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 : ... 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 ... : last (20)

Author Topic

SecHaul
Posted - 2009.04.08 12:23:00 - [391]
 

Originally by: Cone Filler
so dont go out telling people lies mmm k?
Clearly you cannot read, nor can the poster below you.

All other counter EWAR mods provide a benefit to your ship under normal conditions, and under EWAR conditions. ECCM provides NO benefit to you EXCEPT under EWAR conditions.

In other words, in the absence of EWAR, it's a 100% wasted slot, unlike ALL other EWAR counters.

Get it? Try re-read my post, it's what I posted the first time, no lies.

SecHaul
Posted - 2009.04.08 12:30:00 - [392]
 

Originally by: Hayat Siwa
don't reverse engineer arguments, please.

a non racial jammer is useless against any ship, too. and fitting multis is reducing jam chances by ca 30% compared to racials that's why they are not overly popular. and remember, these percentages apply not only in falloff range but in optimal, too!

the eccm being useless? well here's a little example:

hs


Firstly, a non-racial jammer is not useless against any ship, it's a perfectly viable mod.

Secondly, I never said ECCM was useless, I said ECCM is 100% useless except when under EWAR conditions.

In other words, learn to read the post you are replying to, dropping all your wonderful numbers in, before you look like even more of an idiot.

And please, an 'average falcon of jam strength 12', try closer to 14 with a 175km+ optimal. That will permajam a vaga without ECCM, and of course, fitting a vaga with ECCM sacrificing your tank makes SO much sense, let me see if I ever see a vaga fitted that way. Here is the reason - comprising a mid-slot to reduce jamming chance to 50% (which is still very very high) at the sacrifice of half your tank (in case you see an ECM bird, otherwise it's a 100% wasted slot) is a FAILED mechanic.

Smooth Kitty
Posted - 2009.04.08 14:08:00 - [393]
 

Originally by: SecHaul


Firstly, a non-racial jammer is not useless against any ship, it's a perfectly viable mod.

Secondly, I never said ECCM was useless, I said ECCM is 100% useless except when under EWAR conditions.

In other words, learn to read the post you are replying to, dropping all your wonderful numbers in, before you look like even more of an idiot.

And please, an 'average falcon of jam strength 12', try closer to 14 with a 175km+ optimal. That will permajam a vaga without ECCM, and of course, fitting a vaga with ECCM sacrificing your tank makes SO much sense, let me see if I ever see a vaga fitted that way. Here is the reason - comprising a mid-slot to reduce jamming chance to 50% (which is still very very high) at the sacrifice of half your tank (in case you see an ECM bird, otherwise it's a 100% wasted slot) is a FAILED mechanic.


Actually ECCM makes it harder to probe you out so it's not 100% worthless.

ECM ships have little damage, little tank and need to use one of 4 racial jammers to have a decent jam chance. 50% is not a good change against a vaga with a falcon. You'd be dead in 1 or 2 missed jam cycles. Coincidentally Vaga with dual eccm is a nice dedicated falcon killer since it will rarely be jammed.

It sounds like you are one of those whiners who cant handle it when something prevents them from winning every fight. You want your cookie cutter vaga to kill everything it lands on so you can look at your kb and feel special. You should not be able to kill everything with one setup in eve. That just makes the game boring.

BTW how many sensor boosters, cap boosters, or tracking enhancers/computers do you use on your vaga to counter other ewar? Oh yea, the other ewar recons have been nerfed to hell and back because of people like you.

Dex Nederland
Caldari
Lai Dai Infinity Systems
Posted - 2009.04.08 14:12:00 - [394]
 

Originally by: SecHaul
Secondly, I never said ECCM was useless, I said ECCM is 100% useless except when under EWAR conditions.

Except you are wrong; it has a use when trying to go to ground and hide (unless there has been a change to how probing ships down functions).

Originally by: http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Ship_Probing
Target Signal Size = Target Signature Radius / Target Sensor Strength

This means that the smaller your target's signature radius and the larger his sensor strength, the harder he will be to find with probes. A target with several shield extenders will have larger signature radius and be easier to find, while a target with ECCM will have higher sensor strength and will be harder to find.


So, while it may not have an immediate combat use beyond combating a possible jam, it has a definite use if you are trying to hide and have a large Signature Radius.

isdisco3
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2009.04.08 14:26:00 - [395]
 

We must remember that none of the other recons actually take away dps from opposing targets. The rapier slows them down (marginally), the arazu slows them down (if they use mwd), the pilgrim / curse takes away their cap, but the falcon actually eliminates dps.

