open All Channels
seplocked Test Server Feedback
blankseplocked ECM Ships - Looking at better defined roles
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 25 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 32 33 ... : last (38)

Author Topic

Childstar
Minmatar
Republic University
Posted - 2009.03.26 14:06:00 - [841]
 

Originally by: d'hofren
Originally by: Childstar
Originally by: d'hofren
Originally by: KAMIKAZE TRON
What makes me laugh is there is already measures and mods to use to counter ecm that nubs just never seem tot use. Just put one or two sensor strength mods on your med or low slots and your un jammable....Yeah your tank suffers a tiny bit but you can't be jammed...

Rather than improve this aspect of ecm protection that noone bothers to use coz they dont want to hurt there precious tanks or use up slots for it, they would rather nerf an entire line of ecm ships.....

I love the way ccp thinks Rolling Eyes


That would be a good point if it was even half true. Even two mid slot ECCM will not give you impunity from Jam.




2 mid slot SB' or TC's do not give you immunity from damps or TD's they only resist the effects while 2 eccm will entirely block the effect of ecm for many cycles compared to flying without them and getting jammed.


Then again, Damps and TD's don't completely shut down the offensive capabilities of a ship from over 200km away do they?

(and yes I have a max skilled falcon alt as well)...


No they do not and that is why nobody flies them in gang vs gang combat.....that should give you a idea on what should be buffed to fix and balance things instead of what should be nerfed and thrown on the "useless for gang vs gang combat" scrap heap along with them...

Also ECM is not gaurenteed to do that against a eccm fitted ship at ANY range even optimal (and FYI drones + fof still continue to work if you are jammed), unlike the other systems that are gaurenteed to take effect in optimal (although they also do not help against drones or fof).

GTC seller72
Posted - 2009.03.26 14:10:00 - [842]
 

Originally by: maralt
Edited by: maralt on 26/03/2009 12:03:31

Originally by: Elurilmar
I've been reading a ton of posts about how much Tracking disruption sucks and target painting sucks. They don't suck. Learn how to freakin use them before you complain about them. I've been in too many fights with a TD or target painter fitted where it totally changed the tide of battle, whether it kept a primary in my fleet from dying or it meant that extra bit of dps to bring a ship down. tracking disrupters are one of the most useful modules you can fit on a ship fleet or solo (if you have a slot for it) so before you complain about them, shut up and learn how to use them first.


The same can be said about damps bud and i totally agree with you, but in a gang fight those modules are much more used on multiple non-bonused ships and dispersed around the oposing gang to what i agree with you is great effect. I think you will agree though that the recons that get bonuses to those effects are not used in that sort of gang fighting due to their lack of tank and gank relative to the effectivness of the module.

And while the other recons are reasonably effective when used in 2-3 man gangs for ganking perposes the ecm effect being chance based is not only useless on non-bonused ships in gang v gang fighting but also a poor choice to use at close range in 2-3 man gank squads on its bonused recon due to its unrelyable effect.


So in nerfing ECM we are left with the recon being as useless in gang combat as the others, and also useless in solo or 2-3 man teams because its still chance based. While the ecm module itself also being useless on unbonused ships unlike the other systems because it again does not have a gaurenteed/relyable effect that tactics can be developed around...

So in other words a dead ship and module.






This.

Boost ECCM and give it a secondary useful effect and also boost the range on some of the other recons effects as well as giving SDA's the ability to effect some of the other ewar systems.

Nikuno
Posted - 2009.03.26 14:19:00 - [843]
 

Edited by: Nikuno on 26/03/2009 14:20:25
It's been said a couple of times, but I'd like to repeat the suggestion in the hope that it doesn't get lost in all the noise.

Make SDA's affect all of the EW modules in-game.

This will go a long way to balancing ew generally. Falcon pilots are using the argument that they use ALL of their slots to get the the falcon to work as it does, and with the changes are complaining about not being able to tank because of this. But the choice to do this doesn't exist for other types of ew. Given the option of a shoddy armour tank or the extra range to tracking disruptors, sensor damps, or target painters from the SDA's would be an interesting twist.

Combined with a reduction in ecm strength for the ranged falcon, and suddenly all ew would on a much more level playing field.


