open All Channels
seplocked Ships and Modules
blankseplocked Falcon - Only ship you need!
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8

Author Topic

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2009.03.15 04:57:00 - [181]
 

Edited by: Liang Nuren on 15/03/2009 04:58:45
Originally by: Pac SubCom
Then it is no wonder that you missed the significance these (btw mostly non-EFT) numbers have for the pvp business on TQ. Damps are much better than most people here give them credit for. Numbers like "57% at 230km" really speak for themselves for anyone remotely interested in remote sensor dampeners.


Sigh. If you put all 4 damps on a falcon you have a 57% chance to have it (single) damped at 230km. As I said earlier in another thread, this is very misleading, and is at best an mild inconvenience to the Falcon pilot and at worst a total non-issue.

Tell me - how long do you think it takes to lock onto everyone in your gang and activate an ecm mod on them? Ya, that's right - even if you succeed your gang still spends the next 20 seconds jammed. Again, really helpful there, bud.

-Liang

Ed: To clarify, the fact that the Falcon is better at ewar is fine. It has (effectively) one bonus and role in ship combat. The problem (with damps) come from that they have no effective role in combat - and bringing your one recon with a 57% chance to actually have any effect on the combat is really silly... especially if the combat situation is anything more than a falcon warping into your mission at 250km and jamming you.

Nedimi
Posted - 2009.03.15 06:48:00 - [182]
 

The problem for me is not about the ECM, but the falcon. And, my reasons for this are twofold:

1- The module of ECCM: Other e-war types have counter modules too. Against tracking disruptor, you can use tracking computer or tracking enhancer. Against sensor dampener, you can use a sensor booster. Against stasis webifier, you can have a propulsion mode on your ship.

All these mods differ from ECCM though. If your gang do not encounter an arazu, or a rapier, or a pilgrim, these mods are still desirable and useful mods to have on your ship. ECCM, however, has only one effect, and that is it increases your chance against ECM. However, if it turns out that the enemy gang did not have a falcon, you just wasted a mid slot. Believe me, it is annoying as an Amarr pilot to be forced to waste a mid-slot.

Second problem with ECCM is its ineffectiveness on small ships. I gave up fitting ECCM on anything smaller than a BS a while ago after I realized that no matter what if I am in a cruiser size ship or a frigate, and if the falcon finds me worthy of jamming, I'll be jammed.

2- cloak+range: Still, other ECM ships are not that difficult to deal with, and I can live with them. To start with, they are easier to scout, due to the fact that they can't fit cov-op cloak. However, you do not know that the enemy gang has a falcon until the very last moment. This means the pre-fight preparations at the moment, at least in low-sec, is not about fine scouting, it is just a guessing game: "How many falcons do you think they have? Do we have enough falcons to counter their possible falcons?, etc".
And, sometimes, when you think they do not have any falcons, you decide to switch the ECCM for something more useful, because as I explained above, ECCM is a waste of a mid slot if you are not gonna encounter ECM. And, then it turns out the neuts in local were the enemy gangs' falcon alts after all.....

Secondly, the range of Falcon combined with cloak makes them immune to any kind of attempt to kill them. Other ECM ships can be taken down with scorch + drones, after all ECM is chance based, and they do miss a cycle or two. However, a good falcon pilot might be forced to warp off or cloak, but he'll never lose his ship. And, while you are trying to force him to warp off or cloak, your gang wastes time for no kill. Oh, also, the moment you manage to get rid of the falcon, the ECCM mod in your mids again turns into a waste of mid-slot. Therefore, the "falcon has no tank, all other recons can tank" is a pointless argument, because falcon's tank is its range.

What are my solutions?

I am not sure, but possible solutions might be:

-Give a secondary effect to ECCM module, make them desirable to fit.
-Switch the optimal bonus on falcon to fall-off.

Derek Sigres
Posted - 2009.03.15 07:10:00 - [183]
 

I leave Eve for months and find that, in the time that I've done noting but log on and set a skill there are so many new things delivered. And, when I come to the forums, hoping for some light to be shed on the new mysteries of the universe I am greeted with a Nerf Falcons plea on the very first page. So much has changed but it's still the same old arguments

*sniff*

I missed you guys!

