| Author |
eccm vs cloak |
Dakili
Fleet Admiral
Joined: June 07, 2007
Posts: 86
From: Quebec
|  Posted: 2012-07-02 19:08
Quote:
|
On 2012-07-02 19:06, Brutality *XO2* wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2012-07-02 18:56, Fleet Admiral Maxwell House wrote:
Hmm. Interesing And by how much does eveery ECCM adds sign? I wasn't able to find the information...
|
|
It depends how close you are to the ship with the eccm. The closer you get the higher the signal strength?
|
|
Even if it does, every ECCM is different....
I still wonder which one of them is the strongest.
_________________
Would you be quite gentle as to take this coffee cup in the face and get knocked uncounscious my dear friend.
|
Fattierob
Vice Admiral
Joined: April 25, 2003
Posts: 4059
| Posted: 2012-07-03 09:14
Quote:
|
On 2012-07-02 19:08, Fleet Admiral Maxwell House wrote:
Even if it does, every ECCM is different....
I still wonder which one of them is the strongest.
|
|
Well, wonder no more
ECCM:
Energy usage per second: (20 * (1 + (2 * level))) / 1000
Strength: 3.3 + (.55 * level)
Range: 400 + (50 * level)
ECM:
Energy usage per second: (20 * (1 + (2 * level))) / 1000
Strength: 1.5 + (.25 * level)
Range: 400 + (50 * level)
LongWave ECCM:
Energy usage per second: (20 * (1 + (2 * level))) / 1000
Strength: 1.64 + (.275 * level)
Range: 600 + (70 * level)
LongWave ECM:
Energy usage per second: (20 * (1 + (2 * level))) / 1000
Strength: .75 + (.125 * level)
Range: 600 + (70 * level)
These follow are single target devices:
Focused ECCM:
Energy usage per second: (20 * (2 + (4 * level))) / 1000
Strength: 4.95 + (.825 * level)
Range: 600 + (75 * level)
Focused ECM:
Energy usage per second: (20 * (2 + (4 * level))) / 1000
Strength: 2.25 + (.375 * level)
Range: 600 + (75 * level)
Narrowband ECCM:
Energy usage per second: (20 * (1 + (2 * level))) / 1000
Strength: 4.95 + (.825 * level)
Range: 400 + (75 * level)
Narrowband ECM;
Energy usage per second: (20 * (1 + (2 * level))) / 1000
Strength: 2.25 + (.375 * level)
Range: 400 + (75 * level)
Tactical ECCM (Fighter only; I don't think this is in game yet)
Strength: 6
Range: 1200
Tactical ECM (Fighter only; I don't think this is in game yet)
Strength: 3
Range: 1200
[ This Message was edited by: Fattierob on 2012-07-03 09:14 ]
_________________
|
Dakili
Fleet Admiral
Joined: June 07, 2007
Posts: 86
From: Quebec
| Posted: 2012-07-03 14:28
Hmm really interesting. Thanks, that will be useful.
_________________
Would you be quite gentle as to take this coffee cup in the face and get knocked uncounscious my dear friend.
|
µOmniVore
Grand Admiral
Joined: September 13, 2006
Posts: 171
| Posted: 2012-07-03 15:45
total crap eccm/ecm ranges need a boost and to bring back the ping it was the best bug for kluth if a ship has 150 energy and its draining at 5.5 a sec it will still take a long while to disable the cloak.
this is an issue that will continue to break the game so why now strengthen kluth armor and get rid of the cloak.
this game was fun now it is devolving into a crappy pay to win game, i don't wanta buy enhancements to balance out the game lets make ds fun for all even poor people again.