Research Rachel
Posted - 2009.03.26 14:23:00 - [844]
 

Originally by: JarkaRuus

Why not just introduce scripts similar to those in Sensor boosters that give the choice of 'long range/low strength' or 'short range/high strength', or unscripted use which is a mid range/mid strength situation. It then becomes a tactical decision which adds depth to the gameplay.



and this worked well for sensor dampeners, didn't it? Rolling Eyes

the only tank a falcon has is distance and as a falcon pilot i'm never 200km from a target, 150km maybe, but that doesn't make me invincible!

every change to ew has been a bad nerf purely because some kids whine they never got to omgpwn someone. With the proposed changes the only use for a falcon now will be as a very expensive cyno ship, although at least it can fit some overdrives now to get through bubble camps Rolling Eyes

ccp really needs to get the balls to start telling people to adapt!

Childstar
Minmatar
Republic University
Posted - 2009.03.26 14:25:00 - [845]
 

Edited by: Childstar on 26/03/2009 14:28:48
Originally by: Nikuno

It's been said a couple of times, but I'd like to repeat the suggestion in the hope that it doesn't get lost in all the noise.

Make SDA's affect all of the EW modules in-game.

This will go a long way to balancing ew generally. Falcon pilots are using the argument that they use ALL of their slots to get the the falcon to work as it does, and with the changes are complaining about not being able to tank because of this. But the choice to do this doesn't exist for other types of ew. Given the option of a shoddy armour tank or the extra range to tracking disruptors, sensor damps, or target painters from the SDA's would be an interesting twist.


Give the other recons a boost to the range of some of their effects, like damps, TD's and TP's and leave SDA's giving boost to str but change them so they effect damps, TD's and TP's str as well.

Originally by: Nikuno
Combined with a reduction in ecm strength for the ranged falcon, and suddenly all ew would on a much more level playing field.


ECM str does not need a reduction at range as it is already chance based and if the other systems are boosted in range (with either the ship or SDA bonus ideas) the fact that they are gaurenteed effects in optiomal would balance things nicely.


Commissar Kate
Revenent Defence Corperation
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
Posted - 2009.03.26 14:29:00 - [846]
 

Fix the other recon ships befor you mess with the Falcon

Kalintos Tyl
Minmatar
Bloody Amarr's
Posted - 2009.03.26 14:32:00 - [847]
 

they got already "fixed"

Hun Jakuza
We Are So Troubled Everyone Runs Screaming
Posted - 2009.03.26 15:04:00 - [848]
 

Need better ECCM too or Jammer script. (+ 2xStr - 1/2 optimal) or (+ 2xOptimal - 1/2 str)
And pls dont give to Falcon better then 150km optimal+falloff range without script and maybe that is the good solution when just Racial ecm working on the same racial ship but others not.

Esmenet
Gallente
Posted - 2009.03.26 15:27:00 - [849]
 

Originally by: Nikuno
Edited by: Nikuno on 26/03/2009 14:20:25
It's been said a couple of times, but I'd like to repeat the suggestion in the hope that it doesn't get lost in all the noise.

Make SDA's affect all of the EW modules in-game.

This will go a long way to balancing ew generally. Falcon pilots are using the argument that they use ALL of their slots to get the the falcon to work as it does, and with the changes are complaining about not being able to tank because of this. But the choice to do this doesn't exist for other types of ew. Given the option of a shoddy armour tank or the extra range to tracking disruptors, sensor damps, or target painters from the SDA's would be an interesting twist.

Combined with a reduction in ecm strength for the ranged falcon, and suddenly all ew would on a much more level playing field.




People have been asking for fixes to the other ewar for ages, not that anything has happened. Instead of focusing on making the other specialised ewar ships more useful, ccp has decided to toss the specialised ecm ships on the same scrapheap of ships not good enough to justify taking it over a normal dps ship.

Angelina Joliee
Posted - 2009.03.26 15:37:00 - [850]
 

Falcon stays a jamming-sniper with decent skills, rook becomes a really really nice ship for small hac-gangs and 1vs1, scorpion can be fittet additional tank without loosing too much jam-strength making it useful for spider-tank-gangs.
Where we had 3 ships fullfilling the same role we have now 3 ships fullfilling 3 different roles - I like that very much.
Very good changes CCP!