I don't think the range nerf is enough. The falcon will still be able to permajam people very easily. All we can do now, instead of being permajammed at 180 and cursing the game, is be permajammed at 50 and hope our drones auto-aggress the jammer. It's still going to be superbly annoying, and falcons will still be able to completely eliminate dps from the targets.

isdisco3
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2009.04.08 14:55:00 - [396]
 

Continuing, i think the change to optimal and falloff is ideal. However I think we should shoot for a minmatar-style optimal / falloff relationship where the falloff is 2-3x greater than a small optimal (15-20k).

For example, I just (about 3 minutes ago) got out of a fight. In this fight it was me (rapier) and a friend (broadsword) versus 2 bc's and an inty. We attacked, falcon decloaked at 60 and perma-jammed both of us for the entire fight (5 minutes) with no missed cycles. This is the 'future' of what will happen if this nerf is implemented - falcons still crazy strong but doing it from 60 instead of 160. They're still going to be able to completely shut down fights and make them just absurdly annoying to be in.

Reduce the optimal to like 10-20, increase falloff to 60-80, and make it so a falcon on the field is NOT guaranteed jam.

Fish Mittens
Minmatar
0utbreak
Posted - 2009.04.08 16:38:00 - [397]
 

Originally by: isdisco3
Continuing, i think the change to optimal and falloff is ideal. However I think we should shoot for a minmatar-style optimal / falloff relationship where the falloff is 2-3x greater than a small optimal (15-20k).

For example, I just (about 3 minutes ago) got out of a fight. In this fight it was me (rapier) and a friend (broadsword) versus 2 bc's and an inty. We attacked, falcon decloaked at 60 and perma-jammed both of us for the entire fight (5 minutes) with no missed cycles. This is the 'future' of what will happen if this nerf is implemented - falcons still crazy strong but doing it from 60 instead of 160. They're still going to be able to completely shut down fights and make them just absurdly annoying to be in.

Reduce the optimal to like 10-20, increase falloff to 60-80, and make it so a falcon on the field is NOT guaranteed jam.


/Signed

Fantastic suggestion, will make the falcon still more powerful than any other recon, whilst still at least having a chance to counter them.


DNSBLACK
Gallente
Dirt Nap Squad
Dirt Nap Squad.
Posted - 2009.04.08 16:39:00 - [398]
 

Originally by: isdisco3
Continuing, i think the change to optimal and falloff is ideal. However I think we should shoot for a minmatar-style optimal / falloff relationship where the falloff is 2-3x greater than a small optimal (15-20k).

For example, I just (about 3 minutes ago) got out of a fight. In this fight it was me (rapier) and a friend (broadsword) versus 2 bc's and an inty. We attacked, falcon decloaked at 60 and perma-jammed both of us for the entire fight (5 minutes) with no missed cycles. This is the 'future' of what will happen if this nerf is implemented - falcons still crazy strong but doing it from 60 instead of 160. They're still going to be able to completely shut down fights and make them just absurdly annoying to be in.

Reduce the optimal to like 10-20, increase falloff to 60-80, and make it so a falcon on the field is NOT guaranteed jam.


1. You had no ECCM on.

2. You had a fleet that got out matched were is your falcon.

3. moving the falcon in close or far away would not have helped you win the fight you discribed.

4. As a FC and allaince leader i recruit falcon pilots cause I realize the impartance of EWAR.

Juast my thought on your engagment.

isdisco3
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2009.04.08 17:48:00 - [399]
 

Originally by: DNSBLACK

1. You had no ECCM on.

2. You had a fleet that got out matched were is your falcon.

3. moving the falcon in close or far away would not have helped you win the fight you discribed.

4. As a FC and allaince leader i recruit falcon pilots cause I realize the impartance of EWAR.

Juast my thought on your engagment.


All true points. However, I would say that no gang should be forced to have a falcon to counter other falcons (who wants to have a mandatory ship in any gang?). Furthermore, your point #3 re-enforces my point that the proposed nerf here will be insufficient and that a falcon at 60 will still be able to permajam 2+ ships with little or no problem.

DNSBLACK
Gallente
Dirt Nap Squad
Dirt Nap Squad.
Posted - 2009.04.08 18:07:00 - [400]
 

Edited by: DNSBLACK on 08/04/2009 18:10:54
Originally by: isdisco3
Originally by: DNSBLACK

1. You had no ECCM on.

2. You had a fleet that got out matched were is your falcon.

3. moving the falcon in close or far away would not have helped you win the fight you discribed.

4. As a FC and allaince leader i recruit falcon pilots cause I realize the impartance of EWAR.

Juast my thought on your engagment.


