Why can a warp scrambler affect a micro warp drive. It only has warp in the name also…
That argument cuts both ways.
1 Like
A micro warp drive is by its very name a small amount of warp…
A micro jump drive is a localised, small warp tunnel…
A target that is scrammed can still be MJF away…
For certain ECM is in a very sorry state, just look at the market, its not worth making T2 modules and T1 modules are basically being held up to their mineral component costs.
I said at the start, ALL the e-war should be affected by #RAND ( warp disrupt, scram, webs, tracking, painting and ECM ) or NONE of it. Why a sensor damper works with a %100 chance of success and ECM doesn’t is just incomprehensible.
Heh, except that’s not the case, the warp scrambler is able to affect an MWD because…
That’s what it says in the module description! 
From pyfa:
“Disrupts the target ship’s navigation computer, disabling warping, jumping, microwarpdrives and micro jump drives.”
But it isn’t. The operation of the two things is nothing alike. Do you hear “warp drive active” every time your MWD cycles (or a micro version of this)?
You have MJD right? I’ve never seen any sort of tunnel form! U just blip, there’s a bubbly thing that seems to form around you first, but no tunnel.
MJF? Last I checked if you were scrammed you can’t MJD or be booshed?
Regards,
Cypr3ss.
So if CCP changed stabs and updated the description you would have no issue then right? Since that is your entire argument.
Much like they changed and updated ecm… So obviously ecm is all fine.
You seem to be confused, I’m stating that the reason stabs do not affect MJD/MWD but do affect the ability to Warp is because they are NOT the same thing, even though they might sound similar.
Except it’s not, that was simply my response to your inanity.
Thanks for stopping by though, ECM still not fixed.
Regards,
Cypr3ss.
Attempts to fix have failed
1 Like
It was not broken in the first place. A nuub in development didn’t know about the counter skills or the ~30 items. He posted it was “impossible” to counter and he nerfed it.
The worst nuubs are the ones in development.
I’d be willing to bet he was the same dev nuub that fell for the hauling scam and then created unload without docking.
2 Likes
That’s rubbish.
It was nerfed in 2004 because it was broken at conception. Poor gameplay.
Every attempt at balance and at giving Caldari something really meaningful in the EWar department has failed.
There is plenty of scope to reinvent it better.
You should have read the blog before replying, it read like a C&P newbie whine.
“WAAA I was locked down and could not respond, WAAAA there is no counter to this”
The author made the mistake of undocking with the wrong fit and skills, most likely wanted to max out his output and could not “WASTE SLOTS” on tank or counter measures.
1 Like
This is a good idea too. I would be happy with either…
1 Like
Basically this. ^^
@CCP_Rise @CCP_Falcon @CCP_Fozzie can we please have an update on wtf is happening with ECM?
And bring the ECM drones into line with all the other ‘combat utility’ drones, for the love of < insert deity of choice here >.
Regards,
Cypr3ss.
2 Likes
Any update at all re ECM & the ships that use it would be appreciated.
Regards,
Cypr3ss.
I realized why they did it.
It’s so sad it makes you want to puke.
In the instanced 1v1 PvP it was a game breaker.
Instance in a sandbox is stupid.
1v1 is even more stupid, even WOW clones don’t instance 1v1.
This is the ultimate fools errand, they are trying to balance 1v1.
2 Likes
If that is the case it’s a very sad state of affairs indeed…
Of course to know for sure we’d need to hear from someone within CCP…
I guess that’s asking a little too much.
Regards,
Cypr3ss.
Hi
Given that CCP is not going to reverse the ECM change, I had an idea (I will let you judge whether it is good) which will let the ECM affect the target while still letting the target affect the ECM ship.
The basic idea is that when a ship gets jammed the ECM will have an impact on all modules with a range greater than 0. This is not chance based and will take effect when the jammer hits no matter whether the normal jamming attempt succeeds.
The idea is to have auto-cycle on all these modules disabled for the duration of the jamming and the ECM will cause a small cool-down period after each cycle of the module.
