It’s not a cheat or an exploit. It was stated almost ten years ago that CCP was 100% ok with using bubbles like that.
I’m not calling them out on that because that’s not the point. I don’t want specifics on how they’re going to buff ECM ships because they probably don’t need a buff, and if they needed one, it would only be in response to a poorly thought-out nerf about to happen. It’s akin to saying, “I don’t need to tell the pizzaria no pepperoni because I’m not getting a pizza from them, I’m getting a sandwich at the place next door”. Saying that I can take the pepperoni off if I don’t want them is irrelevant because I’m not interested in the pizza pie in the first place, making the second point entirely moot.
This also skips over the part where ECM boats would be savagely nerfed, with only a vague promise of a balance pass in the future (timely balance passes are not this company’s forte). In the meantime, an entire line and critical combat support line are nerfed. If the buff is actually going to be real and forthcoming, why not do both at the same time so we do not have a disparate time where the nerfs are savaging gameplay with nothing to make up for it?
So yes I am calling them out on the right thing and it’s entirely valid. Also you can’t throw around terms like “whine” like they’re nothing, or else they become nothing. I, and dozens of others in this thread, already detailed how we think it’s a bad change. That’s constructive criticism, not whining. Whining is more like, “well what am I going to do with these 42 rooks I stockpiled now?!”
1 Like
Please link where CCP said it was okay to use that exploit.
Wormholes didn’t exist 10 years ago.
Oh god. I just realized that damps will be even be more useful than ECM after this. Everyone was comfortable with damps being meh and now 4 range damps on a force recon will be like 8 times more effective than a Falcon with ECMs.
1 Like
Cart/horse. It’s only an exploit when CCP declares it to be so. And if it is so, then it’s not okay to use. If it is okay to use, it was never an exploit.
Honestly I don’t like that, because there’s one or two things in this game I feel are exploits but aren’t, as per CCP’s ruling that it’s only an exploit if they declare it to be so.
On the larger point of ECM… I had a thought.
ECM is unique among the EWAR options in EVE not only because of its unreliability, but because of its nature. ECM’s a shutdown move. That’s what it is. That’s what it’s supposed to be. It’s Electronic Countermeasures. It’s ‘you can’t lock your target’ because once you lock your target, screwing with your ability to apply damage is something else’s job.
And ‘something else’ often applies most effectively at close range. Points, Scrams, Webs… usually short-range. Tracking Disruptors’ effectiveness diminishes the farther the victim ship is from its target (because 1 radian of arc takes longer to cross, the further out you get). Paints have falloff. Missile Disruptors stay about the same, and Sensor Damps have a falloff, but if you’re trying to keep someone from shooting you by reducing their targeting range, being farther away is still a net positive.
So what if ECM inverts that model?
Whati f there was an ECM revamp that works as, well, ECM? Weapons fire becomes less accurate with range. Targeting other systems gets less accurate with range. In effect, anything with falloff range has its falloff reduced. Not just weapons. Everything. Turrets. Paints, Sensor Damps, Weapon Disruptors, Remote Reps, RSebos… all of it. It counters your electronics. All of it, at once. Not by a huge degree, but it gets all of it. Sure, it might seem like it makes Tracking Disruptors useless, but they affect Optimal, not Falloff.
It might create some really interesting interplay, without making the ECM ships useless, and without making them completely ineffective (which the current plans do, in any situation where the target is shooting back at the jammer).
The hell are you smoking, a widow in any situation will ever solo a carrier (unless it’s shit fit) and carriers can already defend themselves if they dock and relaunch fighters, alpha the ship closest to them and redock. It’s called hit and recall.
Also I’m not to sure how this effects FW @Sonic_Mulder, but in my time as a thrid party, I was more likely to face a malus or keres than a navy Griffin. I certainly don’t think it’s a I win button as well
2 Likes
Wouldn’t it then be competing with damps? And probably less effectively than damps. Since both would be about keeping range.
Well beyond the fact that I’m not gonna pour through thousands of twitter posts from CCP devs cause it’s a waste of my time. They stated in the dev blog for this thread that they think they might add a module to add a way to roll holes in the same way. If you don’t think that they are explicitly allowing it I don’t know if your really qualified to argue anything to anyone.
Also wormholes were introduced in 2009 hence the “almost ten years ago.”
1 Like
You clearly don’t understand what CCP is objecting to in the 500MN HICs. It’s not hole-rolling. It’s using the timing of the bubble and MWD interaction to suddenly produce a massive, temporary jump in agility and speed to tackle someone you aren’t even targeting. They’ve repeatedly promised wormholers that when they fix that part of the problem, they’d do it without screwing over the hole-rolling use for these ships.
That’s what the j-space residents, and even null-seccers like me, are displeased about: As recently as this year’s FanFest, CCP devs told people to their face ‘we promise, we won’t screw you on this’… and now those people feel like they were lied to.
4 Likes
You have no proof of this.
That is a lot of words for “never happened”
You are the hero that all EVE based comment sections deserve. Especially on imperium news.
1 Like
Try and dock when you are tackled in deadspace…
It’s literally stated right in the dev blog. Seriously, reading isn’t hard.
5 Likes
For the last 10 years my favorit ships for solo-pvp have been Frigates with 1MN AB and for Nullsec this are the Combat Ceptors. Survivability while roaming around will be greatly decreased with the nullification nerf.
While I understand that Claw-Fleets may need a round of nerf-batting I’d rather would like to see a more nuanced solution:
Combat Ceptors lose their Nullification Ability while they have an Active-Aggression-Timer (the one that also prevents you from using a gate)
This would preserve their ability to act as travel-ceptors and keep them viable in with an AB setup.
I understand that the nerf for Clawfleets would not be as strong as planned.
2 Likes
You dock your fighters and relaunch them breaking the lock and giving you about 5 seconds to alpha any ship close to you. Sorry I didn’t spell it out for you
2 Likes
Which damps? Tracking damps? Like I said, it affects a different thing, and some weapons and other systems are long optimal, short falloff, while others are short optimal, long falloff.
Look at what a TD does to an arty-ceptor like the Stiletto or Ares: Quake is 3.75km + 10.9. TD should be most effective in close, but if you’re in tackle range, you’re already past optimal, and don’t much care. Cut that falloff in half, though, and suddenly switching to a lower-damage ammo is a lot more important. It’s not necessarily competition to a TD… more like a complimentary module.
Missiles don’t have falloff.
Sensor damps? It doesn’t touch your targeting range. Targeting doesn’t have falloff.
Armor reps only suffer minor effects. Most of their range is in optimal. Shield reps, though… halved.
You’re right, I have no proof that you don’t understand. I only have evidence like you claiming wormholers are exploiting with the hole-rolling usage while CCP clearly stated:
Now, if you’re saying I don’t have any proof of what behavior CCP is objecting to… uhm… ^^^^?
2 Likes
Sensor Damps.
Sensor Damps shut down a targets ability to project through lack of lock.
Your proposal shuts down a targets ability to project through lack of fall off.
One of these is almost certainly going to end up objectively better than the other. Both affect the ability of a target to fight at long range.
Also why would Caldari Ewar impact hard on Shield and not Armour, when their primary enemies use armour?
The current CCP proposal actually feels very Caldari, that the ECM pilot is offering themselves up to save someone else in the team. Very ‘We are the corp, not individuals’
Just tighten them if they are loose.