Solid Prefekt
Haven Front
Posted - 2009.03.15 07:45:00 - [184]
 

You can whine till you turn blue, CCP will NOT EVER nerf the Falcon in any way, shape, or form. Deal with it and move on.

Naomi Knight
Amarr
Posted - 2009.03.15 08:39:00 - [185]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 15/03/2009 04:58:45
Originally by: Pac SubCom
Then it is no wonder that you missed the significance these (btw mostly non-EFT) numbers have for the pvp business on TQ. Damps are much better than most people here give them credit for. Numbers like "57% at 230km" really speak for themselves for anyone remotely interested in remote sensor dampeners.


Sigh. If you put all 4 damps on a falcon you have a 57% chance to have it (single) damped at 230km. As I said earlier in another thread, this is very misleading, and is at best an mild inconvenience to the Falcon pilot and at worst a total non-issue.

Tell me - how long do you think it takes to lock onto everyone in your gang and activate an ecm mod on them? Ya, that's right - even if you succeed your gang still spends the next 20 seconds jammed. Again, really helpful there, bud.

-Liang

Ed: To clarify, the fact that the Falcon is better at ewar is fine. It has (effectively) one bonus and role in ship combat. The problem (with damps) come from that they have no effective role in combat - and bringing your one recon with a 57% chance to actually have any effect on the combat is really silly... especially if the combat situation is anything more than a falcon warping into your mission at 250km and jamming you.


This is a falcon whine thread ,you should bring your damp whine elsewhere o/

-Liang

Pac SubCom
True Creation
The 0rphanage
Posted - 2009.03.15 09:11:00 - [186]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren

Sigh. If you put all 4 damps on a falcon you have a 57% chance to have it (single) damped at 230km. As I said earlier in another thread, this is very misleading, and is at best an mild inconvenience to the Falcon pilot and at worst a total non-issue.


I think there are many people here who wouldn't have hoped in their dreams that you can fit to have such high chances at 230km. And what is 57% at 230km is 85% at 200km and 95% at 180km, with a linked ship that uses equal or fewer slots for EW. This is no mild inconvenience.

Naomi Knight
Amarr
Posted - 2009.03.15 09:16:00 - [187]
 

Originally by: Pac SubCom
Originally by: Liang Nuren

Sigh. If you put all 4 damps on a falcon you have a 57% chance to have it (single) damped at 230km. As I said earlier in another thread, this is very misleading, and is at best an mild inconvenience to the Falcon pilot and at worst a total non-issue.


I think there are many people here who wouldn't have hoped in their dreams that you can fit to have such high chances at 230km. And what is 57% at 230km is 85% at 200km and 95% at 180km, with a linked ship that uses equal or fewer slots for EW. This is no mild inconvenience.


Also that 240km is not effective ,your gang moves 10km in the opposite direction and the falcon become useless at 250km :P ,also falcon cant teleport freely around the gate.

Motaka
Caldari
Posted - 2009.03.15 09:40:00 - [188]
 

Originally by: Gneeznow
Edited by: Gneeznow on 09/03/2009 22:30:06
Originally by: Malcanis
You couldn't bump a freighter? Or did the Falcon jam your MWD as well?


nice attempt to derail bro

edit: I'm going to take a wild guess here looking at your race and corp and say that you're totally NOT a dedicated falcon pilot with a vested interest in the future of the ship

..... or maybe you are


Or maybe your a scrub who wants the game balanced for your playstyle.

welsh wizard
0utbreak
KrautbreaK
Posted - 2009.03.15 10:37:00 - [189]
 

Originally by: Nedimi
...2- cloak+range: Still, other ECM ships are not that difficult to deal with, and I can live with them. To start with, they are easier to scout, due to the fact that they can't fit cov-op cloak. However, you do not know that the enemy gang has a falcon until the very last moment. This means the pre-fight preparations at the moment, at least in low-sec, is not about fine scouting, it is just a guessing game: "How many falcons do you think they have? Do we have enough falcons to counter their possible falcons?, etc".


This is not a problem. Kudos for scouting but Eve is a harsh and unforgiving game. The random elements faced when playing the game only make it better.

