Target Distorters and Target Burst Deflectors

this is basically a concept for a replacement to ECM. it comes from doing an analisis of the workings of all the true EWAR modules and some of the secondary disruption doctrines of each empire.

nothing much to say regarding ECM that some other people havent said already, its chance based, its tilting in certain situations (mostly PvP, ECM NPCs are a bitch too in some missions), some players enjoy their Falcon alts, others loathe those ships to death because of the apparent unfairness of being permalocked from targeting anything.

i guess there’s no way to appease the community regarding this form of EWAR, so the only way i see feasible to fix the issue is by removing ECM and replacing it with something else that is somekind close to what it does.

thus i brought my own spin on two EWAR modules for replacing the Caldari EWAR doctrines:

1. Target Distorters:

this one has been tricky to figure out due to all the possible outcomes so it may have some flaws on its working. Target Distorters are a targeted module that reduces the amount of lockable targets on the enemy ship at the end of its cycle.

it may not sound like much but the module has a priority to break the targets at the top of the list so say, if an enemy is focusing the first target in a list of 5, it could get the number reduced and thus loose the focus on that specific target, being forced to change target or break theo ther locks and have to lock that focused ship again.

in order to refactor a way to resist this type of EWAR, i added Sensor Strength to the calculation into something like this:

number of targets blocked (rounds to closest integer) =
(enemy ship’s sensor strength - target distorter strength) / enemy ship’s max number of targets

so lets say that a Magnetometric Target Distorter I has the same strength in a Griffin as a Magnetometric ECM I (6,563) and you are targetting an incursus with max skills (10,8 sensor strength in total) which can lock up to 4 ships, the equation would go like this:

(10,8 - 6,563)/4 = 1,0592 -> 1 target blocked on the incursus.

in a 1v1 escenario, the incursus would have lost target of the griffin because it was the first target lock it had. once the item had cycle, he would just need to lock on the ship again to resume the trade.

the module only breaks those targets on first activation, and cycling only keeps the target number reduction. however, this opens a new strat in which with proper management, the griffin player could pulse the target distorter in order to break lock from the incursus periodically in order to mitigate damage or to save time to escape.

here are some other notes regarding the equation:

-it works against larger targets and viceversa:

since Target Distorter Strength doesnt change at ship sizes (neither does ECM strength) the amount of targets bloqued depends solely on the Sensor Strength of the enemy ship and the max amount of targets it can lock.

there wouldnt be no difference between a Scorpion jamming a frigate or a Griffin jamming a battleship because the module would still provide the same strength

-upgrades still work:

if we use a module similar to the Signal Distortion Amplifier the same way, it would mean higher Target Distortion Strength for the module. in theory this should be positive for the player, but there’s a problem that is much bigger in the next point.

-stacking breaks the equation:

sadly, the module enters into problems due to the calculation. even with a stacking penalty of sorts the strength increases in a manner that gives diminishing target block at the end of the equation. so, in order to evade this problem, i can only suggest that only 1 Target Distorter of each type can be carried on ship. otherwise the system would break horribly to the detriment of the EWAR player.

a possible fix to the higher strength issues:

the inverse proportions between Target Distortion Strength and Sensor Strength make the sytem work more or less fine at first glance, Sensor Strength cannot be affected negatively, so it only gets bigger. however, the bigger Target Distortion Strength gets into some issues, using 4-5 modules of the same type would be required to surpass Sensor Strength of the enemy ship at the cost of slots that could be used for something else.

2-3 target distorter modules of the same kind would be useless because the end number would be too small to count as a reduction of target max numbers.

thus, the only solution i can think ATM for is to consider Target Distortion as a value similar to Explosion Radius in Missiles. where the efficiency consists on reducing the numbers in order to give better application.

in this case it means that ship, skills, upgrades, and all of that would diminish the number rather to increase it. for balancing reasons this would mean that the modules would have large numbers to balance it (specially multispectral ones).

for now this is a provissional solution. but it keeps everything in place. the system would allow players to bring rainbow fits but not to bring several of the same module that would be the only limitation of this new module.

the biggest problem right now would be the issue of multiple players applying distorters into a single ship, the only solution i could think of is that each one calculates the target block independently for that current amount of maximum targets in the enemy ship which brings another set of calculatin mindfuck. so for now, i can only think of it as a non stackable thing (and perhaps that would be good for everybody).

