I’m not hung up on it, just keeping balance by pointing out that the others above had a point. It at least seems disingenuous to categorize works/doesn’t work as works/works ‘less well’.
Personally I believe CCP opened a particularly unpleasant can of worms changing ECM in this way. If I made a change to a live system in this way I’d expect to be looking for a new contract.
Why do you keep going on and on about ECM when you don’t even use it?
Stop whining.
What about adding missile disruption buffs to ECM boats so they have an alternate role that can still work in 1v1? It’s not glamorous, but still.
The ECM change doesn’t work.
So roll it back.
Looks like it’s working fine to me.
Lol. ECM re-balancing… like falcon needs more power and not cpu. Jokers.
ECM takes 4 slots, you need propulsion. calculate how much that additional power grid add. there is actually no other module you could equip that would not be suitable before patch.
We know it. Next time try to listen before you speak. Maybe it should be a part of CSM membership requirements to practice.
I’m always listening. Doesn’t change the fact that the changes are working the way they were supposed to work.
No, you are not, and no, it’s not working; you just keep throwing lies in our faces… like all politicians by the way 
It’s not working? So what you’re telling me is that ECM is doing exactly what it did before the nerf?
Unless that’s what you’re saying, then it’s working.
I don’t usually reply to trolls techzer0 but
Bye Felicia -nd See you next Tuesday
Still salty I put you in your place huh?
Its okay. I hear mild therapy will help you get over it. 
Why the nerf to the standup armor for structures ? isnt enough that it only takes 4 cruisers to destroy a citadel ? You did not even put this change in the patch notes. Back to mocking your playerbase, CCP ?
It’s in the patch notes under Structures and Deployables: https://www.eveonline.com/article/phvxrd/patch-notes-for-eve-online-onslaught
They did a minor revamp of how the timers works that involved changing a bunch of numbers, but the net result is no change for the amount of HP a powered structure has while reinforcing a unpowered structure is now slightly faster.
Indeed. Thanks so much for better ratting ticks. 
Who cares about the few people who use Rooks or Griffins for PVP. Just throw them under the bus, I want my better ratting ticks!
And there’s the thing isn’t it? Nobody is questioining that the changes are working as intended. They’re questioning what was intended.
The whole thing strikes me as a classic example of Agile development, and it’s faults. A quick and easy change, working as intended. Yet providing no solution because the problem wasn’t one that can be quickly and easily fixed.
If ECM was interfering with your ratting ticks before, you were doing it wrong.
Was I? Care to tell me how I am supposed to prevent Guristas from jamming my fighters? 
Joining CFC and rat in Delve or Fountain is not a valid answer.
The entire post was just so eloquent, and so much more streamlined than I typically can do. And I really respect that. But I have to add in a bit from my perspective that you just reminded me of.
There’s a whole host of things that went wrong with the ECM change. Primarily, CCP went for a change without defining what the problem was, or what a successful change would look like. You can’t claim that “someone was frustrated with the game mechanic” as a standalone reason to make a change, because the statement is, by itself, vacuous. There is nothing in that statement that is worthwhile to take under consideration. Being frustrated with a game mechanic is a nebulous personal opinion that’s going to vary wildly between persons and situations.
In a better scenario, we should have been approached with something like, “Hey guys, CCP here. We’ve noticed that out of all EWAR ships available, ECM is used in almost 60% of all combat situations. That seems unbalanced, so we’re going to take steps to tone it back so the other EWARS have more room to be the optimal tool to use”. You could then give a victory condition of “Okay, a month after our changes, and ECM use is now 40% of all EWAR use. It’s still elevated above the others, but within standard deviation. We’re satisfied with this change and will continue to monitor usage in case further adjustments are needed in the future”.
Instead, we have “someone felt bad for being on the receiving end of this, so now you get to feel bad for using it. OP SUCCESS!” We had no clearly defined problem, so now we have no clearly defined victory condition. For Brisc to say (paraphrase) “Op success!”, is odd because we don’t know what the defined goal(s) were. For all we know, there wasn’t a clearly defined goal other than “make it look like we did something”.
Many of those in favor of nerfing ECM also said it didn’t do enough since ECM often hit them from outside their weapons range anyway. So it feels like most people weren’t happy with the change in either direction.