All true points. However, I would say that no gang should be forced to have a falcon to counter other falcons (who wants to have a mandatory ship in any gang?). Furthermore, your point #3 re-enforces my point that the proposed nerf here will be insufficient and that a falcon at 60 will still be able to permajam 2+ ships with little or no problem.



Well if you like to have a chance at winning you may need to re think your fleet. I agree with you that they are addressing the ECM adjustments all wrong. ECCM is what they should be looking at. Falcon are very effective at doing the job they are built for. What i find sad is you have Gank and super tanks who dont want to give up a slot to fight a falcon. I have some of the best falcon pilots in the game, all of them dedicated falcon flyers and supporting my fleets. They are not as easy as people think to fly effectivly. Ask any falcon pilot what they fear most and that is a BS with ECCM Raven any AMAR BS and such. We call those falcon killers and we fly with one of those all the time. 95% of the time the falcon misses the jam on that ship and the BS locks and begins killing the falcon. So as a FC you should not always asume the fights are going to be up close and you should always assume that falcons are going to be present. Your advance scouts should reconize a falcon in system. If local has 10 enemies and only 8 are accounted for you should assume the are falcons and adjust your fleet. CCP has given us the snad box tools to adjust to any situation but people are jsut lazy. The best ship or modual in this game is sitting right on top of your shoulders be creative.

p.s. They should also look at buffing the ecm burst for BS so if you find your self in a pinch you could hit it jam the up close ships and maybe get away. I promise you a falcon is not going to jam you to death and if you can get a Burst off and escape well then you can adjust and come back.

isdisco3
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2009.04.08 19:16:00 - [401]
 

Edited by: isdisco3 on 08/04/2009 19:17:34
Originally by: DNSBLACK

falcon stuff


The point of my example was not to get pointers on how to roam, but simply to illustrate that a falcon at 60 is just as strong jammer-wise as a falcon at 180. In a small-gang situation, they are still going to completely take members out of the fight with impunity.

I've flown in many ECCM'd battleships (and overheated them, even more often), and have been perma-jammed by falcons before. ECCM is weak, but its only weak because the jamming strength of falcons is overpowering. By making falcon jammers live in falloff, we essentially cut their jamming strength in half; the result is that ECCM will make more of a difference.

I continue to not think that every gang I roam in should have a dedicated anti-falcon pilot. That's a sign right there of how overpowered the ship is. I don't fly around with a dedicated anti-rapier ship, or an anti-curse ship, or an anti-anything ship. I fly around in ships that handle a wide range of situations. Furthermore, the thought that 'you should bring something to counter it' would encourage blobbing, because it requires multiple ships.

And finally, why should every ship I fly be expected to sacrifice one midslot to counter one overpowered ship?

I still think that making falloff be 60-80 and optimal be 10-20 would be ideal, and even keeping with the 'brawler' role. If they want to ensure jams, they have to be up close and personal. If they want to take a chance, they sit far away, but they do not get guaranteed jams on everything on the field.

Smooth Kitty
Posted - 2009.04.08 19:17:00 - [402]
 

Originally by: isdisco3
Continuing, i think the change to optimal and falloff is ideal. However I think we should shoot for a minmatar-style optimal / falloff relationship where the falloff is 2-3x greater than a small optimal (15-20k).

For example, I just (about 3 minutes ago) got out of a fight. In this fight it was me (rapier) and a friend (broadsword) versus 2 bc's and an inty. We attacked, falcon decloaked at 60 and perma-jammed both of us for the entire fight (5 minutes) with no missed cycles. This is the 'future' of what will happen if this nerf is implemented - falcons still crazy strong but doing it from 60 instead of 160. They're still going to be able to completely shut down fights and make them just absurdly annoying to be in.

Reduce the optimal to like 10-20, increase falloff to 60-80, and make it so a falcon on the field is NOT guaranteed jam.



sounds like you got beat by someone smarter then you. Learn from it and do better next time.


isdisco3
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2009.04.08 19:19:00 - [403]
 

Originally by: Smooth Kitty

sounds like you got beat by someone smarter then you. Learn from it and do better next time.



Thanks troll, you really contribute to a meaningful discussion on the ship.

Smooth Kitty
Posted - 2009.04.08 19:21:00 - [404]
 

Originally by: isdisco3
Edited by: isdisco3 on 08/04/2009 19:17:34
Originally by: DNSBLACK

falcon stuff


The point of my example was not to get pointers on how to roam, but simply to illustrate that a falcon at 60 is just as strong jammer-wise as a falcon at 180. In a small-gang situation, they are still going to completely take members out of the fight with impunity.

I've flown in many ECCM'd battleships (and overheated them, even more often), and have been perma-jammed by falcons before. ECCM is weak, but its only weak because the jamming strength of falcons is overpowering. By making falcon jammers live in falloff, we essentially cut their jamming strength in half; the result is that ECCM will make more of a difference.

