So, automatic target breaking. So with 7 modules, I can guarantee at least 14 seconds of the enemy not locking anything. More if they're not infinite sensor strength, 2800+ scan res Lokis (1 second jammed, 1 second locking). If either aspect goes up past 1 second, that's 21 seconds. If both go past one second (which isn't, you know, unlikely), that's 28 seconds and you're off to the races with automatic permajamming.

...I'm gonna say that's probably bad.

Make ecm break locks by De locking targets? a sample formula could be like

unlocking time = 1-(target sensor strength/jammer strength) +ù target scan res

therefore a tempest with 21 ladar getting jammed by a falcon using multis works out like
1-(21/9.8)+ù110 = -223 scan res.

that formula would require massive tweaking but as an example the jamming ship unlocks the victims targets at a rate based on his sensor strength. reworking the formula to produce a situation where really high sensor strengths make the delocking process drag out.

also where under certain fringe circumstances that the target cannot be ecm'd because his sensors are simply too strong relative to the jammers comong in

The problem is that this would be very OP for non-ecm ships as a way to break points/scrams.

I like the idea but I just hate the thought of some kiting ship that I catch in scram range jamming me even for a second in order to activate MWD again and either escape of reestablish range control. Evena short range ship could use it to great effect just as an escape tool.

Heck, with this, what would even be the point of core stabilizers.

one way to solve this (in keeping with original idea) might be to have something like 'residual jamming' where if a point is released/broken by ecm, it stays in effect for another short while.

ECM should not jam lock on as whole but simply reduce the amount of locks are possible.

Lets say

T1 ECM, reduce between 1-5 lock ons
T2 ECM, between 2-6
Faction, 3-6
Officer/Wh, 4-7

Still Chance based on Sensor strength.

So you need more Moduls and lose more Slots if you want to be sure.

I am going to argue that this is not very different than 7 SDs or 7 TD hitting a single ship. If you TD a hurricane 7 times it's not going to track very well. If you SD a hurricane 7 times it's not going to lock very well. If you are using 7 ECM mods to attempt to perma jam a single target I am very fine with that. IMO there are better uses for 7 ECM mods than to jam a single target even in a small gang fight.

The problem is that that was assuming the target is an instalocking loki with infinite sensor strength or something close to it. If you want to totally incapacitate a standard Scimi (which has an ECCM), lets assume a base Jam strength of 15, you get
Jam Length 6 seconds (5.62, but EVE rounds up)
Relocking time on a Cruiser 3 seconds (2.6 but again EVE rounds up)

So 3 Jams keeps the Scimi guaranteed permanently jammed. So each falcon incapacitates 2 Logi and has a spare Jammer for breaking tackle on itself (which, by the way, is another reason why guaranteed jams are bad. Initial tackle will never hold again.)

That is a very good point. And tbh idk how that problem would be solved. IIRC if you are pointing a target and are jammed then the point lasts until the point's cycle ends. I don't like the residual point because it makes the ECM mod ineffective. I would go for lengthening the cycle time but then you can't quickly point different targets.
Another take on the issue is what are they losing to gain that ECM mod? Especially in kiting ships you don't have a lot of spare slots. It come down to choices. Should the ECM mod be that powerful because they made the choice to bring it along instead of another hardener or a web?
It also shows that the design is working because ECM is fit to an unbonused ship which is something you would almost never see on TQ now. TDs and SD are fit fairly often to unbonused ships now.

There are a few problems with your comparisons.

Jamming is unlike any other ewar in existence for a few reasons:

1. There is nothing I can do to mitigate its effects; with TDs i can determine what script youre using and either close range or modify my flying to reduce transversal. with SDs i can just close range to make them less effective.
2. Jamming is much more effective against smaller targets, other forms of ewar are less effective for practical applications. EG TDs only effect small ships against ships their own size, frigates can usually still hit a larger ship despite disruption, also frigates generally have to be close anyway, so range is usually less of an issue.
3. The "counter mod" for Jamming has no other application; you would never fit it if you werent expecting jamming, but sensor boosters decrease lock time and tracking computers/enhancers are widely used.

All of these things are not addressed by your fix however I do like the idea of removing the randomness because randomness in a competitive game is universally bad

Falcon, Blackbird, Rook. Barring the rook, they're paperthin.

People say this a lot, and it's not right (well, I'll give you the Blackbird). The Rook is not that much tougher than the Falcon - assuming you choose to actually fit a real tank on your ECM ship - and both are capable of fitting a tank on par with other recons without crippling their function as an electronic warfare platform. They're 'paper thin' because people have a nasty habit of fitting a feeble armor tank or just completely omitting buffer in order to maximize jamming ability. (And because people hate ECM, which makes them a bullet magnet).

