THB, I believe this is probably the best solution at the moment
it still retains the core idea of ECM, and isnt as “oppressive”
2 Likes
ECM - “This change will dramatically increase the feeling of agency and control for the victim. Rather than sitting helplessly while jammed, you will always have the option of fighting back.”
At last - high slots for Bowhead and Freighter pulots sick of being caught on low sec gates. Because we’re getting the option of fighting back! Yay CCP!
1 Like
That’s fair, but I’d still light it off-grid to prevent mishaps. Preferably one system over.
No, that counts as rescuing the dread. The fleet was an afterthought as a response to the attack, not a structural piece of operating the dread.
But nobody’s been talking about roaming carriers. Ratting carriers aren’t ‘roaming around’. In friendly territory, it should be the case that while there is always a danger, that danger is not ever-present and imminent. If you cannot provide a reasonable amount of control over your space… is it yours?
To continue our example, btw? Saratoga took a torpedo from a Japanese I-boat in January of 1942 while steaming south to rendezvous with Enterprise, and limped back to Pearl, alone. She underwent temporary repairs, took on fighter and dive-bomber cover, then set out for San Diego… alone. She made it, too. One of only three US flattops laid down before the war to survive through the end.
ECM - “This change will dramatically increase the feeling of agency and control for the victim. Rather than sitting helplessly while jammed, you will always have the option of fighting back.”
At last - high slots for Bowhead and Freighter pilots, who are sick of being helpless on low sec gates. Because we’re getting the option of fighting back! Yay CCP!
8 Likes
yes but that was after the battle of the coral sea, which left the Japanese devastated in terms of navel projection, and before the battle of midway which destroyed the Japanese ablity to maintain a offensive war
No, it wasn’t. Coral Sea was in May, 5 months later, while Saratoga was undergoing permanent repair and modernization at Bremerton.
opps, got my dates wrong my bad.
idk, i find myself asking my ceo that alot recently
Then you’re asking good questions. Another one to follow it up with might be: ‘If you can’t provide a reasonable amount of security and benefit for your players in sov-null, why are you where you are?’
generally, no overwatch = poor response time, some overwatch = ok response time, MAX overwatch = REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE GOT TO KILL THEM ALL response time. at least thats how the sell it to me -_-
Standing defense fleet = Faxes sitting undocked waiting for anything to need help. Get in fleet, get on comms, tell people you’re tackled and make sure nobody’s anchoring a cyno inhib. If they are, tell the defense fleet that, and light your cyno once you’re in fleet.
overwatch = standing fleet idk if im really allowed to say more
but we’re getting really off topic now. So lets get baack to ECM, Hics and those pesky nully frigs 
So after a day of this thread, and a modicum of sleep, a question of Electronic Counter Measures came to mind:
If the chief complaint is to solve the feeling of helplessness when targeted by ECM (ie players want to still be able to shoot), and we are set to change the mechanics from jamming breaking target locks, then why can’t we have ECM counter other EWAR, and do nothing with regards to breaking locks? (We can leave that for ECM burst, and Lockbreaker bombs, and etc).
You apply ECM to a target, their EWAR effectiveness is shut down, or diminished. ECM would not need to affect guns, thus the target can continue communicating via ammunition transfer. This would allow actual balance to occur. EWAR strength could be reduced, it need not completely shut off a module. Scrams could be made so that they continue to shut off mwd/mjd, but do not provide warp disruption; or vice versa, depending on what CCP decides would balance ECM best in the game.
This would also enable viability of ECM in both large scale fights, as well as small or solo skirmishes.
Now I realize this isn’t quite feedback as much as a counter-offer to the presented idea. I really have no problem if CCP’s design theory is to move ECM towards a Logistics counter; in fact I think it could potentially fix many aspects of game balance. I do have a problem with it being rushed through as a nerf with no counterbalance.
You really don’t have to. I promise, the art of ‘how do you defend your ratters and miners’ is pretty well developed in Delve.
But to pull us back to only one tangent off-topic (heh), the real problems with building a fleet the way actual fleets are built is structural, and economic. When you build a titan, it’s built. There you go. All done. Pay the money to build it, pay the money to fit it out, buy ammo, buy fuel, good to go. You’ll occassionally need fuel and ammo, but that’s it. Maybe nanite paste.
Build a Ford-class supercarrier, and… the expenses are just beginning. Every month, you pay the crew. Maintenance and upkeep has to be performed daily. AVGAS (and occassionally munitions) gets used up in normal operations and readiness/training exercises. When the ship’s in port, it needs docking space… which has to be maintained, just like the ship does.
Remove all of those factors, and you’d see the US Navy fielding a fleet of supercarriers, not just the 10 Nimitz-class ships and Ford. Just like EVE.
2 Likes
ECM is EWAR, ECCM is there to counter EWAR.
Technically Sensor Strength is the counter to ECM, and ECCM only increases Sensor Strength.
Breaking locks on everything but the ship targeting you with ECM isn’t ECM any longer, so I’m not sure what your point is.
1 Like
Thanks for your answer.
Another question to you, the rest of CSM and CCP:
If the changes are really made with the HICs (which will probably make many, if not all, Wormholers angry), on what time scale can replacement be expected? Weeks, months, years or is the replacement one of the announcements that will never be implemented?
2 Likes
Is the ECM change to support future micro transactions?Can’t have your big buyers spend few thousand $$ and feel helpless.Because it’s been 15years now and you never dared voice against cancer ecm that’s been going on such as sabre+falcon.
Perhaps a more fun change would’ve been on successful jam you reduce enemy ship target locks to 1
Of course you have to understand the real motivation.
Whilst the 500mn Hic at a gatecamp is clearly absurdly broken, I seriously doubt that the entire GSM was so incensed they put all their efforts into getting this change rammed through.
Of course, destroying wormhole space by neutering their ability to roll holes AND keep their fleet together, would have the fortunate side effect of making their ratting space so much safer…
And with the handy combat interceptor nerf, they don’t need to worry about their excavator drones being shot now, do they?
And CCP fell for it. Handy having a professional manipulator on the team isn’t it?
Have you wised up and started to get angry yet CCP? You were set up! It is Not a nice feeling being treated as gullible fools is it?
6 Likes
The counter is to fit ECM counter modules that boost your sensor strength. Even if a jam does manage to land (at a vastly lower success rate with even one such module) it is unlikley to land again and you can successfully relock and re-engage the ship who jammed you. This is especially true with t2 ships, faction ships, and battleships, who’s sensor strength is inordinately high, far higher than even a fully skilled ECM pilot can reach with a ship optimised solely for jam strength through lows and rigs, which gets you to maybe 23 jam strength with heat in a Widow. And this is before plugging in a sensor booster with an ECCM script which with a t2 module effectively doubles your sensor strength for the price of a single mid, and makes jamming you an exercise in frustrating futility.
I just plugged one into my bomber and even without maxed skills, a scripted sensor booster gets me to 47.75 gravimetric sensor strength, and heating it takes me to 51.25. Trying to jam that out reliably would be like pulling teeth, and this is a tech 2 frigate.
There are far better ways to handle this. If you really, really want to be accurate, then have the game treat a jam landing on a fighter squadron as only affecting a portion of the squadron and thereby lowering its DPS by the number of affected fighters instead of completely negating it.
Frankly, this entire change is because people flat out refuse to plug in a sensor booster when they are concerned about meeting an EWAR ship. It is utterly pointless.
4 Likes