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


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 ... : last (20)

Author Topic

Shadow Devourer
Posted - 2009.04.04 02:27:00 - [271]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Hey Folks,

Quick updates on changes coming to sisi for testing over the weekend:

Scorpion

we changed the bonus back to 20% ECM optimal range per level. Still means a range reduction due to the base jammer stat changes but will give you more ECM accuracy at longer range.

Widow

The ECM strength bonus has been increased to 30% as its focus is short to medium range.

We will respond further to the feedback from the last few pages later on.


This is great stuff. The Widow boost is welcome as most people right now use it as a raven with a cloak and an uber tank. And thank you for not gutting the scorpion.

Dex Nederland
Caldari
Lai Dai Infinity Systems
Posted - 2009.04.04 03:46:00 - [272]
 

Edited by: Dex Nederland on 04/04/2009 03:46:19
CCP Chronotis & team, please as you go about balancing ECM do not forget that the ships involved are Caldari and the general feeling behind Caldari ship design such as:

1. Armor tanking is not the primary Caldari means of tanking
2. Drones are a rarity:
-- only T2 Caldari ship with drones is the Basilisk (Logistics)
-- The Blackbird is the one T1 Caldari ship without a drone bay
--- providing the T2 versions with one seems illogical beyond trying to provide 'DPS'
3. Caldari ships bigger than a Frigate fight at range and are generally not meant to get in close (sub-50km) to fight.

But I expect to be shouted down.

TZeer
BURN EDEN
Posted - 2009.04.04 03:51:00 - [273]
 

Edited by: TZeer on 04/04/2009 03:55:18
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Originally by: Sky Marshal
Edited by: Sky Marshal on 03/04/2009 19:40:55

Quote:
It's not a nerf.


You seriously think that Falcons/Rooks will take risks and go at less than 100 km in fleet battles ?



I could care less about fleet battles. Use Scorpions instead. Give them a role ffs. Why should a Falcon be *the* tool for every situation?

That being said, the Falcon will still be doing exactly what it's doing now after the change: ruining small gang PVP.

I was looking forward to being able to bring something other than my Falcons to PVP, but I guess not. I'll still be stuck with needing 3-4 Falcons in every gang, and nobody will be killed because everybody on both sides will be jammed 100%.


Nothing stops you from bringing something else then a falcon.

But the main difference that you willingly forget is that when that falcon fails, or not able to jam every single ship in the gang, which is highly unlikely, unless that gang consists of 2 cruisers with no ECCM. It will be within range of every ship with a drone bay out there. And every ship that is set up to medium range. It will be catch 22. If doesnt jam him, he will lock him up and fire, put drones on him. If he decides to jam asap the drones will aggro.

Thats quite a big difference compared to current TQ status, where if it fails, it just sits far out of range for any ship out there. Except sniper set up BS gangs.

I`m not sure what engagement ranges you see falcon operating from.

But if they stay within optimal they will catch drone aggro very quickly.


URSOKWL
Caldari
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2009.04.04 04:54:00 - [274]
 

Edited by: URSOKWL on 04/04/2009 05:07:36
I wont fly falcons any more.
NO one will.
Drones, not many caldari pilots even use drones... whats the point?
As it is lots of pilots dont like to fly falcons because they get primaried.
SO make em stronger and give them shorter range...
NO ONE IS GONNA FLY FALCONS.....

Why cant you just do one simple CCP Nerf and give ECCM better strength...
THIS IS A VERY LAME NERF but most nerfs are...

CCP you may as well remove the ship you FAIL.


U R SO FAIL

Trepkos
The Royal Syndicate
Posted - 2009.04.04 05:39:00 - [275]
 

I loled at the falcon now being Caldari's premiere drone ship.

Gj, CCP. Complete win.

