Player Features and Ideas Discussion

This is a draft suggestion on a clear change from the current working of ECM modules.

Module will test if ECM strength is greater than target Sensor strength, rather than a probability chance based on the percentage.

ECM strength is accumulative for each module used on the same target by the same ship.

IF the total ECM strength is greater than the target ECM strength then the target receives a single 60% heat damage to a single module fitted to the target ship, on that cycle.

Running multiple modules on one target still provides only one cycle on that ship. The ECM strength just increases to overcome the target strength.

Perhaps include, if practical , that multiple modules on a single target also increases the heat damage value by 10% therefore causing 100% damage to a single module if attacked by 5 ECM modules, per cycle.

Attacking multiple targets would create a single cycle between attacker and target for each group of ECM used.

Any module damaged deactivates. This gives a chance for the target pilot to repair using paste or reactivate and gives some minor disruption.

Grouped weapons will group deactivate but share heat damage across the modules evenly ( we like guns firing and they should be more resistant).

Skills can give greater strength, range, shorter cycle and reduced activation cost.

There are opportunities to add scripts to both ECM & ECCM modules if these changes are adopted. Such as a script that targets only low modules , medium modules or ECCM that extends cycle, reduces heat damage.

This then gives us true 'Electronic Warfare'

This.

Seems to be discussing small gang and/or solo type work?

ECM-only ships have disappeared from the action as far as the PVP I've seen on all three of my toons... across all the spaces except HS. Reason: the larger the fight, the quicker thin tanked ECM ships melt or have to run away.

ECM works as intended as the size of the engagement grows it appears. Thus, the trick is 'fixing' ECM in smaller engagements (I use 'fixing' very, very lightly as I'm not sure it is broken most of the time).

If you would like to fix ECM drones, I could agree much more with there being an issue.

If you step back and take a look, ECM is arguably the least destructive of the EWAR varieties with the exception of TPs. A sensor dampener can lower a ship's targeting range to the point that it can't lock anything. Tracking disruptors lower the tracking on a ship to the point it can't actually hit anything. How frustrating is it that you can lock a target, but you can't track well enough to even hit it? Of course, TDs don't work against logistics, EWAR, or missile boats. That would make TDs less effective than ECM.

In other words, ECM, damps, and tracking disruption all have the potential to remove enemies from the fight. ECM and damps prevent you from locking, and TDs prevent your guns from doing anything effective. ECM is balanced in the way that it has a non-trivial chance of outright failing none of the other EWARs have. In fact SDs, TDs, and TPs never miss. ECM effects lasts 20 seconds whereas SD and TD effects last for as long as the module is activated. Another balancing factor is that ECM is a mid-slot module in a race that is purely shield tanking. The other three races can fill their mids with EWAR and put together a reasonable armor tank. It is no mystery that this is why the CFC celestis fleets are so successful. They are combining never miss EWAR with a bonused ship that can tank long enough for logi to rep them. Caldari ships can put together a tissue paper armor tank at best.

"That is all fine and dandy," You say "but ECM is still too powerful". Why don't we take a look at some numbers?

Take a T2 Minmatar jammer. The ECM Phase Inverter II has a Ladar jam strength of 3.6.
Jammer vs Rifter: 3.6/8 sensor strength = 45% chance of jamming or a 55% chance of doing nothing.
Jammer vs Stabber: 3.6/13 sensor strength = 27.69% chance of jamming or a 72.31% chance of doing nothing.
Jammer vs Hurricane: 3.6/16 sensor strength = 22.5% chance of jamming or a 77.5% chance of doing nothing.
Jammer vs Tempest: 3.6/20 sensor strength = 18% chance of jamming or a 82% chance of doing nothing.

See? hardly anything wrong with ECM. Even against the most basic frigate it will fail more times than it will succeed. Imagine if your guns, hardeners, point, MWD, etc. had that fail rate. *shudder*

You see your issue is not truly with ECM. Your issue, is in fact, with the ECM bonused hulls. Take a Falcon with all level 5 skills fit with racial jammers, 2 Sensor Distortion Amps, and one ECM strength rig and let's look at those numbers again.

All level 5 Falcon vs. Sensor Comp. 5 ship:
Jammer vs Rifter: 14.2/9.6 sensor strength = 100% chance of jamming
Jammer vs Stabber: 14.2/15.6 sensor strength = 91.02% chance of jamming
Jammer vs Hurricane: 14.2/19.2 sensor strength = 73.95% chance of jamming
Jammer vs Tempest: 14.2/24 sensor strength = 59.16% chance of jamming

That really isn't OP at all. Considering the vast amount of training one has to accomplish to become a perfect Falcon pilot. In comparison the time it take to train a racial sensor comp to 5 or fit an ECCM module is trivial. In addition a Falcon has a tissue paper tank, a non-trivial chance of missing a jam, and unlike the other forms of EWAR it doesn't last forever.

Now you are likely to bring up a rather painful point in small gang and solo PvP: The ECM drone. Why don't we take a look at those?

