These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Winter] Ewar Tweaks for Retribution

First post First post
Author
Sard Caid
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#201 - 2012-11-04 06:11:55 UTC
As a pilot that uses all races of ships equally, I'm not looking forward to ~60 days of skill training to gain some resistance against ECM. Please consider reducing the rank on these skills to 2, which is much more in line with other ship attribute skills, which tend to be on the rank 1-2 level.

Valleria Darkmoon
No Salvation
Top Belt for Fun
#202 - 2012-11-04 06:15:37 UTC
Sarah Schneider wrote:
I'll just leave this here.. http://themittani.com/features/ecm-not-nerf-we-deserve-fix-we-need

ECM needs an overhaul, nerfing range, adding a bunch of skill to effect will do nothing and might even cause more problems along the way.


Read and approved, in addition to being a de facto boost to ECCM modules it will also give damps something to do. For a long time now people have talked about how dampening is useless. So if you can only jam say an ECCM Hurricane for 8 seconds or whatever the math was I don't remember at this point suddenly there is a lot more value in also destroying it's scan resolution so that when the jam breaks it won't be able to lock again before the ECM module cycles again.

In this way you could still ensure that you don't have to worry about return fire it would just take some effort and co-ordination, you know ability. The only people who really need to cry here are those who "solo" with their falcon on standby should the tables turn.

I heartily approve this message.

Reality has an almost infinite capacity to resist oversimplification.

Valleria Darkmoon
No Salvation
Top Belt for Fun
#203 - 2012-11-04 06:47:35 UTC
Those new compensation skills would probably do better rolled into a single generic sensor strength skill that applies to every ship you ever fly if it's going to be left at rank 3 (consistent at least with energy/shield management skills).

If not this then make them rank 2 like the other compensation skills where you have to train four of them. Four rank 3 skills to help stop ECM is punitive and punishes the people on the wrong side of the problem.

Reality has an almost infinite capacity to resist oversimplification.

Takeshi Yamato
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#204 - 2012-11-04 07:08:04 UTC
Valleria Darkmoon wrote:
Four rank 3 skills to help stop ECM is punitive and punishes the people on the wrong side of the problem.


ECM: cause of hate even when it's being nerfed. Lol

But yea, long term goal should be to change ECM so that it's no longer 20 seconds of being unable to do anything rather than cementing the current mechanics via new skills that play into them.
Roime
Shiva Furnace
#205 - 2012-11-04 08:00:21 UTC
How can anyone call introducing a skill that makes your ship perform better in two ways a punishment :D same arguments posted here could be used to complain about every skill in EVE. I mean why are we punished by forcing us to train 4 racial carrier Vs? Why not combine them and make them rank 2.

It helps if you are able to separate your own wants from your needs and external pressures.

I'll take that +25% sensor strength, thank you. Combined with ECCM and Info links, that will make my ships very resistant to jamming. If you like your ships more jammable, don't train it, don't use ECCM and laugh at info links. Simple.

Also, I +1 this:

Quote:
ECM drone suggestion- halve their strength, and extend ship-based drone damage bonus to cover all EWAR drone effects, and change their jamming times:

EC-300: 0.5 / 5s
EC-600: 0.75 / 10s
EC-900: 1 / 20s


.

Cerulean Ice
Royal Amarr Reclamation
#206 - 2012-11-04 08:05:24 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
    ECM
    *Reduce Optimal Range and Falloff of all ECM modules by 10%
    *Add to the Optimal Range and Falloff bonus on ECM range bonused ships by 2.5% for the Blackbird and Tengu Obfuscation Manifold (bringing it to 12.5%) and 5% for the Scorpion (bringing it to 25%)
    *Add four new racial sensor compensation skills that increase each type of Sensor Strength by 5% per level (Requires Electronics 4, rank 3 skills in the Electronics category)

Can you clarify this a bit more? Are you changing the blackbird and tengu to have 2.5% more per level compared with their current bonuses, or 2.5% more total compared to their current bonuses? Same with the scorpion, will it be 5% more per level, or 5% more total?
Mirei Jun
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#207 - 2012-11-04 08:40:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Mirei Jun
These changes are not a big deal for most skilled ECM pilots. In fact, overall the changes in Retribution actually hurt new ECM pilots the most. I expect to see less "bro birds" and more Celestis from new players in fleets (someone will come up with a good name for them).

The issues as I see them:

1) This does not address ECM scaling problems. Frigates and Destroyers are still completely nullified by ECM, while medium and large ships are inherently stronger to them (although still get jammed more often then not).

