October 2018 Release - General Feedback

EVE Information Portal Announcements
, ,
102

Not really. They can decide if they want to be on here or not. Aryth, for example, has probably never posted on these new forums and he’s still the #1 vote getter. Posting on the forums has little to no impact for most of these guys on whether they get elected or not. So many of them feel no need to subject themselves to the scorn when there’s little upside to it for them.

Not everybody treats this the way that I do. That’s their prerogative and I’m not going to say they’re wrong for doing the job the way they want to. I do it the way I want to.

You’re welcome.

2 Likes
103

When a logi gets jammed out it sends out a request for jams … LOL
then the ECM ship taking damage can get reps.

Remember - everyone and their aunt has to shoot at the ECM so the logi has no need to rep each other

P.S
Do you think CCP will consider adding prop mods to my Astrahus so I can kite at range whist using my standup ECM to taunt the opponent … or am I stuck with shouting insults from the battlements

2 Likes
104

But there is a counter, lrn2play.

4 Likes
105

Good point. But still. It doesn’t change the fact that ECM is now only useful in fleets that are medium to large size.
This in turn reinforces the trend towards less accessibility for small gang PVP.
A fleet needs at least 1 logi, one ECM and then the DPS and other combat utility to be somewhat effective with ECM.
ECM without logi on the field is now suicide.
Effective fleet size for ECM use, i would guess, to be closer to 10+ people. With 2 or 3 being logi and 1 or 2 ecm.
3 to 5 people would make a pretty solid ECM squad I guess.
Not a lot, but still, it has an exclusive effect on Low-sec roams and small gang.

But yeah… I honestly feel that it is the ones complaining about ECM, that fails in structuring their fleets.
Remote sensor-boosters are a thing. Local sensor reinforcement is also a thing.
I would rather have seen a boost to these modules than a ECM knee-cap.

The new state of ECM has flipped the tactical approach to using and countering ECM. Where a fleet would have to field a support vessel with remote sensor-boosters to counter ECM in the past, now it is the users of ECM that have to field a support squad for them.

In the end it is making the tactical situation a FC needs to be prepared for, fewer and less complicated. Not that that in it self is inherently bad, but at the same time, you need to fly in more strict formations, which complicate the use of ECM in roams a lot! On top of that, in the worst case, it adds a ship or two to the fleet that has to protect the ECM. Those one or two ships would have to be on the “defending side” before.

I remember a time where ECM was very unattractive. Ahh… such a long time ago.

[An ECM BB and a Dominix locking down a tempest:]

-“What are you trying to dock with me?”

+“Oh yeah. Sorry about that. … Seoul! The docking computer is acting up again!”
+(“Okay. Hang on, I’ll lit it”)

-“Your shoddy minmatar equipment is the least of your problems”

+“Yeah, yeah yeah there, hold on a second… Seoul!?”
+(“Yeah?”)
+“While you are at it… Fire up the sensor-boosters.”

-“Sensor-boosters?”

+And Charlie? Hit that blackbird as soon as you get a lock. There’s a good chap"
+(“Love to… Nobody likes an e-warfare ship”)

-“What do you thin…”

+“Two things I’ve leaned recently. One: Don’t get jammed.”

-“Sir. Their weapon systems are back online.”

+“And two:”

-“What?”

+“Stationary ships don’t react well to 1400’s”

1400’s blaps the blackbird while the Dominix captain:
-“Get us out of here!”

+“Did he just run away?”
+“I do believe he did. Someone mark the calendar”

Go watch Clear Skies if you haven’t…

sorry for going off on a tangent… But relevant, I thought it was.

1 Like
106

Clumsy attemt, to clumsy even for a Goon like you.
Find me, knock at the door and beg for admission, or shoot the structure.
But no free lunch here.

2 Likes
107

It’s a joke.

108

a bad one; following a slew of bad posts (by brisc) on the Relevant topics at hand. not surprised really.

1 Like
109

jammed 1/5 talos as they ganked a Charon in hs. end result? jammer is dead, gankers are dead, Charon aaalmost dead. still getting bumped. ope, dead now, cuz gankers reshipped and finished it off. gg ccp. gankers +1 their fleets, anyone trying to jam criminals; dead. gank target? still dead. bumping? working as intended, nothing to see here.
all this has done is allow logi to no longer Need to fit eccm and fighters no longer have to fear ewar. oh, and it killed an entire class of ewar.

gj gsm. gj ccp.

1 Like
110

Hmmm. :thinking: Might just as well remove this from the lore then, too:

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is ‘dishonorable’ and ‘unfair’.
Jam those ones first, and kill them last.”

