These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 Burst Needs To Be More Realistic
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
1Lt Aldo Raine
Doomheim
#1 - 2017-03-16 16:01:36 UTC
I'm all about the vigilante anti-ganker ops. (Yeah we gank gankers, it's a lot of fun. )

Last year my team went after freighter wrecks causing much anguish and wailing and gnashing of teeth... until our foes complained about it and the game was changed to give the freighter wrecks more ehp.

It was fun while it lasted, but no complaints from me because, in my opinion the mechanics are more realistic and therefore work better.

Fast forward to today's vigilante: using the ECM Burst frigate to help counter massive gank fleets in high sec. A lot of fun and worth the security hit.

But some people (Jason) have found a work around to counter this, landing a group of 8 or so pods on grid right before the gank fleet lands. Because the pods are aggroed the security status drops a lot. I mean down to near -10.

My point is this:

If the ECM Burst module breaks a target lock, then should items on grid that have no targeting system be aggroed?

Pods have no targeting system. How would their onboard computer systems ever know they were illegally agressed?

Just wanting to keep it real. Thanks for any feedback. o7

Proud member of the High Sec Militia, the combat arm of the Anti-Ganking movement.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2 - 2017-03-16 16:05:41 UTC
1Lt Aldo Raine wrote:

If the ECM Burst module breaks a target lock, then should items on grid that have no targeting system be aggroed?



AoE is AoE. You hit everything in range, you deal with the consequence of hitting everything in range.
Astevon
Utama Incorporated
Astral Alliance
#3 - 2017-03-16 17:23:06 UTC
+1 for an idea to fix it that makes sense.

This is another example of how the multiboxing scenario is skewed towards the ganking side in the very asymmetric conflict between gankers and anti-gankers. It is generally much easier to add another ganker and gain high efficiency with little cost in attention/management, compared to adding another anti-ganker (I've tried multiboxing around 8, roughly my limit even though I had 14 accounts). And it becomes ridiculous when guys like Jason Kusion extremely easily fleet warps a bunch of pods around with the dramatic effect of making buying security tags completely unviable for burst jamming anti-gankers. Forcing him to at least fly rookie ships would restore some balance.

I doubt CCP will prioritize this though, as few people are affected by it, and it might be tricky to implement (freighters can't lock anything either, but shuttles can, for some reason..).

Previous Main: Astecus | Creator of the Anti-ganking channel, Anti-ganking.net and AstralServices.net
Ajem Hinken
WarFear Gaming
#4 - 2017-03-16 18:16:12 UTC
Astevon wrote:
+1 for an idea to fix it that makes sense.

This is another example of how the multiboxing scenario is skewed towards the ganking side in the very asymmetric conflict between gankers and anti-gankers. It is generally much easier to add another ganker and gain high efficiency with little cost in attention/management, compared to adding another anti-ganker (I've tried multiboxing around 8, roughly my limit even though I had 14 accounts). And it becomes ridiculous when guys like Jason Kusion extremely easily fleet warps a bunch of pods around with the dramatic effect of making buying security tags completely unviable for burst jamming anti-gankers. Forcing him to at least fly rookie ships would restore some balance.

I doubt CCP will prioritize this though, as few people are affected by it, and it might be tricky to implement (freighters can't lock anything either, but shuttles can, for some reason..).

Yeah... Standings hits should only apply once per pod in a fleet. Either you fleetjump, or you jump one at a time and spoil it for your prey so that they can GTFO before you can do anything.

Basically, blast one pod in a fleet, and you can blast all the others - your standings and sec won't change.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6875494#post6875494 - Ship mounted explosives. Because explosions and Jita chaos.
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#5 - 2017-03-16 20:00:21 UTC
ECM bursts are an AoE aggressive weapon. Why should the sec status penalty be different from using any other aggressive weapon to attack those ships? If you use a smartbomb and hit all of those pods you're taking all of the sec status hits. All I see here is people whining about having to face the consequences of their actions, with a ridiculous attempt at taking the moral high ground because they're fighting the "evil" gankers.

And no, "I didn't actually hurt it" should not remove the sec status penalty. The penalty is for committing an attack, not for the attack being effective. If you try to tackle a ship with WCS fitted you take the hit (and get the timers) for it even though you can only watch your target warp off before you even activate your guns.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#6 - 2017-03-16 20:49:10 UTC
Can the server even tell the difference? An offensive mod is an offensive mod. It gives you a weapon timer, criminal status. It ticks all the boxes. Ecm bursts may have a damage property, its just set to 0.

