These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Author
Master Sergeant MacRobert
Space-Brewery-Association
Local Is Primary
#1 - 2013-07-29 19:51:16 UTC
This is a draft suggestion on a clear change from the current working of ECM modules.

Module will test if ECM strength is greater than target Sensor strength, rather than a probability chance based on the percentage.

ECM strength is accumulative for each module used on the same target by the same ship.

IF the total ECM strength is greater than the target ECM strength then the target receives a single 60% heat damage to a single module fitted to the target ship, on that cycle.

Running multiple modules on one target still provides only one cycle on that ship. The ECM strength just increases to overcome the target strength.

Perhaps include, if practical , that multiple modules on a single target also increases the heat damage value by 10% therefore causing 100% damage to a single module if attacked by 5 ECM modules, per cycle.

Attacking multiple targets would create a single cycle between attacker and target for each group of ECM used.

Any module damaged deactivates. This gives a chance for the target pilot to repair using paste or reactivate and gives some minor disruption.

Grouped weapons will group deactivate but share heat damage across the modules evenly ( we like guns firing and they should be more resistant).

Skills can give greater strength, range, shorter cycle and reduced activation cost.

There are opportunities to add scripts to both ECM & ECCM modules if these changes are adopted. Such as a script that targets only low modules , medium modules or ECCM that extends cycle, reduces heat damage.

This then gives us true 'Electronic Warfare'

"Remedy this situation or you shall live out the rest of your life in a pain amplifier"

Aliventi
Mouth Trumpet Cavalry.
Mouth Trumpet Cavalry
#2 - 2013-07-29 20:01:12 UTC
What is so wrong with ECM right now?
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks
#3 - 2013-07-29 20:04:07 UTC
Aliventi wrote:
What is so wrong with ECM right now?


This.
Master Sergeant MacRobert
Space-Brewery-Association
Local Is Primary
#4 - 2013-07-29 20:15:50 UTC
Near permanent denial of any action by the jammed.

Roll the dice you lose ...and I can hold you here 20 mins whilst I wait to finish you

This is not a fight

"Remedy this situation or you shall live out the rest of your life in a pain amplifier"

Onomerous
Shockwave Innovations
#5 - 2013-07-29 20:36:37 UTC
Seems to be discussing small gang and/or solo type work?

ECM-only ships have disappeared from the action as far as the PVP I've seen on all three of my toons... across all the spaces except HS. Reason: the larger the fight, the quicker thin tanked ECM ships melt or have to run away.

ECM works as intended as the size of the engagement grows it appears. Thus, the trick is 'fixing' ECM in smaller engagements (I use 'fixing' very, very lightly as I'm not sure it is broken most of the time).

If you would like to fix ECM drones, I could agree much more with there being an issue.
Kahega Amielden
Rifterlings
#6 - 2013-07-29 20:46:07 UTC
Aliventi wrote:
What is so wrong with ECM right now?


Mechanics which cause fights to be decided by the RNG rather than skill or preparation are bad.
Aliventi
Mouth Trumpet Cavalry.
Mouth Trumpet Cavalry
#7 - 2013-07-29 20:50:34 UTC
ECM is not OP with numbers
Version 1.0.1
By: Aliventi

A work in progress. To be refined as more "ECM is OP" threads pop up.


If you step back and take a look, ECM is arguably the least destructive of the EWAR varieties with the exception of TPs. A sensor dampener can lower a ship's targeting range to the point that it can't lock anything. Tracking disruptors lower the tracking on a ship to the point it can't actually hit anything. How frustrating is it that you can lock a target, but you can't track well enough to even hit it? Of course, TDs don't work against logistics, EWAR, or missile boats. That would make TDs less effective than ECM.

In other words, ECM, damps, and tracking disruption all have the potential to remove enemies from the fight. ECM and damps prevent you from locking, and TDs prevent your guns from doing anything effective. ECM is balanced in the way that it has a non-trivial chance of outright failing none of the other EWARs have. In fact SDs, TDs, and TPs never miss. ECM effects lasts 20 seconds whereas SD and TD effects last for as long as the module is activated. Another balancing factor is that ECM is a mid-slot module in a race that is purely shield tanking. The other three races can fill their mids with EWAR and put together a reasonable armor tank. It is no mystery that this is why the CFC celestis fleets are so successful. They are combining never miss EWAR with a bonused ship that can tank long enough for logi to rep them. Caldari ships can put together a tissue paper armor tank at best.

"That is all fine and dandy," You say "but ECM is still too powerful". Why don't we take a look at some numbers?

