so your idea is to fix all the things that were just broken with this patch? but def not reverting the patch? your idea of ‘meeting in the middle’ is YOU getting what YOU want, and then us paying you for it with a ‘thank you’.
OK. Honestly, I tried.
Your comment about it being a “pre-fix” and not a “post fix” proves my point… the “fix” wasn’t a fix in the first place and didn’t address both underlying concerns; it only addressed one.
In any case, I’ll live.
RIP Falcon (at least as far as I use it)
FDo7
It was a fix, it just wasn’t a fix that benefited all of the players out there who complain that ECM is overpowered and frustrating, and they hate the mechanic.
You’ve never acknowledged the underlying concern about an RNG based mechanic that completely locks down the target and is viewed as frustrating an OP by a large number of players. You used it to your benefit, and that’s fine, but try putting yourself in the shoes of the guy you were fighting.
again, ecm does nothing to ‘lock down a target’. it simply prevents a person from activating modules that require a target lock. nothing else. I really wish you would stop lying to yourself (and us) about what ecm Does and Doesn’t do. tho I imagine you cant help yourself.
1v1 balanced fight unless they are a total nerd
1v2 maybe have chance - If I’m lucky and if I chose 2 ecm I may be able to get away
1 v more - I’m not on dscan - so I may have a chance to opt out but if they are cloaky or recon and not nerds I’ll probably die in a ball of flame.
AND
Why didn’t you quote the parts of my post about not being able to buff for something that has different levels of effectiveness against different ships
- You can’t buff EHP different amounts for different ships dealing you damage - a 50% vs frigate / 30% vs cruiser.
Because I wanted to ask you a question specifically about your playstyle.
The rest I read and digested and will pass it on.
@Brisc_Rubal
‘it was a fix’ - No it wasn’t. I was a change and yes, it impacted other players but your own argument about people moaning against it nullifies your rationale against those moaning for it.
‘you never addressed the rng…’ because I never propose to change it nor would changing it address those against ECM’s concerns. Their concern isn’t how often it lands, it’s that it lands at all and by your own admission, the lack of agency when locked.
‘you used it as a benefit’ - no I didn’t and I did put myself in the shoes of the target. I make no secret I am not happy with the change but I don’t just say it should revert and offered options and welcomed discussion for targets to counter.
I get the impression (and this is not a personal attack) that you are either neutral to this change and have been convinced by CCP this is what’s happening and to deal with it or that you have skin in the game and are unwilling to listen to potential, neutral suggestions to appease both sides…
… either way, I am fighting a losing battle and in the words of Duncan Bannatyne: ‘I’m out’
Edit = spelling. Fuq me I’m ■■■■
OK - fair enough
I have been know to fly a falcon as cover for structure bashing - in cases were someone turns up to defend (not very often) - I don’t like using it unless its needed as you can’t fight with it.
I sit at long range and jam to allow escape (most wouldn’t launch an attack against us if they don’t have a chance to win so the odds are you have to go for the save rather than the fight)
I fit with range rigs,
Lows - 1 Reinforced Bulkhead to prevent an alpha , DC2, ecm amp
Mids prop, ASB + max ecm rainbow
High - probe launcher, auto target for the +3
and rockets because they kill drone the fastest
I get primaried a lot and can hold off long enough to help the gang (mostly thru ecm )b ut its the frigates that burn out to get me that force me off grid or kill most
To be honest this change makes the force recon a weaker jammer because of the need for more tank.
The new fit would have a lot less ecm modules and add range damps with a little more tank. At range this update does not change its role a lot (as we use it) - Tho we would need 2 falcons on over watch cover because of the loss of all those ECM module.
EDIT : And the damps are a necessity else the taunt becomes a gifted aimbot
I do have a widow but it only gets used defensively as no point to a cyno gang in wormholes - With this update it will never leave the hanger and should probably be exempt from it else it will just be sold off.
@Brisc_Rubal
CCP are asking for feeback on the ECM and they are getting it – it is just not what CCP/you want to hear.
Basically, the current ECM change removes the Caldari EWAR ships as ships for solo players as effective EWAR platforms – i.e. rendering the EWAR ships of the faction that already only has only one form of EWAR useless for solo players. And while this may be balance to you it is not to me, sorry.
In the various threads there have been plenty of suggestions of how ECM could be balanced without ruining ECM for solo players while still leaving the jammed ships with some options to counter the jams. Also, the randomness of jams apply to both sides as does the “feeling bad” when the other side wins the roll. Again, the current ECM change does not address this - it only focuses on the jammed party.
While buffs to the EWAR ships may increase survivability, solo players will still not have any reason to use them as the other ships will be better options for other activities, e.g. combat ships will and should be better for combat than buffed EWAR ships.
While I am definitely not against balance of ECM, I consider ECM broken until the Caldari EWAR ships are made viable EWAR platforms again for solo players as well (and not just gangs/fleets), period.
CCP can go different ways to fix this, either by adjusting the current ECM mechanic so that jamming still actually jams the targeted ship – at least breaking the lock – (e.g. by changing cycle times, ranges of optimal/falloff, reducing the period of jamming, ECM/ECCM strength), or that the jammed ship has some serious penalties when attacking or locking the jammed ship (e.g. reduced effective range of the weapons/modules, or the jamming ship has a significantly reduced signature radius in relation to the jammed ship – there is counter play to both suggestions: Long range ammo, sensor boosters, target painters).
