Please stop talking, he’s clearly goading you to appear the rational one.
3 Likes
theres only soo much oxygen in a room; im happy to share 
but, if brisc is going to waste some, why cant I?
So can blockade runners, point?
Do the CSM get assigned to a forum topic to reply to questions ?
-or-
is Brisc defending a position because he supports the changes, changes that appear to benefit one area of space over another.
Are there other CSM’s or DEV’s available to explain why these changes are weighted towards null gate campers blockading sovereign space from the outside world or nerfs that lessen the effect of gatecrashers on the occupiers of such space.
1 Like
I know some of the following has been mention somewhere above in one way or another.
But why now just mkae ECM modules like they did for the Neuts and Necros, or like the Drones ECM based on sizes (e.g. 300>600>900, though make them actually work though).
As I see it there should be a small, Medium, Large and XLarge of all ECM and Webbers. As the larger the ship and module the more powerful it becomes, at the cost of powergrid and CPU requirements, plus CAP use.
I have no issue of a frigate mounting a Medium module, but to do so it’d sacrfice a hell of a alot to mount it, and to mount any form of tank would require CPU and PowerGrid modules and rigs just to allow enough resource to do so.
As we know the drones TD, SD, TP and EC all have 3 sizes (light=300, Medium=600 and Heavy=900) and each has an 0.5 ECM jammer strength increase over the lower version, and an range increase also.
So if there were to be four sizes (small, medium, large and Xlarge) they should have a similar difference,
So the Small T1 would be equal to the current EC-600, so the Multuspectral ECM I, would be 1.5 strength across the board instead of 2.0, the Medium would be equal to the EC-900 at 2.0, Large would be at 2.5 and Xlarge would be at 3.0. Of cause the T2 versions would be scaled also to match, same for the ECM Jammers.
Also be have the different sizes, specially with things like Webbers, Grapplers and Statis modules, the size is also the mass limit. So a Frigate and use them on other frigates, but as soon as it goes over it’s not mass the effect is reduced by that percentage.
So as an example of webbers, Grapplers extra, a Condor with 1,100,000.00kg (plus modules kg) uses one of these modules on a Griffin it gets a 100% of the effect.
And against an Onyx, the Condor would have an -14.3% on it’s webbers and Grapplers, etc… due to the mass difference.
Against an Scorpion, a the effect would be -94.18%.
This only effects the damping effect of the propulsion jammers, not their range. But I would suggest that if multiple ships pooled their attack on larger ships (with the use of the stacking penalty) it would be possible to have an effect on larger ships.
Remember these modules are designed to hold a ship back, and the laws of physics say a smaller mass can’t effectively hold back a much larger mass.
You could take this farther and have it so the effect is 100% all the time, but if a target ship has a large mass than than the attacking ship, the smaller attacking ship get dragged along behind the larger ship and the mass of the attacking ship gets added to the large ship like armour plating.
As for things like the Weapon Disrupters, Target Painters/Breakers, and Sensor Dampeners, a similar thing could be done. After all the ship is powering these, so a frigate should have very little chance of effecting a Battleship or larger. But in saying that, a fleet of frigates against a single battleship might have a chance of locking it down with combined ECM/Disruption attack, though if there’s a nearby remote sensor booster Cruiser or Battleship nearby, it may not work.
But as for Signal Amps, Sensor Boosters, and weapon upgrades these stay as is, as these are % bonuses to the ships existing stats and weapons existing stats.
As I see it doing a scaled version of the ECM modules with correct benefits and penalties, would open up a new world of fleet tactics, and also bring about the use of larger ECM and ECCM ships in solo and fleet operations.
The big question is can CCP do it in a manner that what they take away in one area of game play they add it back in in another area.
I agree solo ECM frigates are too OP when you think about their scale, against similar sized ships they would be fine, and even with against two sizes up, providing they had a negative on them due to the mass/size difference.
Anyhow that’s my thoughts on this topic.
Some may flame it, others might find it an interesting concept.
1 Like
So I’m going to break this down between 2 parts. Navy ships and T1, I got all the numbers from zkill so unless ccp or someone else crunches some numbers this is what I’m going with.
------------------Kills-------- Loss.-----Eff%.-----Solo kills.—G/S%
- GNI, 31,349----11,742------72.8%------9,131-------85/15
- MNI, 127,443–15,904-----88.9%-----19,606-----71/29
- CNI, 20,188-----7,991------71.6%------5,802------72/28
- VFI, 53,217-----11,385-----82.4-------10,078------82/18
So numbers suggest that your more likely to encounter a Maulas Navy or even surprisingly a Vigil fleet before you meet a GNI. Not only that they are more likely to come out the victor. The Griffin only outclasses the crucifier navy which surprised me as well. Making both nich ships and not “op” or oppressive in any regard.
Now on to the T1.
