These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

ECM Rebalance Suggestion - Modulated Effects

Author
Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Immediate Destruction
#1 - 2015-09-17 01:10:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Moac Tor
This is a concept for how I think ECM could work in order to make combat less binary and more interesting when involving ECM. I thought it worth putting here on the F&I forum in case CCP may be interested in ideas on how to go forward with rebalancing ECM in the future.


Proposal - Modulated ECM Effects

As we know ECM currently is a simple dice roll dividing the ships sensor strength by the ECM strength of the ECM ship. If you are successful you get a jam off and the opponent is jammed for the duration of the ECM modules cycle which is 20 seconds. If you fail the target is completely unaffected.

Now my proposal is simple, ECM continues to work in a similar manner to how it does now, but instead of being a binary result of yes you jammed the opponent or no you didn't jam, the effect is instead modulated depending on the result of the dice role.

To keep things as consistent and simple as possible the best variable for the result is to use the duration of the jamming effect. Currently this is set to always be the same length as the ECM modules duration. What I am suggesting is that with a modulated ECM effect this could instead result in any outcome in the range of the target being jammed for 20 seconds, the target not being jammed at all, or anything in between.


The Calculation

So let me give and example of how this could work:

Lets say you have ECM with a strength of 10, and the targets sensor strength is 40. Currently you have a 25% chance to jam the ship out (10 / 40 = 0.25 ) . Let us say we have a dice with 100 sides to it (theoretically of course). Currently if we roll anything below 75 then the jam is unsuccessful, with anything else being the jam is successful for 20 seconds.

With the modulated ECM effect by altering the calculation we could make a full jam more difficult to achieve, but at the same time a partial jam less difficult.

So first lets take the calculation to confer a full 20 second jam effect onto the target. To do this we would simply divide the current formula by 2. So the formula would now be ( ( 10 / 40 = 0.25 ) / 2 = 0.125 ) . Under the modulated system you now need a score of 87.5 and above to get a full 20 second jam as opposed to the 75 currently.

This isn't the end of the calculation though as you may get a partial jam. So next you need to work out what would constitute a failed jam. To do this you would take the result of the old formula again and multiply it by 2 which would give a 50% chance to get a partial jam. ( ( 10 / 40 = 0.25 ) * 2 = 0.5 ) This means you need to roll a value of below 50 to completely fail a jam attempt as opposed to the current value of anything below 75.

The next part of the calculation is the part which modulates the strength of the jam. So in the previous example we had the maximum score required as ( 1 - 0.125 = 0.875 ) and the minimum score required as ( 1 - 0.5 = 0.5 ) . We then take these two value and subtract the minimum from the maximum to get the range. ( 0.875 - 0.5 = 0.375 )

That is the calculation over, now just time for the fun part which is rolling the dice and seeing the effect. So we roll the 100 sided dice again. In the example above anything below 50 and it is an automatic fail, and anything above 87.5 is an automatic 20 second jam cycle. Lets say we roll 70 on the dice which means we get a jam. To work out the duration of a partial jam we take take the score which we rolled and subtract the minimum value ( 70 - 50 = 20 ) . We then take the range and work out what percentage of the range the score which we rolled (as a decimal value ) constitutes. ( 0.20 / 0.375 = 0.533 ( 53% ) )

So now with this in mind, knowing that a full jam cycle is 20 seconds, all we need to do is work out 53% of 20 seconds to calculate the duration the target ship has been jammed for. In this case the jam lasts for 10.7 seconds.


Conclusion

This method of jamming would be a lot more interesting for both the jammer and the target. First of all it won't be a black and white binary result, a jammed ship will still have a chance to fight on after the jamming effect has ended provided its sensor strength gives it a good chance of only receiving a partial jam or no jam at all.

Also the ECM ship would need to play more skilfully, it would be wise to keep a spare ECM module ready to activate if they want to keep a ship fully jammed as in the case above the target would regain its sensors after 10.7 seconds wheras the ECM module will still be cycling for another 9.3 seconds.

In the example I gave above it is actually easier for the ECM ship to jam its target although harder to fully jam it for the full 20 seconds. I believe this would be a balanced approach although the numbers given above are purely for example to illustrate the concept and the actual numbers if this were to be actually implemented would need to be finely rebalanced.