I continue to not think that every gang I roam in should have a dedicated anti-falcon pilot. That's a sign right there of how overpowered the ship is. I don't fly around with a dedicated anti-rapier ship, or an anti-curse ship, or an anti-anything ship. I fly around in ships that handle a wide range of situations. Furthermore, the thought that 'you should bring something to counter it' would encourage blobbing, because it requires multiple ships.

And finally, why should every ship I fly be expected to sacrifice one midslot to counter one overpowered ship?

I still think that making falloff be 60-80 and optimal be 10-20 would be ideal, and even keeping with the 'brawler' role. If they want to ensure jams, they have to be up close and personal. If they want to take a chance, they sit far away, but they do not get guaranteed jams on everything on the field.


Nothing is guaranteed jams or not. If you were perma-jammed in a eccm bs then that falcon was set up to take your race out of the fight.

You seem to want to fly around with your standard setup and be able to kill whatever you want. Eve doesn't work that way. You have strategy and counter. If the enemy gang has ECM you counter. If they have RR BS your counter. Or you can just go blindly in and whine when you get toasted by a smarter group.

Sky Marshal
IMpAct Corp
Not Found.
Posted - 2009.04.08 19:40:00 - [405]
 

Edited by: Sky Marshal on 08/04/2009 19:43:17

Well, instead of use ECCM modules that generate a loss of one or two slots...

Why not use Sensor Boosters instead ?

A script who permit to boost your sensor strength, to resist again ECM. After all, it is the work of Sensor Boosters to alterate your sensors...

If you see one ECM ship, you change your script, activate it, and go at range to kill him. You will avoid some Jam cycles without any specific modules, but not all of them of course. So, the ECCM module would be deleted from the game.

Of course, the script only boost the sensor strength, not the scan resolution nor the targetting range.

This would be a better compromise than reducing Falcon range, who need to keep a minimum range of 150/160 Km.

ezraniel
Caldari
0ccam's Razor
The Volition Cult
Posted - 2009.04.08 21:13:00 - [406]
 

Originally by: Sky Marshal
Edited by: Sky Marshal on 08/04/2009 19:43:17

Well, instead of use ECCM modules that generate a loss of one or two slots...

Why not use Sensor Boosters instead ?

A script who permit to boost your sensor strength, to resist again ECM. After all, it is the work of Sensor Boosters to alterate your sensors...

If you see one ECM ship, you change your script, activate it, and go at range to kill him. You will avoid some Jam cycles without any specific modules, but not all of them of course. So, the ECCM module would be deleted from the game.

Of course, the script only boost the sensor strength, not the scan resolution nor the targetting range.

This would be a better compromise than reducing Falcon range, who need to keep a minimum range of 150/160 Km.


THIS !

I don't think honestly a lot of people understand the sheer stupidity in turning the falcon into a "short range brawler".

In my opinion, however much its worth, falcons are good nowadays. People whine and ***** about 200 km falcons, but those prolly don't have ECCM fit, and any other falcon can EASELY take them out(jam them).

Falcons also have NO tank what so ever so making them "short range brawlers" is just stupid since if you miss 1 cycle your dead, right now that fact is made up for by longer range, range which gives you the time to try and get a second cycle off or flee.

If we make it very black/white it's like a game of instagib in Unreal tournament. you either kill him (jam him) first go, because if he hits you once you die. Thats the reality of being a falcon pilot (and I love it ! )


Strike Valheru
Caldari
Divine Retribution
Sons of Tangra
Posted - 2009.04.08 21:27:00 - [407]
 

Im on the boat with SDA being just ranged boost, Im primarily ecmer (yeah one of those nasty falcon pilots) but I would really like to use rook more, to do that it needs some sort of either better defence or what been previously suggested so as it would have some open slot in mids ( due to having 4 racials ) like a multispec jammer which you can load ratial scrips into. Then you can further break down to close range/ high ecm multispec and long range/low ecm multispec. this would solve the range issue help those ecmers to get closer in range who want to actually shoot stuff.

isdisco3
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2009.04.08 21:32:00 - [408]
 

Edited by: isdisco3 on 08/04/2009 21:41:04
Edited by: isdisco3 on 08/04/2009 21:34:18
making sensor boosters have a script for ECM still means that every ship you fly will have to have a sensor booster. you're just re-naming the ECCM module, making it mandatory on every setup, and giving it a target res / targeting range option.

it fails to solve the problem that an ECCM'd ship is still extremely likely to be permajammed (a hictor for exmaple only has 13 scan strength, that's the same as 1 individual ECM module on a typically-fit falcon), and its still likely to be permajammed from an untouchable distance.

we should make the ECM modules have a short (20km) optimal and longer falloff (50-60km) by default, then give the falcon only a bonus to falloff (something around 15% per level or so) and no bonus for strength. this way a falcon would have optimal of 20 and falloff of 100-120 at lvl5, giving it the option of being far out while shooting but not nearly as overpowering / game-ending as it is now. if a falcon wants a guaranteed jam, the falcon has to come in close and actually be in danger.

just making it come in closer and marginally diminishing its strength is not enough.

