These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

[Suggestion] ECM change.

First post
Author
SOL Ranger
Imperial Armed Forces
#1 - 2013-08-17 16:37:05 UTC  |  Edited by: SOL Ranger
I'm making this in its own thread because my suggestion was largely buried in another thread without being thoroughly discussed.

What this is about is to make ECM an E-war which aligns to the other E-war in a similar fashion on functional guarantees and removal of chance based absolute mechanics.

ECM effect:

Releases a sensor negating energy burst which releases target locks of the enemy ship after identifying target frequencies.
-It functions like the locking mechanism except in reverse where it instead "locks off" the enemy.

When you initiate an ECM module it will begin locking off your opponent, any and all sensor strength boosts on the enemy ship will prolong the lock off process(think reverse for dampeners);The higher the sensor strength of the ship the longer time it takes to succeed for the lock off, eventually it will succeed unless the process is stopped somehow(explodes/retreats).

Lock off is guaranteed for the ECM module and will succeed every time, only the frequency and time to lock off varies.

- Follows the guarantees given to other E-war of always functioning.
- Not chance based.
- Unless you get many ECM modules on you simultaneously properly chained you will as the target of ECM warfare usually get a lock for a while.
- Multiple modules on a target will keep locking off the target locks and thus make his day a really bad one.
- High sensor strength no longer becomes a near chance based immunity and instead is counterable by larger numbers of ECM modules chained.
- Single ECM ships will not be able to lock down small gangs, you will need to combine with damps or more ECM ships to do that.
- The higher your sensor strength the longer it takes to lock you off, but when you have a high sensor strength you're probably in a ship with lower scan resolution(slower lock times), so it all evens out: Frigates lock fast but get ECM locked off more often, BS lock slow but get ECM locked off slowly, it will all be about chaining modules/timing properly and having fast lock times/sensor strength as a counter.
- ECM drones will be locking off targets very very slowly compared to ship modules and as such isn't a guaranteed GTFO free card nor is it a guaranteed block used with drone blobs, they will be more of a distraction over time or when properly micromanaged they could be made into a devastating lock off chain, but that takes huge amounts of time and such effects for such prolonged activities are justified.


Observe, there are no numbers in this and as such please only judge the mechanics of it.


My suggestion was previously placed here:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3476708#post3476708

The Vargur requires launcher hardpoints, following tempest tradition.

Swiftstrike1
Swiftstrike Incorporated
#2 - 2013-08-17 18:06:38 UTC
So chance of jam is 100% every time, it just takes some time to kick in? Or are you talking about lock breaking rather than jamming?

Sounds like it's either a game breakingly massive buff or an ECM-breaking nerf.

Casual Incursion runner & Faction Warfare grunt, ex-Wormholer, ex-Nullbear.

SOL Ranger
Imperial Armed Forces
#3 - 2013-08-17 18:55:59 UTC
Swiftstrike1 wrote:
So chance of jam is 100% every time, it just takes some time to kick in? Or are you talking about lock breaking rather than jamming?


Lock breaking only.


Quote:

Sounds like it's either a game breakingly massive buff or an ECM-breaking nerf.


No comment until you elaborate on how you define these, especially the "ECM-breaking nerf".


Please remember we are discussing the mechanic, not the numbers(balance figures) which includes ships in it.

The Vargur requires launcher hardpoints, following tempest tradition.

Whitehound
#4 - 2013-08-17 19:05:14 UTC
Stop suggesting changes to what is not broken. If you think you have a nice idea then suggest it as a new form of e-war. You will more likely get support for it this way. That said, your idea is pretty close to sensor dampeners and not exactly original.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.

Caleb Seremshur
Bloodhorn
Patchwork Freelancers
#5 - 2013-08-17 19:12:26 UTC
It doesn't need to be original it needs to be functional and it is a functional suggestion. Will the lock off time be equal to the lock-on time of the aggressing ship? How will this affect vessels that use alpha to attack? Once ECM'd can a new lock be established or are they permanently ECM'd?
SOL Ranger
Imperial Armed Forces
#6 - 2013-08-17 19:23:05 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Stop suggesting changes to what is not broken.


