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 : ... 30 31 32 33 34 [35] 36 37 38 : last (38)

Author Topic

Kazuo Nori
Posted - 2009.03.28 21:12:00 - [1021]
 

I can see the need for ECM changes, but these changes make no sense whatsoever…I mean what the heck is an ECM ‘brawler.’ I thought the whole idea of the last round of ECM changes was to force ECM onto dedicated ECM support ships. The problem then was that there were indeed close range brawlers that could effectively use ECM (e.g. the Tempest and Domi).

Look at only a few of the contradictions.

Falcon:
Caldari turret ships are long range rail ships, but you add a turret hard point to the ‘close range bawler.’
Give the ship an agility boost, then ‘free up’ low slots to armor tank.
Give the ship and agility boost, then give it a tracking dependant turret hardpoint while removing a launch hardpoint.
Label the quintessential finesse based support ship a ‘close range bawler,’ in the first place.

Seriously, unless the Falcon(s) can perma-jam the entire opposing gang, they are going to get melted. If they can perma-jam the entire opposing gang, you have a bigger problem on your hands.

Rook,
Make the rook long range but give it a drone bay??? Is this for a sentry drone?? This makes as much sense as the Muninn having a drone bay and 2 utility high slots.

Scorpion,
The ship is perfectly fine in its role as fleet range support ship. I guess you want to make it better at RR BS gang support? I just don’t get what is broken about the Scorpion as it is.



I’m not sure what to do about ECM, but I think I’d start by changing racial jammers so they only affect the target race. That makes the ‘lone’ ECM ship much less of an overpowering factor in a fight. While a squad of ECM ships can still make a big impact.

Cpt Cosmic
Posted - 2009.03.28 21:13:00 - [1022]
 

I dont see why you remove the range bonus on the scorpion and give it a weapon bonus to make it a brawler but no resis bonus for a paper thin bs?

Spartan dax
Posted - 2009.03.28 21:34:00 - [1023]
 

Yes, remove the racial jammers. Remove the SDA's. Both these items shoehornes ECM ships into packing as many jammers onto their ships as they can get away with simply because of fitting efficiency.

Not maximizing the amount of jammers would be aching to a 3 mag stab Domi only fitting two guns and the rest neuts. It's insane, no one would do that! And ECM ship fitting strategy doesn't work any different.

Get rid of them alltogether. Intruduce a long and shortrange scripts and you're done. The long range ECM boats will stock up on jammers and woe is them if something ever gets close to them and ECM boats meant for closer adventures will pack few jammers with highstrength scripts loaded.

People will always try and fit their ships as efficiently as possible and if they're dedicating 50% or more of their lows you can bet they're going to cram as many jammers in as they dare.

(Also make ECCM's make your sig 10% smaller. I use ECCM's on my ships anyway and won't mind an extra bonus.)

Avuton
Posted - 2009.03.29 00:07:00 - [1024]
 

In my opinion you can never balance ECM mods in their current form. The problem I have with them that they are absolute. Nothing should be absolute because absolutes are hard to balance.

My suggestion is to rethink the locking mechanism. It should be gradual.
lvl 1 lock = instant, can only use the lock to order drones
lvl 2 lock = 33% effectiveness of targeted modules
lvl 3 lock = 66% effectiveness of targeted modules
lvl 4 lock = 100% effectiveness of targeted modules

Every x amount of time (around the time it takes to archieve lvl 3 lock unbonused on a ship of similar size) you essentially have to relock. You wouldnt actually start from lvl 1 but if you cant get to the same locking lvl you are in when you get to the relock time again, you drop a level. This would be balanced so that you would get just barely to lvl 3 lock on similar sized ships without any modules affecting your locks.

Now you would tie sensor damps, ECM, target painters, signal boosters and signal amps to this system. ECCM would either be removed or be used to grant resistance to all forms of EW.

No module grants bonuses to ships outside the fleet or penalties to ships in it. So if you ECM your own ship to reduce incoming damage, your own remote assistance people can still get a good lock for remote repping.

ECM would make the target be harder to lock simply by making it take longer to archieve a level and therefore lowering the maximum lock level and making even that make longer to archieve. Useful for protecting primaried vessels and making hostile remote assistance less powerful.

Damps would work the way they do now - make locking time longer and(/or depending on scripts) lowering maximum locking range. However due to having to "refresh" your lock, they now lower the effectiveness of hostile boats no matter how close they are.

Target painters would be the opposite of ECM - they lower the time it takes to lock the target and therefore enable you to archieve better locks and therefore better effectiveness. Notice that they wouldnt aid you in hitting smaller targets for more damage if you already have the lvl 4 lock.

Signal amps would be the opposite of damps - they make locking time faster (enabling you to get better locks) and(/or with scripts) locking range longer.

All EW and signal amps/boosters should take more cap to use to increase vulnerability to cap warfare.