-----------------Kills.---------Loss.-----Eff%---- Solo.------ G/S
- Giff, —401,281—191,788.—67.7.—8,083.-----98/2
- Maul–455,419.–116,391.—79.6.—8,873. ----99/1
- Cur.—208,928.–76,675. --73.2—6,481----- 97/3
- Vil-----401,813----73,166-----84.6—2,972----99.9/.1
Got to say, I was surprised when getting these numbers. And I only got the frigs excluding t2 ships. So if we look at these numbers and DON’T take any other variables into consideration, your got a 1/2 chance of dying in a griffin which places you next to the crucifier in terms of survivability. Yet the maulas and the vigil are used more and your more likely to make it back so why arent these ships “op”??
And if we look at the Griffin specifically, it comes to no surprise that they have high usage in Uedema against our favorite group CODE. And with this all in mind, could i dare say that griffin numbers are inflated??? Assuming the Griffin in high sec live, could it be that the survivability of giffins tank even lower? And does that mean your more likely to see the other ewar ships more often in low and null??
This boggled my mind a bit; if Griffin are more likely to die and less likely to be used over other ewar ships, then who is crying that ECM is op??? It cant be CODE, I mean they always “win” and it would be against their beliefs. So who really is complaining then.
I would crunch numbers but i cant be that autistic without someone handing out a few 100bil in isk for such a effort.
Edit. Sorry its a mess, I did this from my phone so I couldn’t get it to format right.
4 Likes
you need a column for ‘unfun’ factor. otherwise, good job Trying to point out the deficiency in logic points here. explanations lacking; we get a broken ecm ship line and broken ewar system, in exchange for ‘agency’. and ty for confirming my points about gankers derivatively benefiting from this ‘balance’.
a couple of the ppl trying to defend this breaking of ecm, have tried to imply sebo’s are not worth fitting, or that no one ever does, or that not everyone Should, and therefore ecm needs nerfing. they tried to imply this, AFTER they failed to successfully tell the readers of this topic that there were ‘no counters’ to ecm. its pure muck, and ccp is still pondering how badly they stepped in it apparently…cuz…no response yet from a dev with a brain
2 Likes
if you don’t want local , there are a wormholes for you.
If only wormhole-dwellers actually got some love, even if CCP technically were supposed to make it “impossible” to live in one, they forget that most players take “impossible” as a challenge.
Removing local would treat the disease, instead of the symptoms. Just as CCP has said that it was never intended for players to live out of wormholes, they have stated that they never intended for Local to be a powerful intelligence source.
So let’s compromise. We remove wormholes, and we remove local; this way the wormholers will feel more comfortable when they move to their new homes in null.
If you want to reduce the intel provided by local then blocking player stats provided to 3rd parties would be the best method. If you can find out what their favorite ship is, when they usually log on, what fleets they have been flying with and a mass of other stats what does it matter that you got their name from local or watching a gate or station.
Local is fair and balanced as being seen gives intel to both sides - Research that red in local and finding out they are in a ten man hi-sec corp, mostly fly covert ops and get blown up in WH space hacking relic sites will garner a different response than if the red in local uses cyno ships and fleets up gangs of 100+ players.
If local is removed and you are a cloaky camper bent upsetting the locals you just have to periodically announce yourself to nullify any comfort gained by not being seen as a red dot in the local list .
The overriding factor about local in known space is that EvE is an MMO and people need to be able to talk to each other so that they can “board the friendship”
1 Like
Pearl Abyss agrees with us:
3 Likes
called it. wish I was wrong.
ironic part is that I originally speculated that the changes were Sponsored by PA employee-first-timers playing eve, and the patch was chocked full of their bright ideas to make eve ‘better’. dev blog release happens with the obvious blowback to come, and then the retreat would be something PA could take credit for.
no way ccp Fell for this by accident? softball much?? first bitchslap done; gold ammo here we fuqn come 
gg brisc, you tried to warn us! eh?
Lol that’s just dumb since the “collateral damage” part referred to Wormholes and the HIC changes, which were already changed.
They veto’d based on something player feedback had already fixed.
This is just a PR move to show “look how much we give about the players”
1 Like
or its totally fake 
Rook could be a lowsec mission boat I guess. Expensive caracal that won’t show up on dscan.
EveOnion 
2 Likes
Read the source people.
“Eve Onion”
In other words - it’s not real. Just some made-up BS stories like you see in other “Onion” publications.
Other “notable” stories from Eve Onion include:
“# EVE Online Players Suffer Major Lag as CCP Physically Transports Servers to South Korea Following Pearl Abyss Acquisition”
" Leaks: EVE Login Issues Are Live Tests For CCP New Policy Against Player Backlash—Turn Off Jita, Market"
" The Name War of 2018"
3 Likes
Ok I ate the onion, I only read the first paragraph and it seemed plausible enough.
Rook is very powerful in gated deadspace, you go in thinking it is just a couple of destroyers and you all die without being able to do anything but release a few drones,. Obviously the element of surprise doesn’t do much good if you ambush something that can kill you easily, some idea of what your ship can and can’t beat is fairly important.