EC-300 drone strength is 1.
Jammer vs Rifter: 1/9.6 sensor strength = 10.41% chance of jamming
Jammer vs Stabber: 1/15.6 sensor strength = 6.41% chance of jamming
Jammer vs Hurricane: 1/19.2 sensor strength = 5.23% chance of jamming
Jammer vs Tempest: 1/24 sensor strength = 4.16% chance of jamming

EC-600 drone strength is 1.5.
Jammer vs Rifter: 1.5/9.6 sensor strength = 15.62% chance of jamming
Jammer vs Stabber: 1.5/15.6 sensor strength = 9.61% chance of jamming
Jammer vs Hurricane: 1.5/19.2 sensor strength = 7.81% chance of jamming
Jammer vs Tempest: 1.5/24 sensor strength = 6.25% chance of jamming

Neither of those scream OP at all. "Now that isn't the real story" you exclaim "Most ships have 5!" True:
(How to calculate: Link calculator: Link (P (X>=1)) is the important number)

5 EC-300 jam strength 1:
vs Rifter: 42.28% chance of jamming with 5 drones.
vs Stabber: 28.19% chance of jamming with 5 drones.
vs Hurricane: 23.55% chance of jamming with 5 drones.
vs Tempest: 21.02% chance of jamming with 5 drones.
I will concede that for 25m3 of drones these do seem a touch too powerful. I would recommend a reduction in jam strength down to .75.

5 EC-600 jam strength 1.5:
vs Rifter: 57.22% chance of jamming with 5 drones.
vs Stabber: 39.66% chance of jamming with 5 drones.
vs Hurricane: 33.40% chance of jamming with 5 drones.
vs Tempest: Or 27.58% chance of jamming with 5 drones.
For 50m3 of drones these seem very well balanced for their size.

You see in the grand scheme of things ECM is neither OP, broken, wrong, out of place, or any of the other things people claim ECM is. It is merely a different and perfectly valid form of EWAR. It is high-risk high-reward, only truly effective on bonused hulls (as it should be) which at best can manage a tissue paper tank when fitting jams, and doesn't last forever like the other forms of EWAR. All things considered, it is perfectly in line with the other forms of EWAR. What's so wrong with that?

>>>Aliventi

Chance based is a negative for the user and the target.

I have not checked your numbers. The possibility that the current system is Op or not is actually inconsequential. The current system is not fun.

Either the jammer fails and the user melts or the jamming succeeds and target waits for pod , in most cases.

The suggestion also gives opportunity for jamming ships to fit alternative modules into medium slots. As it is more likely to have success with one or two ECM and then maybe fit that Blackbird with a Shield tank (what a thought)

I disagree. ECM only works as well as it does because both side know there is chance involved. Depending on the chance one side or the other has the potential to swing the fight in their favor. It makes PvP even more fun and exciting than it would be without chance based ECM. And that is a positive in any video game.

And why should ECM gain the advantage of having ECM be a high slot module? Why can TPs, SDs, or TDs be high slot modules? Why shouldn't a Raven be able to fill the mids with tank and throw a TP in the spare high slot to hit better? Why shouldn't a Lachesis throw SDs in the high slots and fit a great shield tank with a bonused point in the mids?

What you are proposing would vastly change the EWAR landscape. You are proposing removing a vast majority of the balancing factors of ECM. You want to take ECM from a very balanced and not OP EWAR and replace it with something where 20 blackbirds can insta-kill a ship by each "overheating" a different module on the target ship. Combined with the fact that using paste to repair a module is not a quick task. Your system screams OP when you scale it to the level you would see on the battlefield. So forgive me for telling you this idea is stupidly OP and is trying to replace a system where there is little to nothing wrong.

20 gunships insta-pop a single ship in the right circumstances. You would expect the same result from 20 DPS ships.

The ECM suggestion immobilises the target but there is chance of escape, repair and return.

There is a counter in buffer and logi. There is a counter in ECCM.

Sensor Dampners are situational and so are these. Smart logi pilots fly clustered enough to counter SD at times. It is situational.

These ECM can still affect logistics. It is now a certain effect that can destroy a remote repper or the AB or tanking module making it vulnerable

In a combined fleet you now have damage caused across two spheres one of which is disrupting up to immobilizing instead of just eliminating. Far better at working alongside a fleet.

PvP is all about luck. When you do not like it then you do not like PvP.

Current ECM: Immobilises target ship so that it cannot act against either the ECM or the assisting tackler, friends or whatever. Done right the percentages are high enough when multiple modules are applied (learn your probability) to a single target.

Proposed ECM: Causes immobilisation over time. However you may act. Attempting to remove the threat either of the light tackler, the ECM attacker or a chosen alternative target. You have a chance to either break off or defend yourself in some way, albeit at a reduced effectiveness.


Scaled up to blob fleet

current ECM: You temporarily immobilise some of the enemy logistics or EWar composition until you are popped or forced to warp out. No long term effect.

Proposed ECM: You cause immobilising damage to the internal workings of the target logistic, EWar, Command links, webbing, tackling, interdicting, High DPS, etc.. They either have to repair taking precious time which may not be long enough to prevent irreparable impact on their fleets performance or they are weakened so they have to flee or die.

You maybe destroyed or forced to flee but your ECM actions have a lasting affect on the battlefield.

Just make so all that ECM does is break the lock so you have to relock. End of change.