These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

ECM vs. Personal Repair Module
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1 - 2011-11-21 17:01:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Il Feytid
As a temporary boost to personal repair modules and solo/small gang warfare, I suggest the following change. When fitting any personal repair module, it will also add 75% (this number of course is subject to balancing factors) of the ships base sensor strength to the ship. This is of course refering to Ladar, Gravametric sensor strength, not to be confused with a sensor booster.

So for example I am running around low sec in my Deimos looking for some pew. I fit a medium armor repair module. Now my sensor strength is 26 instead of 15. Or say I want to be in my super leet triple armor repair Myrmidon. My new sensor strength is 59! Have fun jamming that. Also when you overload the personal repair module, the overload bonus to repair amount also affects the sensor strength bonus.

Now for those who decide they want to fit a small shield booster on their Thanatos so they double their sensor strength, is really no different than fitting a dedicated ECCM module which would be better, so their loss.

If for some reason a percentage amount would prove to be broken in some cases, then a flat amount added to the sensor strength would work best. Either way, the concept is the same. And for those worried about role play reasons and lore and such, honestly I don't care about that. There are hundreds of things in this game that directly contradict each other so what is one more. If for some reason ECM or all EW is redone and this addition to local repair modules no longer fits, simply remove this change from them. It is not difficult.
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
#2 - 2011-11-21 19:06:42 UTC
At the first glance it looks weird, but hey, the idea itself is pretty good actually :) I'm not sure whether 75% isn't a bit too much, but still in general:

/supported

"Being supporters of free speech and free and open [CSM] elections... we removed Fon Revedhort from eligibility". CCP, April 2013.
Sepheir Sepheron
State War Academy
Caldari State
#3 - 2011-11-21 19:16:10 UTC
Viva la active tank!
Vertisce Soritenshi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2011-11-21 20:06:46 UTC
Ok...im keeping my mind open on this one...why exactly would this bonus be part of an active local rep? Why would this not be left to sensor boosters?

Am I missing something?

Bounties for all! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2279821#post2279821
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#5 - 2011-11-21 21:24:54 UTC
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:
Ok...im keeping my mind open on this one...why exactly would this bonus be part of an active local rep? Why would this not be left to sensor boosters?

Am I missing something?


The personal repair module is the only unique module that you will not find in any other PvP scenerio outside of solo and small scale fleets. So it only seemed natural to give these type of modules the secondary effect of a built in ECCM.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2011-11-21 21:38:33 UTC
So add the repper to my hurricane and fit more tank because I can drop one or more sensorbooster?

Awesome.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Endovior
PFU Consortium
#7 - 2011-11-21 23:30:25 UTC
So, wait... because fleets prefer to use remote rep to local rep for most purposes, add a completely unrelated bonus to local repping? What?

Yeah, not supported. ECCM needs to be revamped in general, yes. This is not the way to do that; I'd support a unification of sensor boosters and ECCM before this. If local rep proves to be underpowered for whatever reason, then it can be buffed in some way that fits it's flavor.
The Original Alt
Doomheim
#8 - 2011-11-22 00:12:33 UTC
This is actually a clever idea.
Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#9 - 2011-11-22 00:26:17 UTC
Your encouraging active tanking but making active tanking modules a sensor booster?

the hell you on?


A: Sensor Boosters make sense as a module...

B: Repair Modules repair...thats all they do...


Even in a RP sense it doesn't make sense.

PVP'ers dont active tank for a reason....


I'm not saying this is a collasial bad idea (like your others)

But something smells...and it sure as hell aint rotten fish.

I'll sit on the fence on this one.

================ STOP THE EVEMAIL SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152
Trelo Aumer
Doomheim
#10 - 2011-11-22 00:39:44 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
So add the repper to my hurricane and fit more tank because I can drop one or more sensorbooster?

Awesome.

Sensor strength is not scan resolution. It would make you harder to jam and probe down, not decrease your lock time.
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#11 - 2011-11-22 00:47:34 UTC
Trelo Aumer wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
So add the repper to my hurricane and fit more tank because I can drop one or more sensorbooster?

Awesome.

Sensor strength is not scan resolution. It would make you harder to jam and probe down, not decrease your lock time.


Yeah I was about to troll the **** out of those who are confusing the two, but I can easily see how they can be confused. I will update my proposal to clarify.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#12 - 2011-11-22 01:02:21 UTC
Trelo Aumer wrote:
Sensor strength is not scan resolution. It would make you harder to jam and probe down, not decrease your lock time.

D'oh. The funny thing is, I was actually thinking about ECCM before I wrote that response. Oh well. It's still a quirky as **** suggestion, but the one thing I'm thinking of then is, unprobable ships?

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#13 - 2011-11-22 01:07:07 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Trelo Aumer wrote:
Sensor strength is not scan resolution. It would make you harder to jam and probe down, not decrease your lock time.

D'oh. The funny thing is, I was actually thinking about ECCM before I wrote that response. Oh well. It's still a quirky as **** suggestion, but the one thing I'm thinking of then is, unprobable ships?