2. Target Burst Deflector:

this is the AoE version of the Target Distorter and is in most regard similar to the ECM Burst with short range, long cycle and multispectral power. it carries the same mechanics as the first module.

it is meant to be used by battleships, with a similar functionality. by letting the module to cycle is possible to reduce the maxn number of targets for all the surrounding vessels. however, the target break works at the start of the cycle instead of at the end. this is made to compensate for the long cycle of the module and provides an instant break from combat, specially if paired with the cycle of a MJD for a quick break and jump tactic.

possible counters:

Sensor Boosters with ECCM script or Signal Amplifiers would help to mitigate this to a degree, as they increase not only the number of maximum targets but also the sensor strength. it could be that having extra max targets would negate the targe break but im not versed into the spaghetti code that manages the whole targetting system.

this is all so far, hopefully there can be a way to improve the equation so the numbers can make sense somehow. this new EWAR on itself is meant to give a window of oportunity for both in the trade, as the ewar pilot doesnt have to hope the thing hits, rather, it has to make sure the ship survives long enough for the thing to pulse. at the same time the attacker has a window of time to bring the other down before loosing the target, due to the end of cycle mechanic, it means that even after a succesfull break, there’s still time to lock again and resume combat before loosing it again.

the non stackable nature (for now) of the system would mean that there’s no perma jam situation, and that the ewar pilots could make use of the remaining slots either for tank and gank or for rainbow fits in case the gang needs to cover different sensor types during fights.

there’s still some things to polish as im not sure if this goes in the right direction, but that’s part of the feedback.

This makes ECM useless.

1 Like

Oh cool, a Caldari nerf. They only have the one e-war type, so let’s kill it completely. Let’s kinetic-lock their shield resistance bonuses while we’re at it.

I really need ECM to stay in the game in its current iteration so I can keep spamming the description of the Chameleon:


care to fundament those estatements?

all other forms of EWAR have direct application compared to ECM which is based on RNG (which shouldnt exist in a game based on player skill). the target breaking is still present as long as people know how to manage the modules and the enemy still has to lock you up again.

1 Like

Not really. Use the search function… your idea to decrease active target count has been proposed a large number of times.

I hate the fact that ECM depends on RNJesus. Believe me. I want something different. Problem is, I’ve yet to see anything to supplant it which is useful, balanced, and more favourably viewed than current ECM mechanics.


Or the Incursus pilot is me and I was bright enough to launch my highly aggressive drone before I get jammed - the End (of the Griffin).

What you do not comprehend is that ECM does not turn your screen blank, nor does it turn your internet of.

Learn the mechanics and when you git gud at EVE, you may speak again. /thread

1 Like

Best answer to the ecm conundrum was the idea where sensor str is treated as ‘hp’ and ecm modules ‘damage’ it.

Or the Incursus pilot is me and I was bright enough to launch my highly aggressive drone before I get jammed - the End (of the Griffin).

What you do not comprehend is that ECM does not turn your screen blank, nor does it turn your internet of.

Learn the mechanics and when you git gud at EVE, you may speak again. /thread

it was an example to explain how does the system work, whether the Incursus pilot is an idiot or a l33t pvpeer is out of it.

the concept was to replace ECM as a whole with something else that can partially do what it does along with something else in compensation to open more fitting options for the EWAR user and windows of oportunity for the attacker apart of “just use drones”.

Except then you’d have cases where all it takes to “save” something big tackled by say, 6-7 BLOPS, would be a fleet of cheap, max-jam strength, throwaway griffins and blackbirds.

i tried something like that in the calculation, doing a substraction between sensor strength and jamming strength sounds more logical but then, stacking ECMs changes everything later on, unless they were limited.

i’d support a change like that, but people will rage anyways because it would be too easy to keep someone jammed by just slamming several ECMs and leaving their sensor strength in negative values (in case it can go beyond 0).

thus the idea of dividing the substraction by the maximum number of targets of the jammed ship in order to give a softer number. but this is giving its own thing for the whole Target Distortion thing.

