Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TuxedoCatfish]

Currently one of the frustrating things about ECM is that if you have too little or too much, the resources you put into it are completely wasted.

If you have more than 20 points above your enemy's total, anything left over is overkill; if you have less than 20 points below your enemy's total, you shouldn't have even bothered.

If instead ECM worked like deployment points do -- a total amount that is divided between the sides according to their relative strength -- it would mean that any amount of ECM you bring always makes a difference.

If you wanted you could even tweak the curve so that it's non-linear; maybe the first few points by which you beat your opponent or vice-versa have a big effect, but the more you beat them by, the less each additional point matters.

[SafariJohn]

Good suggestion. Maybe if each sides' ECM is high and close, both fleets should take a range penalty.

[Harmful Mechanic]

I really like this idea. It keeps ECM relevant without turning it into a learner's nightmare that determines your success or failure in combat; there are lots of ways to get completely turned around on the way to figuring out ECM, and a lot of them might make some totally new players give up in disgust.

[Thaago]

Quoting myself from the last thread as it has a formula and some thoughts on asymptotes, padding:

...

The problem i think is ecms all or nothing nature. If the enemy has 80 ecm it doesnt matter if you have 0 or 40 or 60 ecm, its all the same.

Changing what ECM does is one option, but I'd still want this to be addressed, too. Building a fleet for ECM should have value even when your opponent has more. Taking a map node should have value, too. If I control both of the map's sensor arrays, but have zero base ECM, that should still matter even if the enemy fleet has 40 or 60 or 80.

...I don't have a good mathematical suggestion of how to do this, mind you, I just think it should be done.

Numbers here could use tweaking but something to the effect of: 15*[(higher fleet ECM)/(lower fleet ECM)-1]%
Could be interesting. It would still be possible to be overwhelmed by enemy ECM, but instead of them needing 20% more, they would need double to get the full bonus. If the player has 60 ECM, it would take an enemy with 120 ECM to get the full 15% bonus, while an enemy with 80 would have 5% bonus.

However, theres an issue if the player has very low ECM because of 1/x behaviors, where even a small enemy ECM would give them the full bonus. So giving both some padding like:

Range malus = 15*[(higher fleet ECM + 10)/(lower fleet ECM + 10) - 1]%

Would smooth out some of the 1/x behavior. Something like 24:12 ECM early game fight goes from the full bonus to an 8% bonus.

The cons are that its a more complicated formula, but I think there are some pros to using a ratio instead of a subtraction.

[RustyCabbage]

Numbers here could use tweaking but something to the effect of: 15*[(higher fleet ECM)/(lower fleet ECM)-1]%
Could be interesting. It would still be possible to be overwhelmed by enemy ECM, but instead of them needing 20% more, they would need double to get the full bonus. If the player has 60 ECM, it would take an enemy with 120 ECM to get the full 15% bonus, while an enemy with 80 would have 5% bonus.

I do think a ratio would be good, but doesn't a ratio like x*[(higher ECM - lower ECM)/(higher ECM + lower ECM)]% make more sense, given it's bounded by 0 and 1 and all that nice stuff?

[Thaago]

Numbers here could use tweaking but something to the effect of: 15*[(higher fleet ECM)/(lower fleet ECM)-1]%
Could be interesting. It would still be possible to be overwhelmed by enemy ECM, but instead of them needing 20% more, they would need double to get the full bonus. If the player has 60 ECM, it would take an enemy with 120 ECM to get the full 15% bonus, while an enemy with 80 would have 5% bonus.

I do think a ratio would be good, but doesn't a ratio like x*[(higher ECM - lower ECM)/(higher ECM + lower ECM)]% make more sense, given it's bounded by 0 and 1 and all that nice stuff?

