Dev Blog: October Balance Pass!

EVE Information Portal Dev Blogs
,
1579

@herbstleyd operated in a group who stole unanchored structures.

They’ve been doing it for a while, until they stole something from JinTan, or someone close to him. They’ve shot the hauler and got CONCORDED for it. I am agreeing with making the thief a suspect, but I am heavily disagreeing that it’s okay for CSM friends to complain and receiving a fix within a week.

A week!

Both CSM and CCP let us rot and only care about their friends. None of them really care about us. The CSM’s all in it just so they can sit there with CCP furthering their shitty agendas, while we are all being starved of content, updates and fixes. And CCP? CCP only cares about the ■■■■■■■ money.

And THAT already cost them more than they made, and it’ll cost them even more down the road.

1580

Goons and CCP are for a long time already merged in a indistinguishable entity. All the game play and the development of this game in the last years was bent and skewed to meet their sole interests.

1581

It is really, really nice that we can agree on something fundamental …
… ignoring our in-game differences.

United against our common enemy.

1582

*hands you a sticker*

image

#EndTheTyranny

1583

I’m guessing CCP doesn’t want to go down to just 1 utility high on the Damavik when one of the main things being touted about the Triglavian ship line is their armor RR, neut/nos, smartbomb series of role bonuses… and only being able to fit one of the above would be a far cry from what the Vedmak and the Leshak can fit in their utility highs.

I’ve only flown my Leshaks so far, and for PVE to try 'em out, haven’t flown the Damaviks or Vedmaks yet, but I would indeed be a fan of +1 mid (to all of 'em, really) without -1 low in return. -1 high to all of 'em? sure, why not. But the Damavik will suffer most for that thanks to starting with less slots as a frigate.

1584

You do understand that alot of the games combat is RNG…right?

Your suggestion sounds alot like sensor damps…

1585

No…just no. Please. The CPI in game has been at or around 60 for over a decade (notable exception was 2012-2014 when the CPI rose for part of that period, leveled off, then declined back to the 60ish range). That is not massive inflation.

1586

The game’s combat has lots of effects that are still predictable because they form a normal distribution. I can’t think of another binary all or nothing effect like ECM.

And my suggestion doesn’t sound more like sensor damps than ECM already does.

1587

ecm will no longer be for solo players - let them do the same with Sensor Dampener …;((

1 Like
1588

interesting changes to be honest. however, i think ECM still needs some tweaks if you’re considering akin to “taunt” :

  1. improved effectiveness at the cost of module amount limitations: basically make the ECM module work almost succesfully on the selected target, but you can only carry 1 at any given time. so you either refit when hunting specific types of targets or use a Multispectral as an all around (with lower success treshold) while keeing the rest of the midslots for something else.

  2. tank adjustments: the remaining mids could be used now to tank with the lows used for extra stuff, in the case that the shield tanking potential of these ships its not enough then some upgrades to PG/CPU and raw hitpoints have to be made.

basically -> if ECM ± = Taunting -> ship has to be as tanky as possible in order to keep the enemy ship locked on it. using multiple jammers would be counterproductive because you kill tank while becoming primary for everyone in the enemy fleet (or at least for the selected targets). so instead the only balance i can think of this system is that multiple jamming requires having multiple ECM ships in fleet, each one dedicated on keeping the jam as long as possible on the chosen enemies.

in a solo (no alts) scenario this also ensures the ECM ship can keep the fight as long as it picks the target.

but that’s none of my business.jpg so you can disregard my comment anyways.

i just hope you can pute the Scorpion in a direction where i can use it for proper soloing…

1589

The ECM ~ taunt is just one persons attempt to compare what they have in mind for ECM.

The issue isn’t that CCP wants to change ECM completely into a fleet mechanic (ie not solo) to counterbalance the n+1 logi meta; in fact I think that it has the potential to be an eloquent solution to the ‘alpha is the only solution to overwhelming logi’ meta.

The issue is the change seems half implemented, and half thought out. All the backlash about CCP coming out and saying ‘sorry to do this to you wormholers, but we are going to do this to you’, it resulted in a counterbalance so that wormholers wouldn’t voice their displeasure via the only way left, canceling their subs.
Every player that puts any money into this game should be equally offended that CCP basically said ‘we want to rebalance ECM, and have ideas on how to make it better, but instead we are gutting it to start, good luck if we ever get back to it’ Leaving solo and small gang ECM in the lurch, because the Griffin Navy issue, the Rook, the Falcon, the Widow are all left without a purpose.

Everyone should be up in arms, as strongly as with the HIC nerf, and politely suggest that CCP start via implementing their ECM change on the T1 hulls, the cheap throwaway hulls spammed as a mockery of counterplay: the Griffin, the Blackbird, and the Scorpion. We can see how things develop from that start of a change, without leaving the long established play of using ecm as a last ditch effort on industrail ships, as well as the more expensive (both in isk, and skill point investment) T2 hulls (and faction, since the Griffin Navy is the only ship with an ECM bonus).