It's a bit of a tangent, but Caldari recons' supposed lack of durability gets cited a lot in discussions of ECM, and it's just not the case.

Its absolutely the case unless you try and equip an armor tank to a shield based race of ships and sacrifice its purpose in doing so.

If i'm expected to have an armor tank or bcs low slot setup in place of ecm strength why bring the ship to begin with? Nothing pumps out dps like 2 missile launchers and 1 turret.

I suppose at that point another tengu on the field would be optimal.

I respect you hard work OP, you are certainly doing it better than CCP. However all this is unnecessary.

There is a perfect system in place for EW. It was there before CCP introduced the chance based malarkey into the equation.

You have X jammers with a combined strength of Y and the target ship jas a sensor strangth of Y-1 he is jammed for as long as you can keep all modules active on him, if his strength is Y+1 he is not hammed. As simple as that. The only one who needs to calculate all the boring bits is the EW pilot.

ECM worked like this for years, perfectly allright and perfectly balanced (IMO) and then CCP decided they would fixitTM... a simple rollback would fix ECM.

Alternatively remove it from the game altogether. EW in general is a force multiplier in favor of the side having the numerical advantage and is therefore entirely unnecessary and disadvantageous for combat balance... There I said it...

The entire desire to make the cycle time of the ECM mod longer than the time you would be jammed is to give you the opportunity to counter the ship for those seconds you are unjammed. It isn't an unlimited amount of time, but with the right balancing touch I think you will find it effective.

The ECM change doesn't penalize frigate more than BS. I know the numbers show that the time jammed is significantly longer for a frigate than a BS. However a BS takes far longer to lock than a frigate. So I think you will find it averages out nicely and may even favor the frigate in certain situations.

Why does ECCM need a another effect? There is no mod to counter TPs. There could be no ECCM at all. Also it comes down to choices: if you think an ECCM is worth fitting than fit it. If not then don't. The ECCM mod is fine right now. Many pilot already choose to fit an ECCM which shows that it they clearly don't need another incentive to fit it.

*Stuff*

game mechanics that leave a player with nothing to do are bad game mechanics . . . its why the sandman was changed in TF2.

There should never be any instance in any competitive game ever where the player has no options to do or choices to make that will affect the battle.

ECM jamming you, and leaving you nothing to do is a bad game mechanic.

Yes, When i'm bubbled, webbed and alpha'd I too hate that I have no chance. That's EVE though. There are many ways to be left completely powerless and ECM is one of them. Unless of course you defend against it.

What about a disruption field?

An ECM module that effectively made the signature of the ship unlockable, and in turn the ship using it could not lock anything else either.

I would limit this, so that the opponents could use signal boosters to overcome this effect, and lock the target despite this.

I would further twist the effect, and say the ship using this ECM could also use the same signal boosters, so they could also lock other ships over the interference that they generated.

Here is the kicker: as mid slot items, the ECM takes up slots used for shields and other items.
As low slot items, the boosters take up slots for armor and other items.

We already have these. They call this sensor boosters, remote sensor boosters, skirmish links, information warfare links, and x-instinct combat boosters. All of these either reduce your sig rad thus making you harder to lock/hit, or increase scan res thus allowing you to lock faster.

And that is the domain of sensor boosters and sensor damps. Not ECM.

[quote=Sigras]
My problem with ECM is that when you're jammed you might as well walk away from your computer for the next 20 seconds because thats about how effective you are. That should never be the case.

Extra Credits did an excellent episode explaining this issue. Game mechanics should increase the number of options each player has not eliminate them.

Also, saying "other mechanics leave you helpless too" is like defending a serial killer by saying "other people murder too"

After reading though all this, I am left with one question, and it is the most important one since ECM doesn't look so much at jam success as jam failure.

There are a lot of numbers here regarding jam time. But nothing regarding not-jammed time. How long does the target remain unjammed?

A player's functional combat time (time spent firing weapons or using other target-required modules) is reduced not just by the amount of time locked, but by how long it takes to reacquire a target lock. If the time spent unjammed is insufficient to reacquire locks, then he is effectively perma-jammed even if the ECM module(s) is/are not actively jamming him.

one problem with this change would be the combination of guaranteed lock break for every single modul and the fact that capitals in lowsec can only tackled with target points. while being able to refit and instantly jumping away if there is no point for a half second

2 examples:

1.)
2 nyx grind a random structure in lowsec. some dudes find them and send in hics and tackle them. both nyx fit med slots with 5 ecm modules, everyone locks up to 5 different hics and then they hit F1-F5 together and jump out. i mean its hard enough to tackle supers in lowsec, but with your change you need almost a complete squad of hics for each super you want to tackle.

