EVE Search - Sensor Disruption, a new form of electronic warfare

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

Features and Ideas Discussion

Sensor Disruption, a new form of electronic warfare

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Topic
Rashmika Sky	Posted - 2008.10.05 23:20:00 - [1] I'd like to suggest a new form of electronic warfare, "Sensor Disruption". Sensor Disruption would be similar to ECM in that it would effect the targeting/locking capabilities of the victim ship, and Sensor Disruption effectiveness would be determined by comparison to the victim's Sensor Strength. However, it would differ from ECM in that it would not be chance based and its effect would not be binary (jammed or not jammed). Instead, as the amount of Sensor Disruption used on a ship increased, the minimum Signature Radius that ship could lock would also increase. I'll define a few terms (note, any numbers/formulas are only for the purpose of providing examples, likely better means of balancing this could be found): Minimum Lockable Signature Radius (MLSR) = The smallest signature radius a ship's sensors are capable of targetting. Normally is 0, but increases with Sensor Disruption. Minimum Lockable Signature Radius (MLSR) = 500 * (Total Sensor Disruption / Sensor Strength) Total Sensor Disruption (TSD) = 2n + 2^n, where n = the number of Sensor Disruptors used on the target. TSD would progress as follows: 4, 8, 14, 24, 42, 76 ... The goal of the TSD and MLSR formulas is that each additional Sensor Disruption module should remove the ability to lock at least one size or class of ship. With that in mind, below are the largest base signature radii in each T1 class: Frigates: 40 // Merlin Destroyers: 90 // Cormorant Cruisers: 150 // Blackbird, Vexor Battlecruisers: 285 // Drake Battleships: 500 // Rokh Using the above formulas, below are some examples of how Sensor Disruption would effect the targeting capabilities of different ships: Punisher (Sensor Strength = 9): 500 * (4/9) = 222 MLSR // Cannot lock < Battlecruisers 5p0 * (8/9) = 444 MLSR // Cannot lock < Battleships 500 * (14/9) = 777 MLSR // Cannot lock sub-capitals 500 * (24/9) = 1333 MLSR 500 * (42/9) = 2333 MLSR Arbitrator (Sensor Strength = 12): 500 * (4/12) = 166 MLSR // Cannot lock < Battlecruisers 500 * (8/12) = 333 MLSR // Cannot lock < Battleships 500 * (14/12) = 583 MLSR // Cannot lock sub-capitals 500 * (24/12) = 1000 MLSR 500 * (42/12) = 1750 MLSR Harbinger (Sensor Strength = 16): 500 * (4/16) = 125 MLSR // Cannot lock < Cruisers 500 * (8/16) = 250 MLSR // Cannot lock < Battlecruisers 500 * (14/16) = 437 MLSR // Cannot lock < Battleships 500 * (24/16) = 750 MLSR // Cannot lock sub-caitals 500 * (42/16) = 1312 MLSR Apocalypse (Sensor Strength = 20): 500 * (4/20) = 100 MLSR // Cannot lock < Cruisers 500 * (8/20) = 200 MLSR // Cannot lock < Battlecruisers 500 * (14/20) = 350 MLSR // Cannot lock < Battleships 500 * (24/20) = 600 MLSR // Cannot lock sub-capitals 500 * (42/20) = 1050 MLSR Scorption (Sensor Strength = 24): 500 * (4/24) = 83 MLSR // Cannot lock < Destroyers 500 * (8/24) = 166 MLSR // Cannot lock < Battlecruisers 50 * (14/24) = 291 MLSR // Cannot lock < Battleships 500 * (24/24) = 500 MLSR // Can lock the Rokh and capitals 500 * (42/20) = 875 MLSR // Cannot lock sub-capitals ECCM, Remote ECCM and Target Painting would all be good counters to this module. ECM would also be a good counter, though if Sensor Disruption had similar range as ECM, it would be possible to jam the ECM ship. I'm not sure if it would be desirable to give Sensor Disruption that kind of range. In the above examples it is stated at points that certain ship classes cannot be locked, keep in mind that this may not always be accurate as shield modules, rigs, MWD and Target Painters could increase a target's signature radius. This module would not be very effective for gangs that rely on MWD, due to the signature radius increase. It might also prove to be of less help to shield tankers for similar reasons, though Caldari ships tend to have stronger sensors so they would at least have better resistance to Sensor Disruption. Any comments or thoughts are welcome. -Rash
Dianeces The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2008.10.06 00:18:00 - [2] So basically you want to shaft Minmatar?
