Back in the late 90’s, SDS changed the concept of Evasive Maneuvering to what it called “Engine Modulation”. This was done because SDS felt that “the idea that a starship could maneuver side to side enough to affect incoming fire and still be restricted by a turn mode was unbelievable”. (I can understand this logic, and it's probably not wrong.)
Thus, SDS came up with the concept of Engine Modulation wherein the drive field was intentionally deformed to fool targeting systems, which supposedly aim by detecting its target's DF than aiming at its center. In this idea, deforming the DF would change the location of the DF's center, thus fooling the targeting systems.
The problem I have is that this idea of “Engine Modulation” is every bit as unbelievable to me as Evasive Maneuvering was to SDS back then. I do not buy that you can deform a drive field without it losing its integrity and collapsing. I feel that a DF is going to have whatever its shape happens to be when the ship is built and its engines installed, and only some sort of major overhaul could change that.
So I'm left with a dilemma.
Do I stick with Evasive Maneuvering as described, i.e. bobbing and weaving, to create this effect, and ignore the fact that some might find it unbelievable? Or do simply say that both concepts are unbelievable and dump both of them? (Keeping the Engine Modulation concept is a total non-starter for me.)
EDIT: A possible middle ground for keeping Evasive Maneuvering could be that fighters might be able to use it but starships couldn't.
Personally, I'm tempted to choose the latter option in the name of simplifying things. But I'm curious what people think about this.