Reworking ECM specific modules

EVE Technology and Research Center Player Features & Ideas
1

I’m not here to discuss changing the fundamentals of ECM. More about the modules themselves and how they could be tweaked slightly to force proper fitting, rather than just filling the mids with everything and relying on RNG.

First, as a comparison, lets talk about TD or MTD’s on a crucifier or sentinel. If you apply a TD onto a missile boat, it does nothing. If you apply a MTD to a turret boat, it does nothing. This forces the crucifier/sentinel pilot to make fitting choices on what to bring. There is not a “Multi spec TD” that affects both systems at the same time.

Looking at specific ECM modules, like LADAR jammers or Radar jammers, they show strength numbers to systems that are out side of their respective jamming system. Like Ladar jammer’s still have a chance to jam a radar or grav system as seen below:

Ladar ECM Jammer II:
RADAR strength: 1.2
Magnetometric ECM jam strength: 1.2
Gravimetric Strength: 1.2
LADAR Strength: 3.6
I propose removing all strength values to specific ECM modules except for what the system is designed to counter. So radar would only increase radar jam strength, ladar would increase ladar etc.

This would change 2 things, competent fitting on what you intend to fight with your griffin/kitsune/BB/falcon etc. As well as bringing separate ECM modules and retooling on the go with a depot, just like a crucifier/sentinel/curse etc would need to do (if it was fit with TD/MTD).

If your intel says there is an gallente ship roaming through, then adjust the fitting on the griffin sitting in your hangar to counter it. Don’t just undock with a mid filled with whatever ECM and rely on RNG.

2

… but MD and TD don’t only effect one race of ship and you only have two too mix onto your ship they are not compairable

you either never have or rarely have flown ecm the choice of what jams to bring is already much bigger than “do i bring td or md”

ecm is fine only change needed is remote ECCM effect on the ECM mods and a removal of 100% jam chance

3

Interesting, I personally felt that TD and MD should be merged into one module with scrips anyway… I would go as far and making a type ECM module be scriptable. These modules would have no secondary strength just all or nothing single race jams. Prolly be too strong tho… who knows

4

You’re right, they’re not comparable. TD and MD don’t prevent you from counterplay, ECM does. It doesn’t require more thought than “fill my mids with all the ECM” and click some buttons.

There’s not really a difference in logic between TD/MD or what ECM to bring. Example:

Is it a gal ship? Bring grav
Is it minmatar? Bring Ladar

Is it a turret ship? Bring TD
is it a missile ship? Bring MD

Thats not hard, stop pretending like you need to be some kind of savant to use ECM.

Besides, its not like i’m saying “remove specific ECM mods”, i’m saying remove the unbonused ECM strength values from the specific ECM mods. You shouldn’t be using a RADAR jammer against a LADAR system correct?

Its dumb that a specific jammer has the chance to jam a system that it doesn’t even apply to. Its rediculous that a LADAR system could be jammed by chance by a Radar jammer.

5

No, that would be a huge buff to ECM. So instead of a kitsune with 4 mids of ECM and an MWD. It would be a kitsune with 1 ECM mod+scripts, 3 tank mods (or cap booster) and the MWD. The only way i could see it being balanced is if there was like a 1min downtime between switching scripts with a huge cap consumption on each successful jam.

CCP didn’t give scripts for weapon disruptors for the same reason. It makes it way to easy to be flexible being a force multiplier. You should be sacrificing something to get the ability to completely neuter someone either through weapon disruption or jams.

6

no it doesn’t

takes a lot more than that to be any good at it. that is however all you need for damps and WD.

i mean… yeah assuming you know what you are fighting. but a little dishonesty in our examples is fine.

there is a lot more to it than that. no it’s not hard but it is a lot harder to master ECM than any other E-war. ECM is also weaker than any other E-war. you can pretend all you like that you have more options with a 500m lock range under heavy damps but you don’t.

7

Thanks for clarifying that.

“its harder than you think”

Doesn’t give any examples or reasons. Great explanation there.

“oh no i missed a jam, do i sit here and get eaten by drones or warp off? Such difficult choices for me, griffin pilot #5001 to make and master”.

Damps don’t damp you down to 500m, unless you’re in a frigate. A battleship can still lock out to 20, sometimes 25km depending on the fit. Esp now that CCP has buffed BS lock range. So you can still kill scrams, neut, MJD, launch drones, etc etc. Yes damps are difficult, but they don’t completely neuter you (depending on ship/fit).

TD’s are even easier to counterplay, you just neut them out, gain transversal or kill what you can get transversal on and leave. Missile ships are boned alittle harder as there is no transverals, but if you can catch them, you still have the chance to neut them or apply a web. Also crash booster is available.

When you’re jammed, you have 0 counterplay once jammed. If i put SEBO+ECCM on my ship, still gets jammed by chance. I put a SEBO+targeting range script on my ship, damps are less effective no matter what. Its a flat counter, there is no RNG there.

imean… yeah assuming you know what you are fighting. but a little dishonesty in our examples is fine.

Learn to intel channel, look in local dscan. Same thing applies to TD/MD. You can refit as needed thanks to mobile depots if you’re surprised. Delaying your engagement by 1m and 10s perhaps. If you happened to run into a surprise camp, guess you’re boned, but that applies to everything.

8

unless you have a sebo 3 damps and you’re at under 2.5km in a BB

9

Thats why its just better at times to bring mur doods and jus dps cuz its brainded and effective…

10

Yeah, thats not right. You’re not including stacking penalties. Care to show me those numbers, and fits? You like to quote things without actually showing any numbers or fits. You could be using the shortest range battleship against something with faction damps for all i know.

Looking at 108km lock range, i’m seeing about 22.8km range under 3 T2 damps (range scripted) from a keres. Old BS range average of 85km is about 18km. I fly battleships all the time, i’ve never been damped below 10km, unless it was just numerous damp ships. But a single keres/lach/arazu would not bring you to 2.5km.

11

terribly sorry with the new ranges its 3.32km with 4 damps

though on a bb scan res tends to be better anyway

12

terribly sorry with the new ranges its 3.32km with 4 damps

So we go from 3 damps, to 4 damps. Nice shifting of the goal posts. Still not accounting for stacking penalties either.

Think i’m done talking with you, you’re not even talking about what the OP is about now. Just trying to de-rail the thread about comparing ECM and damps. That’s not what this is about, i’m not going to talk about damps anymore when you’re just changing your values to suit your argument (which is still wrong as you’re not accounting for stacking penalty).

OP is about: Removing ECM strength bonuses to ONLY specific ECM jammers that it does not apply to, discuss that. Stop muddying up my topics with your incorrect numbers, strawman fits/numbers and providing no values of your own to back them up.

13

… that is with the stacking penalties m8

14

i am… i’m pointing out that ECM needs no such nerf

ECM is chance based there should never be 100% or 0%

15

But they don’t. I always fit both.

1 Like
16

oh i was right its 3km with 3 damps in a BB

17

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.