Rashmika Sky	Posted - 2008.10.06 04:02:00 - [3] I'm not sure how you think this is supposed to shaft Minmatar, but maybe I'm mssing something. Care to elaborate? Here's how I'm seeing things: Minmatar ships tend to have lower sig radius, meaning it'd be easier to make their enemy unable to target them via Sensor Disruption. They also have Target Painting as a racial ewar, so if Sensor Disruption were used on them, they'd have a strong counter to it. Sensor Disruption would make it harder to target frigates and cruisers first, which are areas where Minmatar is commonly cosidered strong. To put it another way, I believe Sensor Disruption would complement the strong part of the Minmatar line-up. Finally, Minmatar ships tend to have more free slots for something like ewar than other races do (the "utility slots" that have apparently been useless since the ECM and nos nerfs), and as a result would be more likely to fit Sensor Disruptors. After all, a 3 mid-slot Amarr ship isn't going to fit this. The only argument I can think of, myself, for why this would screw over Minmatar, is that they tend to have low sensor strengths. On that note, Amarr also tend to have low sensor strengths, and Minmatar in many cases would have an easier time fitting an ECCM to compensate. So probably the biggest losers in this scenario would be Amarr. If anything, I figure Minmatar may stand to gain more from Sensor Disruption than anyone else. However, I don't fly Minmatar... so possibly I'm missing some reason why this shafts Minmatar more than everyone else. -Rash
Sir Substance Minmatar MagiTech Alliance Inc.	Posted - 2008.10.06 05:17:00 - [4] Originally by: Rashmika Sky I'm not sure how you think this is supposed to shaft Minmatar, but maybe I'm mssing something. Care to elaborate? Here's how I'm seeing things: Minmatar ships tend to have lower sig radius, meaning it'd be easier to make their enemy unable to target them via Sensor Disruption. They also have Target Painting as a racial ewar, so if Sensor Disruption were used on them, they'd have a strong counter to it. you need to target someone to use a target painter on them. bit hard to do that if you need a target painter on them to target them, genius. as for why this is a minmatar shaft, minni have the lowest sensor strength, by making it sensor strength based, you give people another tool that is better against minmatar then anyone else. - PvPers always say "GB2WoW". the message is that EVE is hard, and people just need to deal with it. wasn't it funny how when nano's started making it hard for them, that all went out the window?
Rashmika Sky	Posted - 2008.10.06 12:19:00 - [5] First off, Target Painting is not the only way to counter this. ECCM would work fine. Secondly, I notice you ignore my point that Amarr Sensor Strengths are also low, so it's not just Minmatar. In fact, in many cases the difference between Amarr and Minmatar Sensor Strengths is only one point. The battlecruisers are tied. For tier one battleships, the Minmatar actually win out over Amarr. It is generally very close. At any rate, I don't think a few points of Sensor Strength would make that noticeable a difference, generally if you would have trouble locking at 18 Sensor Strength you would have trouble at 22 as well, so to speak. Put it another way, if the 18 Sensor Strength Typhoon is having difficulties, the 17 Strength Armageddon definitely will as well. ;) Anyhow, for what it's worth, I only tied Sensor Disruption to Sensor Strength to allow people another counter via ECCM. It is, however, not necessary to tie it to Sensor Strength. It would be possible to simply make each module directly increase the minimum lockable signature radius by a set amount; this is something I had actually considered, and it would have been the easier to go that route. I felt it would be better balanced if ECCM were another counter to the module however. Maybe I'm wrong there. -Rash -Note, some stats above on ship sensors may be incorrect, as I was posting in a hurry before leaving for work. If so, it is purely accidental.
zaqq Amarr	Posted - 2008.10.06 12:39:00 - [6] just give eccm the same range as ecm ? in a world so full of smart asses, why is the world goin to pot ?
Washell Olivaw	Posted - 2008.10.06 15:00:00 - [7] What's new about this? Sensor dampeners pretty much do the same thing.
Rashmika Sky	Posted - 2008.10.06 23:18:00 - [8] Originally by: Washell Olivaw What's new about this? Sensor dampeners pretty much do the same thing. Actually, the only real similarity Sensor Disruption has to Sensor Dampeners is in the name. Sensor Dampeners, of course, reduce locking range or increase locking time. Sensor Disruption removes the ability to target ships, starting at smaller ships and increasing to larger ships. More accurately, it removes the ability to target ships with smaller signature radiuses first, and as the effect increases, it removes the ability to target ships with larger signature radiuses. Naturally, smaller ships tend to have smaller signature radiuses, so the inability to target them would generally occur before the inability to target larger ships. Certain factors such as MWD, shield modules/rigs or Target Painter-related signature radius increases could change that. Hopefully that clarifies things. -Rash
Kahega Amielden Minmatar Suddenly Ninjas	Posted - 2008.10.06 23:31:00 - [9] actually quite a good idea. Would need some balancing but I approve. Originally by: Catharacta My CNR runs on salvager tears.