But you can still use ecm on an unbonused hull, you might say. Yes, and you don’t project it very far, nor have a very probable chance. Change those jams to simply break a lock, and remove the lockout window. This still gives players that fit a Sensor Booster or signal Amplifier their advantage, as well as players that have trained their Sensor Compensation skills.

Perhaps common sense will prevail and we can reach some sort of comprimise, instead of completely softening one of the better, more polarizing aspects of this game; ECM/

Edit: I <3 you too, Kitsune

4 Likes
1590

I think that’s my biggest problem with all this. Historically, CCP rarely takes a second draft at things in a timely manner. Things can languish for years before they address it again, and often it’ll be with an acknowledgement that things were broken the entire time but “priorities and limited resources, yo”.

So, while ECM may be frustrating, it still works and is balanced now. That they want to make it less frustrating is fine, but they’re not trying to do that. They’re completely gutting it, breaking the gameplay around it completely, and are willing to walk away from the smoldering wrecking of the stuff they broke. And it may again be years before they get around to fixing what they broke in the first place. For something that isn’t broken now. That’s just terrible business.

The funniest part of all this is going to be on patch day, where they nerf ECM anyway despite the backlash, and a glitch in the programming means the victim can still target everyone regardless. Who wants to lay odds on that one?

4 Likes
1591

The thing is that starting with the ECM = anti-logi/n+1 play on the Griffin, Blackbird, and Scorpion in this pass, while leaving the other ECM bonused hulls (all T2 other than the Griffin Navy), lets them tweak numbers, and monitor how things go so that if they do get around to balancing the equation they want to start now.

It lines up nicely with the thought process that has been discussed a lot, of a second EWAR ability, and you can move it right to those T2 hulls once you are ready to completely remove the old style ECM, without leaving a gaping hole in the metagame.

1592

The way people were using Ishtars in PVP a few years ago was pretty emergent, but that didn’t stop them (and sentries as a whole) from getting nerfed 2 or 3 times, alas.

1593

Let me just preface my comments by acknowledging , that I have a limited knowledge of the game in comparison to others who post here. First time post.
Solo player. Single player corp. Hi-Sec “Care bear” I guess. Bad at PVP.

I recently got interested in completing the Guristas Epic Arc “Smash and Grab”, so I could branch out
and get a Gila BPC. I tried it in an inexpensive destroyer fit. Blown up in a bubble, on the way, after accepting the first mission.

So I got the idea from reading about the mission on the web that I needed to try it in an interceptor, because it was immune to those bubbles, and began to skill an alt into it.

So here’s my questions and my point. Can it be done in a fleet interceptor? Do the proposed changes to combat interceptors just effectively close large areas of space to players like me? I mean someone interested in epic arcs or other PVE that takes them into potentially dangerous space. What exactly is wrong with lower skill/ability players being able to harass or at least bypass these large groups that just sit on a gate and wait for dummies like me? It seems to me that the counter to the very existence of these spheres IS the ability of a handful of ships having immunity. Other ways around it?
Please, if you choose to comment on this post, do better than “get good”. I already know that. I’m just asking.

4 Likes
1594

https://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Smash_and_Grab#Ships_and_fits

The Crow fit listed is a Fleet Interceptor, and will be retaining its bubble immunity. And no, the proposed changes do not effectively close off large areas of space to you. Overall, they will simply change which hulls are preferred.

1595

I just had a thought in relation to ECM. I have no idea whether it is a good idea or whether it is technically possible at all. This idea is only concerning the jammed ship’s ability to target the jamming ship.

The idea consists of 2 factors:

  • Lock breaking: The jamming ship should have the ability to break the lock of the jammed ship once per cycle of the jammer. However, the jammer will not block re-locking for any period of time so the jammed ship will have the ability to re-lock the jamming ship immediately after it has lost the lock. During re-locking and for a set amount of time after re-acquiring lock on the jamming ship, the jammed ship’s lock cannot be broken. This should give the jammed ship some time to respond to the jamming ship. After this period of time the jammed ship’s lock can be broken again.

  • Constant jam effect: While being jammed, the jamming ship’s signature radius is reduced with respect to the jammed ship. This effect is in effect while the jammer is running whether lock is broken or not. The jamming ship will enjoy all the benefits of having a reduced signature radius with respect to the jammed ship while the jammed ship is being jammed.

Now this is just a basic idea that can be developed. A lot of the effects will probably revolve around jamming strength and sensor strength.

I also think that it should allow for some ways for the jammed ship to counter the effects of the jammer, e.g. via sensor boosters and target painters, while still providing some defense for the jamming ship.

However, whether it is a good idea, I do not know. It may also be too complicated and put too much stress on the server to be technically feasible.

Anyway, this is just an idea.

1596

I like this idea. It means ECM can still be used to break locks and escape… for DSTs for example.

1597

@nomadd79
Thank you. I was just trying to find some middle ground. Whether it is possible is another matter :grinning:.

1598

No DTS will fit 4 racial ECM (or one unversial that is useless as per jamming strength) . DTS fits burst jammer that seems not to change. The break but re-lock mechanism you are describing is the way ECM burst works .