EVE General Discussion

How about if ECM reduced the number of locked targets?

t2 or higher meta level or faction ECM reduces number of locked targets by more (than for meta-0 ECM).
ECM of innappropriate sensor type reduces number of locked targets by less.

That sort of thing?

Aaaand I still say ECM and the inability to lock a target should be related to sig radius/distances. That eliminates the binary issue and chance based completely, and like all other electronic warfare it will be a constant effect.

That way a player will be put out of commission completely ONLY if he's being spammed with multiple ECM modules constantly.

Nah. I just removed your sarcasm. Since you're arguing for a more simplistic game and hold up WoW as an example of such simple games, the whole “no, I don't want that” can't be seen as anything else.

So you're all for removing ECM in its current form, then, since it removes numerous dynamics from the game. It overrides and obsoletes other professions and skill sets by doing their job better. It removes choices and combinations and trade-offs between that other equipment and the skills that go with them. It also removes player interaction with the game. It also removes the devs' ability to fine-tune balance. So unless you are really fond of simple and cookie-cutter-setup gameplay, I can't see any reason why you'd be in favour of the current ECM.

Feel free to leave if you want those kinds of simplistic mechanics and the lack of choice they generate.

This thread is so WoWified, I can almost count the classes. Huuunter... Waaaarior....
Oh, Raaaaid... Baaatlegrounds....
WoW -->

Perfect post. The problem is less the power of ECM boats and their counters, and more the fact that ECM itself is such a terrible, hopelessly binary mechanic.

There is some scope for improvement by making ECM reduce your total number of lockable targets. But an alternative is to just get rid of ECM entirely. Move RSD from Gallente to Caldari, with suitably beefed-up strength bonuses, resulting in an ECM-like RSD effect that can be mitigated by piloting and positioning and doesn't lend itself to being a remote-WCS. Then give Gallente a missile-TD ewar, to keep that as a system separate to Amarr TDs (which will be flat overpowered if they affect missiles as well as turrets). Finally, and to help replace ECM's logistics-suppression role, give Caldari a proper secondary ewar of remote-logistics interference, reducing the rep range and transfer amount of a targeted ship's remote assistance modules, subjected to normal stacking penalties.

Fix to balance ECM:

- Reduce cycle to 10 seconds.
- Give drones the option to focus on enemy ECM on your ship (and fix them sitting idle when deployed after jammed)

That's all.



ECM are pretty much always primary, failure to completely shut down an enemy usually ends up playing the fleet's main tank for as long as it takes for the enemies that still have one target left (locking you oviously) to alpha through a wet paper bag.

Result: ECM-pilot would have been more useful in a DPS or Logi

ECM drones are more of a problem than ecm itself.

There is nothing really wrong w/ ECM, it works fine as it is, and it is by far not op; especially considering that the Scorp now has **** ecm effectiveness, so the only powerful ecm ships are paper thin (falcon/rook). If anything, the problem is more w/ ecm drones than ecm boats. If you wanna fix a broken mechanic, fix the fact that Tornado's make the Maelstrom obsolete, or 100mn Tengus.

As long as there is horribly inbalanced mechanic 1 I should be able to hang onto my horribly inbalanced mechanic 2!!

Why damp when you can jam?
Why paint when you can jam?
Why tracking disrupt when you can jam?

Why are the top three non-damage drones used all three sizes of ECM drones? And by top three I mean by so much that the fourth used is not even remotely close to the third most used. Speaks volumes on the mechanic don't you think?