Another ECM alternative thread

[Mike deVoid]

Why not make ECM jamming only turn off all ewar mods on the target ship for the duration of the jam cycle?

Optionally include any/all of: scrams, webs, disruptors.

If it didn't apply to points or webs then ECM would be used to 'neut' opposing ewar. But becomes useless if none is fielded. Ironically, just like an ECCM module.

Though this still doesn't fix the random nature of ECM mechanics..

[Marlona Sky]

Because it still functions as a Get Out of Jail Free Card.

[Sponk]

Interesting. So, guns work, but points turn off? And ECM boats still play the ECM-superiority game, but now can't tank using ECM? And everyone starts flying a Lachesis because ECM on Logis does nothing but at least damps still work?

Seems promising.

[Mike deVoid]

If it didn't apply to points or webs then ECM would be used to 'neut' opposing ewar. But becomes useless if none is fielded. Ironically, just like an ECCM module.

[Takon Orlani]

I like this...

[Celedris]

This is yet another bad ECM overhauling idea. Having ECM only effect Damps, TDs & Painters would make it useless and I'm sure you know that; no one would ever touch an ECM module in this capacity.


Having it also work on scrams/webs/disruptors would keep Falcons useful for breaking tackle in very small gang stuff (like 2v2-5v5), and people would still complain about risk-free pvp as their targets warped off in structure. ECM would be rendered almost entirely useless in large-scale combat.

This would do nothing to fix the roll of ECM drones being an almost automatic free escape in solo combat.

This would also be a really enormous buff to logistics, which if anything need nerfs at this point. In addition to never worrying about being jammed, every logistics ship would also get an extra free midslot; so an additional invuln field on Scimis & Basis, and an injector/SB/dual-prop on Guardians.

[Shin_getter]

While the idea sounds good, I seriously wonder if the whole "get out of jail free" element would still ruin solo/small gang while be useless in large fights. As the module is broadly nerfed with this change, the only way dedicated platforms could survive is to have their success chance increased dramatically.

To target the module for larger fights, I think instead of disabling tackle completely, one can instead reduce the range of it. Say -50% range for every ECM mod active on it. (stacking penalized) On a fleet level, this would allow ahac and sig tankers to survive long webs and nano folks to survive long scrams, while still allow short range tackle (guys with balls, kk) to hold stuff. This module can also be buffed to have enough of a success rate to be used in normal ships which allow slow ships some chance of escape against nano long points, giving even more role to ships with no range to hold targets.

edit: I really should hit post early without having it sit there for 20 minutes. grrr multitasking

[joe space]

ECM is not so much hated by solo'ers and small gangs because it is a get out of jail free card as because it makes us lose our ships without a fight (or, more frustratingly, during a fight you are clearly winning.)

A change to ecm that meant it merely let things disengage easier would be A MAZE ING!

This idea is not exactly that. The reason it is not exactly that is because whether a ship has web or scram is often the difference between whether it wins or loses a fight - not just whether the enemy gets away. This change would give another advantage to minmatar and drakes over brawling ships, since these ships could use the new ecm to pull range, stop taking damage while still dealing it, and win the fight. Brawling ships would mostly only be able to use the new ecm defensively - to break a long point and get out.

Despite giving another advantage to the ships that don't really need more advantages, I'd welcome this change and i think it should apply to webs and scram for the reason mike already said.

Next question would be whether it would apply to neuts and nos?

[Sponk]

Changes:
* ECM only works on EWAR (includes web/scram/td/damps/ecm/painters/neuts/nos/cap transfer why not)
* Falcon gets its range bonus back

Seems fairly balanced.

[Marlona Sky]

Changes:
* ECM only works on EWAR (includes web/scram/td/damps/ecm/painters/neuts/nos/cap transfer why not)
* Falcon gets its range bonus back

Seems fairly balanced.

Fucking stupid. Before the range nerf on Falcons all you would see is Falcons decloaking from 200+km to bail out their main. This was especially true in low sec. Any change that still keeps the Get Out of Jail Free Card ability of ECM is pointless.

[Smuggo]

Changes:
* ECM only works on EWAR (includes web/scram/td/damps/ecm/painters/neuts/nos/cap transfer why not)
* Falcon gets its range bonus back

Seems fairly balanced.

Fucking stupid. Before the range nerf on Falcons all you would see is Falcons decloaking from 200+km to bail out their main. This was especially true in low sec. Any change that still keeps the Get Out of Jail Free Card ability of ECM is pointless.

Meh, if you suspect a falcon is about to decloak then burn in and bump them out of alignment while you melt their structure. And as Joe said it's more about losing a fight you could win otherwise than the enemy getting away.

It's an interesting idea Mike. Would have to affect webs/scrams/disruptors though to be worth taking out at all.

[Mike deVoid]

Changes:
* ECM only works on EWAR (includes web/scram/td/damps/ecm/painters/neuts/nos/cap transfer why not)
* Falcon gets its range bonus back

Seems fairly balanced.

