True, though the Dam only has 3 high slots, two are utility. The point is a punisher has been successful with only two midslots, so was/is there really a good reason to loose one of the four lowslots for an extra midslot? Or put it another way is there any good reason for 3rd midslot when other frigates have worked well for years with only two?
To be honest i think having a 5th lowslot like the punisher, instead of the midslot would have been better oprion, as it would allow for better PG and CPU shortfall fixes, while maintaining the whole armour tanking focus of the Precursor ships.
Since this is the actual feedback page. I will address every member of the CSM trying to defend the dev blog without understanding what the people here are complaining about:
Yes I have read the articles, and listened to the commentary made on stream.
The issue is this isnât a band-aid patch. This is a laceration to perform surgery, with the promise of band-aids in the future.
To quote Jinâtaan:
doing a full overhaul of the entire mechanic and every ship using it would take a dev out of commission for a few months, meaning that a lot of other projects fall behind. Making a more simple, quick change like this, then evaluating the results and making further changes based on data, are at the core of iterative design.
In one breath you say that CCP doesnât have the resources to do the fixes, and then in the next say we should trust that it will get fixedâŚ
This is the point where players should be concerned. I have tried to give actual feedback throughout the several day history of this thread. I donât have the same behind the scenes knowledge that the CSM has on what it possible from a coding perspective (like the HIC change). But after all the gloom and doom over CCP being owned by Pearl Abyss, this is the perfect place to stand our ground. CCP is a company whoâs primary goal is to make money. If they can keep the love for the game and community a close second, we might not ever know the difference, but acting like we are blessed to have such benevolent dictators is discourteous at best.
As an aside, community, did you know that every CSM member gets five free Omega accounts while they are serving their term? Volunteers, yes; but they do receive a stipend (and this is before considering things like the summit and etc).
If you truly represent the playerbase as a whole, CSM, you will try to understand why what is being dicussed is unacceptable to many people. The overwhelming message the CSM has projected has been âDoesnât matter, I got mine⌠you need to HFTUâ
If your end game goal is to get even more of the community to speak with their wallets, disgusted with a loss of depth, complexity, and sand from our sandbox, then you wonât care if CCP loses subs over this. You already have yours.
If, instead, you genuinely enjoy the game, the community, the people you work with, as well as represent, you can stop enabling CCP and making excuses for them. You donât have to be mean or cruel (as many voices in this thread have succeeded in refraining from), but you do need to be firm, and demand that they not turn the current balance proposal into a beta test.
Summary
CCP isnât your friend. We might be friendly towards them, and friends with their employees, but CCP is your drug dealer.
The provide good product, in Drop, Mindflood, X-Instinct; yet their best product is Quafe.
Are you willing to continue paying the same price for Quafe, when you are told they are having trouble sourcing ingredients but they are happy to substitute it with Slurm while they come up with a solution?
Me either. Accept no substitutes, drink Quafe!
4 Likes
Mate typo iam so glad to help. You miss an E there. I hope you are ok if you want to talk just pm me.
:trollfacemctrollface:
Because those 2 mid slot ships havenât worked well and have been the source of constant complaints over that time frame?
People have found niches for them yes. But it is a constantly raised complaint.
Also 1 nos doesnât have anywhere near the impact that 2 do.
1 Like
why not rework jam to instead have targeted modules fail their cycle ? This would make jams reduce the effectiveness of modules instead of the binary effect it has now. Also this would keep the targeting ewar to gallente, with caldari working on module-level ewar
when someone is jammed, the strength of the jams applied is added.
then the chance to jam a cyle is , jam_chance = jam_str/(jam_str+sensor_str)
when a module cycle is jammed, instead of the green light(red when turned off), it gets a dark blue light (brown when turned off).
When a group of guns is jammed, each can be jammed separately when shooting, and light is partially green , partially dark blue, in proportion to the % of jam (like the heat).
Iâm not sure I accept the argument that there is nothing you can do once jammed, there are many situations where if one type of ship has another where it wants it, death is a certainty. Whatâs different about ECM ?
1 Like
it must be bad because it can halt a gank in hs⌠must mean you need more than 5 free subs to gank a dank obe?