Take a T2 Minmatar jammer. The ECM Phase Inverter II has a Ladar jam strength of 3.6.
Jammer vs Rifter: 3.6/8 sensor strength = 45% chance of jamming or a 55% chance of doing nothing.
Jammer vs Stabber: 3.6/13 sensor strength = 27.69% chance of jamming or a 72.31% chance of doing nothing.
Jammer vs Hurricane: 3.6/16 sensor strength = 22.5% chance of jamming or a 77.5% chance of doing nothing.
Jammer vs Tempest: 3.6/20 sensor strength = 18% chance of jamming or a 82% chance of doing nothing.

See? hardly anything wrong with ECM. Even against the most basic frigate it will fail more times than it will succeed. Imagine if your guns, hardeners, point, MWD, etc. had that fail rate. *shudder*

You see your issue is not truly with ECM. Your issue, is in fact, with the ECM bonused hulls. Take a Falcon with all level 5 skills fit with racial jammers, 2 Sensor Distortion Amps, and one ECM strength rig and let's look at those numbers again.

All level 5 Falcon vs. Sensor Comp. 5 ship:
Jammer vs Rifter: 14.2/9.6 sensor strength = 100% chance of jamming
Jammer vs Stabber: 14.2/15.6 sensor strength = 91.02% chance of jamming
Jammer vs Hurricane: 14.2/19.2 sensor strength = 73.95% chance of jamming
Jammer vs Tempest: 14.2/24 sensor strength = 59.16% chance of jamming

That really isn't OP at all. Considering the vast amount of training one has to accomplish to become a perfect Falcon pilot. In comparison the time it take to train a racial sensor comp to 5 or fit an ECCM module is trivial. In addition a Falcon has a tissue paper tank, a non-trivial chance of missing a jam, and unlike the other forms of EWAR it doesn't last forever.

Now you are likely to bring up a rather painful point in small gang and solo PvP: The ECM drone. Why don't we take a look at those?

EC-300 drone strength is 1.
Jammer vs Rifter: 1/9.6 sensor strength = 10.41% chance of jamming
Jammer vs Stabber: 1/15.6 sensor strength = 6.41% chance of jamming
Jammer vs Hurricane: 1/19.2 sensor strength = 5.23% chance of jamming
Jammer vs Tempest: 1/24 sensor strength = 4.16% chance of jamming

EC-600 drone strength is 1.5.
Jammer vs Rifter: 1.5/9.6 sensor strength = 15.62% chance of jamming
Jammer vs Stabber: 1.5/15.6 sensor strength = 9.61% chance of jamming
Jammer vs Hurricane: 1.5/19.2 sensor strength = 7.81% chance of jamming
Jammer vs Tempest: 1.5/24 sensor strength = 6.25% chance of jamming

Neither of those scream OP at all. "Now that isn't the real story" you exclaim "Most ships have 5!" True:
(How to calculate: Link calculator: Link (P (X>=1)) is the important number)

5 EC-300 jam strength 1:
vs Rifter: 42.28% chance of jamming with 5 drones.
vs Stabber: 28.19% chance of jamming with 5 drones.
vs Hurricane: 23.55% chance of jamming with 5 drones.
vs Tempest: 21.02% chance of jamming with 5 drones.
I will concede that for 25m3 of drones these do seem a touch too powerful. I would recommend a reduction in jam strength down to .75.

5 EC-600 jam strength 1.5:
vs Rifter: 57.22% chance of jamming with 5 drones.
vs Stabber: 39.66% chance of jamming with 5 drones.
vs Hurricane: 33.40% chance of jamming with 5 drones.
vs Tempest: Or 27.58% chance of jamming with 5 drones.
For 50m3 of drones these seem very well balanced for their size.

You see in the grand scheme of things ECM is neither OP, broken, wrong, out of place, or any of the other things people claim ECM is. It is merely a different and perfectly valid form of EWAR. It is high-risk high-reward, only truly effective on bonused hulls (as it should be) which at best can manage a tissue paper tank when fitting jams, and doesn't last forever like the other forms of EWAR. All things considered, it is perfectly in line with the other forms of EWAR. What's so wrong with that?
Master Sergeant MacRobert
Space-Brewery-Association
Local Is Primary
#8 - 2013-07-29 20:53:12 UTC
Disagree, it is not just small scale focused. The new system has application to large and small scale.

FC: "ECM target the enemy logistics I want their modules crippled"

Survivability of ECM ships is another matter and has already been considered and acted upon with the changes to the Scorpion (as a start).

ECM must be scalable. It must not be op in small and it should be more useful in large engagements and more balanced towards the other EWar modules.

As part of the change I would look at decreasing the duration of the cycle. Then have the duration lengthen as a stacking penalty for using multiple modules on a single target. The set the strengths accordingly so that sensor strength doors not just increase with hull size but that more 'electronic' ships and important rile ships (Interceptors) ate not so easily hit.

Protection from heat damage can be modulised into ECCM and continue to be hull based. Use of ECCM would increase thanks to the heat damage reduction as well.

