These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Balance change for ECM: Not chance-based, not max-target-based

Author
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#1 - 2014-02-13 15:34:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Altrue
What if we considered sensor strength as a ressource pool, like capacitor, instead of a raw stat?


  • UI would display your own pool so that you could know at which level your sensor strength is.
  • Activating an ECM module or a remote ECCM module on a target would give you the current sensor strength of the target that received the module activation. At the moment of the activation of said module. (Just like a ship scanner gives you the current cap of your target at the time of module activation - except that it would be displayed with a number on the target icon for instance)
  • Every ship would have a base sensor strength regeneration, relative to the current sensor strength stats of the ship. This regeneration would be linear.
  • Every ECM module would lower the sensor strength of the target on a per second basis. Once you hit 0, you loose all current targets and cannot target anymore.
  • The pool can go below 0, up to a negative number equal to the base sensor strength of the ship.
  • At soon as you have a sensor strength higher than 0, you instant-target every target that you had a finished lock on, before being jammed. If you were in the process of targeting something, the targeting will have to start over. (To keep the synergy between scan res damp and ECM)
  • ECCM lowslots would give a regeneration of strength/sec AND increase your maximum sensor strength 96% stacking penalized.
  • ECCM midslot (and remote) scriptable to either act as a worst ECCM lowslot, but with the possibility of commiting on regen or max strength. Note: Currently an ECCM midslot gives around 96% bonus to max strength. Make it the bonus without script (reduce it to ~75% so that unscripted medslot = worst than lowslot non scriptable). With script, jump to 200% bonus to total strength => FINALLY gives non-T3 sniping ships the ability to reach the combat probe difficulty cap, = sniping at very long ranges (= mostly with hybrids + spike) now becomes a valid mechanic again!
  • Remote ECCM would give the same stats then an ECCM midslot.
  • Add a "broadcast for ECCM" ? :D


This way, we avoid most(all?) issues with ECM:

  • It becomes a "fair" mechanic, not RNG based. Predictable, counterable. (More on this topic, below)
  • Just like other E-War, if you equip a module to counter a specific E-war, you avoid completely roughly one instance of that E-war. (example : with a sensor booster, you counter a sensor dampener, 1-1=0, back to square one).
  • If you do not equip any module against that E-war, you'll get fu**ed but that's a legitimate mechanic. (example: try to hit something with -75% tracking speed and no tracking module to counter that. Except that you do not get ****** instantly, instead you have time to see it coming. Because your pool is going down, but not instantly.)
  • So if two ECM ships jamms eachothers, okay one will finish by jam the other without being jammed itself, but this ship will be left with a low sensor strength pool and thus highly vulnerable to ECM. Or, since your current cycle will have to finish, you may be able to jam the target that jammed you with the remaining server ticks before your module deactivates.
  • ECM drones actually useful and balanced!! No more stupidly low ECM chance and 20sec jam if you're lucky. Instead, ECM drones will either slowly grind your sensor strength, or if you are protected enough, do nothing at all.
  • Just like ECM drones, ships protecting against ECM would be actually rewarded for doing so. For instance, currently two basilisks with two ECCM medslot and an ECCM lowslot will have roughly a monster 100 Sensor strength. Still, if a ship comes and try to ECM them, or if ecm drones are around, its not a matter of if, but a matter of when they will succeed. Meaning that, theorically you can protect yourself as much as you want, a single light ECM drone WILL jam a basi for 20second at some point and kill both basi in the process, and the whole fleet, by breaking the capchain. Instead now, if you protect yourself against ECM, you cannot be disrupted by insignificant ****.


Comments?

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart

Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#2 - 2014-02-14 10:22:44 UTC
Okay I know its more complicated than the usual rant against ECM but still I was expecting at least a few negative comments Lol

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart

Paul Tsukaya
Doomheim
#3 - 2014-02-14 11:18:27 UTC
I sorta like this. It would destroy sabre+falcon which is probably actually a good thing.

