These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123Next page
 

ECM Without Randomness

Author
Dorian Wylde
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#21 - 2014-02-13 20:31:35 UTC
Dolorous Tremmens wrote:


Take the RNG's out of eve



RNG is a balancing and enjoyment factor that removes the tedium of button mashing and the extremes of number crunching. If you don't like RNG, I suggest games like Street Fighter where the person who hits the right buttons the fastest wins. That is not, nor should it ever be, how MMOs work.
Sigras
Conglomo
#22 - 2014-02-13 20:43:57 UTC
yeah because starcraft and chess are neither fun nor competitive, and competitive TF2 servers turn off random crits for no reason.

The simple fact is that the more luck is involved, the less skill is required.
Aliventi
Mouth Trumpet Cavalry.
Mouth Trumpet Cavalry
#23 - 2014-02-13 20:51:40 UTC
What is wrong with ECM right now?
X Gallentius
Black Eagle5
Villore Accords
#24 - 2014-02-13 21:05:27 UTC
Dolorous Tremmens wrote:
Almost every argument you have made can be said of the current system, so you've wasted a wall of text. I believe there is a counter, ECCM, which you have not addressed at all.
Compensation skills and implants too. The implants are especially effective for fighting ecm ships solo.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#25 - 2014-02-13 21:22:20 UTC
how about removing the 20 second lock break and replace with a simple lock break...

that would make ecm annoying but not op.

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks
#26 - 2014-02-13 22:50:51 UTC
Dolorous Tremmens wrote:
Rubbish you've obviously never flown logi, or in a fleet larger than 20.

A little research would have told you different. My main alt is a logi, too.

As for the rest, meh. I've explained my point and I can't be bothered to argue with you other than you're wrong about soloists, they have as much right to be considered as anyone else. You like the idea, I don't. Good luck getting it implemented.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#27 - 2014-02-14 06:26:48 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
Dolorous Tremmens wrote:
Almost every argument you have made can be said of the current system, so you've wasted a wall of text. I believe there is a counter, ECCM, which you have not addressed at all.
Compensation skills and implants too. The implants are especially effective for fighting ecm ships solo.

The problem is twofold.
ECCM does nothing if no ECM hits you, it's an otherwise useless mod.
Once you are jammed, you can do nothing till unjammed.

Every other form of Ewar has both a counter module that serves a purpose when you aren't hit by that Ewar. TC are good regardless.
And, when you are hit by another form of EWar, piloting skill can do something about it. (To some extent).

ECM is neither. The fact it is then also purely chance based so even with ECCM, Comp Skills and the worst implant set in the game (Locking you into a single race of ships and giving NOTHING to any others) you can still be jammed by a mere drone is just icing on the cake. The first two are the big issues.
djentropy Ovaert
The Conference Elite
CODE.
#28 - 2014-02-14 12:06:47 UTC  |  Edited by: DJentropy Ovaert
Nevyn Auscent wrote:

Once you are jammed, you can do nothing till unjammed.


I strongly disagree. You can do plenty. You can inform your friends that you are jammed, and they can then destroy the source of the jam or apply enough pressure to force the ECM boat off grid. You can burn away from the ECM boat making the chance of a second jam landing far less likely (I feel a lot of anti-current-ECM-mechanic people forget that our ECM modules have falloff). You can warp off grid and warp back onto grid (should have set that bookmark a bit away from the main engagement, defenders - the second you go to warm the jam is removed, I have seen this strategy used against me countless times).

There's plenty of counters to ECM beyond throwing your hands in the air and declaring yourself out of the fight and claiming that ECM is a insta-win button - as a experienced ECM boat pilot, I can assure you, it's not.
Sigras
Conglomo
#29 - 2014-02-17 08:13:03 UTC
Ok, so ive been thinking, what if instead of jamming a ship you jammed each individual lock, and instead of a random function if it was based on a known game mechanic: Signature Radius.

It never made any sense to me that It is just as difficult to prevent me from locking a frigate as it is to prevent me from locking a titan.

