EVE Search - Why are people so butt hurt about ECM

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Why are people so butt hurt about ECM

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Ana Vyr Vyral Technologies 335	Posted - 2012.08.26 15:12:00 - [31] - Quote Before the last round of mining ship changes, miners were told to fit a tank, even though it gimped your ship for the purposes of mining. There was a tradeoff, but eventually CCP changed it . Maybe they'll do something similar with regard to this issue. This one seems a bit more complicated though....they can't just add an extra mid slot toll the ships and dedicated EECM slots seems unworkable. Redesigning ECM seems the best route but they have to be careful not to unbalance Caldari as a whole.
C O'Brien The Basic Cable Band 0	Posted - 2012.08.26 15:14:00 - [32] - Quote Ensign X wrote: ECM does work on NPCs. That's what I thought....
Saile Litestrider Finest Kobold Engineering 51	Posted - 2012.08.26 15:29:00 - [33] - Quote It's very simple. There are two problems. First, it's chance based. There's no skill, no tactics, no nothing, just a dice roll and you're either ok or you're screwed. Second, it's a sort of stun (which I'm defining here as a broad denial of actions). More important than practically, it's psychologically intensely annoying; it's been proven time and time again that the best way to deal with stuns is just to never, ever apply them to the player. Is it possible for them to be balanced/fair? Certainly. The problem is that dice rolls and stuns are only fair in the long term. Fighting and player psychology don't occur in the long term, they occur in the short term. That's why win/lose rolls and stuns are universally loathed by players, however over or underpowered they may be. The other consideration is the perspective of the player. If you're neuted, tracking disrupted, damped or webbed, you may not actually be able to do anything, but you feel like you can, and that's extremely important. ECM causes the player being jammed to feel helpless because they're simply not allowed to even attempt to do anything. Other forms of EWar still give you at least the illusion of being able to pull out of the situation based on your actions. You may scoff, but the simple psychological effect of this helplessness vs the illusion of control is probably the single most important factor in why jamming/stuns always cause so much ire in games.
Herping yourDerp Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 665	Posted - 2012.08.26 15:51:00 - [34] - Quote ECM makes your ship completely useless, which is bad the counter to ECM is ECCM which is useless unless you are against ECM. give ECM another benefit and it won't be so bad.
Muad 'dib The Imperial Fedaykin 444	Posted - 2012.08.26 15:54:00 - [35] - Quote Herping yourDerp wrote: ECM makes your ship completely useless, which is bad the counter to ECM is ECCM which is useless unless you are against ECM. give ECM another benefit and it won't be so bad. Get rid of eccm modules, add a script to sensor boosters that boosts ECCM strength (to what eccm modules used to, ie 96%), its a sensor booster right? http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/4375/mynewsig2.jpg
Gillia Winddancer Shiny Noble Crown Services 51	Posted - 2012.08.26 16:06:00 - [36] - Quote Wall of text incoming. Be warned, you might learn something from my infinite wisdom should you keep reading. The problem with ECM is like others have mentioned, it is the only kind of electronic warfare that is all-or-nothing chance based. It is also the only type that doesn't alter ship statistics in any way but rather affects a ship functionality directly. In a bad way I might add. EVE doesn't have any kind of "radar" (anymore anyway) or similar as any player can see any other ship in the same grid. ECM is technically jamming or confusing the opponents radar and similar detection systems but in EVE it merely breaks locks. And immersion, cause let's be honest - totally locking out a player just like that is kinda meh. In WoW terms or similar MMORPG's it would translate to you being permanently stunned or whatever by your opponent whilst he bashes your skull in. The best thing I could think of in order to change ECM somewhat, would be to make it so that a target under the influence by ECM is unable to get a clear picture of what the grid looks like. Basically the overview should start hiding ships based on their signature radius (a bit like a cloak effect - yes if possible it should also visually affect a player aka hiding ships from the playing field). For example, if a battleship gets a healthy dose of ECM on it, it will lose track of the smaller ships entirely. It can still lock on to bigger ships cause they are...well, bigger (sig radius) - at least until the ECM concentration is big enough to even hide those. Smaller ships with their stronger sensor strength would require quite a dose of ECM if they were to be unable to target battleships or larger targets. This means of course that ECM would still be viable on frigates, if the goal is protecting your own frigates. Going back to the battleship, should it have an ECCM or two then it would simply require more ECM on it in order to get the desired effect. Distance should of course still play a role - the closer the ECM is to the target, the stronger the effect. ECM drones excluded of course. This IMO would put ECM in line with all other electronic warfare by removing this whole chance based attribute, whilst at the same time not changing the way ECM functions too radically. It will still prevent a target from locking another target, but only if said target is small enough to hide from the affected sensor strength.
