Dev Blog: October Balance Pass!

EVE Information Portal Dev Blogs
,
1839

So, here’s my take on this:

ECM change is silly. All you need to do to ‘fix’ ecm to address the small-scale problems is this:
Reduce capacitor and cycle time for ECM, and change it so that each cycle has a chance to break locks on the ship you have targeted. Have ECM ships like the Blackbird gain bonuses to strength and cycle time, increasing flat effectiveness, as well as possibly increases number of available target locks. This evens out the gameplay at small scale vs large scale, and gives it good parity with other ewar like damps.

As for the hictor change, why not simply add the code you have on capital mods prohibiting their use on smaller classes to other prop mods? Make 500mn and 100mn unsuable on cruisers and down, and you don’t have to nerf any modules.

The whole notion of interceptors gaining interdiction nullification was idiotic from the start, and has ballooned into such a farce over the years that i’m glad to see this, although it should be for ALL inties.
On that same note, i’ll advocate for my original position on the matter, which is to give the nullification bonus to Interdictors and hictors. Having the dedicated ‘bubble’ camp ships be immune to their own bubble seems much more logical to me, and gives other dictors that don’t see much use like the Heretic and Eris some good use compared to the dominance of Sabres.

The idea being floated around of increasing interceptor agility seems like a decent way to offset the loss of interdiction nullification. That or just making bubbles use 1-2 jam strength instead of their current unbreakable level would be interesting; it would make bubble stacking more important on gates, and remove the whole ‘lol bubbles dont work on my t3/inty bye’ binary mechanic of interdiction nullification. It’s functionally the same, but there’s counter for nc explo ships putting in a few stabs to get through, or ‘locking down’ a gate with multiple overlapping bubbles being an effective deterrent to everyone coming through. Interdiction spheres from dictors would work the same too, maybe with a radius buff so you can spam bubbles on one or both sides of the gate. Seems like it would mitigate a lot of the headache everyone’s having with this to me.

1840

As usual, folks can’t make an argument without the need to hurf blurf.

Bubbles are not going to be a huge issue for interceptors with prop mods fit, even without nullification. And in the same size gangs that are usually seen in nullsec, this means defenders may be able to catch one or two before they are out of range and off. The impact isn’t going to be huge, but it will add a bit of a difference and that’s a good thing.

Sorry you don’t think so. Feel free to run for CSM if you think I’m doing a poor job.

1841

When something is removed from the game completely, I can see the desire to reimburse those who have stuff that is essentially worthless because it can’t be used at all.

Here you’ve got ships that still have utility and still have a market, even if there may be a short term dip while people adjust to the new meta. The ships aren’t worthless.

It’s the same as when CCP reissues a skin they haven’t in years. I paid 7 bil for my Avatar Imperial Jubilee skin - now that they’re back in the New Eden Store they are selling for 2 bil or less.

Nature of the market.

1842

I never said those arguments didn’t. My statement was specifically about the idea the changes only benefitted nullsec.

Having an effective counter to EWAR that allows the player being targeted the ability to do something to their opponent besides die is a good thing. It’s a small iteration that will change things a bit and even out the exchanges.

1843

You mean the mid-slot sensor booster with ECCM script?

1 Like
1844

No. That’s not what I meant.

1845

Of course it wasn’t what you meant. It was a facetious statement to highlight the absurdity of the ECM change and the ignorance of those supporting it. I know we’ve had to explain to you in this thread how ECM works, I honestly hadn’t expected to be put into a position to explain how sarcasm works too.

While we’re at it.

*Note, the above is also sarcasm.

3 Likes
1846

By the way, I shouldn’t have to run for CSM in the same way I shouldn’t have to do everything in the world to ensure it’s done right. The desire for people to do their jobs competently and be knowledgable in their field is a basic expectation.

And in the end, you win. I saw the proposed changes, I don’t like the direction this game is taking, and I cancelled my subscription.

4 Likes
1847

Concerning ECM, I basically see each cycle as a game of chance where the winner takes it all (jam/no jam). You do what you can to stack the odds in your favor, i.e. the jamming ship tries to boost jamming strength and the jammed ship tries to boost sensor strength e.g. via sensor boosters with ECCM scripts.

Therefore, a sensor booster with ECCM scripts is a viable counter to ECM as it does increase the odds for not getting jammed. Whether you want to use a sensor booster is up to each player to decide, but to say that it is not a viable counter I would say is not true. In the end the outcome is left to chance - but this applies to both sides!

