These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 page123
 

ECM Without Randomness

Author
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#41 - 2014-02-21 19:17:27 UTC
Lephia DeGrande wrote:
But where do fit dampers in your example?

Dampers aren't chance based and are generally much more effective than my ECM proposal at least as far as their individual jamming goes. Also, ECCM resists my ECM proposal very effectively, but doesn't resist damps. I thought it was obvious and was hoping I wouldn't have to point it out.

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
#42 - 2014-02-21 19:58:12 UTC
Sry no, reducing lock range and speed is for remote damper, i do not like anykind of cross side effects only for the sake of balance.

They would simply replace damper because the acutal ranges where PvP fights usualy takes place is so close together every KM would make a difference and then ECM could fill 2 EWar typs in one Slot.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#43 - 2014-02-22 02:51:44 UTC
Lephia DeGrande wrote:
Sry no, reducing lock range and speed is for remote damper, i do not like anykind of cross side effects only for the sake of balance.

At current functionality, ECM jammers reduce lock range and speed by 100%. I'm calling for a reduction in that, to give remote damps more ground. If you want to eliminate that effect completely from ECM, perhaps you should propose something unique to replace it.

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."

Sigras
Conglomo
#44 - 2014-02-22 07:03:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Sigras
Im proposing something without randomness, and yes im proposing an alternative to your idea to have jammers also effect lock range and speed.

Im proposing that jammers make it more difficult/impossible to lock smaller ships, so in the end you have this:

Dampeners make it so you cant target stuff that is far away no matter the size.
Jammers make it so you cant target small stuff no matter where it is.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#45 - 2014-02-22 07:57:44 UTC
Do you have a plan for balancing the Griffin and Kitsune? If their jams are too effective, they may become overly difficult to kill in small gangs. If their jams are not effective enough, they may be overlooked while the other electronic attack frigates are flown instead.

The problem I have with jammers making it difficult to target small things is that it puts the bonus all on one size. A large fleet can use the tactic to benefit everyone in teamwork, but many small gangs just wont have a use for that.

What if the ECM jammers were just more size-oriented? Say there were small, medium, and large jammers which would be most effective on ships of their respective sizes. If your jammer is too small for your target, the low sensor strength means you're unlikely to have success. If your jammer is too big, you may jam them easily but they will recover quickly while your jammer is still on cooldown. That's still random-based but only because for the example I wanted to demonstrate size-based effects, so I left the mechanic basically the same. A non-random mechanic could still be used while making the impact size-oriented.

The advantage of size-oriented jammers is that it allows for planning ahead to maximize ECM power by bringing the best size to counter the expected types of ships. The counter to the ECM is to use ships of a different size against those ECM ships.

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."

Sigras
Conglomo
#46 - 2014-02-22 08:11:39 UTC
I had thought of the griffin and kitsune as potential problems to the design as they are themselves small ships and thus a large enough group of them could be invulnerable.

My thought was to balance them by making them lack capacitor to maintain a steady jam IE they wouldnt get a cap bonus to ECM or a cap capacity bonus and their current cap recharge rate would be effected negatively even more than it is now.

This would make it nearly impossible to perma run their ECM making them hit and run machines.

They would be incredibly annoying, but not altogether deadly, and certainly no worse than they are right now.
Sigras
Conglomo
#47 - 2014-02-22 18:55:11 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:
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.

im assuming you mean the inability to lock anyone at all because sensor dampeners which prevent you from locking things far away are ok.

what if ECM simply made it so you couldnt lock small things?
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#48 - 2014-02-23 02:22:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Sigras wrote:
My thought was to balance them by making them lack capacitor to maintain a steady jam IE they wouldnt get a cap bonus to ECM or a cap capacity bonus and their current cap recharge rate would be effected negatively even more than it is now.

How about a role bonus which increases their max capacitor and decreases their capacitor regen? Say, double and half. They will be able to maintain jams for a while but not indefinitely without a capacitor booster (takes a mid slot) or NOS/cap logi support. One could be built to run a significant amount of jammers permanently without support but it would need so many cap modules/rigs that it would be basically naked--no defense or agility modules.

edit: I just realized that tracking disruptors make it difficult to hit small targets already. Don't we need some kind of EWAR that is beneficial to larger ships?

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."

Sigras
Conglomo
#49 - 2014-03-01 07:49:23 UTC
Target Painters and Webifiers are already beneficial to large ships; also larger ships naturally have more EHP and more damage than smaller ships, so they have natural benefits. Its the small ships that need help to stay relevant.

Anyway, I think that's a good balance, so they have really terrible cap regen but a fairly good sized cap battery so they cant sustain their jams but they are good at hit and run tactics.
Kel hound
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#50 - 2014-03-01 11:29:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Kel hound
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?



