These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

A solution to Fleet ECM.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Wynta
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#21 - 2015-05-15 14:55:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Wynta
Iris Bravemount wrote:
Wynta wrote:
Iris Bravemount wrote:
Nope.

This would make ECM completely OP in smaller gangs.

Your ECM doesn't work in big fights? Bring something that does.

You really want ECM in big fights? Use ECM Bursts, projected ECM bursts and ECM (lockbreaker) Bombs.


Ok how would this make ECM OP in small gangs...


In small gangs jams are so effective, you only get short windows of unhindered fire. If the ECM boat can mount a regular cruiser tank on top of the jammers, it would basically be unkillable.

You are yourself quoting the Scorpion and Tengu as viable in larger engagements. So what exactly is your point here? In small engagements you pick the cheap frigate and cruiser sized jammers and accept that they die if you leave the enemy the opportunity to take a few shots at them. If you need more robust jamming boats, you need to bring a BS or T3.


You got to be more specific on what your classifying as small gang...

If you mean a situation of 10v10 consisting of frigates and one side brings 2 Griffins or Kitsunes and the other side doesn't bring any EWAR than they deserve to lose if they are unprepared because even with a Remote Sensor Damp and decent focus fire the ECM will be neutralized.

If you mean a situation where 5 people roam and catch 3 people, then there is 1 minute where the three can do serious damage against a ECM that is near useless until scripts are loaded.

ECM is not that different from bringing any EWAR to a small gang fight. It is a force multiplier, and saying that it is OP in small gangs is like saying that bringing logistics in a small gang is OP.

Even with that I would think that this oppressiveness in the small gang fights could be even further diminished if jam failure chance was slightly increased, but ECM cycle time was greatly reduced. With the consequence being that successful jams are shorter, and failing 2 jams in a row can become a window for reprisal.

The Tengu is a T3 which were intended to not be the best at a role specialized by a T2.

The Recon Ships are the T2 cruisers specifically specialized in EWAR yet they are not a viable fleet boat due to Caldari Slot Layout being for Shields.

The Scorpion has the problem of being a Battleship in the era of Cruiser Meta.

The EWAR boat of the Shield Race should be able to actually field a shield tank and be viable at the same time.
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#22 - 2015-05-15 15:40:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Soldarius
Iris Bravemount wrote:
This would make ECM completely OP in smaller gangs.


Explain. Because I'm not seeing it.

Iris Bravemount wrote:
You really want ECM in big fights? Use ECM Bursts, projected ECM bursts and ECM (lockbreaker) Bombs.


ECM burst is pretty much limited to a variant pipe-bomb Scorpion, as it is the only ship in the game with an ECM Burst range bonus. Projected ECM is limited to supercaps only. Lockbreaker bombs, lol.

From a balance perspective, moving ECM and some mid-slots to high slots would allow the ECM ships to fit a subpar tank and still be effective at their primary role, jamming. Currently, they are pretty well pre-gimped.

RL countermeasures typically involve some sort of software to adjust their operating parameters to work best versus a specific threat profile. So the Eve-O version --scripting-- also makes sense. But allowing ECM to be scripted would mean the ECM pilot could easily swap scripts to always be most effective. So this would definitely be a buff. ECM would always have the right scripts loaded. So a counterbalance needs to be considered.

I think ECM could be reworked so that it requires "ammo" instead of scripts; but consumes 0 units. Then you could give it a reload time of let's say 20 seconds, which is the same as its cycle time.

Now I'm thinking of the typical Falcon alt. Guess what you cannot do while cloaked? Reload modules. If you cloak while reloading, the reload cycle fails after the entire cycle runs its course, and the ammo is returned to your cargo hold. So if the Falcon pilot wants to swap to another racial type, he has to decloak and remain so for at least 20 continuous seconds. This seems pretty well balanced to me.

Let us recall that the Scorpion has more of a range bonus than a strength bonus. Plus its armor tank is not really that strong, and they compete with SDAs for slots. If you want a ship that is good at jamming, it will be good at nothing else. Same for the Blackbird. The Celestis on the other hand is a natural armor-tanker, has a not insignificant drone bay, and enough fitting resources for a rack of small blasters or autocannons. It has no problem removing hostile drones, frigates, or even interdictors.

I would not support a cycle time reduction for ECM. This would make them psychotically OP as you would be breaking someone's locks more frequently. Combine this with a troll scan res scripted damp and it would become trivial to prevent them from ever locking anything.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Wynta
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#23 - 2015-05-16 03:10:11 UTC
Soldarius wrote:
Iris Bravemount wrote:
This would make ECM completely OP in smaller gangs.


Explain. Because I'm not seeing it.