All EW should be HEAVILY stacking nerfed so that it takes 1 ECM on target to reduce lock by 1 level but 10 or something to drop it by 2 levels.

This would make it harder to just vaporise support vessels such as recons since it is harder to primary things and your big damage dealers have harder time getting a good lock on them (in particular if you have some ECM or damps in your group), it would make smaller vessels better for smaller groups since big ships get crappy locks and therefore reduced effectiveness without friendly EW. It would also at the very least reduce the "pray" aspect since it would be very hard to completely lock someone out. And even then you could freely order drones around and use fofs (that you could shoot at a specific target for lower damage compared to normal missiles with just a lvl 1 lock).

The system could also be just a continuous curve, but it was easier to explain with having 4 levels. Also the idea with the numbers was that both ends of the curve would be very hard to attain. As in you could easily have a frig have the best target against a BS, perhaps even without any mods used. However BS against BS you would need several signal amps/boosters or signal amp and a target painter.

I also think that you could get the cloak into the system by having very hard to lock targets vanish from overview and have cloak just make you very very hard to lock, but visible. Naturally getting close would still uncloak.

Ilija Veliki
Posted - 2009.03.29 00:13:00 - [1025]
 

caldari as race is nerfed with scorpion. scorpion is the most stupid battleship in game. it is battleship with no tank and with no dps. it suppose to be support ship but why would someone fly a battleship as support ship???? battleship need to have tank and dps. falcon is the best caldari ship and the only one pvp ship in caldari. if you nerf falcon fleets will be out of caldari ships. only isk farmers will flay caldari

CCP hate caldari

Avuton
Posted - 2009.03.29 00:22:00 - [1026]
 

Edited by: Avuton on 29/03/2009 00:30:01
Ran out of space.. should prolly take that as a hint, but I want to comment on the suggested changes too.

I don't like the suggested changes because they dont address the current lockout problem.

Now since I doubt you are going to follow my above suggestion, I instead suggest an easier to implement alternative: Make ECM heavily stacking penalised or just plain prevent more the one ECM module to be used against a ship at a time. It would encourage you to spread around the ECM love and lessen the likelyhood of anyone getting permajammed. It would also suddenly make the falcon rather pointless to bring to a small fight since if there are only 3 enemies, you can only use 3 jammers. You are still breaking the locks, but it is much more chancebased. It would also make ECCM feel better since you are actually jammed less often instead of just eating more jammers.

Or if you are REALLY set on not doing anything to the actual ECM mechanics, just make the modules have stupid fitting reqs so that you can only realistically put 4 into a falcon and then give the ECM boats heavy tanking bonuses so that you can get an ok tank out of the 4 "extra" slots you now cant fill with ECM. Then you can make the mods short range since it is possible that the ships actually survive a moment.

Cletus Graeme
North Eastern Swat
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2009.03.29 01:26:00 - [1027]
 

Edited by: Cletus Graeme on 29/03/2009 01:33:57

Originally by: TheLibrarian
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.


A T2 torp Raven puts out about 1000 DPS although I admit the Scorp can fit a meaner tank. However, you're correct that the changes do make it a very nice all-rounder. The problem is that providing it with decent DPS puts it directly into competition with the Raven, which is bad.

The Raven is already worse than it used to be with the changes to torps as it needs to use a TP (or TP drones). It also armor tanks badly. If the Scorp becomes a viable RR armor tanker with decent damage using torps in addition to being able to jam with ECM then why on earth would you ever fly a Raven?

The proposed changes boost the Scorp at the expense of the Raven. I think this is a bad idea.

Originally by: TheLibrarian
So? Just because your primary every time doesn't mean you instantly need a resist bonus.


My point was that if you're going to give the Scorp a new bonus then a resist bonus is better than a damage bonus because it helps the ship fulfil it's role as e-war support.

A resist bonus helps the Scorp survive longer in a long range fleet fight. It also helps it survive longer in a close range gang fight. In both cases it's likely to be primaried and will struggle to survive. In the former it can at least try to warp out but in the latter it will probably be warp scrambled and the best it can hope for is to be able to station-dock/gate-jump. Anything that helps it's ability to tank is obviously useful.

Originally by: TheLibrarian
Why? Why? Why? That doesn't even make sense why it should be required to be good at everything.


It's not good at everything now and it wouldn't be even after my suggested changes. It would do crap damage and still have to sacrifice tank to fit ECM,. The only thing it needs to do well is provide e-war support.

The Scorp is currently only seen in large fleet fights as it provides a cheap, albeit vulnerable, ECM platform which can jam at sniper BS ranges. However, the Falcon does this better and can cloak so sadly, you don't see Scorpions a lot, even in the role they're designed for.

By modifying the Scorpion so it can also be used in close range RR BS gangs you make it versatile enough to be worth flying over a Falcon/Rook.

