EVE General Discussion

Yes, but not for the reasons you claim, and my reasons and demonstration of why it's a problem have already been presented. If you want to argue them, do so, or I can only conclude that you agree.

As opposed to all the other forms of Ewar, ECM is chance based, changing an actual fight into slot machine-like gameplay, rendering personal knowledge and skill meaningless to a large extent.

Basically that's the root of the problem.

Such discussions tend to be like "stun-locking" rogues from olden WoW days. It draws out those who use it and find nothing wrong with how it works to argue justifications for it along the same lines.

ROFL

This is your solution to the ECM question? And you thought blobs were bad before? imagine the goons showing up with a alpha fleet and 200 scorps to back it cause now they can just make it so your 200-250 man gang just can't lock anything thanks to guaranteed jams that lower the number of ships you can lock.

Great plan bro.

You're overthinking it.

Now Blackbirdfleet, that's different. We just need more newbies...

As a recon 5 falcon pilot, I don't think many of the suggestions in this thread are worthy of serious consideration. But they should be addressed.

First, ECM is chance based, but only to a certain extent. If your jam strength is higher than the target's sensor strength, they are permajammed, and that is the only way. Chance to jam is jam str / sensor str per cycle. The maximum attainable jam strength on a Falcon is in the neighborhood of 15. BCs have sensor strengths in the range of 17-19. Logistics, recons, and T1 BS in the low 20s.

Most ECM ships do NOT focus jams on one ship, thus negating the whole multiple jammers issue because getting caught with no available jammers when enemy reinforcements arrive usually gets you or someone else popped. They cycle jammers until one hits, leaving the rest off. So let's not talk about focusing 4 jammers on one target.

ECM ships are notoriously easy to kill once you get dps on them. Get rid of their ECM defense and they would be pretty useless except as dps decoys.

Reducing the max lockable targets would be pointless. Even 1 lockable target is enough to put dps on the ecm ship. With the maximum lockable targets available to some players in certain ships, they would be completely immune to ECM. Frigates with only a couple targets would still get completely locked out. It wouldn't change anything that neesd to be changed while making certain ships immune to ECM. That would be bad game design.

Splitting scan res and range damping between Gallente and Caldari. There is a reason you don't see Arazu/Lachesis/Keres very much. Range damps are easily countered by speed fits, which are prolific due to speed mechanics reducing dps. Scan res damps are useless vs anything that is smaller than a BS. Also, damps are easily countered by the fairly common sebo, though that is not it's primary use.

Tippia made some interesting comparisons between RL ECM and Eve. Not bragging, but I work on ECM and ECCM for a living. We should be glad that eve ECM does not do some of the things that real ECM does. Otherwise we would have to dock for repairs everytime a strong ECM ship blasted our sensors at close range, thus completely burning them out.

As for how well eve ECM does replicate some RL effects, one method of jamming relies on overwhelming the target's sensors with sensor noise. This relies on knowing which type and frequency of noise to produce. Racial jammers simulate this well. There are lso broadband jammers that broadcast on many frequencies. Multifreqs do this well.

ECCM is an able approximation of boosting one's sensor strength. But if the opposing noise is greater than your ability to discern your signal from the noise, you're still screwed. And you can only broadcast with so much strength, and receive a certain level of signal before your transmitter or receiver burns out.

Another method focuses on providing an EWAR suite with false information. The simplest way of doing this would be a decoy system. Flares and/or chaff can confuse sensors and make you miss. They last for only a limited time. I'd be on board for that. But such systems rely on ammo, and are strictly defensive.

Electronically, there are countermeasures suites that do this as well. One need not burn out or even blind a receiver to make it miss or lose lock. Give it multiple targets and confuse it. This could be simulated by screwing with the overview as suggested. I wouldn't like to see things removed from the overview. That would be too much like cloaking. But adding things... that sounds interesting. Could create a lot of confusion. Can you imagine the comms?

"Primary is Falcon."

"Which one?"

"What do you mean? The ******* falcon!"

"There's 3 of them!"

"FFFUUUU!!!! Nerf Falcon!"

The easiest way to put a bit of nerf on ECM would be to make a skill that increases one's sensor strength. So easy, yet so effective. Call it "Sensor Integrity"

However, knowing what ECM and ECCM are capable of and why they do the thgns they do, I have to set myself in the HTFU section. ECM is supposed to be unfair. It is supposed to make ti so you cannot function while your enemies bend you over the barrel and ride your ass like a little *****. You are trying to kill your enemy. Why should combat be fair? There is no e-honoure in combat. Why should a simulation be any different? Fit your ECCM. Be glad you have anything at all.

Yes, but unlike ECM there are ways to deal with range. On top of that, keeping a longer range also means you reduce your own DPS by yielding long range weapons. If someone is using range then you have to either be able to shoot further, move faster or some such. You are in no way rendered unable to do anything. Oh, and like someone else mentioned: dont try and use your example as a specific 1vs1 situation.



My earlier suggestion to ECM wouldn't really change the situation with logistics much. If nothing else it would force them to use ECCM/remote ECCM more if they want to stay in the action.

As for the other electronic warfare, an easy way to buff them somewhat IF NEEDED would be to simply increase falloff range. It wouldn't be an overkill buff in any way, merely extending the operating range somewhat. Playing around with maximum range as well as strenght of effect at maximum range shouldn't be too hard I believe. Just require tons of testing to find a suitable sweet spot.

The old Tip is being absolutely dishonest here, there is more then one way to counter, Tippia knows this, and is misrepresenting the situation.



But, but... the higher SP players put all that time in, they should be able to beat and wail on the newer players without fear of reprisal, because, because... WELL JUST BECAUSE DAMMIT!

already exist, i think it is called a ECM dedicated ship

People just rather die and refit another ship then giving up those Tank/DPS slots.

I don't know how good the FoF's are, but probably not good enough to save your butt.
If they were, there would have been posts on the forum about how OP the FoF's are and
falcons crying out for FoF nerfage.