You yourself have admitted the mechanic is ugly and here you are telling me to not try to fix it, anyone who's not an ECM pilot or an ECM fleet shill will tell you how horrible the mechanic is, hell even ECM pilots moan about it when it fails them randomly.

Quote:
If you think you have a nice idea then suggest it as a new form of e-war. You will more likely get support for it this way.


This isn't meant as a new E-war, it is meant to directly replace ECM, which is broken as a mechanic.

Quote:
That said, your idea is pretty close to sensor dampeners and not exactly original.


Trying to belittle the suggestion as "unoriginal" has no value whatsoever and is highly irrelevant, focus on the mechanic as such, not how it was conceived.

The Vargur requires launcher hardpoints, following tempest tradition.

Whitehound
#7 - 2013-08-17 19:46:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
SOL Ranger wrote:
Whitehound wrote:
Stop suggesting changes to what is not broken.


You yourself have admitted the mechanic is ugly and here you are telling me to not try to fix it, anyone who's not an ECM pilot or an ECM fleet shill will tell you how horrible the mechanic is, hell even ECM pilots moan about it when it fails them randomly.

Quote:
If you think you have a nice idea then suggest it as a new form of e-war. You will more likely get support for it this way.


This isn't meant as a new E-war, it is meant to directly replace ECM, which is broken as a mechanic.

Quote:
That said, your idea is pretty close to sensor dampeners and not exactly original.


Trying to belittle the suggestion as "unoriginal" has no value whatsoever and is highly irrelevant, focus on the mechanic as such, not how it was conceived.

Ugly is not broken. It compliments the other forms of e-war and grief-play is part of the game. And, yes, your idea is unoriginal. Sorry if you feel belittled by the truth.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.

Proclus Diadochu
Mar Sarrim
Red Coat Conspiracy
#8 - 2013-08-17 20:14:28 UTC
Personally would not recommend a change for ECM myself. I find that EWAR ships are strong force multipliers as is, and the mechanics are fine. Although I understand your suggestion's intent, I don't see this as something I'd like CCP to implement.

The dice-roll style works for ECM and I agree with Whitehound that it compliments the other forms of EWAR already.

Minister of High Society | Twitter: @autoritare

E-mail: diogenes.proc@gmail.com

My Blog: http://diogenes-club.blogspot.com/

The Diogenes Club | Join W-Space | Down The Pipe

SOL Ranger
Imperial Armed Forces
#9 - 2013-08-17 20:14:55 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:

Will the lock off time be equal to the lock-on time of the aggressing ship?

That depends on the enemy ship signature radius, scan resolution and your/its target signature radius, so it would vary quite a bit.

Quote:
How will this affect vessels that use alpha to attack?


Alpha ships could be a counter to get off volleys on larger ships during battle, initially or when jammed imperfectly and when using countermeasures, essentially alpha ships become a bit stronger than the others although those with alpha(minmatar) have often a lower signature radius compared to other ships, so it evens out a bit still as they are faster to lock off.
Regardless, just to mention it ECM ships would need a balance revisit, possibly increasing their buffers quite an amount and lowering their signature radii, as well as possibly allowing longer ranges, which is about numbers but I wanted to add that in as there are probably questions about survivability.

Quote:
Once ECM'd can a new lock be established or are they permanently ECM'd?


A target ship can immediately attempt to relock, this is why you want to chain your ECM to keep killing off his locks in a timely fashion just before he gets a new one, which is all about player skill and decisions on which kinds of ships to protect.
If you want to protect your battleships you will need to add lots of modules on the target as battleships are easy to lock on to, if you want to protect your frigates/cruisers then only a single/few modules are needed, this is all depending on the enemy too of course.

