Your’e quite right, I already stated that ECM has several special case nerfs already built into it. You would use that as an argument of “okay, it has several nerfs, so let’s do one more?”
Further afterthoughts on Caldari 'ceptors.
.
The Raptor is the fastest to align, & is tanky. It has the least blap-slots.
The Crow is a missile-boat, and is slower to align. It has the most blap-slots.
So… ( as a suggestion ).
Leave the Raptor as is. She purdy.
Take away the Crow’s Interdiction Doo-dah, & give it a speed buff. Make it a proper Combat Ship worth buying.
Combat 'Ceptors are pointless with no ‘super-power’. You might as well fly an Assault Frigate. So half our 'Ceptors will just collect dust without some kind of ‘fix’. A speed-buff, for trying to chase down Dramiels etc, would make a Combat 'Ceptor actually worth buying.
I use my Crow as a Taxi at present, as I haven’t decided on a way to blow it up yet. It does need work.
Thank you thank you. I am available for weddings, birthdays, & bar mitzvahs 
.
You never know, it might work 
1 Like
You were replying to me. I was addressing your mockery of Brisc’s statement, and referring to Brisc’s statement and the point he—Brisc—was replying to. Are you having trouble keeping up?
This is not a counterplay. A counterplay is a play someone can enact in order to counter. The fact that ECM is unreliable is not in any way something the target can rely on or induce. You are stuck being unable to fight back until RNJesus saves you.
You mean those nerfs that the Dev diary explicitly said they were looking at removing or reducing?
Reading is hard I know.
1 Like
It is what he implied. Special pleading, incredulous reaction at the idea of using existing counter tools at disposal, etc. Framing and context are every bit as important as actual words spoken, which is why clickbaiting titles and propaganda exist. I won’t derail this thread with examples but this isn’t rocket science either. And arguing dubious semantics of “Oh he didn’t exactly say that, he only merely directly implied it” is not arguing in good faith either.
I took issue with the totality of his statement in context of this thread and discussion, and the implied themes in what he said in regards to pilot behavior, tools, and other options available. His entire statement was toxic.
A non bonuses dps ship is nearly never going to counter a ECM ship by fitting a sebo or similar counter play module, it’s a matter of engagement profile, take for example a Firetail, which has a nice mid selection. Only in specific cases where you expect to fight ECM would you fill that open mid slot with a counterplay module, favoring perhaps an additional web because of the engagement profile it provides. I personally don’t try to directly counter fit every target I engage, it’s rather unreasonable to do so especially in situations where you are roaming and looking for targets and taking many different fights in many different systems.
While I agree that in logistics situations a fitting like that is very reasonable. In nearly any other ship you might rather have another web, or a cap injector or even shield tank. The fleet logistics and fleet theater is a fair point and it is this way because the roles are broken up and appropriated to different ships. There is no pressure on a fleet ship to fit tackle mids, or as many tank mids, and sometimes it’s not necessary to fit a cap injector because you have support to help you with those short comings. When a primary role is not filled in the fleet I would say the chances of you fitting a sebo or ECCM become smaller.
It’s not the counter play we are generally talking about when it comes to ECM. The kind of thing we are worried about is the cloaky falcon rendering a 1v1 essentially an auto loss for the hapless prey. With no positional or piloting being able to mitigate the play.
No, it’s what you read into his statement. He was responding to a very specific assertion with a very simple point.
Except that you ignored the context in which his statement was made. Look again: The line you mocked is his ‘entire statement’. I’m not saying ‘he didn’t say exactly that’, I’m saying 'he said exactly this and this is not what you claim he is saying.
This ‘Balance Pass’ is amazing in it’s complete lack of forethought. Let me see if I got this all down:
-
We’re going to nerf the hell out of ECM since nobody likes getting out played by an ECM ship, we really didn’t think about ECM bursts, or Structures, or the fact that ECM ships got nerfed years ago to have no tank since ECM was their tank, so we’ll just leave all that stuff broken until we figure out what to do ‘soon’.
-
We’re seriously nerfing the players that live in wormholes and their ability to create PvP content because they were using an exploit in our poor game design that’s existed for years. But once we can think up a suitable solution, we’ll implement it ‘soon’.
-
We’re nerfing combat interceptors because supercap response fleets can’t stop them, we realize players really won’t have any reason to use them since other ships can do everything they will be able to do (usually better), and in fact we really don’t have any plans to make them actually have any role at all…
-
Oh yes, we really want to nerf Fax’s, but we don’t have any idea how to do it.
Did I pretty much get the highlights of the October balance pass? Did you actually expect people (other than null-bears) to applaud this?
6 Likes
I don’t care.
ECM is op and soon it won’t be.
Removing the HIC exploit is a step in the right direction. Use some rolling megas like the rest of the non-cheaters. Not my problem a wormhole cheat is getting fixed.
