Jimmy Doe
POS Consultants Group LLC
   |
Posted - 2009.04.24 22:42:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Jimmy Doe on 24/04/2009 22:42:56
 Quote:
The problem with that is, you still leave damage intact. So ECM isn't ewar, its counter ewar. Making ECCM counter counter ewar. ECM does nothing to a ship that isn't fitting an ewar module. Which means ECM is no longer a tank. If you do that, the entire slot layout of ECM needs to be redone from the ground up. All ECM ships will have to fit a tank... and since we're caldari.. a shield tank. Now.. since the ship will no longer be able to do anything against ships without ewar.. its probably a good idea to give them guns.. so can't put your new ECM in highs.. which means lows. But lows aren't active modules. So where exactly do you put ECM? Well, I guess we could make lows active. But that opens up a whole other can of worms.
you do realize that E.C.C.M stands for Electronic Counter Counter Measures right?
Anyway, I have to agree that ECM in and of itself is grossly unbalanced vs other forms of ewar.
lets look at category:
EWAR includes:
ECM
ECCM
ECM Burst
Remote Damps
Stasis webifiers
Warp Jammers
Tracking Disrupters
Target Painters
Warp Disruption Field Generators
Backup arrays
Projected ECCM
Now for some reason, people also tend to include NOS/Neuts here, but they arent actually in the Electronic warfare category so we are leaving those out.
Counters for each Ewar:
ECM == ECCM (general fail) for some ships, sacking tank, tackle etc completly removes their reason for being there
ECM Burst == ECCM
Remote sensor damps == Sensor boosters (fail yet again) we thought it was great when they stacking nerfed RSD's
Tracking disrupters == tracking enhancers/tracking computers (FAIL) generally speaking, if youre fitting these modules it is because you are either sniping or you are in a fast moving ship that needs the extra tracking to ensure your own velocity isnt affecting your attacks. Problem is, when it comes to BS class ships, tracking is already horrid to the point of just about anything moving at 100+ m/s in orbit, your going to miss unless youre wielding blasters or you can somehow negate the transversal. Usually not easy to do at all.
Target Painters There is absolutely no way to reduce the effect of a TP when used on you. The closest you come is flying an inty that gets a reduction in signature radius or a very select few implants.
Warp Disruption Field generators == Kill the HIC or youre ****ed
Warp Jammers == Stabs well those got nerfed too, but for the average ratter required fittings.
stasis webifiers == unless you were natively much much faster than the person webbing you, youre generally screwed
Now its a point of fact that Tracking disrupters are completely ineffective against missile boats.
Warp disruption fields can only be fit to HICS
Target painters are only worth a damn again ships with smaller signature radii than your weapons capability to hit effectively and generally only benefit missiles.
Damps are effective if you have the ability to stay outside of the damped target's locking range but still able to scram said target. HIGHLY effective vs small ship as their targeting range is generally very very short (RE: Claw)
Now 1 single ECM ship can completely overpower these types of issues, its only fault is that it is chance based. I have read the analysis of other's here who are far smarter than I mathematically, and I have come to the conclusion, after testing, that the number are just not right. I tested Raven, Apoc, Scorp, Vaga, Zealot, Geddon, and Baddon with a friend a few weeks ago on sisi. With very little ECM skill and only fitting the standard 1 of each jammer, he was abale to keep me perma jammed in each of the ships i tried. When i added in an ECCM of the appropriate race, that chance fell to around 60%.
No other EWAR out there has the effect of completely eliminating a ship from combat like ECM. EWAR in it's entirety needs to be looked at and rebalanced.
BTW the reason ECM was nerfed in the first place: ECM Nos-Domi.
"The tree of liberty is nurtured with the blood of patriots." |