Fucking stupid. Before the range nerf on Falcons all you would see is Falcons decloaking from 200+km to bail out their main. This was especially true in low sec. Any change that still keeps the Get Out of Jail Free Card ability of ECM is pointless.

Meh, if you suspect a falcon is about to decloak then burn in and bump them out of alignment while you melt their structure. And as Joe said it's more about losing a fight you could win otherwise than the enemy getting away.

It's an interesting idea Mike. Would have to affect webs/scrams/disruptors though to be worth taking out at all.

On the other hand, if it *didn't* affect scrams/disruptors then it wouldn't be ~mandatory~ like is currently is. I kinda like the irony that if there is no opposing EWAR then the ECM module/drone becomes useless - just like ECCM modules currently are. You could exclude webs on the same basis, but they aren't as essential to keep opponents on grid.

[Celedris]

After thinking it over, I could see something like this working:

Gallente Jammers: reduce optimal & falloff range on sensor damps, warp disruptors & warp scramblers by 40%

Amarr Jammers: reduce optimal & falloff range on tracking disruptors, energy vampires/neutralizers, and remote armor repair by 40%

Caldari Jammers: reduce optimal & falloff range on ECM, remote shield transfers, & remote energy transfers by 40%

Minmatar Jammers: reduce optimal & falloff range on target painters & stasis webs by 40% and lower missile velocity by 40%

Multispec Jammers: reduce all of the above by 20%

ECM Drones: reduce all by 5% (small), 7.5% (medium), or 15% (large)


All reductions are stacking penalized ofc. Numbers above would be increased by +25% from Signal Distortion 5. ECM ships would all be changed to get a 5% to 7.5% ECM strength bonus per level, and the recons get their range bonus back. Remove the ECM strength bonus from low-slot distortion amps and simply have them add +15% optimal and +15% falloff to all EW modules, not just ECM. The gang-link strength bonus to ECM would need to be lowered too.

Change the sensor strength stat to reduce all EW effects (ECM/TPs/Damps/TDs) on the target ship by a percentage equal to the sensor strength. So, for example, an Abaddon with 22 sensor strength would have a 22% reduction to the effects of any tracking disruptors on it. ECCM would be more handy as an all-purpose module. Any ship with 100+ sensor strength would be immune to ECM/TPs/Damps/TDs.

This gets rid of the random nature of ECM while keeping it fairly useful, particularly Amarr/Caldari for anti-logistics & Gallente for anti-tackle. Minmatar would function like TDs against missile boats while also countering webs. Ships kiting at range would be at risk of losing their tackle from a Gallente jammer, but anything going balls-deep at point blank would maintain hold of it's target (no getting away from a blaster boat).

[Qwert]

Very clever tbh. Now what to add to T2 ECM boats as an offensive EWAR like warp scrams/webs/neuts? (Or would they even need it?)

[Mike deVoid]

After thinking it over, I could see something like this working:

Gallente Jammers: reduce optimal & falloff range on sensor damps, warp disruptors & warp scramblers by 40%

Amarr Jammers: reduce optimal & falloff range on tracking disruptors, energy vampires/neutralizers, and remote armor repair by 40%

Caldari Jammers: reduce optimal & falloff range on ECM, remote shield transfers, & remote energy transfers by 40%

Minmatar Jammers: reduce optimal & falloff range on target painters & stasis webs by 40% and lower missile velocity by 40%

Multispec Jammers: reduce all of the above by 20%

ECM Drones: reduce all by 5% (small), 7.5% (medium), or 15% (large)


All reductions are stacking penalized ofc. Numbers above would be increased by +25% from Signal Distortion 5. ECM ships would all be changed to get a 5% to 7.5% ECM strength bonus per level, and the recons get their range bonus back. Remove the ECM strength bonus from low-slot distortion amps and simply have them add +15% optimal and +15% falloff to all EW modules, not just ECM. The gang-link strength bonus to ECM would need to be lowered too.

Change the sensor strength stat to reduce all EW effects (ECM/TPs/Damps/TDs) on the target ship by a percentage equal to the sensor strength. So, for example, an Abaddon with 22 sensor strength would have a 22% reduction to the effects of any tracking disruptors on it. ECCM would be more handy as an all-purpose module. Any ship with 100+ sensor strength would be immune to ECM/TPs/Damps/TDs.

This gets rid of the random nature of ECM while keeping it fairly useful, particularly Amarr/Caldari for anti-logistics & Gallente for anti-tackle. Minmatar would function like TDs against missile boats while also countering webs. Ships kiting at range would be at risk of losing their tackle from a Gallente jammer, but anything going balls-deep at point blank would maintain hold of it's target (no getting away from a blaster boat).

I actually really like this idea. I mean, there can be debate over the fine-tuning of the 20%/40% figures, or how sensor strength/ECCM works but it's really pretty good.

