These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

ECM, balance, and "all or nothing" - what's really wrong?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Elvis Fett
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#21 - 2012-10-01 00:12:39 UTC
Mocam wrote:
IMO that "crippling effect of losing targets" - essential and the same thing happens with a sensor damp hitting you at range - you lose targeting. I don't see why ECM should be gutted so badly but I do find the current operations to be a problem.

Also, ECM deals with targeting - not slots that may or may not hold targeting equipment. Sensor damps mess with range & time to acquire a target - ECM? ... Yours is an interesting idea but it has some ugly implications.

I did come up with a different approach that is ... odd. What other attributes are there to targeting? Quantity.

No chance based operation. It works reliably and predictable all the time, just like Sensor Damps and any other type of EW.

ECM and ECCM go over to a system more like points/scrams vs warp core stabs but allow/mandate stacking to use for high effects - just like most other types of EW.

Each cycle of the initial ECM would cost you all your targets - additional applications (stacking of mods/drones) would not do this though each module/drone would decrement your max target count. You can target 8 ships, a strength 3 ECM would drop that to 5 ships max you could target.

The target reduction would be based upon your skills more than the ship. So if you had Targeting + Multitasking both at 5; to block targeting, they'd need to jam that 12 max, not just the 2-10 that a ship can target to entirely prevent locking of any targets. (you could train to enable better protection - just like other EW have skills to help against them.)

If at any point a jamming ship goes out of range or loses targeting on the jammed ship, it stops - just like killing a sensor damp ship, it frees you from all effects when the signal is disrupted. (no 20s jam timer).

ECCM would provide 2 effects: 1) Potential protection from being jammed at all. 2) Added number of targets that can be potentially locked (excess targets - like having skills trained to target 12 while flying a ship only able to target 8. It would take that 12 to 14 -- zip effect unless ECM jammed.)

"jammed at all" protection - if it's protection value exceeds the jam value of the ECM ship, you won' t lose all targets each time it cycles (though it will reduce your "excessive" max target count). In other words, a multi-spectral jam with a strength of 1 hitting a ship with an ECCM strength of 2 - the target wouldn't lose targeting though it's max target count would be decremented by 1. (stacking could still gut your ability to target anything but you wouldn't lose targeting every cycle).

Modules and rigs to help ECM would change to range, cycle time, etc. vs strength to improve /rand chances. It opens up a lot of options for how meta variations can work while still retaining most of the GTFO protection - 100% target loss per cycle if they don't have ECCM? Yet you still may not get away - it only decrements the absolute max count of targets while costing the lock but only at cycle time.

Net effects:
ECM always has "some" effect when applied to a target yet that effect can be mitigated by skills and fittings vs hit or miss based upon a randomizer.

ECCM works predictably and reliably to counter ECM effects; it isn't seen as a crap-shoot solution but a predictable counter.
Alexila Quant
Versatility Production Corporation' LLC
#22 - 2012-10-01 00:22:57 UTC
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
tl;dr for lazy people:


  • ECM as an all or nothing chance-based mechanic is out of place in Eve.
  • ECM as is is not fun.
  • Don't buff/nerf ECM, change it completely so it's not chance-based.
  • Discuss.


I am lazy. So thank you.

Also, I like ECM the way it is, but I also understand that it may be frustrating to come up against.

Take that as you will.
CaptainFalcon07
Scarlet Weather Rhapsody
#23 - 2012-10-01 00:32:23 UTC
The real question is simply how without making ECM useless, overpowered, or power creeping on the abilities of other EW?

Jack Black: How am I supposed to find the solution to ECM. How Elmo, How?
Bubanni
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#24 - 2012-10-01 00:59:31 UTC
Well put,

Lets throw a few random ideas out there just for inspiration
What if ECM directly affected the modules of the targeted ship in a negative way, as in increaseing cycle time on turrets and launchers?

what if it was the reverse of sensor damps where stuff close to your ship couldn't be locked when used against you? (very powerful...)

what if decreased max locked targets to 1 and randomly switched your locked target to nearby stuff :D (would actually be more annoying than current ecm, but also allowing your ship to either shoot at fleet mates or hostiles still)

What if ECM.... could make chosen ship look like another ship of choise (like an illusion?) you could make a fleet member in a heavy interdictor look like a hulk... or whatever you wanted to for setting up bait

throw some more bad ideas out there :D

Supercap nerf - change ewar immunity https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=194759 Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#25 - 2012-10-01 02:51:58 UTC
You also missed the part of permajamming. While it's acceptable to be jammed once or twice during the fight - and even those 2 cycles can become a turning point - being shut off completely for the entire fight is stupid as heck. But this surely is a general EW flaw, which for some weird reason does not get its efficiency reduced over time and allows ugly things such as permajamming to happen.