Quote:
Secondly, the range of Falcon combined with cloak makes them immune to any kind of attempt to kill them. Other ECM ships can be taken down with scorch + drones, after all ECM is chance based, and they do miss a cycle or two. However, a good falcon pilot might be forced to warp off or cloak, but he'll never lose his ship. And, while you are trying to force him to warp off or cloak, your gang wastes time for no kill. Oh, also, the moment you manage to get rid of the falcon, the ECCM mod in your mids again turns into a waste of mid-slot. Therefore, the "falcon has no tank, all other recons can tank" is a pointless argument, because falcon's tank is its range.


The chances of facing no ECM in a combat situation these days is minimal. Fact is, you don't want to alter your setup and your bored with being jammed. Eve is all about adaptation, some do it, others post on the forums.

Quote:
What are my solutions?

I am not sure, but possible solutions might be:

-Give a secondary effect to ECCM module, make them desirable to fit.


Definitely, it has been discussed at length, more profitably on the SHC forums.

Quote:
-Switch the optimal bonus on falcon to fall-off.


No chance, the Falcon cannot operate at close ranges without a complete redesign. It has almost no offensive (beyond ECM) or defensive capability when performing its role. It could afford a slight optimal reduction aslong as its kept out of sniper range.

Raymond Moons
Star Frontiers
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2009.03.15 15:07:00 - [190]
 

The fact ECM is usefull is not the problem- also the fact the Falcon is so effective at dissabling entire gangs is also not the problem.

The standard grumble is that ECCM gimps your ship, and still doesn't make you entirely immune to ECM.

My first thought would be to give a projected ECCM bonus to another ship, that could then be used for counter-falcon gang support and would naturally be somewhat immune to ECM, and may introduce some interesting tactical changes to gang warfare (primary targets will likely become this ship for gangs using ECM). The gangs currently relying on ECM/ Falcons, may even be discouraged from using them as it would reduce their effectiveness against well setup opponent gangs.

The problem with this solution is it means most gangs would likely then have a Falcon and an anti-Falcon, or a bunch of Falcons to overcome the anti-Falcon.

So my next thought is about the ECCM module itself. It increases sensor strength. So why not make it part of the sensor booster? Currently the sensor booster has a range script, and a scan resolution script, so why not then have an ECCM script? This would mean ECM could be countered (to some degree) with a module that isn't specifically dedicated to the task at all times and thus doesn't totally gimp your ship.

Projected ECCM could be a script for the Remote Sensor Booster.

Am I insane or does this sound like a good idea?

Coriander Rinne
Federal Navy Academy
Posted - 2009.03.15 15:44:00 - [191]
 

Originally by: Raymond Moons
The fact ECM is usefull is not the problem- also the fact the Falcon is so effective at dissabling entire gangs is also not the problem.

The standard grumble is that ECCM gimps your ship, and still doesn't make you entirely immune to ECM.

My first thought would be to give a projected ECCM bonus to another ship, that could then be used for counter-falcon gang support and would naturally be somewhat immune to ECM, and may introduce some interesting tactical changes to gang warfare (primary targets will likely become this ship for gangs using ECM). The gangs currently relying on ECM/ Falcons, may even be discouraged from using them as it would reduce their effectiveness against well setup opponent gangs.

The problem with this solution is it means most gangs would likely then have a Falcon and an anti-Falcon, or a bunch of Falcons to overcome the anti-Falcon.

So my next thought is about the ECCM module itself. It increases sensor strength. So why not make it part of the sensor booster? Currently the sensor booster has a range script, and a scan resolution script, so why not then have an ECCM script? This would mean ECM could be countered (to some degree) with a module that isn't specifically dedicated to the task at all times and thus doesn't totally gimp your ship.

Projected ECCM could be a script for the Remote Sensor Booster.

Am I insane or does this sound like a good idea?


You're insane. I'll take this post seriously for a minute and then go back to yelling about how flacon ated kitty.

I like how it's acceptable to have an entire ship fitted around a single purpose--the falcon--but not acceptable for a more versatile ship to fit a module to counter it. Why is that?

I mean, what makes one okay but not the other? So you're using up a midslot. THE OPPOSING GANG HAS A PILOT AND AN ENTIRE SHIP ALLOCATED TO THIS ONE THING.

Come on now, it's ridiculous. Been saying this for months. Adapt or die. The capability to do so is there. We should not be rebalancing ships just because fools don't want to go out of their way to do something about them.