At the same time ecm would remain a useful tool for disabling logistics ships.
Gimme more Cynos
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#4 - 2014-02-14 11:21:46 UTC
that wouldn't solve the issue of beeing perma-jammed, right?
djentropy Ovaert
The Conference Elite
CODE.
#5 - 2014-02-14 11:38:56 UTC  |  Edited by: DJentropy Ovaert
I think this idea would lead simply to more whine.

Imagine, if you will - the fact that Griffin, Kitsune, Blackbird, Falcon - etc - these ships have HUGE ranges. Heck, in a blackbird with a max range rig, long range targeting 5, and a few basic support skills - I can lock onto things from like 140km away or so.

Now, if we change ECM in the way you suggested, instead of me taking a HEAVY nerf to my ability to land a ECM at that kind of range (ECM does have a optimal range and falloff) - I can simply sit at that extreme range and after a few cycles extra and wearing out my targets sensor strength, be guaranteed a jam on the target.

To be honest, I am a ECM pilot in general when I am with fleets. I don't feel the current mechanic is broken. If I want to have a very good chance of landing jams without much risk of failure, I have to place my super fragile (read: a couple well placed shots will generally alpha me) boat a bit close to the line of fire. My only defense against being taken out of the fight in a matter of seconds is extreme range (which lowers my ability to jam you) and/or landing a jam on the target(s) that are firing at me.

I've lost count of how many fights (and I am talking 20+ person fights, not just super small engagements) where my enemy gets tunnel vision, as usual I drop on grid a bit after the fighting stats up - and jam ship after ship after ship without the enemy FC giving the 3 words that would take me out of the fight - "Primary the blackbird". Once the enemy fleet switches to me as a primary target, my only option is to warp off grid (thus removing my ECM from the fight), ECM all the attackers (keeping more then a few targets locked down might happen - but if a entire fleet of ten suddenly calls me primary? No way I can jam that out), or sacrifice myself allowing my fleets DPS and support boats a few extra seconds of time to do what they do.

Went up against a fleet a few days ago with 2x logi boats in the fleet, both equipped with a single ECCM module. We had no idea they would be equipped as such. FC order was for me to achieve jam one ONE of the logis, so the fleet could target the other and take it out of the fight. 5x jammers equipped, 2 of them were racial specific to the logi boat in particular. First attempt to jam one with all 5 jammers failed. Second attempt failed. That's 40 seconds now that I was nothing but a soft target that could have been dropped in seconds - no one targeted me. Third jam worked - we drop their logi ships. ECCM worked - it gave the enemy fleet nearly a full 60 seconds to realize there was a blackbird on the grid and to somehow remove me from the fight (a single frigate would have been able to force me off grid or destroy me in that time if they were equipped well).

I don't feel ECM needs any changes - but there's some FC's out there that really need lessons in how to deal with ECM when it is being used against them.

ECCM is not the only counter to ECM - there's a far easier method. DPS. ECM boats are generally quite fragile and unable to stand up to any punishment at all.
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#6 - 2014-02-14 11:40:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Altrue
Gimme more Cynos wrote:
that wouldn't solve the issue of beeing perma-jammed, right?


Nope, just like being perma-capped or prema targeting range dampened. Big smile
The difference would be that if a falcon or anything tries to permajam you, instead of happening suddenly you will see your pool decreasing before it happens. Giving you a few seconds to do something like engage with your drones or warp off, or broadcast for ECCM Bear.

The point is not to render ECM useless or unable to perform what it should perform. The point is to balance the mechanic so that it is more "pleasant" to use and endure. On one hand, the target has time to react, and is able to make sure that with proper ECCM you have 100% chances to resist ECM until some point. And ECM drones are no longuer a Damocles sword during engagements. They have a tangible effect, but also a predictable one.