ECM on its own has a very complex calculation but in the end everything goes to a diceroll which i honestly dont see the point when it could do something much reliable without such hassle as stocking full on them to be effective.

Success Rate = ECM Strength of Module / Sensor Strength of Target (both account for skills and modules that give benefits)

Not particularly complex.

1 Like

that’s the basic calculation yeah, but it gets bigger apparently like

multiple ECMs = 1 - (1 - (ECM strength/sensor strength of target))^number of ECM modules fitted

and then there’s the optimal and falloff calculation.

that’s why i said that it gets complex at first glance.

but yeah the thing is like that and its still a dice roll. whereas all other EWAR modules have a direct effect. ECM shouldnt be different, but i’d rather opt for replacing it with something else entirely.

Please dont make this mistake. The success rate is exactly the formula I posted. It is no higher, no lower, no different. What you’re talking about there is the probability of success. Something vastly different. Granted, Falloff for ECM and such are often irrelevant. Once they’re that far away, aside from using the Recon hulls, they’re almost guaranteed to be

  • out of your targeting range

  • out of their targeting range

  • out of weapon range (either yours or theirs)

Optimal or closer? Full strength.

However, going back to the old way of if Sensor strength < ECM1+ECM2..1000 then Jammed wouldnt work. There’s a reason CCP left that behind. It’s also because it IS an all or nothing E-War system to begin with. It’s also the only one that outright prevents an opponent from having a chance at locking you. Sensor Damps? You either have a long lock time, a very short targeting range, or both.

so just because its a high risk, high reward system it should be as it is?. that doesnt make any sense seeing the amount of discussion it gets around.

It’s usually coming from the people who find it absolutely useless (“it never works for me, boohoo”) or the people who find it absolutely OP (“i always get permajammed, boohoo”). Or from people who think they can change how ECM works without changing the core of the mechanic (absolute loss of targeting).

Dont forget, there are skills that can reduce the effective success rate of ECM as well.

1 Like

Thats already the case.

You can bring enough ecm such that the probability of one blops resisting a jam is very low. Like wise under the current system, one blackbird with enough luck can jam 6 blops at once.

Making it an hp system normalises the encounter.

Like wise you can bring enough suicide dragoons and cap out a fleet of blops. It’s the same thing.

1 Like

Not wrong, but dont forget that CCP moved away from such a system in the first place. Going back to it would just change fleet metas to where everyone carries at least one ECM module so they can suppress logi ships before taking out a target. Sure it’s doable now, but successfully jamming out an entire logi wing is far harder than it would be if all you needed was two or three people poking at it with an ECM module. Or in small gang warfare, completely shutting out your opponent’s ability to do anything except pray their tank holds out for them to escape or help arrives.

Surely it would require as much coordination as it does now.

You can ‘ecm primary’ a single logi now and it would probably have the same effect. One logi becomes jammed, the rest work as normal. And having 2-3 jammers working on a logi wing would expect to jam the same number of ships as now.

The one real change in gameplay i would say is that once a ship is jammed out, it can be kept jammed out with a single ecm mod whilst the rest of the ecm mods can be allocated to the next target. Like how neuting works. But thats assuming sensor str would recharge at a similar pace to capacitor. Which it doesn’t necessarily have to.

I beg to differ about ccp’s direction. The way non-ecm e-wars work in fall-off was changed to be less rng and more normalised.

Unless the entire fleet has an ECM module on it. With a base value of 2.4 on multispectrals, it would take no more than 10 modules in your entire fleet to jam a basilisk, ~7 for an osprey or kirin, and 5 for a bantam. It’s even less for the other races. Sure that would mean 1:10 jam ratio, but that’s enough to wipe out their logi and then progressively wipe out their fleet. But then, if they’re running a high logi:dps ratio, or their ships ARE logi and dps at the same time, then you’re a little SOL, but the point stands.

And that’s assuming they arent using the bonused hulls like the blackbird or griffin.

Ecm str wouldn’t need to be the same as now. Nor would sensor str.

And how many neuts does it take to shut down said ships?

I’m not saying the idea is perfect. But it’s definitely the best rework of ecm I’ve read.