Cletus Graeme
North Eastern Swat
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2009.03.26 15:47:00 - [851]
 

Edited by: Cletus Graeme on 26/03/2009 16:03:03

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
We are looking at putting the scorpion into the short range brawler role. To that end we are looking at removing its ECM Optimal range bonus, increasing the ECM strength bonus a little and adding a cruise/siege launcher rate of fire bonus so it can get close and personal.

Summary Scorpion Changes

- removed the ECM optimal range bonus
- increased the ECM strength bonus to 20% per level
- added a 5% RoF bonus to cruise & siege missile launchers per level


These changes are a bad idea.

(1) The Caldari already have a short range brawler - the Raven. A Scorp with 4 launchers and a damage/ROF bonus is not comparable in either tank or gank to a Raven and shouldn't be anyway. These are Caldari ships and as such they should be specialised for specific roles with little (if any) overlap. As an ECM ship the scorp's role is to provides e-war support.

(2) This is the only e-war battleship in the game and is also an ECM ship which will make it the primary in pretty much any fight it is used. Consequently, this ship needs defenses much more than than it needs offenses. A shield resist bonues would be better than any kind of damage bonus.

(3) As the only e-war battleship it should be able to provide ECM support at BOTH long and short ranges. It should be useful in long range sniping fleets (i.e. able to jam at 150-200km) and close range RR gangs (i.e. able to tank and remote repair at close range) but it should be worse than the Falcon and the Rook at each of these roles so that they have a niche role at which they excel.

I therefore suggest the following initial changes to the Scorpion (subject to testing):

- leave the ECM strength bonus 15% per level
- leave the ECM range bonus at 20% per level

Optionally:

- add a 5% shield resist bonus per level
OR
- adjust the current slot layout and/or grid/cpu to allow the ship to be effectively armor tanked

Batnaso
Posted - 2009.03.26 15:56:00 - [852]
 

Congratulation GM!

Year by year and day by day you continuing to f....d Caldarian race.
first with the missiles, now with falcon, before with nighthawk.
At the end this race will can make only mission and rat!!
And in this point of view - can you transfer all my SP from missiles to gunnery? or can I reborn (with the same skill points of course) in some other race which is much better for PVP?
thank you for losing one year of my life and maybe more to somebody else
Exclamation

Moonlight Express
Amarr
Moonlight Express Inc.
Posted - 2009.03.26 15:59:00 - [853]
 

Another change that does not need changing. Do you people even play the game at all? Recons are paper-thin. Moving them closer to action will mean they will just die as soon as they are locked. They are primary already in every fleet fight by sniping ships that have greater range then the recons themselves. Why not give some love to Black OPs instead? ECM was already nurfed to ****. Why don't you stop messing with things that don't need changing and make changes that people have been asking for years, like Titan DD range and POS and SOV warfare ffs? Another bunch of crap from people that just don't understand how the fleet game is played. Are you also going to ignore all the people in this thread telling you this is a bad idea too?

Hesperius
Posted - 2009.03.26 16:02:00 - [854]
 

CCP Check this out

I would have liked to seen the ECM nerfed via buffing the Arazu so It can dampen a jammer. If a Falcon is added to ships that cant do their job the only way win a fight is to blob, tank and gank.

I would like to see these changes:
Bring the Falcon in a little closer - 140k maxed out
Pulling its max jamming strength down from 15 down to say 13
Give ECCM a fixed strength.
Signal distortion amps modified to effect all ewar

Glen Morange
Posted - 2009.03.26 16:18:00 - [855]
 

Originally by: Kim Telkin
While mentioning changes to ECM ships, I will slide my own random idea in. What if ECM was rolled against each lock the ship had instead of all of them?

So if you have an ECM strength of 10 and the ship you are targeting has a sensor strength of 20, on average you'll remove 1/2 of their locks.

An example to make my point. Your ship can target a max of 8 ships, you are currently targeting 5 ships and in the process of locking 1 more.

I jam you, so I roll against each target. Out of your 5 locks, 2 break, and the target you are int he process of locking breaks as well. Then you roll against your 2 other potential targets and one of them 'breaks' as well.

So I broke 2 real locks, kept you from locking a third, and lowered your max locked targets by another one. So for the next 20 seconds you can only lock a max of 4 targets.

Seems to be more in line with how the other EWAR systems work.


I would agree, this is a far more rational solution. It would make multitasking a useful skill, shut up the !!!!!1111eleven111 permajam whiners, and would properly address the crazy ECM mechanic (20 seconds of sitting around doing nothing is the problem CCP).

