These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

New ECM idea...
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Karash Amerius
The Seven Shadows
Scotch And Tea.
#41 - 2013-08-09 16:18:27 UTC
Aliventi wrote:
What is wrong with ECM right now?


Just want to point out, this is the proper way to troll the forums. Nicely done.

Karash Amerius Operative, Sutoka
Phaade
LowKey Ops
Shadow Cartel
#42 - 2013-08-09 16:26:20 UTC
Solutio Letum wrote:
Heres your problem OP

You fail to understand that a ship needs to prep for a fight by fitting something on it, warp jaming and webbing is a form of EW, it is counter'ed with ECM, or damps, thats just how it is, its supposed to be powerful against that, did you ever hear people cry the gallente blasters pass into your hull to easily? why is that? maybe its because guns are made to pass into hull no?

Did you ever fit something to resist ECM? like instead of fitting all your ships in a fleet with Web/Scram, why dont you all fit one of both split then fit a bit of ECCM on the scram ships, or maybe a few sensor boosters to resist to an arazu? if you are range fitted that is.

ECM is fine said from someone who pilots logistics ship, ever since the re balance it has been awesome, i am has much scared of ECM then Damps
Sorry for the spelling in advance


That's simply a terrible argument.

If ECM is supposed to counter webs / scram, then make it shut off those modules, not completely break your lock rendering your ship 100% worthless.

In fact, that's probably the best thing for ECM, lock out all Ewar modules (web / scram / point / TD / SD / TP).
Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#43 - 2013-08-09 16:33:36 UTC
The anti ECM tears in this thread have /literally/ made my day.

'It makes people miserable' - miners are miserable with bumping.... Blink

'I won't fight if they have ECM' - I think I speak for many when I say, MTFU.


You people need to fight more real damp boats.

Also, when arguing with math - bring your own math, not half arsed options and made up junk. Thanks ever so Smile
Claire Raynor
NovaGear
#44 - 2013-08-09 16:54:39 UTC
Phaade wrote:

the problem is not that ECM is effective, it is TOO EFFECTIVE. It doesn't just reduce a certain aspect of your ship ("indefinitely" or not), it completely removes it and all of it's capabilities from the field. This is not in line with other forms of Ewar. If i could fly a cruiser that did 1000dps at 50km, had 100k EHP, with MWD at 3kms, and a drone bay, simply because I trained for months to fly it doesn't change the fact that it is TOO EFFECTIVE.

EDIT: And FFS how do you justify ECM versus target painting, lmao.


I'm sitting on the fence for this argument but I've seen some pretty bad things coming from the "lets nerf ECM out of the game" camp here.

To the OP - ECM lasts 20 Seconds - not 30.

To Phaade - that cruiser you just described is called a Proteus and it exists in game.

ECM vs Target Painting? Try an ABC with and without a tech 2 TP. You will be supprised. . .Double the effective DPS anyone?. . srsly.
Phaade
LowKey Ops
Shadow Cartel
#45 - 2013-08-09 17:42:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Phaade
Claire Raynor wrote:
Phaade wrote:

the problem is not that ECM is effective, it is TOO EFFECTIVE. It doesn't just reduce a certain aspect of your ship ("indefinitely" or not), it completely removes it and all of it's capabilities from the field. This is not in line with other forms of Ewar. If i could fly a cruiser that did 1000dps at 50km, had 100k EHP, with MWD at 3kms, and a drone bay, simply because I trained for months to fly it doesn't change the fact that it is TOO EFFECTIVE.

EDIT: And FFS how do you justify ECM versus target painting, lmao.


I'm sitting on the fence for this argument but I've seen some pretty bad things coming from the "lets nerf ECM out of the game" camp here.

To the OP - ECM lasts 20 Seconds - not 30.

To Phaade - that cruiser you just described is called a Proteus and it exists in game.

ECM vs Target Painting? Try an ABC with and without a tech 2 TP. You will be supprised. . .Double the effective DPS anyone?. . srsly.



True about TPing, I can see it has it's uses esp. with things like a null Talos. But would you prefer to deal more damage to your target, or have your target be unable to do anything to you?