Something like that has nice built in bounds, but for this case I think it might not be sensitive enough. Checking some cases, the higher ECM having double the lower gets a bonus of x/3, and 5 times higher gets 2x/3. That kind of ratio would really only happen early game against a player/AI with no ECM at all: if x were high, then those fights would have a high range penalty (or probably another set of bounds applied). But if x is moderate, then the total effect in contested battles is going to be quite low, and command points adding ECM rating won't really do anything. Though those could be reworked to add flat % on top of the regular ECM calculation or something similar.

I'd amend mine to add bounds though for sure.

[Linnis]

What do you guys think if ECM affected Accuracy instead?

[Lucky33]

What do you guys think if ECM affected Accuracy instead?

I like the idea.

[TaLaR]

What do you guys think if ECM affected Accuracy instead?

Very hit or miss:)
I don't care about accuracy when attacking a capital or large cruiser - as long as projectile goes roughly in the right direction, it will hit.

Or when attacking with Devastator, I guess. It has inherently no accuracy whatsoever.

On the other hand, energy weapons that start at perfect accuracy will probably remain accurate even at max debuff (because degree of inaccuracy that would affect them significantly enough would make ballistics fire in like 180 degree cone).

So, no, I don't think this is a good idea.

[Lucky33]

It is good because it makes ECM what it really is. Instead of current version of some magic shield what stops projectiles in its path without even some flux cost.

Apart from dispersion, "accuracy" also means "leading accuracy". And by tinkering with that you can turn even beams into useless junk.

[TaLaR]

It is good because it makes ECM what it really is. Instead of current version of some magic shield what stops projectiles in its path without even some flux cost.

Apart from dispersion, "accuracy" also means "leading accuracy". And by tinkering with that you can turn even beams into useless junk.

Range is already symbolic representation of accuracy (otherwise everything would have infinite range).

For important beams like TL or HIL, I'll just fire manually. Leading accuracy probably doesn't affect AI-piloted ships when they use 'manual' fire too.

[Lucky33]

It is good because it makes ECM what it really is. Instead of current version of some magic shield what stops projectiles in its path without even some flux cost.

Apart from dispersion, "accuracy" also means "leading accuracy". And by tinkering with that you can turn even beams into useless junk.

Range is already symbolic representation of accuracy (otherwise everything would have infinite range).

For important beams like TL or HIL, I'll just fire manually. Leading accuracy probably doesn't affect AI-piloted ships when they use 'manual' fire too.

Accuracy changes with distance.

You can also get closer manually. I'm pretty much sure that they miss like everything else.

[TaLaR]

Accuracy changes with distance.

You can also get closer manually. I'm pretty much sure that they miss like everything else.

That's unnecessary magic. Angular error should stay the same.

There is difference between being forced to move closer and exposing myself to incoming fire, and ignoring target leading mechanic by firing manually.

[Lucky33]

Accuracy changes with distance.

You can also get closer manually. I'm pretty much sure that they miss like everything else.

That's unnecessary magic. Angular error should stay the same.

There is difference between being forced to move closer and exposing myself to incoming fire, and ignoring target leading mechanic by firing manually.

I didn't get that you are saying.

Obviously, there is a difference. In mechanics and outcomes. So?

[Mordodrukow]

Angular error should stay the same.

I dont think that using real life physics here is good idea. Just because it will make beam and ballistics weapon ineffective. First one because you can just use gas shrouds to unfocus the beam. Second one because actual distances in space are too big - projectile will be avoided easily, and you dont have that much projectiles to fill entire space with dakka.

Also... why ships have speed limits in zero-gravity?

About ECM and limited range. Want to show you one example of good system. In MWO there are two range limits for each weapon: optimal range and maximum range. In most cases max range 2 times bigger than optimal. At optimal range (and below) weapon does 100% dmg, at max range 0%. And there is linear function in between. Why dont make something like that in Starsector? It will allow:
- to remake ECM system
- to integrate some new skills instead of those which work bad/should be replaced

Also it will slightly reduce the advantage of big range fleets.