In the past I ran a blackbird where I had to sit outside of a RR sniper blob. I died in almost every engagement due to being a paper thin ship sitting without support. Given that the falcon is 10x the price this isn't going to be acceptable, and I just can't see CCP giving the falcon the armor resists and low slots to actually fit the tank that would be needed in this 100km "sniper".

The problem that CCP needs to address is the mechanic, not the range, not the ships, not the mods. Look at the mechanic. Redesign is needed, not rebalance.

Rumpelstilski
Caldari
Blood Covenant
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2009.03.26 16:18:00 - [856]
 

Originally by: Batnaso
thank you for losing one year of my life and maybe more to somebody else
Exclamation

WOW Shocked hold your horses matey, repeat after me:

"I am not my main in RL, I am not my main in RL, I am not my..."

Rumpelstilski
Caldari
Blood Covenant
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2009.03.26 16:23:00 - [857]
 

Originally by: Hesperius
I would like to see these changes:
Bring the Falcon in a little closer - 140k maxed out
Pulling its max jamming strength down from 15 down to say 13
Give ECCM a fixed strength.
Signal distortion amps modified to effect all ewar

Something like this?

http://scrapheap-challenge.com/viewtopic.php?t=24063

TheLibrarian
Minmatar
Tides Of War
Posted - 2009.03.26 16:30:00 - [858]
 

Originally by: Cletus Graeme
Edited by: Cletus Graeme on 26/03/2009 16:03:03

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
We are looking at putting the scorpion into the short range brawler role. To that end we are looking at removing its ECM Optimal range bonus, increasing the ECM strength bonus a little and adding a cruise/siege launcher rate of fire bonus so it can get close and personal.

Summary Scorpion Changes

- removed the ECM optimal range bonus
- increased the ECM strength bonus to 20% per level
- added a 5% RoF bonus to cruise & siege missile launchers per level


These changes are a bad idea.

(1) The Caldari already have a short range brawler - the Raven. A Scorp with 4 launchers and a damage/ROF bonus is not comparable in either tank or gank to a Raven and shouldn't be anyway. These are Caldari ships and as such they should be specialised for specific roles with little (if any) overlap. As an ECM ship the scorp's role is to provides e-war support.

(2) This is the only e-war battleship in the game and is also an ECM ship which will make it the primary in pretty much any fight it is used. Consequently, this ship needs defenses much more than than it needs offenses. A shield resist bonues would be better than any kind of damage bonus.

(3) As the only e-war battleship it should be able to provide ECM support at BOTH long and short ranges. It should be useful in long range sniping fleets (i.e. able to jam at 150-200km) and close range RR gangs (i.e. able to tank and remote repair at close range) but it should be worse than the Falcon and the Rook at each of these roles so that they have a niche role at which they excel.

I therefore suggest the following initial changes to the Scorpion (subject to testing):

- leave the ECM strength bonus 15% per level
- leave the ECM range bonus at 20% per level

Optionally:

- add a 5% shield resist bonus per level
OR
- adjust the current slot layout and/or grid/cpu to allow the ship to be effectively armor tanked




Cletus,

Maybe you havn't read the changes.

1. "A Scorp with 4 launchers and a damage/ROF bonus is not comparable in either tank or gank to a Raven and shouldn't be anyway."


Have you actually done the math on a scorp with 4 siedge launchers, max drone skills and a target painter. Your looking at 600-650 dps depending on the torps and your implants. With no gank mods. Add the armor tank to it and trimarks and some good implants and your looking at 140-150K EHP on a scorpion with 3-4 jammers and good dps. How is this not a nice gank/tank ship considering the logistics that it provides as well as remote reps and damage.

2. "This is the only e-war battleship in the game and is also an ECM ship which will make it the primary in pretty much any fight it is used."


So? Just because your primary every time doesn't mean you instantly need a resist bonus. Thats insane. Give my tempest a resist bonus while your at it, cause I am primary every time. Instead of worrying about being primary you should be looking at how wonderful of a ship your are flying and what your bringing to your gang. Use some logistics and save your scorpion instead of depending on your own solo tank.

3. "As the only e-war battleship it should be able to provide ECM support at BOTH long and short ranges."