S'vart Tseirgn
Calimae Logistics Foundation
Manifest Destiny.
Posted - 2009.04.04 06:49:00 - [276]
 

Originally by: Dex Nederland
Edited by: Dex Nederland on 04/04/2009 03:46:19
CCP Chronotis & team, please as you go about balancing ECM do not forget that the ships involved are Caldari and the general feeling behind Caldari ship design such as:

1. Armor tanking is not the primary Caldari means of tanking
2. Drones are a rarity:
-- only T2 Caldari ship with drones is the Basilisk (Logistics)
-- The Blackbird is the one T1 Caldari ship without a drone bay
--- providing the T2 versions with one seems illogical beyond trying to provide 'DPS'
3. Caldari ships bigger than a Frigate fight at range and are generally not meant to get in close (sub-50km) to fight.

But I expect to be shouted down.



- Signed!

Esmenet
Gallente
Posted - 2009.04.04 07:47:00 - [277]
 

Originally by: TZeer
Edited by: TZeer on 04/04/2009 03:55:18
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Originally by: Sky Marshal
Edited by: Sky Marshal on 03/04/2009 19:40:55

Quote:
It's not a nerf.


You seriously think that Falcons/Rooks will take risks and go at less than 100 km in fleet battles ?



I could care less about fleet battles. Use Scorpions instead. Give them a role ffs. Why should a Falcon be *the* tool for every situation?

That being said, the Falcon will still be doing exactly what it's doing now after the change: ruining small gang PVP.

I was looking forward to being able to bring something other than my Falcons to PVP, but I guess not. I'll still be stuck with needing 3-4 Falcons in every gang, and nobody will be killed because everybody on both sides will be jammed 100%.


Nothing stops you from bringing something else then a falcon.

But the main difference that you willingly forget is that when that falcon fails, or not able to jam every single ship in the gang, which is highly unlikely, unless that gang consists of 2 cruisers with no ECCM. It will be within range of every ship with a drone bay out there. And every ship that is set up to medium range. It will be catch 22. If doesnt jam him, he will lock him up and fire, put drones on him. If he decides to jam asap the drones will aggro.

Thats quite a big difference compared to current TQ status, where if it fails, it just sits far out of range for any ship out there. Except sniper set up BS gangs.

I`m not sure what engagement ranges you see falcon operating from.

But if they stay within optimal they will catch drone aggro very quickly.




And that makes falcons 100% useless outside of very small gangs like the rest of the recons. Now we can go back to the pure dps ships again. Go go ewar. Rolling Eyes

Tessen
Stellar Tide
Posted - 2009.04.04 07:57:00 - [278]
 

ECM scripts : pilots have to chose optimal range or strengh bonus.
___________________________________________

Giving drones to Falcon is very dangerous :
Actualy there is very few ways to conter à long range Falcon :
An other Falcon
A very fast agile ship (Inty)
A Cov Op/fast bomber
A sniper ECCM BS

Drone will make a Falcon even more painfull to catch making inty option alomst useless and SB very dangerous.

Hayat Siwa
Posted - 2009.04.04 09:45:00 - [279]
 

Edited by: Hayat Siwa on 04/04/2009 09:47:03
greetings

my comments are based on my understanding that the range of the falcon is going to be around 100k, from what i read. i am not certain that i understood that correctly and would appreciate some clarification in case i got it wrong.

if i did understand correctly then here's my opinion:

i dont like the drastic changes to the falcon at all! drones wtf

the vast majority of guys i know/see employ the falcon in a stand-offish sniper position, taking advantage of max range as tank.

the proposed changes cut down the range to <100k (not sure if i'm correct here). that being the case the falcon is now becoming a totally new ship. drones, missile changes...

i can understand the arguments to change the ratio of optimal vs fall-off, i can also see the reasoning behind reducing jam strength, and a somewhat (read slightly) toned down max range. changes in these areas would reduce the effectiveness of the falcon by a good amount while still allowing the ship to be employed in it's current role as a long range support ship.

the closer range ecm support with fighting skills is the rook. take that one if you want to do damage and jam. general variety of roles is still maintained using all the other ecm ships.

i dont know how others feel about it, but the time i spent specializing in long range ecm support will be wasted. redesigning the ship and creating a requirement to completely overhaul it's use is simply wrong. noone expects the hulk to be anything but a spezialized miner either.

the current falcon is going to the dump, a new cruiser with the same name is created. rubbish.

regards

hs

edit: when is the new patch to be expected?