The Recons are intended to be super-specialised but Battleships should be more versatile. I see nothing wrong with tweaking the Scorpion (it only needs a few small changes) to make it more versatile if this would mean that it was flown more often because it provided something uniquely different from the other ECM ships.

Originally by: TheLibrarian
So your suggestions are to leave the ship the same as it is?


If it's not broken, don't fix it. Rather than making drastic changes the idea is to examine the ship's intended role and see what needs tweaking. The ECM strength and range bonuses make it a viable long range jammer so why remove them?

Any changes to the ship need to be seen in the context of the broader changes to ECM overall. E.g. If SDAs are removed and/or ECM jammer strengths are nerfed then there is no need to change these bonuses as the chance to jam a target will be reduced for all ECM ships anyway.

Anyhow, my suggested changes are less important than the reasoning behind them. The ship bonuses can't be finalised until they've been thoroughly tested and only CCP is in a position to use the feedback of that testing to decide what they should be.

It's more important for players to point CCP in the right direction by suggesting how they'd like to use the ship rather than proposing untested ship bonuses.

Trent Angelus
The Inevitable Corp
Posted - 2009.03.29 02:27:00 - [1028]
 

Edited by: Trent Angelus on 29/03/2009 02:27:32
I'm a caldari falcon pilot, and I can't bring myself to get worked up over another of my ships getting nerfed. I can see the funny side of it now. Let's take a look:

PVP Ships I can remember training for / flying:

  • Passive Drake

  • Neut-torp Rokh

  • Vagabond

  • Falcon


hey, what do they have in common? Wink
Anyone want to guess which is going to be the next one on that list?

TheLibrarian
Minmatar
Tides Of War
Posted - 2009.03.29 02:27:00 - [1029]
 

Originally by: Cletus Graeme
stuff about my post and his post in the above post! Surprised


While I agree that a scorpion with the proposed changes will challenge a raven pilot. I dont think that it will eliminate the raven as you stated.

A decent logistics scorpion will require a gang of remote repping armor tanking battleships to keep it alive. Unless it uses all its mids for a tank in which case I still think the raven out preforms it because it has 2 more launcher slots and isn't wasting bonuses.

While I do understand the scorpion provides a cheap insurable battleship to fit into the sniper battleship role. I think a falcon/rook do these jobs in a much better way, although more expensive. Arguing that the scorpion fills that niche is false imo. It only fills that niche because the player hasn't trained or cannot afford to use a better option. If the proposed changes go through, the scorpion will fill a lot more roles in the game than doing something less effective than 2 other ships. Which will be nice, because I have only seen 5-7 scorpions in 2 years of playing eve. Compared to multiple hundreds of falcons in the last 2 months.

About the resist bonus. It would be neat to give it some resist to keep it alive, but I think the damage gives it more of a role. Just depend on your gang to keep you alive, and if you dont have that benefit, get your gang setups going better.

All in all good reply thanks for keeping it friendly and expertise. I agree on some of your points but I think changes are better than the current stale meta of the scorpion and overuse of falcons.

YARRRR!!








EgoMan
Posted - 2009.03.29 02:32:00 - [1030]
 

Edited by: EgoMan on 29/03/2009 02:40:50
This has to be the dumbest discussion to date. There is no conclusion to draw accept that people are complaining because of their inability or unwillingness to adapt. The game is challenging and thats why we all play it. You have to apply your self and devise new strategies to overcome. The people who complain are the people who want a simple "HALO" style console game that they can roam around and solo kill everything. Theres no skill in that, theres no challenge...Theres more solutions to ECM/falcon in this thread then there are cons and yet the cry babies are still in full force. Still trying to make this a dumbed down gank and tank game.

A ship with projected ECCM is the most under used idea YET! Ive had it done to my corp because we rolled with ecm and a corp that we were at war with didnt...so they adapted and were very successfull.
Self eccm, projected eccm and ships with roles dedicated to Counter ECM are actually better then altering and ultimately ruining a game mechanic. It adds realism to the game and substance, unless your looking for the ultimate in cheesy console game fun? Enter the SWG NGE! here to nerf another game into ******ation.....

TheLibrarian
Minmatar
Tides Of War
Posted - 2009.03.29 02:46:00 - [1031]
 

Originally by: EgoMan
This has to be the dumbest discussion to date. There is no conclusion to draw accept that people are complaining because of their inability or unwillingness to adapt. The game is challenging and thats why we all play it. You have to apply your self and devise new strategies to overcome. The people who complain are the people who want a simple "HALO" style console game that they can roam around and solo kill everything. Theres no skill in that theres no challenge...Theres more solutions to ECM/falcon in this thread then there are cons and yet the cry babies are still in full force. Still trying to make this a dumbed down gank and tank game.

A ship with projected ECCM is the most under used idea YET! Ive had it done to my corp because we rolled with ecm and a corp that we were at war with didnt...so they adapted and were very successfull.
Self eccm, projected eccm and ships with roles dedicated to Counter ECM are actually better then altering and ultimately ruining a game mechanic. It adds realism to the game and substance, unless your looking for the ultimate in cheesy console game fun? Enter the SWG NGE! here to nerf another game into ******ation.....