However, yes the ECM ship is still able to jam you, and yes when you don't have friends, drones, and no protection against ECM, an ECM boat will be able to ECM you in a more reliable way for him too. Because if an ECM ship gets a bad dice roll currently, its death. (Also if you had a firm lock on the ECM ship before he jams you, I remind you that my idea would include that as soon as you are able to target again, you insta-lock him. So no more easy warping off for falcons when ECM is failing)

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart

culo duro
Masonic Guard
Evictus.
#7 - 2014-02-14 11:50:04 UTC
Altrue wrote:

Because if an ECM ship gets a bad dice roll currently, its death. (Also if you had a firm lock on the ECM ship before he jams you, I remind you that my idea would include that as soon as you are able to target again, you insta-lock him. So no more easy warping off for falcons when ECM is failing)


You've obviously never heard of an ECMGU, those things just don't die.

Also, this is not really a good idea, because:
Basis, and Guardians would be nerfed to **** with this because now and then these ships do cap 2 targets at the same time giving them -2 lockable target from their overall pool, which would make it so much easier to kill them and that would render them more or less useless, unless you're fighting small scale gangs, since ECM is not used that often there.

This is one of the better ideas from F&I though, just probably wouldn't work in practice.

I've starting blogging http://www.epvpc.blogspot.comĀ 

Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#8 - 2014-02-14 11:55:47 UTC
djentropy Ovaert wrote:
Now, if we change ECM in the way you suggested, instead of me taking a HEAVY nerf to my ability to land a ECM at that kind of range (ECM does have a optimal range and falloff) - I can simply sit at that extreme range and after a few cycles extra and wearing out my targets sensor strength, be guaranteed a jam on the target.


Well since this idea wouldn't include a big change in the stats of the jammers, if you are at long range, you're in failoff. Thus the ennemy takes more time to be jammed, and has more time to ask for ECCM. Its passive sensor regeneration would also make it exponentially harder to jam. And you'd have to commit to stay on the field, because warping off and trying your luck again in 20 seconds wouldn't work.
So really it shouldn't make any bad difference compared to now: At range you're less efficient. But if you decide to stay far far away from the fight, there is NO WAY that you'll be able to jam a ship for 20 seconds with a lucky cycle, on the first second you spend on-grid. As it is now, this situation is indeed possible, its just a matter of probability. Which is highly unfair and do not involve any strategic choice, just the roll of a dice.


djentropy Ovaert wrote:
Went up against a fleet a few days ago with 2x logi boats in the fleet, both equipped with a single ECCM module. We had no idea they would be equipped as such. FC order was for me to achieve jam one ONE of the logis, so the fleet could target the other and take it out of the fight. 5x jammers equipped, 2 of them were racial specific to the logi boat in particular. First attempt to jam one with all 5 jammers failed. Second attempt failed. That's 40 seconds now that I was nothing but a soft target that could have been dropped in seconds - no one targeted me. Third jam worked - we drop their logi ships. ECCM worked - it gave the enemy fleet nearly a full 60 seconds to realize there was a blackbird on the grid and to somehow remove me from the fight (a single frigate would have been able to force me off grid or destroy me in that time if they were equipped well).


Its funny to hear you describing the very situation where current mecanic proves broken and random. You see, the fact that you could warp off-grid without any risks because you know, at the very first second, if you'll succed or not to jam your target, is broken in itself. The fact that you need only ONE cycle of ONE module to work to break both basi and their fleets, compounded by the fact that you can warp off safely, shows that even with only one T1 ship you can break a full fleet without it being a question of IF, but WHEN. Even when said fleet equips the counter to your module. This is what I call a broken mechanic.

Also in the situation you described, provided that the ennemy fleet would have reacted the same way, you'd probably have gotten the same result (= jamming a basi after a few cycles by focusing your modules on him), except that it would have been less random and more strategy-based on both sides. And it would at least require you to be on-grid more than just a second to already know how your next 20seconds will be like.