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#26 - 2012-10-01 02:53:17 UTC
Fon Revedhort wrote:
You also missed the part of permajamming. While it's acceptable to be jammed once or twice during the fight - and even those 2 cycles can become a turning point - being shut off completely for the entire fight is stupid as heck. But this surely is a general EW flaw, which for some weird reason does not get its efficiency reduced over time and allows ugly things such as permajamming to happen.

When the dice hate you, they hate you hard.

Yes, permajamming is a problem, but that would turn this into an "is ECM OP" discussion, and we really don't need another one of those P

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)
Tysinger
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#27 - 2012-10-01 04:32:46 UTC
Hey I know..
They should make something that anyone can use and put on there ship as to not get jammed, hell maybe even some type of implants that would boost your stats so you would be even less likely to be jammed....


Oh wait, they already have them in game...



Stop whining and use something Tard.
Gun Gal
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#28 - 2012-10-01 05:17:40 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Suvetar
When you use ECM, you also forgo the perfect fit when you use ECCM.

EVE is not about level playing fields like other MMOs might appear to be.

Edit: removed non-constructive rant - ISD Suvetar.
Cede Forster
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#29 - 2012-10-01 07:31:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Cede Forster
posting in another "i can't play, please nerf the game - ECM edition"

Tracking-TD'ed? Load better tracking ammo, burn in a straight line, TP/web your target.
They will work on missiles soon and there goes your suggestion. If you fit a target painter and a web, you comiited two midslots.


Optimal-TD'ed, or Optimal SD'ed? Speed up and move closer.
Just so i get this right, you are not flying at maximum speed usualy? You just sit around at lets say 70% in order to compensate for that? - There is not much you can do if you get TD and the enemy can keep range and the worst part? It is not chance based.

TP'ed? Speed up.
Again, am i missing something? Did you find a way how to permanently overhead your propulsion or is there button that just increases your top speed while flying?

Neuted? Keep range.
That is just freaking great advice, if you can. I am pretty sure by the time you are neuted that you are a) out of cap b) webbed so there is no propulsion bonus and you are sitting ducks. Also it again requires you to be faster then the target ship.

ECM? Nothing.
I wont even go there because this is covered by everybody and their sister in every thread that came up so far.


I still can not wrap my mind around the entire "just fly faster" idea. Most of the so called solution are based on you (the writer) being faster then the enemy. It just does not sound like genuine concern about gameplay mechanics being balanced and more like "i usually win in my awesome fast ship and then somebody had ECM - so unfair" posting on GD.

Then again - what did i expect?

New proposal: Buff ECM, anyone who get killed while being jammed received a 2 week forum ban. That should fix things!
Cannibal Kane
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#30 - 2012-10-01 08:25:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Cannibal Kane
I don't mind ECM...

However I do believe that ECM should never be able to JAM a target when that targets Sensor Strength is higher than the ECM module cycle. So a Falcon pilot trying to jam me with one racial ECM module pumping 250, should then never be able to jam me when my Sensor strength sits at 260. If he activates a second module and his total ECM output agaist me is now over 300 then yes I should be jammed.

I think most people issue with ECM that % thing no matter how high your Sensor Strength is.... your always going to get jammed.

"Kane is the End Boss of Highsec." -Psychotic Monk
Cede Forster
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#31 - 2012-10-01 08:52:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Cede Forster
Cannibal Kane wrote:
I don't mind ECM...