If you havn't noticed the people complaining about falcons being overpowered and overused are the people who are claiming they do use ECCM and projected ECCM. I havn't undocked a battleship without dual ECCM in months. My hurricane, rupture, ishtar, fit eccm. I was even fitting the low-slot eccm modules on my sleipnirs. We have logistic ships that fit 3 ECCM modules on them. We prevail against most ECM gangs and beat them. However I think its a bit ridiculous that we have to fit 3 ECCM modules to counter 1 single ship in this game. The fact that you do not understand that is beyond me. People have adapted and people do beat falcons. Just like people beat nano by fielding multiple huggins and rapiers. Just because there is a way to beat it does not mean it is balanced.

EgoMan
Posted - 2009.03.29 03:02:00 - [1032]
 

Originally by: TheLibrarian
Originally by: EgoMan
This has to be the dumbest discussion to date. There is no conclusion to draw accept that people are complaining because of their inability or unwillingness to adapt. The game is challenging and thats why we all play it. You have to apply your self and devise new strategies to overcome. The people who complain are the people who want a simple "HALO" style console game that they can roam around and solo kill everything. Theres no skill in that theres no challenge...Theres more solutions to ECM/falcon in this thread then there are cons and yet the cry babies are still in full force. Still trying to make this a dumbed down gank and tank game.

A ship with projected ECCM is the most under used idea YET! Ive had it done to my corp because we rolled with ecm and a corp that we were at war with didnt...so they adapted and were very successfull.
Self eccm, projected eccm and ships with roles dedicated to Counter ECM are actually better then altering and ultimately ruining a game mechanic. It adds realism to the game and substance, unless your looking for the ultimate in cheesy console game fun? Enter the SWG NGE! here to nerf another game into ******ation.....


If you havn't noticed the people complaining about falcons being overpowered and overused are the people who are claiming they do use ECCM and projected ECCM. I havn't undocked a battleship without dual ECCM in months. My hurricane, rupture, ishtar, fit eccm. I was even fitting the low-slot eccm modules on my sleipnirs. We have logistic ships that fit 3 ECCM modules on them. We prevail against most ECM gangs and beat them. However I think its a bit ridiculous that we have to fit 3 ECCM modules to counter 1 single ship in this game. The fact that you do not understand that is beyond me. People have adapted and people do beat falcons. Just like people beat nano by fielding multiple huggins and rapiers. Just because there is a way to beat it does not mean it is balanced.



Kinda like how all armor tanking is overpowered? The point is not to avoid being jammed at all its to reduce the frequency of being jammed. Its chance based so there is no way to totally avoid being jammed so if your fitting 3 eccm's thats your fault for wasteing slots. I had a 0.0 encounter where my 12 BS fleet was taking on a fleet of over 25 ships and they had 3 falcons. Noone was fitting 3 eccm's and you did get jammed but they couldnt keep everyone locked down by any means. The holes in their ECM provided us with the opportunity to maintain RR and pick off targets one by one. It happens every day and just because you feel the need to fit 3 eccm's does not mean its unbalanced it just means you assume that the ECCM should be the save all to ECM. Ive also seen a black bird pilot use projected ECCM with hge success. These factors provide a dynamic playing environment as opposed to the one dimensional gameplay that everyone is suggesting. At the very least the suggested ideas are ultimate failure and are completely dumb.

Further more people are blowing the falcon in fleet battles thing way out of proportion because at best in a roam in 0.0 1 out of 3 gangs will have a falcon, even less in low sec.

Karlemgne
Tides Of War
Posted - 2009.03.29 07:58:00 - [1033]
 

Edited by: Karlemgne on 29/03/2009 07:58:22
Originally by: Ilija Veliki
caldari as race is nerfed with scorpion. scorpion is the most stupid battleship in game. it is battleship with no tank and with no dps. it suppose to be support ship but why would someone fly a battleship as support ship???? battleship need to have tank and dps. falcon is the best caldari ship and the only one pvp ship in caldari. if you nerf falcon fleets will be out of caldari ships. only isk farmers will flay caldari

CCP hate caldari


The Falcon is the only Caldari pvp ship?

Let me think here...

Crow = best interceptor in the game
Drake = best solo BC in the game. Perhaps the best BC period.
Raven = An incredibly versatile Battleship capable of filling many rolls, including incredible pownage if torp fit. Incidentally the best tech 1 PVE ship in the game.
Falcon = The best ship in the game at the moment. Incredibly powerful ship that can warp cloaked, and turn off ALL the mods on a number of ships, all by itself--AT 200K.
Chimera = Not the best carrier but certainly not the worst
Phoenix = We could argue about this ship, but its up there with the Revelation for ranged work on PoSes.
Wyvren = Do I need to say anything here?