Anyways, i thought ganking had no consequences and sec status hits didn't stop you from doing anything. Can't you just pay a few measly isk and bump it up with tags?

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Cade Windstalker
#7 - 2017-03-16 22:19:04 UTC
"Realism" is not a reason for anything.

Gameplay changes must have gameplay reasons behind them. Someone found a way to counter your trick, find a new trick or a counter to them.
Ajem Hinken
WarFear Gaming
#8 - 2017-03-17 01:34:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Ajem Hinken
Cade Windstalker wrote:
"Realism" is not a reason for anything.

Gameplay changes must have gameplay reasons behind them. Someone found a way to counter your trick, find a new trick or a counter to them.

Like ganking gankers before they can gank you. At which point they counter with ganking your ganker gankers, and you counter by ganking their ganker ganker gankers, and then you continue in a similar fashion until you all eat up all the ganking resources in EvE and are forced to worship miners and industrialists or manufacture the goods yourself.

*Dramatization. But you get my point.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6875494#post6875494 - Ship mounted explosives. Because explosions and Jita chaos.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#9 - 2017-03-18 09:20:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
I agree, capsules should not give out security hits for ECM, weapon disruption, or sensor dampening.

Ajem Hinken wrote:
Like ganking gankers before they can gank you.

It almost never happens because the gankers have the extreme advantage of surprise. It's far from a level playing field.

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."
Ajem Hinken
WarFear Gaming
#10 - 2017-03-19 00:16:22 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
I agree, capsules should not give out security hits for ECM, weapon disruption, or sensor dampening.

Ajem Hinken wrote:
Like ganking gankers before they can gank you.

It almost never happens because the gankers have the extreme advantage of surprise. It's far from a level playing field.

So surprise them while they're staging. Get an alt account mole.

:P

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6875494#post6875494 - Ship mounted explosives. Because explosions and Jita chaos.
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#11 - 2017-03-19 00:31:39 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
I agree, capsules should not give out security hits for ECM, weapon disruption, or sensor dampening.


Why not? If you warp scramble a ship with WCS fitted and it warps off immediately you still take the sec status hit. If you tracking disrupt a ship with no turrets fitted you still take the sec status hit. If you fire at a ship that is well out of range and impossible to hit you still take the sec status hit. Failure to make an effective attack does not change the fact that you used an aggressive module against a target that you do not have permission to engage.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#12 - 2017-03-19 01:05:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Ajem Hinken wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
It almost never happens because the gankers have the extreme advantage of surprise. It's far from a level playing field.

So surprise them while they're staging. Get an alt account mole.

Show me one example of anyone ever doing that successfully, or do it yourself successfully, or stop acting like it's a viable strategy.


Merin Ryskin wrote:
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
I agree, capsules should not give out security hits for ECM, weapon disruption, or sensor dampening.


Why not? If you warp scramble a ship with WCS fitted and it warps off immediately you still take the sec status hit. If you tracking disrupt a ship with no turrets fitted you still take the sec status hit. If you fire at a ship that is well out of range and impossible to hit you still take the sec status hit. Failure to make an effective attack does not change the fact that you used an aggressive module against a target that you do not have permission to engage.

If you warp scramble a ship, you're committing a hostile act that can hurt them. Even if you don't shoot them, you might hold them in place for someone else to shoot them.

There is no possible way that ECM, sensor dampening, or weapon disruption can hurt a capsule.


Ajem Hinken wrote:
Yeah... Standings hits should only apply once per pod in a fleet. Either you fleetjump, or you jump one at a time and spoil it for your prey so that they can GTFO before you can do anything.

Basically, blast one pod in a fleet, and you can blast all the others - your standings and sec won't change.

It is entirely reasonable for a pilot to take multiple standings hits for separate capsule attacks.

Now if it is multiple attacks against the same capsule (during a single aggression timer), the pilot should never take more total standings hit than if the capsule were destroyed in a single shot.

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."
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#13 - 2017-03-19 01:57:00 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
If you warp scramble a ship, you're committing a hostile act that can hurt them. Even if you don't shoot them, you might hold them in place for someone else to shoot them.