Why? Why? Why? That doesn't even make sense why it should be required to be good at everything. No sense at all. Lets make the game more sandbox by making everything good at everything. Excellent plan.

"I therefore suggest the following initial changes to the Scorpion (subject to testing):

- leave the ECM strength bonus 15% per level
- leave the ECM range bonus at 20% per level"


So your suggestions are to leave the ship the same as it is? Fabulous. Thats probably the worst advice I have read yet on these boards.


TigerStripes2112
Caldari
hirr
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2009.03.26 16:59:00 - [859]
 

I am concerned as to those of us that have expended substantial resources in training and outfitting our EWAR ships to a specific role will suffer losses when these NERFS are implemented. Many players including myself are concerned what role our already rigged ships could fill (if any) once these proposed changes are implemented. If currently rigged ships require re-fitting (by destroying installed rigs) then how fair to the EWAR operators is this? If the role is NERFED to the degree where it is no longer playable with respect to reasonable survivability, then where is the fairness or compensation to all of the players who have invested the training for skills related to this role? Try this experiment: Give a lollipop to a 4 year old child then take it away and replace it with just the stick.....Rolling Eyes

Mr Asgard
Walhalla Warriors
Posted - 2009.03.26 17:03:00 - [860]
 

first you killing missels/ next you killing nano and kill solo PvP ... How many piples live EVE? And you finishing caldari race killing falcon. LOL go next and you loss all you players in caldari.

Dee Carson
Caldari
Child Head Injury and Laceration Doctors
Posted - 2009.03.26 17:16:00 - [861]
 

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.

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.

I suggest the following changes that address the real issues, but neither require scrapping the entire mechanic nor assigning another Caldari role to the scrap heap.

1. Decrease base jammer strength 20% across the board (reduced probability of jam).
2. New ECCM module that adds flat 15 points to sensor strength (more anti-jam, particularly for small ships)
3. SDA bonus applies to all EWAR modules (including ECCM, TD, TP & damps)
4. Falcon base optimal/falloff of 45/45 (brings Falcon in closer)
5. Split Cruiser skill bonus to 10/10 for Optimal and Falloff (brings Falcon in closer)

The results from a Falcon pilot's view? I can fit for:

- 17% reduction in jamming strength and 55% reduction in optimal (max jam fit)

or

- 26% reduction in jamming strength and 34% reduction in optimal (max optimal fit)

Falcons won't be as powerful, but they will continue to have a role in fleet and small gang work.

DC

darkmancer
Posted - 2009.03.26 17:17:00 - [862]
 

Just a thought instead of the changes why not add the following to ECCM mods:

-30 ECM optimal range per failed jam.

Imagine how evil it would be to fit 2 of those suckers on a bs.

Clay101
Caldari
M. Corp
Mercenary Coalition
Posted - 2009.03.26 17:20:00 - [863]
 

OK! So add a gun slot and remove a missile slot to an already cap-unstable recon?! Not smart. And before someone starts whining to me about skills ... I fly Amarr and have for the past 5 years, I trained all of the related Cap skills to 5 years ago.

CCP, you're missing something I do believe. There are already items in-game to counter ECM ... it's called ECCM - Why not just give those a slight boost? Sure your tank on your ship will be a bit weaker, but that's the luxury of being 95% sure you won't be jammed ... right? (Seems like an obvious solution as you've done the same for warp scrambling ... see warp core stab)

Clay101

Zumbala
ICE is Coming to EVE
Not Found.
Posted - 2009.03.26 17:23:00 - [864]
 

Originally by: Vera Faulk
Have any of you ever actually flown any of these ships in real pvp?

The falcon, which is a great ship for small gang (50 or less per side) is only safe at the range it is currently able to fight at.


In real PVP, you are not supposed to be safe, whatever you're doing.

maralt
Minmatar
The seers of truth
Posted - 2009.03.26 17:32:00 - [865]
 

Edited by: maralt on 26/03/2009 17:34:23
Originally by: Dee Carson


1. Decrease base jammer strength 20% across the board (reduced probability of jam).


Why?, the max jammers can get now is only 14 and even T1 frigs can get way over that with 1 eccm.


Originally by: Dee Carson
2. New ECCM module that adds flat 15 points to sensor strength (more anti-jam, particularly for small ships)


You are close but it needs more, a ECCM unit needs a secondary effect AND a base str boost along with its % boost.