As for Morrigan LeSante who is another obvious ECM user: ECM doesn't have a numerical value attached to it's balance. We aren't dealing with DPS or EHP or velocity or anything along those lines. We are dealing with an immeasurable impact on the field; the amount of DPS ECM can remove from the field; the loss of tackle; the loss of Ewar, and loss of everything else your ship was capable of doing. Numbers have a small place in this argument, but they are not center stage.
Aliventi
Rattini Tribe
Minmatar Fleet Alliance
#46 - 2013-08-09 19:16:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Aliventi
Phaade wrote:
Wow, you aren't getting it.

Your numbers still prove nothing. They don't have a "less than 50% chance of working" in fact, they typically have a greater than 60-70% chance of working per module. You apparently don't take into consideration the fact that you can be jammed from ranges well over 70km. Define "reasonable fire" at 70+km (keep in mind I don't give a crap about blob warfare).

I am illustrating numerous circumstances in which ECM is superior to other forms of Ewar. Because there are vastly more situations in which ECM is superior than situations in which ECM is inferior, it is inherently not balanced. Thank you for conceding your own argument: "Yes, it (ECM) is more devastating than other forums of Ewar." It's about time.

As I've stated, just because something has a certain % chance to work or fail does not make it balanced or unbalanced. The impact ECM has when it does work, which coincidentally is more than half the time, is devastating, and is not in line with any other Ewar. How can you not understand this?

Oh, and in that statement you, yourself, have resorted to ad hominem.

You are pulling numbers out of thin air. That 60-70% you quoted is wrong. ECM, by itself, has a greater chance to fail than succeed. That is what the numbers show. A perfect falcon, which takes months to train in to, is a specialized bonused ship hull which is one of the few examples of being reasonably effective at using ECM. Go ahead and tell everyone in this thread that that is not how things should work in Eve. Oh and that falcon is thinly tanked, each ECM module is only truly effective on 25% of the potential ships, and there is a chance the ECM jammers may do nothing. Wow... That is so OP. Roll

Let's define reasonable fire at 70km:
Rail Rokhs, Rail Megathrons, Cruise Ravens, Cruise Navy Raven, Cruise Phoon, Cruise Fleet Phoon, Tornados, Nagas, Oracles, Apocs, NaPocs, Maelstroms, Sentry Dominix, Vexors, Ishtars, Myrmidons, etc. Oh and let's not forget all the new ships you are going to see due to 1.1 with the medium long range turret buff and HAC rebalance. All can do very competent DPS at 70+ km and are, or will be, frequently seen on TQ. Oh and one more note: you can SD, TD, and TP from 70+ kms. ECM is not unique in that. Huh. Turns out that is balanced.

So you are cherry picking situations where ECM is powerful. I can cherry pick situations where anything is powerful. That doesn't mean that it is powerful in all situations. What you are committing is another fallacy of logic. Boy you are good at those... ECM is more devastating in its effect, but that effect is often not felt due to the significant, and balancing, downsides to ECM and ECM bonused ships.

A chance to fail, despite what you believe, is in fact a very balancing factor. If it weren't a balancing factor I would recommend that we remove it as it isn't helping keep ECM balanced at all. I am sure you weren't intending to advocate for an ECM buff that would make ECM OP. Unless you realize that a chance to fail is balancing ECM then you will continue to, wrongly, say that ECM is OP.
Aliventi
Rattini Tribe
Minmatar Fleet Alliance
#47 - 2013-08-09 19:31:11 UTC
Phaade wrote:

As for Morrigan LeSante who is another obvious ECM user: ECM doesn't have a numerical value attached to it's balance. We aren't dealing with DPS or EHP or velocity or anything along those lines. We are dealing with an immeasurable impact on the field; the amount of DPS ECM can remove from the field; the loss of tackle; the loss of Ewar, and loss of everything else your ship was capable of doing. Numbers have a small place in this argument, but they are not center stage.

"Numbers have a small place in this argument, but they are not center stage."

I want you to sit there and read that quite again. Last time I checked everything, and I mean everything, in Eve is balanced with numbers. Numbers are not only the center of the stage, but they are the only thing on the stage. How do you balance DPS, alpha, range, tracking, etc of any weapon system if you don't use numbers? How doyou balance ship bonuses, tank, speed, agility, etc, without numbers? How do you balance SDs, TDs, TPs or ECM if you don't use numbers? How do you know if Rock-paper-scissors is balanced without numbers? The answer: You can't. Funny how that works.