Esmenet
Gallente
Posted - 2009.04.08 23:47:00 - [409]
 

Originally by: isdisco3
Edited by: isdisco3 on 08/04/2009 21:41:04
Edited by: isdisco3 on 08/04/2009 21:34:18
making sensor boosters have a script for ECM still means that every ship you fly will have to have a sensor booster. you're just re-naming the ECCM module, making it mandatory on every setup, and giving it a target res / targeting range option.

it fails to solve the problem that an ECCM'd ship is still extremely likely to be permajammed (a hictor for exmaple only has 13 scan strength, that's the same as 1 individual ECM module on a typically-fit falcon), and its still likely to be permajammed from an untouchable distance.

we should make the ECM modules have a short (20km) optimal and longer falloff (50-60km) by default, then give the falcon only a bonus to falloff (something around 15% per level or so) and no bonus for strength. this way a falcon would have optimal of 20 and falloff of 100-120 at lvl5, giving it the option of being far out while shooting but not nearly as overpowering / game-ending as it is now. if a falcon wants a guaranteed jam, the falcon has to come in close and actually be in danger.

just making it come in closer and marginally diminishing its strength is not enough.


Aww someone got ganked by a gang with a falcon.

Noisrevbus
Posted - 2009.04.08 23:54:00 - [410]
 

Edited by: Noisrevbus on 09/04/2009 01:18:19
Originally by: SecHaul
Clearly you cannot read, nor can the poster below you.

All other counter EWAR mods provide a benefit to your ship under normal conditions, and under EWAR conditions. ECCM provides NO benefit to you EXCEPT under EWAR conditions.

In other words, in the absence of EWAR, it's a 100% wasted slot, unlike ALL other EWAR counters.

Get it? Try re-read my post, it's what I posted the first time, no lies.


I've seen that argument put forward quite a few times by now, and it's still as bad as it ever was.

You are claiming that someone actually fit tracking computers in the event that another might have tracking disruptors, then get the added benefit of better tracking when they are not disrupted. People usually fit modules to achieve something particular. If someone actually do fit an electronic modules of that kind, by putting your EWar on them then, you sabotage whatever they tried to achieve. People don't stack up any electronic bonuses more than they are prepared to give up slots for ECCM. If you have a ship that fit a sensor booster or tracking computer to snipe, let's say a sniping HAC aiming for 100km, he has little additional benefit of overstacking and by putting EWar on him you can effectively destroy his role and purpose.

You could argue about the flexibility with scripts, but that goes both ways as the responding EWar modules also have scripts and provide the option of chosing what you want to impair on your target. ECM do only one thing, as such, as do ECCM. Had you put an unscripted computer on above your required range and tracking, you'd get the additional tracking but the moment someone put a TD on you - you would be well below your base range because you didn't script to counter. Painters are more similar to ECM in how they only do one thing (while with Painters there really is no plausible counter, as there are no sig radius shrinker modules).

Not to mention, anticipating fights or changing scripts mid combat is not very practical either. Good in theory, less ideal in practise.

To reiterate, it might look good on paper to be able to use scripts flexibly or use an unscripted module for a dual buffert, but it doesn't have much practical use. Unless fit to counter, it won't counter. Scripted benefitial modules can be squared against scripted EWar modules. Not to mention, ECM "scripts" are covered by creating unique racial modules (which is far inferior to having scripts) while your ECCM counter them regardless of what module is used on you. You can say alot about the power of ECM, but arguing that it has more flexibility is hardly one of them. The same goes for Caldari Recons, they may be strong, but arguing that they would be more flexible is perhaps not where i'd put my focus or invest my time.

You have specialized ships, utilizing specialized modules, thus they have specialized counters. I'm sure alot of people overall would welcome a secondary benefit from ECCM, if that meant secondary benefit for ECM. The same goes overall for the Caldari Recons. I'm sure alot of people could be convinced to give up some specialization in trade for flexibility. Yet people who make claims against ECCM or complaining about "Falcons" in general are not prepared to give them that. They'd rather see another "Arazu failure" than they'd like to see another "Curse success".