To start with, I would drastically lower the ECM strength of all jammers. Next, I would also lower the duration of the jammers Probably to around 10 seconds. Then I would change it so that you build ECM strength on a target over time. Each time the ECM cycles you gain ECM strength on that target equal to the strength of the ECM jammer that has just finished its cycle. When the ECM strength is equal to, or greater than, the sensor strength of the ship, you successfully jam that ships sensors and force it to drop all target locks while preventing it from acquiring any additional target locks for the duration of the ECM module. Once a target has been jammed all ECM points are reset, and the cycle begins again.

So for example: We have a test Griffin fitted with 4 multi-spectral ECM units. Our Griffin is attempting to jam out an Omen with a sensor strength of 15. Our Griffin's multi-spectrals have an ECM strength of lets say 2. Our Griffin really wants to jam out this Omen so he uses all 4 jammers on him. Each time his ECM cycles he gains 8 ECM strength against the Omens 15 radar sensor strength. This means on his jammers first cycle he only has 8 ECM strength, not enough to jam the Omen, but on his second attempt he will gain another 8, putting his total up to 16, beating the Omens sensor strength, and jamming him for 10 seconds, every other cycle.

Second example. Our little Griffin is in a small frigate gang now and they find and engage a small group of Rifters. Our Griffin now has a choice. Remembering that our Griffin has multi-spectrals with a hypothetical strength of 2, a Rifter has a base sensor strength of 8, so our Griffin could jam 4 rifters for 10 seconds, every 4 cycles. Lets say for whatever reason he does this. One of the Rifters burns off from the fight to try and tackle our Griffin. /o\ Ohnohs! Not to worry, our Griffin already has 2 ECM points on this Rifter so all they need to do is put another 2 of their jammers onto the offending Rifter. Bam, next cycle he has 8 ECM strength on the Rifter. But wait, the Rifter still has target lock? Turns out this pilot trained their sensor compensation skills and has 9.5 sensor strength, not 8. Our Griffin is caught without any tank and destroyed.



Those are just some hypothetical numbers of course. But I think that the principle is sound. There could even be rigs and mods added to reduce the cycle time of jammers. This would mean a faster build up of ECM strength, but shorter jamming duration.

Personally, ECM could be removed from the game and I don't see myself shedding many tears over its loss. But if we're brainstorming here for ways to remove the RNG from it, this is how I think I would do it.
Jacid
The Upside Down
Forfeiture
#51 - 2014-03-02 03:25:06 UTC
Their are some interseting ideas in this thread. I'm not sure if ECM is broken with the new skills and nerfs if it even needs to be changed. If I were going to change ECM I think i would make them the opposite of damps in the following way.:

Boost ECM strengh
Reduce range to 20k with 1k falloff
Remove all ship based range bonuses

Why:
Still keeps ECM effective but leaves a specific weakness long range weapon systems
Fits with lore and caldari's preference to long range weapons
Fits with lore and caldari's need to counter short range weapons (gallente).
Not overly complicated

My 2 Cents
masternerdguy
Doomheim
#52 - 2014-03-02 04:29:26 UTC
I personally loved ECM back when it wasn't chance based, the original ECM mechanics and original Falcon added a flavor to EVE that CCP unfortunately removed.

I advocate a compromise solution: Bring back the original ECM mechanic, but add anti-radiation missiles.

In the real world there are classes of missiles that do not lock a specific target but just home in on activate radio sources, such as the jamming station (any jamming system is going to put out a lot of noise and be very, very, very easy to lock onto even if you can't lock onto anything else) and fly to it and blow it up.

We could add a class of missile that doesn't need a lock and just homes in on the strongest radiation source on the field, which 9/10 times is going to be the ECM ship jamming everyone. It would be like FoF missiles except useful.

Things are only impossible until they are not.

Sigras
Conglomo
#53 - 2014-03-02 22:19:40 UTC
The problem I see with that solution is that now we have 2 sets of E-war that make turrets useless and nothing against missiles... this seems wrong to me.

Also, the old ECM was hilariously overpowered. It was literally a get out of 1v1 free card because you could to guarantee breaking your opponents lock.
masternerdguy
Doomheim
#54 - 2014-03-03 00:51:19 UTC
Sigras wrote:
The problem I see with that solution is that now we have 2 sets of E-war that make turrets useless and nothing against missiles... this seems wrong to me.

Also, the old ECM was hilariously overpowered. It was literally a get out of 1v1 free card because you could to guarantee breaking your opponents lock.


It would be realistic though.

Besides missiles are already underpowered compared to turrets ever since they added that whole signature radius thing, back in the day before the nano nerfs a raven with torps could 1 shot any frigate.

Things are only impossible until they are not.

Previous page123