ECM idea - distrubuted probabilty

Currently, ECM grants a x% chance to disable all targeting.

This matters because most all offensive modules require a target.

The basic idea is to replace this with a x% chance to disable each targeted module seperately.

(By targeted module I mean: turrets, scrams, webs, etc.)

Some common complaints regarding ECM that I have seen:

  1. It randomly grants a huge advantage to the user, victims get triggered by being beaten by a PRNG rather than another player. Similarly, ECM users sometimes complain that half the time it does nothing.

  2. The victim has no counterplay whatsoever, ECM users are not perceived to have done anything interesting/skillful by using it.

How this change would affect those complaints:

  1. The probability that you jam every targeted module is much smaller. The probability that you jam no modules is also much smaller. Rather than ECM occasionally granting an automatic win from RNGesus, it disables x% of the target’s targeted modules with reasonable consistancy and the only real random element becomes the modules it happened to disable that particular cycle.

  2. I think this would be the clearest advantage, both complaints would be made completely redundant. In order to capitalize on/mitigate ECM the user/victim has to do the following mid-fight:

    a) Notice(victim) or infer(user) what is jammed.
    b) Know or work out what the optimal course of action is given the current jam profile.
    c) Act on this while maintaining their normal reps/movements.

    1337 politing skeelz!1!1!1!11


  1. Large ships might be much more elusive prey because even when jams land they will usually still have some DPS to blap at the ECM ships.

  2. Hardpoints get an advantage distinct from their contribution to hardpoints*damage_mod. (Many destroyers get a cool niche role.)

  3. Having the midslots to double scram gives you the option to reduce the probability the target can warp out to x^2, marginal fitting buff to some ships.


  1. In some situations, disabling a single important module (eg scram 1vs1, a low-tracking ship’s web) is enough to win/escape anyway. In such situations, ECM would be significantly BUFFED because on top of giving x% chance to satisfy the circumstantial win condition it would be disabling x% of the victim’s hardpoints. Either the base x should be reduced or midslots(and utility highs?) should be more resistant to ECM than hardpoints. I doubt ECM users would actually mind because the increased number of rolls per cycle (1 per targeted module) would still mean that ECM did nothing much less frequently.

  2. Drones don’t fit very neatly into the idea, I imagine it could get very messy and resource intensive to jam a ships control of each drone seperately. (Can individual drones even recieve seperate orders?) Should probably just count ‘the ship’s ability to order drones to attack a particular target’ as a module, with the same relative disadvantage that hardpoints have vs mid/ut.highs. Could also make ‘ability to aquire new targets’ a jammable pseudo module in similar fashion, to retain theme.

  3. You could further reign in outliers, where small ECM ships land jams on much larger ships, by generating a ‘maximum jammable modules’ variable based on jam_strength vs sensor strength (presumably with minimum 1.) Jammer could randomly pick ‘max’ targeted modules on the victim and attempt to jam each one (dumb, more outliers) or could attempt to jam each module and then randomly select from those it had succeeded the check for until ‘max’ modules were jammed(smooth average).

  4. You could slightly reign in the ability of ECM frigate swarms to crush enourmous ships by having each jammer be ignorant of which modules on the victim hull were already jammed. If a gang attacks a large ship, some portion of the successful jams will land on modules that are already jammed. Even assuming this resets the cooldown of the jam, its less effective than a fresh jam on an unjammed module. Another rather extreme approach would be to make ‘max jammable targets’ be ‘the number of jammed modules the jammer can increase the jammed module count to.’ This way, if your frigate gang can only jam 1 module on your target, having 100 frigates still only allows you to jam 1 module at a time and only increases the consistancy with which 1 module is jammed. I imagine you would have to be pretty lenient towards the jammer with the ‘max jammable modules’ calculation.

  5. One issue with the above set of suggestions is that IF guns/ability to control drones are less resistant to jams than scram/web/neut AND max jammable modules < targeted modules on victims hull AND additional jams are ignorant of which modules are already jammed THEN in the average case ECM will completely kill the targets DPS and the poor battleship bro will be sat their with his scram/web and no DPS twiddling his thumbs. To avoid this you could either switch option 1 to ‘reduce base x% for all ECM’ or you could give hulls/ship-classes role-specific ECM resistances (EG. battleships double racial weapon ECM resists, assault frigates double tackle ECM resist). Latter option is certainly more interesting but it could get pretty messy.

This got really super long and vague, if nothing else I hope it demonstrates that replacing winnerTakesAll thouShaltNotTargetAnything ECM with some kind of distributed module jamming would make it much easier to tweak, make ECM combat more demanding/exciting and create opportunities to give various ships niche but significant benefits.

Perhaps one of the reasons it has never been ‘fixed’ is that the ability to make a ship unable to use ANY targeted modules is too ‘heavy’ an ability to balance

Lastly, the main disadvantage I can think of[1] is that it would pose quite a few UI problems.