All this, without changing the theoretical and average result of your situation. There would just be less "lucky" situations and less "unlucky" situations.


djentropy Ovaert wrote:
ECCM is not the only counter to ECM - there's a far easier method. DPS. ECM boats are generally quite fragile and unable to stand up to any punishment at all.


Yes but DPS as a counter works in every single situation, that's not really relevant balance-wise. Just like saying that a nice counter to a mecanic, is the mecanic itself. Same thing, not really relevant balance-wise.

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart

Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#9 - 2014-02-14 12:02:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Altrue
culo duro wrote:

You've obviously never heard of an ECMGU, those things just don't die.

How is it any different from a neuting legion capping a blaster / laser ship ? :)

culo duro wrote:

Also, this is not really a good idea, because:
Basis, and Guardians would be nerfed to **** with this because now and then these ships do cap 2 targets at the same time giving them -2 lockable target from their overall pool, which would make it so much easier to kill them and that would render them more or less useless, unless you're fighting small scale gangs, since ECM is not used that often there..


I don't understand the relation between my idea and your comment. The number of targets that basi would have to have to maintain their cap chain wouldn't change. And my idea does not include any diminution of the maximum number of targets for a ship.

It would be quite a up to basis and guardians actually. A fair up: If you equip one ECCM, the regeneration in sensor strength that it provides should be enough to counter at least one racial ECM module (actual numbers not defined, I'm just debating a concept not balance tweaks). As it currently stands, no matter how many counters to ECM you bring, you cannot be immune to even a single light ECM drone. Which is bad. Especially given that breaking the cap chain once even for "only" 20 seconds, will kill your fleet.

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart

djentropy Ovaert
The Conference Elite
CODE.
#10 - 2014-02-14 12:10:43 UTC
Altrue wrote:
As it currently stands, no matter how many counters to ECM you bring, you cannot be immune to even a single light ECM drone. Which is bad. Especially given that breaking the cap chain once even for "only" 20 seconds, will kill your fleet.


The chance of a single light ECM drone landing a jam on a target with ECCM equipped is sort of like the chance of every person shooting at you getting lucky and scoring a wrecking hit. It's probably not going to happen, the chance is super low - but it is "possible".

Some about of chance based mechanic is not a bad thing, without it fighting would get rather boring and cookie cutter.
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#11 - 2014-02-14 12:29:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Altrue
djentropy Ovaert wrote:

The chance of a single light ECM drone landing a jam on a target with ECCM equipped is sort of like the chance of every person shooting at you getting lucky and scoring a wrecking hit. It's probably not going to happen, the chance is super low - but it is "possible".


First, a single wrecking shot won't change much to the overall dps of your ship, whereas here, a single ECM will paralyze your rep for 20 seconds! and the reps of your partner in case of a capchain. The consequences are WAY more dramatic.

Second, because only ONE proc can change everything, the question is not "probably not going to happen". It becomes a question of time. An ineluctable bad issue that you cannot avoid whatsoever.

Third, if you take a single ECCM logi like most guardian fits, you will get around 40-45 sensor strength. A light ECM drone is 1 sensor strength. A volley of them is thus 5 attemps every 20 seconds. Each attempt would have roughly 2.5% chances to end your ability to target, the ability for you and your partner to rep, and all that, for 20 seconds plus the time needed to relock and reestablish the cap chain plus one cycle of cap transfers. Effectively killing your fleet in a small-scale gang engagement.

I'm bad with maths, but I'm pretty sure that the chances that you get ECMed (thus die and kill your fleet) for just a single flight of light drones are then 1 - (1 * 0.975 * 0.975 * 0.975 * 0.975 * 0.975)). = 11.89%
So one engagment every nine engagement, a single ***ing flight of light drones will ECM your guardian and kill your fleet. Great. And its only on the FIRST cycle. Thats BEFORE you even get the chance to counter these drones by smartbombing them. That's BEFORE you get any chance of using strategy to survive...