However I do believe that ECM should never be able to JAM a target when that targets Sensor Strength is higher than the ECM module cycle. So a Falcon pilot trying to jam me with one racial ECM module pumping 250, should then never be able to jam me when my Sensor strength sits at 260. If he activates a second module and his total ECM output agaist me is now over 300 then yes I should be jammed.

I think most people issue with ECM that % thing no matter how high your Sensor Strength is.... your always going to get jammed.


you are not always going to get jammed - you have always a chance to get jammed

it may feel that way but what you are suggesting (if jammer > sensor then jam) is actually what you complain about (you always going to get jammed).

i think quite a lot of EVE players just have issues with how probability works, that would explain the success of somer blink as well - then again, that might not be an issue limited to EVE players


no clue if you knew but the entire turret mechanic is also chance based - you can hit people out of your range and tracking
even if you are orbiting a titan at 1 km with 10.000 km/ms speed with a signature of 1, there is still a 1% chance that he hits you in the face - it is called a perfect hit, regardless what you do you can not avoid it

just deal with it - you wont win in the lottery, ecm will not always jam you - this is your mind playing tricks on you

P.s: Unless its a Leviathan - if its a Leviathan you don't have that issue
Cannibal Kane
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#32 - 2012-10-01 09:16:06 UTC
Cede Forster wrote:
Cannibal Kane wrote:
I don't mind ECM...

However I do believe that ECM should never be able to JAM a target when that targets Sensor Strength is higher than the ECM module cycle. So a Falcon pilot trying to jam me with one racial ECM module pumping 250, should then never be able to jam me when my Sensor strength sits at 260. If he activates a second module and his total ECM output agaist me is now over 300 then yes I should be jammed.

I think most people issue with ECM that % thing no matter how high your Sensor Strength is.... your always going to get jammed.


you are not always going to get jammed - you have always a chance to get jammed

it may feel that way but what you are suggesting (if jammer > sensor then jam) is actually what you complain about (you always going to get jammed).

i think quite a lot of EVE players just have issues with how probability works, that would explain the success of somer blink as well - then again, that might not be an issue limited to EVE players


no clue if you knew but the entire turret mechanic is also chance based - you can hit people out of your range and tracking
even if you are orbiting a titan at 1 km with 10.000 km/ms speed with a signature of 1, there is still a 1% chance that he hits you in the face - it is called a perfect hit, regardless what you do you can not avoid it

just deal with it - you wont win in the lottery, ecm will not always jam you - this is your mind playing tricks on you

P.s: Unless its a Leviathan - if its a Leviathan you don't have that issue


I swear I must be the unluckiest player when it comes to ECM. 300 Drones perma jam me.

"Kane is the End Boss of Highsec." -Psychotic Monk
Alpheias
Tactical Farmers.
Pandemic Horde
#33 - 2012-10-01 09:43:48 UTC
Cannibal Kane wrote:
Cede Forster wrote:
Cannibal Kane wrote:
I don't mind ECM...

However I do believe that ECM should never be able to JAM a target when that targets Sensor Strength is higher than the ECM module cycle. So a Falcon pilot trying to jam me with one racial ECM module pumping 250, should then never be able to jam me when my Sensor strength sits at 260. If he activates a second module and his total ECM output agaist me is now over 300 then yes I should be jammed.

I think most people issue with ECM that % thing no matter how high your Sensor Strength is.... your always going to get jammed.


you are not always going to get jammed - you have always a chance to get jammed

it may feel that way but what you are suggesting (if jammer > sensor then jam) is actually what you complain about (you always going to get jammed).

i think quite a lot of EVE players just have issues with how probability works, that would explain the success of somer blink as well - then again, that might not be an issue limited to EVE players


no clue if you knew but the entire turret mechanic is also chance based - you can hit people out of your range and tracking
even if you are orbiting a titan at 1 km with 10.000 km/ms speed with a signature of 1, there is still a 1% chance that he hits you in the face - it is called a perfect hit, regardless what you do you can not avoid it

just deal with it - you wont win in the lottery, ecm will not always jam you - this is your mind playing tricks on you

P.s: Unless its a Leviathan - if its a Leviathan you don't have that issue


I swear I must be the unluckiest player when it comes to ECM. 300 Drones perma jam me.


