| Author |
On ECM and ECCM |
Dreadlock Holiday
Admiral
Joined: March 18, 2004
Posts: 29
|  Posted: 2004-11-12 08:37
One of the main problems is that ECM works on enemies and ECCM works on friendlies! This makes no sense at all. Surely each faction would have different sensor systems and so would design eccm systems to "light up" only enemy ships and ecm systems that would "hide" friendly ships only.
If this was implemented it would mean that a ship (and planet) could mount both types of sensors without them cancelling each other out:-
Each faction would be able to use ecm without fear of hiding incoming hostiles. Each faction would be able to use eccm without fear of exposing friendlies.
Planets could therefore both enhance enemy signatures and decrease those of friendlies - simultaneously.
I think this change makes far more sense than the current system and is worth considering.
_________________
|
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
| Posted: 2004-11-12 08:48
ECM and ECCM works on all.
_________________
|
Dreadlock Holiday
Admiral
Joined: March 18, 2004
Posts: 29
| Posted: 2004-11-12 08:53
Well thanks for that Backslash, that was so... enlightening... and totally missed the point.
_________________
|
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
| Posted: 2004-11-12 08:58
The idea is that it effects all because you cannot create a EW weapon that effects only enemys/friendlys. Where would the downside in having ECM/ECCM be then?
Ballance...its all about the ballance.
_________________
|
Dreadlock Holiday
Admiral
Joined: March 18, 2004
Posts: 29
| Posted: 2004-11-12 09:14
Why should you not be able to create an EW device that only affects enemies /friendlies? That premise is illogical. Why should there be a downside to having ecm/eccm? The downside should obviously be in NOT having them.
Logic. It's all about the logic.
_________________
|
42861
Grand Admiral
Joined: November 13, 2003
Posts: 32
From: Netherlands
| Posted: 2004-11-12 09:29
what if ecm decreses friendly signature by 4 and enemy signature by 2
same for eccm, but friendly signature increases by 2 and enemy sig by 4
this reflects the fact that the negative effects on friendlies should be lower, because it seems logical that those weapon configurations have been adapted to the faction using them in a limited way. (like k'luth ships are organic, so frequencies that expose metals might have a lesser effect on them, etc.)
Of course ecm should make enemies harder to spot as well, but not as much as it hides your own ships.
Same goes for eccm.
_________________
|
Dreadlock Holiday
Admiral
Joined: March 18, 2004
Posts: 29
| Posted: 2004-11-12 09:38
You're basically agreeing with me VA. If we adjust your figures slightly and keep the same difference then ecm = 2/0 and eccm = 0/2.
Which is the same as saying ecm only affects friendlies and eccm only affects enemies. Another rule of thumb in games (and life for that matter) is keep things as simple as possible while achieving your desired goals.
_________________
|
c0ld
Midshipman
Joined: June 24, 2003
Posts: 342
From: UK
| Posted: 2004-11-12 10:04
Quote:
|
On 2004-11-12 09:14, Dreadlock Holiday wrote:
Logic. It's all about the logic.
|
|
Indeed it is, so lets follow your idea to its logical conclusion.
Currently if Team A has ECM then Team B must use ECCM to break it.
If your method were implemented, the above would still apply. However, Team B could use ECM as well as ECCM to both stay hidden and break Team As ECM. This in turn would force Team A to carry ECCM too..
The end result is both side having equal amounts of both ECM and ECCM, which is the exact equivelent of having nothing to begin with. Thereby making EW redundant.
[ This Message was edited by: c0ldfury on 2004-11-12 10:13 ]
_________________
|
Dreadlock Holiday
Admiral
Joined: March 18, 2004
Posts: 29
| Posted: 2004-11-12 10:27
Coldfury, your analysis would be correct if humans could be trusted to be 100% logical, but as we all know, we aren't. Therefore the chances of EW being made redundant in any given situation is very low.
There are many factors to consider which make EW being made redundant very unlikely. To name a few:
Player ship preference: can that ship carry EW?
Player mod preference: Do I take EW or do I go for that fusion reactor?
Player co-operation: A faction co-ordinating to a degree where they forego personal preference in order to benefit the whole faction? I'd love to see it...
There are probably many other factors also.
And if by some miracle both sides do cancel out one anothers EW would that be such a bad thing? I don't think so, the logical thing to do would be to look for another weakness...
_________________
|
c0ld
Midshipman
Joined: June 24, 2003
Posts: 342
From: UK
| Posted: 2004-11-12 11:00
Quote:
|
On 2004-11-12 10:27, Dreadlock Holiday wrote:
Player co-operation: A faction co-ordinating to a degree where they forego personal preference in order to benefit the whole faction? I'd love to see it...
|
|
Take a look in the mv then.. Most tactics in darkspace revolve around team play. Take ecm capping, ecm bombing, cloud bombing, planetary assualts, ecm fort busting, even the very basic things like capping a planet are very difficult without team work. That in fact is the devs intention.
And the fact that pple aren't 100% logically is irrelevant. Ppl will exploit the game mechanisms to their fullest in order to win. This is just common sense.
_________________
|
Drow
Fleet Admiral
Joined: June 06, 2003
Posts: 449
From: USA, WI
| Posted: 2004-11-12 11:08
I just get me scout. Go to enemy. ECCM them to see em. Tag them. ECM to hide me and friendlys, while leaving the Tag'd sucker to die. hahahahaah
_________________
Nindol tangi, dos zhal zah'har l' jiv'undus d'
natha szithrel Tagnik'zun elggor
|
Dreadlock Holiday
Admiral
Joined: March 18, 2004
Posts: 29
| Posted: 2004-11-12 11:25
Coldfury I play MV all the time and yes players do co-operate to a degree. Generally it takes quite a while for co-operation to take place and maintaining a high level of co-operation for any length of time... well anyone who plays in the MV will know what i'm talking about.
Taking into account all the variables (not to mention the degree of teamwork required) getting two sides (let alone three) to totally cancel out one anothers EW devices would be nigh on impossible and if by some fluke it did happen... so what?
[/quote]And the fact that pple aren't 100% logically is irrelevant. Ppl will exploit the game mechanisms to their fullest in order to win. This is just common sense. [/quote]
I'm not sure what your point is here. When did exploits enter the topic of conversation?
_________________
|
Pope
Fleet Admiral
Joined: June 11, 2002
Posts: 2449
From: World of tomorrow
| Posted: 2004-11-12 12:16
Simple knock-out argument against: The device will no longer have a downside.
Every device has some tradeoff.
_________________
|
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
| Posted: 2004-11-12 12:18
Thats what I said lol
_________________
|
Wyke {ThorsHammer}
Cadet
Joined: February 22, 2003
Posts: 416
| Posted: 2004-11-12 12:51
Quote:
|
On 2004-11-12 10:27, Dreadlock Holiday wrote:
Coldfury, your analysis would be correct if humans could be trusted to be 100% logical.
|
|
No. Game theory, a Nash_equilibrium is created, when both sides seek the optimal policy they both must tend towards equilibrium otherwise they lose and the game ends. Those where an equilibrium occur continue, and are in Nash_equilibrium.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium
_________________
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