"Remedy this situation or you shall live out the rest of your life in a pain amplifier"

Master Sergeant MacRobert
Space-Brewery-Association
Local Is Primary
#9 - 2013-07-29 21:00:03 UTC
>>>Aliventi

Chance based is a negative for the user and the target.

I have not checked your numbers. The possibility that the current system is Op or not is actually inconsequential. The current system is not fun.

Either the jammer fails and the user melts or the jamming succeeds and target waits for pod , in most cases.

The suggestion also gives opportunity for jamming ships to fit alternative modules into medium slots. As it is more likely to have success with one or two ECM and then maybe fit that Blackbird with a Shield tank (what a thought)

"Remedy this situation or you shall live out the rest of your life in a pain amplifier"

Morrigan LeSante
Perkone
Caldari State
#10 - 2013-07-29 21:14:24 UTC
For any solution - tell my why I wouldn't just dust off a heavy SD boat instead of ECM. There's a reason today.

Try to avoid dodgy, niché things like "if you knew you were fighting a brawling gang".


Tell me WHY you'd EVER undock an ECM boat instead of another EWAR boat note, "for a laugh" is not a reason.

Also, for bonus points and serious consideration - include how you counter logi without it.
Aliventi
Mouth Trumpet Cavalry.
Mouth Trumpet Cavalry
#11 - 2013-07-29 21:23:16 UTC
Master Sergeant MacRobert wrote:
>>>Aliventi

Chance based is a negative for the user and the target.

I have not checked your numbers. The possibility that the current system is Op or not is actually inconsequential. The current system is not fun.

Either the jammer fails and the user melts or the jamming succeeds and target waits for pod , in most cases.

The suggestion also gives opportunity for jamming ships to fit alternative modules into medium slots. As it is more likely to have success with one or two ECM and then maybe fit that Blackbird with a Shield tank (what a thought)

I disagree. ECM only works as well as it does because both side know there is chance involved. Depending on the chance one side or the other has the potential to swing the fight in their favor. It makes PvP even more fun and exciting than it would be without chance based ECM. And that is a positive in any video game.

And why should ECM gain the advantage of having ECM be a high slot module? Why can TPs, SDs, or TDs be high slot modules? Why shouldn't a Raven be able to fill the mids with tank and throw a TP in the spare high slot to hit better? Why shouldn't a Lachesis throw SDs in the high slots and fit a great shield tank with a bonused point in the mids?

What you are proposing would vastly change the EWAR landscape. You are proposing removing a vast majority of the balancing factors of ECM. You want to take ECM from a very balanced and not OP EWAR and replace it with something where 20 blackbirds can insta-kill a ship by each "overheating" a different module on the target ship. Combined with the fact that using paste to repair a module is not a quick task. Your system screams OP when you scale it to the level you would see on the battlefield. So forgive me for telling you this idea is stupidly OP and is trying to replace a system where there is little to nothing wrong.
Ellendras Silver
CrashCat Corporation
#12 - 2013-07-29 21:37:52 UTC
Aliventi wrote:
ECM is not OP with numbers
Version 1.0.1
By: Aliventi

A work in progress. To be refined as more "ECM is OP" threads pop up.


beautiful post and i gave you a +1 for it but still some tweaks could be in place i never said its OP by definition and i dont want to get rid of EWAR.

it cant escape my mind that in small scale war it can be OP where as it in huge fights hardly works at all (some exceptions)
in a recent ECM topic (we seem to get them two or three times a day or so :S i replied this
Quote:

the major problem in EWAR is that it doesn't scale like weapons, drones, armor and shield reps or shield extenders and armor plates everything scales but EWAR.

so a frigate can do effective way more to a BS with EWAR then its guns as a BS will laugh at the DPS of most frigate`s

the lack of scalability makes it OP in some cases and totaly USELESS in some other cases. for example in a large fight EWAR is useless and in small fights it can be OP very easily.

my 2 cnt

[u]Carpe noctem[/u]

Master Sergeant MacRobert
Space-Brewery-Association
Local Is Primary
#13 - 2013-07-29 21:41:36 UTC
20 gunships insta-pop a single ship in the right circumstances. You would expect the same result from 20 DPS ships.

The ECM suggestion immobilises the target but there is chance of escape, repair and return.

There is a counter in buffer and logi. There is a counter in ECCM.

Sensor Dampners are situational and so are these. Smart logi pilots fly clustered enough to counter SD at times. It is situational.

These ECM can still affect logistics. It is now a certain effect that can destroy a remote repper or the AB or tanking module making it vulnerable

In a combined fleet you now have damage caused across two spheres one of which is disrupting up to immobilizing instead of just eliminating. Far better at working alongside a fleet.