I hope this suggestion may be of some use to CCP as I believe ECM may be in line for a balance pass at some point in the future and so throwing this idea out as it would be something I feel would make combat a lot less binary and more interesting.

Thanks for reading.
Amarisen Gream
Pleasant Peninsula Productions
Digital Vendetta
#2 - 2015-09-17 06:05:30 UTC
I am glad someone else likes doing math!

As I am starting to get into PVP and learning a little about ewar, this looks like a good idea compared to many I have seen.
Unlike many of other post; you at least provide numbers and explain those numbers well.

I was thinking that it would be cool if all ewar did something like this - many of the others work wonders (as far as I know) as long as you within falloff range.
I would love to see ewar reworked so that a player gets added bonuses (full-effect) by being within optimal range, and anything beyond optimal up to falloff would get worse.

Example idea - warp distruptors and scram would become one unit.
Optimal would be say 7.5 and falloff would be like 12-15 km. So also long as the player stats with in optimal they can scram the player, but if they don't they have to remain within 12-15km to get a warp distruptors on the enemy ship.

"The Lord loosed upon them his fierce anger All of his fury and rage. He dispatched against them a band of Avenging Angels" - The Scriptures, Book II, Apocalypse 10:1

#NPCLivesMatter #Freetheboobs

Sigras
Conglomo
#3 - 2015-09-17 08:48:10 UTC
The problem is that this synergizes with sensor dampeners too well...

There is a huge difference between breaking a lock and not breaking a lock. Keeping someone jammed out for an extended period of time is really great, but I would trade the ECM we have now for ECM that guarantees a lock break with no jam cycle in a heartbeat.

Consider a falcon jamming a Zealot... my Falcon on racial jammers has a 13.451 strength vs a Zealots 25.2 sensor strength:
13.451 / 25.2 = 0.5337
0.5337 * 2 > 1
this means that my falcon is guaranteed to at least break the lock of the Zealot meaning all I need is 1-2 sensor dampeners on him and he's completely unable to lock anything ever.

This is aside from the fact that jamming someone and taking them out of the fight for a length of time is bad game design which allows for no counterplay.
Xaros IX
Doomheim
#4 - 2015-09-17 09:23:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Xaros IX
Sigras wrote:

This is aside from the fact that jamming someone and taking them out of the fight for a length of time is bad game design which allows for no counterplay.



Very True

Maybe ewar needs to become more personalized. Allow ewar to be corp specific, u apply ewar, then target cannot lock corpies for the duration of the jam / damp etc. rest of players should remain lockable.

Ofc course you can counter ewar by trying to force the falcon / arazu to flee from the scene. Maybe all thats needed is reducing the optimal and falloff of ewar, forcing these ships to be closer to the action. After all a T1 Blackbird can apply jams from 100km away. Dictating range should be a cost function. With links, an arazu can point you from 90km away, but its a razu.

Ewar works as intended, but ECM has always been a bit controversial.
Arla Sarain
#5 - 2015-09-17 11:34:47 UTC
Hacking minigame for ECM pls.
Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Immediate Destruction
#6 - 2015-09-17 20:00:27 UTC
Sigras wrote:
The problem is that this synergizes with sensor dampeners too well...

There is a huge difference between breaking a lock and not breaking a lock. Keeping someone jammed out for an extended period of time is really great, but I would trade the ECM we have now for ECM that guarantees a lock break with no jam cycle in a heartbeat.

Consider a falcon jamming a Zealot... my Falcon on racial jammers has a 13.451 strength vs a Zealots 25.2 sensor strength:
13.451 / 25.2 = 0.5337
0.5337 * 2 > 1
this means that my falcon is guaranteed to at least break the lock of the Zealot meaning all I need is 1-2 sensor dampeners on him and he's completely unable to lock anything ever.

Not sure I understand your point there. A 20 second jam is far more effective than a lock break. The ECM burst module already gives a lock break but it is regarded as not that great due to the target being able to relock straight after. Yes you can combine it with sensor damps to make it more effective but I wouldn't say that is OP.
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#7 - 2015-09-17 20:30:49 UTC
Sigras wrote:
Consider a falcon jamming a Zealot... my Falcon on racial jammers has a 13.451 strength vs a Zealots 25.2 sensor strength:
13.451 / 25.2 = 0.5337
0.5337 * 2 > 1
this means that my falcon is guaranteed to at least break the lock of the Zealot meaning all I need is 1-2 sensor dampeners on him and he's completely unable to lock anything ever.