Looren
Posted - 2009.04.04 09:50:00 - [280]
 

as falcon pilot i must say, atm the changes (for falcon) goes into wrong direction.
the true problem for most of the people are not the *real* falcons but tons of the falcon alts (and this is the fault of ccp that encourages double and more accounts-to max cash- and of players that cannot play with 1 acc).

we have tested the changes at sisi for days now....due to much shorter range you go attacked by drones nearly every time and have to warp out and back...the only solution for this problem we have found are...more falcons( rook´s miss cloak for recon and scorpion is much too slow and big).

So if you change it this way you will see still tons of falcon alts and MORE real falcons...and the whiners will cry here even more (most of them flying short range spider tank bs gangs and will die to the new falcon like to the old one).

Change the range to 90 or 100km optimal + old falloff (so with max skills you have 100km optimal and max. 150km falloff).

This will give the falcon a bit range it need´s to survive (as everytime primary, overall with no real tank except jamm and range) but can still be reached by fast ships in few seconds or by sniper weapons (or the falcon is at 150km and has nearly no ecm strengh at the end of falloff).

This will hit mostly all the alt-falcons since they now not safe 200km away and its very difficult to fight with 2 accounts at same time.

I think everyone can live with such solution of the problem...and dont look to much at the all time whiner´s....even if you nerv falcon to no use they will asap find the next ship to whine about it.

sorry for all english mistakes :)

Dee Carson
Caldari
Child Head Injury and Laceration Doctors
Posted - 2009.04.04 11:26:00 - [281]
 

Originally by: Hayat Siwa
my comments are based on my understanding that the range of the falcon is going to be around 100k, from what i read. i am not certain that i understood that correctly and would appreciate some clarification in case i got it wrong.


Based on the 86469 SISI build, max EWAR and ship skills, and a racial jammer only (no rigs or SDA):

Targeting Range:
93 Blackbird
112 Scorp
150 Falcon
187 Rook

Optimal Jam Range:
72 Blackbird
96 Scorp
48 Falcon
48 Rook

Jam Strength:
7.88 Blackbird
7.88 Scorp
11.25 Falcon
11.25 Rook

Max Optimal Range:
74 Falcon/Rook

Max Jam Strength:
14.78 Falcon/Rook

Typical Falcon Fit:
194 Optimal/13.4 Jam Strength - TQ
68 Optimal/14.6 Jam Strength - Sisi

So, roughly 65% reduction in optimal engagement range for a 9% increase in jam strength. Caldari recon pilots can choose to be sneaky or to deal a little more DPS, but in the same engagement envelope.

The Falcon alt does indeed go away, but those of us that fly Falcons as mains can't help but feeling more than a bit shat upon.

Predictions:
1. Falcon prices drop like a rock.
2. RR Battleship gangs and OOC reppers will be much more problematic
3. Small gangs flying cruisers, HACs, 'ceptors & AF will be more (not less) likely to be jammed by Falcons.
4. Small gangs will see more (not fewer) Falcons used.
4. The forum crying about #3/#4 will continue unabated.
5. Sniper ships will be the next target of the nerf bat.