Iris Bravemount wrote:
You really want ECM in big fights? Use ECM Bursts, projected ECM bursts and ECM (lockbreaker) Bombs.


ECM burst is pretty much limited to a variant pipe-bomb Scorpion, as it is the only ship in the game with an ECM Burst range bonus. Projected ECM is limited to supercaps only. Lockbreaker bombs, lol.

From a balance perspective, moving ECM and some mid-slots to high slots would allow the ECM ships to fit a subpar tank and still be effective at their primary role, jamming. Currently, they are pretty well pre-gimped.

RL countermeasures typically involve some sort of software to adjust their operating parameters to work best versus a specific threat profile. So the Eve-O version --scripting-- also makes sense. But allowing ECM to be scripted would mean the ECM pilot could easily swap scripts to always be most effective. So this would definitely be a buff. ECM would always have the right scripts loaded. So a counterbalance needs to be considered.

I think ECM could be reworked so that it requires "ammo" instead of scripts; but consumes 0 units. Then you could give it a reload time of let's say 20 seconds, which is the same as its cycle time.

Now I'm thinking of the typical Falcon alt. Guess what you cannot do while cloaked? Reload modules. If you cloak while reloading, the reload cycle fails after the entire cycle runs its course, and the ammo is returned to your cargo hold. So if the Falcon pilot wants to swap to another racial type, he has to decloak and remain so for at least 20 continuous seconds. This seems pretty well balanced to me.

Let us recall that the Scorpion has more of a range bonus than a strength bonus. Plus its armor tank is not really that strong, and they compete with SDAs for slots. If you want a ship that is good at jamming, it will be good at nothing else. Same for the Blackbird. The Celestis on the other hand is a natural armor-tanker, has a not insignificant drone bay, and enough fitting resources for a rack of small blasters or autocannons. It has no problem removing hostile drones, frigates, or even interdictors.

I would not support a cycle time reduction for ECM. This would make them psychotically OP as you would be breaking someone's locks more frequently. Combine this with a troll scan res scripted damp and it would become trivial to prevent them from ever locking anything.


The original post suggested a 1 minute time to load in new scripts, so if it was to be done on grid, it would be a huge vulnerability. This would also reward fleets that had good intel with being able to preload the proper scripts.

The reduction in ECM cycle time would have been accompanied by a reduction in success chance, where it would have lead to shorter jams but more time relocking. I don't have a problem with the current mechanics of ECM, but some people do.

Your absolutely right, the Curse, Lachesis, and Huginn all have 4 Low slots which allows the fitting of a nice armor tank and it opens all their mids for dedicated use of EWAR.

The Curse can get a 50k armor buffer and a full rack of tracking disruptors. A Nuet Shield Curse can get between 50k and 80k shield tank with a full Nuet Rack.

The Lachesis can get 64k armor but can also fit a 51k Shield Tank because it can preform its role well with 2-3 EWAR modules, but with a shield tank they need to choose tackle or Sensor Damp which is fine.

The Huginn can hit a 53k armor buff leaving 5 mids for Webs and Painters, but this isn't really necessary as both modules are used offensively in that you web and paint a primary or secondary target for increased damage application. It can run a more limited EWAR arsenal for 1 Webs and 1 TP with a 68k shield tank, or be a dedicated TP with a 84k shield tank. The Huginn can adapt its EWAR to be high effective with 1-5 EWAR modules and either a beefy shield or armor tank.

The Rook can get a 49k armor tank with a full rack of 6 **** jammers, effectively 2 jammers. A shield Rook can get a 47.5k shield tank with 3 viable jams but 3 jams are not really worth it when any other EWAR can brought and have 100% more impact per ship.

In my suggestion the where ECM's go to the High, Ships are limited to 1 unless they have the Role or Level Bonus, and current ECM boats get a slot layout rework...

The Rook would have a 47.5k Shield Tank with a 7/4/4 layout, 6 Max Jammers @ Recon 5, and a Extra Highslot. It would still have 5 launchers which would allow it fit offensively for smaller engagements at the cost of jammers. The 4 lows allow for a passable armor tank in large armor fleets, or extra utility low in a shield fit. If the slot layout was 7/5/3, EHP would go up to 65k which I think is too much plus it loses that flexibility for armor fleets.

The Falcon go to a 8/3/3, or 7/4/4. It would be a Rook with next to no offensive capability but a cloak and cyno bonus. I think just like all the other Force Recons, they should be capable of having a slightly inferior tank as their Combat Recon but just garbage damage capabilities. I don't really know what to do with this ship.

The Tengu would change a bit.

Rifle Launching Pattern would become 4H/1M, lose it's missile bonus but gain the Role Bonus "Can fit 3 additional ECM modules"

Obfuscation Manifold would become 2H/2M, and gain the Role Bonus "Can fit 1 additional ECM module"

With Supplemental Screening, Cap Regen, and Interdiction Null the Tengu would have 6/5/4 or 6/5/5 with a Low Slot Prop SS.

