These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123
 

Does ECM add good counter play?

Author
Gillia Winddancer
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#41 - 2013-01-31 14:19:20 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Gillia Winddancer wrote:
The thing that people actually argue about is the random and boolean nature of ECM. Counters or not, effects of it are still boiled down to a very static success or fail with quite the severe consequences as a result - and the severity being quite a lot harsher on the player on the receiving end. Not a single other e-warfare module functions like this.

MEEEEEEP, wrong.

Do warp scramblers and disruptors have a static effect?

Do webs and target painters count as e-war?

Does ECM drive you mad cause u no shootin?

What was the name of a mini cake produced by Nestle?

YES.


Propulsion jamming works as intended. Yeah, my bad - scramblers/disruptors are boolean as well (I tend to categorize propulsion jamming separately from all other e-war), but in my defence, I just have to say that no one complains about these modules cause you know...both sides can still shoot at each other freely and use other modules freely. Add on top that the number of options in order to escape these modules are quite more numerous than that for ECM. Who would have thought! So comparing these modules to ECM is indeed rather...stupid.

As for other e-warfare (weapon disruption, dampeners etc) - these have for starters a counter-module that benefits the user regardless whether it is used as a counter or not, unlike ECCM modules. And even if they don't have a counter module - like target painters, they do happen to have something else, namely falloff. Unlike ECM falloff, every single other module simply becomes less effective past falloff range. And guess what - the target can STILL shoot back without having to worry about the almighty RNG shutting them out completely in an instant! Isn't that simply AMAZING?

No, I still propose a rework on ECM and make it a constant effect that makes ships unlockable based on target sensor strength, resolution and distance to all other ships versus ship signature radius and distance to target. With enough ECM modules on a single target you would still get the same effect as the current ECM - a total lockout - and a permanent one at that. There would be no reason for anyone to complain because if you are solo and face off versus many players, you are most likely in deep trouble anyway. Same if you are called primary in a larger fight.

The only single difference would be that the opponents would have used more resources on you in order to get you to a state in which you cannot target anyone. No RNG entity spooking about leaving things to chance where a single module determines whether you are allowed to do anything or not.

Whitehound
#42 - 2013-01-31 14:45:31 UTC
Gillia Winddancer wrote:
No, I still propose a rework on ECM and make it a constant effect that makes ships unlockable based on target sensor strength, resolution and distance to all other ships versus ship signature radius and distance to target. With enough ECM modules on a single target you would still get the same effect as the current ECM - a total lockout - and a permanent one at that. There would be no reason for anyone to complain because if you are solo and face off versus many players, you are most likely in deep trouble anyway. Same if you are called primary in a larger fight.

Sensor dampeners already work too much like this.

ECM may not be fun for the one being jammed, but it is fun for the one who applies it. Why would you want to take this away?

Even more, there is no 100% guarantee for the jammer that the jams will always work and he gets a thrill out of it on top. Again, why take this away?

Is your problem that when you get jammed you then lack the patience to wait for the jamming to drop out? If so then do what I do: I reload my ammo, rep myself up as much as possible, get into a better position and wait for my chance. If I do not get my chance then I am too weak and fight another day.

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

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#43 - 2013-01-31 14:48:44 UTC
Kitty Bear wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Kitty Bear wrote:
It is comparitively short ranged.
ECM already has 2.5 counters.

The New [sensor-skill] Compensations.
Mid/Lowslot ECCM Modules.
SD outranges ECM.


ECM is bad not because it's "unbalanced" (it isn't) but because it's anti-fun. It should be replaced with an effect that's worth doing but isn't so polarised between "no effect at all" and "I guess I'll just sit here until it wears off". Cries to "nerf ECM" miss the point; nerfing it won't make it any more fun; ECM isn't unfun because it works x% of the time and does nothing y% of the time, it's unfun because it's not fun whether it works or not. So the cries of "nerf" won't be satisfied with any value for x greater than 0. Nerfing just leaves Caldari, supposedly the EW specialists, without any EW.

So get rid of the current horribad ECM mechanic entirely and replace it with something different. If it's not defensive, then there needs to either be a secondary EW as well, or else Caldari EW ships need a combat buff. (Possibly not the Rook, depending on the exact nature of the EW)


explain how you would also replace warp scramblers/disrupters please.
as they work in exactly same way as ecm, if ecm needs to go solely from the way it works, then by your reasoning so do 'point mods' ..........


I think you're confusing EW in general with the specific form of EW called ECM.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Gillia Winddancer
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#44 - 2013-01-31 15:13:31 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Gillia Winddancer wrote:
No, I still propose a rework on ECM and make it a constant effect that makes ships unlockable based on target sensor strength, resolution and distance to all other ships versus ship signature radius and distance to target. With enough ECM modules on a single target you would still get the same effect as the current ECM - a total lockout - and a permanent one at that. There would be no reason for anyone to complain because if you are solo and face off versus many players, you are most likely in deep trouble anyway. Same if you are called primary in a larger fight.

Sensor dampeners already work too much like this.

ECM may not be fun for the one being jammed, but it is fun for the one who applies it. Why would you want to take this away?

Even more, there is no 100% guarantee for the jammer that the jams will always work and he gets a thrill out of it on top. Again, why take this away?

Is your problem that when you get jammed you then lack the patience to wait for the jamming to drop out? If so then do what I do: I reload my ammo, rep myself up as much as possible, get into a better position and wait for my chance. If I do not get my chance then I am too weak and fight another day.


Actually, no. Whilst dampeners affect sensor efficiency, ECM affects sensor functionality. Quite a distinct difference and one that should be kept. The former affects either sensor range and/or resolution whilst the latter would essentially affect the size of ships that you can lock on to, hiding the smallest ships first (therein the signature radius playing a role - seriously, this one statistic is SO incredibly under-used in EVE it is not even funny considering the insane amount of potential it holds)

Ok then. Why don't we reverse the logic right there. Let's have all modules be chance based. Weapon disruption: nothing happens if the roll fails. Weapons will always miss if roll succeeds. Stasis webifier: nothing happens if the roll fails. Target ship comes to a full stop if the roll succeeds. Target painter: nothing happens if the roll fails. Signature radius is doubled if the roll succeeds.

Sounds fun and exciting doesn't it? Should I do the same for the e-war modules that I've left out as well and see how much "fun" we can squeeze out of all the modules?

Patience is not the issue here. The issue is that the target can be completely neutralized for a period of 20 seconds by a single module that relies solely on luck. This would probably be less of an issue if say FoF missiles were slightly more effective and all turrets had some sort of blind fire mode at the very least. If ECM isn't to be changed (which IMO it should in order to put it in line with everything else) then the very least, blind firing should be demanded - even if it is not the most ideal solution.
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
Tactical-Retreat
#45 - 2013-01-31 15:26:56 UTC
People keep thinking that ECM can be countered by ECCM like any other EW form in the game.. which is not true.

For example : 1 tracking disruptor can be countered by 1-2 tracking computers. In this case, you adapted your fit so that it counters the other side, and you end up in the same state than previously, like if nothing happened.

Same thing for Cap warfare : You're under 1-2 neutralizer, you ask one logi to have 1 energy transfer and you end up at the same level of cap than if there was no e-war on you.

About ECM, I can say that we are prepared against it : Our basi usually have two ECCM + one sensor backup low slot, and the sensor strength skill at 4-5... And yet, against a Falcon or a Rook you end up being extremely penalized even against only one module : It may not proc immediately, but after a few cycles you WILL end up being jammed, despite your counters. So, even for 3 modules to counter only one, in the end you're not in the same state than if there were no ECM on you... Because you will still run under the full 20 seconds cycle uncapacitating you, which will result in your other basi no longer repaired. Second basi dies, the first follows, and then the rest of the fleet. All because of ONE module that just proc no matter what you do to counter it. And even if the ennemy can't kill the other basi in 20 seconds, you still have to relock your target, reactivate the cap chain and so on... Another 5 seconds lost.

My solution for ECM :

- First point : make the ECCM low slot module give you the ability to passively instant target every target you had before the jamming cycle. Currently almost nobody uses the sensor backup.. for good reasons, it's underpowered ! This would fix the problem. Eventually, this ability wouldn't work if you have a two sensor dampener against you. You would then need two sensor backup to be able to use this ability, countered by three dampeners, and so on.. Exactly like warp core stabs.

- Second point : add a reflect effect on the ECCM, exactly like capacitor batteries : For each ECCM you have, it adds 20% (for the T2 version) of reflect when you're under a successful jamming cycle. The reflect is send to the ship that jammed you at the end of the cycle, so for a 20 seconds jam, you are unable to target anything for 16 seconds, then you can, and the falcon is unable to target for 4 seconds, beggining at the end of the jam effect (otherwise if he has a lowslot sensor backup, with first point ability, he would instant target again, and this wouldn't change anything). Eventually, if you're succesfuly jamming a target with one ECCM fitted during multiple cycles, the reflect 'stacks' and only applies when finally the target is no longer jammed. So that if you run three sucessful jam cycles on a target with one ECCM before failing, you're under the reflect effect for 12 seconds.

- Third point : A bit like triage/siege modes where activating your module is meaningful and subject to consequences, as long as you have an ECM cycle active (even if it failed), you can't cloak. This ensuring that Falcons are not just uncloaking-targeting-recloaking if they fail all their cycles with ennemies in relatively close range.

Signature Tanking Best Tanking

[Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart

Whitehound
#46 - 2013-01-31 15:30:59 UTC
Gillia Winddancer wrote:
Actually, no. Whilst dampeners affect sensor efficiency, ECM affects sensor functionality. ...

Ok then. Why don't we reverse the logic right there. Let's have all modules be chance based. ...

Patience is not the issue here. The issue is that the target can be completely neutralized for a period of 20 seconds by a single module that relies solely on luck...

I said that it would work too much the same as sensor dampeners do. There is then no need to make all modules chance-based, because it would make everything too much alike as well.

ECM does not rely on luck alone. You know it just as well as I do. Try then to warp in a pod to a station. If you land at 0km distance or 400m distance is just a matter of luck. When you then get podkilled do you blame it on luck, too, and find it unacceptable?

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

Optimo Sebiestor
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#47 - 2013-01-31 15:38:26 UTC
I thougth i was going to see a video of someone getting pwnd with ecm in a small scale fleet battle, left dissapointed.. Ugh
Previous page123