Some suggested alternatives:

Alternative A (leaving ranges, strengths, rigs & ships as they currently sit on TQ):
1. Jam cycle prevents jammer warp out for post-jam cooldown period of time equal to length of the jam cycle.
2. Script ECCM mods to provide either % buff or flat point buff
3. Script SDA mods to provide either strength or range buff
4. Reduce jam cycle time by 50%

Alternative B (assuming something close to SISI changes):
1. Give Falcon/Rook same shield resists as other T2 Caldari cruisers (0/50/70/80)
2. +25 grid/+50 CPU to Falcon/Rook
3. +1 mid/+1 low slots to Falcon/Rook

/me continues to cross train for Amarr snipers, the next class to be nerfed. ugh

DC


Darnoth El'lyan
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2009.04.04 11:51:00 - [282]
 

Originally by: Dee Carson

Alternative B (assuming something close to SISI changes):
1. Give Falcon/Rook same shield resists as other T2 Caldari cruisers (0/50/70/80)
2. +25 grid/+50 CPU to Falcon/Rook
3. +1 mid/+1 low slots to Falcon/Rook



I agree, that they need to have higher resists, however no t2 ship should have a 0% em shield resist. But higher resists in itself isn't really a replacement for their current range tank. They WILL be primaried if they're in range, and they will go down in an instant. 10% less incoming dps won't mean anything if you have 100k burst damage.

As much as I like jamming the way it is, jam time of 20 seconds and a cycle time of 20 seconds doesn't work. That's why you can permajam someone. Reducing the amount of jam time would go a long way to fixing jamming without messing with ships. Another thing that would go a long way to fixing jamming would be to make the other ewar worthwhile so not everyone is in an ecm boat.

Esmenet
Gallente
Posted - 2009.04.04 12:13:00 - [283]
 

Originally by: Dee Carson

Targeting Range:
93 Blackbird
112 Scorp
150 Falcon
187 Rook

Optimal Jam Range:
72 Blackbird
96 Scorp
48 Falcon
48 Rook

Jam Strength:
7.88 Blackbird
7.88 Scorp
11.25 Falcon
11.25 Rook

Max Optimal Range:
74 Falcon/Rook

Max Jam Strength:
14.78 Falcon/Rook

Typical Falcon Fit:
194 Optimal/13.4 Jam Strength - TQ
68 Optimal/14.6 Jam Strength - Sisi



The blackbird will be a better ecm boat and its practically free. I'm not gonna use a 100+ mill uninsurable ship as a disposable ship.

These changes are a joke.

Fish Mittens
Minmatar
0utbreak
Posted - 2009.04.04 12:19:00 - [284]
 

Originally by: Dee Carson
Originally by: Hayat Siwa
my comments are based on my understanding that the range of the falcon is going to be around 100k, from what i read. i am not certain that i understood that correctly and would appreciate some clarification in case i got it wrong.


Based on the 86469 SISI build, max EWAR and ship skills, and a racial jammer only (no rigs or SDA):

Targeting Range:
93 Blackbird
112 Scorp
150 Falcon
187 Rook

Optimal Jam Range:
72 Blackbird
96 Scorp
48 Falcon
48 Rook

Jam Strength:
7.88 Blackbird
7.88 Scorp
11.25 Falcon
11.25 Rook

Max Optimal Range:
74 Falcon/Rook

Max Jam Strength:
14.78 Falcon/Rook

Typical Falcon Fit:
194 Optimal/13.4 Jam Strength - TQ
68 Optimal/14.6 Jam Strength - Sisi

So, roughly 65% reduction in optimal engagement range for a 9% increase in jam strength.

<snip>



Why is nobody considering falloff when complaining about these changes. ECMs do not suddenly stop working outside of their optimal.

From what I can see, with max skills a falcon will get a 48km falloff to its Racial ECMs, so with your typical falcon fit of 68km optimal and a jam strengh of 14.6:

Optimal x0.5 faloff = 92km : 75% jam strength = 10.95

At 92km a typical falcon fit will have a 78% chance of jamming a Vagabond per racial jammer.

Really this is still overpowered, as far as a vaga is concerned, 78% is perma-jammed and thus means certain death from even an interceptor.

With the speed nerf, 100km is still a long range to cover, leaving the falcon plenty of time to warp out and get to a new jamming spot.