2) Why have 4 separate sensor strength skills? There is a skill for targeting range, a skill for scan res, and a skill for tracking. Why require players to train four individual skills just for ECM? This is silly and an obvious attempt to just give older players more crap to train.

Overall I think these changes don't really solve anything.
Turelus
Utassi Security
#208 - 2012-11-04 09:06:43 UTC
Having thought some more about the changes can you just increase the sensor str of all ships by 20-25% instead?

As a few others have pointed out the new skills are going to be almost on the level of Learning Skills in being a mandatory requirement for anyone in PVP.
You can make the argument that they're not mandatory (like learning skills) but really they're going to be so important for almost all PVPs to have

Turelus CEO Utassi Security

Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#209 - 2012-11-04 09:23:26 UTC
A few thoughts:

1. I believe that the proposed sensor compensation skills will cause more balancing problems in the future, inasmuch as they affect separate game mechanics - ie. ECM and ship scanning.

Balancing ECM by just tweaking ECM strength on modules is a cleaner and better approach.

2. I'm not in favor of nerfing EW modules and compensating by buffing dedicated EW ships. Fitting EW modules on non-bonused ships should always be a viable option, rather than considered solely as part of a fail fit.

Dedicated EW ships, if any, should have a slight advantage over non-bonused ships, but not so much that they can completely overwhelm any ship which is not specifically fit to counter it. Bonuses to strength need to be (re)considered carefully - it doesn't take much to be too much. It might even be better to opt for range or cap usage bonuses rather than strength bonuses.

3. How about a tweak for FOF (sorry, I meant auto-targeting) missiles? In practice, they should be a counter to both ECM and damps. Reducing the time required to switch from regular missiles to FOF missiles would help, and a slight buff to damage and/or explosion velocity/radius would be welcome, as well.
Raukhur
NorthMount
#210 - 2012-11-04 09:48:07 UTC
Please also make some tweaks to ewar drones so that they at least are worth thinking about (ECM drones might be nerfed by the racial sensor strength skills now) .

Grimpak
Manufactorum.
Atomic Fusion Industries
#211 - 2012-11-04 10:21:23 UTC
Sizeof Void wrote:
A few thoughts:

1. I believe that the proposed sensor compensation skills will cause more balancing problems in the future, inasmuch as they affect separate game mechanics - ie. ECM and ship scanning.



didn't CCP changed that so that now it's impossible to have an unprobable ship and instead just made them really hard to probe down?



that said, overhauling ECM is something that might be a tad too hard, maybe too hard for the results one can expect. Nerfing them into oblivion isn't the answer either. Tiny nerf/boosts, like the one proposed on this thread are better, specially when you consider damps as a counter-measure for ECM, but one must be careful not to overnerf nor overboost. ECM mechanics puts the modules always on a razor's edge as balance is concerned, specially because of how they work (yes/no) make it too strong, works too often. make it too weak, becomes useless.

[img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]

[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right

Iam Widdershins
Victory or Whatever
#212 - 2012-11-04 10:29:09 UTC
Bouh Revetoile wrote:
Iam Widdershins wrote:
If ECM drones are not being addressed that's a real pity. Currently fitting a cloud of light ECM drones is an adequate alternative to bringing an actual jamming ship.

I am very much of the mind that ECM drones should reduce sensor strength with a stacking penalty, not actually jam on their own. They should not be a viable escape mechanism, but they should be a useful tool to complement a dedicated ECM ship.

In fact, the biggest part of the ECM nerf is the new skill which also work for ECM drones.

I think though the skill should only apply to ECCM modules.

That is the most horrible thing to say. You have my scorn.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature

Noisrevbus
#213 - 2012-11-04 10:29:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Noisrevbus
Gripen wrote:
CCP Fozzie, It would be great if you could comment on why are you doing changes and what you're trying to archieve with them because without such explanations changes may look like nonsense to some people. You know, like some other game companies do when announcing balance changes.


I second this.

What do you expect to achieve with these changes?

People who complain about ECM (on the Tech II platforms) do not do it because of their range. Some people will cheer at any punitive approach, but at the end of the day their solo ships will still be "permajammed" (by someone who fit multiple slots specificly to counter their one setup) after these changes and they will continue to whine and whimper.

Why are you pushing them through? Temporary solutions that create disparities are dangerous, as they either force you to do twice the work when you can allocate enough resources to give it proper attention, or they are left festering and causing further balance issues until enough resources can be diverted to dealing with them a second time. CCP sadly have a poor track record with the latter.

If you still wanted a simple temporary solution in line with what the playerbase have requested for ECM you could have simply limited racial ECM modules to one per ship or something like that. That can't take more resources than the current design as you already have such modifiers in code. Will save you alot of trouble and net you better balance.