So a frig would get the 15 but a carrier or BS that already has high STR gets the % boost and it should be set to give witch ever is the greater benifit.


Originally by: Dee Carson
3. SDA bonus applies to all EWAR modules (including ECCM, TD, TP & damps)

The SDA bonus should give STR to ALL those systems and the recons using TD, TP and damps should get a range bonus.
Originally by: Dee Carson
4. Falcon base optimal/falloff of 45/45 (brings Falcon in closer)
5. Split Cruiser skill bonus to 10/10 for Optimal and Falloff (brings Falcon in closer)


Bad ideas, its the fact they operate at close range that makes the other recons worthless in gang combat and never used, adding the falcon to the scrap heap is not a fix.

Lord Eremet
Posted - 2009.03.26 17:34:00 - [866]
 

Loving these changes to the Rook & Falcon, go ahead CCP and introduce them, don't let these falcon flying emo-raging people stop you. It is overpowered and they know it(They just forgot what ADAPTING really means).

I am Caldari and this gets my (and +2 alternative mains) stamp of approval Very Happy


/Erem


P.S. Not so sure about Scorpion change, it still have a role in fleets albeit small one. Maybe give it 10% shield per level? Or just give it a small ECM boost and leave the optimal bonus alone.

P.S. Again. You forgot the Kitsune.


Teclador
Caldari
Stardust Heavy Industries
Fidelas Constans
Posted - 2009.03.26 17:35:00 - [867]
 

Edited by: Teclador on 26/03/2009 17:59:30
Originally by: Scatim Helicon
Edited by: Scatim Helicon on 24/03/2009 19:26:58
I see that the 'better defined role' you have in mind for them is that of gathering dust in a hangar and never undocking.

/Totally Agreed

Originally by: Cindare
I hope CCP intends to take a real look at community feedback on this, though frankly I have my doubts.
If it's truly the goal of CCP to fix ECM in fleet fights, then they'd only have to do one simple thing. Reduce the range bonus on the Falcon to, say 15% - this would put it within range of enemy snipers...

@Cindare, What you're calling Sniper Ships? I guess every BS but not the Raven, correct? So i tell you, the Raven is the perfect Ship to Snipe a Falcon.

In total i hope CCP move this ideas in the trashcan, if not PVP becomes what mining is, TOTALLY boring.
And we get more useless ships.
I dont know but i feel that CCP has no real refer to the game. CCP when you have looked the last time on a Killboard or when you played the game yourself the last time? I tell you this is year over year ago.

With this changes Caldari is a absolute useless Race in PVP.

I Better start learning other races to fly in PVP.

GTC seller72
Posted - 2009.03.26 17:36:00 - [868]
 

Edited by: GTC seller72 on 26/03/2009 17:36:42
Originally by: Lord Eremet
Loving these changes to the Rook & Falcon, go ahead CCP and introduce them, don't let these falcon flying emo-raging people stop you. It is overpowered and they know it(They just forgot what ADAPTING really means).


If you knew what adapting means you would be killing falcons not crying about them.

Johan Sabbat
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2009.03.26 17:38:00 - [869]
 

Originally by: Clay101
OK! So add a gun slot and remove a missile slot to an already cap-unstable recon?! Not smart. And before someone starts whining to me about skills ... I fly Amarr and have for the past 5 years, I trained all of the related Cap skills to 5 years ago.

CCP, you're missing something I do believe. There are already items in-game to counter ECM ... it's called ECCM - Why not just give those a slight boost? Sure your tank on your ship will be a bit weaker, but that's the luxury of being 95% sure you won't be jammed ... right? (Seems like an obvious solution as you've done the same for warp scrambling ... see warp core stab)

Clay101


I think the problem with ECCM is in its description, it should read something along the lines of
ECCM - Taking one for your mates.


If a Falcon wants to jam you, then the pilot can devote his whole ECM suite to that end. The chances are that some of that jam will stick but your mates will be free to continue with the gank/tank fest because you have nullified the Falcon.



Dee Carson
Caldari
Child Head Injury and Laceration Doctors
Posted - 2009.03.26 17:39:00 - [870]
 

Originally by: GTC seller72
If you knew what adapting means you would be killing falcons not crying about them.


+1

DC




Pages: first : previous : ... 25 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 32 33 ... : last (38)

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