2.)
a normal capital fleet gets caught in lowsec. its not possible to jam 200 different ships at the same time, but iam sure if every capital refits to ecm modules, it would be hard to kill more then a few.

i would say guaranteed jams even for 0,1 sec is a no go solution

I don't really have to defend the mechanics. Caldari and missiles along with ECM tie in. Not liking the mechanic isn't proof of it being out of line in EVE. ECM "resistance" skills are trainable and modules exist as well to boost that resistance even further. While I do engage in these threads often out of boredom I really don't worry about ECMs future at all.

We could spend a lot of time listing mechanics that we don't like, force projection, local chat, gate camps etc.

Deal with it.

youre talking to someone with 4 characters who have each put more than 4 million SP into jamming, its just that some of us are able to put the good of the game ahead of our own wants and desires.

You have yet to "elaborately detail" why jamming does not need a change after having been explained to several times why it is a bad game mechanic . . . I tried to have a discussion with you; you told me to "deal with it"

I haven't seen evidence it's bad game mechanics. I have seen people demonstrate its effective when they refuse to defend against it. ECM has been changed from consistent to random to less effective. Its time for the playerbase to HTFU.

There could be a significant psychological improvement to ECM if they removed the relock requirement and simultaneously dropped the cycle/effect time.

Minor side effects would be easier to shift tackle, but other than that....no net change except in people's minds which is where the problem mainly resides.

There is counter play. You equip eccm/backup sensor arrays/ecm and I go down in flames. You don't equp eccm/backup sensor arrays/ecm you go down in flames. Just because a mini game doesn't pop up mid fight for us to spar it out with doesn't mean there aren't counters available.
EVE fights are won or lost, usually, before the first shot is fired.
ECM also has an effective range, so you can "play" around it.

How many losses do you have in 1v1s versus ECM ships?

Also, LOL at well respected source. Well respected in what?

Also, LOL at "skillful". At one time ECM was if jam strength equals sensor strength target is jammed. Then it was changed to if jam strength equals sensor strength target has a good probability to be jammed. Then everyone was given magically delicious resistance skills. Which further lowers the chance to be jammed. All of which comes into play before you even equip one module to defend against ECM.

I meant going a bit further, that locks automatically and instantly re-establish. i.e. no re-lock time. It feels unnecessarily punitive given the current ECM duration to lump relock time on after that.

So, you have stuff locked. Get jammed. Jam ends. Targets (those still on grid/range) are instantly (or almost if too hard to code) reacquired. Explainable by the sensors overcompensating for the jamming and giving a temporary boost to resolution for a few seconds.


It'd be needed if the cycle time is dropped, otherwise low scan res ships would NEVER get a lock, ever,

I understand what you are saying. This design is supposed to help counter that low scan res ships lock slower by using their typically higher sensor strength to make the jam time shorter. So jam time + lock time for a BS is approximately the same as jam time + lock time of a frigate. That design is supposed to not favor BS or frigates. The 25 or maybe even 30 second cycle time for the ECM mod should guarantee that even a single falcon would have difficulty perma-jamming a target without a lot of jammers.

While I agree that instantly relocking would be a potentially useful mechanic, I don't think it would be the right decision in this design. The main issue is unbonused jammers only jam for 1-2 seconds. Instantly relocking after that would make an unbonused jammer nearly useless. The only way around this would be to buff the base jam strength of the ECM mod to the point an unbonused jammer was viable. Then you have the nightmare of trying to balance bonused hulls using this super-strength jammer. It would get ugly very quickly IMO.

Edit: It you were to rework the proposal to factor in an instant relock that would be balanced I would love to see it.

As far as a bunch of griffins jamming out a Basi or Guardian chain: It would take 4 jammers on a falcon to jam out a single scimi. It would end up being 2 girffins to the logi if they wanted a perma jam. That is a huge sacrifice considering that could be 2X logi in potential DPS ships. There is nothing that says you can't bring your own falcons and jam out all the griffins. Guaranteed jams work both ways. In other words I think this change is more balanced than it would appear in the case of jamming logi, but I can't really hand you proof that it is in all "what if..." situations.

I really wish we could test server this and have two 30 man gangs fight each other a few times with logi, ECM and the whole 9 yards to see how effective this is. It is such a drastic change that I would be very interested to see exactly how the tactics change. It is kind of hard to predict how these changes would effect things and how balance/unbalanced these changes are from a forum.

If we are not expected to be twitch gaming, then needing us to manually relock multiple targets diverts us from actually playing the real game, in exchange for the click fest mini game needed to restore locks you may need in a fight.

I'd meant leave it exactly as is today, minus my changes.

The random is still there, but since the duration is shorter it offers less frustration for both ECM users and targets. As I say, the only side effect I can think of is on tackle.