Despite what you believe you can quantify "the amount of DPS ECM can remove from the field; the loss of tackle; the loss of Ewar, and loss of everything else your ship was capable of doing". You lost a 550 DPS hurricane's DPS because it was tracking disrupted. You lost 1 web and 1 scram off that rifter because it was jammed, Your pilgrim can't use its 2 neuts and 1 TD because it is sensor damped and has to move back in to lock range. All are quantifiable with, you guessed it, numbers!

So read this again: "Numbers have a small place in this argument, but they are not center stage." and tell us how you would balance ANYTHING in Eve without the use of number. You seem to think you can do it. So please enlighten us as to how you would balance without numbers.
Acidictadpole
Lethal Dosage.
Scary Wormhole People
#48 - 2013-08-09 20:09:08 UTC
Remove the chance based effect from ECM. The whole idea of that "random chance to do 0 or 100% effect" is silly. The mechanic needs to change to accomodate this also.

The problem with ECM is that there's a limited amount of ways that sensors could be affected on a ship. Targeting range, targeting speed are both already covered by sensor damps. Signature Radius could be manipulated somehow, but the end effects of that change are also already covered by sensor damps and tracking disruptors.

The only one left in the game that comes to mind right now is the number of locks that a ship can do. However doing something to manipulate this doesn't seem like it's helpful at all until you move a ship down to around 2-3 locks or so. It also doesn't reduce a ships effectiveness on a small number of targets.

The other option is to make ECM a smaller version of the remote ecm burst, where it breaks locks but doesn't *prevent* locking. The locking prevention, in my opinion, is why nobody likes the mechanic. However a definite ability to kill locks on command, with 100% effectiveness, seems like it's a dangerous ability to let loose on the game (when the ability is given to such a cheap ship, when compared to supercarriers, that is).

A counter option would be to make Caldari ECM an anti-ewar module. It contrasts the idea of the ewar ship traditionally because that kind of mechanic would nullify opponents instead of bonusing friendlies. Adding to targets locked, increasing scan resolution to any friendly in an area around the ship, reducing sig radius of friendlies around the ship work well too. All of these are potential options when considering ewar, because they still provide an 'electronic' based bonus to one side.
Phaade
LowKey Ops
Shadow Cartel
#49 - 2013-08-09 20:11:43 UTC
Aliventi wrote:
Phaade wrote:

As for Morrigan LeSante who is another obvious ECM user: ECM doesn't have a numerical value attached to it's balance. We aren't dealing with DPS or EHP or velocity or anything along those lines. We are dealing with an immeasurable impact on the field; the amount of DPS ECM can remove from the field; the loss of tackle; the loss of Ewar, and loss of everything else your ship was capable of doing. Numbers have a small place in this argument, but they are not center stage.

"Numbers have a small place in this argument, but they are not center stage."

I want you to sit there and read that quite again. Last time I checked everything, and I mean everything, in Eve is balanced with numbers. Numbers are not only the center of the stage, but they are the only thing on the stage. How do you balance DPS, alpha, range, tracking, etc of any weapon system if you don't use numbers? How doyou balance ship bonuses, tank, speed, agility, etc, without numbers? How do you balance SDs, TDs, TPs or ECM if you don't use numbers? How do you know if Rock-paper-scissors is balanced without numbers? The answer: You can't. Funny how that works.

Despite what you believe you can quantify "the amount of DPS ECM can remove from the field; the loss of tackle; the loss of Ewar, and loss of everything else your ship was capable of doing". You lost a 550 DPS hurricane's DPS because it was tracking disrupted. You lost 1 web and 1 scram off that rifter because it was jammed, Your pilgrim can't use its 2 neuts and 1 TD because it is sensor damped and has to move back in to lock range. All are quantifiable with, you guessed it, numbers!

So read this again: "Numbers have a small place in this argument, but they are not center stage." and tell us how you would balance ANYTHING in Eve without the use of number. You seem to think you can do it. So please enlighten us as to how you would balance without numbers.



Lol, wrong yet again. I don't care about BS pvp but if you do bring that type of drivel to this conversation, I will remind you of the Scorpion that's armor tanked with RR. That is not thinly tanked now is it? You also try to make it sound as if a griffin is not bonused and therefore not effective in locking targets down. I assure you, it is.

TD doesn't remove 550 dps from the Hurricane if the target is in scram range does it? The ship also retains the ability to activate all Ewar that it has (which you ignored).