The problem deep down is that people don't account for everything that sets the concepts apart (appearantly, nore did CCP, when Gallente Recons got hammered or with these proposals).

isdisco3
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2009.04.09 00:09:00 - [411]
 

Originally by: Esmenet

Aww someone got ganked by a gang with a falcon.


I refuse to pay you 3 cents to cross the bridge, troll.

Dex Nederland
Caldari
Lai Dai Infinity Systems
Posted - 2009.04.09 00:17:00 - [412]
 

Originally by: isdisco3
it fails to solve the problem that an ECCM'd ship is still extremely likely to be permajammed (a hictor for exmaple only has 13 scan strength, that's the same as 1 individual ECM module on a typically-fit falcon), and its still likely to be permajammed from an untouchable distance.

Did you consider that it was in fact an attempt at balance that hictors have a "low" sensor strength?

They are able to stop a multi-billion isk ship from warping or jumping away! Just maybe that is the intent of the low sensor strength.

Noisrevbus
Posted - 2009.04.09 00:55:00 - [413]
 

Edited by: Noisrevbus on 09/04/2009 01:26:38
Originally by: isdisco3
it fails to solve the problem that an ECCM'd ship is still extremely likely to be permajammed (a hictor for exmaple only has 13 scan strength, that's the same as 1 individual ECM module on a typically-fit falcon), and its still likely to be permajammed from an untouchable distance.


Considering that this fall into my long rant above, i had to qoute it just as Dex did.

Originally by: Noisrevbus
Not to mention, ECM "scripts" are covered by creating unique racial modules (which is far inferior to having scripts) while your ECCM counter them regardless of what module is used on you.


If we assume for a second that one ECCM = one extra ECM (obviously it doesn't, but to humour the quote).

In practise it would = 4 extra ECM (as there are four HICs with different sensors, and you have racial ECM modules not scripts).

When people complain about ECCM as an effective counter, they always leave that out. They look at how they themselves fare against an ECM ship (in an ideal position), and not at how ECM mechanics apply across the grid. That is also why they continue to phrase it "permajam" since if you only count the times when it works, of course it will be "perma" Wink.

They also don't want to use offensive counters (snipers etc.) so they coin terms like "untouchable", and look to nerf range rather than perhaps buff poor counter platforms, like eg., the Eagle.

Valkira Grozna
Posted - 2009.04.09 02:53:00 - [414]
 

Edited by: Valkira Grozna on 09/04/2009 02:58:41
Edited by: Valkira Grozna on 09/04/2009 02:57:48
CCP should know that with every nerf kills this beautiful game. I will give an example, when the vaga was nerfed it were killed from the game, no1 is willing to drive a 120 million vessel, which is not anymore special. In truth I hated them, but not because they were too strong, but because while I was taught playing nobody told me that to kill nano ships you need cap neut, when I realized that this beast of ship become paper made , it was enough to have in a fleet a BS with a full heavy cap neut fits. No more nano ships no longer even need to have cap neut with me . When they killed the nano ships , have been killed a efficient way to counter Falcon, no1 falcon pilot will stay in battle with 3 "ex-nano" ship , true they can jamm them, but pilot will prefer to warp off then wait they los one jamm cycle and died in next 15 sec. Why in the game are eccm modules , perhaps to look nice on the market ? One module will not keep safe from falcon , but falcon will need more module to keep you quite . If in this game are few stupid FC who are complaining because they dont have ideas , tactics how to fight some ships we need nerf ?? There are many way to counter a falcon, why I have in the fleet a sniper squad , why I had fitted my cerb for 250 km range ? CCP will not stop no this nerf today Falcons and ECM, yesterday Vagas or speed . This game will soon turn to the DPS and tanking and I think that I will not play when that time came . Every nerf open Pandora box and there are less tactics and less used fits that can be used. If you ask me return most of nerfed ships bk . Maybe some nerf was good , but pls dont kill this game if few players dont have imaginations !!!!

Edghariuss I
Posted - 2009.04.09 03:12:00 - [415]
 

Ok I am also a caldari so I will be aginst this nerf , but why nerf something when you can make ECCM more powerful ??? Find a solution on problem dont kill the original idea of the game !!!

Tagami Wasp
Caldari
Sarz'na Khumatari
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2009.04.09 05:14:00 - [416]
 

I am not a Falcon pilot, nor did I expected ever to be. I was training for Flycatcher and Onyx, since I prefer to fly into the midst of the enemy, lock him down and try to help my gang kill as many as possible.

I live in 0.0, I have participated in a lot of fleet fights, a lot of gang fights and some soloing (being Caldari, I mostly died).