My suggestion is to make it so that instead of jamming an entire ship, you jam its locks individually. Each time you lock a ship, that lock would be given a "lock strength" which would be:

SignalStrength + (TargetSignatureRadius/10) = "lock strength"

Then to jam a target you simply need to put more jam strength on them than they have "lock strength" and they'll lose that lock and not be able to lock anything without enough lock strength. (of course the numbers would have to be rebalanced)

This would have a few interesting and emergent side effects:
1. A slight nerf to MWDs
2. A slight buff to target painters
3. Interesting interaction possibilities . . . For instance, you may choose to increase your own signature radius when your logi gets jammed so they can lock you again etc

Thoughts?
Sigras
Conglomo
#30 - 2014-02-18 18:33:39 UTC
djentropy Ovaert wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Once you are jammed, you can do nothing till unjammed.

I strongly disagree. You can do plenty. You can inform your friends that you are jammed, and they can then destroy the source of the jam or apply enough pressure to force the ECM boat off grid. You can burn away from the ECM boat making the chance of a second jam landing far less likely (I feel a lot of anti-current-ECM-mechanic people forget that our ECM modules have falloff). You can warp off grid and warp back onto grid (should have set that bookmark a bit away from the main engagement, defenders - the second you go to warm the jam is removed, I have seen this strategy used against me countless times).

There's plenty of counters to ECM beyond throwing your hands in the air and declaring yourself out of the fight and claiming that ECM is a insta-win button - as a experienced ECM boat pilot, I can assure you, it's not.

So basically you can tell others you're jammed, or you can try to run away...

When you're tracking disrupted, you can do that too, and you can also change your ship piloting to decrease their transversal so that your guns hit better...

When you're target painted, you can do that too, and you can change your flight pattern to attempt to fly more evasively to decrease the incoming DPS

When sensor dampened you can do that too, and you can fly closer to the ships you're trying to target

Tell me again how ECM leaves you with the same number of options as other ewar...
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#31 - 2014-02-18 19:20:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Soldarius
Sigras wrote:
Ok, so ive been thinking, what if instead of jamming a ship you jammed each individual lock, and instead of a random function if it was based on a known game mechanic: Signature Radius.

It never made any sense to me that It is just as difficult to prevent me from locking a frigate as it is to prevent me from locking a titan.

My suggestion is to make it so that instead of jamming an entire ship, you jam its locks individually. Each time you lock a ship, that lock would be given a "lock strength" which would be:

SignalStrength + (TargetSignatureRadius/10) = "lock strength"

Then to jam a target you simply need to put more jam strength on them than they have "lock strength" and they'll lose that lock and not be able to lock anything without enough lock strength. (of course the numbers would have to be rebalanced)

This would have a few interesting and emergent side effects:
1. A slight nerf to MWDs
2. A slight buff to target painters
3. Interesting interaction possibilities . . . For instance, you may choose to increase your own signature radius when your logi gets jammed so they can lock you again etc

Thoughts?


That makes a lot of sense. Larger ships are easier to target due to large sigRad. But nothing takes into account how easy or hard it is to maintain a lock. By reducing the ability to maintain locks on smaller ships this would have a very interesting effect in small-gang pvp.

By signal strength I assume you mean sensor strength. So lets say sensor str = 20 ship targeting a HAC with SigRad=100. This would give a lock strength of 20 + (100/10) = 30. A single Falcon using max-skilled racial ECMs (14-15 jam strength) would require about 2 jammers to break those locks.

An unlinked Crow with all 5s would have a sensor str of 14.4. Currently the above Falcon would permajam it with a single racial jammer. That inty tackling a 400m target (Battleship of some kind) would have a lock strength of 14.4 + (400/10) = 54.4. You would need 4 racial jammers to break that lock.

What about targeting something smaller? Same Crow targeting another frigate with SigRad 40m? 14.4 + (14.4/10) = 15.84. Falcon would require 2 jammers to do the job.

I think your formula need some tweaking. But the basic concept seems sound, and I like it better than max locked targets. We just need to decide at what point is 1 jammer sufficient, and what role should multispectral jammers play?