The shield tank would be 132k with 5 Jams that are similar to armor tanked Rook jams, but with 30km range added on them. The tank is nothing new as all T3s tanks are Overpowered.

The Scorpion would become 8/6/4. It would gain the Role Bonus "Can fit 4 additional ECM modules" for a total of 5 Jammers.
Wynta
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#24 - 2015-05-16 03:20:30 UTC
Continued....

The Scorpion would have a 110k shield tank, 13 strength jams@205km, and a MJD. Unless one brought Widows in it would be the pinnacle of ECM combat without much power creep. It would have 3 empty highs for bombs or launchers, the tank, range, and MJD give it safety in a full blown fleet fight, but now has the capability of fielding good jams. If needed the Role Bonus could be changed to a Level Bonus of "Can fit 1 addition ECM module per level" and bring it to 6 jammers.

The Widow would be a 8/6/4 (is 9 Highs even possible) with 90k shield tank, 7 Jams @17.5 strength, MJD with a cloak and covert jump bridge. More specialized for BlackOps
Eridon Hermetz
Jump 2 Beacon
OnlyHoles
#25 - 2015-05-28 17:18:53 UTC
Wynta wrote:
Continued....

The Scorpion would have a 110k shield tank, 13 strength jams@205km, and a MJD. Unless one brought Widows in it would be the pinnacle of ECM combat without much power creep. It would have 3 empty highs for bombs or launchers, the tank, range, and MJD give it safety in a full blown fleet fight, but now has the capability of fielding good jams. If needed the Role Bonus could be changed to a Level Bonus of "Can fit 1 addition ECM module per level" and bring it to 6 jammers.

The Widow would be a 8/6/4 (is 9 Highs even possible) with 90k shield tank, 7 Jams @17.5 strength, MJD with a cloak and covert jump bridge. More specialized for BlackOps



don't touch my 900 dps RHML Widow ! nuuuuuuh ! lel

tbh , it "sound lilke" good idea but it would be really easy to abuse from them

Marauder in bastion ? Lel ! my ecm are an OFFENSIVE weapon in high slot like neutralizer/Nos.... mmmm not a good idea
same for carrier/dread in siege mode

unless you make this "new ecm" with the same restriction than we have...
Wynta
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#26 - 2015-05-30 21:33:28 UTC
Eridon Hermetz wrote:
Wynta wrote:
Continued....

The Scorpion would have a 110k shield tank, 13 strength jams@205km, and a MJD. Unless one brought Widows in it would be the pinnacle of ECM combat without much power creep. It would have 3 empty highs for bombs or launchers, the tank, range, and MJD give it safety in a full blown fleet fight, but now has the capability of fielding good jams. If needed the Role Bonus could be changed to a Level Bonus of "Can fit 1 addition ECM module per level" and bring it to 6 jammers.

The Widow would be a 8/6/4 (is 9 Highs even possible) with 90k shield tank, 7 Jams @17.5 strength, MJD with a cloak and covert jump bridge. More specialized for BlackOps



don't touch my 900 dps RHML Widow ! nuuuuuuh ! lel

tbh , it "sound lilke" good idea but it would be really easy to abuse from them

Marauder in bastion ? Lel ! my ecm are an OFFENSIVE weapon in high slot like neutralizer/Nos.... mmmm not a good idea
same for carrier/dread in siege mode

unless you make this "new ecm" with the same restriction than we have...


Except that the Marauder would only have a maximum of 1, and they would have horrid jam strength, maybe enough to jam a unboosted frigate. I took into account the fact that switching the ECM to a high slot would open up huge fitting options to the ships that have multiple utility highs like marauders, T3D, etc. Limiting non-ECM boats to one, and having ECM boats get either a role or level bonus for additional modules allows for 2 things. It allows low fitting utility highs for non-ECM ships but they don't really work against the bigger ships, maybe the strength to jam 1 frigate if they have the right racial script. It allows for dedicated ECM boats to fit a 3-4 module shield tank.

This would also open up Combat Recons and BlackOps boats to be combat ships. I can't remember the layout i suggested for the Rook but I think it was 7/5/3 or 7/4/4, With a per level bonus of 1 ECM for a maximum 6 replacing the velocity bonus, and a single Missile RoF bonus. There would be 2 possible fits. The small gang/solo fit where you have the all 5 missile launchers and 2 ECM, with the lows either BCS or SDA or 1 of each, and the mids being a prop mod, and tank. Or you could run a Fleet ECM boats, 6 ECM 1 Utility High, tank+propmod, DCU+SDA, no damage besides drones.

