Dev Blog: October Balance Pass!

you can burn away from ecm.

you must mean fit a cap booster for a sudden cap infusion? kinda like how I mean when I say ‘fit a sebo’? last time I checked an mwd doesn’t give any sort of an infusion of cap whatsoever. but I know you meant the cap conservation thing. cap conveservation isn’t a counter, for the record, but its a valid response to neuts. I don’t object to your prioritizing certain modules over others. but doing so has zero counter effect to the neuting ship. if they are nos’ing you, well, you saving cap is only feeding them…

what good do mods do you if you have to turn them off to counter neuts?

hell in that case you may aswell have had a sebo in that slot, at least it doesn’t use much cap! <a byproduct of the past ecm nerf/eccm buff btw. or a sig amp uses no cap. fit a counter. don’t advocate the breaking of a tool you don’t like because you don’t use it, or because it is used on you.

in order to achieve any of the counters you Did describe, you would have to fit the appropriate modules prior to the engagement; else the counter fails. I mean, why do we have to fit modules at all? why don’t all the ships come pre-packaged in different colored ship models. that’s some other game. one I wouldn’t play.

the truth is, ecm does one thing and that’s deny you aggression of any form requiring a lock. not all forms of aggression, but most. it does NOT affect your ability to tank or receive assistance at all. it does not apply any form of damage, it just stops you and yours.
and its chance based. and its relatively ineffective except on the hulls bonused for it. all of those hulls are relatively slow (for their class and in general), except maayb the frigs. all of the hulls, when fitted to maximize their hull bonus, are exceptionally thin for their class. it has the usual optimal and falloff ranges. the ecm modules require cap. the cycle is fairly long(good and bad all by itself; aka balanced). there is really nothing broken with it atm - unless your about to gank a dank obe with your 7 talos alts, then jams become Really unfun. almost makes you feel helpless huh? not being able to even kill the jammer before concord shows up. yea, I feel ya. totally unfun and broken.

if you feel a ship underperforms vs ecm, perhaps the ship your thinking of needs a tad more sensor strength. show us. im open minded to Actual Balance. what they are doing here is Not that.

the physical control of your ship is important, and I agree that smart piloting is an important factor in determining whether a mechanic ‘works’ or not. but eve was never a joystick game. its just as heavy on math and planning as it is on implementation, if not more so. when all the factors come together, you win or lose a fight. having manual control over all factors as a fight progresses may b more common in other games, but in eve there is always a little bit of unknown built in. ecm has the fewest manual piloting counters, but they exist: burn out of their range, or warp away.

or I suppose you could try to capacitor tank them?? mayb they will eventually run out of cap and miss a jam, then you can kill them all you want.

ps; I liked your post, even tho it wasn’t top of my list. im a man of my word :wink:

1 Like

Because jams work differently? That’s the whole point. Jams are different to start with.

except kill the drones mayb. theres always Something you could do. even if it was avoid the engagement in the first place. sometimes that’s the best way to not die in an unfun and helpless way. I mean this stuff is so subjective I still cant believe they said it in the first place!

Mind if I ask in what ways you proposed or supported this?

Yes, jams are different. That is how we have a more varied pvp game than rock/paper/scissors.

Yet the efficient flow chart of how to react to the situation isn’t much different, is my point. Rendering the tired old argument about how you ‘literally can’t do anything’ when you get jammed out moot, because you can do something. You have loads of options, you just cannot lock the target.

Please don’t misunderstand, I can get behind the idea of completely revamping ECM to be a counter to Logi for large fleets, to break the N+1 Logi vs Alpha meta. The problem is it breaks down in small gang or solo situations, and what I can’t get behind is leaving so much gutted for so many hulls in so many situations because someone had a good idea to change ECM to that, but didn’t get far enough along to actually balance the rest of it.

1 Like

But this really isn’t going to effect large N+1 plus logi vs. alpha fleets. ECM and logi are still going to be primary in almost every case.

The reason that Alpha is prevalent is because once critical mass is reached with logi, it is the only way to do damage to the enemy. This is why we have FAX now, because remote rep carriers were unbreakable.

And do you think changing ecm is going to fix this??

Mwd reduces your cap by 30% or so right. Turning it fully off gives that back. Not just deactivating it but really all the way off.