Not sure about that because I have never been ganked in high sec. Itâs a load of BS because clearly if there is nothing you can do you are obviously not just jammed but scrammed and webbed or interdicted in some way. You could use the same argument against slicers, interceptors and garmurs, thereâs nothing you can do but yes there is if you had undocked with something that can fight them. Again whatâs different about ECM ?
donât give em any ideas, they are already working to make sure intyâs go IN the same pile as the ecm boatsâŚ
from what ive seen, the arguments against ecm are pretty empty tbh. it Feels like this or thatâŚperhaps in a vacuum it FEELS bad to be jammed, but like you mentioned, there are lots of different ewar in the game and none of them Feel Good. its ironic that ecm is used infrequently enough that (apparently) no one can b asked to fit the counters to it, but its in need of nerfing desperately enough that they would peddle this crap as a solution.
I appreciate pplâs efforts to make suggestions on how this change could b adjusted to mitigate is harshness, but in all honesty, it should just not be messed with. if theres is a problem with the use of ecm, they should be specific, and they should make adjustments, perhaps, to a few base stats (nothing more than 5-10%) in targeted places. buuuuut, in a lot of ways theyâve already nerfed ecm over the years. and buffed its counter. now they are breaking it. why? beats me. they havenât justified it. any attempt at justification would also, likely, highlight their failure in the past to tweak the #'s effectively. perhaps they shouldâve told ppl to HTFU and fit the counter after the last ecm changes? perhaps they shouldâve said that instead of this dev blog.
October balance??
PASS!
3 Likes
A blanket âPASSâ isnât really feedback either, though.
Pretending there are not things that would benefit the game if they were changed is burying your head in the sand.
its not blanket. I have zero informed opinion on the damavik changes. I suppose if they wana keep that part, fine. the rest is junk imo. I and others have offered alternatives IF something Must be done. I and others have also offered a list of reasons explaining that pushing these changes âas isâ, is poor in form and planning. if given the option of âas isâ or âthese changesâ:::: âas isâ would break fewer things.
I bury my head into a lot of places, but not sand 
âBenefitâ is relative. Any given change will effect people depending on circumstance. Taking nullification away from combat ceptors makes life easier for defenders, but it makes it much harder for offenders.
The question in this particular example boils down to, âIs the game benefited from a de facto buff to anchored bubbles, which blockade damn near all other content in null?â Thatâs just an example, no need to hash that out in this particular response thread.
Thus far, thereâs been exceedingly negative feedback across the board. Furthermore, many people in this thread elaborated in great detail why most of the changes here are terrible for game balance and seem incredibly short-sighted. At this point in the discussion, one need not put out yet another thesis on why any singular point is bad, unless thereâs more to add that hasnât been addressed. It is perfectly reasonable to just blanket dismiss the changes, since the reasoning has been established, hashed out, defended from counterpoints, and still stands tall.
3 Likes
^^^^^
Makes me wonder if anyone at CCP even pays attention to this or if theyâve just turned a blind eye to it as theyâve already made up their mind to simply do whatever the CSM tells them to do, regardless of feedback.
3 Likes
glancing at the other recent dev blogs, the replies in this one are several hundred short of the âPA purchaseâ blog. nothing else on the list even comes close. if theyâve not read at least thru some of this, and hopefully filtering out the csm (whom theyâve surely heard plenty from already, right?) then they arenât working as hard as some have tried to imply.
bare minimum, these changes were short-dropped to fill a void in an otherwise empty âpatch time-of-the-monthâ. none of it is especially pressing, barring the lurch hic. even that has gone on for long enough its hard to say this Must be done Now. lol, no more so than last month, or the month before, or the month before thaâŚ
one step sideways and six steps back. why not save us all the extra leg work and just Not take that side-step?
ECM is fine as it is. Its got several counters built into the game and skills that can be trained to increase a toons ability to resist jams. If this wasnt the case the Alliance Tournament would be being won by ECM based teams but we rarely see them.
EVE is meant to be hard and unforgiving, if you dont like it then donât pvp or donât play.
Its almost as if CCP have decided based on the bias advice of a CSM filled with 0.0 shills to make nullsec safer⌠surprise surprise. 
5 Likes
Covert Ops Cyno and Cloaking Devices on your list there? 
Seeing as this is called balance I guess it is only fair not to just whine that ECM is being virtually removed from the game. ECM ships are not all the same so to say an issue with griffins is not the same as saying an issue with a Rook or a Scorpion and the target ship too, some ships are very vulnerable to ECM. Does anyone really feel sorry for a curse that gets jammed ? Again neuts that same argument will come up, they are OP my ship canât do anything it has no cap, thatâs the idea. What you gonna do, make it so that cap dead ships can still shoot the neuting ship ? Now for a quick anti ECM point, the counters are majorly flawed drones and AT missiles only work if there is only 1 target, if there is more than one enemy who knows what they will attack.