Widows would have something similar, they could fit all their Highs into launchers or ECM and their mids into tank. If they are a solo killer they could skip the Jump Generator and go 5 missile Launchers, 2 ECM, 1 Cloak, tank+MJD+propmod, DCU+SDA/BCS. If they are supporting a BLOPs fleet they could go 1 Cloak, 1 Jump Bridge, 6 ECM, Tank+MJD+Prop, DCU+SDA.

Right now the Rook with 2 SDA+ Range Rig has a jam range of 77+48km with links or 92km+48 with LG Centurion set. This brings Cruiser ECM Range into the usual cruiser engagement range, but at this range a HML can barely hit @all5. So in the usual fight you would not be using you missiles. With what I suggested, having the 5 launchers/2ECM would turn you into a brawling cruiser, where the 6 ECM/1Utility would turn you into a long range ECM. But with both being able to actually tank damage.
Wynta
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#27 - 2015-06-07 04:09:12 UTC
Wynta wrote:
ECM outside of small gang is none existent from what I can tell. There are multiple problems that ECM faces when fleet numbers get big.

The biggest problem is the combination of three things: ECM boats are shield boats, ECM requires low modules to function adequately, ECM modules share space wit h Tank modules.

The second problem is that Drones boats basically get a pass on all EWAR and drone boats are currently very popular.

My suggestion is a variation and addition on a previous suggestion I made.

To address the first problem, rework ECM fitting.

First, convert all racial jammers to Multispectrum jammers and lower their strength by 20%.
Second, make racial scripts that can be loaded into the jammer that bring them up to their current strength and range.
Third, make the reload time on those scripts long.

These changes make ECM somewhat adaptable from fight to fight, but the problem of them sharing Mid Slots with their tank makes them blow in fleets where EWAR is primaried.

Move ECM to highslot, and on ECM Boats, move mids to highs to compensate.

Griffin goes from 2/5/2 with two launchers to 4/3/2 with two launchers.
Kitsune goes from 3/5/2 with three launchers to 4/4/2 with two launchers or a 5/4/2 with three launchers.

In both cases you can either sacrifice your launchers for extra jams and fit a competent tank.

For the cruiser class, there would be a minor tweak to recon roles.

Force Recon would give up their gun bonus for a 15% Combat Scanning probe bonus per level, and a role bonus for Probe launcher CPU.

The Falcon would go from 4/7/3 with 3 guns and 1 launcher to 7/3/3 with 2 guns and 1 launcher. With a cloak, probe, and cyno as utilty highs with an additional 4 jammers, or 5 if they are roaming without a cyno. Mids would be three as they aren't intended to be heavily tanked.

The Rook would go from 5/7/3 with 2 guns/5launchers to 7/4/4 with with the same guns and lauchers. The recon bonus of 10% missile velocity would be changed to either shield resists, or sig radius, or some other defensive bonus. The kinetic bonus would be changed to 5% rof for light, ham, and heavy launchers.

IDK how to Balance this with the Tengu's subsystems.

The Scorpion would also have to be changed similarly.

Maybe 5/8/5 going to 8/6/4 with the same hardpoint config. with this layout carrying over to the widow.




Lastly the problem with ECM and drones. I think there needs to be a rework of how EWAR interacts with drones, in that Tracking Disrupting a ship should give a similar effect to that ship's drones, both the drone Tracking and Optimal.

Successfully locking a Drone Boat should reduce the Drone Control range by a ratio of Jam strength and sensor strength. Make it a simple calculation like Jam Strength/Sensor Strength. So a 10 point jam that is successful on a 20 strength ship needs a 50% control range reduction.

Just my thoughts flame on.


Completely redoing the original post as affected by feedback and criticisms. Quoting it now just for some context.
Hopelesshobo
Hoboland
#28 - 2015-06-07 04:16:38 UTC
Wynta wrote:

Kitsune goes from 3/5/2 with three launchers to 4/4/2 with two launchers or a 5/4/2 with three launchers.


Stop trying to destroy my kitsune

-1

Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#29 - 2015-06-07 05:14:27 UTC
I support moving ECM to high slots so long as they still have no effect on ships or modes that are immune to electronic warfare (e.g. Marauders in Bastion mode, Dreadnoughts in Siege mode, etc.).

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Wynta
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#30 - 2015-06-07 05:19:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Wynta
Hopelesshobo wrote:
Wynta wrote:

Kitsune goes from 3/5/2 with three launchers to 4/4/2 with two launchers or a 5/4/2 with three launchers.


Stop trying to destroy my kitsune

-1

I'm genuinely curious how this would destroy the Kitsune, with my revised OP the Kitsune would become a 5/3/2 with 3 Launchers/1 Hardpoint.