"Remedy this situation or you shall live out the rest of your life in a pain amplifier"

Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
#14 - 2013-07-30 00:49:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Zan Shiro
Kahega Amielden wrote:
Aliventi wrote:
What is so wrong with ECM right now?


Mechanics which cause fights to be decided by the RNG rather than skill or preparation are bad.



unlike say missile fleets (very random damage output)

or damage bleedoff from falloff (randome event),

or missed shots from traversal games (shot 1 missed, bad angle...shot 2 hit....good angle, shot 3 missed....bad angle, shot 4 missed bad angle, shot 5 hit...good angle).


And if about preparation and skilll....bring a sniper or 2. Cerbs kill or make falcons leave the field quite nicely. Want preparation...there ya go. it starts at the fleet going at station before kick off you know...not one ship in this here fleet can shoot 20 feet past the gun barrell effectively. Maybe jsut maybe we'd like some LR just in case. Mixed fleet/flight/army compostion...been winning wars and battles in rl for quite a while. Even in the ole days there were the archers racking up some kills so the sword swinging soldiers hopefully had an easier time.


At a more personal level...some people could fit the usual mods mentioned. I tbh liked it as falcon pilot when people burned through my jams and saw the funky eccm graphic around thier ship. Someone thought ahead...I like forward thinking. Enough people made themselves fish in a barrell with low sensor strength ships they did nothing to correct...I liked a real challenge.
Whitehound
#15 - 2013-07-30 06:20:31 UTC
PvP is all about luck. When you do not like it then you do not like PvP.

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

Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks
#16 - 2013-07-30 09:40:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Tchulen
Whitehound wrote:
PvP is all about luck. When you do not like it then you do not like PvP.

I disagree, to a point. PvP isn't all about luck but it does involve luck.

Master Sergeant MacRobert wrote:
...snipped...

Saying that luck shouldn't play a part in it is a little like saying computers shouldn't be a part of it. They are and there's precisely nothing you can do about it.

ECM works fine. Just because the mechanics aren't the same as another form of EWAR really doesn't come into it. The mechanics for target disruption aren't the same as the mechanics for sensor damps. The only part of the mechanics of target disruption and sensor damping is the absolute nature of the module's effects. Saying that because some EWAR has absolute effects all EWAR should have absolute effects is like saying that because some modules have absolute effects all modules should have absolute effects.

They don't and if they did the game would be very very boring as the outcome of an engagement could be pretty much entirely predicted before the engagement commences, making pvp a little on the pointless side.

Rather than complaining about a mechanic that has been shown to not be overpowered, why not try adapting instead?
Master Sergeant MacRobert
Space-Brewery-Association
Local Is Primary
#17 - 2013-07-30 12:53:09 UTC
Current ECM: Immobilises target ship so that it cannot act against either the ECM or the assisting tackler, friends or whatever. Done right the percentages are high enough when multiple modules are applied (learn your probability) to a single target.

Proposed ECM: Causes immobilisation over time. However you may act. Attempting to remove the threat either of the light tackler, the ECM attacker or a chosen alternative target. You have a chance to either break off or defend yourself in some way, albeit at a reduced effectiveness.


Scaled up to blob fleet

current ECM: You temporarily immobilise some of the enemy logistics or EWar composition until you are popped or forced to warp out. No long term effect.

Proposed ECM: You cause immobilising damage to the internal workings of the target logistic, EWar, Command links, webbing, tackling, interdicting, High DPS, etc.. They either have to repair taking precious time which may not be long enough to prevent irreparable impact on their fleets performance or they are weakened so they have to flee or die.

You maybe destroyed or forced to flee but your ECM actions have a lasting affect on the battlefield.

"Remedy this situation or you shall live out the rest of your life in a pain amplifier"

Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks
#18 - 2013-07-30 13:08:45 UTC
Master Sergeant MacRobert wrote:
...snipped...


I've got to ask, have you been killed by someone using ECM recently because you didn't fit anything to counter it AND were unlucky at the same time?

I'm not trying to be an arse. There is a valid reason for me asking the question.
Tobias Sjodin
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#19 - 2013-07-30 13:51:26 UTC
Just make so all that ECM does is break the lock so you have to relock. End of change.

Ronald Reagan: I do not like Sweden, they support communism. Minister: Sir, but Sweden are anti-communist, Sir.  Ronald Reagan: I do not care what kind of communists they are.

Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks
#20 - 2013-07-30 14:01:29 UTC
Tobias Sjodin wrote:
Just make so all that ECM does is break the lock so you have to relock. End of change.


As long as all ships that have ECM bonuses either get substantially increased tanks and dps or massive reductions to the cycle times and cap usage to counter the massive nerf you're proposing to ECM that would be fine.

Or... and I know this is a little revolutionary... CCP could just leave ECM as it is due to it being balanced already.
12Next page