Itukki	Posted - 2008.10.07 10:33:00 - [10] interesting idea rash... I guess target painters would be more common fittings on ships than it is today. But would you not be concerned that nano-hac fleets would get too much of a boost with this module? It¦s basicly a module that gives a boost to smaller ships.

Sir Substance Minmatar MagiTech Alliance Inc.	Posted - 2008.10.07 11:04:00 - [11] actually, just re-reading post number 8, why would you bother using something that only removes the ability to target SOME ships, when you can remove their ability to target ALL ships. its really not that hard to make even a blackbird that can perma-jam a BS all to hell. - PvPers always say "GB2WoW". the message is that EVE is hard, and people just need to deal with it. wasn't it funny how when nano's started making it hard for them, that all went out the window?
fuze Gallente Chosen Path Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2008.10.07 11:17:00 - [12] Isn't this basically a combination of all current EW mixed in a new format? For EW you also can have modifiers on ROF,dmg output, falloff and optimal range.
Itukki	Posted - 2008.10.07 11:33:00 - [13] Originally by: Sir Substance actually, just re-reading post number 8, why would you bother using something that only removes the ability to target SOME ships, when you can remove their ability to target ALL ships. its really not that hard to make even a blackbird that can perma-jam a BS all to hell. ecm is fun and all that - but this EW module is definately different than ECM since when using this module you definately take into count what size ships your fleet is using. If you are all flying BS - than this module might not be such a smart idea whereas ECM would be. If you are all flying small ships than this module would have more benefits. Also ecm are change based whereas this one aint.
Washell Olivaw	Posted - 2008.10.07 11:34:00 - [14] Originally by: Rashmika Sky Actually, the only real similarity Sensor Disruption has to Sensor Dampeners is in the name. Sensor Dampeners, of course, reduce locking range or increase locking time. Sensor Disruption removes the ability to target ships, starting at smaller ships and increasing to larger ships. -Rash And if a ship is damped for locking time, it basically becomes impossible to lock small ships. Unless MWD/TP/etc increas the sig radius of the ship. Put enough dampeners on a target and it will take forever to lock even big ships. Again, I still don't see what's new about your idea. The results and the counters are pretty much the same as the exiting dampeners with the dampeners being more versatile. Originally by: Signature Everybody has a photographic memory, some people just don't have film.
Itukki	Posted - 2008.10.07 11:41:00 - [15] Originally by: Washell Olivaw Originally by: Rashmika Sky Actually, the only real similarity Sensor Disruption has to Sensor Dampeners is in the name. Sensor Dampeners, of course, reduce locking range or increase locking time. Sensor Disruption removes the ability to target ships, starting at smaller ships and increasing to larger ships. -Rash And if a ship is damped for locking time, it basically becomes impossible to lock small ships. Unless MWD/TP/etc increas the sig radius of the ship. Put enough dampeners on a target and it will take forever to lock even big ships. Again, I still don't see what's new about your idea. The results and the counters are pretty much the same as the exiting dampeners with the dampeners being more versatile. You counter dampeners with sensor boosters. To counter this idea, you¦d need target painters (from friends on your target) or eccm (on your own ship) so it¦s quite different. The other issue with dampeners (target times) is if your enemy has already targeted somebody, your damps don¦t do anything. With the proposed EW module - this ain¦t the case.
Sir Substance Minmatar MagiTech Alliance Inc.	Posted - 2008.10.07 12:16:00 - [16] Originally by: Itukki Originally by: Sir Substance actually, just re-reading post number 8, why would you bother using something that only removes the ability to target SOME ships, when you can remove their ability to target ALL ships. its really not that hard to make even a blackbird that can perma-jam a BS all to hell. ecm is fun and all that - but this EW module is definately different than ECM since when using this module you definately take into count what size ships your fleet is using. If you are all flying BS - than this module might not be such a smart idea whereas ECM would be. If you are all flying small ships than this module would have more benefits. Also ecm are change based whereas this one aint. people dont leave ECM to chance, is the problem, they just strap enough on to make sure it catches every cycles, or almost every cycle, anyway. fun doesn't come into PvP. despite what they tell you PvP is about as fun as mining, its just more exciting. people wont use a module that will prevent them from deploying the big guns. - PvPers always say "GB2WoW". the message is that EVE is hard, and people just need to deal with it. wasn't it funny how when nano's started making it hard for them, that all went out the window?