Because if that's the case, then let's not waste time. We'll just jump all the way down the damn slippery slope and adopt World of Warcraft's crowd control mechanic and make it to where EW only works once and then is completely useless after.

inb4:

"BUT FLACON IS BETTAR AT ECM TAHN MY ECCM IS I HAD ECCM AND IT JAMZ ME STILL"

Stop taking on recons by yourself. When they can stick their entire EW capability on one ship OF COURSE THE RESULT IS GOING TO BE BAD FOR THE OPPOSING SHIP. This is true of any recon.

"WE SHOULD NOT HAS TO FITZ MODULES 2 COUNTAR ONE THINGZ"

So let's stop fitting warp disruptors then. All it does is counter the enemy's ability to warp out. WARPING OUT IS OVERPOWERED, NERF DAT YO.

We also shouldn't have to fit guns to counter the opposing ship's hull.

Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled programming.

WHY FLACON WHY HAVE YOU ATED KITTY IT WAS YOUR FRIEND.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2009.03.15 15:57:00 - [192]
 

Originally by: welsh wizard
Definitely, it has been discussed at length, more profitably on the SHC forums.


Man I have to ask if SHC has BS like the NmX/LimaBean crap in the blaster thread. If not, I may consider permanently moving. I normally don't mind the signal/noise ratio, because at least there's someone who's simply reading and learns when I correct someone.

But jeeze, you'd have thought the mods would either forum banned them or locked the thread by now.

-Liang

Traderboz
SlaveMart
Posted - 2009.03.15 16:51:00 - [193]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: welsh wizard
Definitely, it has been discussed at length, more profitably on the SHC forums.


Man I have to ask if SHC has BS like the NmX/LimaBean crap in the blaster thread. If not, I may consider permanently moving. I normally don't mind the signal/noise ratio, because at least there's someone who's simply reading and learns when I correct someone.

But jeeze, you'd have thought the mods would either forum banned them or locked the thread by now.

-Liang


Reported!

Sh'iva
Posted - 2009.03.15 16:55:00 - [194]
 

hi

Raymond Moons
Star Frontiers
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2009.03.15 17:00:00 - [195]
 

Originally by: Coriander Rinne
I like how it's acceptable to have an entire ship fitted around a single purpose--the falcon--but not acceptable for a more versatile ship to fit a module to counter it. Why is that?


Well yes it is acceptable to have a ship dedicated to one purpose (mining barge, hauler, command ship, logistics etc.). However ECCM isn't a counter to a Falcon like armor hp is a counter to a missile, or like a warp core stabilizer is a counter to a warp disruptor. Those counters are gauranteed, whereas ECCM is certainly not. My Falcon can still perma-jam a cruiser with ECCM fitted with just one racial jammer. So as long as fitting the counter to ECM is usually just as good as not fitting the counter to ECM, I'd rather have a non-dedicated module for the job.

'Adapt or die', as you say, in this case is not an appropriate statement since even if you adapt and fit ECCM you're probably still going to die anyway!

Jan'z Kolna
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2009.03.16 01:49:00 - [196]
 

ECCM works on BS against just one racial jammer...one more jammer and you're screwed

all those counters - ECCM, snipers,eccm-ed recons - they come at cost - gimped setups, gimped gangs... and all this just because of one ship

why bother with all that if you simply can bring your own falcons, preferably more than opposition?
it's about maximum effectiveness

and that's what is happening on TQ

remeber nanoships? 'best counter to nanoships is to bring your own nanogang'

now it's the same with falcons

oh, and nano got nerfedRazz


GTC seller72
Posted - 2009.03.16 11:17:00 - [197]
 

Originally by: Jan'z Kolna
ECCM works on BS against just one racial jammer...one more jammer and you're screwed

all those counters - ECCM, snipers,eccm-ed recons - they come at cost - gimped setups, gimped gangs... and all this just because of one ship


1. They do not gimp all gangs only yours as you seem to wanna fit gank/tank only, and TBH the use of a single slot is not really a "gimp" anyway..

2. If falcons are so powerful and are such i-win for gang combat fitting a eccm would allow you to defeat gangs that rely on them so you should be hapopy it exists and use it.

Originally by: Jan'z Kolna
why bother with all that if you simply can bring your own falcons, preferably more than opposition?


I think you need your head looking at, you complain that you need to use a single slot from your ship, but in the next breath you talk about bringing a entire ship/account along.

You need to evaluate your perspective on the matter i think.