Letting that transition over to "one ECM effect per ship" code (assuming you have no such pre-coded modifiers, and need time to script the functions) and racial scripts would later have made alot of sense. The community have suggested that solution to deal with "the core issues" (ie., the mechanics) of ECM and ECCM for several years now.



You are also continously shafting Tech II in favour of Tech I, is there an ulterior motive behind that? We'd like to know.

Is it a silent approach to deal with the unfair distribution of Tech II BPO, or is it the "more explosions" principle? Maybe a little bit of both? Something else entirely? Motivate it.

I'd rather contend with 1 Falcon than 10 Blackbirds, any day of the week.

Also, ECM seem to be the only system recieving this Tech-to-tech treatment as you are very careful not having the other races ships overlap each other within race (eg., i'm referring to things like Fozzies comments about web- and point bonuses on Tech I hulls). ECM already have a balance between Tech I reach and Tech II strength that does not set Tech II apart in every situation (ie., a Blackbird is much better relative a Falcon, than a Bellicose is compared to a Rapier). So why are you compensating the Tech I hulls with range modifiers?

The fabled Rook has not seen the light of day since Crucible. Are you nerfing it's ECM reach to match it's upcomming HML reach? P

Kings of doing something for the sake of doing something - instead of fixing the problem(s) Blink.
Eridanii
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#214 - 2012-11-04 11:06:19 UTC
Mirei Jun wrote:

The issues as I see them:

1) This does not address ECM scaling problems. Frigates and Destroyers are still completely nullified by ECM, while medium and large ships are inherently stronger to them (although still get jammed more often then not).


The same could be said about almost all forms of ewar againsts small to large ships. I don't see a problem with it scaling.

Damps: yup, hurts frigs worse because they have crappy range to start
Webs: hurts frigs worse because they rely on speed the most, BS are already bricks
TPs: hurts frigs worse because they are hardest to hit to begin with whereas you have to try to miss a BS
Neuts: frigs have smallest capacitor, easier to neut out
TDs: arguably hurts all size ships equally but no effect on missiles
ECM: frigs have lowest sensor strength to start

Changing the ECM system to a mechanic that has a variable jam time would be welcome. Frigs are easiest to jam, but aren't necessarily locked out for 20s plus they have the fastest lock times so they can recover more quickly after the jam completes. BS's are harder to jam and with higher strength don't get locked out for as long but their slower lock times will make ECM against them more like a lockbreaker.

For me, the drones are the biggest problem. They shouldn't lock you out for 20s. I don't mind Falcons and BBs being ECM pwnage machines. In small gang fights, 4 dps ships vs 3 dps + 1 ECM, the gang with the utility ship should win. That's just smart tactics. Change the ECM ship to a neuting/TDing ship, or a webbing/painting ship, or even a damping ship, the outcome should still favor the gang with ewar/utility ships. It just makes good tactical sense to disrupt your enemy. It's also more interesting than just lining up a bunch of dps ships across from each other trading volleys revolutionary-war-style. But people are still going to cry on the forums because it's NOT fun getting destroyed and not being able to fight back at all, which is the problem with current ECM mechanics. Even with a change to ECM, people will still cry when they lose to a falcon. To them I say, if you can't beat em, join em.
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#215 - 2012-11-04 11:07:08 UTC
Going to say this again, but the fact that sensor strength has any effect on the probing system is beyond ******** and it always has been. It needs to be removed asap and replaced with a system not cooked up by idiots.
Bouh Revetoile
In Wreck we thrust
#216 - 2012-11-04 11:20:26 UTC
Fon Revedhort wrote:
The difference is kiting requires efforts; simply fitting a ship for LR means pretty much nothing. EWAR takes no skill whatsoever, and btw neither does ECCM and all other so called 'counters'. It's lametardedly simplistic and that's why it's so effective in case of ewar and so ineffective in case of 'counters'.

A good example of proper concept is neuting vs. cap boosting. Neuting still remains a PITA, but by intelligent cab boosting you can defend yourself quite well, and it actually requires a lot of skills to properly sync all your stuff, not to panic and press cap booster button immediately upon being hit by a heavy neut, but rather wait for the MWD cycle to sync up and so on and so forth. EWAR has nothing of that sort of things.

Indeed ECM is a screwed mecanic as is, though I was more defending the idea of a generic EWAR, applying to any ship you can encounter, kind of like damp (they work on everything) but not only for range.