If they keep these ranges the strength of the ECM modules need to be drastically reduced or ( I would prefer ) leave them powerful at close ranges ~50km with a much shorter falloff.

IMO if these changes correctly balance the falcon, it will be forced to engage at around 50km and thus the standard fit will be MWD, 2x LSE and just 4x racial jammers. At these ranges with the shield buffer there, the falcon will perform and be flown like every other recon in the game.




Hayat Siwa
Posted - 2009.04.04 13:21:00 - [285]
 

thanks dee carson for that shockingly revealing summary.

Quote:
At 92km a typical falcon fit will have a 78% chance of jamming a Vagabond per racial jammer. Really this is still overpowered,


i accept that this is the goal.

Quote:
IMO if these changes correctly balance the falcon,


that is wrong. you achieve your goal by eliminating the falcon, rather than adjusting it.

the difference is that by reducing the range of the ship you completely eliminate it's established role as long range support.

from my earlier post:
Quote:
i can understand the arguments to change the ratio of optimal vs fall-off, i can also see the reasoning behind reducing jam strength, and a somewhat (read slightly) toned down max range. changes in these areas would reduce the effectiveness of the falcon by a good amount while still allowing the ship to be employed in it's current role as a long range support ship.


tell me what's wrong with this?

if anyone needs a close range jammer with a fighting ability look at the rook.

Quote:
At these ranges with the shield buffer there, the falcon will perform and be flown like every other recon in the game.


why do all recons have to be fighting within similar ranges? recons, unlike interceptors for example, are specialized T2 ships with different attributes.

by redesigning the falcon as badly as proposed you might satisfy the falcon haters, but all falcon pilots will need to look at another boat to fly.

100k and drones, ffs, that's concerning.

regards


Dee Carson
Caldari
Child Head Injury and Laceration Doctors
Posted - 2009.04.04 13:36:00 - [286]
 

Originally by: Fish Mittens
Why is nobody considering falloff when complaining about these changes. ECMs do not suddenly stop working outside of their optimal.


Because A> everyone always desires to engage at optimal, few people choose to engage with any weps system in falloff and B> optimal to optimal provides a consistent basis of comparison for the same probability of jam.

Making every ship and/or every hull in a given ship class fight the same way and in the same engagement envelope is not desirable IMO and certainly not desirable if the approach taken is to adjust to the lowest common denominator. The closer you drive toward that circumstance, the less racial diversity exists, the more simplistic the strategies and tactics become, the more homogeneous everything becomes. Skillpoints and wallet size will matter more than anything else. Warp to 0, lock, f1-f8 and see who's the best at EFT Online.

As a pilot, your choice becomes what color ship you want to fly because everything else is about the same. It's checkers, not chess.

DC


Antioch Red
Posted - 2009.04.04 15:09:00 - [287]
 

All minmatar weapons are used in falloff. Please play the game a little more widely before using blanket comments.

Dee Carson
Caldari
Child Head Injury and Laceration Doctors
Posted - 2009.04.04 15:45:00 - [288]
 

Originally by: Antioch Red
All minmatar weapons are used in falloff. Please play the game a little more widely before using blanket comments.


So given a choice where there is no tactical distinction between fighting in falloff and closing the range to fight at optimal, most Minmatar prefer to fight in falloff?

Projectile weps are arguably more effective when fighting in falloff than hybrids, but that's not the same as saying most pilots would choose to fight in falloff vs fighting in optimal.

Please PM me your thinking as I am very interested in your response, but don't want to hijack this thread.

DC



Spartan dax
Posted - 2009.04.04 16:15:00 - [289]
 

Originally by: Fish Mittens

At 92km a typical falcon fit will have a 78% chance of jamming a Vagabond per racial jammer.




No it won't. The module will have a 75% chance to work at half falloff. Then you do the Jammer roll.

There is no strength reduction of the module itself meaning, fighting in falloff hurts the ECM ships real bad. It would be better if it worked like you described but it doesn't.