I considered considering Scan Resolution in the formula. But that would intrude upon the territory of remote sensor damps, possibly making the combination of ECM+damps excessively OP.

Of course, we could always just make ECM check to break locks every cycle and call it good.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY

Steph Livingston
Neko's Blanket
#32 - 2014-02-18 21:00:54 UTC
I'm normally a in game math person, but I wanted to add a thought to Soldarius's idea. What if ECM was also affected by the number of locked targets? The idea being, the more targets you have locked, the more work your sensor system has to work, the easier it is for ECM to disrupt it.

Something like:
[SignalStrength + (TargetSignatureRadius/10)] * [ 1- ( locked targets / total possible locks)] = "lock strength"

The first part of the equation stays the same, but now the ECM target has options besides stacking ECCM. Using the previous examples, if the crow was targeting a frigate he could be fairly safe locking one, he'd have a slightly lower lock strength at around 14.85 (crow has max 4 locked targets). An additional locked target would drop this down to 11.88 lock strength, making a single ECM jam possible.

Locking targets then becomes a question of risk/reward in engagements. Do you lock multiple targets all at once so you can switch instantly, but risk loosing your lock due to low lock strength, or do you concentrate on a few targets and make it harder for you to get jammed?
Sigras
Conglomo
#33 - 2014-02-21 06:25:31 UTC
Steph Livingston wrote:
I'm normally a in game math person, but I wanted to add a thought to Soldarius's idea. What if ECM was also affected by the number of locked targets? The idea being, the more targets you have locked, the more work your sensor system has to work, the easier it is for ECM to disrupt it.

Something like:
[SignalStrength + (TargetSignatureRadius/10)] * [ 1- ( locked targets / total possible locks)] = "lock strength"

The first part of the equation stays the same, but now the ECM target has options besides stacking ECCM. Using the previous examples, if the crow was targeting a frigate he could be fairly safe locking one, he'd have a slightly lower lock strength at around 14.85 (crow has max 4 locked targets). An additional locked target would drop this down to 11.88 lock strength, making a single ECM jam possible.

Locking targets then becomes a question of risk/reward in engagements. Do you lock multiple targets all at once so you can switch instantly, but risk loosing your lock due to low lock strength, or do you concentrate on a few targets and make it harder for you to get jammed?

This is brilliant! I was trying to think of a way to get player interaction in there, and how to incorporate number of locks; you just did both in one elegant solution.

I would maybe modify the formula a bit though because it seems that locking anything past 2 ships would be really really difficult., so my formula would be something like:
[SignalStrength + (TargetSignatureRadius/10)] / (1.3^LockedTargets) = "lock strength"

Now of course the sensor strength numbers for each ship and the ECM numbers would have to be tweaked a bit, but I think this would really be an improvement over the current RNG ECM we have today.
Carmizan
Lords of Maelstrom
#34 - 2014-02-21 10:21:01 UTC
the real problem to ECM is that there is no real effective counter to ECCM is there yes but from personal experience this module is not effective.

Now i know that we hate using rl situation in eve but in this case i feel there may be an answer, so let me put this forward and see what you lot think.

In previous wars air force have developed missile system that actual track the enemies radar emissions and use them against themselves, so here my idea

Have CCP create a weapon system that can be fitted to another ship so that when one or more of your fleet members are jammed this system will track the ecm back to the ship and target locks and fires. in simple terms a specialize FoF missile. now this module could be a simple launcher that can be fitted by all ships and either disrupts the ecm or causes damage.

Personally i would prefer the disrupt as that give the ecm boat a chance, as we all know the most ecm boats have no tank and it would leave the rest of the fleet to shoot

Now this could be fitted on the ship being ECM'ed or make it so it can only be used by a ship that has not been jammed. This i have no real concerns with, but the overall effect is that it give the pilots a weapon if they choose to fit it that does give them a fighting chance.

ok time for guys to say your piece on this
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#35 - 2014-02-21 10:27:56 UTC
Sigras wrote:
A long time ago ECM was not a random system, the server simply looked to see if you were being jammed by more than your sensor strength and if so you could not lock targets.