If one of a group of weapons is jammed, is it removed from the group? Does it stop the whole group firing? Does it remember if heat is on when the jam ends?

If ‘drone control’ and ‘target aquisition’ are jammable pseudo-modules, how could you inform the player without further cluttering the scroon?

I guess it also makes the game even more complicated, but honestly who cares game is impossibly deep anyway.

[1] besides the fact that ECM would still actually exist KEK AMIRITE!!1!!!11!111


Fit a sensor booster with the relevant script in your hold.

1 Like

ECM is the perfect EVE module.

May do nothing. May do everything. Brings tears either way.

Please leave as is.


[sorry silly post, removed]

This doesn’t solve problem 2, Sensor Boosters are not really that effective, and there it is still an underwhelmingly undemanding module to use/play against.

A drone boat will still be wailing away on you, regardless if it’s jammed or not. If you set your drones to aggressive and focus fire, they will attack whatever is attacking you, with no input from you necessary…

Let we discuss about “problem” you hear about ECM

First Complain

All ECM do is prevent target from lock target. It don’t stop target from rep its local tank, receive remote reps, or prevent it from move around. It mean nothing stop it from burn away from ECM boat (because Caldari boat are notorious slow to begin with)

Extra bonus: most time people who complain about get jammed often were in fight against gang, and are just mad that they don’t get kill out of this fight. Let we assure that if ECM is useless, Good chance instead ECM boat, someone would bring Logi ship and denied said person from get kill anyway.

Second Complain

‘no counter’ - Wrong, there are 3 known methods to counter against ECM

  • Auto-targeting Missile

  • Sebo scripted with ECCM

  • Drone auto-aggro

As you can see, there are 3 different methods. It is not Jammer’s fault if no one took effort to counter ECM

1 Like

Sensor boosters with the appropriate script are the counter. If that is insufficient, then the course of action is to look at sebos not make ECM more complicated.

I actually like this idea a lot. Definitely adds another layer of skill to combat scenarios. While others have a point in saying that there are counters to ECM (such as ECCM), these counters represent fitting choices over combat tactics. I would like to see a shift in EVE towards active piloting over pure fit design. I strongly approve of combat strategies like hyper active tanks and kite tanks, the less afk shooting the better.

This idea has been proposed many times in various incarnations.

The complaints you address

  1. The random huge advantage
    The reason “random” is bad is not because of the huge advantage it imparts, it is because an ECM platform uses ECM as its primary tank. When ECM misses, the platform falls back to woefully lacking secondary tanks (buffer, active, whatever). Making it affect modules would not resolve this.
  2. No counterplay? What about a sebo? Those are hella-useful with scan res scripts, and an ECCM script will more than ruin an ECM platform’s day. Maybe not 100% but we’re not talking about hard-counters, we’re talking about counterplay.

I think you are all vastly overestimating sebos.

Maybe, but that is at best a weak argument for your case. The most obvious path is to re-visit sebo’s with an ECM script, not go and start hacking a new path out of the wilderness.

That’s not really counter play and It doesn’t fix the RNGesus issue.

The way I’d do it is simply make it an actual electronic countermeasure the module blows out a bunch of smoke chaff and flairs that simply reduces your Sig radius or a target ships sig rad significantly.

Pretty much a counter TP but with a “spool up” time like a MJD in return for a much greater percentage of reduced sig rad.

Also known as a weapon disruptor with a tracking speed script?

Yes, the weapon disruptors affect tracking speed and not the weapon’s sig resolution, but insofar as the math is concerned, they’re identical effects.

“Improve sig tanks” is basically your suggestion. Weapon disruptors (amarr) already do that very nicely… and better, because they can script for range to completely screw kiters.

The weapon disrupter also screw the tracking of the enemy no matter who they shoot at. If they don’t shoot at you, reducing your own sig is kinda useless.

First off, yes it is counter play.

Second, so ECM uses a RNG…so what? So do things like guns.

In light of the new forums i won’t berate you for this worn out idea but i will explain all that ecm needs.

First ecm is the weakest out of all forms of e- war but this is okay.
Second ecm is the hardest e- war to master

Okay this is what it needs and all mechanics issues will vanish.

All ecm modules (except burst) also give a sensor booster based on it’s ecm types.
(This will need testing as the base values for the modules will need adjusting. )

Add a max jam chance to remove 100% jams.

And boom ecm is fixed

1 Like

…and if you have an Amarr command ship with information warfare links, even a dramiel shooting a battleship will have a really bad day.

A drone boat will still be wailing away on you, regardless if it’s jammed or not. If you set your drones to aggressive and focus fire, they will attack whatever is attacking you, with no input from you necessary…

This generally only works if you have your drones out before combat has been initiated. If you get caught unprepared and put your drones out after you have already been jammed and shot at, then usually the drones will do absolutely nothing.

or if your drones are killed.

though assigning them gets around this if you are in a fleet