.5=80km

That shows that the sensor booster is also effected by the damp as it too only gives half its normal boost (numbers wise, percentage wise it still is 60%)
This is also true for tracking enhancers and Tracking disruptors.
So the effectiveness of the counters to TD and SD are not that stacking at all whereas the ECCM stack perfectly, 2 giving the ship close to 4 times it's normal sensor strength

Agreed that ECCM modules doesn't boost you unless somebody is trying to jam you. Sensor boosters and TH boost you all the time, but still, hope you see my point here

Edit: missing numbers (stupid keyboard)

Allan Sheperd
Posted - 2010.01.27 07:01:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Robert Hansson
Edited by: Robert Hansson on 27/01/2010 01:39:39
What every one here fail to even mention is that ECM has the strongest counter too,
A single ECCM module makes it more then twice as hard for somebody to jam you.



Umm yeah except using an ECCM takes up a midslot, and only protect against ECM.

Every other "counter" provides a benefit for the ship, thus you are more likely to see a "counter" for everything not ECM.

Sarina Berghil
Minmatar
New Zion Judge Advocate
Yulai Federation
Posted - 2010.01.27 10:13:00 - [21]
 

I like the idea. It would put ECM more in line with other types of EW by introducing variable success.

One mechanic that might work well, would be to let an ECM module counter a certain amount of signal strength.

If a module counters 4 signal strength on a ship with 8 signal strength, the target would lose 50% of its maximum locks, chosen at random.

The biggest downside I can see, is that pilots would be encouraged to lock as many targets as possible to diminish the effect of ECM. Maybe even locking jetcans or fleet members at random. There may be ways to fix something like that though.

Robert Hansson
Caldari
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
Posted - 2010.01.27 12:22:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Sarina Berghil
I like the idea. It would put ECM more in line with other types of EW by introducing variable success.

One mechanic that might work well, would be to let an ECM module counter a certain amount of signal strength.

If a module counters 4 signal strength on a ship with 8 signal strength, the target would lose 50% of its maximum locks, chosen at random.

The biggest downside I can see, is that pilots would be encouraged to lock as many targets as possible to diminish the effect of ECM. Maybe even locking jetcans or fleet members at random. There may be ways to fix something like that though.


Problem today as i see it is that ECM is not a dependable effect and that it demands a specialized ship to work. All the other forms of Ewar are rather good on many ships (I for one use tracking disruptors on my stealth bombers) whereas the ships that are specialized in those types of ewar (I'm going to ignore the cruisers and other t1 hulls) get to little of a bonus to them, yet a single tracking disruptor on a pilgrim would really mess up any kind of gun ship and the pilgrim get a drone and neut bonus on top of that, sure the falcon gets alot of ECM bonus (but it needs that much anyway) but don't get anything else (oh shiny gun bonus thats worthless :S). I agree that the painter bonus on the rapier is ****, but thats because the rapier ain't fit to fly with the kinds of ship the painter bonus would help (i.e battleships), the webb bonus is far better for this ship and is also used alot. The Arazu also have problems but as a long range tackler it is really good, it also is rather fast and can have at least some buffer hit points (even if, as said, the arazu have problems and should be boosted)


 

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