You don't seem to understand a simple concept:

A TD / SD / TP DEBUFFS A CERTAIN ASPECT OF YOUR SHIP. THIS IN SOME RARE INSTANCES CAN BE AS EFFECTIVE AS ECM. HOWEVER IN THE VAST MAJORITY OF SITUATIONS, IT IS MORE BENEFICIAL TO RENDER A SHIP COMPLETELY UNABLE TO ACT THAN IT IS TO SIMPLY DEBUFF IT. You have yet to say anything to counter this truth.

For example: would you choose a ship with a really short weapon range, a really short locking range, a really long lock time, a really large signature radius, or the one that can't lock anything at all. It's really, really simple that you wouldn't choose the last.

As for your number boner:

DPS / EHP / Optimal / falloff / resists / target disruption / sensor disruption / velocity / sig radius can all be quantified and balanced by numbers. ECM can not because it's impact on the field is not directly measurable.
Acidictadpole
Lethal Dosage.
Scary Wormhole People
#50 - 2013-08-09 20:37:08 UTC
Phaade wrote:
[quote=Solutio Letum]
In fact, that's probably the best thing for ECM, lock out all Ewar modules (web / scram / point / TD / SD / TP).


Every PvPer would carry one of these. Getting scrammed?? Just turn on your ecm and gtfo.
Phaade
LowKey Ops
Shadow Cartel
#51 - 2013-08-09 20:42:58 UTC
Acidictadpole wrote:
Phaade wrote:
[quote=Solutio Letum]
In fact, that's probably the best thing for ECM, lock out all Ewar modules (web / scram / point / TD / SD / TP).


Every PvPer would carry one of these. Getting scrammed?? Just turn on your ecm and gtfo.


It does more than that now, yet every pvper doesn't carry them.

Ideally it would still be % based, perhaps on a per module basis or something.
Naomi Knight
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#52 - 2013-08-09 20:57:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Naomi Knight
why these stupid ideas always come from some lolsec wannabe who never used ecm ships and wants to solo in an mmo?
and when his cookie cutter eft warriored ship gets killed by few people with some ecm support ,they instantly rage and come to forum
to nerf ecm as they think thats the reason they lost their fav ship

np with changeing ecm , but change it in a way that it will be usable and not complety garbage like this idea would make it
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#53 - 2013-08-09 21:06:27 UTC
Naomi Knight wrote:
gets killed by an ecm ship with some dps support


FTFY.

Let's be realistic while we're on the soap box.

Make sure and tip your ECM pilot, folks. Even though he's usually the last one on the KM, you couldn't have done it without him.
Master Technique
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#54 - 2013-08-09 21:12:59 UTC
Aliventi,

I understand your desire for someone to come back with numbers. I am a quality engineer and a statistician and I use them all day to argue. It makes things neat. You have brought many numbers, and they are correct. That being said, I don't think you are contributing much to the conversation here.

You like logical fallacies it seems. Your entire string of posts is a red herring. The entire debate here, as others have pointed out, is about what ECM does, not how often it does it. You have said that others don't have numbers so their arguments are valid. This is incorrect because they are discussing the fact that EVE isn't fun when you can't do anything. This is a subjective opinion, but that does not mean its not valid. This is a video game, not someone's checkbook. Numbers are not the only thing to consider, and they should not be the only factor used to determine "balance". Ironically, your entire objection to their position based on not having numbers...is a fallacist's fallacy.

Fallacies are boring and can be used to shoot holes in almost any argument, especially one about a video game, so I will stop with that tactic. You should too.

I would love to fire a bunch of data back at you. I don't have access to the numbers for it. No one here does, which is why no one has countered you with them. I would love to know:

"how often is a ship destroyed on a grid it activates an ECM mod on"
"how often is a Falcon destroyed on a grid it activates an ECM mod on"
"If a ship successfully jams another ship, how often does that ship survive, if the jamming ship survives also"
"for a given pilot, survival rates in engagements with ECM bonused ships on grid"
"for a given pilot, kill rates in engagements with ECM bonused ships on grid"
"for a given pilot, survival rates in engagements without ECM bonused ships on grid"
"for a given pilot, kill rates in engagements without ECM bonused ships on grid"

There are more variables that would be potentially relevant. I would also get those stats in subgroups for size of engagement (solo v solo, solo v <10, <10 v <10, large fleets, etc.