Yes it also means that 88,11% of the time you'll be fine for the first cycle, get a chance to smartbomb these drones, and the ennemy will have 'vasted' a set of 5 light drones so thats roughly... 50-60dps? Not that much of a loss compared to what could have happened if this ECM had worked.

But the point is that 11.89% is not negligible. At all. And it doesn't sound "super low" to me.

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart

djentropy Ovaert
The Conference Elite
CODE.
#12 - 2014-02-14 14:32:33 UTC  |  Edited by: DJentropy Ovaert
Altrue wrote:


First, a single wrecking shot won't change much to the overall dps of your ship, whereas here, a single ECM will paralyze your rep for 20 seconds! and the reps of your partner in case of a capchain. The consequences are WAY more dramatic.



That's a fair point. I see what you mean.


Altrue wrote:

Third, if you take a single ECCM logi like most guardian fits, you will get around 40-45 sensor strength. A light ECM drone is 1 sensor strength. A volley of them is thus 5 attemps every 20 seconds. Each attempt would have roughly 2.5% chances to end your ability to target, the ability for you and your partner to rep, and all that, for 20 seconds plus the time needed to relock and reestablish the cap chain plus one cycle of cap transfers. Effectively killing your fleet in a small-scale gang engagement.

I'm bad with maths, but I'm pretty sure that the chances that you get ECMed (thus die and kill your fleet) for just a single flight of light drones are then 1 - (1 * 0.975 * 0.975 * 0.975 * 0.975 * 0.975)). = 11.89%
So one engagment every nine engagement, a single ***ing flight of light drones will ECM your guardian and kill your fleet. Great. And its only on the FIRST cycle. Thats BEFORE you even get the chance to counter these drones by smartbombing them. That's BEFORE you get any chance of using strategy to survive...



Ugh - I need to find the source on this, but I don't think that's how the maths work.

From what I understood - ECM drones fall under the standard stacking penalty (I may be misinformed, can someone weigh in on this?) - I need to search for the thread where I found this information.

Also, I don't think those maths check out - each "attempt" has no influence on the attempt before it or after it, correct me if I am wrong - but this falls under the classes "gamblers fallacy", does it not? You don't get to take that 2.5% chance and multiply it by 5 - you simply have 5 chances @ 2.5% per chance.

Would the math not be much more simple - let's assume a sensor strength of 40, and a light ECM drone jam strength of 1. That's a 1 in 40 chance. Or, another way to put it - that's a 2.5% chance of that light drone to land a jam. The percentage does not increase based off how many 2.5% chances came before it, or after it, it's simply a 2.5% chance every x seconds for each drone.

Again, I was under the impression the actual chance would be lower then that, as each extra ECM drone that is added to the target takes a stacking penalty. I'm hopeful someone can confirm or deny this.
djentropy Ovaert
The Conference Elite
CODE.
#13 - 2014-02-14 14:45:38 UTC
Altrue wrote:


Well since this idea wouldn't include a big change in the stats of the jammers, if you are at long range, you're in failoff. Thus the ennemy takes more time to be jammed, and has more time to ask for ECCM. Its passive sensor regeneration would also make it exponentially harder to jam. And you'd have to commit to stay on the field, because warping off and trying your luck again in 20 seconds wouldn't work.
So really it shouldn't make any bad difference compared to now: At range you're less efficient. But if you decide to stay far far away from the fight, there is NO WAY that you'll be able to jam a ship for 20 seconds with a lucky cycle, on the first second you spend on-grid. As it is now, this situation is indeed possible, its just a matter of probability. Which is highly unfair and do not involve any strategic choice, just the roll of a dice.