Being unprobbable is no longer possible. Now how do you feel about the idea?
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2011-11-22 01:18:46 UTC
Dunno. As I said, it's still quirky as ****, and it's not exactly a logical connection. I'm still leaning towards no because of the illogical connection, but at this point that's the most I can think of at the moment. I don't do small gangs. vOv

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#15 - 2011-11-22 01:38:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Drake Draconis
Not supporting..... this defeats the purpose of fitting an ECCM. Based on the resposnes I'm seeing.

Troll away...like it will help.

PS: at that rate as people have said...ECM/ECCM mechanics need to be looked at anyway...if at all.

================ STOP THE EVEMAIL SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#16 - 2011-11-22 02:04:46 UTC
Drake Draconis wrote:
Not supporting..... this defeats the purpose of fitting an ECCM. Based on the resposnes I'm seeing.

Troll away...like it will help.

PS: at that rate as people have said...ECM/ECCM mechanics need to be looked at anyway...if at all.


Aside from the fact that if I posted the exact medical formula for a cure to cancer and you would still declare it was a bad idea. The fact remains that fitting an actual dedicated ECCM module gives a much better bonus.

Regardless, you made up your mind on my idea before you even read it. You already proved that with your first post.
Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#17 - 2011-11-22 02:49:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Drake Draconis
Marlona Sky wrote:
Drake Draconis wrote:
Not supporting..... this defeats the purpose of fitting an ECCM. Based on the resposnes I'm seeing.

Troll away...like it will help.

PS: at that rate as people have said...ECM/ECCM mechanics need to be looked at anyway...if at all.


Aside from the fact that if I posted the exact medical formula for a cure to cancer and you would still declare it was a bad idea. The fact remains that fitting an actual dedicated ECCM module gives a much better bonus.

Regardless, you made up your mind on my idea before you even read it. You already proved that with your first post.


This is not a crue to cancer.

This is a troll.

Drop the act and grow up for once. It's obvious that there are too many questions being begged from your proposal from what other people are saying as it is.

And until they are addressed throughly and emphatically.... I'm not changing my mind.

So keep trolling away...your just proving my argument beyond reason.

PS: Who the hell compares an EVE Online idea to a crue for cancer? That just makes it all the more obvious this is messed up.

================ STOP THE EVEMAIL SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#18 - 2011-11-22 03:05:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Il Feytid
I have answered every question so far which was one or two and clarified the proposal a bit more so people are not confused in thinking about sensor boosters. If you don't like it, fine. You claim I troll when it is you are the one desperately trying to derail another one of my ideas. If you any more concerns or problems, eve-mail them to me. In the mean time just simply **** off to someone else's thread.
Endovior
PFU Consortium
#19 - 2011-11-22 05:12:01 UTC
Ahem. I fly logistics. I'm well aware of the difference between sensor strength and scan resolution, and that the bonus you're referring to is the same bonus as an ECCM mod grants, and not at all the same as that which a sensor booster grants. Personally, I find the distinction silly, and don't really see why there needs to be so many different modules affecting 'how good your sensors are'... especially since the various ECCM mods fill a particularly narrow and specialist niche... but that's a separate point entirely, and I don't think my original post could reasonably be interpreted as conflating the two.

That said... I maintain that there doesn't seem to be any reason for combining local reps with ECCM. The two have completely different roles, and I'm puzzled as to why you find it necessary to combine them. Admittedly, I don't solo pvp, so I've not much experience with the arena where local reps are actually important. In fleet combat, of course, remote reps win every time over local, since it's a specialized ship doing the repping while the local ship focuses on resists. That's the way the math works out... and really, I don't think that's a bad thing.

But since it is your thread... care to explain why folding ECCM into local reps would be a preferable solution to, say, combining them with sensor boosters?
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#20 - 2011-11-22 08:27:54 UTC
Endovior wrote:
care to explain why folding ECCM into local reps would be a preferable solution to, say, combining them with sensor boosters?


Because having that means still devoting a middle slot to help with your sensor strength. This would also mean that larger fleets that do use logistics and fit EHP tanks gain the benifit of the ECCM built into their sensor boosters. The idea is not to boost medium to large scale fleets against ECM, but to buff solo and very small scale fleets.

This is not some overall nerf to ECM/Falcons, but it only feels like a slight nerf if said ECM is going against what is most likely a solo/very small fleet. A local repair module is the only exclusive module that is used on such solo and very small fleets. That is why I picked it. Yes I know some of you can't grasp the idea because you want to know what in the world does repairing your ship have to do with the ships sensor strength. Again, the local repair module is the only thing that fits into those parameters. So the giving the ECCM bonus to sensor boosters may seem to fit better because they are both deal with sensory stuff, it would easily translate to a huge nerf to ECM in all forms of combat. Having the spare CPU and power grid to fit a sensor booster is nothing compared to fitting a local repair module.

I hope this will help better explain why I picked a local repair module over a sensor booster module. If someone feels they understand what I am saying and can formulate a response better, don't hesitate to do so. Big smile
12Next page