The problem, when you fly Caldari, has always been that you cannot dictate the tactical situation, the ships are slow to move, slow to lock and do delayed damage (I am looking at you Cerberus). If you try to get near the target (to scram and web), in order to minimize missile travel time and increase damage, you get scrammed/webbed, the target's friends arrive and not being able to put distance between you and them, you die.
If he hasn't any friends or didn't scram you he just puts all his damage on you, your signature is huge (MWD, right? AB is not for solo work and not even in fleet is looked upon favorably), you disengage or die. Not really what you were trying to do.

Looking at the reconfiguration of the Falcon, I now see the first Caldari boat capable of solo missions.

I will let you figure the fitting out (half the fun) but taking into consideration the proposed changes, I can see a Falcon operating deep into enemy territory, zooming around under cover of the cov ops cloak and looking for solitary targets. Consider this scenario:

Since you are warping cloaked, the target does not see you as you warp cloaked within 20Km (Fit a MWD to get into position if you need it, it is quite of use). Uncloak, lock, scram, jam, apply dps through guns and drones. I'd take out any drones first and make sure I can cloak if anyone comes, since my target will not be able to lock me, right? A couple of Multiracials with 2x SDA at 20 Km will mean he won't be locking anything.
If the target was ratting, his drones will probably be on the rats, not on you. If he deploys them after you tackled and jammed him, TAKE THEM OUT FIRST.

By the way, a Falcon fitted this way will have a tank close to a Navy Caracal and similar to a Vagabond's. Surprised?

If friends come to save him, warp out (he can't hold you there, can he?)and cloak as you warp and keep moving. If his friends don't come, loot his wreck, warp cloaked to the gate, avoid the gatecamp (they din't see you coming, did they?)and go sell the loot. Profit.

Now, this boat will be very skill intensive and only really hardened pilots (still trying to get there) will be able to fly it this way, but it makes me quiver in anticipation for it's arrival.

Commandante Caldari
Dark-Rising
Posted - 2009.04.09 07:17:00 - [417]
 

Edited by: Commandante Caldari on 09/04/2009 07:23:10
Originally by: Valkira Grozna

CCP should know that with every nerf kills this beautiful game. I will give an example, when the vaga was nerfed it were killed from the game, no1 is willing to drive a 120 million vessel, which is not anymore special. In truth I hated them, but not because they were too strong, but because while I was taught playing nobody told me that to kill nano ships you need cap neut, when I realized that this beast of ship become paper made , it was enough to have in a fleet a BS with a full heavy cap neut fits. No more nano ships no longer even need to have cap neut with me . When they killed the nano ships , have been killed a efficient way to counter Falcon, no1 falcon pilot will stay in battle with 3 "ex-nano" ship , true they can jamm them, but pilot will prefer to warp off then wait they los one jamm cycle and died in next 15 sec. Why in the game are eccm modules , perhaps to look nice on the market ? One module will not keep safe from falcon , but falcon will need more module to keep you quite . If in this game are few stupid FC who are complaining because they dont have ideas , tactics how to fight some ships we need nerf ?? There are many way to counter a falcon, why I have in the fleet a sniper squad , why I had fitted my cerb for 250 km range ? CCP will not stop no this nerf today Falcons and ECM, yesterday Vagas or speed . This game will soon turn to the DPS and tanking and I think that I will not play when that time came . Every nerf open Pandora box and there are less tactics and less used fits that can be used. If you ask me return most of nerfed ships bk . Maybe some nerf was good , but pls dont kill this game if few players dont have imaginations !!!!


I had a lot of experience with fighting against Nano Vaga fleets terrorising our former 0.0 space.
I agree that a well skilled Nano Vaga is fun in the hands of a good pilot but it's pure pain because they fit some faction stuff, orbit you out of heavy neut range and killing you slowly. I saw Vaga's speeding up to 12K. That was just stupid.

Even with the nerf a Vaga is still hard to catch if the pilot knows how to fly it.
Another example is a Zealot with 1450ms, Lasers and just a 30km scram.
Try to fight that solo eg. in an Ishtar. No chance. Even webber drones for pre-tackle will not help.

A Vaga is still too fast to hunt it down if the pilot is not stupid.
I am talking about mainly if you face that 1v1.

The speed nerf was well balanced IMO. Bringing a scram what deactivates MWD is nasty, but we all adapted I guess.

The actual Falcon nerf is wrong balanced. It's like bringing a Vaga from 5.800ms down to max. speed of 580ms.
That's my opionion from my game play pov because I use the Falcon mainly against gate camps of fighting numbers by dual boxing.
An believe me: I am a well experienced PvPer actually and I lost some Falcon to good counter work.