Roll Sizzle Beef Space Mutiny 970	Posted - 2012.08.26 16:10:00 - [37] - Quote M1k3y Koontz wrote: Turrets Its just ammo. They could make turret ammo that does the same thing. Like flack.
TheBreadMuncher Boxxed Up Industries EPIC Alliance 227	Posted - 2012.08.26 17:09:00 - [38] - Quote rofflesausage wrote: TheBreadMuncher wrote: Because the only way to counter ECM is to fit to counter ECM. Or ECCM. Nothing like watching a Tier 3 BC hit a Falcon because it couldn't get its jam off in time - they soon leave the field. ECCM = Electronic Counter-CounterMeasures. E.G. Counter ECM. "We will create the introduction thread if that is requested by the community. Also, we will have an ISD Seminar about the CCL team in the coming weeks in which you can ask your questions about the CCL team and provide some constructive feedback to us." - Countless pages of locked threads and numerous permabanned accounts later, change is coming.
TheBreadMuncher Boxxed Up Industries EPIC Alliance 227	Posted - 2012.08.26 17:11:00 - [39] - Quote Halcyon Ingenium wrote: Is it gimped as bad when your jammed and unable to do anything? Oh right it isn't. So you want protection from a contingency, but you don't want to have to sacrifice for that protection. Which is bullshit. You want to fly without "gimping your fit", then you have to pay the price. You can choose to have your high DPS, or you can choose to be prepared for a contingency. CCP says you don't get both. Deal with it. Here, ladies and gentlemen, is somebody incredibly stupid. Medslot modules, such as ECM, do not affect DPS. Therefore I could choose to either gimp a shield tank (which is unfair because it then reduces my ability to defend against actual damage, even when there is no ECM on the field) or to remove a utility such as a point or cap booster (which is unfair because this either stops me holding an enemy down or reduces the survivability of an armor tank). In this way, I can choose to take high DPS, or I can choose to watch a target fly away. CCP says this system is flawed. Deal with it. "We will create the introduction thread if that is requested by the community. Also, we will have an ISD Seminar about the CCL team in the coming weeks in which you can ask your questions about the CCL team and provide some constructive feedback to us." - Countless pages of locked threads and numerous permabanned accounts later, change is coming.
Misunderstood Genius Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 58	Posted - 2012.08.26 17:16:00 - [40] - Quote Whining at ECM is a tradition in EVE. If you would remove ECM from the game it would just push all the tears on "too much logistics" or something else what's annoying. Why is ECM at the top of the list? Because you can't lock anything and in many cases it doesn't matter if you could lock or not. You would have died anyway without getting a kill. The result is the same: you jump into a t3 gatecamp with Guardians, you get blobbed without ECM or killed by a smaller fleet with ECM. Anyone who believes in fair fights or balanced PvP in EVE does not understand the game. CCP nerfed the Falcon a long time ago and people are too lazy or not experienced enough how to deal with it. ECM gives a chance for a smaller fleet to counter a bigger one. Before the nerf it was overpowered indeed. After the nerf the killboards were filled up with loads of Falcon losses. Ofc it's a pain but it's also a pain to - get nailed down by a Rapier at 50km while the main kills you - get killed by a bigger fleet - get killed by a t3 fleet with logistics - get killled by RR BS's - get killed by neuts - get killed by bigger ships - get killed by a hotdrop - get killed by nano-**** - get killed by Loki boosted points and webs I am sure you will find many more examples where EVE is totally unfair and sucks because it's simply a multiplayer game where you always face a bigger fish. ECM is meant to deal with numbers or logistics. And I see a lot of logistics around these days. On the other side you can use it to kill a solo BS in your Cruiser by perma-jamming with your alt. Sure. But there are many other different ways to die horribly in EVE. ECM is not the worst one. Bring snipers or nano-ships and Falcons are pretty useless on the field. They die fast or have to run. The much bigger issue are ECM-drones. Nearly anyone is using them and tbh you don't need a Falcon in this case. You face a small fleet of Hurricanes. They suck your cap to death and perma-jam your ship with EC-300's out of the fight easily. Bring a Falcon and you get smacked by these guys for sure. The Falcon is dead. Long live the Falcon. Welcom to EVIL-Online.