This was a horrible system and incredibly overpowered, so they changed it and we were left with the random mechanic that we have now. Of course I am not suggesting that we go back to that system, but I think it would be interesting to remove the random function and make it more of a battle of wits between the jammer and the person being jammed.

The problem is, I have no idea what that mechanic would look like and all of my ideas end up being insanely complicated, so im looking for suggestions.

How would you remove the RNG function from ECM?



The current ECM effect is the issue. Not being able to Lock is a too pwoerful effect. It cannot be implemented in ANY way without a random factor or it will be isntantly overpowered or completely useless.


Change the effect and then think on the rest.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"

Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
#36 - 2014-02-21 10:34:17 UTC
Dorian Wylde wrote:
Dolorous Tremmens wrote:


Take the RNG's out of eve


If you don't like RNG, I suggest games like Street Fighter where the person who hits the right buttons the fastest wins.


Sry, this statement only Applies on Button smashing noobs, good Fighting Gamers dont smack them.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#37 - 2014-02-21 10:54:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Howabout instead of it being based on jamming targeting outright, it could instead have a variety of target-affecting mechanics:
1.) chance to break currently existing target locks
2.) decreases scan resolution in a chance-based fashion, so each cycle it's a different value
3.) decreases targeting range in a chance-based fashion, so each cycle it's a different value
4.) chance to reduce max number of targets, sometimes even reducing them to none

If it took a very powerful ECM to reliably jam out a ship completely for an extended period of time, but much less ECM strength to screw up someone's targeting a bit, then ECM would be much more scalable.

Say your ECM strength matches your target's sensor strength. You have:
50% chance for each currently targeted unit to break target (separate chance for each)
Scan resolution and targeting range decreased by 0% to 50%
Max number of targets: each treated seperately with 50% chance to break, so you average out being reduced to half max targets

If your ECM strength were half of the target's, you'd have 33% target breaking, because the equation works as A/(A+B) where A is ECM strength and B is sensor strength. You would have -17% to 33% scan res/targeting range reduction, and any negative value is just set to zero.

If your ECM strength were double you target's sensor strength, you'd have 67% values. 67% chance to break targets, 67% less max targets (average), and 33% to 67% reduced scan res/targeting range. This also means that if you have more jam strength than the target's sensor strength, you are guaranteed to reduce their scan res and targeting range somewhat. If you have less, you mightnot reduce those but yoou can still break locks and reduce max locks.

Low ECM strength will have the most impressive effect in breaking currently existing locks--not much else will be of use but breaking the target's locks every once in a while forces them to re-target and buys precious seconds. High ECM strength is more likely to make a target useless if they are depending on their range or scan res, or if they have a low number of max targets or need to keep multiple units targeted at once. Assault ships probably won't be very strongly affected by this type of ECM.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
#38 - 2014-02-21 11:01:16 UTC
One thing that suprised me since i Start eve is, why 20 seconds penalty on relocking targets?

Why this static amount?

Why not decrease the time you unable to lock with higher Sensor strength?
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#39 - 2014-02-21 12:35:38 UTC
Here is an example, using a Guardian with sensor strength 22.8 and we'll fly a Blackbird with jam strength 10.0. The Blackbird is in a POS defense fleet and the Guardian is on the aggressor side, so the Guardian never gets a rest from repairing ships. Our job is to reduce the amount of reps going out from the Guardian so the attacking fleet falls faster.

The jamming effectiveness value is 10/(10+22.8) = 30.49%. The Guardian can lock 10 targets at a time and is trying to maintain at least 3 target locks at any given moment--2 for cap chain and 1 for rep target. It has a targeting range of 81.25km and is positioned about 50km from the attack fleet, so it has about 40-60km to the average rep target, or 5-10km to other logistics ships. Its scan resolution is 481.3mm, so it can lock:
1.) Guardian - 3.4s
2.) Oracle - 2.3s
3.) Abaddon - 1.8s

