The thrust of CCP's effort appears to be addressing the range of ECM which is commonly refered to as "jamming from 200 km away" in a high pitched whiny voice. Its a slight exaggeration; more like 150 km away but for most pilots that fight in the 10-30 km range it might as well be on the far side of the moon.
Dee Carson of the Miner with Fangs blog whose opinion I mightily respect is strongly opposed to this approach as chronicled here, here, and here (in chronological order). In his last post:
No matter how loudly the checker players whine about Falcons sitting out at 200km 'permajamming' and how emphatically they support the currently proposed changes, their real beef is with jam strength.I agree. I've written before how the issue with ECM is the design of the ships and their midslots not being used for shield tank/tackle/MWD and electronic warfare but rather being exploited all for ECM. The proposed changes in effect will mean that ECM ships will still jam with a certain degree of consistency, range be damned.
And the proposed changes do not affect that at all. Falcons are still going to jam an interceptor with one module everytime and have a 94% probability of jamming a cruiser sized hull with 2 modules.
It will be nice for people up against Falcons and their ilk to have them closer to engage with but in small gang fights I still think people will be screwed when the Falcon uncloaks and negates the firepower of half their gang in one fell swoop. Not to mention what two Falcons can do.
In the end, CCP will do what they feel is best and I will adapt. I'm actually looking forward to a Rook with a drone bay and more "grrrrr" to it, like a sibling to the Cerberus with less tank but ECM instead.