Most of the counters I listed also dont need modules. Though obviously modules like prop mods help.

Not saying this change is ideal in that the ecm strength increasing and things like making ecm one module with racial scripts should happen alongside it. Since ecm ships are expecting to fit tank now to survive so only have a couple of ecm normally.

Just that ecm is a special case to start with.

your right I was thinking you meant deactivate. im not sure that entirely having to shutdown a module to avoid its penalty is much of a ‘counter’, and that’s assuming it would make much of a difference in the first place. its percentages we are talking now, so the variation in scenario starts to depend heavily on the cap pool and the # + size of the neuts. lets not get into the weeds on that topic. ill concede for expedience if youll agree that as far as counters go, that’s kind of a shitty option?

following the logic to an extreme>>>mayb the self destruct option is a valid counter to ecm? lol j/k

ecm is only as special/crappy as we make it

No argument against the current ECM implementation has any substance at all, shown again and again in this thread.

5 Likes

The reason why there is less activity now and steadily declining online character numbers are supers and titans, not combat ceptors. If anything, combat ceptors allow for more activity because you are not confined to a small area and you cannot be easily locked into a system with tons of bubbles and a super or titan blapping you out of existence. They require effort from locals to defend their space.

Some people know how to do that, like Albion Wind who has no issues dealing with a number of illprepared ceptors, bombers and T3D in his Nightmare while other people fail spectacularly at the same task in the same ship. It has nothing to do with Claws, they are easily countered with just a bit of preparation and thought. It has everything to do with the utter incompetence of contemporary players and utter incompetence of CCP developments.

2 Likes

I’ve just brought up the fact that local is primarily an intel tool, and it wasn’t designed that way. Beyond having it on my list of stuff, there wasn’t much more to say. You can read my whole plank on it at Brisc’s List – Brisc Rubal for CSM 15

I mean, even BRAVE has titans now. BRAVE. Think about it.

Wow. That’s cold. :rofl:

Anyways, some feedback. My 2 ISK worth if you’re interested.

Changes to local – redesign local to be less about intel

Just like wormholes :wink:

Remove/limit asset safety – loot drops when citadels are destroyed

Just like wormholes :wink:

Consider adding additional NPC nullsec space

Uhhh… Wormhole space? :wink:

CCP should explore adding those functionalities to the in-game fitting tool.

This change is long overdue

CCP should also explore storing UI settings on both the client and on the server, so switching between machines or clean reinstalls of the game don’t wipe UI data.

CCPlease!

War declaration revisions – get it back to what it was meant to be, not a griefing tool.

OMG!! CCPleeeease!!!

Lift damage cap for low powered structures

I like this idea… but the danger would be having citadels deleted in mere minutes because someone wasn’t able to log on to fuel them. Perhaps raise the damage cap as a middle ground?

2 Likes

Concerning my previous post containing:

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.

I was thinking the lock breaking effect could maybe be moved to a different module. Since ECM bursts and target breakers are existing modules I was thinking of a targeted module that would break jammed ship’s lock on the jamming ship with 100% certainty. As a downside it should have a cooldown time long enough to ensure that the jammed ship can re-acquire the lock, use a lot of cap, and only one can be fit per ship. Of course other drawbacks could be added as well, e.g. increased cap usage during cooldown, reduced locking range etc.

Can only be fitted to ECM bonused ships!?

This is just a thought.

1 Like

^^ another thought on how to nerf ecm, when they aren’t broken in the first place. fit the counter. or don’t. suffer consequences either way.

@Scooter6976
I think you may have misunderstood my intention with the post.

I actually think ECM is OK as it is. I am just trying to think of ways to mitigate the proposed changes if they are implemented as suggested by CCP. That is all. I do not think that the suggested changes are warranted.

My above post is only an extract of a previous post. The previous post have more details in it.

rgr. then we both agree.

Interestingly the only frigates with the same number of total module slots are logi or ECM frigates. The average is 13 slots (high/mid/low/rig), even the t2 frigates average about the same.
So CCP if they wants could of just added the extra mid-slot.
But i agree with you about the mid-slot, just look at the old Punisher, its been a sucessful pvp frigate with only 2 mid-slots for years.

Now count the turret slots that all the other turret ships need. average it out, and count the disintegrator turret slot as that many slots.
And you’ll see it’s fine on slot count.