  • Jirai ‘Fatal’ Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

Unless it is supposed to remain as a reminder on how a gauntlet can make a slap added to the insult hurt more than you even began to dare to imagine. :smile: So many excellent suggestions on how to better nuance changes to the ECM in this thread. Yet we have to contend with “refinement” that is on par with nerfing the entire game mechanic, along with specialized ships and modules, with a rusty nail-spiked baseball club.

What if we applied the similar “logic” to turrets and/or missiles - that once attacked, you can lock and counterattack only those ships and/or structures that damaged you first? It would surely make for a more pleasurable and frustration-free gaming session. :smile:

Dear devs, if you are reading this thread, please review and take into consideration some of the aforementioned excellent suggestions expressed here - on how to better implement changes to ECM. I believe your intention was indeed not to make it totally useless for solo and/or small-scale operations, but only to make it less frustrating to those on its receiving end. But it is what it is - you went (a mega-bit) overboard.

Thank you for your continued dedication to making Eve Online one of the best Sci-Fi MMORPGs in the Orion Spur.

3 Likes
111

I think Brisc said you have to TAUNT them

Did you try taunting them ?

1 Like
112

duh!!? stupid me! lol

I AM impressed with the agency, added, to anyone who may happen to get jammed…whenever the hell that will ever be now :thinking:

I AM impressed with the feelings associated with never being jammed, even when you ARE jammed.

When are other ‘Feelings’ of bad things going to be addressed ccpee? ive heard its unfun to be bumped for hours at a time. I heard its unfun to be neuted dry, to the point that cap boosters don’t even provide a Feeling of Agency. ive heard entosising all the things for hours upon hours is unfun. ive heard being damped down to 5km lock range is unfun. ive heard being ganked in hs is unfun and FEELS BAD…Now that you Finally ‘FIXED’ ecm, can you fix everything else in the game that is ‘unfun’ and ‘feels’ bad plz??

can we get a fishing pole and a nice quiet system to sit in, while we shop for our skins on market or afk for RL? while your at it? I heard you guys kno some guys, that can help with ‘fun’ game additions?

pardon, sarcasm

5 Likes
113

As an alternative to the current ECM change that makes ECM ships and modules worthless for solo players would it be more balanced if they changed some of the parameters of the ECM modules but letting the mechanic work as it used to do, i.e. breaking locks and jamming for a period of time?

I was thinking here of increased cycle time and reduced jamming time. I think this may have been suggested elsewhere. Furthermore, I would say that once the jammed ship gets a break and initiates locking that lock will finish and lock a target and that lock gets an “invulnerability timer” for a few seconds before that lock can be broken again.

By increasing cycle times and reducing jamming times it should be very difficult for the jamming ship to be perma-jammed and with the “invulnerability timer”, the jammed ship should be able to do something against the jamming ship for a short period of time. Additionally, the distances for optimal and falloff could be adjusted, so that the jammed ship though piloting could reduce the jamming strength of the jamming ship by moving further away into falloff where the jamming strength is reduced.

For implementation, I would think that it would not require too many resources to implement changes to cycle time and jamming time, but I do not know about the “invulnerability timer”. The above suggestion is just one possible solution. Several suggestions have been made in various threads.

This may not be what some of us want, but I think this would be a more balanced solution than with the current ECM change. While I think that ECM definitely should be balanced, I think the current ECM change focuses way too much on the “feeling bad” of the jammed ships and does not take into account the frustrations of the jamming ships when jams miss. Balance should be fair to both sides of the equation which I think is not the case with the current situation.

And yes, ECM would still be a “game of chance” where you would have to stack the odds in your favor by adding ECCM to your fit (fitting choice). Some people may not like the idea but this is a valid counter. Additionally, for piloting, the jammed ship can also move further away into falloff of the jamming ship to reduce jamming strength (and maybe include long range weapons).

The randomness is at the heart of the mechanic, and if CCP is not satisfied with it they should spend necessary resources to do so rather than come up with some half-solutions that breaks some areas of gameplay for some players. If CCP is not prepared to do so, they should come up with a more balanced solution than the current one.

While there may definitely be some applications for ECM in groups, overall I think ECM is broken until it is fixed so that it is viable for solo players again. Until this is fixed, I view the implemented solution as broken, period.

One last note – I think it is a shame that no dev has responded so far. The devs may be listening or they may not be listening – we do not know, since no dev has responded. And given the current atmosphere in the thread I do not think that replies from the CSM stating that the devs are listening will be enough. I think the reply will have to come from CCP to ascertain that CCP is in fact listening.