TheLibrarian
Minmatar
Tides Of War
Posted - 2009.04.04 16:41:00 - [290]
 

I am on vacation now and dont have sisi installed on this laptop. What are the ranges looking like for falcons/rooks with good fits?

Include Optimal + Strength please?

Destructor1792
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2009.04.04 16:48:00 - [291]
 

Originally by: Dee Carson
Originally by: Antioch Red
All minmatar weapons are used in falloff. Please play the game a little more widely before using blanket comments.


So given a choice where there is no tactical distinction between fighting in falloff and closing the range to fight at optimal, most Minmatar prefer to fight in falloff?

Projectile weps are arguably more effective when fighting in falloff than hybrids, but that's not the same as saying most pilots would choose to fight in falloff vs fighting in optimal.

Please PM me your thinking as I am very interested in your response, but don't want to hijack this thread.

DC





I lol'd at this!!

Minny pilots fight in falloff for a reason - we have utterly pathetic tanks compared to other ships so rely on our speed to keep out of scram/web/neut/nos or whatever else range whilst still dealing half our actual DPS. That's when we get lucky!! Usually we dish out 1/4 of our actual DPS due to misses & all other bizarre thing that happen in the midst of a scrap!

Now look at the way the other 3 race recons have to fit.. we all trade part our our ability to tackle for a paltry tank.. Falcons don't! They fit as many mods as possible & sit @ 200km jamming everything with little to no fear.

Any change that pulls them into the midst of things is good - and those one dimensional, "i fit it one way only" people are in for a shock!

And before people start *****ing about damage, most recons lose high slots straight away.. Cloak & cyno (3 if you're fitting a cov-cyno as well) which leaves space for either 2 or 3 guns / missiles!

And (there's alot of &'s in this! Laughing) guess what, recons are usually primaried & blown to kingdom come the minute we un-cloak.. Rapiers probably top of the list (falcons would be tied up there if they were actually in the midst of things), but falcons still have the upper hand.. they can still jam and gtfo of dodge - the 3 others can't.

Obviously, this is more true in small to mid size engagements.. Large fleet fights just get messy & everyone gets shot at Twisted Evil

**fake edit**
I'm in EMO mode today.. Damn sunday drivers (or saturday ones) doing 30 in a 60!! GRRRRR Evil or Very Mad

Htrag
The Carebear Stare
Hydroponic Zone
Posted - 2009.04.04 17:52:00 - [292]
 

Edited by: Htrag on 04/04/2009 18:08:21

Please reconsider nerfing the range stats to still allow a recon option for jamming from 151km with max skills/rigs/scripts, otherwise it severely impacts the ability of pirates to use falcons outside sentry range at gates, meaning the balance of using ECM in an engagement will fall heavily toward the non flashys.

I'm sure many may view these proposed changes as a good thing in this regard, and [trust me] we will adapt, but it's worth mentioning. As we're almost always tanking sentries in our close range combat ships, can't jump into high sec with GCC, and already a target to all of eve, the long range ECM has always been a useful tool.

Currently a falcon pilot needs max skills to jam at stations outside sentry range, because even at 151km from the station, you're usually 200km from the undock. It sounds like this option is being removed entirely.

Applying the multispec range stats to the racial jammers could be an option along with a boost to ECCM and adding ECM/ECCM scripts, rather than completely overhauling the ship roles.

Additionally, we've already figured out non ECM ways of countering falcons even at max range. I'm sure everyone else can as well.

Fish Mittens
Minmatar
0utbreak
Posted - 2009.04.04 17:59:00 - [293]
 

Originally by: Spartan dax
Originally by: Fish Mittens

At 92km a typical falcon fit will have a 78% chance of jamming a Vagabond per racial jammer.




No it won't. The module will have a 75% chance to work at half falloff. Then you do the Jammer roll.

There is no strength reduction of the module itself meaning, fighting in falloff hurts the ECM ships real bad. It would be better if it worked like you described but it doesn't.


