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 : ... 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 ... : last (20)

Author Topic

The Djego
Minmatar
Hellequin Inc.
Posted - 2009.04.09 13:46:00 - [421]
 

Edited by: The Djego on 09/04/2009 13:46:35
Originally by: Commandante Caldari

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.


Lets see this are Ishatar, Vaga, Raiper, Huggin, Ceptor, Falcon -> 6 Ships to counter one(and by counter i mean foring it to leave since you canīt kill a Falcon with them if the Falcon pilote is at the controlls).

Because it would change nothing at all?
Thats stupid. The one that is lazy is exactly you, you wonīt invest into expensive Fittings or Ships to have a chance to slug it out. You wonīt put your alt at risk while PVPing. You want the most broken ship in small gang still be the most broken in small gang.

The Falcon will still a very powerfull force multiplyer with a shorter range(more powerfull than the other Recons actualy what is still broken) while now having to face risks for beeing able to use a Cov Ops Cloak. If it is not about the Cov Ops Cloak you could use a Scorp for this(oh wait thats actualy a risk to move it around and to use it). Rolling Eyes



Valkira Grozna
Posted - 2009.04.09 15:02:00 - [422]
 

Ok some nerf was good , even if caldari pilot I like the missile nerf , now I need in fleet few ships with target painters , more webs , and made this game more fun . Maybe vaga used faction fits and was at bigger range of cap neut , but why nerfing vaga to death when you can put items to counter that treat ? This game is fun because you can fit your ship in 100 way , and with all bad nerfing this will became a boring game with same fits for all . No one is using remote eccm , dont know why , but make it stronger and have in fleet more support vessels for that job . THIS GAME IS STRATEGICAL GAME where all unit are players and not some kind of 1vs1 . Make more fits , do that players use more ship in dedicate roles , pls dont kill ships . Make this game more complicate and not more simple .

Blake Zacary
Volatile Nature
White Noise.
Posted - 2009.04.09 17:36:00 - [423]
 

Edited by: Blake Zacary on 09/04/2009 17:38:47
I need to do a lot more testing(anyone got some planned?).

But I think it needs more tweeking i.e.

Some sort of damage bonus to the hybrids.

Speed/agility I don't know if this was changed but like most caldari ships it's still slow and turns like a brick.If it's going to work closer in it needs a boost to both.

But my main concern is the actual jammers,multis are still as crap on sisi.Having to fit different jammers for each race was an acceptable disadvantage to the current falcon but when the range is closer having to waste four slots when I would also need to fit a small tank,mwd,sensor booster etc,etc is just a bit too much for the ship to work effectivly.It doesn't have enough slots for armor tanking and putting a plate on it is a joke as it makes it even more brick like.

I have to say on first looks,the way it is on sisi it's just a flying coffin.But like I said I do need a lot more testing.

P.S. I crossed trained for the rapier the other week just to try it and I had a lot of fun with it,I really hope we will be able to do solo stuff with the new falcon as well.

isdisco3
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2009.04.09 19:16:00 - [424]
 

My hictor example was solely to illustrate a point, which was to show that making the falcon come in from 180 to 80 won't diminish its ability to permajam multiple ships pretty much at will.

i continue to argue that the best solution is to make ecm have a short optimal (20km) and a longer falloff (60-80km), and give the falcon a bonus ONLY to falloff range, not strength. Rapiers get a bonus to web range but not web strength, razu's get a bonus to scram range but not scram strength, pilgrims get a bonus to neut / nos strength but not range. there's no reason the falcon should be the only recon getting dual bonus to its specialized module.

DiseL
Dirt Nap Squad
Posted - 2009.04.09 19:36:00 - [425]
 

Originally by: isdisco3
My hictor example was solely to illustrate a point, which was to show that making the falcon come in from 180 to 80 won't diminish its ability to permajam multiple ships pretty much at will.

i continue to argue that the best solution is to make ecm have a short optimal (20km) and a longer falloff (60-80km), and give the falcon a bonus ONLY to falloff range, not strength. Rapiers get a bonus to web range but not web strength, razu's get a bonus to scram range but not scram strength, pilgrims get a bonus to neut / nos strength but not range. there's no reason the falcon should be the only recon getting dual bonus to its specialized module.


I love this arguement. Why doesn't the secondary Ewar bonus ever get mentioned on the other 3 recons. TP on the Rapier, Damps on the Arazu, and TD's on the pilgrim. So all four races get two ewar related bonuses. The Falcon having only one Ewar type gets both ewar bonuses to it. So you want to take one of the bonuses away from the Falcon and now it has one Ewar type with one Ewar bonus while the other three races have 2 and 2. Brilliant form of balancing.

Spartan dax
Posted - 2009.04.09 21:13:00 - [426]
 

I'm agreeing with Isdisco3 actually. There's no longer any point for the Rook and Falcon to have dual bonuses (or triplebonuses as on TQ). Cap use bonus can be replaced with something else.