Then there are a lot of other decent Caldari pvp ships. The only area Caldari is actually lacking, imo, is in the Command Ship classes.

So spare me the BS. What you are really saying is that the Falcon is the only pvp ship you are willing to dual box on your alt with. Rolling Eyes

-Karlemgne

Karlemgne
Tides Of War
Posted - 2009.03.29 08:13:00 - [1034]
 

Originally by: EgoMan

Kinda like how all armor tanking is overpowered? The point is not to avoid being jammed at all its to reduce the frequency of being jammed. Its chance based so there is no way to totally avoid being jammed so if your fitting 3 eccm's thats your fault for wasteing slots. I had a 0.0 encounter where my 12 BS fleet was taking on a fleet of over 25 ships and they had 3 falcons. Noone was fitting 3 eccm's and you did get jammed but they couldnt keep everyone locked down by any means. The holes in their ECM provided us with the opportunity to maintain RR and pick off targets one by one. It happens every day and just because you feel the need to fit 3 eccm's does not mean its unbalanced it just means you assume that the ECCM should be the save all to ECM. Ive also seen a black bird pilot use projected ECCM with hge success. These factors provide a dynamic playing environment as opposed to the one dimensional gameplay that everyone is suggesting. At the very least the suggested ideas are ultimate failure and are completely dumb.

Further more people are blowing the falcon in fleet battles thing way out of proportion because at best in a roam in 0.0 1 out of 3 gangs will have a falcon, even less in low sec.


That's your problem. You're coming for a perspective that is irrelevant to a lot of us who play the game.

When you take out a gang of 4 Battleships and run into gangs with 2, 3 and 4 Falcons in low-sec you can't just ignore the Falcons. They will have you perma jammed with out fitting 2 ECCMs.

Smaller gangs are almost impossible. One ECCM on a Rupture isn't very effective.

And you are totally out of touch with your made up statistics about low-sec. Nearly EVERY opponent we run into has at LEAST 1 Falcon. More often than not there are two or more. Ffs nearly every 2 man pirate gang has a Falcon alt in low-sec these days. The sheer spamage of Falcon alts is a testimony to this.

The very fact that more than just a few people are complaining, loud enough for CCP to listen, is a testimony to this. From my perspective, and we have a plethora of our OWN Falcon alts btw, Falcons have become a serious problem. Now that the number of Falcon alts has skyrocketed, this is just as big of a deal as nanos, which most people agree these days was a problem (and the changes have made the game and combat much more dynamic).

So for me the real question is will YOU adapt, not will we. We have adapted, doesn't mean Falcons are balanced. The Falcon alt club posting here are the ones who seem incapable of adaptation.

So just go sit in the sandbox and sob some more because now that mommy has taken away your toy steam shovel you refuse to play with any of your other toys.

-Karlemgne

Karlemgne
Tides Of War
Posted - 2009.03.29 08:20:00 - [1035]
 

Originally by: Merdaneth
Edited by: Merdaneth on 28/03/2009 11:54:10
ECM modules were good, not super-overpoweringly good, but better than average. People that 'play to win' started training for and using nosferatu's. Best available counter against a ECM module was another ECM module. Result: nearly everybody started training for and using ECM, one was crammed into every available midslot. Result: ECM nerfed.

Nosferatu's were good, not super-overpoweringly good, but better than average. People that 'play to win' started training for and using nosferatu's. Best available counter against a nosferatu was a nosferatu. Result: nearly everybody started training for and using nosferatu's. Result: more and more nosferatu setups. Nosferatu's nerfed.

Nano's were good, not super-overpoweringly good, but better than average. People that 'play to win' started training for and using nano's. Best available counter against a nano was a nano. Result: nearly everybody started training for and flying nano's. Result: more and more nano's. Nano's get nerfed.

Falcons are good, not super-overpoweringly good, but better than average. People that 'play to win' started training for and using Falcons. Best available counter against a Falcon was a Falcon of your own. Result: nearly everybody started training for and using Falcons. Result: more and more Falcon heavy fleets. Nerf coming? Of course.....

If a module/ship is better than average AND its best counter is a module/ship of the same flavor, it will (and must) eventually spin out of control and will be nerfed. Either accept the nerfs, or submit to ECM-online, Nano-online, Falcon-online or whatever one-dimensional EVE flavor.


This was beautifully put, Sir.