Are you surprised? I don't wanna get bit. :(

Agent of Chaos, Sower of Discord.

Don't talk to me unless you are IQ verified and certified with three references from non-family members. Please have your certificate of authenticity on hand.
Skippermonkey
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#34 - 2012-10-01 09:46:03 UTC
http://themittani.com/features/ecm-not-nerf-we-deserve-fix-we-need

there was a great article on mittani, which i have posted above.

I really like the authors idea of having the length of the jam variable.

COME AT ME BRO

I'LL JUST BE DOCKED IN THIS STATION
Gillia Winddancer
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#35 - 2012-10-01 10:15:31 UTC
I already gave my suggestion on how to chance ECM once before - be prepared for a slight wall of text of pure wisdom:

Basically instead of breaking locks ECM "hides" ships depending on their signature radius vs scan strength/distance. The stronger the dose of ECM a ship receives, the bigger the ships will be that said receiver cannot detect and lock on to.

It wouldn't drastically chance ECM the way it works compared to how it is now, but on the other hand it would also NOT be a chance-based all-or-nothing module that locks out ships completely from the game. On top of that, the ECM would be a constant effect now just like any other e-war module instead of based on cycles.

Generally the idea is that a ship that is being ECM'd would quickly lose track of the small ships whilst still be able to detect larger ships unless he gets multiple stacks of ECM on his own ship. On the other hand it would require more stacks on a big ship than on a small ship to get the same results due to the sensor strength differences.

For even better complexity, make distance of ECM vs target AND any enemy ship vs target play a role. As an example:

Ship A uses ECM on Ship B from a distance of 100km

Ship B is now is unable to lock on to or see on the overview any ship that has a signature radius of X that is beyond distance Y. The smaller an enemy ship is, the closer said enemy ship can be to B without being lockable

If Ship A moves in to 50km from Ship B then the effect of the ECM will of course be stronger. If Ship A uses multiple ECM's, the effect will be stronger. Faction specific ECM's will naturally give an even bigger effect so nothing will change in that regard. Radar ECM vs Radar, Ladar vs Ladar, well you know this already.

This change would pretty much also make ECM true to it's name unlike the way it is now. ECM is all about confusing enemy radars after all. Breaking locks like it is in EVE now is not what I would call "ECM". More like an "EMP" weapon. The ECM burst module should in fact be renamed to an EMP burst to be frank.

The added bonus with this system is that it will give small roaming gangs using small ships an advantage if this is used correctly, which is something I believe was sought after in this blob-infested capital ship environment?


Well, that's my wall of text for now.
Silk daShocka
Greasy Hair Club
#36 - 2012-10-01 11:01:24 UTC
Maybe CCP will just remove ECM when all 75% of the bans in the precious tournament are ecm boats.

I sure as heck wouldn't complain
Gillia Winddancer
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#37 - 2012-10-01 11:04:08 UTC
Silk daShocka wrote:
Maybe CCP will just remove ECM when all 75% of the bans in the precious tournament are ecm boats.

I sure as heck wouldn't complain


Why's that? ECM can be easily fixed if they only listen to me. It still fits a role, it's just implemented in a most horrid manner.
Herr Hammer Draken
#38 - 2012-10-01 11:17:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Herr Hammer Draken
Gillia Winddancer wrote:
I already gave my suggestion on how to chance ECM once before - be prepared for a slight wall of text of pure wisdom:

Basically instead of breaking locks ECM "hides" ships depending on their signature radius vs scan strength/distance. The stronger the dose of ECM a ship receives, the bigger the ships will be that said receiver cannot detect and lock on to.

It wouldn't drastically chance ECM the way it works compared to how it is now, but on the other hand it would also NOT be a chance-based all-or-nothing module that locks out ships completely from the game. On top of that, the ECM would be a constant effect now just like any other e-war module instead of based on cycles.

Generally the idea is that a ship that is being ECM'd would quickly lose track of the small ships whilst still be able to detect larger ships unless he gets multiple stacks of ECM on his own ship. On the other hand it would require more stacks on a big ship than on a small ship to get the same results due to the sensor strength differences.