There are people in here whining about travel cepters…if you don’t like that the combat cepters were nerfed you should EVEmail the Goon bot cartel CSM members.
1 Like
Perhaps an interesting change might be to create a short range ewar that jams at a decreasing efficiency per cycle or is on some type of cool down, effectively functioning like a short stun. For those ewar ships that are also interested in combat capable activities. I would say under 5km. and on a 4-5 second cool down. or landing no more than 3 jam cycles in a row.
8.4k, 8.1k, 8k, 7.7k Those are all the force recons. (Obviously with my current +shield/armour skills)
Guess which ship is the falcon.
1 Like
If your worried about a cloaky falcon catching a explorer or some other hapless frig, your worrying about the wrong thing. This change is a literal buff to carriers where falcons and widows are primarily used. Balancing for 1v1 is stupid in most regards especially since a “cloaky falcon” is going to pick his prey.
I won’t fault you for your ignorance here, I’ll just presume that you haven’t been with the game long enough to call shenanigans at vague non-committal statements issued by a company known for reneging and often completely forgetting them. There’s already been a lot of chatter about that exact problem here in this thread, and countless others, so you don’t have to take my word for it that those vague, non-committal statements amount to nothing. They neither directly addressed any specific thing I detailed, nor did they provide a timeframe for it to happen.
Don’t worry. You’ll be well acquainted with the whole “wait didn’t they say five years ago…” thing once you’ve been around long enough. Until then, just hang on for dear life.
Like I said, it’s a difference of perception of the mechanic, and one I thought we could simply agree to disagree on. But I’ll again assert that this is made up for by the fact that failed rolls do not effect the victim negatively in any way. Other ewars are 100% reliable. So you have perfect EWAR you can sometimes pilot to counter (but probably not often and effectively in real combat situations, let’s be honest about that), and you have EWAR that is unreliable but you can’t pilot to counter.
To further iterate on that bit about piloting…often (not always) your solution to other EWAR types is designed to make you even more vulnerable. If you rework your transversal to mitigate a tracking disruptor, it’s also likely the enemy has better transversal on you too, because your movements that can positively effect your hitting chance are quite limited and probably also help them. Also, sensor dampening to draw you in closer is the exact strategy of blaster boats, which coincidentally is from the same race that fields the damps to begin with. And such directed movements can often draw you away from helpful allies providing other cover fire or logi support.
I get that there’s sometimes a case that you can pilot your way out of being damped or disrupted, but let’s not pretend it’s just a catch-all solution either. Sometimes, you’re just damped and you can’t do much about it. But hey if you fit that sebo, you get better resolution/lock range/sensor strength than your counterparts under the same treatment.
1 Like
Oh I’ve been around long enough.
But you aren’t calling them out on that. You are whining that ‘ECM has negatives and doesn’t need more’
If you want specifics on how they are going to buff ECM ships, by all means, I’m keen to see some hard numbers also put forward.
But call them out on the right thing or your entire argument turns into a whine and becomes invalid.
Well on the topic of the solo ECM ship. This “fix” will really just reverse the situation in most cases. Cause ECM ships have less DPS and tank so if you can’t break your targets locks you are better off bringing any other ship of the same class every single time cause the ECM literally does nothing of value.
2 Likes
Ceptors:
Good. It sucked to have only BFGs and smartbombs to counter that. It also sucked to burn in mentioned countermeasures. CCP should still take a look at the Caldari ones…
ECM: Good, if it works. At least now a carrier can do anything on its own when it gets attacked. And now you can tank stuff like a widow. At least mor in a useful fashion.
HICs: Finally.
Damavik: At least now its more useful.
All in all not to bad.
Are you daft? Rolling megas only work until the hole is nearly collapsed then you have to swap to HICs or run the not small risk of getting your battleship and pilot trapped on the other side of the collapsed hole.
I am not worried about it, I don’t think the change is too unreasonable, I realize the change is going to eliminate counter-play to carriers. This concerns me, as it is one of the things I do regularly.
I think where they are coming from is the ability for jams as they stand to be used as “I win” buttons in engagements that might otherwise be interesting. I am not suggesting that they balance around it. The point is that there is not much a target can do via piloting, or fitting (at least if you are fitting reasonably for a wide selection of engagements) vs ECM. With any other ewar system there are measures you can take to avoid said ewar from being “as effective” and I think that is what this balance pass is attempting to address.
In the small gang theater the ECM ship is used to discourage or eliminate the will to continue fighting, it’s common for example for FW groups to bring ECM to eliminate the ability of MWD ships to target and eliminate fast tackle, essentially becoming a 100km sphere of non engagement. Since range or piloting isn’t a factor here the option becomes leave grid or get tackled and die.
Nope. I don’t cheat either.
Using an exploit because it makes things easier isn’t new.
This change very drastically effects solo ecm ships like the Griffin Navy, perhaps an oversight and a clear concern.
Bring in the damps
2 Likes