Your math is off as you can never have greater than 100% probability*, but the gist of what you're saying is 100% true. An instant lock break coupled with enough scan-res damping means that the target can never, ever get a lock. If you increase the chances of ECM providing even an instant lock, joint ECM/damp wings would become incredibly powerful.


*Chance of 1 jammer landing: 53.37%
Chance of one of two jammers landing = 1-(1-0.5337)^2 = 78.26%
Chance of one of three jammers landing = 1-(1-.05337)^3 = 89.86%
etc.


To the OP: I like the idea of making ECM not binary, but I don't think this is the right way to do it.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Sigras
Conglomo
#8 - 2015-09-18 07:51:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Sigras
Bronson Hughes wrote:
Sigras wrote:
Consider a falcon jamming a Zealot... my Falcon on racial jammers has a 13.451 strength vs a Zealots 25.2 sensor strength:
13.451 / 25.2 = 0.5337
0.5337 * 2 > 1
this means that my falcon is guaranteed to at least break the lock of the Zealot meaning all I need is 1-2 sensor dampeners on him and he's completely unable to lock anything ever.

Your math is off as you can never have greater than 100% probability*, but the gist of what you're saying is 100% true. An instant lock break coupled with enough scan-res damping means that the target can never, ever get a lock. If you increase the chances of ECM providing even an instant lock, joint ECM/damp wings would become incredibly powerful.


*Chance of 1 jammer landing: 53.37%
Chance of one of two jammers landing = 1-(1-0.5337)^2 = 78.26%
Chance of one of three jammers landing = 1-(1-.05337)^3 = 89.86%
etc.

Read the OP again, he said that to get the probability of breaking a lock is twice the probability of getting a jam. This means that if you have a > 50% chance to jam the target for 20 seconds now, you have a 100% chance to at least break the lock with his suggestion...
Bronson Hughes wrote:
To the OP: I like the idea of making ECM not binary, but I don't think this is the right way to do it.

exactly... The best suggestion I've seen is to jam each module separately. This would increase the number of rolls and reduce the chance your ship becomes useless if jammed, they may just take out some of your guns.

This would still wreck tackle frigates but ECM already does that so i guess that suggestion isnt any worse than the current situation.
Sigras
Conglomo
#9 - 2015-09-18 08:03:43 UTC
Moac Tor wrote:
Sigras wrote:
The problem is that this synergizes with sensor dampeners too well...

There is a huge difference between breaking a lock and not breaking a lock. Keeping someone jammed out for an extended period of time is really great, but I would trade the ECM we have now for ECM that guarantees a lock break with no jam cycle in a heartbeat.

Consider a falcon jamming a Zealot... my Falcon on racial jammers has a 13.451 strength vs a Zealots 25.2 sensor strength:
13.451 / 25.2 = 0.5337
0.5337 * 2 > 1
this means that my falcon is guaranteed to at least break the lock of the Zealot meaning all I need is 1-2 sensor dampeners on him and he's completely unable to lock anything ever.

Not sure I understand your point there. A 20 second jam is far more effective than a lock break. The ECM burst module already gives a lock break but it is regarded as not that great due to the target being able to relock straight after. Yes you can combine it with sensor damps to make it more effective but I wouldn't say that is OP.

Of course a 20 second jam is better than a lock break, but Ill take a guaranteed lock break over a 30% chance to jam every time because I can bank on that lock breaking when I need it to, and I can guarantee to keep someone perma jammed if we do it right instead of having to pray to RNGesus.

Also, ECM bursts suck because they have crap range and effect your allies; it has little to do with their jam mechanic.
slumbers
Doomheim
#10 - 2015-09-18 08:22:58 UTC
Still ECM is too op.

I d rather have ecm deactivating your point, get enough point jams and u can run away. At least even without a point i can still shoot you, im not sitting in space totally useless
Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Immediate Destruction
#11 - 2015-09-18 09:03:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Moac Tor
Sigras wrote:
Bronson Hughes wrote:
Sigras wrote:
Consider a falcon jamming a Zealot... my Falcon on racial jammers has a 13.451 strength vs a Zealots 25.2 sensor strength:
13.451 / 25.2 = 0.5337
0.5337 * 2 > 1
this means that my falcon is guaranteed to at least break the lock of the Zealot meaning all I need is 1-2 sensor dampeners on him and he's completely unable to lock anything ever.