Although I am not familiar with all the details of jammers, I do think that increased distance between the jamming and the jammed ships (beyond optimal jamming range) also reduce jamming strength so there is another option for stacking the odds for not being jammed by moving out of range.

By the very nature jamming is all or nothing for both sides of the equation, and the reason why I do not think the suggested change is not balanced is that it is a one-sided focus on one side of the equation, i.e. the jammed ship, while it leaves open a huge gap in the defense of the jamming ships by allowing the jammed ship to target the jamming ship (it simply does not make sense that a jammed ship can target the jamming ship if it is jammed!). I also believe that ECM counts as part of the tank of the jamming ship, so I think the buffs to the ECM ships need to be significant to close this gap (if they ever come!).

Additionally, this change is made to the one faction that only has one type of EWAR and I think that in order to level the playing field, EWAR such as remote sensor dampeners should have the same treatment. Depending on the situation, the damped ship can be just as helpless as the jammed ship.

@Brisc_Rubal

  • Looking at the suggested changes, how will ECM ever be a viable option for SOLO players?

I know the ECM may have a place in fleets and small gangs after the change, so you need not waste time on answering for those scenarios, but I would like to have your take on the situation for SOLO players after the change.

In the end, I think that if CCP does not like the ECM mechanic, they should replace the mechanic entirely with something else, e.g. module jamming (I made a suggestion in a previous post). And yes, if they (CCP) think the current ECM is that bad, I think they should use the necessary resources to develop a new well-balanced mechanic as replacement rather than making quick “fixes”. In the current iteration I feel that the suggested change is simply too one-sided.

1 Like
1848

As a player who want removal of ISK printing NS you are very shortsighted or have very small knowledge of game mechanics and patches history. Nullification was added after the anchored bubbles and anchored bubbles were cancer for a long time. You may remove nullification from ceptors completely but next step will be removing anchored bubbles as well. NS supposed to be dangerous. Risk vs reward.

6 Likes
1849

I appreciate the help in deciphering your whining.

2 Likes
1850

Your personal jab there perfectly encapsulates everything I have come to expect from you. Please, never change <3

4 Likes
1851

Likewise. I hope you enjoy whichever new community you choose to whine in.

1 Like
1852

I agree that nullsec is supposed to be dangerous. That’s why it should be dangerous for people on interceptors roaming.

1 Like
1853

You just want to push the agenda that ECM is something which has no counter though there are obviously enough ways already to go against it.

Just because people are too lazy or to dumb to fit against it is in not way a reason to remove it from the game.

3 Likes
1854

It also doesn’t seem a genuine argument for the ecm change. ECM is chance based, and you are jammed or you aren’t. However, damps are guaranteed to work, and if the damper is kitey enough and outside your range you are guaranteed screwed. No chance based screwage either, it’s guaranteed, cycle after cycle.

This is of course ignoring the fact that there are specific module counters to ecm. Complaining about being jammed when not fitting a sebo is surely the same as complaining about being scrammed when you didn’t fit WCS (as just one of a myriad examples).

3 Likes
1855

It’s suppose to be dangerous for pIayers that are living in there not otherwise. I read your 3 point plan. It’s partially good, but you don’t get it. You treating symptomps not diseases. Have you ever playerd chess?

1856

I call BULL - If you want to see how dangerous null is look at CCP Larrikin monthly reports :-
Domain, Germinate, Esoteria, Delve

Trillions of ISK in uninterrupted mining & ratting - You get that kind of income by being SAFE and not having to worry about roaming gangs

Did the interceptor fleets begin to pinch profits or were the renters complaining that you couldn’t protect them?

… of course cloaky AFK can still cause problems - When’s the fix for that coming?
Then you will be really SAFE

3 Likes
1857

I’d honestly be happy to see td and camps get the same treatment as ecm.
No one complains that remote reps are useless solo after all. And ewar would still be powerful.
Plus it.would give the other ewar drones a place in solo meta since they count as “not your ship” for the origin of effects. So would work solo.

But I do think this ecm change is good.

1858

You’re confusing warrior types:
Logi = Priest of healing
ECM = Mage of Illusion

ECM NOW = Mage that lost his spell book and has to stand in front of the paladin knight

Edit - I do like the idea that ECM drones can only be used by specific ECM ships
(if that’s what you mean by providing a solo role with their drones)