Ron Swanson III Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 2	Posted - 2012.08.26 17:21:00 - [41] - Quote ITT whiners gonna whine.
Halcyon Ingenium Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 179	Posted - 2012.08.26 17:26:00 - [42] - Quote Tippia wrote: Things This is only an argument for buffing or adding an effect to ECCM, not an argument for nerfing ECM. They say that in learning the game Go, it is best to lose your first 50 games as soon as possible. This is because Go is complex, and the only way you will start to get an idea of strategy and play is by first sucking and failing as hard as you can. So...In EVE, it is best to get your first 50 deaths by combat as soon as possible.
Ensign X 105	Posted - 2012.08.26 17:31:00 - [43] - Quote Misunderstood Genius wrote: The much bigger issue are ECM-drones. Nearly anyone is using them and tbh you don't need a Falcon in this case. You face a small fleet of Hurricanes. They suck your cap to death and perma-jam your ship with EC-300's out of the fight easily. Bring a Falcon and you get smacked by these guys for sure. The Falcon is dead. Long live the Falcon. Welcom to EVIL-Online. ^^ This. ECM ships are fine. ECM drones are not. Remove ECM drones. Buff Sensor Boosters / Signal Amps to also increase Signature Strength with specialized scripts ala Range or Targeting Speed. Remove ECCM modules as they're terrible and far too specialized.
Cede Forster 34	Posted - 2012.08.26 17:50:00 - [44] - Quote Ensign X wrote: Misunderstood Genius wrote: The much bigger issue are ECM-drones. Nearly anyone is using them and tbh you don't need a Falcon in this case. You face a small fleet of Hurricanes. They suck your cap to death and perma-jam your ship with EC-300's out of the fight easily. Bring a Falcon and you get smacked by these guys for sure. The Falcon is dead. Long live the Falcon. Welcom to EVIL-Online. ^^ This. ECM ships are fine. ECM drones are not. Remove ECM drones. Buff Sensor Boosters / Signal Amps to also increase Signature Strength with specialized scripts ala Range or Targeting Speed. Remove ECCM modules as they're terrible and far too specialized. so to summarize that, eccm is too specialized because it just makes you harder to probe and harder to jam and you don't want to use a module slot for that? oh that is so cute, how about "no" and also "too damn bad" make a decision, commit to a fit, if you think you can fly without eccm, do not whine around, if you think you need it, do not complain if no one tries to jam you. this is just .. really dumb, you want essentially that caldari ecm is nerfed by the means of implementing the counter function into something else so you can fit it without remorse yea, so if its that good, bring it yourself, not like you have to reroll from mage to warlock and level to 80 this entire ecm discussion is a great example of "nerf sissors, rock is fine", although the drone thing ~ might be worth a second look ... maybe
Ensign X 105	Posted - 2012.08.26 18:12:00 - [45] - Quote Cede Forster wrote: so to summarize that, eccm is too specialized because it just makes you harder to probe and harder to jam and you don't want to use a module slot for that? oh that is so cute, how about "no" and also "too damn bad" make a decision, commit to a fit, if you think you can fly without eccm, do not whine around, if you think you need it, do not complain if no one tries to jam you. this is just .. really dumb, you want essentially that caldari ecm is nerfed by the means of implementing the counter function into something else so you can fit it without remorse yea, so if its that good, bring it yourself, not like you have to reroll from mage to warlock and level to 80 this entire ecm discussion is a great example of "nerf sissors, rock is fine", although the drone thing ~ might be worth a second look ... maybe When you get a chance, can you summarize whatever the hell it is you're trying to say? Or at least be more succinct and try to avoid references to World of Warcraft, whining, how cute I am and anything else that distracts from the point you're trying to get across. Application of some basic grammar to your reply will also go a long way to solidifying your "argument", whatever it is.
baltec1 Bat Country 1957	Posted - 2012.08.26 18:18:00 - [46] - Quote I once attacked a hulk in 0.0 in my bomber and got jumped by 2 falcons. They missed every jam and I killed the hulk and warped off. True story.