Except in the example it can't hurt them, because they have WCS fitted and are immune to your warp disruption attempt. They just warp off like nothing happened, and you take the sec status hit.

Quote:
There is no possible way that ECM, sensor dampening, or weapon disruption can hurt a capsule.


There is no possible way that a tracking disruptor used against a ship with no turrets can hurt it, but you still take the sec status penalty if you're foolish enough to use one. Likewise, ECM is an aggressive act, and if you use it against a target that you can not legally attack you will (and should) take the sec status penalty no matter how effective your attack is. Don't like it? Don't use ECM against pods.

Quote:
Now if it is multiple attacks against the same capsule (during a single aggression timer), the pilot should never take more total standings hit than if the capsule were destroyed in a single shot.


That's already how it works. You take one sec status hit for the aggression, no matter how many modules you activate against the target.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2017-03-19 07:21:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Merin Ryskin wrote:
Except in the example it can't hurt them, because they have WCS fitted and are immune to your warp disruption attempt. They just warp off like nothing happened, and you take the sec status hit.

There is no possible way that a tracking disruptor used against a ship with no turrets can hurt it, but you still take the sec status penalty if you're foolish enough to use one.

It's not about whether or not the server can decide you couldn't have hurt them. When you activate a warp scrambler on a target, you don't know it has stabs and will warp off. You're intending to hurt the target. Same if you use a tracking disruptor against a missile ship. Your intent was to disrupt their turret tracking. So you realize later that they don't have any turrets. You still get the sec status hit because your moves could have hurt them, if they didn't have warp stabs or if they were using turrets.

Furthermore, if the person fit warp stabs because they expected you to have a scrambler, or if they fit missiles because they expected you to have tracking disruption, they might have compromised their own fit for their own safety, and it's because you were there--or because they were going through an area frequented by criminals like you. That means that warp scrambler or tracking disruptor could still have hurt them even if their ship was fully immune at the time it was hit.

But you don't need to know anything about a capsule's fit to know that it is not hurt by ECM, sensor dampening, or weapon disruption. Your use of the modules changes nothing for the capsule pilot, and they will not and cannot make changes to their preparation based on your choices. It can't hurt them.

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."
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
#15 - 2017-03-19 07:38:42 UTC
You keep missing the point here. The target and your potential module's effect are not relevant. The only thing that matters is that you activated an aggressive module (which ECM clearly is) on a target that you can not legally attack. The fact that you made a poor decision and did this despite having nothing to gain from your act of aggression is irrelevant. The sec status mechanic does not care about intent.

And no, "but I don't know the fit" isn't an excuse. If you see a Kestrel you know that it is armed with missiles and not turrets. It has literally zero turret slots (and doesn't have a drone bay either, so you can't tracking disrupt the drones). There is literally no possible benefit to activating that tracking disruptor. But if you are dumb enough to do it against a Kestrel that you can not legally attack you still take the sec status hit.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#16 - 2017-03-19 16:31:05 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:

There is no possible way that ECM, sensor dampening, or weapon disruption can hurt a capsule.




It's still a hostile module activation so it should still get the sec status hit. It's the cost of using AoE stuff in OP's case. If you don't want to take a sec status hit, don't hit target you are not supposed to. It's the atatcker's responsability to make sure he does not affect neutral if he does not want to suffer sec hits. Playing with AoE module come with a cost of being indiscriminate. If players are not ok with this, they should just not use it.
Firnen Bakru
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#17 - 2017-03-19 18:33:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Firnen Bakru
God forbid, you theorycraft something and someone finds a solition to the problem caused by it?
Jason Kusion
KUSION SPECIAL TEAM
Goonswarm Federation
#18 - 2017-03-19 18:33:30 UTC
So then I put them all in Herons. Your move.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#19 - 2017-03-19 18:38:10 UTC
Jason Kusion wrote:
So then I put them all in Herons. Your move.


Or empty gankship hull so if he goes for a targeted solution, it's harder to select the right ones. Or not. What do I know anyway...
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#20 - 2017-03-20 14:26:50 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
1Lt Aldo Raine wrote:

If the ECM Burst module breaks a target lock, then should items on grid that have no targeting system be aggroed?



AoE is AoE. You hit everything in range, you deal with the consequence of hitting everything in range.


I have to agree with this. AoE is AoE. But I wouldn't complain if this were removed.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
12Next page