DelboyTrotter
Trotters Independent Trading
Posted - 2009.04.09 23:34:00 - [427]
 

Originally by: DiseL

I love this arguement. Why doesn't the secondary Ewar bonus ever get mentioned on the other 3 recons. TP on the Rapier, Damps on the Arazu, and TD's on the pilgrim. So all four races get two ewar related bonuses. The Falcon having only one Ewar type gets both ewar bonuses to it. So you want to take one of the bonuses away from the Falcon and now it has one Ewar type with one Ewar bonus while the other three races have 2 and 2. Brilliant form of balancing.


Because the secondary EWAR bonus are pathetic.

Tell you what, you can have the Rapiers TP bonus on the falcon, and give the rapiers webs a 100km range and give them a 90% chance of reducing any ships speed to 0km/s instantly for 20 seconds. Then we can fit rapiers with 4 webs and a sensor booster, and lock down 4 different ships form 100km away in complete safely.


isdisco3
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2009.04.10 01:57:00 - [428]
 

Edited by: isdisco3 on 10/04/2009 01:58:19
Edited by: isdisco3 on 10/04/2009 01:58:06
Originally by: DiseL

stuff


I said 'to its primary ewar.' Giving the falcon a bonus to another type of ewar would be perfectly acceptable. The falcon having a bonus to range and strength is contrary to how all other recons work.

Originally by: DelboyTrotter

Tell you what, you can have the Rapiers TP bonus on the falcon, and give the rapiers webs a 100km range and give them a 90% chance of reducing any ships speed to 0km/s instantly for 20 seconds. Then we can fit rapiers with 4 webs and a sensor booster, and lock down 4 different ships form 100km away in complete safely.



QFT.

Handon Guild
Toys R Us
Posted - 2009.04.10 02:11:00 - [429]
 

I agree with Isdisco3, making it close range with a falloff which lowers your chance of succes and no ECM Strength bonus, give it a bonus to falloff range for example, maybe make it so each time you get a hit on a target there's a ECM " timer " on that SINGLE target that got hit where he cant get jammed, which means you will have to circle your jammers on different targets to get full effect of your jammers... takes more skills aswell..

just an idea, i dont think you should be able to permajam.

Dex Nederland
Caldari
Lai Dai Infinity Systems
Posted - 2009.04.10 03:36:00 - [430]
 

Originally by: isdisco3
I said 'to its primary ewar.' Giving the falcon a bonus to another type of ewar would be perfectly acceptable. The falcon having a bonus to range and strength is contrary to how all other recons work.

Originally by: DelboyTrotter

Tell you what, you can have the Rapiers TP bonus on the falcon, and give the rapiers webs a 100km range and give them a 90% chance of reducing any ships speed to 0km/s instantly for 20 seconds. Then we can fit rapiers with 4 webs and a sensor booster, and lock down 4 different ships form 100km away in complete safely.



Alright, so do you apply the above to the Rook then? Or should the other Combat Recons be adjusted to be more like the Rook?
I am specifically referring to the missile bonus that two Combat Recons receive.

My idea, a simple change to the bonuses the ships and some slot changes. It adds firepower to the Falcon, reduces its range and strength, plus number of jammers. The bonuses on the Rook are moved around to give it some additional weapons range and be the better ECM ship.

Reduce the effective range of the Falcon and make the Rook a desirable combat ship.
Originally by: Falcon
Cruiser: 15%/lvl Jammer Strength, 5%/lvl Medium Hybrid Turret damage
Recon: 10%/lvl Jammer capacitor use, -96 to -100% Clocking Device CPU

5 Hi, 6 Mid, 3 Low
3 Launcher/4 Turret
Drone (capacity/bandwidth): 0/0

Originally by: Rook
Cruiser: 20%/lvl Jammer Strength, 10%/lvl missile velocity
Recon: 10%/lvl Jammer capcitor use, 20%/lvl Jammer optimal range

5 Hi, 7 Mid, 3 Low
5 Launcher/3 Turret
Drone (capacity/bandwidth): 0/0


The idea is that the Falcon is a Blackbird with cloaking systems and some additional firepower, while the Rook is the advanced version of the Blackbird.

For the Huginn and Lachesis the following changes.
- Huginn change the 5% bonus to Launcher ROF to a 10%/lvl bonus to Velocity Factor of Stasis Webifiers (see Kronos). This makes it such that a Huginn with T2 Webber will reduce the target's speed to 90% (at max skills).
- Lachesis change the 5% bonus to Launcher ROF to a 20%/lvl bonus to Sensor Dampener optimal/falloff. This makes it an excellent anti-sniper/Rook ship.

Omara Otawan
Posted - 2009.04.10 09:05:00 - [431]
 

Hmm, I still dont get why you want to reduce range and increase jamming strength.