Right now this would be your Kistune, with some Meta4 instead of T2 and dropping a SDA for a MAPC...

[Kitsune, ECM]

Signal Distortion Amplifier II
Signal Distortion Amplifier II

1MN Afterburner II
ECM - Spatial Destabilizer II
ECM - Phase Inverter II
ECM - White Noise Generator II
ECM - Ion Field Projector II

Light Missile Launcher II
Light Missile Launcher II
Light Missile Launcher II

Most people I think would drop the Launchers, fit a whore gun, and a MWD.

What it could be with the change is...

[Kitsune, ECM + Whore]

Signal Distortion Amplifier II
Micro Auxiliary Power Core II

1MN Afterburner II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Medium Shield Extender II

ECM - Multispectral Jammer II, Gravimetric Jamming Script
ECM - Multispectral Jammer II, Ladar Jamming Script
ECM - Multispectral Jammer II, Magnetometric Jamming Script
ECM - Multispectral Jammer II, Radar Jamming Script
Civilian Gatling Railgun

OR

[Kitsune, Combat Kitsune]

Signal Distortion Amplifier II
Micro Auxiliary Power Core II

1MN Afterburner II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Medium Shield Extender II

ECM - Multispectral Jammer II
ECM - Multispectral Jammer II
Light Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Light Missile
Light Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Light Missile
Light Missile Launcher II, Scourge Fury Light Missile
Aran Hotchkiss
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#31 - 2015-06-07 07:16:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Aran Hotchkiss
The idea of shifting ECM from mid slots to high slots is interesting....

ECM bonused ships:

Frigates:
Griffin, Kitsune
-Used for jamming, anaemic dps usually, replacing weapons with ECM basically allows a shield tank to be fitted aswell

Cruisers:
Black Bird, Falcon, Rook
-Likewise, except currently people also use smartbombs / cloaks / cynosaural generators

Battleships:
Scorpion, Widow
-Here is where it diverges

What I've heard said about the widow is that people use them as much for the Torpedo/RHML dps as they do for the ECM strength. Then again I've also heard there's a black ops rework coming soon(TM)

idk *shrug*

EDIT:
Whoops it's been a while since I read this thread so I've forgotten most of it, ignore me

You should have enough control over your herd of cats to make them understand. If they constantly make misstakes, get better cats.
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
#32 - 2015-06-07 09:03:45 UTC
Quote:
4. Shift the layouts of ECM boats to allow fitting a modest shield tank and prop mod.


ECM boats already have slot layouts which allow a "modest" shield tank and prop mod...

In all honesty I think your suggested changes actually reduce the effectiveness of ECM ships in mid-sized and potentially larger fleets. At present you could fit out a Rook with what is effecttively a bait tank and a Racial ECM or two and with Logi (or just by dumping multiple ASBs) soak up a lot of fire which could be more usefully directed elsewhere - all while putting pressure on hostile Logis (even if you don't get many jams because they're heavily ECCM'd you're an ECM ship red-boxing them and they'll be wondering how long their luck will hold).
Everyone knows that you call ECM boats primary - even if the hostile FC is really on the ball and switches off a bait tank quickly you'll have achieved something in the meantime... something which could be seen as jamming their entire DPS for a cycle or two.
As long as you bring out enough ECM that it doesn't become common knowledge that any ECM ship you bring is always bait so people start ignoring them... And if everyone does ignore your ECM ships that sounds like an opportunity.

Yes, the "most efficient" fit for an ECM boat is "all jammers, all the time" but whereas currently there is a choice to switch over to a very defensive fitting the proposals mean that your Rook will always be quite squishy - and it will either be a very expensive Caracal or it will bring EWar - and who's going to bring a missile Rook when they could bring a Cerberus (or even a Caracal)?
The upshot is that rather than asking your opposing FC to decide whether your Rook (or your Scorpion or whatever else) is a brick he might not even be able to break or a berserker which could wreak havoc within his ranks you ask him to decide whether it's jamming or... meh...

I can see the advantage of scripting ECM modules - but I don't think it's a good idea in reality. Many ECM ships already carry full racks of all ECM types and a mobile depot to switch them, scripts would slow that change down (which increases the significance of the initial choices and would be a good thing) but the small volume of the scripts would simply leave more space available and perhaps tend towards carrying ECM and a bait tank instead - which again reduces the significance of your choices and therefore the value of making the "right" choice before the fight.
Nyalnara
Marauder Initiative
#33 - 2015-06-07 09:46:03 UTC
Grorious Reader wrote:
Lan Wang wrote:
...reducing someone to being able to do nothing and literally sit and watch yourself die is a bad mechanic,

Welcome to the situation every miner and industrialist is in every time they get attacked. My cup, it runith over with tears.