Gairrek
Posted - 2009.03.29 08:44:00 - [1036]
 

Unfortunately, it seems like the good ol' folks at CCP have got the wrong idea. Yes, the falcon is powerful, but only as powerful as it and the other recon ships should be. Like many MMO developers, such as Sony Online regarding SWG, they have gone down the trail of nerfing powerful ships and items in order to keep those who want an advantage happy. Trying to keep your customers happy, and thus keep them as customers, is only the natural thing for a company to do.
There is a fundamental problem with this type of strategy, though. Eventually, those players who find that they've been playing this game for a couple of years, only to be thrust backward into waiting once again to be useful in combat, will eventually get fed up and quit. Personally, I'm almost exclusively a caldari pilot. As a caldari, I've seen my share of nerfs. The honest to God only ships I find very useful to me in pvp these days are the raven and blackbird/falcon. Even though I mention it, the raven is, regardless of it's DPS and decent range with torpedoes, a shadow of its former self and inferior to many other battleships in pvp. With the falcon out of the picture, I can honestly say that I probably wouldn't want to continue to pour money into a game that, potentially, will always leave me with a significantly inferior character due to the only good ships available to me being downgraded.
In my opinion, examining many of the other support ships and coming up with ways to improve their effectiveness (and of other ships in general) is a better alternative to another nerf. Otherwise, as many people have stated, CCP runs the risk of alienating veteran players and turning the game into one based almost solely on damage and tanking; defeating the point of even having support ships in the first place. At the very least, if you are settled on nerfing or changing the falcon (and ecm in general), then give something back to the caldari. The widow isn't very useful, a raven can't tank well and maintain DPS in PVP at the same time, the scorpion is not effective as an ECM platform because of its size and weak defenses, the rohk has trouble competing with other BS DPS... The list goes on. The caldari shouldn't be so limited as to make them only preferable for pve, and neither should any of the races be so limited.

Hun Jakuza
We Are So Troubled Everyone Runs Screaming
Posted - 2009.03.29 09:01:00 - [1037]
 

Originally by: Destructor1792
Edited by: Destructor1792 on 28/03/2009 16:03:45
Originally by: Johan Sabbat
Originally by: Destructor1792


No.2 : ECCM - Pretty much useless - enough posts on the forums about this so won't bother with details.




I totally disagree with point 2.

IF you fit the correct racial ECCM, turn it on and still get 'perma-jammed' then it means the jamming ship is devoting a large proportion of its jamming capacity against you.

This leaves your mates to go about ganking his gang.




And herein lies the problem.. The Mythical Perma Jam which apparently doesn't happen but we all know does. Wink
In theory, by overloading said ECCM should counter this, but doesn't! No other module ingame has this ability to stop your victim (soz, target) from fighting back once a successfull hit has been achieved.

FOF;s could be a choice but are highly unpredictable and are only good if you have launchers fitted (which rules out about 90% of PVP ships) & also have the issue of lack of range.
iir, they also go for the nearest hostile near you (which in itself can cause alot of problems Neutral )

Drones are the same & are only good if the jammer is in your drone control range & you've got them about before he gets a jam on you. Also, they've a habit of doing their own stuff which can cause you even more problems Laughing

This leads to one of 2 conclusions, either ECCM is underpowered or ECM is overpowered!!

**edited bit**

Arakkis, this is a problem all ships have when dealing with EWAR ship bonuses that rely heavily on mid slot fits. Take the rapier for example, It has to sacrifice a few mids to fit a few buffers for the shield. Could go armour, but have u seen its stats??!! Laughing

If people choose to fit all mid slots for Ewar instead of sacrificing the odd slot, that's down to their own choice. Not much we can do about that ugh


Agreed:

This leads to one of 2 conclusions, either ECCM is underpowered or ECM is overpowered!!

Ashteron'n'KA
Minmatar
T-Cells
Moar Tears
Posted - 2009.03.29 09:13:00 - [1038]
 

Edited by: Ashteron''n''KA on 29/03/2009 09:29:57
First its additive - then it goes to probability - trash the torps and poke a finger in the eye of cruise missiles still no high slot tackle for shield tankers save the Hictors and every race gets one - now were about to put naked ships in the middle of the grid and call it a "brawler" - why not skip all the preliminaries and call this Gallente/Amarr online. Very Happy

I am sorry that ships that cant kill you aggravates so many - it seems that considering all the adjustments that have occurred to Caldari over the years one has to come to the conclusion that ships that require out of the box thinking to deal with need to be slowly killed off the game and smash mouth solo pwn mobiles should be the norm.

Similar to what happened to sensor damps. If it stuffs the gank fest it needs to be dumbed down to the point of pointlessness and be pushed under the rubric of "balancing".

It cant be possible that you honestly think after taking a look at the balance of the loggs of ships lost in combat and number of ships involved that putting EWAR in the middle of the grid makes sense - what is amusing is its so obvious that this is an axe to grind when you start blabbing about "armor tanking" Caldari - now you have gone way off the res.

A Rook with drones?

comedy.

You guys are going to do what you're going to do but man this is retarted.

McEivalley
Cutting Edge Incorporated
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2009.03.29 09:39:00 - [1039]
 

No no no... everybody knows caldari can't solo. What you are suggesting here still doesn't bring falcons/rooks in par with other recons/force recons.