Hmmm, not sure I got my point out there. What I meant was - at EXTREME range (with my current skill set, in a Blackbird, my optimal range for ECM is somewhere around 50km, anything more then that and I suffer falloff) - let's say 115km - my chance of landing a jam is so low it is almost negligible. I've tested this, i've gotten "lucky" once or twice, but this is out of dozens and dozens of attempts in a test situation with a corpie. Under your proposed change, all I need to do is sit there - i'll be taking a penalty on my strength due to range, but after x cycles I am 100% sure to get a jam, all at a range where I cannot be shot at (at least in most of the battles I end up in, I play in a FW corp, it's rare to see sniper boats that can hit at that kind of range in the kind of fights I am mostly involved in). As the targets notice me on grid, there is a good chance one or more of them are going to burn straight at me to get in weapons range - at which point I simply assign ECM to them, they are separated from their main force and as they are getting closer to me, I will more then likely be able to jam them under your proposed change. The more I think about your change, it really feels like you want to make ECM even stronger :)

Altrue wrote:

Its funny to hear you describing the very situation where current mecanic proves broken and random. You see, the fact that you could warp off-grid without any risks because you know, at the very first second, if you'll succed or not to jam your target, is broken in itself. The fact that you need only ONE cycle of ONE module to work to break both basi and their fleets, compounded by the fact that you can warp off safely, shows that even with only one T1 ship you can break a full fleet without it being a question of IF, but WHEN. Even when said fleet equips the counter to your module. This is what I call a broken mechanic.


Well, sometimes I can warp off grid - not always! The risk is actually pretty extreme. All it takes is a single MWD fit and rigged frigate and me failing to notice one of them has broken off and is flying straight at me with a overheated point and I am doomed. This happens more often then I am able to warp off grid, however - I am getting better at keeping that ECM bird aligned and ready to bug out on a moments notice. To say that I am not taking any risk is quite false, however. A fast look at my killboard over on zkill will show you a few dozen griffins and blackbirds that feel otherwise :)

Altrue wrote:

Yes but DPS as a counter works in every single situation, that's not really relevant balance-wise. Just like saying that a nice counter to a mecanic, is the mecanic itself. Same thing, not really relevant balance-wise.


I see your point. What I was trying to stress is that a ECM bird that is totally dedicated to ECM leaves little to no room for tank, not if you want a high chance to land those jams when they really count. DPS is a counter to everything, but when you are in a fully ECM rigged and fully ECM fit griffin, for example (which will give you about 950 EHP) - DPS is a much much much more viable counter then it is for a ship that is designed for normal combat operations.
Blaqe Fonceur
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2014-02-14 15:50:20 UTC
djentropy Ovaert wrote:

Ugh - I need to find the source on this, but I don't think that's how the maths work.

From what I understood - ECM drones fall under the standard stacking penalty (I may be misinformed, can someone weigh in on this?) - I need to search for the thread where I found this information.

Also, I don't think those maths check out - each "attempt" has no influence on the attempt before it or after it, correct me if I am wrong - but this falls under the classes "gamblers fallacy", does it not? You don't get to take that 2.5% chance and multiply it by 5 - you simply have 5 chances @ 2.5% per chance.

Would the math not be much more simple - let's assume a sensor strength of 40, and a light ECM drone jam strength of 1. That's a 1 in 40 chance. Or, another way to put it - that's a 2.5% chance of that light drone to land a jam. The percentage does not increase based off how many 2.5% chances came before it, or after it, it's simply a 2.5% chance every x seconds for each drone.

Again, I was under the impression the actual chance would be lower then that, as each extra ECM drone that is added to the target takes a stacking penalty. I'm hopeful someone can confirm or deny this.



  • there's no stacking penalty on individual jam attempts
  • The math for the overall chance of jamming is to multiply together the chances of each individual attempt to get the overall chance all attempts will fail.

So for 5 ECM drones with 1 strength attempting to jam a 40 strength target it would be:
(1-0.025)^5 = 0.975^5 = 0.8811 OR 88.11% chance all 5 drones fail. So it would be 11.89% chance that at least 1 drone succesfully jams the target.

E-Uni wiki ECM Guide goes indepth(at first glance).
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#15 - 2014-02-14 18:15:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Altrue
Ha so my math seems right Big smile
Thanks for the discussion guys its very interesting.