Watch DScan, stay aligned, and GTFO when "OH SH*T, CATALYSTS EVERYWHERE!!!".

Miners and industrialists who die to ganks are plain stupid people who did not try to play it safe.

French half-noob.

Non, je ne suis pas gentil.
Wynta
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#34 - 2015-06-07 13:37:37 UTC
Jacob Holland wrote:
Quote:
4. Shift the layouts of ECM boats to allow fitting a modest shield tank and prop mod.


ECM boats already have slot layouts which allow a "modest" shield tank and prop mod...

In all honesty I think your suggested changes actually reduce the effectiveness of ECM ships in mid-sized and potentially larger fleets. At present you could fit out a Rook with what is effecttively a bait tank and a Racial ECM or two and with Logi (or just by dumping multiple ASBs) soak up a lot of fire which could be more usefully directed elsewhere - all while putting pressure on hostile Logis (even if you don't get many jams because they're heavily ECCM'd you're an ECM ship red-boxing them and they'll be wondering how long their luck will hold).
Everyone knows that you call ECM boats primary - even if the hostile FC is really on the ball and switches off a bait tank quickly you'll have achieved something in the meantime... something which could be seen as jamming their entire DPS for a cycle or two.
As long as you bring out enough ECM that it doesn't become common knowledge that any ECM ship you bring is always bait so people start ignoring them... And if everyone does ignore your ECM ships that sounds like an opportunity.

Yes, the "most efficient" fit for an ECM boat is "all jammers, all the time" but whereas currently there is a choice to switch over to a very defensive fitting the proposals mean that your Rook will always be quite squishy - and it will either be a very expensive Caracal or it will bring EWar - and who's going to bring a missile Rook when they could bring a Cerberus (or even a Caracal)?
The upshot is that rather than asking your opposing FC to decide whether your Rook (or your Scorpion or whatever else) is a brick he might not even be able to break or a berserker which could wreak havoc within his ranks you ask him to decide whether it's jamming or... meh...

I can see the advantage of scripting ECM modules - but I don't think it's a good idea in reality. Many ECM ships already carry full racks of all ECM types and a mobile depot to switch them, scripts would slow that change down (which increases the significance of the initial choices and would be a good thing) but the small volume of the scripts would simply leave more space available and perhaps tend towards carrying ECM and a bait tank instead - which again reduces the significance of your choices and therefore the value of making the "right" choice before the fight.


The problem with Cruiser ECM is that Jammer Strength doesn't increase between hull sizes like Sensor Strength does. So Cruiser vs Cruiser ECM is relatively weaker than Frigate vs Frigate ECM.

A fully linked Kitsune has a jam strength of 14
A fully linked Harpy has a sensor strength of 27

Giving the Kitsune a ~50% jam chance or an effective 1 Jam per 2 modules. With 4 mids available for jams, the kitsune has an effective 2 jams.

At the cruiser level we see a change...

A fully linked Rook has a jam strength of 17
A fully linked Cerberus has a sensor strength of 27
A fully linked Scimitar has a sensor strength of 58
A fully linked Tengu has a sensor strength of 62

~60% Jam Chance vs Cerb
~30% Jam Chance vs Scimi
~27% Jam Chance vs Tengu

So while the Rook gains 2 more Mid slots to fit jammers, it is, within its hull size, weaker. While it is more effective against HAC's the most commonly used one is the Ishtar whose drones ignore ECM. The other boats commonly used in large engagements at the cruiser size or Strategic Cruisers and Logistics who have a roughly 30% Jam Chance.

So while going from the Kitsune to the Rook gives 2 more jams, the effectiveness of each jam goes from 50% to 30%. The Kitsune has 2 effective Jams, while the Rook has 2 as well.

And here is the my overall point. Most of the Recon Boats, and EWAR focused T3's fit 2 EWAR modules and a good tank and preform their role exceptionally. Right now it takes all the Rook's midslots to make it to 2 effective midslot modules, but it doesn't get the tank that the other recons get. It isn't just that "all jammers, all the time" is the most efficient, but that it is the only way that ECM can acutally work given that it is a RNG based EWAR.

Secondly when the only viable fleet purpose of a boat is compeletly counter to its intended purpose, it means that the boat is poorly designed. If the Rook, a Combat Recon boat (or Fleet EWAR) designed to specialize in ECM, is only effect without any ECM, then that is a poor design. It may be a compelling strategy but it is poor design non the less.

VaL Iscariot
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#35 - 2015-06-07 14:41:11 UTC
ECM is very effective in large fleet fights. the issue is most fleet commanders can't see in front of their nose and write it off to whatever flavor of meta is happening that week. if you have 300 man fleet with no ECM you're just a blind blob looking to get killed off by superior tactics.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#36 - 2015-06-07 17:17:26 UTC
E-war is a small gang thing. Its not just ECM that suffers in large fleet fights.