Abdiel Kavash Paladin Order Fidelas Constans 835	Posted - 2012.08.26 18:38:00 - [47] - Quote People whine about ECM because people think EVE is balanced around 1v1 and 2v2 and 5v5. I agree, in those situations it is probably quite overpowered. In EVE, no, it's fine.
Gillia Winddancer Shiny Noble Crown Services 51	Posted - 2012.08.26 18:55:00 - [48] - Quote Abdiel Kavash wrote: People whine about ECM because people think EVE is balanced around 1v1 and 2v2 and 5v5. I agree, in those situations it is probably quite overpowered. In EVE, no, it's fine. Got nothing to do with numbers as numbers does not matter too much. It is rather how modules function against one another. ECM is the oddball by a longshot in this regard as it is a do-or-die module. With other electronic warfare modules, it will merely put another player at a disadvantage in one way or another, usually which results in reduced or delayed DPS. ECM on the other hand totally removes a player from the action if successful rendering with said victim absolutely no way to do anything. Unlike the other modules, when it comes to ECM you cannot solve the problem by simply moving closer or using a module that reduces the negative effects. ECCM is a module that merely increases your odds of actually participating in a battle should you be targeted. Otherwise it's a dead-weight module. And frankly the risks of failing an ECM hardly outweighs the advantage of totally removing a ship from the action for 20 seconds. Specially not since this can be done multiple times. In a long fight, those 20 seconds can stack up quite nicely, regardless if it is a big or a small fight. Definitely beats having a reduced lock range/increased lock-time, cause you simply have to try and move closer or have a sensor booster, which normally gives you a longer than normal or stronger than normal sensor anyway. Which doesn't make it a dead-weight module. Your turrets getting disrupted? Well, you can still shoot and hopefully dish out some DPS - which may be enough to win the fight. And you can always fit modules that boost your turrets, which also acts as a counter. Getting cap drained? Same story here. Good thing that we have logistics, boosters and whatnot else against that. And even if you're drained you still have some limited capabilities at least until you're totally dry. And you can still shoot during the time you're being drained.
Milton Middleson Rifterlings Ushra'Khan 83	Posted - 2012.08.26 18:57:00 - [49] - Quote What I learned from this thread: the people defending the current ECM mechanics are drooling imbeciles who can't assemble a coherent rebuttal to any of the arguments against ECM and resort to spewing out the same handful of replies ad nauseam.
Ensign X 105	Posted - 2012.08.26 19:21:00 - [50] - Quote Milton Middleson wrote: What I learned from this thread: the people defending the current ECM mechanics are drooling imbeciles who can't assemble a coherent rebuttal to any of the arguments against ECM and resort to spewing out the same handful of replies ad nauseam. What I learned from your post: you have provided no logical arguments or counterpoints that would benefit this discourse or lend any weight to the Anti-ECM whinefest; all the while resorting to ad hominem and personal attacks. You, sir, are a master debater.
Raptors Mole The Kairos Syndicate Transmission Lost 13	Posted - 2012.08.26 19:21:00 - [51] - Quote The ECM whiners seem to be saying. 1. ECM is overpowered! So why isn't everyone fitting an ECM module? 2. Falcons are overpowered! So why isn't everyone flying them? Because 1. It isn't 2. Situationaly very effective, but easy to kill if not. 3. There isn't a mod that defeats ECM. True - but there are so many other ways to defeat it , many have been listed already in this thread. Simply pressing F1 can work. So. Train ECM. Fly it. See for yourself.