Your math is off as you can never have greater than 100% probability*, but the gist of what you're saying is 100% true. An instant lock break coupled with enough scan-res damping means that the target can never, ever get a lock. If you increase the chances of ECM providing even an instant lock, joint ECM/damp wings would become incredibly powerful.


*Chance of 1 jammer landing: 53.37%
Chance of one of two jammers landing = 1-(1-0.5337)^2 = 78.26%
Chance of one of three jammers landing = 1-(1-.05337)^3 = 89.86%
etc.

Read the OP again, he said that to get the probability of breaking a lock is twice the probability of getting a jam. This means that if you have a > 50% chance to jam the target for 20 seconds now, you have a 100% chance to at least break the lock with his suggestion...

Bear in mind I am suggesting an overall concept here and using the numbers for illustrative purposes as mentioned in the OP. I did not want to go into the specifics of overall numbers as I am not in a position to know how to balance this effectively and so did not want to detract from the overall concept with a discussion about specific numbers. As an overall trend though Id like to see ECM toned down.

As you bring it up though if we were to tweak the numbers then as an example we could lower the ECM strength to a degree where a guaranteed lock break is almost impossible. So with your Falcon example we could reduce the ECM strength to half of that so that a guaranteed break is only possible vs ships with a sensor strength of 13.451 and below, ie destroyers and frigates which have a high scan resolution and so would not be effected much by sensor damps. Also bear in mind under the current system a guaranteed 20 second jam is possible vs those targets, under my proposal it would only be a lock break.

We would also have the option of modifying the calculation to set the range. So instead of multiplying and dividing by 2 we could reduce this to 1.5. This again would have the effect of making a guaranteed lock break only possible on the smallest of ships which have an innate high resistance to the sensor damping tactic you described.
Poranius Fisc
State War Academy
Caldari State
#12 - 2015-09-22 05:54:51 UTC
Sigras wrote:
The problem is that this synergizes with sensor dampeners too well...

There is a huge difference between breaking a lock and not breaking a lock. Keeping someone jammed out for an extended period of time is really great, but I would trade the ECM we have now for ECM that guarantees a lock break with no jam cycle in a heartbeat.

Consider a falcon jamming a Zealot... my Falcon on racial jammers has a 13.451 strength vs a Zealots 25.2 sensor strength:
13.451 / 25.2 = 0.5337
0.5337 * 2 > 1
this means that my falcon is guaranteed to at least break the lock of the Zealot meaning all I need is 1-2 sensor dampeners on him and he's completely unable to lock anything ever.

This is aside from the fact that jamming someone and taking them out of the fight for a length of time is bad game design which allows for no counterplay.

ECCM. Just like Sebo's counter Dampners.
If you replace ECM it would be with target breakers. which do not work well at all right now.
Now if you made target breakers actually break locks on the targeted ship, that could make a fight really interesting.
Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Immediate Destruction
#13 - 2015-10-05 11:38:12 UTC
Poranius Fisc wrote:
ECCM. Just like Sebo's counter Dampners.

The problem with ECCM is you are making a large sacrifice in terms of a mid slot or for a lesser effect a low slot, and even then I have seen ships jammed out fairly easily.

Using a modulated effect the ECCM will always be worth fitting against a jamming ship as even if you don't stop the lock break completely you will be reducing the lock break duration.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#14 - 2015-10-05 13:42:57 UTC
perhaps adding a cooldown period between any e-war effects, so if you've been jammed or damped for a cycle then another cycle is disallowed for a short period of time for that particular ship, which would prevent perma jam or being damped into uselessness all the time.

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using

Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Immediate Destruction
#15 - 2015-10-11 01:22:45 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
perhaps adding a cooldown period between any e-war effects, so if you've been jammed or damped for a cycle then another cycle is disallowed for a short period of time for that particular ship, which would prevent perma jam or being damped into uselessness all the time.

It would be nice if the duration of the cooldown was based on the ships sensor strength for example rather than an arbitrary period which is identical for every ship.