As it stands, the current strength of a single racial on TQ is enough to permanently jam any HAC without ECCM fitted (even a blackbird does that pretty well actually).

Increasing jamming strength will completely ruin small-gang warfare, as you usually dont have any long-range weapons in a gang of say 4 ships, so 60km range or 250km range makes no difference at all since you can never lock.

And if you can get a lock, you are webbed anyway and arent gonna close in on the ecm ship.

Keep range as it is (even boost it on BB maybe), but reduce the strength.

BB 10% strength/level
kitsune,falcon,rook,scorpion 15% strength/level

Spartan dax
Posted - 2009.04.10 10:09:00 - [432]
 

Edited by: Spartan dax on 10/04/2009 10:35:01
Edited by: Spartan dax on 10/04/2009 10:28:14
The module strength on all out ECM fits will be basically the same as before. No change there.

The optimal range will be crap though and when you get into falloff the amount of jammers will be reduced resulting in fairly inefficient use of the ship while still remaining in weaponsrange of tons of ships. The change really does nothing for you in a gank scenario but for smallish gangs this change will require entirely different piloting of the Caldari recons (A good thing™).

TBH I don't see either the Rook or Falcon being able to fit more than 3 jammers in the future as they will need 2-3 slot tank and a MWD leaving you with multispecs which drops your jamming strength significantly. Overall reduction of ECM ingame accomplished.

The scorp is where the real problem is, atm it doesn't do anything particulary well.

Edit. Let me elaborate on the Scorp. The closerange Scorp was interesting because you had more than miniscule damage, a little ECM and a small armourtank. And for snipefleets you could always refit to damps. The current sisi scorp sucks at providing any value to a close range gang and is still worse than a damp scorp in many aspects. (Need more skills, has no tank, racially limited and chance based twice.) A chance based mechanic with racial modules working in falloff is fail beyond belief and you're going to have to absolutely insane to try and use it that way.

A much better way would be to have SDA's (Curse them and their inventor. (No really)) give an optimal bonus and a reduction in strength and removing falloff (Falloff = 1 like webs and disruptors) completely from the ECM dice roll. In essence you'd have dually scripted modules. First Racial and the strength or Optimal except it's hardwired and cannot be changed on the fly meaning there's no adaptation possible for an ECM ship. It performs one role and sucks at everything else. Easier to balance and much more predictable.

Stefan F
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2009.04.10 12:09:00 - [433]
 

Some new changes with the patch:

Scorpion & blackbird optimal bonus is nerfed from 20% optimal to 10% optimal (+10% falloff).

This effectively means that from 160k you'll get with a fully rigged scorp, with a small armor tank in the lows, a jamming strenght of about 4,5. This effectively means that you can jam 1 other battleship on sniperrange, but you are so easily popped yourself that bringing another sniper is a lot more beneficial.

If you start filling up your lows again with SDA's and also use the rigs you'll get about 7 effective sensor strenght per jammer at 160k. This means jamming 2 BS but they'll only have to sneeze at you and you pop (only a dc2 for tank).

So why not just remove the SDA's and put the effect of fitting 3 of them into the modules itself. Fitting them to non-bonussed ships still won't be viable, as they're not even worth fitting on a bonussed scorp.

As explained earlier in this thread, a damp scorp can take out about 3 hostile BS and fit a bit of a tank, whereas the scorp with the same tank can only take out one. If you really go for it ecm wise you can take out 2, but then you'll loose any kind of tank you could fit and we're back to square one.

darrolav
Posted - 2009.04.10 14:12:00 - [434]
 

I just logged on Sisi and noticed falcon's dronebay was reduced from 25m3 to 10m3. Did I miss something? because in my opinion 10m3 is really a joke.

Cletus Graeme
North Eastern Swat
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2009.04.10 15:12:00 - [435]
 

Edited by: Cletus Graeme on 10/04/2009 18:10:03

Originally by: Omara Otawan
As it stands, the current strength of a single racial on TQ is enough to permanently jam any HAC without ECCM fitted (even a blackbird does that pretty well actually).


This is a misrepresentation of the facts.

HACs have the following sensor strengths:
Cerb (16), Eagle (18),
Ishtar (16), Deimos (15),
Zealot (13) Sac (15),
Vaga(14) , Muninn (13)


The maximum possible jam strength of a racial ECM fitted on a Falcon/Rook with 3 SDAs, T2 jam strength rigs and used by a pilot with maxed ECM skills is approx 15. So only a max skilled ECM pilot can permajam a HAC.

Also Recons, BC and BS all have higher sensor strengths than HACs so they're less likely to be permajammed.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why am I bothering with all this? Let me first say that I think the current proposed changes are well thought out and look promising. However, as many people have already mentioned they don't address the main issue with ECM.