4 Likes
After spending the morning fitting and simulating various âewarâ ships using a pilot with level V Mastery, itâs a wonder that anyone even flies a Caldari ewar ship at all.
With the Gallente (Keres), Amarr (Sentinel) and Minmatar (Hyena) ewar ships, you can fit a small tank in the lows and fill the mids with prop and ewar mods like Damps, Webs, Disruptors and Painters.
Your tank wonât be great and your DPS will suck but that is the trade off everyone makes when they fit their ships and that is why we have so many to choose from.
But with the Caldari ships (Griffin/Kitsune/Griffin Navy Issue) your tank and your ewar are both in your mids (5 slots) and you are not fitting any kind of tank in the 2 low slots with ships that have weak armor to begin with.
The other disadvantage is that the Caldari ECM pilot has to try and decide which ECM mods to fit. Neuts, Webs, Prop Scrams/Disruptors, Damps, Painters and Tracking Disruptors donât care what race of ship they are used against, there is no advantage or disadvantage to using them against any ship type.
But ECM jammers come in 4 racial variants, as well as one weaker âmulti-spectralâ mod. With 5 mid slots, the ECM pilot has to decide what to give up in order to be able to counter whatever ships he may face. Does he give up tank to fit more Racial jammers ? Does he give up propulsion ? Scrams ? Webs ?
Only have 5 mids - canât fit everything in there !
And what happens when he fits, for example, Amarr and Caldari jammers and runs up against Gallente and Minmatar ships ? He still has a slim chance, with a jamming strength that is 1/3rd as strong as it would be against the matched racial ship type.
Of course, he could always fit multi-spectral jammers secure in the knowledge that instead of a maxed out jamming strength of 11.69 (with a Griffin or Kitsune, using a T2 racial jammer, with rigs and T2 Distortion Amps) he will have to get by with a 7.8 jamming strength instead.
To put that in perspective - all of the ânon-ECMâ standard frigates in the game (in fact, most frigates period aside from CovOps and hulls with ewar bonuses) have Sensor Strengths between 8-14. That is before training the Sensor Compensation skills (which add 4% per level to sensor strength so at level V the base sensor strength for the weakest (sensor strength) hulls would be 9.6 up to around 16.8 for the hulls with stronger base sensor strengths).
Unlike the other types of ewar though, the ECM mechanic is âchance basedâ which means that it doesnât really matter what the jamming strength is, there is a chance the ECM pilot will miss his jams and there is also a chance he will make it regardless of an opponents sensor strength (like can happen when an ECM drone with a jamming strength of 1 is able to get a jam on a target).
However, if someone using a different type of ewar is in range and gets a lock on you, his ewar mods will work. Period. No âchanceâ about it. He will neut/paint/damp/disrupt/web/scram, etc, etc and will keep doing so for as long as he can keep a lock on you (and stay in range) or until one of you dies.
Unlike the ECM pilot who, every cycle, has a chance to lose his jam. If he fails to get a jam he has to wait until the end of the cycle to try again and hope, again, that it will actually hit.
Of course he will probably already be dead by then any ways because again, if he fits for max ECM then he has next to no tank or DPS.
Just like people who fly ships that are bonused for DPS and fit them âall gank/no tankâ. If they can catch an opponent in the right position and out DPS him, they will probably win. But - as everyone knows - if the opponent has fit his ship out differently and gets the upper hand then the person with no tank is going to be in a world of hurt.
Just like happens pretty much everyday when someone fits out their ship for âclose range brawlingâ and encounters someone fit for âlong range kitingâ.
Or someone that doesnât fit for cap and encounters someone with neuts.
Or someone that doesnât fit tackle and encounters someone that did fit it.
Or someone that doesnât fit counter-ECM modules and encounters someone with ECM.
Oh thatâs right - people shouldnât have to fit their ships to counter things they donât like.
The âmechanicâ for ECM jamming should follow a progression that makes it harder for a small ship to jam a larger ship. So a Frigate should have a pretty good chance to jam another frigate, a decent chance to jam a destroyer sized hull, a poor chance to jam a cruiser and little or no chance vs a battleship sized hull.
A cruiser ECM ship should be able to jam a smaller ship easily (but of course it is harder to lock smaller ships), but should have a pretty good chance at jamming other cruisers, a decent chance at jamming battle cruisers, a poor chance at jamming battleships and little or no chance at jamming dreads, carriers or freighters. However, with maxed skills, mods and rigs, there should still be some chance. (Which would be lessened if the dread/carrier/freighter pilot had his Compensation skills trained and/or the right mods fitted.)
