Dev Blog: October Balance Pass!

The whole problem is that the “fix” really destroys the value of a Griffin with a dozen ships (under the proposed fix, every time the Griffin isn’t warping to a target at range, it’s most likely to die if it DOES get a jam off, rendering it a suicide ship), while mostly preserving it in a fleet of 100 (where jamming out a ship is often much less relevant).

Forget other MMOs, because, well, EVE isn’t played like other MMOs. There are other, better fixes, such as shortening the cycle time, having the jam have a shorter effect timer than the module cycle, or disabling autocycling of ECM modules (which means the ECM pilot needs to be on the ball).

1 Like

I am really upset over these Damavik changes. With over 60 Killmarks and almost 100 kills on my first and only Damavik it is in a great spot, Taking away a low to add a mid is just asinine. You wan’t to make it more cookie cutter without giving it more power to actually do just that, Utilizing all its slots it just does not have the power to go Dual rep effectively with only 3 low’s and it Could not handle a cap booster/battery with AB or MWD fit. This reduces its capabilities in my opinion. If it had a NOS bonus as well as a neut bonus, and gained more power then it could fit in with 3 mids and 3 lows (Which i still think 3 lows is too little). It has unbelievable tracking making a web almost pointless in most situations except for some range control, which i feel control already comes from the two utility highs.

It’s in a perfect spot as it is, Please don’t make this change. If anything Just flat out giving it a Mid without taking away a Low would be effective enough. It can’t afford to lose a low slot.

4 Likes

To bad, now you will see even less taranis and crusaders around (not like you see any crusaders in the first place really).
If you are so eager to remove the one thing those intys actually have going for themselfs, can you please remove the ability to have xxx ammount of large bubbles around a gate, rather then just placing one large one?
And even better, how about fixing those ships i mentioned as they are rather crap at the moment, and will be massive shite after the change.

7 Likes

Im impressed, you kinda summed up the issues in one go.
Well almost at least, because even tho i hate them and think they are cancer, I do belive its retarded to let someone target you back when they are jammed…

2 Likes

I agree that if this ship gets a mid, it also needs to keep it’s lows with a slight increase in fitting for PG and CPU to enable them to be used.

The loss of a low whilst gaining a mid, doesn’t actually improve the ship, in fact it weakens it’s abilities overall, and certainly won’t make it more desirable.

The same applies to the Vedmak but to a SLIGHTLY lesser degree. It is too expensive for what it brings.

The Leshak is pretty decent, and gets better as more experience in fitting it comes into play.

1 Like

Wow, this ECM change is not well thought out at all… You just need 2 ECM ships now to coordinate. Ship names: ECM-1, ECM-2.

  • ECM-1 Jams 3 ships, which lose all targets but ECM-1
  • ECM-2 Jams 3 ships, which lose all targets but ECM-2
  • Jam modules finish cycling on both ECM ships
  • ECM-1 switches targets, making ships trying to lock ECM-2 fail, and they can only try to lock ECM-1
  • ECM-2 switches targets, making ships trying to lock ECM-1 fail, and they can only try to lock ECM-2
  • Repeat

Add add a Damp and you have them permanently unable to lock anyone… Problem NOT solved…
In fact, as the DevBlog suggests, increasing the jam chance to compensate will only make the problem worse…

Why not just give ECM a very high strength and a cool-down timer or something? Maybe even put them in high slots.

3 Likes

Not sure you realise this Verone, since its quite a while since you actually played the game, but the 0,0 blocks only wants to protect their own asses, hence you should do the opposite of what the CSM asks you every time, at least if you want to actually improve the game rather then protecting their bots even further.

5 Likes

I agree with the CSM’s stance on nullification and the issue presented here with your proposed solution @Rikki_Bigg. I do not believe that weapons timers are a valid solution as this does not really address the issue and leaves the arti-nully-interceptor fleet very much viable with little change in how one would currently use it. I still firmly believe reducing hardpoints on recon interceptors or some similar balance change is required to stomp out the unengaging gameplay promoted by arti-nully-interceptor doctrines.