Anyway these are just my thoughts – feel free to agree or disagree as you see fit.

2 Likes
114

23 days ago CCP announced this balance pass. In the time since then, there has not been a single message from any member of CCP to indicate that they have even seen the concerns of the changes they just implemented. Not even a “We have read your concerns” message promising nothing. Just silence. No engagement on the patch. No engagement on any SP refunds. No engagement, as far as we can tell, at all with anyone.

This is not the behaviour of a responsible development team. Asking for feedback, while apparently ignoring it entirely, is a massive failure on their part, and has caused me to completely lose faith in CCP. As a result I had a GM suspend my accounts omega via support ticket, and have uninstalled the game.

I may return one day, but not today, and certainly not until they get their community engagement act together.

6 Likes
115

You could use the default turret range setup. Maybe reduce the optimal ranges so to get 100% strenght you have to be close. And increase falloff range so the farther out you are the more the strenght drops.

I also still think changing the module to match the ship size makes sense. Small, medium, etc… so if some wants to put a medium on a frigate they can, but the cost will be high to mount it, but the strenght gain would be huge. A bit like the Neuts.

I look at the ships and think there is no one a small frigate should be effective enough to jam a battleship solo, it just doesnt have the power to support that concept. A group of frigates combining their ECM on one battleship sure. In solo like vs like should be equal, but increase target size the effectiveness of the jam should drop, and the only way to counter should be re-enforce the jam with more modules (at the cost of other modules and mounting requirements) or get another ship in to help.

I still wonder why CCP didnt think of these ideas/concepts before throwing this patch out, these are basic ideas and already in play for other modules.

The Oct balance pass topic about the ECM suggest changes is well pass the 2000 mark, and with many suggested options given, yet no response to any of them from CCP or CSM, instead you have CSM defending themselves.

With such a massive negative response youd think CCP would have held back on releasing the ECM change and come up a better solution (even if based on a community suggestion)

2 Likes
116

@dewk
There were definitely other ways to balance ECM than the way it was done.

Though we have no way to know for sure to me it seems that the change was a bit rushed and based on a snap decision made at the CSM meeting. As the meeting minutes states:

"ECM is mentioned and CCP Rise feels that being able to do something on the field despite being jammed would be a necessary change to make a good ECM balance. One idea which was thrown around was to be able to target the ship which is jamming the player"

Based on the above statement it seems that “OK, we need to do something about ECM, so let us try this”.

The above statement is all I could find about the ECM change in the minutes and if this statement is a measurement for the time spent on discussing at the meeting, it seems not much time was spent on considering the implications the change would have on the use of ECM in various situations in the game. While we cannot no for sure, to me it seems to indicate that the change was rushed and not well thought through.

As I have stated before, I definitely think that ECM should be balanced, but I just think CCP could have done so in so many different ways rather than the one that was chosen. There have been plenty of suggestions, including yours.

Personally, I do not care too much whether someone may be pressing their own agenda in this matter. I am looking at the mechanic itself. And as long as it is not viable for all players to fly no matter whether you are a solo player/small gang/fleet, ECM is broken.

There is also the possibility that CCP have something up their sleeve which they want to present at EVE Vegas (and therefore, they do not want to present anything here), but that is a longshot.

However, only time will tell whether ECM will be adjusted.

5 Likes
117

As i see it a basic strenght solution would work, you just need to look at the 300/600/900 drone strenghts. That could be expanded on to include small/medium/large/xl, which each to match the respective default sensor strenght of ship of those size classes. Simple stuff really.

If your ECM strwnght is stronger than your targets sensor strenght you jam for one cycle, next cycle if target doesnt load a counter ECCM script or has a remote sensor boost from someone you win.
Though i would suggest an idea someone else mentioned of adding a cooldown timer before next cycle, even if only a second or too might give a jammed ship the chance to do something else to counted the jamming ship.

118

@dewk
Yes, that could definitely be an option, we will just have to wait and see whether CCP are prepared to make adjustments :wink:

1 Like
119

Just adding my +1 to hating the changes to ECM I no longer see the point of the entire mechanic as it has been totally broken in its current state.

8 Likes
120

You know since the patch ive been trying to come up with a scorp fit that isnt lol.
I have failed as at best the dps is moderately high for a cruiser tank yes, you can fit an ok tank - its still not particularly good, im trying the same with the blackbird…thing is both of these ships ONLY have bonuses to ECM, which is now total garbage unless u fly blobfests…

4 Likes
121

Bravo sir, bravo. :smiley: