whats about ecm bursts with this changes? pointless anymore?
ECM bursts didnât change.
so you still loose the lock
itâs funny admit it
they need the changes rolled back tbh.
1 Like
Revert the change for both of these ships, they were both balanced before the overly broad sweeping changes
I mean Widow has basically lost its primary function in the game (especially in regards to jamming fighters, which regardless of if the Widow gets buffed still needs to be reverted) and the GNI is literally useless⌠like completely.
The GNI is in a similar state that the claw is now but much worse, since its gimmick was short range ecm tanking in solo pvp, literally all it was good for. Could make the GNI basically a shield Comet (blaster alternative to the Hookbill) but thatâs lame and ruins what made that ship special
If you arent spamming ECM its basically useless and the dedicated ships are basically cannon fodder, which is ok for a t1 blackbird or griffin but not for a 400m+ falcon or widow. In my experience these non spam ECM ships were mostly used in BLOPS as a much needed force multiplier in enemy systems where youâre outnumbered,.
Honestly the biggest issue was EC-300s being fitted on almost everything (that isnât a dedicated drone platform and is cruiser up) and yet theyâre the form of ECM that is punished the LEAST in this change (since you still have to target the drones, rather than the ship in the case of projectors)
If it was me Iâd have just nerfed EC-300s into the ground (except for against fighters, theyre still good for fighting carrier spam outnumbered, and if the carrier pilot knows what theyre doing they can pull them in to smartbomb the EC-300s) but the biggest issue has barely been addressed whilst destroying multiple small gang or solo playstyles that were not at all overpowered.
Edit: and then going off on a tangent, stop burst jammers from whoring on killmails, creates tonnes of unnecessary lag in tidi fests and encourages more people to be in the system that are not contributing to the fight in anyway (which furthermore creates lag)
1 Like
When I was in law school, one of the hardest things for students to do was to answer the question that was given, without inventing different things that could change the answer and make it easier or harder to solve. We called that âfighting the hypoâ and it was a common refrain from Professors - âdonât fight the hypo.â
So when the question here is âwhat buffs do these ships need to be viable after the changesâ the answer needs to include something that actually buffs the ships and makes them more survivable, rather than rolling back the changes. Thatâs fighting the hypo.
So I appreciate you writing all of that out, but itâs not what I asked.
1 Like
just remove the changes at all and implement some diminishing return mechanic for it problem solved
will stop the whiners from whining that ecm is so strong the frustration about solo pvp ecmed to death by 20 frigs and the ecmers still ecming
I didnât say âjust roll back the changesâ I said revert them for specific ships and in specific circumstances (against fighters for example, or for the GNI) and then after saying that I bemoaned CCPâs decision (and the GSM being ok with it) to make these changes at all, which hopefully would provide some reasoning for reverting changes in specific circumstances.
Youâre still fighting the hypo.
Letâs assume that they donât roll these changes back - Iâm not saying they wonât, Iâm just saying letâs assume that they donât. What else can be done for the Widow and GNI (or any of the other platforms) to make them more survivable?
you can either make a completely new ship or you can partially revert the changes to make these ships have a niche again. literally thatâs it.
if they donât partially revert the changes you might as well just make the widow a bloody blops raven (which is basically what it is now, might aswell change the ECM bonus to a missile explosion radius bonus or something) and the GNI a blaster hookbill/shield comet. The entire ECM bonus on both of those ships (and the falcon/ rook but to a lesser degree) is now worthless, either you make entirely new ships that are not ECM bonused, you make them absurdly tanky (which obviously isnt an option), you partially revert the changes as i have suggested, or you just let them be useless.
2 Likes
except ec-drones are incredibly easy to counter, with literally only 2-3 smartbomb burts. its ppl that want to use that extra hi slot for a neut or something else, that generally donât like ec drones. blow them up. you donât even Need a Lock on them! they are slow too, so you can outrun them, if the effect of your offensive capabilities being turned off is just too scary to contemplateâŚ
You canât add any tank? Change the power grid/cpu to let them fit something else? Give them another mid or low slot? Give them a DPS buff? Bonus them to armor/shield repair?
There is literally nothing you can do to make these ships more survivable?
lets assume that they Will, but Havent yet, rolled back the changes. im not saying that they will, im just saying lets Assume they will. any suggestions made here will only further remove the affected hulls from ecm, since its the ECM part that is broken now. why would we help ccp further break these hulls and further remove them from the purpose they were designed, when we Know its ECM that is currently broken?
btw, the widow and gni are in an incredibly survivable place, as they will not be undocked, by and large. is this what you mean by âmore survivableâ? are there other ships you would like to see survivability increased in this manner?
all that sounds like ALOT of work, that you want us to ponder for ccp, after youâve spent 4-500 posts telling us ecm was too much work to âre-workâ proper.
your really rich man, and good, for what little you do. also, your why im here, so thank you for your persistence in the bullsheet category.
they should have done nothing then, in this case. ecm was not broken. it was balanced prior to this debacle.
also, combat intyâs as a whole, were not in a bad place prior to this patch. the claw was. as a whole, with early hic (meh) statements considered, this patch was slapped together on a weekend, because of csm prodding I suspect. you said as much:
"because they acknowledge that ECM was a problem before and thatâs why they agreed to change it. "
"nobody would be asking for these changes. But plenty of people did, which is why they were even in CCPâs radar to fix in the first place. "
prove that last one with evidence. are those âpplâ you speak of carrier pilots upset about their fighters being jammed? or machariel pilots upset that their damps donât work vs rooks? or was it solo pilots fighting 20x frigs? cuz just for the record, that aint solo, thatâs getting caught by 20x people with your pants downâŚ
As usual, not helpful and just wasting everybodyâs time.
1 Like
I did have a reply in the original thread that follows this line of reasoning.
As a starting point to discussions, I think we ought to discuss eliminating the racial jammers altogether. Then buff multispec up to racial strength. With that done, you eliminate the need for rainbow fits. You now can use existing slots and fitting to actually fit tank. If that discussion is on the table, we can look at the powergrid/cpu of the ships, and the existing slots (which are already plentiful for midslots) and see if itâs viable to use the remaining slots and fitting to fit extenders, hardeners, and boosters. If not, we can discuss how much more fitting the ships need to be survivable.
They have literally asked for feedback on this specific issue.
Thatâs not what many players have said, and there are plenty of comments on reddit and elsewhere (even here) from players who are not unhappy about the ECM changes.
Why would CCP suggest this change now if nobody was asking for it, and they heard no negative feedback about it? You donât need evidence, you just need a little logic.
1 Like
I think thatâs a great idea - just reducing the number of ECMs you need to one would help most of these ships out in terms of fitting.
1 Like