_________________
When we fail to dream we fail as a society.
|
Ravendark
Marshal
Sanity Assassins
Joined: July 01, 2010
Posts: 443
| Posted: 2012-07-06 20:12
Quote:
|
On 2012-07-03 15:45, µOmniVore wrote:
total crap eccm/ecm ranges need a boost and to bring back the ping it was the best bug for kluth if a ship has 150 energy and its draining at 5.5 a sec it will still take a long while to disable the cloak.
this is an issue that will continue to break the game so why now strengthen kluth armor and get rid of the cloak.
this game was fun now it is devolving into a crappy pay to win game, i don't wanta buy enhancements to balance out the game lets make ds fun for all even poor people again.
|
|
you still wont be able to uncloak the kluth, they will just move away if the drain is too much, NO ONE will start the attack run when energy goes down. thats another way to brake this game.
so then if kluth wanted to attack it would probably have energy for only one alpha...only to fart in your face and jump out.
that would probably be countered by massive kluth damage boost to make that one alpha even do any difference....
that would be cool. because if any faction would invade the kluth at the planet, it would probably get fried in few seconds.... aaaand there you go, another reason why there will be some more QQ
you cant uncloak kluth with eccm. you can slow down the attack, slow down energy regeneration, slow down cloaked escapes. need anything else?
_________________
|
Talien
Marshal
Templar Knights
Joined: May 11, 2010
Posts: 2044
From: Michigan
| Posted: 2012-07-06 20:31
How does ECM/ECCM signal strength degrade with range? Looking at Longwave vs normal the signal strength is cut in half but the range is only increased by 50%. Does that mean Longwave signal strength only degrades at half the rate of normal, or does it degrade by a set amount based on the % of range and not actual distance?
And I suppose this could maybe be considered a bit off topic, but why such a massive disparity between ECM strength and ECCM strength? I knew there was a large difference from testing I did right after ECM was nerfed, but more than double?
_________________
Adapt or die.
|
Azreal
Chief Marshal
Joined: March 14, 2004
Posts: 2816
From: United State of Texas, Houston
| Posted: 2012-07-06 22:33
to keep those pesky frigates from wiping planets without being seen. ECM has always been weaker than eccm, far as I know.
_________________
bucket link
|
-DBS
Marshal
Joined: January 04, 2011
Posts: 204
From: St. Petersburg, FL
| Posted: 2012-07-07 00:47
With 3 focused or combo of NB/Focused ECCM I have been able to destroy a luth dreads cloak by killing energy, because they cloak with what they think is enough left... And, we smash them. Several times. even ship going in and out of cloak because, one of us had on ECM on accident... LOL I wont say any names...
_________________
|
Bardiche
Chief Marshal
Joined: November 16, 2006
Posts: 1247
| Posted: 2012-07-07 04:44
Quote:
|
On 2012-07-06 22:33, Azreal wrote:
to keep those pesky frigates from wiping planets without being seen. ECM has always been weaker than eccm, far as I know.
|
|
They can still hide themselves completely, though. ;_;
_________________
|
DiepLuc
Chief Marshal
Joined: March 23, 2010
Posts: 1187
| Posted: 2012-07-07 09:03
And what the point to fly a bomber frigate if you can't hide yourself?
_________________
|
Azreal
Chief Marshal
Joined: March 14, 2004
Posts: 2816
From: United State of Texas, Houston
| Posted: 2012-07-07 09:21
because everything is built around teamwork now until it has become a detriment. U can use fighters for long range bombing, but that platform will not have a scanner to do the job effectively. You need to have a ship with a scanner as a team mate. You should not have any ecm slots, or at least not enough to cover your own signature, under the same logic, as a bomber. You should need at least 1 more team mate to make the signature negative.
As far as I am aware, if a planet has a single sensor base, it forces a frigate to have a mate to help with ecm.
However, 2 frigates working in tandem works as well, with the right type of ew package.
The way it works is somewhat balanced. It cant be helped, however, if the needed team mates arent there due to low player numbers, something that everyone here realizes is an issue.
_________________
bucket link
|
Fattierob
Vice Admiral
Joined: April 25, 2003
Posts: 4059
| Posted: 2012-07-07 19:29
Quote:
|
On 2012-07-06 20:31, Talien wrote:
How does ECM/ECCM signal strength degrade with range? Looking at Longwave vs normal the signal strength is cut in half but the range is only increased by 50%. Does that mean Longwave signal strength only degrades at half the rate of normal, or does it degrade by a set amount based on the % of range and not actual distance?
|
|
Linear. If a target is at 50% of your range it works at half strength, if at 100% it works at 0%.
Let's do some quick numbers. You have a single ECM on your frigate (gadget level 2) with a strength of 4.4 and a maximum range of 500. You have two targets, one at 250 and one at 400
The ship at 250 receives (-4.4 * (500-250)) / 500) = -2.2 signature
The ship at 400 receives (-4.4 * (500-400)) / 500) = -0.88 signature
Let's do the same ships with LongWave ECM instead. Strength is 1 and your maximum range is 750
The ship at 250 receives (-1 * (750-250)) / 750) = -0.66~ signature
The ship at 400 receives (-1 * (750-400)) / 750) = -0.46 signature
Quote:
|
And I suppose this could maybe be considered a bit off topic, but why such a massive disparity between ECM strength and ECCM strength? I knew there was a large difference from testing I did right after ECM was nerfed, but more than double?
|
|
I can't say. EWAR is on the table of one of those things that need looking at, however.
_________________
|
Talien
Marshal
Templar Knights
Joined: May 11, 2010
Posts: 2044
From: Michigan
| Posted: 2012-07-07 20:34
Quote:
|
On 2012-07-07 09:21, Azreal wrote:
because everything is built around teamwork now until it has become a detriment. U can use fighters for long range bombing, but that platform will not have a scanner to do the job effectively. You need to have a ship with a scanner as a team mate. You should not have any ecm slots, or at least not enough to cover your own signature, under the same logic, as a bomber. You should need at least 1 more team mate to make the signature negative.
As far as I am aware, if a planet has a single sensor base, it forces a frigate to have a mate to help with ecm.
However, 2 frigates working in tandem works as well, with the right type of ew package.
The way it works is somewhat balanced. It cant be helped, however, if the needed team mates arent there due to low player numbers, something that everyone here realizes is an issue. |
|
Yeah, one sensor base is enough to make a Bomber unable to hide itself, and even 2 can barely manage it unless they practically sit ontop of eachother.
The bigger issue with ECM vs ECCM though, is that a single Frigate loaded with ECCM can nullify the effect of multiple larger ships running ECM.
Quote:
|
On 2012-07-07 19:29, Fattierob wrote:
Linear. If a target is at 50% of your range it works at half strength, if at 100% it works at 0%.
Let's do some quick numbers. You have a single ECM on your frigate (gadget level 2) with a strength of 4.4 and a maximum range of 500. You have two targets, one at 250 and one at 400
The ship at 250 receives (-4.4 * (500-250)) / 500) = -2.2 signature
The ship at 400 receives (-4.4 * (500-400)) / 500) = -0.88 signature
Let's do the same ships with LongWave ECM instead. Strength is 1 and your maximum range is 750
The ship at 250 receives (-1 * (750-250)) / 750) = -0.66~ signature
The ship at 400 receives (-1 * (750-400)) / 750) = -0.46 signature
|
|
Thanks, that clears things up a bit. But that kinda gimps Longwave then, doesn't it? Half the strength but without double the range to compensate really doesn't make it desirable to use.
At least it's being looked at though. I just hope you guys come up with something that's workable for ECM and ECCM both instead of how it is now with 0 incentive for luth to deploy support ships for ECM use to help counter ECCM effect on energy drain, there's no reason to do that instead of using another Mandible or Siphon when ECM is so weak.
That and a single Frigate with ECCM (4 gadgets) can just about nullify the effect of 9 Cruiser grade ECM. No it doesn't have the raw strength of those 9 gadgets, but it doesn't need to because ships inherently have positive signature and doing anything but sitting still further raises it.
At least to me, it seems the best way of addressing both issues would be to increase ECM by 50% of current strength and decrease ECCM by 50% of current strength, then switch cloak energy use to increase more sharply when compensating for more than the ships natural signature. Unless I'm totally missing something, that should both fix the issue with ECCM being so overpowered compared to ECM, and give luth an actual reason to use something other than Dreadnoughts.
_________________
Adapt or die.
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