In fact, ironicaly, TD and damps, favor minmatar ship, because you need to have speed supremacy and small signature to really profit from them ; and in the end, ECM is the only EWAR not favoring speed/sig.
kaltenp
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#217 - 2012-11-04 11:31:18 UTC
lol all the serious pvp'ers are happy to nerf e war out of game. to bloody lazy to fit ships to counter it as it may effect my dps which does not allow me to kill as many people! ecm is chanced based I have max skills and i dont get of jams every cycle and if you fit your ships to minimise effect I can hardly jam you at all well done in dumbing down the game. As people have said just take it out and reimberse me my skill points and falcon costs. i LOVE HEARING PEOPLE CRY WHEN i JAM EM UP but they still manage to kill me every now and again. can someone tell me the point for even flying recons anymore as my rook and falcon are now looking bad against a BLACKBIRD
Venusa
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#218 - 2012-11-04 12:35:45 UTC
I like the idea of reducing the cycle of jam or EC- drones, but keep in mind that increasing the cycle will increase the % to succeed a jam. You need to downgrade the jam strengh too then.
YuuKnow
The Scope
#219 - 2012-11-04 12:54:04 UTC  |  Edited by: YuuKnow
The ECM changes seem infective. I think what most people object to in regards to ECM is the fact that it renders them totally defenseless and in the setting of Falcons, Scorps, etc, can do so for a huge fraction of the time.

Right now ECM is a largely offensive module. You could change it to a purely defensive module by changing the Jam to only prevent target locking on the ship that it projecting the ECM. Instead of the target being totally and utterly jammed, the target will instead be able to lock other targets, just not the ship that is jamming it.

The changes would result in reducing ECM to a supplement not a mainstay of tatics. Ships would field ECM modules in 1 or 2 modules per ship, much like target painters and tracking distruptors, instead of the overloaded 7-8 modules that they are doing right now.

What will then need to be done is to rethink the role and bonuses of the current ECM ships (falcons, scorps, widows) to something that makes more sense. Right now they are so powerful with the current ECM mechanics that they alone swing battles and are almost *always* primary and first to be popped.


yk
Sheynan
Lighting the blight
#220 - 2012-11-04 13:49:53 UTC
To be fair, I dislike ECM, I really do. I have used it in the past, and it really is bloody effective, but on the other hand I don't want to have a random numbers generator decide the outcome of my fights. Ever.

So I'd propose to scrap ECM completely and replace it with two new forms of ewar that both inherit parts of the old ECM functionality:
Just brainstorming:

ewar 1: the "GTFO" module (the "old" ECM)

  • short/medium ranged (20-40kms)
  • script A: breaks the lock of the targeted ship, immediately relocking is possible, sensor strength could accelerate the relocking
  • script B: reactivates MWD of the targeted scrambled ship , higher cap usage than script 1
  • cycle time 5-10seconds
  • -2 warp strength during cycle time

This would be the basic functionality, providing disruption through the forced relocks but only a true gtfo module if the enemy can't relock during the cycle time. Excellent to bail a friendly ship out, but dangerous for the own ship. Also especially useful for kiting gangs.
Bonused ships would primarily have range/cycle time improvements and could increase the amount of scrams negated by script B.

ewar 2: the "Make Decisions" module

  • long ranged (similar to other ewar)
  • decreases the amount of active slots by x%
  • slot type (high, med, low, active targets)
  • highslot type would "primary" non-weapons
  • medslot type would primary "sensors" (Sebos, TCs, ECCM),then tank, then basic ewar and after that prop mods and primary ewar (like webs/scrams)
  • lowslot type would affect less slots than high/mid
  • you could always manually stop some modules to reactive others

Sounds a bit weird at first, so here's an example. Say a Tempest is attacked by this module (highslot script). Say the module decreases the amount of active slots by 25%. Thus, the Tempest, having 6 guns/2 neuts fitted, can now only activate 8*0,75=6 of those modules. By default the neuts are deactivated, but the pilot could deactivate 2 guns to activate the neuts again.

It would be challenge to correctly balance this between useless and totally op. But it would come close to the old ECM functionality of shutting the enemy down without having either total shutdown or any randomness. You could use this to to reliably shut down enemy utility highs, decrease their logi reps, decrease their tank or decrease their ewar/ counter ewar.
It is however debatable if this should affect tanking at all, just shutting down ewar/buff midslots and highslots could already be enough to make it useful.
Bonused ships would be the only ones to use med/low scripts and have a higher strength overall.



Now one could use all the modern phrases to further advertise this, like "it brings caldari ewar inline with others", "it removes randomness and binary stuff", "it helps small gang", "it caters to fast decision making". But I won't do that Pirate.