Cheshirepus Divinity Rising 0	Posted - 2012.08.26 19:29:00 - [52] - Quote Milton Middleson wrote: What I learned from this thread: the people defending the current ECM mechanics are drooling imbeciles who can't assemble a coherent rebuttal to any of the arguments against ECM and resort to spewing out the same handful of replies ad nauseam. Love the irony in the above statement, unless it was meant to be facetious, in which case, bravo for your wit and humor. Will throw my own hat into the ring for a second though. I hate ECM. Can't stand it. It's about the most un-fair bullshit mechanic you could think of in this game. That being said, I trained up on ECM, bought that T1 Caldari ewar frigate and a Falcon and suddenly I don't hate ECM so much. As a matter of fact, I find it quite fun now and only think it's unfair when it's being used against me.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 9245	Posted - 2012.08.26 20:20:00 - [53] - Quote Halcyon Ingenium wrote: Tippia wrote: Things This is only an argument for buffing or adding an effect to ECCM, not an argument for nerfing ECM. GÇªand that's fine GÇö if ECCM gave a buff that was good enough to fit to the same extent as ECM ships are used, the whole thing might balance itself out. As it is, though, they don't and that means that the whole GÇ£fit ECCMGÇ¥ argument is silly and doesn't actually answer anything. Fitting ECCM does indeed gimp your fit. The argument why ECM needs to be fixed is a completely different (and much simpler) one: ECM in EVE obsoletes other ewar. This fact alone is reason enough why ECM needs to be completely removed and reimplemented. It does what RSDs and TDs do, only better, and the small detail of ECM being chance-based all the time (rather than just some of the time as with the other two) is not nearly enough to validate this massive overlap in functionality. GÇöGÇöGÇöGÇö Long Tippia RantGäó, skip if you hate these things GÇöGÇöGÇöGÇö As much as I dislike real-world comparisons, it's actually a good thing to reference to see what the problem is. Real-world ECM essentially does three things: it makes a target harder to lock, harder to locate with any precision, and harder to track (as in GÇ£identify from one sweep to the nextGÇ¥, not as in EVE-mechanics tracking)GÇª or, wellGÇª it does one thing, and those are the three broad effects. RSD simulates that first function GÇö a noisy signal means you have to sort through more garbage returns before a positive lock can be established, or you have to move closer to get a better resolution on the signal. TDs simulate the second function GÇö the fuzzy signal means your pin-pointing is off and your guns are pointing in the wrong direction, and you can't spot movement as well because it's just a big blob of weird returns. ECMGÇª doesn't simulate the third function, and that's kind of where it all goes wrong. It just causes you to no longer have any kind of targeting functionality at all. If you can't target anything to begin with, difficulties in getting a lock and in figuring out to the millimetre where the target is become inconsequential. ECM should be complementary to those other effects rather than invalidating and superseding them. Exactly how difficulty in continuously identifying a target could be turned into EVE mechanics is a different discussion, but I'm fairly convinced that it's that kind of complete revamp that is needed GÇö nerfing and patching and stitching the current mechanics will not suffice because the fundamental overlap is still around and it's the overlap that is the design flaw (and this flaw is further compounded by the player psychology and frustration in having stun effects, as described earlier). The incomplete stop-gap nature of ECCM is just one of those flawed patches, and if ECM actually did something drastically different, ECCM could in turn be given a more general and beneficial functionality. GÇöGÇöGÇöGÇö GÇªyou can stop skipping now GÇöGÇöGÇöGÇö Basically, ECM needs to work in completely different ways from what it does now and desperately needs to stop being a horribly designed stun attack. Make the overview go wonky; make people lose their target information; remove the 20-seconds-of-non-action cycle; reduce the max target number; whatever. There are plenty of ideas already and that pesky real life thing offers hints about where to look for more. The overlap and ridiculous disability it creates needs to go. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
Milton Middleson Rifterlings Ushra'Khan 83	Posted - 2012.08.26 20:26:00 - [54] - Quote Ensign X wrote: What I learned from your post: you have provided no logical arguments or counterpoints that would benefit this discourse or lend any weight to the Anti-ECM whinefest; all the while resorting to ad hominem and personal attacks. You, sir, are a master debater. I could repeat the arguments about how ECM is, regardless of balance, a bad game mechanic because of how it is chance-based, heavily binary, and prevents people from playing the game. But someone already made that argument, and the only reply it got was "deal with it". I could repeat the argument about how ECM is, regardless of balance, a bad game mechanic because it ruins small gang warfare. But someone already made that argument, and the reply was not terribly different from above. I could repeat the argument about how ECM is imbalanced because it completely overshadows every other ewar in the game. I could repeat the argument about how ECM is imbalanced because the only countermeasures are either not terribly effective (implants) or require you to gimp your fit with a single-use module (in