You will always reduce a significant amount of incoming damage on most ships in your fleet with ECM, especially against the smaller fragile ones.
This makes the ECM'd players more willing to target vessels of their own size/larger as they only have a finite time to re-lock something or fail a lock on something small, thus it protects smaller vessels more.

The Vargur requires launcher hardpoints, following tempest tradition.

SOL Ranger
Imperial Armed Forces
#10 - 2013-08-17 20:41:17 UTC  |  Edited by: SOL Ranger
Whitehound wrote:

Ugly is not broken.

Semantics my friend, you play your game, I will not partake in it.

Quote:
It compliments the other forms of e-war and grief-play is part of the game.

How would my suggestion change any of this, you haven't even read the suggestion have you?

Quote:
And, yes, your idea is unoriginal.

You keep iterating this, why is discussing this so important to you?

Quote:
Sorry if you feel belittled by the truth.


SOL Ranger wrote:
Trying to belittle the suggestion as "unoriginal" has no value whatsoever and is highly irrelevant, focus on the mechanic as such, not how it was conceived.


Where did I mention anything of the sort, you belittled the suggestion as unoriginal, English , do you speak it?


Stop derailing the thread.

The Vargur requires launcher hardpoints, following tempest tradition.

Bendit
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#11 - 2013-08-17 20:51:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Bendit
I kinda like the idea.

But you could expand a bit on it.

Since it's a electronic warfare. It could mess up your electronics.

Example:

- When it succeeds it breaks the targets locks, and deactivates their modules. Like Sensorboosters, hardeners etc, and everything would need to be turned on again. I'm saying deactivates, NOT off-lining.

Passive modules are unaffected.
Viribus
Aurora.
The Initiative.
#12 - 2013-08-17 20:56:22 UTC
Why would anyone use damps ever again? Having two EWARs that both affect locking is stupid in the first place, one of them has got to go, preferably ECM
Whitehound
#13 - 2013-08-17 20:57:15 UTC
SOL Ranger wrote:
Whitehound wrote:

Ugly is not broken.

Semantics my friend, you play your game, I will not partake in it. ...

You are free to quit EVE of course.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.

Bendit
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#14 - 2013-08-17 21:02:58 UTC
Viribus wrote:
Why would anyone use damps ever again? Having two EWARs that both affect locking is stupid in the first place, one of them has got to go, preferably ECM


damps are constant, ECM is not.

Stay outside range, and damps will work 100%, within range damps have no effect. Scan res 100% effect no matter what.

ECM, breaks lock, you can regain lock relatively quickly.
SOL Ranger
Imperial Armed Forces
#15 - 2013-08-17 22:30:07 UTC
Whitehound wrote:

*further rudeness*


I was unrealistically hoping for:

Whitehound(no he didn't) wrote:

SOL Ranger wrote:

Stop derailing the thread.


Sure, I'm sorry for being rude and horribly shallow.


Np mate, that's just how you are, blame your parents, I do.

The Vargur requires launcher hardpoints, following tempest tradition.

Whitehound
#16 - 2013-08-18 01:53:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
SOL Ranger wrote:
Whitehound wrote:

*further rudeness*


I was unrealistically hoping for:

Whitehound(no he didn't) wrote:

SOL Ranger wrote:

Stop derailing the thread.


Sure, I'm sorry for being rude and horribly shallow.


Np mate, that's just how you are, blame your parents, I do.

If you think I am being rude then report me for it. I have now reported you for abuse.

I get that you do not like my opinion, but all I am is being honest with you. Now you want to make this about my parents?! ... Roll

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.

SOL Ranger
Imperial Armed Forces
#17 - 2013-08-18 04:29:03 UTC
Whitehound wrote:

If you think I am being rude then report me for it.

I need not hold hands with a moderator to teach you some manners and rip you a new one for being a tool.

Quote:

I have now reported you for abuse.

Great, lets hope you get your warning soon for derailing threads and trolling so we can all get back to progress.