Lets start by applying one jammer to the Guardian. We'll do this for 1 minute (3 cycles) and review the effects:
(I'm using a random number generator selecting values from 1 to 10,000 to determine successes/failures.)
Cycle 1:
  • No primary target locks broken
  • Max targets reduced to 7
  • Targeting Range reduced by 15.52% (to 68.64km) - no locks broken
  • Scan resolution reduced by 11.77% (to 424.7mm) - irrelevant

  • Cycle 2:
  • No primary target locks broken
  • Max targets reduced to 7
  • Targeting Range reduced by 9.81% (to 73.28km) - no locks broken
  • Scan resolution reduced by 30.26% (to 335.7mm) - irrelevant

  • Cycle 3:
  • No primary target locks broken
  • Max targets reduced to 8
  • Targeting Range reduced by 1.64% (to 79.92km) - no locks broken
  • Scan resolution reduced by 28.67% (to 343.3mm) - irrelevant

  • ===========================================================
    WE MUST STEP UP OUR EFFORTS IF WE ARE GOING TO GET ANYWHERE
    ===========================================================

    Let's apply two jammers at once this time. We will do this for one minute (3 cycles) and review:

    Cycle 1:
  • Guardian loses targeting with both cap chain buddies but not rep target. Other Guardians may run short on capacitor if it cannot get them locked soon enough!
  • Max targets reduced to 8
  • Targeting Range reduced by 33.16% (to 54.31km) - cannot target most distant fleet members
  • Scan resolution reduced by 23.62% (to 367.6mm) - 4.5s to re-lock other Guardians, plus a second or more in human response time plus server lag. 6 seconds of cap lost isn't too bad for them and the cap chain remains unbroken.

  • Cycle 2:
  • Guardian loses targeting with up chain buddy and rep target. Success!
  • Max targets reduced to 4. Now the Guardian cannot maintain more than 1 extra target, and thus will have to target fleet members in response to incoming damage rather than having several already targeted.
  • Targeting Range reduced by 20.54% (to 64.56km) - Guardian can once again target the most distant fleet members
  • Scan resolution reduced by 46.92% (to 255.5mm) - 6.4s time to re-lock the up-chain buddy! But the Guardian pilot must untarget something before being able to re-target that other Guardian, so that wastes even more time. For now, he focuses on repping and will re-target the cap buddy in a short while (he is temporarily overwhelmed). The rep target was an Oracle, which takes 4.3s to retarget - probably 6.5-7s when you count the time it takes for the pilot to react and untarget something to make room. Then there is another 4.5s while the remote armor repairer cycles before any repair is delivered. The Oracle dies. Too late! The Guardian pilot scrambles to target a dying Abaddon (3.3s) and catch up with the repairs! He decides to get the cap chain buddy targeted again as well, but time wears thin and cycle 3 is coming up:

  • Cycle 3:
  • Guardian loses targeting with down chain buddy but not rep target. Up chain buddy had lost a significant amount of cap and had to quit repairing briefly, maybe the same will happen to down chain buddy!
  • Max targets reduced to 5. Still unable to maintain a lot of target locks!
  • Targeting Range reduced by 15.27% (to 68.84km) - no locks broken from range reduction
  • Scan resolution reduced by 41.72% (to 280.5mm) - 5.8s to re-lock cap chain buddy--maybe 7s including lag and reaction time. Not too much this time and the Guardian pilot recovers and goes back to work.



  • So what I showed here with the numbers is about how effective a single jammer or two jammers would be against a Guardian. 10 ECM jammer strength is approximate for a Blackbird using racial jammer with skill 5 and a lot of ECM strength boosts. The Guardian pilot had max skills but no ECCM or other sensory equipment. In practice, almost every Guardian will have both an ECCM and a sensor booster or signal amplifier. But then again, we got pretty unlucky with the targeting range jammming. If we had cut it by over 40% like with the scan res jamming, the Guardian's targeting range would have been reduced far enough to be unable to target most fleet members. But if we focused 3 or 4 jammers on the Guardian, we could sieze it down real tight, and it would be almost completely ineffective.

    FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

    Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

    Lephia DeGrande
    Luxembourg Space Union
    #40 - 2014-02-21 12:39:58 UTC
    But where do fit dampers in your example?
    Previous page123Next page