Plus, you did not thought it out when it comes down to mass fleet fights. This means jamming power becomes quite meaningless in large fleet fights. You can't nerf your opponent's dps when it sits at a comfy 150-200kms. Falcons and rooks are going to get their own OV setting for fleets and they WILL disappear ASAP from the grid (and I don't mean by cloaking). Scorpions will lose any use in fleets. They aren't of much use besides jamming there.

All in all this is a caldari nerf, and no drone bay on a rook will cover up for it. Caldari ships cannot solo - and caldari pilots come to terms realizing it. But everyone knows caldari have great ships for fleet work and ewar. Now you're gimping it down?! Why not scratch the caldari faction off the game, as obviously their main strength post this nerf will be suiciding their ships. Spare us the trouble.

The only thing you might consider to "nerf" jamming power is give eccm mods a bigger bonus, if you wish to reduce the falcon's effectiveness. Never allow for jam proofing, but multi-slot ships should be able to raise an effective jam resistance. To all the whiners asking for ceptors to eb jam proof - learn to fly ships, for crying out loud...

AnzacPaul
Perkone
Posted - 2009.03.29 10:14:00 - [1040]
 

Originally by: Karlemgne


The Falcon is the only Caldari pvp ship?

Let me think here...

Crow = best interceptor in the game
Drake = best solo BC in the game. Perhaps the best BC period.
Raven = An incredibly versatile Battleship capable of filling many rolls, including incredible pownage if torp fit. Incidentally the best tech 1 PVE ship in the game.
Falcon = The best ship in the game at the moment. Incredibly powerful ship that can warp cloaked, and turn off ALL the mods on a number of ships, all by itself--AT 200K.
Chimera = Not the best carrier but certainly not the worst
Phoenix = We could argue about this ship, but its up there with the Revelation for ranged work on PoSes.
Wyvren = Do I need to say anything here?

Then there are a lot of other decent Caldari pvp ships. The only area Caldari is actually lacking, imo, is in the Command Ship classes.

So spare me the BS. What you are really saying is that the Falcon is the only pvp ship you are willing to dual box on your alt with. Rolling Eyes

-Karlemgne



quoted for lols because quite honestly, you dont have a clue, and your also minmitar, so i imagine you have not and do not fly these ships in pvp.

Raven and drake are pve warriors, you put the drake up against any other bc 1v1 and see what happens, u need all your mid slots and most of your lows to even tank the drake,

example the myrmidon, gets all its lows for a nice healthy tank, with the added bonus of 5 mid slots to fit well lets say point, web, mwd, cap booster, sensor booster. try doing that to a drake and see what happens when u bring them up against each other. 1v1 a crow against any other inty, see what happens. Raven, same deal. A dominix is a tier 1 bs and would eat a raven alive 1v1.

Im sick and tired of non caldari pilots spamming in here because they are scared that we might actually get a chance to pvp effictevely in groups of less than 5.

Falcon, yes its a fantastic ship, BUT, try jumping into a fight in a falcon, or having to warp to 100 on a gate, you cant warp to 200 in a battle, you have to be setup there and ready to go. any ceptor can travel 100km in less than 20 seconds, and the falcon pilot either warps off, or wastes his jammers trying to protect himself on the ceptor.



cap ships should not even enter the argument as they are an entirely different kettle of fish

make shield go in the low slots, and give caldari free mids to fit whatever they like. then watch all the non caldari fanbois start whinging because caldari can actually match it with the other races.

Tatianna
Posted - 2009.03.29 10:23:00 - [1041]
 

Excellent changes CCP!

We are so tired of fleets with 25 sniper BS and 40 Falcons.

Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2009.03.29 10:44:00 - [1042]
 

I still think Scripts is the way to go :)

(PS: Those saying non caldari cause we don't use caldari ships feel free to look me up on Battleclinic or something :) )

A base Module
Remove Racial Modules

Rather than the normal 2 scripts use 6 scripts that the pilot can choose from.

Base Mod (Maybe 1 strength in all, 30km range optimal 15km falloff).


Multi Power Script (+100% Strength all four sensor jammer strength)
LADAR Script (+300% Srength for LADAR sensor jamming, -100% all three others, +50% range)
RADAR Script (+300% Strength for RADAR sensor jamming, -100% to all three others, +50% range).
Gravimetric Script(+300% Strength for Gravimetric sensor Jamming, -100% to all three others, +50% range).
Magnometric Script (+300% Strength for Magnometric sensor jammoing, -100% to all three others, +50% range).
Multi Range Script ( No power boost, +100% range).


Jack Dant
Minmatar
Posted - 2009.03.29 11:16:00 - [1043]
 

Originally by: AnzacPaul
Raven and drake are pve warriors, you put the drake up against any other bc 1v1 and see what happens, u need all your mid slots and most of your lows to even tank the drake,


Eh, no. PVP fits != PVE fits. You do not need to fill your lows with passive crap for a PVP fit drake. Even after mwd, web and scram, you have the room for a massive buffer tank (or active, if you want to go that way). You can easily get BS level EHP and good damage.