Why should placating a group of people abusing unintended mechanics in a way that violates CCP’s desire to have gameplay where players cannot simply isolate themselves from any external threats be of priority here?

Wrong. ECCM is there to counter ECM. It’s even in the name.
What he’s suggesting is Off Topic so deserves its own thread for discussion.

What happens if I’m jammed by more than one ship at a time?

You will able to target any ship that is currently jamming you.

Yeah, what he’s talking about is forcing the target to keep changing who their damage is applying to, giving the jammers a chance to repair while they’re not targeted.

In my example, only one ship is ECMing you at a time… They are just switching so that you lose lock on the other ECM ship, and have to relock a new one, constantly.

@Brisc_Rubal

This is exactly right in one way. The counter to ECM is ECCM, both local and remote, and like other forms of denial, drones. Perhaps though, it should be possible to assign targets to your drones based on THEIR targeting abilties, not your own. So, you could target something in the overview and tell your drones to attack it without actually having to lock the target yourself. You can broadcast targets to fleetmates, why not to your drones?

The entire concept of ECM, as currently implemented, is horrid. It’s amazing in the books and movies, but not so much in this game. ECM is an all-or-nothing lottery system right now. The proposed changes don’t really change that. Instead of making a change now that will have to be reverted when the real fix comes, creating multiple opportunities for code regression, leave what’s there and flesh out a proper solution.

I’ve never stopped to look during the action, and never thought to test it outside of fights, but are the other EWAR types like damps and TP all-or-nothing as well, or do they scale their “damages” on the targets based on various factors? For example, if I’m past optimal but within fall-off, could my 30% target range damps maybe only apply 10% effect instead of the full 30%? Or if I make a successful Damp attack roll, do I inflict the full 30% regardless of anything else?

If the other EWAR types scale their “damage”, then it makes my point even stronger for having ECM attack the number of targets instead of the ability to target (and if they don’t, then that should also be implemented, ASAP). The degree that you succeed with an ECM attack can determine the number of max targets you affect, perhaps only 1, perhaps 5 or more for a successful targeted structure ECM attack.

Also, with the talk of ECM moving to high slots, why not shuffle all EWAR? If you are attacking your target’s offensive (high slot) capabilities, you use high slot modules (ECM, damps, weapon disruptors). If you are attacking your target’s energy or propulsion systems, you use mid-slot modules like now (scrams, webs, neuts). If you are attacking your target’s defensive capabilities, you use low slot modules (target painters).

While thinking about all of that, I realized target painters have no counter: you have no module that will specifically reduce your sig radius, though there are lots of them that will increase it. There is also no counter to having your MWD/MJD warp scrammed: even if you have sufficient stabs to warp off, you still can’t activate your MJD/MWD.

ECM – ECCM, local and remote
Damps – sensor boosters, local and remote
Weapon disruptors – tracking computers/enhancers, local only
Neuts/Nos – cap boosters/cap batteries/general cap mods, local and remote
Webs – AB and MWD, local only
Warp Scrams/Disruptors – warp stabs, local only (MWD scram has no counter)
Painters – no counters

If you’re going to do this, go all the way.

I concur that using a 60 second weapons timer as a supression flag might not do enough; it was just the first example that came to mind, since it prevents taking a gate/docking.

Do you feel the same way if instead we use the Capsuleer Log-Off Timer (ie 15 min pvp timer) as the supression flag?

No, because it doesn’t stomp the doctrine viability out completely.

I disagree with removing interdiction nullification from combat interceptors. Whatever. Null sec gets buffed once again.

4 Likes

How many people on the CSM are nullsec denizens again? But hey, they’re there to represent us all…

#NotMyCSM

9 Likes

Yeah, CCP seems to be all about giving in to carebears these days, specially the ones in 0,0 for some retarded reason

3 Likes

I like flying the Raptor in hunting expeditions in null sec, looking for squishy targets. Now that they’re getting nerfed, it’s more cost-effective to simply fly a T1 frigate. That’s how bad this nerf is.

3 Likes