Rashmika Sky	Posted - 2008.10.08 00:27:00 - [17] 1) Would it be too powerful with fleets of nano-hacs (I am adding to this, "or just cruiser or frigate fleets in general") Let me start off by saying I haven't flown nano, never planned to and so haven't looked into it in very much depth. That said, here is my understanding of nanos and how they might work with Sensor Disruption: Nano-fits use MWDs. Nano pilots tend to pulse the MWD rather than keep it on the entire time, partly due to the heavy cap use of the MWD and partly due to the fact that the turret-based nano ships can't hit effectively at high speeds. While the MWD increases their signature radius while activated, using this module while the MWD was off would prevent them from being targetted at that time. Turning it off while their MWD is active and can't be easily hit anyway, could be a useful tactic for them. The impression I've gotten regarding nano fits is that there aren't many slots left to play around with after fitting for nano, so let me ask if they could afford to fit this module without dropping something important? Other than this, possibly the cap use of this module could be adjusted as needed to make it prohibitively expensive for nano-fits. Personally, I think the "speed rebalancing" nerf to nanos will go through, so I'm not extremely worried about nano-HACs in relation to this idea. I'd be much more worried about non-nano HAC fleets using Sensor Disruption, because their gank/tank capabilities would be higher than that of nanos. 2) Isn't this basically a combination of all current EW? After reading several posts that express such feelings, I do see some ways in which Sensor Disruption parallels some current EW. There are, however, some important differences. Unlike current EW, Sensor Disruption would be useful on unspecialized ships (or at least that would be the goal in balancing Sensor Disruption). This is the main reason why I felt it necessary to have more counters to Sensor Disruption than there are to the other EW, and to have a narrower range of effectiveness than ECM. What I mean by that last part is that it will require a certain number of modules to jam a certain ship. There isn't the chance of fitting one of these on your ship and getting lucky with a jam, like used to occur several years ago when everyone fit ECM on everything. 3) How is it different from damping sensor resolution? It is different from damping sensor resolution because it can break a lock and it is more useful against small ships with high sensor resolutions than sensor dampening is. If you have 3 of these modules, you can keep 3 frigates from targeting cruiser, destroyer or frigate hulls. Sensor Disruption also doesn't increase the amount of time required to target a ship - if you can target it, you will target it at the normal rate. This means that unless a gang were to pile on Sensor Disruption against a battleship fitting ECCM, for example, the battleship would at least be able to target other battleships, whether to attack them or to remote rep. However, it would effectively be jammed with regards to smaller ships.
Rashmika Sky	Posted - 2008.10.08 00:35:00 - [18] 4) Why use it instead of ECM? 5) People don't leave ECM to chance, again, why is this worthwhile compared to ECM? These are basically the same question, the second being a response to the argument that ECM is chance based while Sensor Disruption is not. I felt the latter was a good point. I want to make it clear, that I don't intend for Sensor Disruption to replace ECM (I suspect many people complaining about Falcons and the like would be happy if it did, but that's not my intent). The advantages of Sensor Disruption compared to ECM: - Sensor Disruption does not require a specialized ship to use effectively. I think this is a big deal, it adds a bit of unpredictability to what people will run into or fit, and frees them to fly a greater variety of ships. - It is more useful for small ships than ECM. One Sensor Disruptor on most ships will prevent them from targetting a frigate, for example, without having a counter prepared. In comparison, ECM requires a specialized ship for effective use and has only a chance of jamming many ships. Yes, people fit enough ECM to ensure they jam their target, but if they end up needing two ECM as opposed to using one Sensor Disruptor to get just as good an effect from the point of view of a small-ship fleet, Sensor Disruption would be the better choice. - It is more reliable than ECM. There is not, for example, an issue with running into a gang of Amarr ships when you've fit one of each racial ECM on your ship. There isn't any chance of a bad dice roll getting you blown up. If you fail to jam a target with Sensor Disruption, it's definitely because they were prapared for you. You know that it wasn't a bad roll, so you can move to another target that may not be as strong against Sensor Disruption. I hope these answers help people to realize the niche Sensor Disruption is meant to fill. Thank you for the questions and comments so far, I feel they've helped me to explain Sensor Disruption a bit better, and they've pointed out some potential issues. If anyone has further questions or thoughts on Sensor Disruption, let me know. -Rash

Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.