Quote:

I get that you do not like my opinion

Has nothing to do with opinions, has to do with being facetious; There are people in the thread who disagree, I'm not tearing into them am I?
Just you, notably also after I politely asked you to keep to the topic, which you refused to do.

Quote:

but all I am is being honest with you.

You know you've had a bad attitude and a thing for irrelevance in every post in this thread right, or do you conveniently forget?

Quote:

Now you want to make this about my parents?! ... Roll

In this thread I made about ECM, in which I've asked you politely to stick to the topic and discuss the mechanics I've clearly laid out in the OP which you never apparently even read. Now guess what that means.


You need to understand how to partake in a conversation without spewing knee jerk semi intellectual halfwit comments on things people are actually trying to help solve, if you want to do that go to GD, there are plenty of threads for you to troll.
If you have an issue with an idea, explain how/why in a detailed manner and be polite if you can, but you are apparently incapable of doing that.

If you were my kid I'd take your computer away and see you develop some social skills before letting you enter another forum, but I'm eternally grateful this is not the case.

The Vargur requires launcher hardpoints, following tempest tradition.

Whitehound
#18 - 2013-08-18 07:56:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
SOL Ranger wrote:
You need to understand how to partake in a conversation ...

No, but you need to learn to respect other forum members. You only derail your own thread.

Again, ECM is not broken. It is been in the game for as long as I can remember. It is an annoying and ugly mechanic, but this is also its sole purpose. People then dislike gate camps, capitals, mining, cloaking, local, etc.. Any part of the game is being dislike by someone. It is only natural with this many people playing EVE to find someone who hates some part of it.

There have also been many threads on ECM, more than perhaps on other mechanics. There are currently 5-6 other ECM threads here next to yours. One could argue "where there is smoke there is fire", but I find the inability to stick to one thread and needing to create another only to draw more attention and to create more smoke tells me that there is something wrong with the people who hate ECM in the first place. Or why is it that nobody wanted to discuss your idea in the last thread you posted in? Maybe because it was a terrible idea back then, too, and you are only looking to get it confirmed? So I do not really care for how many threads you start, because it is the same over and over again and it is turning into spam.

I then told you what you could do if you truly had a unique idea, which is to present it independent of ECM. If it is all round better then it should be easily recognized by everyone as such and seen as a good replacement without even mentioning it.

However, your idea is unoriginal. It copies a lot from sensor dampeners and adds little new to the game and thus lacks to stand on its own. Presenting it as a replacement for ECM then is its excuse for being a terrible idea.

If you then were my dad and took away my computer because you could not take criticism from me then I would only hate you and think of you as a terrible father. You want to think about this, too.

Further, by fighting my opinion do you only give me credit for it. If you do not want this then stop fighting it, just respect it and wait for other opinions. It is not that hard. Can you do this?

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.

SOL Ranger
Imperial Armed Forces
#19 - 2013-08-18 15:11:37 UTC
Whitehound wrote:

*rambling*


Just do yourself a favour and stop already, I've no interest in your nonsensical raving, it's like you're stuck in some limbo needing to point out tiny irrelevant details for no reason other than to avoid the topic and you just refuse to grasp the concept of discussing the mechanic which I've clearly asked in the OP.

Bye.

The Vargur requires launcher hardpoints, following tempest tradition.

Whitehound
#20 - 2013-08-18 16:25:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
SOL Ranger wrote:
Whitehound wrote:

*rambling*


Just do yourself a favour and stop already, I've no interest in your nonsensical raving, it's like you're stuck in some limbo needing to point out tiny irrelevant details for no reason other than to avoid the topic and you just refuse to grasp the concept of discussing the mechanic which I've clearly asked in the OP.

Bye.

You do not get to tell others what they can and cannot do in a discussion. If you do not want criticism then try the Jita Park Speakers Corner or EVE Forum Experiments.

Also see forum rules #1, #4, #16, #22, #26.

If you have anything to say on topic then pick up my points.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.

12Next page