Originally by: Jan'z Kolna
it's about maximum effectiveness

and that's what is happening on TQ

remeber nanoships? 'best counter to nanoships is to bring your own nanogang'

now it's the same with falcons


Rubbish falcons are bad at jamming falcons as they have one of the highest sig str in the game.



Zxepa
Posted - 2009.03.16 12:06:00 - [198]
 

Edited by: Zxepa on 16/03/2009 12:14:48
Edited by: Zxepa on 16/03/2009 12:06:57
Take away all ECM ships ability to run these things all day?

Solution: For every succesful jam on any ship i think there should be a substantial cap hit to the ECM pilot based on some sort of variable of the target ship. This then justifies the range at which falcon pilots or ecm ships in general can engage at it.

This should make for some very interesting strategic jamming situations. For instance, i jam a battleship i get hit by a self-energy drain based on the percentage of the battleships capacitor/A multiplication factor of it's sensor strength. Mechanically, wouldn't you assume it'd be alot more electronically stressful on the ECM boat to disable a larger ship?

Imagine for a second, so you fit an eccm on your battleship and say you get it to 75 sensor strength and say they added a built in multiplication factor to all ECCM modules of 2 and t2 3.5. You're still jammed by an ecm boat, shucks, life sucks...HOWEVER the penealty for jamming you is 75 x 3.5 + a fictional built is multiplier on all racials, say it's 2 and 3.5 for t2. 75x7= 525...he just lost 525 cap to jam an ECCM'd battleship. Solved...?

RedSplat
Posted - 2009.03.16 12:22:00 - [199]
 

Originally by: Zxepa
Edited by: Zxepa on 16/03/2009 12:14:48
Edited by: Zxepa on 16/03/2009 12:06:57
Take away all ECM ships ability to run these things all day?

Solution: For every succesful jam on any ship i think there should be a substantial cap hit to the ECM pilot based on some sort of variable of the target ship. This then justifies the range at which falcon pilots or ecm ships in general can engage at it.

This should make for some very interesting strategic jamming situations. For instance, i jam a battleship i get hit by a self-energy drain based on the percentage of the battleships capacitor/A multiplication factor of it's sensor strength. Mechanically, wouldn't you assume it'd be alot more electronically stressful on the ECM boat to disable a larger ship?

Imagine for a second, so you fit an eccm on your battleship and say you get it to 75 sensor strength and say they added a built in multiplication factor to all ECCM modules of 2 and t2 3.5. You're still jammed by an ecm boat, shucks, life sucks...HOWEVER the penealty for jamming you is 75 x 3.5 + a fictional built is multiplier on all racials, say it's 2 and 3.5 for t2. 75x7= 525...he just lost 525 cap to jam an ECCM'd battleship. Solved...?


Flacon pilot removes one jammer, adds cap booster, laughs at the whines

Zxepa
Posted - 2009.03.16 12:29:00 - [200]
 

Exactly, the play style is radically changed. He'll actually have to drop one jammer to fit a cap booster. He'll actually have to make strategic descisions on to what to disable and what not to disable. Instead of blindly spamming jammers on ships from 150km away and go make a sandwitch.

Now, variations of this method could be reduced for say..the rook so it's less of a capacitor hit and gives a defined role to the ship aswell.

Major Celine
Posted - 2009.03.16 12:34:00 - [201]
 

Deja vu topic number 12562.

Please close.

The Tzar
FinFleet
Raiden.
Posted - 2009.03.16 13:41:00 - [202]
 

A top skilled falcon char has about a 50% chance to jam another falcon (14.2 jam strength vs 28 signal strength)

That is definately not enough if you have brought falcons to counter enemy falcons, this is one reason why I dont think they are overpowered.

A standard BS with 1 ECCM has what, something like a sensor strength of about 50. This gives the same falcon pilot about 28% chance of jamming.

I don't know where all these whiners are getting their maths from but this means the falcon needs to have 4 racial jammers to 'statistically' ensure a jam. However due to the way probability works this can still have 4 fails in a row.

Another reason why I dont think falcons are overpowered.

If only people would give a balanced representation of their received jams/not jams the hysteria would not be as immature as it seems to be.