EVE is hard. It is supposed to be hard. But the fun in EVE pvp is the split second decision making. When your painted, you move, when you are TD'd, you try to manually fly parallel to reduce transversal, when your webbed, maybe switch ammo or drones. When you are jammed, there are no decisions to be made. You stop doing anything and wait to start playing your game again. No one in here cares that ECM is numerically balanced. It isn't functionally balanced.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#55 - 2013-08-09 21:57:34 UTC
Acidictadpole wrote:
Phaade wrote:
[quote=Solutio Letum]
In fact, that's probably the best thing for ECM, lock out all Ewar modules (web / scram / point / TD / SD / TP).


Every PvPer would carry one of these. Getting scrammed?? Just turn on your ecm and gtfo.

Most smart ones have a flight of ECM drones if they can carry them

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Aliventi
Rattini Tribe
Minmatar Fleet Alliance
#56 - 2013-08-09 22:05:29 UTC
Master Technique wrote:
The entire debate here, as others have pointed out, is about what ECM does, not how often it does it. You have said that others don't have numbers so their arguments are valid. This is incorrect because they are discussing the fact that EVE isn't fun when you can't do anything. This is a subjective opinion, but that does not mean its not valid. This is a video game, not someone's checkbook. Numbers are not the only thing to consider, and they should not be the only factor used to determine "balance".

Very well said. I am always down for a a replacement to ECM that is not chance based, still effective, and balanced. As I have said, when that appears I would be glad to support it.

My issue is people arguing that ECM is OP despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. What ECM does is justified by how often it happens. That is how ECM is balanced. You can't pick one half of the picture and claim that is ugly without considering the other half which makes the picture whole. That is the thing Phaade and many other fail to understand. They are focusing on what happens. Which, in many opinions, is an ugly mechanic. Purely based off that fact they claim ECM is OP. They fail to consider the many down sides: it doesn't always hit, ECM mods are only really effective on 25% of the potential ships, the ships bonused to ECM don't tank very well, the effect is not permanent, and other reasons. For ECM to work a lot has to go right that you just don't see with other EWAR. So it isn't purely a numbers based argument. Numbers just help show one aspect of the balancing behind ECM.

Also Phaade, ECM is a debuff. It changes your number of targets you can lock to 0 for 20 seconds. You are focusing on the effect of ECM and ignoring the multitude of balancing factors. When you consider those perhaps you will be taken seriously.
Vassal Zeren
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#57 - 2013-08-09 22:19:44 UTC
Aldap wrote:
Aliventi wrote:
That is the issue with these threads: none of them use numbers. People feel that ECM is OP. People think that ECM is broken. People consider ECM to be out of line. Unless you can actually argue with actual numbers that ECM is powerful/OP/bad/etc., then don't bother.

You sound like some rich politician who fights povery from his 100mil$ mansion.


When it happens to you for the 30th time, you can't preach numbers anymore.

Its not about numbers. Its about people.


You gotta feel it, don't be a robot.


So you die a few times while looking for your fight. Thats not the frustration.



Eve tells you to f' off. Because the numbers say its ok.



"...when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the state of Science, whatever the matter may be."

-- Lord Kelvin

Anyone who talks about feelings having weight against numbers and facts is an idiot.

A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver.
Vassal Zeren
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#58 - 2013-08-09 22:32:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Vassal Zeren
ecm ships should also not be nerfed till they can mount tank like some of the other recon ships.

A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver.
General Guardian
Perkone
Caldari State
#59 - 2013-08-09 22:43:07 UTC
I like when 1v1's happen (yes, they do happen now and then) and both pilots manage to jam each other out with ec-drones. Rendering each other completely ineffective, and doing some sort of ritual mating dance while trying to re-establish a lock on the other guy or his drones.

Being able to jam someone without having them targeted is a small issue as well in my opinion.
Acidictadpole
Lethal Dosage.
Scary Wormhole People
#60 - 2013-08-10 01:28:59 UTC
Phaade wrote:
Acidictadpole wrote:
Phaade wrote:
[quote=Solutio Letum]
In fact, that's probably the best thing for ECM, lock out all Ewar modules (web / scram / point / TD / SD / TP).


Every PvPer would carry one of these. Getting scrammed?? Just turn on your ecm and gtfo.


It does more than that now, yet every pvper doesn't carry them.

Ideally it would still be % based, perhaps on a per module basis or something.


It's not *guaranteed* to do more than that now. If you give it a 100% chance to turn off the scramblers and all the ew mods, then people will always carry them.

If you think it should still be chance based, then you're just wrong. There should be no difference between racial ew mods with regards to chances, either make them all chance based or make none of them chance based.