As for the ranking of the length of the cool-down period I was thinking:
- Longest: Racial jammers on matching racial target.
- Medium: Multi spectrum jammers.
- Shortest: Racial jammers on non-matching target.
A module can only be affected by one jammer once per cycle (the strongest jammer applies)
Fitting a sensor booster with an ECCM script will reduce the cool-down period and maybe cancel the disabled module auto-cycling.
This is just a basic idea and a lot of details need to be fleshed out. However, I think this idea may have the potential to reduce incoming DPS against the ECM ship.
Let me know what you think.
It is good to know that there’s nothing you can do to counter ECM, especially with all the different modules and skills available to help you counter ECM.
Regards,
Cypr3ss.
3 Likes
Another really simple fix would be to have it just give a chance for breaking target locks, and increase the cycle time on the jammers. ECM boats like the blackbird or griffin would gain cycle time bonuses, and the scorpion/widow would gain bonuses to the target breaker module THAT ALREADY EXISTS as an AoE equivalent to it. The mechanics would be simple, it encourages player skill to pay attention to it for countering, and scan resolution would be added as a counter in conjunction to the sensor strength bonus sensor boosters already give.
What, need more encouragement? Ok.
It also increases parity with other forms of racial electronic warfare. Combined with sensor damps, it becomes even more effective, and in a fleet the use of defensive target painters scales its usage against larger targets, not to mention things like networked sensor arrays and remote sebos.
Best of all, a simple target lock breaking mechanic works on a wider variety of combat situations. Close to mid-range, it helps with breaking tackle, but still retains good usage against enemy logistics and anti-disruption tactics at long range.
1 Like
After playing around in PYFA a bit, I think the general concept is ok. There are some viable fits for fleet support. However, I have a few complaints:
-
Having to switch out modules in order to make your EWAR work is a needless logistical hassle. Long loading scrips seem like they would accomplish the same objective of forcing people to commit to a decision, without forcing your entire fleet to dock up, or safe up and drop mobile depots to swap the things out. This also applies to TD/GDs.
-
Recons badly need EWAR range bonuses, particularly Rooks and Falcons. All the recons suffer from short range EWAR, which makes them a bit boringly predictable. However, with the exception of the Rook and Falcon, they still have a role to play because they have strong secondary EWAR range bonuses that outperforms anything else. Rooks/Falcons do not have any EWAR range bonus and have to compete with ECM Tengus, which are far superior in almost every respect.
-
Where are the nerfs to TDs/GDs and damps? They can be every bit as punishing as ECM, without the dice role that they won’t work. For example: A T2 fit Keres with a scram and a 3 damps can scram kite every frigate in the game (and an awful lot of other ships) beyond their lock range while still fitting a useful tank. Similarly focused TD setups are very similar, especially when stacked with nuets for range control.
Rooks used to be quite good at brawling 1v1 or 1v2 and in small gangs applying some ecm whilst keeping some slots for tank. Falcons used to be good as a mid to long range jam, and tanking by locking out ships with long range weapons. Griffins used to be good at kiting and jamming.
Now a niche group can play 1v1 instanced pvp without ECM breaking it.
Zkill shows losses & kills for ECM ships are below 50% of pre-nerf levels. CCP fixed something that wasn’t really broken by making the ships not worth flying.
You would think limiting the number of ECM modules allowed would have worked much better - frigate gets 1, Crusiers get 2, Battleships get 3.
You could even make a rig that added an extra slot, with penalties of course.
1 Like
All EWAR (excluding tackle) should work like energy neuts and gradually drain your Sensors and Weapons
ECM would lower your sensor strength which would lower your maximum lockable targets (eventially to zero)
RSD’s would lower your lock range or scan resolution a portion per cycle down to the maximum debuff
TD’s and GD’s would do the same to weapons.
We need anti drone EWAR too - Lowers control range or drone tracking / optimal range by effecting the parent ship.
Countermeasures should be redesigned to actually work well too. I’m working on a proposal for all of this. Maybe as a video in the future.
EWAR could be really interesting… currently, it’s not.