Soldarius wrote:
Iris Bravemount wrote:
This would make ECM completely OP in smaller gangs.


Explain. Because I'm not seeing it.


OP says ECM is strong in small gangs now; then lets us change our jammers on the fly, gives us more powerful jams and lets us fit a better tank. Roll

really, there is no trade off in the post for the extra power and flexibility proposed save for each of my ECM boats loses one jammer (because i almost never fit a prop mod) but who cares now i get 5 correctly racial specific jammers for every fight on my throw away blackbird (and now a prop mod too \o/).

I do like the idea of jam scripts with long reload times, but ECM boats, like other e-war boats, dont need a shield tank. A 1600mm plate blackbird has a decent tank and enough range such that it doesnt need mobility. My 1600mm plate falcon has a covert cloak, its doesnt need a prop mod or tank. My dual plated scorp doesnt need the buff either.

And if ECM mods get a buff because SDA's are removed, then what the OP said about non-bonused ships being useless at E-war doesnt apply.

A neut and nos takes up a non-insignificant amount of grid. You trade off weapon size or tank for those mods. It isnt the same for ECM mods that take a single grid and i know a fair amount of fits where i have an unused or undersized utility high that i could use for an ECM mod that would be useful if can swap scripts for each fight.

Instead i propose that the difference between sensor strengths when it comes to ship size and ship tech level may be too high. You always have people on opposite sides of the argument saying ECM is too strong or too weak. This is quite probably because ECM boats can perma-jam small T1 gangs but find themselves near worthless against some T2 gangs and especially T3's.

TL:DR
- E-war in general is more effective in small gangs and less effective in fleet fights.
- Yeah maybe scripts would be good.
- No to ECM highs. It'd be better if there was an under powered ECM high, like how i wanted and under powered TP high.
- Bring sensor strengths between ships closer together.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Wynta
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#37 - 2015-06-08 01:51:20 UTC
Daichi Yamato wrote:
E-war is a small gang thing. Its not just ECM that suffers in large fleet fights.

Soldarius wrote:
Iris Bravemount wrote:
This would make ECM completely OP in smaller gangs.


Explain. Because I'm not seeing it.


OP says ECM is strong in small gangs now; then lets us change our jammers on the fly, gives us more powerful jams and lets us fit a better tank. Roll

really, there is no trade off in the post for the extra power and flexibility proposed save for each of my ECM boats loses one jammer (because i almost never fit a prop mod) but who cares now i get 5 correctly racial specific jammers for every fight on my throw away blackbird (and now a prop mod too \o/).

I do like the idea of jam scripts with long reload times, but ECM boats, like other e-war boats, dont need a shield tank. A 1600mm plate blackbird has a decent tank and enough range such that it doesnt need mobility. My 1600mm plate falcon has a covert cloak, its doesnt need a prop mod or tank. My dual plated scorp doesnt need the buff either.

And if ECM mods get a buff because SDA's are removed, then what the OP said about non-bonused ships being useless at E-war doesnt apply.

A neut and nos takes up a non-insignificant amount of grid. You trade off weapon size or tank for those mods. It isnt the same for ECM mods that take a single grid and i know a fair amount of fits where i have an unused or undersized utility high that i could use for an ECM mod that would be useful if can swap scripts for each fight.

Instead i propose that the difference between sensor strengths when it comes to ship size and ship tech level may be too high. You always have people on opposite sides of the argument saying ECM is too strong or too weak. This is quite probably because ECM boats can perma-jam small T1 gangs but find themselves near worthless against some T2 gangs and especially T3's.

TL:DR
- E-war in general is more effective in small gangs and less effective in fleet fights.
- Yeah maybe scripts would be good.
- No to ECM highs. It'd be better if there was an under powered ECM high, like how i wanted and under powered TP high.
- Bring sensor strengths between ships closer together.


1. ECM is strong in small gangs vs other small gangs because one or two pilots can spread jams across the entire enemy fleet. This power is further compounded by the fact that most small fleets are frigates which have a lower sensor strength. The poweredness of EWAR in small gangs is not exclusive to ECM; Remote Damps can crush Logi and Webs and TP can cause enough of a damage increase to break through repairs.

2. My point with the scripts is that if it takes 2 minutes to swap out jammers with a mobile depot, why not bake that into the module. It would not only provide a convenience but a strategic advantage or disadvantage. Having good scouts and intel will allow for the prescripting for the coming engagement, but not having scouts would result in ECM being relatively useless for the first minute and a half. Also it provides windows during the fight if ECM scripts need to change. In addition to this the Multispectrum jammers will have the same range as current racial jammers but lower universal strength. On a Rook a multispectrum will have to work to jam a frigate.