From my perspective, an EWAR type that was already severely lacking just got kicked in the nuts for no reason. The haphazard way this was introduced and the complete lack of attention to the consequences, made me lose a lot of respect for the development team and I unsubscribed because of it. Not because a change was made, mind you, but because the circumstances by which it was implemented was completely reckless and thoughtless.
This means that from my perspective, when Brisc says (paraphrased) “Op success!”, it means that CCP wanted to look like a bunch of fools and lose money. Because that’s what was done, that’s what’s being celebrated, and we’re given no alternative to what victory was supposed to look like.
Thanks, I hate it.
The nebulous reasoning used by CCP to justify having this change (bad feels) also directly refutes this change. One particular fight I was in, where I used ECM, gave me such bad feels about using ECM that I’ve rarely used it since. This was several years ago. I flew a Kitsune with max to all relevant skills, fitted for max jam strength. I had a team of people with in my squad, in everything ranging from Falcons to Blackbirds and Griffins too. And we had one objective - jam out the enemy logi. We couldn’t. They brought the appropriate command skills (provided by out-of-corp person), and SEBOs with ECCM scripts. And the number of successful jams for the entire squad can probably be counted on two hands.
Dozens of ships using four modules each, for almost an hour, with no effect most of the time. Where was CCP for my bad feels that day? The dozen ECM ships might as well have been blowing capacitor into the void of space for all the good the ECM jams were doing. That those jams had zero effect on every failed jam, had zero effect on the course of battle as a whole, and the enemy even stopped shooting at us because we weren’t effecting them anyway.
When any other EWAR could have at least had some sort of impact the entire time, we had nothing. Where’s CCP jumping to my rescue, making it so that even a failed jam does something, anything to a target ship? How’s about reversing the change so that a failed jam prevents the target from jamming anyone but the jammer, but a successful jam means he can’t target anybody at all? That’d be a nice start.
The funny part is that I twice jammed out a Tengu who attacked me. He chased me around and outside the logi rep area and got pounced on. He wasn’t equipped to deal with ECM, so I jammed him out when he scrammed me, and friendly forces took care of the rest. It’s almost like everything used to be working as intended before the ECM change.
Not to get too political here, but in the United States there was a certain United States congressional hearing back in the area of 2007. The presidential candidates at the time were asking the general in charge of the war in Iraq, questions about that war. Barack Obama, with his opening question, asked, “And what does victory look like to you, general?” There were follow-up bits about when we could withdraw troops, and other matters too. But it was that first question that made the news that night. It blew everybody away that nobody ever bothered to define what “victory” was supposed to look like. That it finally got asked rather spooked a lot of formally complacent people.
Today, here in EvE, we have people saying “It was a successful change”. Well, CCP punched themselves in the face, lost subscriptions, made tons more work for themselves in terms of ship and module balancing, without even accomplishing anything worthwhile. Then add in the workload they created for themselves by botching up the ship balance, and we have to ask - is this what success is for them? If this is success, what would failure have looked like?
This now brings me to the second part of Corraidhin’s statement…
This. This precisely. Because the only thing that has any sort of consensus seems to be that the Caldari EWAR probably needs to be completely changed into something else, or reworked from the ground-up (again) if CCP was serious about accomplishing the goal of “better feels, and active piloting”. But it wasn’t done, and it was admitted, because the time and effort needed to enact such a change was beyond the scope of what they could do at the time. So, they instead opted to fail at something because the optics would be they at least tried to address it.
Except they did define the problem.
A bad game experience isn’t quantifiable in numbers the way you want it done, but it’s still a bad game experience and a valid reason for a design change.
Now… This change probably should have included the other Ewars (As in TD, MD, SD, & maybe TP, not the other stuff people like to include as Ewar as well), and been an overall design change in Ewar rather than just hitting ECM, in changing Ewar to be a pure support tool rather than a solo tool also.
But the change has succeeded at removing a huge frustration from ECM, and trying to claim otherwise really is just whining. Yes it’s not a finished product, more needs to be done on the user side of things to make using it a better experience as well, but that doesn’t make this change pointless and failed.