For even better complexity, make distance of ECM vs target AND any enemy ship vs target play a role. As an example:

Ship A uses ECM on Ship B from a distance of 100km

Ship B is now is unable to lock on to or see on the overview any ship that has a signature radius of X that is beyond distance Y. The smaller an enemy ship is, the closer said enemy ship can be to B without being lockable

If Ship A moves in to 50km from Ship B then the effect of the ECM will of course be stronger. If Ship A uses multiple ECM's, the effect will be stronger. Faction specific ECM's will naturally give an even bigger effect so nothing will change in that regard. Radar ECM vs Radar, Ladar vs Ladar, well you know this already.

This change would pretty much also make ECM true to it's name unlike the way it is now. ECM is all about confusing enemy radars after all. Breaking locks like it is in EVE now is not what I would call "ECM". More like an "EMP" weapon. The ECM burst module should in fact be renamed to an EMP burst to be frank.

The added bonus with this system is that it will give small roaming gangs using small ships an advantage if this is used correctly, which is something I believe was sought after in this blob-infested capital ship environment?


Well, that's my wall of text for now.



If that was adopted players would soon work out which small ships could attack which big ships using X ecm against Y type of big ship to always 100% make them undetecable at Z range. The trick then is to find a weapon layout that can kill the big ship from Z range. Once that is figured out it will work every time. It will be like being cloaked but able to shoot at your target as long as you keep range Z. If you can scram said big ship from Z range then you can kill them every time with that particular combo. There is no random in your idea!

Herr Hammer Draken "The Amarr Prophet"
Herr Hammer Draken
#39 - 2012-10-01 11:18:19 UTC
Gillia Winddancer wrote:
Silk daShocka wrote:
Maybe CCP will just remove ECM when all 75% of the bans in the precious tournament are ecm boats.

I sure as heck wouldn't complain


Why's that? ECM can be easily fixed if they only listen to me. It still fits a role, it's just implemented in a most horrid manner.


Really see above post.

Herr Hammer Draken "The Amarr Prophet"
Gillia Winddancer
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#40 - 2012-10-01 11:51:38 UTC
Herr Hammer Draken wrote:
[quote=Gillia Winddancer]I already gave my suggestion on how to chance ECM once before - be prepared for a slight wall of text of pure wisdom:

Basically instead of breaking locks ECM "hides" ships depending on their signature radius vs scan strength/distance. The stronger the dose of ECM a ship receives, the bigger the ships will be that said receiver cannot detect and lock on to.

It wouldn't drastically chance ECM the way it works compared to how it is now, but on the other hand it would also NOT be a chance-based all-or-nothing module that locks out ships completely from the game. On top of that, the ECM would be a constant effect now just like any other e-war module instead of based on cycles.

Generally the idea is that a ship that is being ECM'd would quickly lose track of the small ships whilst still be able to detect larger ships unless he gets multiple stacks of ECM on his own ship. On the other hand it would require more stacks on a big ship than on a small ship to get the same results due to the sensor strength differences.

For even better complexity, make distance of ECM vs target AND any enemy ship vs target play a role. As an example:

Ship A uses ECM on Ship B from a distance of 100km

Ship B is now is unable to lock on to or see on the overview any ship that has a signature radius of X that is beyond distance Y. The smaller an enemy ship is, the closer said enemy ship can be to B without being lockable

If Ship A moves in to 50km from Ship B then the effect of the ECM will of course be stronger. If Ship A uses multiple ECM's, the effect will be stronger. Faction specific ECM's will naturally give an even bigger effect so nothing will change in that regard. Radar ECM vs Radar, Ladar vs Ladar, well you know this already.

This change would pretty much also make ECM true to it's name unlike the way it is now. ECM is all about confusing enemy radars after all. Breaking locks like it is in EVE now is not what I would call "ECM". More like an "EMP" weapon. The ECM burst module should in fact be renamed to an EMP burst to be frank.

The added bonus with this system is that it will give small roaming gangs using small ships an advantage if this is used correctly, which is something I believe was sought after in this blob-infested capital ship environment?


Well, that's my wall of text for now.



Oh my. Is every single engagement in EVE identical each and every single time now all of a sudden? Could someone please inform me when on earth that ever happened?