Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Good news we have modules that do just that

No one uses them

Oh noes.. Whatever could you do when you don't have a target lock and nobody is pointing or scraming you and you are not sitting still in a bubble. What could that be?

I'll give you the holidays to think that one through.

So what about dampers? They can remove your lock range that will have similar effect to a jammer , but at 100% chance of working this way?

I can't consider this proposal seriously, because it amounts to a +40% buff to ECM. The OP seems intelligent given the amount of work on the first post, so is this an attempt to overwhelm us with information to slip in a stealth buff?

Let's take the OP's example of a 25% jam chance currently. Assume 100 jam attempts are made over a 2000 second period and also assume you get a perfect spread of numbers from the RNG. Currently 25 jams will be successful and the target will be jammed for 500 seconds (25 x 20s). Under the OP proposed system you will get 13 full jams and 37 partial jams. The partial jams will average out at 10 seconds each, thus the targets ends up being jammed for (37 x 10s) + (13 x 20s) = 630 seconds.

But it is worse than that, it takes time to recover from a jam. First you have to actually see when the jam finished, then react and start locking the target, then once the target is locked apply your modules to the target. But some of these modules take time to become effective. A scram shuts down a MWD but the target takes time to slow down, same with a webifier. Missiles take time to reach their targets, armor reps take a full cycle time to land etc. As an absolute minimum it takes 5 seconds to recover from a jam regardless of whether it is full or partial. Thus by increasing the number of jams from 25 to 50 you double the recovery time from 125 seconds to 250 seconds at 5 seconds per jam.

Adding the recovery time to the jam times makes the comparison 625 seconds (currently) vs 880 seconds (proposal) = 40.8% buff and I'd argue that certain ships would have a far longer recovery time, Armor Logistics for example, especially those that require cap chains.

I haven't even got onto the increased chance of errors when trying to lock targets in a stressed situation with people shooting friendlies and repping enemies.

But you can mjd the logi 100km away from the rest of the logi - logi chain broken, even with 82384331490 jams on you.

Bump for the ECM thread

Also my own goofy ECM ideas:

Maybe make ecm modules script-based (pilot has to choose the correct script for ship type), also make the module consume scripts like an AAR or ASB, this would give the ECM module a reload type, and help end a permajam cycle. I suppose this idea could be expanded to all ewar modules.

Of course a dedicated ewar ship would have multiple modules, but you could apply the same idea that tractor beams use (can only have one active module per target). In order to keep a target permajamed, the ECM pilot would have to be more active in managing the ECM modules (and have correct script loaded).

Also, on the subject of ECCM; they don't seem strong enough to justify the fitting cost. You have to sacrifice a midslot, and cpu. Perhaps make them a bit stronger at countering ECM. Maybe rework ECCM to not give resistance to jams, but simply prevent consecutive jam cycles, reduce cpu fitting cost, and finally, make ECCM a lowslot module. You still have to sacrifice damage, tank, or speed/agility to have some ECM resistance.



Apologies if these things have been suggested before. I blame the beer.

Thanks for your feedback. Your point about CPU is taken. My main gripe with ECCM is the effectiveness that it gives for the midslot that it requires.

I feel ok about a lowslot module providing a stronger resistance to ECM than other EWAR modules, mainly because the other forms of EWAR dont remove your ability to fight back (I am of course ignoring neuts, which is admittedly a bit disingenuous) .

Tracking disruption, Target Painters, and Damps reduce a pilot's effectiveness, and will force a pilot to make a decision about how to handle that situation by changing distance to target, OH of prop mods, reassessment of target priority, etc. But at least the player is left with the feeling of being able to do something (even if it is an illusion). ECM has a binary effect, either it fails to jam, or it just takes away the player's ability to do anything, other than disengage.




Also, I wasn't really theory crafting. I was just drunk posting a goofy idea with hopes of furthering the discussion.


Thanks again for at least talking about stuff.

ECM is a bit controversial because it works a lot better at max skills as opposed to level 4. seriously. It can make a difference on landing a jam on a hard target or not, and getting electronic superiority at 5 vs 4.

While the blackbird can go 100km + away, in order to do so, it sacrifices any tank. The same applies to the scorpion, and the scorpion only slightly jams better doing this application.

The blackbird even as a brawler fit has a hugely weaker tank than any of its fellow ewar counterparts.

But.. it skill level requirements, I would put blackbirds as the third hardest to fly well (arbitrators being the hardest, celestis being the easiest, 2nd easiest being the bellicose).

While the blackbird has the range, neither the rook or the falcon fully retain this (falcon goes out 2nd, rook not so much).

But adding on your point, yes, an Arazu can and should shut down a blackbird/falcon/rook. it's a counter thing. That arazu even while not in optimal can make that blackbird not able to jam anything except that large group of drones thats about to force it off field, or it can "try" to get close to jam the arazu. And a celestis can apply its damps from even further than a blackbird, in effect able to make it worthless.

I believe what I quoted of myself would be a decent.

And they still have that issue when deciding to fit a sensor booster or tracking computer as well. But this is why signal amplifiers, tracking enchancers and sensor backup arrays exist.