In my example one of the results of tying the sensor strength directly to the result of the effect is that it means every unit of sensor strength has a meaningful effect, and so fitting that ECCM will be much more likely to benefit you when against a ECM ship.
Moac Tor
Cyber Core
Immediate Destruction
#16 - 2015-12-12 10:11:24 UTC
There are a lot of ECM proposals out there, but CCP could act now as this would be relatively simple to implement as it is using existing mechanics. Stop adding superfluous things such as 37km scrams which are actually negative for the game, and fix existing issues such as ECM which people have been pointing out was a problem for years.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#17 - 2015-12-12 13:24:59 UTC
Moac Tor wrote:
Sigras wrote:
The problem is that this synergizes with sensor dampeners too well...

There is a huge difference between breaking a lock and not breaking a lock. Keeping someone jammed out for an extended period of time is really great, but I would trade the ECM we have now for ECM that guarantees a lock break with no jam cycle in a heartbeat.

Consider a falcon jamming a Zealot... my Falcon on racial jammers has a 13.451 strength vs a Zealots 25.2 sensor strength:
13.451 / 25.2 = 0.5337
0.5337 * 2 > 1
this means that my falcon is guaranteed to at least break the lock of the Zealot meaning all I need is 1-2 sensor dampeners on him and he's completely unable to lock anything ever.

Not sure I understand your point there. A 20 second jam is far more effective than a lock break. The ECM burst module already gives a lock break but it is regarded as not that great due to the target being able to relock straight after. Yes you can combine it with sensor damps to make it more effective but I wouldn't say that is OP.


Because currently the 20 second jam is not gerrintied but with your idea mixed in with a few famous a permanent jam is
Lugh Crow-Slave
#18 - 2015-12-12 13:37:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Lugh Crow-Slave
Moac Tor wrote:
There are a lot of ECM proposals out there, but CCP could act now as this would be relatively simple to implement as it is using existing mechanics. Stop adding superfluous things such as 37km scrams which are actually negative for the game, and fix existing issues such as ECM which people have been pointing out was a problem for years.



Except there is no issue with ECM just like the changes to a hic people have been whining about this on the forums for years normally not fully understanding the mechanics


Why do most people complain about jams? It's normally one of two reasons.

It's based on luck and not pilot skill.

Thus is only some what true it does have a luck element however ecm takes more piloting skill than any other form of e-war the ability to properly pree plan and manipulate RNG is what seperates good ecm pilots from bad

If successful there is nothing the affected pilot can do to counter the ECM effects

True but this is also the case for many other forms of e-war only difference is when you are damped down to sub 2k you still feel like "if I can just get in range" when in fact the fleet you'r chasing is set up to kit and is gong much faster than you.




Only changeshows ecm needs is

1 your should never have a100% chance to jam as you can against many frigs and destroyers not fit with ECCM this goes against the nature of ecm

2 all ecm modules produce a remote eccm bonus based on the level they effect each sensor type. This will introduce a much needed stacking penalty while keeping and building on the current gameplay of ecm (never more then one green per target) this change may need the base power of ecm to be raised
Somal Thunder
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#19 - 2015-12-12 23:44:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Somal Thunder
I support this proposed change. This will not only make flying ECM more interesting, but make flying against ECM will actually seem a lot more do-able. This would be a nerf, but a welcome one -- and it could introduce a new skill that grants 1% increase in ECM cycle time.

Furthermore, I think this could be another welcome addition:

Quote:
2 all ecm modules produce a remote eccm bonus based on the level they effect each sensor type. This will introduce a much needed stacking penalty while keeping and building on the current gameplay of ecm (never more then one green per target)


(I sometimes fly Rooks so I'm not just hating on ECM)
Ashtaroth Drakin
Doomheim
#20 - 2015-12-13 00:22:59 UTC
This is a crazy thought.

But would ECMs be less "OP" If we could still attack/do things to them without locking

Like I said, this is a crazy offball idea but what if you had the ability to use modules on others without locking but doing so will incur a massive penalty/chance of a very negative backfire?

Like using weapons on unlocked target takes a Acc. tracking debuff. Using warp scrams/distruptors on untargetted targets could have say a 50% chance of overloading and resulting in your own warp drives shutting down for X amount of seconds and so forth.

I know crazy idea. And I won't blame you all if you all said it was bad.
12Next page