A couple of points tho. Do you mean missile EXPLOSION velocity for the minmatar jammer? Also, I can foresee funny things happening with Caldari jammers and the 40% cut to optimal/falloff to ECM if 2 ships are using it against each other.

[Celedris]

No just missile velocity, not explosion velocity. So one Matari jammer could drop a Drake from ~75km missile range down to about 40km: keep in mind that Caldari ships get really high sensor strength too, so the effective reduction would be less. It would only change the range of the missiles and whether or not they hit fast moving targets that could outrun the missiles, but if the missiles hit they would still do the same amount of damage because explosion velocity & explosion radius would be the same.

The actual percentages could be fine-tuned, but 40% base for the T2 module (before skills) is the same as what a scripted tracking disruptor currently gets. Unless I'm mistaken, I believe most people think that tracking disruptors are pretty well balanced, and turrets are much more common than missile launchers.

Also, the proposed changes to sensor strength (& ECCM) would be a moderate nerf to damps/TPs/TDs. TDs/Painters would still be fine, but damps would need a buff as they are already pretty weak. Maybe buff damps up to 40% (/50% with skills) and increase the bonus to the damp-spec ships up to 7.5% per level.

Some of the ECM-specialized ships would need to be re-balanced to do more damage as their EW bonus wouldn't be so amazing (esp. the Scorp), and I think the recons would need to get their range bonus back as they couldn't rely on ECM as direct defense anymore. Maybe remove the shield reduction from e-war rigs and replace it with a signature penalty or something too. The bonus on the ECM-ships could also be balanced out; I think 7.5% would be about right.

[Mike deVoid]

Naw, a nerf to missile explosion velocity would be more equivalent to a TD for missiles, IMO. Especially as with your your proposal once you are back inside the 'new missile' range to apply tackle you are back taking full DPS again.

That said, I'm pretty fucking impressed with this rethink of ECM.

[Lusulpher]

Short of AoE for EWAR, this is stunningly efficient, should end the whinging about ECM's usage.


My opinion after fighting outnumbered daily in a NB "Alliance" [20 man fleetslol]
Fights in EvE are never to be fair. IF you are tackled/webbed/outgunned, the Falcon is merely to stop them having to use RR on their guy later...you are dead, once you are tackled. HTFU.

Can the chance of deactivating pointing, be chance-based, for all the ECM/EWAR? That should redeem LvlV Recon SP[which I will never train anyway]

Chance-based is the part that makes me horny in this game of spreadsheet Fleet A v spreadsheet Fleet B.
It could be a roll of like every 20th ECM activation, and the enemy can reactivate it after a few cycles. For that bit of sweat on the testicles.
Like when a Curse tries to solo a Drake and it's a trap. And his lucky roll comes up...[if he's not already safely kiting out of point range/nuked the Drakes cap to the floor]

No random chance just makes it a range battle, and only tackled-to-fuck-and-back, or not tackled matters in PvP...

[Tsubutai]

After thinking it over, I could see something like this working:

Gallente Jammers: reduce optimal & falloff range on sensor damps, warp disruptors & warp scramblers by 40%

Amarr Jammers: reduce optimal & falloff range on tracking disruptors, energy vampires/neutralizers, and remote armor repair by 40%

Caldari Jammers: reduce optimal & falloff range on ECM, remote shield transfers, & remote energy transfers by 40%

Minmatar Jammers: reduce optimal & falloff range on target painters & stasis webs by 40% and lower missile velocity by 40%

Multispec Jammers: reduce all of the above by 20%

ECM Drones: reduce all by 5% (small), 7.5% (medium), or 15% (large)


All reductions are stacking penalized ofc. Numbers above would be increased by +25% from Signal Distortion 5. ECM ships would all be changed to get a 5% to 7.5% ECM strength bonus per level, and the recons get their range bonus back. Remove the ECM strength bonus from low-slot distortion amps and simply have them add +15% optimal and +15% falloff to all EW modules, not just ECM. The gang-link strength bonus to ECM would need to be lowered too.

Change the sensor strength stat to reduce all EW effects (ECM/TPs/Damps/TDs) on the target ship by a percentage equal to the sensor strength. So, for example, an Abaddon with 22 sensor strength would have a 22% reduction to the effects of any tracking disruptors on it. ECCM would be more handy as an all-purpose module. Any ship with 100+ sensor strength would be immune to ECM/TPs/Damps/TDs.

This gets rid of the random nature of ECM while keeping it fairly useful, particularly Amarr/Caldari for anti-logistics & Gallente for anti-tackle. Minmatar would function like TDs against missile boats while also countering webs. Ships kiting at range would be at risk of losing their tackle from a Gallente jammer, but anything going balls-deep at point blank would maintain hold of it's target (no getting away from a blaster boat).

This is a pretty great idea tbh.

[Sponk]

Does that mean we can give a hard ceiling of 99 sensor strength, thus making super caps a tiny tiny bit vulnerable to e-war?