Really? I had always thought that % hit mechanics in faloff that apply to turrets would be applied to the strength of EW modules.

So you are saying that all EW modules (ECM, Damps, TPs, etc.) Hit or Miss the same as turrets in falloff? This is very interesting, is there any documentation or dev posts on this that you could point me to?

Either way however, I accept that trying to jam at the lowend of falloff x2 would be be bad, but my point was that it is a curve, not a sudden drop off, and the implication given by other posts here that EW are only effective inside optimal is misleading.

From Optimal to 0.5 x Falloff you are still being very effective at jamming, particularly on any Sub-BS ship.


Spartan dax
Posted - 2009.04.04 20:15:00 - [294]
 

Edited by: Spartan dax on 04/04/2009 20:19:35
Originally by: Fish Mittens

Either way however, I accept that trying to jam at the lowend of falloff x2 would be be bad, but my point was that it is a curve, not a sudden drop off, and the implication given by other posts here that EW are only effective inside optimal is misleading.

From Optimal to 0.5 x Falloff you are still being very effective at jamming, particularly on any Sub-BS ship.




That's not particulary correct either though. Basically what happens is in 0.5 falloff instead of 4 fitted ECM modules of each race rolling the dice vs your target(s) you have 3. In one falloff you have two etc etc. And then you realize that this is racial jammers meaning, well, your jamming chance on a single target, if your in one falloff, will be utter poo since racials tend to suck quite bad against wrong targets. So a drop off is actually precisely what it is.

Make no mistake, fighting in falloff, with a chancebased mechanic, with racial modules..... It's a very heavyhanded nerf. It wouldn't be so bad if racials weren't around and Multispecs had slightly higher strength but as it stands now it is indeed a very tough nerf.


Not that I care too much though, haven't flown a caldari recon in ages since they were so damb boring so I'm cheering on the recon changes for all I'm worth. All that's needed in the recon department atm on Sisi is slightly more speed and PG on the Rook and that will be one sweet cruiser. ATM it's way too slow, with puny cap and no PG to fit tank and a cap booster. ECM was great on these ships but the ships themselves were awfull so they need a few more tweaks on SISI before they're good to go.

Theron Gyrow
Gradient
Electus Matari
Posted - 2009.04.04 20:16:00 - [295]
 

Originally by: Spartan dax
Originally by: Fish Mittens

At 92km a typical falcon fit will have a 78% chance of jamming a Vagabond per racial jammer.




No it won't. The module will have a 75% chance to work at half falloff. Then you do the Jammer roll.



84% (0.5^((range_over_optimal/falloff)^2), in this case 0.5^(0.5^2) = 0.5^0.25), but otherwise correct.

Spartan dax
Posted - 2009.04.04 20:22:00 - [296]
 

Originally by: Theron Gyrow
Originally by: Spartan dax
Originally by: Fish Mittens

At 92km a typical falcon fit will have a 78% chance of jamming a Vagabond per racial jammer.




No it won't. The module will have a 75% chance to work at half falloff. Then you do the Jammer roll.



84% (0.5^((range_over_optimal/falloff)^2), in this case 0.5^(0.5^2) = 0.5^0.25), but otherwise correct.


Thanks, I don't keep the falloff numbers in my head so I just took his numbers and ran with it. (Couldn't find the turret tracking guide either, WTH did that go?)

Commandante Caldari
Dark-Rising
Posted - 2009.04.04 20:30:00 - [297]
 

Edited by: Commandante Caldari on 04/04/2009 20:51:49
It will make the ship useless for what it was meant to be.

I agree that an optimal of 225 is too much.
So lower it to 150.

The major problem of ECM is that it will be exploited by fleets as a sure win button.
ECM in the hands of killmail wh*res is the worst use. 7 Falcon jamming a ship what is anyway blobbed is just pathetic and worth a whine.
But that's EVE. So what.