You'll have approximately the same combat effectiveness overall but less relies on one jam landing, it's still binary but with much shorter ramifications if a jam does or does not land.

It doesn't reduce the chance, but it mitigates some of the impact, if you follow?

Nothing in this thread has merit. Its yet another idea to change a mechanic because people don't want to defend against it and take less dps. Well guess what. TFB. Its working just fine as is. It doesn't need changing. They aren't going to remove it. They aren't going to make it disable high slots and its just about as weak as it could go before it becomes a waste of time to bring.

See these threads always come with the assertion it's been proven too strong, too effective, whatever. Prove it. All I read is that "we" don't like ecm and heres how it should change to suit us and be damned all the ecm specialist.

And nothing in EVE requires skill. Just marginally more patience than normal, some study time and a better than room temperature IQ. You don't even have to aim.

Part of the complaint is that ECCM doesnt do anything while you're not being jammed, this is unlike any other ewar "defense" in the game. Tracking Computer/Enhancers help even if you're not being tracking disrupted, sensor boosters decrease your lock time even if youre not being sensor dampened why is ECCM a useless module?

Shields suck if you aren't the target. Unless you're being hit they are absolutely worthless.

ECM has falloff.

I have every ewar elite cert/skill level 5. The exception being the resistance ones that came in after I remapped out of int & mem. I spent the better part of two years mapped int & mem.

Before we argue semantics, define skill.

Random has every reason to be in this game and others. Without it the results are linear and can be predicted. Predictability in my opinion leads to stale gameplay.

I'm glad you've started "just thinking about the proposed change". Its the first step.

Shields suck if you aren't the target. Unless you're being hit they are absolutely worthless.

I have every ewar elite cert/skill level 5. The exception being the resistance ones that came in after I remapped out of int & mem. I spent the better part of two years mapped int & mem.

Before we argue semantics, define skill.

Random has every reason to be in this game and others. Without it the results are linear and can be predicted. Predictability in my opinion leads to stale gameplay.

There is as much opportunity cost for having shields as there are for having base ship sensor strength. Perhaps you mean shield mods. If so, shield mods like ecm mods take up a slot that could be used for something else. Target painters, webs, points; etc.
If those slots you use for shields go unused they are in fact wasted. Ive went in war multiple weeks and dozens of fights without so much as being shot. Each time I had shields just in case I were though. As often as people complain about ecm and encountering it one would think the best solution is to always have ECCM/SBA's equipped.

That's a very narrow definition and uniquely worded to fit your opinion. A more accurate description would be

skill
/skil/
noun
noun: skill
1. the ability to do something well; expertise

StarCraft is a completely different genre of game. It being held as one of the most competitive games in the world is opinion.
I believe chess to be the most competitive and in chess whoever can think the furthest ahead while eliminating the unnecessary moves is the better player. Thinking ahead and being prepared for ecm while having the ability to counter your opponent in less than optimal circumstances is "skill". You have this in EVE right now.

Randomness is not the opposite of skill. Its antonyms are
essential
methodical
planned
systematic
definite
particular
specific

Randomness does not make you "less good at a game" In fact if there was no randomness every battle would be absolutely predictable and in most cases the larger party would always win.

So currently when you get jammed your max locked targets drop to 0, which for the victim feels always very frustrating and annoying not being able to do anything. That feeling of being ripped off of your own ships ability to target is what annoys the most.

So what if the jamming just affected your ships sensor strength? It initially breaks all the targets (or not?) and then causes your locking time to grow up to 10x. This would affect differently from the current ecm mechanics and not cause nearly as much frustration and annoyance and still accomplish almost same job. Of course various attributes would need to get play tested and fine tuned for it to remain balanced with the other forms of ewar.

Damage is not universal. It's also not guaranteed save for maybe in a 1v1. But even then there are fringe cases. Combat versus Freighter as an example.

ECM is another weapon system, like guns and missiles. It does no damage however so shields do not defend against it. Eve is a complex game.

Randomness does not make you "less good at a game" In fact if there was no randomness every battle would be absolutely predictable and in most cases the larger party would always win.

You won't beat me by just hitting jam cycles. You may beat me by hitting jam cycles and having another means to kill me.

In chess there are random variables that follow a simple set of rules. You do not control your opponents moves and as such what you encounter is random.

You can think ahead by equipping ECCM, Backup Sensor Arrays or bringing your own ECM.

Risk is a game where you roll dice to attack and defend. Claiming that it has no skill involved because you don't engage in FPS style pvp whenever a battle is fought is .... reductive. Where did the manual state if you put 30 troops on something and are attacked by less you'll win? You risked a turtle defense, failed to recognize the danger of an impending attack and paid the price.

You can absolutely get better at rolling dice by "schooling" them. I won't bother explaining that concept but rest assured it's factual.