Really all my idea would do is to make the theoretical time to jam become the practical time to jam, and render the jam "permanent" as long as your module keeps cycling the same target.
On the other hand, the jam would take time to be effective and force the ECM ship to commit to the fight, plus the second you are not ECMed, you get all your targets back.

So maybe I'm wrong, but the goal of this change is not to radically change the situations where ECM would work and where ECM wouldn't, its to reduce to zero the role of probabilities so that every situation has an expectable outcome you can react to. That's why I find the argument of range, for instance, odd. Because basically this idea won't change the way range would interact with ECM.

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart

paritybit
Repo.
#16 - 2014-02-14 18:49:58 UTC
I really like the idea in general.

I haven't had a lot of problems with ECM, but having flown ECM ships in the distant past on another character I understood that the chance based mechanic could have disastrous results for either side. For example, if I equipped 4 different ECM modules I could activate the first one and wait to see if it worked -- if it did not, I could activate the second (deactivating the first for the next time) and continue on until I achieved a jam -- by the time I had a jam, most of my modules would be inactive and waiting to be activated again (because the effect is either on or off, there's no stacking). Then I could use my remaining modules on another ship, or just save them for when my next failure occurred.

If you change the mechanic in the suggested way there is no possibility of that brokenness because having all of the modules active would always be more effective than having only one active -- and that is sensible.

It also makes remote ECCM a lot more sensible. Currently a remote ECCM modules has to be active when the ECM starts activating (that's when the chance roll is made). And you apply it to a single ship -- probably your logistics -- for the whole fight (because who is being jammed can change in an instant). This change allows it to be a reactive and flowing model where it's actively fighting off the effect of an ECM module rather than warding against something that might happen.

I'm not sure about the part where you suggest that the ECM attacker gets to see the sensor strength of the target. An energy neutralizer doesn't get to see the target's cap. He sees the effect of the neutralization when modules go offline and the target stops fighting back. I think it should be the same with ECM in a model like this.
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#17 - 2014-02-14 18:55:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
ECM in its current form is an abomination of dice-roll and perma-jamming f#ckery. So say we all.
Dolorous Tremmens
Lightspeed Enterprises
Goonswarm Federation
#18 - 2014-02-14 21:06:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Dolorous Tremmens
+1
I like it. No RNG, still breaks locks, and is counterable if caught in time. Your eccm idea is also scriptable, more sensor strength for a ECM brick tank for small gang warfare, or more Sensor strength regen speed.

How would you manage multispectrals, and bursts?

Get some Eve. Make it yours.

Zakeus Djinn
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#19 - 2014-02-14 21:30:01 UTC
Whoa... this is brilliant! Perhaps we could have two different ECCM modules, one that increases maximum Sensor strength, and one that increases sensor regen? I would suggest that they would be scripts, but then you would load the sensor strength boosting one first and swap to regen once you had taken ECM hits essentially giving you both at the same time.
djentropy Ovaert
The Conference Elite
CODE.
#20 - 2014-02-14 22:18:52 UTC  |  Edited by: DJentropy Ovaert
Blaqe Fonceur wrote:

  • The math for the overall chance of jamming is to multiply together the chances of each individual attempt to get the overall chance all attempts will fail.
  • [/list]
    So for 5 ECM drones with 1 strength attempting to jam a 40 strength target it would be:
    (1-0.025)^5 = 0.975^5 = 0.8811 OR 88.11% chance all 5 drones fail. So it would be 11.89% chance that at least 1 drone succesfully jams the target.

    E-Uni wiki ECM Guide goes indepth(at first glance).


    For reasons that I cannot explain, this just does not feel right. I need to find someone much better at math then me to verify this. That seems awful high.

    Someone good at math - take a stab at this? I would think you need a proper probablity calculator, like the one at

    http://easycalculation.com/statistics/probability.php

    But I can admit when my skill level to too low to fit a module, and my math level is way too low to fit calculating a complex probability like this.
    12Next page