The actual nerf ruins totally the option to go against numbers or annoying gate camps smacking arrogant in local all the time because they feel so safe pussin' around a gate and ganking everything without giving them a chance while claiming: WE ARE SO UBER PVP!

CCP should give us still the option to fight numbers. The nerf just supports gate camps or blobs.
CCP should be aware that WE DON'T LIVE IN EVE 23/7. We can't. But some seem they can. So we need something effective against this.

My recommendation is:
nerf the max. optimal with lvl5 skills and rigs down to 150km.
That's really hard enough. And please force the other lazy side to bring counter tactics and not just hanging around with their usual setups which will be the uber win button. Some gate camps are creative. We have one corp in our homesystem who brought now a fleet setup with Ishtar and Sentries, Vaga's, Rapier, Huginn, Ceptors, FALCONS ... just to NERF the falcon by tactics.

Let not CCP do the job in a bad unlogical way.

Lornnar
Posted - 2009.04.09 07:56:00 - [418]
 

true word (even if those 200km/permajamm Falcon is a myth or better said a lie from the people that cannot think abaut more as short range spider bs gang´s).
150km is a good change, it will hit all the Falcon alts at second accouts (sentry damage/shorter reaction time) but not made a *real* Falcon useless.

As said 100 times boost eccm (and at best make a big topic if you log in *hey stupids there is a thing called eccm module*) shorter the range to 100km optimal+ 50km falloff and we will see no nerf but balance.

those, you can call it only inconsiderate changes, as atm will take falcons effectively out of the game (rook+scorpions too btw.) in fights bigger as 5 ships/every side.
In the mystical 1v1 (praised all time in forums , neralv never happens in reality) a Falcon after changes will be even more deadlier as its now, from 70+ km...the whiner will whine 100x times more.

after all i dont think that this thread will change anything, i pretty sure that its alredy decided to make the falcon useless (and force the people into another ships) but CCP should overthink if its a good idea to make the game simplier and simplier until every ape can fit a ship with weapons and tank, jump in at 0 and hit F1 for all grouped weapons and wait until one of the ships is destroyed.

if the ecm changes come as they are atm i see waves of sniper ships overall in 0.0 and low sec since they have than really nothing to fear...jump in, align and shoot all down from range, tery no falcons/other ecm ships to counter them except other sniper ships (but falcon that counters falcon is lame^^) and as soon they take damage they warp out.

Exactly same situation as today and the "short range spider bs" *randoms* will immidiatly cry to nerf snipers...will you kill than as next all Snipers in EVE?

Make the Game as simple that you can call it WoW-in Space is a great way it will prosper (like Star Wars Galaxie´s after the WoW-like downgrade, how much play it today?).
Overthink you changes and if you cut the whiner´s and the falcon alts (the side that said 200km is fine) out you will see that a Falcon need range to survive and most fights beginns at 100km (for Falcons), this should be the range of its Weapon (and ECM is the only interessting Weapon of a Falcon, for dmg weapons there are nummerous other ships that can do it better)+ a falloff since in space ships moving.

redesign better Rook and Scorpion to make them a better dmg dealer with ecm capacity that can survive longer in close range....falcon is a long range sniper ecm ship---or dead and useless.

anyway i have no hope CCP will make it so, i think they go the fast way of *nerf to dead* anyway...time to max skills of my sniper ships..after all less work for me since there is no need to scout for the fleet as in falcon anymore^^


As alwayws sorry for all english mistakes

Severice
Crushed Ambitions
Posted - 2009.04.09 08:54:00 - [419]
 

Edited by: Severice on 09/04/2009 09:23:38
Reworked entirely:

I love the current falcon. It's a right pain in the butt and it should be. No one likes watching a falcon decloak when you don't have one. Good times. However, if you're going to nerf the falcon i'm going to have to insist that you follow standard nerfing procedures. Nerf it into the ground. Just like you did the arazu. If you psudo nerf the falcon, you had damn well better revisit the arazu, and give me some fair play.

Vasili Z
Cosmic Odyssey
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2009.04.09 10:00:00 - [420]
 

Originally by: Esmenet
Perhaps you only gank noobs with 10:1 or higher odds but in real fights you cant do that. Its funny how you whiners come with ******ed "anecdotes" to justify your cries for help so that CCP can babysit you to make it easier to blob targets with just normal dps ships.


I wish I could get 10 people in my gangs, it would make fighting ECM a lot easier.

Did you even read what I said? I can fly every recon, and actively do it, therefore I don't just blob **** with dps. ECM is just way more powerful than the rest. Falcon pilots are just wahing because they finally have to be as good as a curse pilot. It won't happen though, because Falcon pilots suck.


Pages: first : previous : ... 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 ... : 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