Same story for battleship ECM hulls. Itâs harder for them to lock smaller targets obviously (unless of course they fit the mods that would make it easier) but they should be able to jam out those smaller ships easily once they do get a lock.
No different than if a battleship gets a lock on a smaller ship and hits them with a heavy neut.
The same progression would apply to battleships as well of course, with them having a pretty good chance of jamming other battleships, a decent chance at jamming dreads/carriers/freighters/cap industrials, and a poor chance at jamming super caps. (Opening the door for a capital ECM ship in the future perhaps ? One that could be a counter to FAXs perhaps ? We have 2 types of carriers now, why not 2 types of dreads ?)
So again, the whole idea that ECM has to be nerfed because it is âOPâ and âcanât be counteredâ is false.
Should it be reworked/overhauled to bring it in line with other types of ewar ? Sure. The âchance basedâ mechanic of hitting (or missing) a lock should have been addressed ages ago.
Could it be reworked so that smaller ships (like frigates) canât jam out larger ships (like carriers) ? Easily. Different mods, additional skills, different hull bonuses.
After all, we went for ages with just having a âStasis Webifierâ before they brought in the âStasis Grapplerâ. Just like we used to have just the Small Tractor Beam and now we have the Capital Tractor Beam.
Just like we only used to have one size of rig and they fit on every size of ship.
Bring out Frigate/Cruiser/BS sized jammers and âAdvanced Signal Dispersionâ type skills so that ECM pilots will have to be choosier about what they fly and carriers wonât have to worry about getting jammed by frigates.
But to just club ECM to death with the nerf bat because some people donât want to train some skills or fit some modules to counter it ?
That is just lame.
12 Likes
O7
I run a small and tiny J-Space Corp.
Nothing special, just a bit WH diving, ratting and sometimes ganking careless pilots crossing my way.
Since now I was able to protect my stuff more or less successful.
But with this ECM-nerf , I am out of business.
Not enough that since the last citadel-updates shield and sometimes armor-layer (of the structure) are obsolete[the aggressor dictates partytime].
I can not change my fit while its under attack, so I can not adapt the strategy on the attackers.
The disrupting-modul(30/60 Sec ) is a bad joke, and I can fit only one.
The damage output of structure weapons and standup-fighters is insufficent.
The AOE-bust modules are not really working (tested twice).
The use of standup neuts are the fastest way to outcap yourself.
And now I will loose the last way to defend my station against small and medium gangs.
Against large gangs it was even hard with a dead-star-POS.
ECM is the only way to reduce incoming dps to survive the 15 min-timer, as long you donât have a backup-fleet with a skilled PvP-gang.
If it will be like announced that a jammed pilot will be able to target the jammer[what is mostly the primary intension of an attackin battleship], the ECM-mods for structures are nonsence.
So I have to abandon the station to safe my assets, thanks to missing asset-safe like in 0.0.
So now dear CCP, please let me know what is the plan for us J-Spacers ?
Regards BC (still paying customer)
P.S.: If your intention was to depopulate J-Space, and the ECM-nerf is the next step.
Well, than you are very close to complete the mission.
5 Likes
thank you for pointing that out. by breaking ecm, they are Also breaking *one of the Only counterd to other ewar types. If this go through, then one of your options for halting something like target painters is entirely gone. neuts? well, you can move/warp away if you didnât fit one of the counters.
you also pointed out more specifically what ive been trying to suggest; they are breaking things by doing this. namely, the âbalanceâ of sensor strength on the various hulls. some have better sensor strength, others are quite â â â â . it usually coincides with price, and the potential of the ship in question. curse with weak sensor strength makes sense, because neuts are particularly lethal. as you mentioned. theres just soo many reason why this is a bad ideaâŚ
the problem with making ecm modules of various sizes is cpu requirements. unless they make class sized variants and just attach a âcan only b fitted on frigs, etcâ requirement to them. personally id prefer they didnât do this, as the potential for this resulting in Actual balance is very unlikely. it would also be a lot of new limitation put onto an entire ewar class. unless they intend on doing the exact same thing to the rest of ewar (ALL including scram/web/neut etc etc) which would just break things further. instead they could buff larger ships base sen strength a tad, medium hulls a tad less, or a very minor drop in the base strength of the ecm modules. Minor; which means vsmall!
ecm is more balanced now than it has been in the entire 10yr history of my playing eve.
edit*
1 Like