Neo Rainhart
Guerilla Republik
Excuses.
Posted - 2009.03.16 13:52:00 - [203]
 

The more falcons i see and encounter the more i adapt to them being there. Best thing to do is buy or train a falcon alt yourself. The 100% training bonus and 2 attribute revamps on new chars makes this super fast of a process. Kind of.

Katarlia Simov
Minmatar
Cowboys From Hell
Posted - 2009.03.16 14:24:00 - [204]
 

Originally by: Nedimi
The problem for me is not about the ECM, but the falcon. And, my reasons for this are twofold:

1- The module of ECCM: Other e-war types have counter modules too. Against tracking disruptor, you can use tracking computer or tracking enhancer. Against sensor dampener, you can use a sensor booster. Against stasis webifier, you can have a propulsion mode on your ship.

All these mods differ from ECCM though. If your gang do not encounter an arazu, or a rapier, or a pilgrim, these mods are still desirable and useful mods to have on your ship. ECCM, however, has only one effect, and that is it increases your chance against ECM. However, if it turns out that the enemy gang did not have a falcon, you just wasted a mid slot. Believe me, it is annoying as an Amarr pilot to be forced to waste a mid-slot.

Second problem with ECCM is its ineffectiveness on small ships. I gave up fitting ECCM on anything smaller than a BS a while ago after I realized that no matter what if I am in a cruiser size ship or a frigate, and if the falcon finds me worthy of jamming, I'll be jammed.

2- cloak+range: Still, other ECM ships are not that difficult to deal with, and I can live with them. To start with, they are easier to scout, due to the fact that they can't fit cov-op cloak. However, you do not know that the enemy gang has a falcon until the very last moment. This means the pre-fight preparations at the moment, at least in low-sec, is not about fine scouting, it is just a guessing game: "How many falcons do you think they have? Do we have enough falcons to counter their possible falcons?, etc".
And, sometimes, when you think they do not have any falcons, you decide to switch the ECCM for something more useful, because as I explained above, ECCM is a waste of a mid slot if you are not gonna encounter ECM. And, then it turns out the neuts in local were the enemy gangs' falcon alts after all.....

Secondly, the range of Falcon combined with cloak makes them immune to any kind of attempt to kill them. Other ECM ships can be taken down with scorch + drones, after all ECM is chance based, and they do miss a cycle or two. However, a good falcon pilot might be forced to warp off or cloak, but he'll never lose his ship. And, while you are trying to force him to warp off or cloak, your gang wastes time for no kill. Oh, also, the moment you manage to get rid of the falcon, the ECCM mod in your mids again turns into a waste of mid-slot. Therefore, the "falcon has no tank, all other recons can tank" is a pointless argument, because falcon's tank is its range.

What are my solutions?

I am not sure, but possible solutions might be:

-Give a secondary effect to ECCM module, make them desirable to fit.
-Switch the optimal bonus on falcon to fall-off.



I'd actually argue that the other ewar effects don't have counters as such, because if we had infinite med slots then we'd all be using sensor boosters and tracking computers for everything.

I have a bundle of set-ups (like my gang fit geddon) that has a sensor booster as standard.

Basically, I have never fit either a tracking comp or an SB becuase i've thought 'hang on i might get damped/disrupted'.

As you said, ECCM should have some other effect. A decent one too. Make them worth using in any situation aside from being jammed and then there would be some validity in people claiming that ECCM should always be in a generalised set-up.

maralt
Minmatar
The seers of truth
Posted - 2009.03.16 14:33:00 - [205]
 

Originally by: Katarlia Simov


As you said, ECCM should have some other effect. A decent one too. Make them worth using in any situation aside from being jammed and then there would be some validity in people claiming that ECCM should always be in a generalised set-up.


I agree.

My favorite of the ideas was the sig radius reduction as it fits rather well with the fact it is a anti-caldari ecm module and as such a reduction in sig helps the most against missiles that are also for the most part a caldari system.

desudesuu
Posted - 2009.03.16 15:22:00 - [206]
 

Originally by: maralt
Originally by: Katarlia Simov


As you said, ECCM should have some other effect. A decent one too. Make them worth using in any situation aside from being jammed and then there would be some validity in people claiming that ECCM should always be in a generalised set-up.


I agree.

My favorite of the ideas was the sig radius reduction as it fits rather well with the fact it is a anti-caldari ecm module and as such a reduction in sig helps the most against missiles that are also for the most part a caldari system.