contrast all the other kinds of ewar). I could repeat the argument about how ECM is imbalanced because it has no stacking penalty, unlike every other kind of ewar except neuts (which have several effective countermeasures). I could repeat all that. But it would be a waste of words, as no one has meaningfully addressed any of those points. it's awfully hard for a debate to move forward if one side refuses to make substantive arguments. But, fine. Let's look at some of the justifications presented for the current ECM mechanics in this thread. Cede Forster wrote: ECCM increases your sensor strength and affects how easy you can be probed (signature radius / sensor strength = probe indicator size, wasn't it ?) ECM is chance based, that has advantages and disadvantages for both sides. You can never be sure to jam a target, just increase the chance, you can never be sure to not get jammed, Being mildly more difficult to probe is completely worthless in a fight, and is in fact completely worthless for pretty situation that doesn't involve hiding. So the countermeasure no additional benefit in a fight without ECM, unlike the countermeasures for every other kind of ewar (tracking enhancers/computers, sensor boosters, cap boosters, energy vamps, cap batteries, etc...). The other countermeasures might be a suboptimal use of a slot if the corresponding ewar does not appear on field, but the slot is not completely wasted. (Halcyon Ingenium made a similar argument to the above quote, and the same response still applies). Misunderstood Genius wrote: ECM is meant to deal with numbers or logistics. A fair enough point about the logi, but there are other ways of dealing with logi that aren't nearly so disruptive to the rest of the game. The numbers argument doesn't hold up, because if they outnumber you, they can bring more ECM and then kill your smaller gang while you're all jammed. Effective use of all kinds of ewar enables a weaker force to engage a stronger one by exploiting vulnerabilities in the stronger force's composition. It also enables a stronger force to crush a weaker one with even less effort than usual. And that pretty much covers the vaguely substantive defenses of ECM in this thread. The rest has been the usual "l2p, htfu, eve isn't supposed to be fair" non-arguments.
Methesda Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 1	Posted - 2012.08.26 20:36:00 - [55] - Quote We should nerf after burners and MWD's, and Stasis webs. There is nothing like getting locked out of a fight because you are unable to control range. You just have to sit there and twiddle your thumbs while the other player beats on you. It's the definition of anti-fun; it's such a broken mechanic. What makes it worse, is that none of my corp mates fit afterburners, or mwd, or webs, because it gimps our tank. How is it fair that one player with an afterburner can effectively remove 4 of us from a fight? /sarcasm
Sun Win Lead Farmers Kill It With Fire 61	Posted - 2012.08.26 20:50:00 - [56] - Quote Methesda wrote: We should nerf after burners and MWD's, and Stasis webs. There is nothing like getting locked out of a fight because you are unable to control range. You just have to sit there and twiddle your thumbs while the other player beats on you. It's the definition of anti-fun; it's such a broken mechanic. You do realise that nano ships are the most heavily and repeatedly nerfed ship fittings, yeah? CCP has been nerfing speed since the game first shipped. You picked a terrible example for your terrible sarcasm.
Gillia Winddancer Shiny Noble Crown Services 52	Posted - 2012.08.26 20:50:00 - [57] - Quote Methesda wrote: We should nerf after burners and MWD's, and Stasis webs. There is nothing like getting locked out of a fight because you are unable to control range. You just have to sit there and twiddle your thumbs while the other player beats on you. It's the definition of anti-fun; it's such a broken mechanic. What makes it worse, is that none of my corp mates fit afterburners, or mwd, or webs, because it gimps our tank. How is it fair that one player with an afterburner can effectively remove 4 of us from a fight? /sarcasm Your sarcasm skills are poor. Practice more. Since when does afterburners/MWD's prevent someone from using target painters, sensor dampeners, shooting from afar etc. ect?
Osabojo GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 235	Posted - 2012.08.26 21:26:00 - [58] - Quote If only there were some way to prevent ECM ships from locking in the first place. Some kind of counter-measure to their electronics.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 9249	Posted - 2012.08.26 21:46:00 - [59] - Quote Osabojo wrote: If only there were some way to prevent ECM ships from locking in the first place. Some kind of counter-measure to their electronics. Too bad that there isn't one other than ECM itself, and that if GÇ£use X to counter XGÇ¥ is used as an argument, it's pretty much the final nail in the coffin since that's the quintessential proof that the X in question is completely out of whack. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥ CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
Velarra Ghost Festival Naraka. 103	Posted - 2012.08.26 21:51:00 - [60] - Quote Osabojo wrote: If only there were some way to prevent ECM ships from locking in the first place. Some kind of counter-measure to their electronics. http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Item_Database:Ship_Equipment:Electronic_Warfare:ECM_Bursts http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Remote_ECM_Burst_I

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.