Alternatively, CCP could introduce a second EWAR type to the Caldari faction and bringing them on par with the other main factions – rather than severely nerfing ECM as is the case with the current ECM change.
Edit: Or you could remove the randomness of ECM entirely by saying jams will always break the lock and jam for a certain amount of time and running a sensor booster with an ECCM script will always allow you to lock through the jams although ECM will still break the lock so the jammed ship will have to re-lock the target - if this is coupled with some of the adjustments mentioned with the above you would have a more predictable behavior (but of course the jammed ship will have to fit a sensor booster). However, I do not think that CCP will go this way.
I like that edit, there at the end.^^
collectively, there have been at least a dozen + alternatives suggested/proposed to whats been handed to us, and I dare say a Majority of them would b better than this ‘give us feedback on all the things we just broke, so we can break those things further ‘fix’’.
1 Like
I have honestly never cared one way or the other about ECM. Sure, I’ve had it used against me and I used to fly a Widow in BLOPs (lost it, so I know it’s a crap shoot sometimes), but it’s not something I feel strongly about. I was convinced by some of the other CSM members as well as hearing complaints from folks that it needed fixing, and that’s why I supported the changes.
Which is fine.
What I am saying is the “fix” is not balanced and the attitude of “this is what’s happened, now let’s fix that” is not the way to fix anything.
Look… I’ll live with the changes, even if I anticipate never using the Falcon and coming to terms with the fact the SP is lost… it just doesn’t leave a nice taste in the mouth of an 11 year old player… that’s all.
Enjoy the “fix” o7
Ahem… #ssjghost4csm2019 (lol)
4 Likes
Quite simply I believe this is a good thing.
Ewar should never have been a solo thing, it should always have been a support thing. The fall out from this change is very like the t3c fallout. People got too used to a tool being too powerful. its not like anyone complains logi ships are bad to solo with.
I’d go a step further and do the same for damps and disruptors though. They work for your target vs anything else. But not to protect yourself. That stops ecm being the stepchild ewar and makes them all the same support tools.
Not sure it makes them the same as other EWAR…
“But not to protect yourself.”
Webs = slow them down so you can out-pace and warp off.
Damps = reduce range so can’t lock/scram and warp off.
Neuts =Shut off MWD so can out-pace and warp off.
If anything, the ECM is the only one (now) out of sync with regard to your argument.
With regard to your argument, for the same to apply:
Webs would have to slow down ships except those to which webs were applied.
Damps would have to reduce lock range except on those to which damps were applied.
Neuts would have to drain cap except to those to which neuts were applied.
#logic
Edit = … ergh, you know by now…
Webs and neuts are not part of the ewar range.
Edit. And yes, I am suggesting damps should only affect lock range vs other people. I.e. make them into the same kind of support tool. Not a 1v1 tool. Not everything needs to be 1v1 usable.
Um… but if damps don’t work against ships they are used against, what’s the poi…
actually, ■■■■ it.
Not your fault mate and I’m not out to troll… but this is precisely the point I have been trying to make.
Edit: I can see a few typing and I get the point… it only doesnt work against the ship applying the damps but answer me this (and use damps specifically), why, THE ■■■■ would that actually be a thing or make any sense?
@Nevyn_Auscent
While I do not agree with you on ECM, making the same changes to damps and disruptors this would certainly make the changes to ECM more balanced.
However, I would like to see a second type of Caldari EWAR. If you look at the recon of the non-Caldari empires their recons have bonuses to two types of EWAR - Minmatar: Target painter+webbing, Gallente: Damps+warp scrambling/disruption, and Amarr: Cap warfare+weapon disruption.
Currently, Caldari ships are only ECM bonused. A second EWAR type would be more balanced.
Any way, those are just my thoughts.
Edit: I just checked - neuts, scramblers/disruptors, and webs (including grapplers) are listed in the electronic warfare category in the market window (whether you want to define them as EWAR is another matter 
)
I was going to leave that on account of A) I’m not here to score points and B) it matters not, may arguments against ECM don’t work when applied to literally any other module nor does it makes any sense.
Edit = In my eyes, Webs, Paints, Damps, Neuts, NOS, Jams, Disruptor’s (or any other form of offensive mod that doesn’t apply dps) is EWAR… with the exception of MAYBE disruptors and scrams because they are a sub-set on their own… but still a sub-set of EWAR…
Shouldn’t this been thought trough BEFORE the changes which cripples those ships ?
This gives worst possible message: "We have no clue how to fix things… "
Look at those ships its not a rocket science:
- close to none offensive power
- bad defensive capability (if fitted for ECM)
- chance based ECM
- no secondary ECM bonus
- inability to affect single target
- racial ECM modules
So for a start you can rework ECM into non chance based mechanics, which does not require 4 different modules to be effective against whole spectrum of ships, without negative effects like perma jam. (there has ben some pretty good suggestions in this thread)
Then you can add some secondary ECM bonus/ability.
Or freeing lowslots by removing SDAs and boosting strength of ECM modules and make them scriptable (racial+burs).
@SsjGhost
Personally, I would count webs, warp scramblers/disruptors, damps, neuts/nosferatus, weapon disruptors, jammers etc. as part of EWAR since the recon ships get bonuses for these modules and they are listed under “electronic warfare” in the market window in EVE.
1 Like