However. The Falcon is eg. one or perhaps the only way to engage "solo" [dual boxing] a camp with a good chance to kill some and let the rest run off.
If this camp is just prepared well with a counter Falcon, ECCM, Snipers or just fast ships to scare the Falcon off ... the Falcon will fail here and you will lose definitely your fighting ship.

So what's the point to nerf the Falcon that extreme?

We could also whine for: nerf camps, nerf blobs. Because they give 0% chance to fight back and win.

If you dual box a BS in a BC and ruin the fight for him by perma-jamming THAT'S the same way like beeing blobbed or just jumping into a Rancer camp.
We have to live with that. It's not like that every fight is ruined by ECM. ECM is bad for the one who has to deal with it but useful in many special cases.

The actual Falcon nerf will support camps, blobs and piracy. It will be a great day for all of them when CCP brings that nerf.
They don't need ECM now anymore because a Falcon at 60-100 km is so easy to scare off or catch now.
They just need some fast ships with ECCM or they place a Falcon getting remote repped if under sentry fire while a solo player or fleet not that strong would need ECM support against a good organized camp or blob with serious DPS.
A remote repped Falcon under GCC will just jam your Falcon while other ships will tackle you fast and easily at this distance. Dead!

If you bring ECM against a camp every day they just answer with bringing counter ECM, ECCM and so on. That is my experience I made in Hagilur with several corps. At a special size of the camp or blob a single Falcon is anyway useless.

So again: what's the point to nerf ECM that extreme if there are many possible tactics against it?!

I just see it that way: the nerf is just a result of a big whining of lazy, non-creative players ... not willing to sacrifice a slot for ECCM or thinking about different tactics against a Falcon. And CCP is listening to all these endless petitions or forum threads.

I will say again: where's the difference beeing blobbed or beeing dual boxed with ECM?
I faced more blobs in EVE then solo pilots or small fleets with heavy ECM.

A Falcon under 100 km is dead when using it the way for what it was meant for.
Fighting a single player with 60 km ECM or blobbing a single player with multiple ECM at 60 km will still ruin the fight and cause EPIC WHINING.

So the good and right use of a Falcon against numbers is actually ruined.

CC

Shade Millith
Caldari
Macabre Votum
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2009.04.05 03:33:00 - [298]
 

I fly Falcons a bit.

And I'm more likely to fly a falcon after this change. Would be more fun

Valkorsia
Caldari
Battlestars
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2009.04.05 05:03:00 - [299]
 

Originally by: Shade Millith
I fly Falcons a bit.

And I'm more likely to fly a falcon after this change. Would be more fun


More fun? More like insta-primary in optimal of everything on the field, including pulse Apocs again.Rolling Eyes There is no way to survive for a Falcon at that range without a complete revamp of the ship, from agility>>mass>>speed>>shield hit points>>sig radius.

It's an over nerf and CCP knows it. That's what they wanted to do. And no amount of *****ing here is going to change it.

DelboyTrotter
Trotters Independent Trading
Posted - 2009.04.05 06:30:00 - [300]
 

Originally by: Valkorsia
Originally by: Shade Millith
I fly Falcons a bit.

And I'm more likely to fly a falcon after this change. Would be more fun


More fun? More like insta-primary in optimal of everything on the field, including pulse Apocs again.Rolling Eyes There is no way to survive for a Falcon at that range without a complete revamp of the ship, from agility>>mass>>speed>>shield hit points>>sig radius.

It's an over nerf and CCP knows it. That's what they wanted to do. And no amount of *****ing here is going to change it.


Yes more fun, they will actually take some skill to fly, rather than sitting at 150k and being untouchable. And yes most likely be called primary just like any other recon on the field.

This is called balancing, and its not an over nerf, current changes are nowhere near enough. Falcons need to be brought into 50km effective combat range, just like all the other recons.

Try flying a rapier.


Pages: first : previous : ... 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 ... : last (20)

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