EVE General Discussion

... and the thread was in the beginning already "i'll claim that something is overpowered because i do not want to fit a module to deal with it".

Bad job, guys. If you made this topic or supported it, please re-read the "EVE-Ewar, manual for beginners and people who just do not get it".

Seriously, whats next?

"Did not care to fit a tank, guns are overpowered" - oh wait we already did that and it was fixed in the recent change to mining ships.
Oh cruel world. - Well i guess mining ships are a bit weak against ECM so i see your point.

I just had an idea. Not necessarily a good one, but maybe something to mull about?
ECM messes with the electronics of the target ship (obviously .. ) but maybe it could do so more on a per module basis:

Like.. one ECM module can jam one module (effectively disabling it) of your target ship (maybe introduce scripts for ECM so you can choose whether it's a high, low or mid slot module to jam) .. which one exactly could be determined by chance.

Ecm strength vs. jam strength determines how long you can jam that module. Make it something like, if the strengths are equal you jam the module for half as long as your jammer cycle is.

Or make the jammer able to jam all of either high, mid or low slots, but you'll need a considerable amount of jam strength (several 'right' racial ECM targeting one ship) against a ECCM'd ship to have the jam last a significant time (subject to balancing). Duration of the jam could, in this case, be calculated not only based on jam strength vs. sensor strength, but take into account the number of jammed modules, too, maybe. Or not.

Like I said, only rough ideas.

Edit: some typos... I'm sure I missed some, though, hehe.

I thought about module jamming myself before but in the end I for one figured that this would probably not work out too well at all. On top of that it would still keep the ECM from being ECM. Your suggestion falls under an EMP category more than anything else.

The big problem is that this idea would end up pissing off a huge amount of people for the sole reason that a critical module like say an active resist module or shield booster module shutting down would equal instant game over. On top of that it would still have chance based attributes which you really don't want to see in EVE as pretty much all other modules are purely statistics based. Sole exception is probably shield penetration but that is a different case.

The inability to lock on another target does fall under what an ECM should be doing. It just needs to be implemented properly instead of this current shoddy implementation. On top of that it should fall in line with other electronic warfare modules in that it should be a constant effect from the moment it activates, without any "chance of success" attributes.

Thus the only solution that I saw would be ECM vs signature radius with all the appropriate attributes playing a role (sensor strength, signature radius, distances etc).

In my second suggestion you wouldn't have a chance-based element anymore. You'd jam high, mid or low rack, depending on which script you use, and the jam duration is determined by sensor strength vs. jam strength.

If balanced properly, you can't shut off another ships module permanently either, due to jam duration being lower than cycle duration. I'm sure you could find a function to make it near permanent when focussing the ecm of three falcons on one module rack on a single battleship ship or something like that, while having a single ecm on an unbonussed ship maybe negate the effect of those modules for 1 second out of a cycle duration of 20 seconds.

Just example numbers, here. You'd have a tactical choice to make as ECM user, and you wouldn't be permanently useless as ECM victim. What's left would be to give ECCM modules a purpose aside from being a counter to ECM, like other counters to e-war have.

I get that the way this would work doesn't fit what ECM stands for in our world, but, taking it literally, electronic counter measures could also be a focussed remote hacker attack on internal ship electronics, for example. imo.

When focussing ECM of several ships onto one, having it basically completely disabled is acceptable, imo.
Having several ships' firepower focus on one ship will quickly overwhelm it, too.
Having several ships' remote dampening focus on one ship will severely impact it, too.

I agree with you that it would maybe be too similar to energy draining in its effects.

Another idea:

Maybe one could keep the current function of breaking target lock. Make it a 100% effect and instead calculate the duration of the jam similar to how I outlined above for the module jam.
Balance it so that a ship which has an ECM module which would jam another ship with 50% probability instead blocks targeting for that ship for half its ECM module cycle time, and so on.

Adding another jam to an already jammed ship only works if that ship either is not affected by an ECM module at all (it counts as affected if the cycle isn't over yet, even if the jam ended already), or if it is still jammed. It then adds an approriate time to the jam.

For example: cycle duration 30 seconds. Jam strength vs. sensor strength results in a 40% jam duration.
1. Apply one jam to target ship: ship is jammed 12 seconds.
2. Apply second jam to target ship: ship is jammed an additional 7.2 seconds (40% of the remaining 18 seconds).

You can't apply the second jam after the 15 seconds of the first jam are over, but the 30 seconds of the cycle not, meaning you can only prolong jams, but not reapply them before your cylce time is over. When applying a second jam "in time", the new "total" cycle end is the cycle end of the second jam now, so the first jam couldn't immediately re-apply when its cycle is over.

This is to avoid chain spamming a ship with leaving only a second or so of "unjammed" time in which it can't do anything since it needs to target lock first.

Reading that again I think it might be too complicated, and you'd probably have to rebalance it, because when you come to the point of leaving someone less than 3-4 seconds without jam it's effectively perma-jammed again, taking lock times into account. (Or maybe you could make the jam just "interfere" with the lock instead of breaking it, so if the jam ends, the previously locked ships are locked again immediately. Though that'd take away a certain synergy between sensor damps and ecm)

But I'll still throw it out here, because it'd take out the chance factor and, if one could find a way to decently balance it, give the victim a guaranteed window of opportunity to do something during each jam cycle.

I'm just going to post this old thread since it has a few ideas and useful problem definitions in it.

...oh, and this one, since it expands on the same problems and discusses a few other solutions in more detail.

Thank you, Tippia. Unfortunately it looks like most people aren't even bothering to read the OP anymore, so I don't know if they will bother to click and read your insights...

I know. It's a bit of a crushing despair feeling that it causes, and I don't like it. I may have to post another troll thread to let this all out.

I think the chance based mechanic is fine, ccp just need to change the optimal range and falloff to force falcons closer to the fight.