Hmm, yes..nerf an entire weapon system to truly fix the falcon. I like your style Cool

maralt
Minmatar
The seers of truth
Posted - 2009.03.16 15:38:00 - [207]
 

Edited by: maralt on 16/03/2009 15:43:03

Originally by: desudesuu
Originally by: maralt
Originally by: Katarlia Simov


As you said, ECCM should have some other effect. A decent one too. Make them worth using in any situation aside from being jammed and then there would be some validity in people claiming that ECCM should always be in a generalised set-up.


I agree.

My favorite of the ideas was the sig radius reduction as it fits rather well with the fact it is a anti-caldari ecm module and as such a reduction in sig helps the most against missiles that are also for the most part a caldari system.


Hmm, yes..nerf an entire weapon system to truly fix the falcon. I like your style Cool


I would not exactly call it a nerf, its more of a addition to balance not only ECCM but give ppl the option of fitting a module that effects missiles in roughly the same way tracking disruptor's effect turrets.

The % of reduction would need to be examined and done correctly, but if its used in conjunction with the other idea about giving ECCM a base amount boost for ships with low sig str and the standard % sig str boost for ships with higher base str i do think its a workable idea.

But its just a idea and while i think falcons are fine i do think ECCM needs a rework and think this is the best idea i have heard so far for boosting it. Although like most ppl on here i am willing to hear others if you have them.

desudesuu
Posted - 2009.03.16 16:13:00 - [208]
 

Originally by: maralt
Edited by: maralt on 16/03/2009 15:43:03

Originally by: desudesuu
Originally by: maralt
Originally by: Katarlia Simov


As you said, ECCM should have some other effect. A decent one too. Make them worth using in any situation aside from being jammed and then there would be some validity in people claiming that ECCM should always be in a generalised set-up.


I agree.

My favorite of the ideas was the sig radius reduction as it fits rather well with the fact it is a anti-caldari ecm module and as such a reduction in sig helps the most against missiles that are also for the most part a caldari system.


Hmm, yes..nerf an entire weapon system to truly fix the falcon. I like your style Cool


stuff.



But you're comparing an electronic counter-counter meassure to electronic warfare. A TD's job is meant to disrupt tracking because it's EW. There are specific counter meassures available to combat TD's, Nos, Dampening, Webbing and of course warp disruption. Maybe the reason why there isn't any additional benefits to ECCM is due to the multi-functional roles of the current ones.

You want cap? Cap injector, cap recharger, capacitor batteries and various rigs.

You need speed? Nanos, Overdrive, after burners, microwarp drive and various rigs.

You can't lock so well? Sensor boosters hell, even scripted sensor boosters and various rigs.

There are so many counters to EW already we've simply regarded them as the norm. The reason why ECCM is so one sided is due to the fact that ECM is aswell. ECM is a very specific type of EW that requires a very specific means of defense. Believe it or not, many falcon pilots aren't tards and if you're piloting a high threat craft you should already know you're going to be green lighted.

Sun Clausewitz
Posted - 2009.03.16 16:18:00 - [209]
 

Repeat after me...
ECM is chance based. All those times you got jammed, you know how many times that pilot watched the jammers cycle without getting a jam on anyone???

You want a cheap and easy Anti-Falcon setup. Have 1 pilot fly a cheap throw away Frigate with a MWD and a rack of SB's. Fly to Falcon and cut loose. Falcon has no tank due to ECM mods...

But you migth say: the Falcon could sacrifice some ECM mods to fit a tank. To which you could also sacrifice a mod for an ECCM.


desudesuu
Posted - 2009.03.16 16:33:00 - [210]
 

Also has everyone forgotten that caldari only have one EW?
So you're asking for an ECCM AND Benefits to furthur reduce it's effectiveness. No other ship can MISS it's EW, many times over. A frigate can't prevent being bloomed to the size of a battleship or completely halted to crawl. A battleship can't prevent being scramed from over 9000 miles away while having the locking speed of 0.5/s. A cruiser can't prevent having it's capacitor completely evaporated within a few seconds whilst having the tracking equivilent of trying to hit an ant with a marble from 7ft away.

Everything i mentioned needs serious ship gimping defense to negate.Yet all you need is ONE, ONE, ONE..ONE MODULE to significantly reduce the ------chance----- of being disabled for an entire 20 seconds...one.


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only