Lijhal
Posted - 2009.03.29 11:44:00 - [1044]
 

what would happend if ccp swaps 2-3 med slots from every caldari ship to low slots and make shield modules for low slot? Rolling Eyes


Overbrain
Posted - 2009.03.29 13:03:00 - [1045]
 

I can easily summarize this thread.

1-)After the changes , ecm ships will die a lot more than they used to , so that market will spin more.

2-)Blackops/widow will never be your dream ship , it was originally designed to serve as a skill/time trap.

3-)No matter how much you argue with each other or enforce your ideas, the changes are already made and they will be implemented after 2 months. If you want proof , back track the patch and discussion history of ccp so far.

Lindsay Logan
Posted - 2009.03.29 13:22:00 - [1046]
 

ECM is a strong point of the Caldari. We got 7 ships dedicated to it, even a BS!

So be careful of hurting ECM too much.

With recent missile changes, and with too much ECM damage, Caldari will start to be a subpar race, with only a select few ships viable for PvP.

Cutting down ECM range is ok enough, but let it have the same strenght. Thats importent.

Cailais
Amarr
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
Posted - 2009.03.29 14:47:00 - [1047]
 

Im just thinking that the solution to the on going whoes of ECM is to change the way ECCM works.

Think of it this way. ECM is a targeted effect that stops you from locking other ships. Fine so far.

What if ECCM broke target locks on your ship. i.e its entirely defensive.

Now you'd actually have to tone down the current ECCM stats but in essence it could act as a generic 'counter' and if you were jammed, you could 'break' the jamming lock as a result.

Returning to the Caldari EW ships we could now assign them bonuses to ECM and / or ECCM depending on role.

C.


Olivor
Posted - 2009.03.29 15:03:00 - [1048]
 

Having another look at the changes I may not mind the Scorpion changes IF... IF ECM Bursts got changed in some way. You look at ECM bursts at the moment and see they only exist for the Scorpion and Widow, then you look some more and see they pretty much suck.

More ECM Strength on Scorp brings Meta 4 / Tech II ECM burst strength to 18 which sounds great until you realise it doesn't work in the same way as normal ECM's.

If ECM burst were to mean any ship in range of the burst lost all locks AND any ship that was outside the burst but had a ship locked inside the burst lost its lock on that ship then that sounds pretty interesting. If the burst was also made into a % rather than only affecting those with lower strength then this could be useful in seeing more of the thing. If Racial ECM bursts were also introduced, possibly with the limit of one of each Racial / Multispec per ship with total limit on all types of 3.

Okay, basically I just had my first look at ECM bursts today and see why no one uses the buggers but think they do show some promise!

Eftim S'Jet
Posted - 2009.03.29 15:03:00 - [1049]
 

Edited by: Eftim S''Jet on 29/03/2009 15:05:44
"We have been listening to all the forum whining.

In the days ahead, we will put some changes on sisi to see how they pan out and continue to change or tweak as we please."


blablablabla only thing I agree with here is that SDA's are an ECM only module. Either make them affect any type of EW or jsut scrap them. Also, lowslots for tanking on ECM ships, yeah, we all love to use 1600mm on our Caldari ships. It's by design, right?

Falcon & Rook

"The falcon is the "sniper" of the two ECM roles having less ECM strength and more ECM range." Keeping the Falcon a "stay the hell away from the enemy and jam" kind of ship is ok. Giving it railgun range bonuses is downright ******ED. If you need to ask why then you've either never flown Caldari or never did PVP. Or both.

"The rook operates at shorter ranges, able to launch a stronger ECM attack and whilst having shorter ECM range can lay some real damage on its target gaining a heavy/heavy assault and standard missile velocity bonus in addition to a small drone bay for additional utility." Although calling the Rook a brawler is kinda silly in itself, the proposed bonuses actually seem ok to me (except the only 5% per level bonus to strength compared to the Falcon), it may be able to pull off some solo fighting with one or two jammers fitted, if you increase it's powergrid enough to be able to fit all the launchers, an MWD, maybe a shield extender and the EW mods... Drone bay would also be a bonus, since the Rook has **** damage.

The Scorpion

"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." 25% RoF for four launchers is useless. Also, you're saying short range brawler but the Falcon has the same strength bonus. How come?

PLEASE think these changes through and run them by some people that actualyl fly the ships. Caldari are bad enough in PVP as it is, last thing they need is to be worse.

edit: Oh and nearly forgot: why the hell are you screwing the blackbird? It hardly works as it is, now you wanna put it well enough in everyone else's optimal?

Ilija Veliki
Posted - 2009.03.29 15:30:00 - [1050]
 

WTB: One slightly used female Minmatar slave to SCRAMBLE WEB and PAINT targets for me!!!

Raven pilot


Pages: first : previous : ... 30 31 32 33 34 [35] 36 37 38 : 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