3. The problem with ECM is that the with for ever 2.5 modules you get 1 jam. Meaning you need a full rack of ECM and a full rack of SDAs to be useful. In other words you need 8 slots to give you 2 jams. Right now that means sacrificing all tank. Now say you don't sacrifice you tank and you get 35k shield tank with 4 jams, or a 35k armor tank with 6 jams.

In the first case (35k Shield with 4 ECM modules) you get about 1.5 effective Jams meaning in a fleet your barely a force multiplier, you come on field and take out 1 ship. In almost every situation it would be better to have a TP/Web boat that increases all your fleets damage, and in turn your effectiveness becomes huge.

In the second case (40k Armor with 6 ECM modules) you can get the same Jam strength as before with Rigs instead of SDA's the problem becomes you now don't have the PG to fit launchers or the range to jam targets in most fights.

This is the conundrum with ECM in fleets...

You either have enough effective jams to be useful or you have the tank to be useful. It doesn't work if you sacrifice one for the other because both are needed.

In the case of armor tanking you give up almost all your launchers anyway, why not shift all 6 of those ECM modules to the top tack on an addition utility high for a killmail gun or DLA or SB, make it a 7/4/4 giving it the ability to fit either a shield or armor tank.

Some may say that without having to fit launchers in the highs but still getting the fitting to will mean that there will be some crazy fits, and my response to that is look at the Ishtar. It gets the fittings for 4 guns, but no one ever runs them.

The Rook in this new system can have a plethora of new roles...

Armor Tanked Solo Brawler
5 HAM/RLML + 2 ECM in the Highs
Scram + Web + Cap Booster + Prop in the Mids
DCU+EANM + Hardener + Medium Armor Rep

Shield Tanked Fleet ECM
6 ECM + Killmail Gun in the High
Adaptive + EM or LSE + LSE + 100MN AB in Mids
DCU + 2 SDA + Nano or PDS or RCU in Lows
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
#38 - 2015-06-09 07:56:09 UTC
Wynta wrote:
Lan Wang wrote:
Arya Regnar wrote:
Lan Wang wrote:
think ecm should just be removed altogether

Nuuuuuuuuuuuh.
It definitely needs to stay for logi interruption.

ECM to prevent dps is bad mechanic but jamming logis is something PVP definitely needs.


nah damps work fine for this, ecm is just bad, reducing someone to being able to do nothing and literally sit and watch yourself die is a bad mechanic, dont get me wrong i love my rook but its a real ****head ship


What would the alternative be for Caldari EWAR. I mean you could take TP's from Min and leave them as web boats. Or a complete rework of ECM, but off the top of my head I can't think of what would replace it besides may anti drone/bomb defender missile ships, with a defender missile rework but ECM could be fine if the cycles where shorter and failed a bit more

All races have 2 "ewars" caldari have ecm burst and ecm, amarr have neuts and tds, minmatar webs and painters, gallente points and damps. We can't realistically take ecm from this game.

EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
Wynta
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#39 - 2015-06-09 08:38:06 UTC
Arya Regnar wrote:
Wynta wrote:
Lan Wang wrote:
Arya Regnar wrote:
Lan Wang wrote:
think ecm should just be removed altogether

Nuuuuuuuuuuuh.
It definitely needs to stay for logi interruption.

ECM to prevent dps is bad mechanic but jamming logis is something PVP definitely needs.


nah damps work fine for this, ecm is just bad, reducing someone to being able to do nothing and literally sit and watch yourself die is a bad mechanic, dont get me wrong i love my rook but its a real ****head ship


What would the alternative be for Caldari EWAR. I mean you could take TP's from Min and leave them as web boats. Or a complete rework of ECM, but off the top of my head I can't think of what would replace it besides may anti drone/bomb defender missile ships, with a defender missile rework but ECM could be fine if the cycles where shorter and failed a bit more

All races have 2 "ewars" caldari have ecm burst and ecm, amarr have neuts and tds, minmatar webs and painters, gallente points and damps. We can't realistically take ecm from this game.


This is my overall problem with ECM, every other race has 2 good/viable EWAR, ECM can't break past small gang size, and ECM burst sucks.

Caldari EWAR is in a horrible state and when each race has 3 roles (damage, logistics, EWAR), it is a big deal when one of those roles is dirt
LT Alter
Ryba.
White Squall.
#40 - 2015-06-09 18:40:28 UTC
Iris Bravemount wrote:

This would make ECM completely OP in smaller gangs.


It isn't already?...

Sorry that was an obligatory troll, I also agree with you in opposition against the original poster's idea.
Previous page123Next page