ECM Balance Pass - November

ships
pvp

(Nevyn Auscent) #21

And what Tank do you expect an Ewar cruiser to get to before it’s no longer a paper tank?
These are cruisers, so keep that in mind with your numbers.


(Johnny Punisher) #22

ECM has been a mechanic in Eve for the past 15 years or something. It has always been annoying and most players have hated it. Could we at least try for a year or two how Eve would play out without it being a pain in the ass?

Please give the ecm ships some other ability that isn’t RNG.

And those that complain that ecm doesn’t work in solo situations: Remote repairs also don’t work in solo situations and nobody complains about that.


(Rovinia) #23

Perhaps i was not clear in that post, I don’t want them to be brawler tanks.

What i was trying to say is that the COMBINATION of no speed, no tank and no range makes them nearly useless atm. Before the ECM changes, the jammers took the role of the tank for these ships, this is not the case anymore. So they need some sort of survivability or they will just die in an insta.


(Nevyn Auscent) #24

As I asked. How much tank do you think they need. Stop evading and actually put a number to this.


(Rovinia) #25

Arround 30% more tank (concrete EHP numbers depend on the fitting) OR a range bonus like their T1 counterparts to give them some survivability. I would prefer the second option because E-War ships shouldn’t be brawlers.

Satisfied?


(Nevyn Auscent) #26

No, put an actual concrete number on it. Stop evading.


(Johnny Punisher) #27

He said 30% more tank. Stop being a bad.


(Nevyn Auscent) #28

To have 30% more you first have to define your base number. 30% more of 10k, of 25k? Omni Tank, Resist hole or Resist peaks?


(Johnny Punisher) #29

The ehp they have now +30% more?


(Nevyn Auscent) #30

So Base EHP then without any modules? This is why I asked. Because there are so many options with your fits that you have to actually define these things.


(Rovinia) #31

Example:

Shield tanked Falcon with 3 Jammers (2 Extenders, 1x Invul, Damage control II, Prop mod) is about 31K EHP atm, would bring them roughly to 40k with that increase. Armor tank (1x 1600 II Plate, Damage control II and Adaptive nano membrane) is about the same. Numbers without rigs.

Or a 5% Bonus to Optimal and Falloff per recon ship level so they can work on a distance of 50km with the current tank. Would be still in drone range and allow counter play.

What is your approach? Enlighten me.


(Nevyn Auscent) #32

So you want to make the base shield EHP about 8k then? That’s more than an average caldari battleship has for base EHP.
Or you could just fit 1 less jammer and have that 40k.

Hence why I pointed at making the jammers into scripts that go onto a multifreq jammer rather than racial jammers, so that you can fit fewer jammers and adjust on the fly to your opponents to allow you to fit more tank.


(Rovinia) #33

Sorry, but these numbers are just wrong. According to EFT, Shield effective HP (with the T2 resists) of a unfitted falcon is about 4k (would be 5.3k with 30% increase), Raven has 12k, Rokh 10.6k.

Overall TP’s of these ships unfitted in the current state:

Falcon: 8k
Raven: 34k
Rokh: 45k

But as i said, i wouldn’t prefere the tank buff approach.


(Nevyn Auscent) #34

I was using base EHP, rather than assuming perfect V’s, and may have slightly gotten my maths wrong as I might have included skills in the falcon when checking how much base shield would have to increase. Ok, if you want perfect V’s then it’s not ‘quite’ as drastic a jump, but it still pushes their shield EHP well into the BC range to get a 9k EHP increase.
If it goes into hull & armour then it’s not effective tank long term, since reps can’t catch it. And I’ll admit I’m making an assumption here but I am assuming you were asking for a 9k effective tank increase. Otherwise you might as well just increase the shield by 30% and leave the rest alone, because it’s not going to make much difference in any fleet situation if it can’t catch reps.

But as I said, if instead we look at making it not as important to have half your mids as jammers, then we get that tank increase without having to inflate the base EHP levels by a LOT.


(Johnny Punisher) #35

Idea for non-rng role for ecm: anti-capital support. That would shift meta so that capitals would need subcaps to support them against enemy ecm ships.

Went roaming yesterday in lowsec and immediately saw a dude using stabber as a bait for cloaky nidhoggur sitting 100km outside small plex. That stuff needs to stop, it’s getting ridiculous.


(Luscius Uta) #36

Considering that Redeemer, Sin and Panther don’t get EWAR bonuses, I wouldn’t be opposed to removing ECM bonus from Widow entirely and replacing it with something else. Maybe a reduction to fuel consumption for bridging since its lack of lowslots and cargo space makes it the worst Blops for bridging, or so I’ve heard.


(Johnny Punisher) #37

Make widow anti-capital support ship. It will be extremely useful after that.


(Litsea Reticulata) #38

It would make sense that warp scrams, warp disruptors, turret disruptors, missile disruptors, paints, ECM and sensor dampeners are all subject to #rand or all NOT subject to #rand.

How’s it any different being ECM’d out and being unable to fight back vs being pointed and unable to get away?


(Litsea Reticulata) #39

One guy in a blackbird jamming out 3 fighter squads isn’t the same as one blackbird having to jam out 15 sentry drones which is what carriers used to be able to fit. The survivability of a carrier vs small gang was one of those ‘collateral damage’ changes that happens from time to time. For whatever bad the ECM changes are, in respect to carriers its more of a return to balance than a buff.


(Litsea Reticulata) #40

A signature radius reduction on the widow is like pulling the mirrors off a school bus and saying its now harder to hit with an RPG.