I don't think that ECM jam strength is the problem. I also don't agree with CCP that ECM jam range is the problem.

The problem is that jammers can be stacked onto the same target without penalty.

Allow me to explain.

When using ECM you must make a choice.

You can either

(1) spread your jammers over several targets and try to jam them each for only a few cycles

or

(2) concentrate them on one or two targets in the hope of permajamming them

ECM is fine in long range fleet fights.

Tactic (1) is more commonly used in fleet fights because there are large numbers on both sides so targets die fast and ECM ships are quickly primaried so you rarely get a chance to permajam anyone.

Indeed, even if (2) succeeds it still doesn't imbalance the fight since you've used your ship to take out another ship (or at most two). While this is annoying for the pilots whom you've permajammed it can be considered a fair trade as they still have the option to warp out and if/when they return your attention will hopefully be elsewhere.

ECM is overpowered in close range small gang fights

In such fights pilots can still choose between either (1) or (2), but usually opt for (2).

This is because each ship in a small gang is vital to the success of the fight. so being able to disable one or two of them for the duration of the engagement gives one side a huge advantage. Additionally, these fights usually occur at close range so the jammed targets may also be tackled and thus unable to warp out.

The Falcon compounds the above imbalance because it can also (A) jam from far away (B) cloak.

(A) means that in a close range fight it remains safely at distance, effectively untouchable. (B) means that it can choose if/when to join the fight while remaining completely invulnerable until it does so.

ECM as a whole isn't broken and neither are most of the ECM ships. However, certain ships such as the Falcon become overpowered in certain pvp situations. Any changes should aim to re-balance them in these special circumstances without nerfing their abilities overall.

The crux of the problem is that it's currently worth using mulitiple jammers (see above) to attempt to permajam a target.

However, if jammers were stacking penalised then it would only be worth placing one or two (or at most 3) on a single target and permajamming would decrease significantly. The addition of a stacking penalty wouldn't affect tactic (1) above. It only affects (2) which is the cause of the current ECM problems.





Sky Marshal
IMpAct Corp
Not Found.
Posted - 2009.04.10 16:17:00 - [436]
 

Edited by: Sky Marshal on 10/04/2009 20:57:00

Originally by: isdisco3
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.


No, it don't make the Sensor Booster mandatory, like the ECCM who is not mandatory today. And I seriously doubt that you can't find someone in your gangs with at least one SB... It is a multiplayer game, remember, so just find someone who accept to kill Falcons at will.

And the script can make the ship more stronger than the ECCM. We all know than the 80% of ECCM modules is not enough, so the script must raise it by 120%, or 150%.

There is always a solution, so it don't fail to solve the problem of the permajam. This is a bad argument.

Quote:
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.


The idea of the falloff is not bad, but the Falcon would be more dead than with the Chronopolis choice if he don't have the strength bonus. Even all others recons would be better. Maybe than a Rapier don't have a Web strength bonus, but still a range one, and a 100% success chance, unlike the ECM boats.

You just want destroy totaly the ship.

Also, the optimal at 20 is a wrong choice, as disruptor has a range of 24 Km. The ship must be able to save himself, so he need a minimum of 30/40 Km of optimal to react in time. Remember, it is still a thin paper ship, not a Battlecruiser.

I agree than the Falcon need a total range of 160 Km maximum, unlike the actual 200+, and a counter-measure not really annoying to be accepted by everyone, but not a over-over-nerf.

Vigaz
Posted - 2009.04.10 16:54:00 - [437]
 

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.



Sisi Widow:
Caldari Battleship Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to cruise and siege missile launcher rate of fire and 10% bonus to cruise missile and torpedo velocity per level
Black Ops Skill Bonus: 25% bonus to ECM target jammer strength and multiplies the cloaked velocity by 125% per level

Is this temporary due to the Sisi new build or I miss something?

Cletus Graeme
North Eastern Swat
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2009.04.10 18:06:00 - [438]
 

Edited by: Cletus Graeme on 10/04/2009 18:07:30
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
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.


Awesome.

I will check the resulting numbers when this change hits the test server but hopefully it should mean the Scorp is still viable as a fleet ECM platform (150-200km range) even if it must now operate within falloff.

It will be difficult to test its effectiveness on Sisi without staging an actual fleet fight but people can warp in at range into the FFAs and see how it performs.

Thanks!

StarConquer212
Tri-gun
Auctorita Alliance
Posted - 2009.04.10 21:13:00 - [439]
 

Edited by: StarConquer212 on 10/04/2009 21:24:41
Edited by: StarConquer212 on 10/04/2009 21:22:52
The way I see it is like this, people want a role for the rook that the falcon can not do already.

Now its unfair to the older players that have have maxed skills for the falcon to nerf it. (recons V, EW skills etc) It already is paper thin and has no dps. Plus every one shoots at them any way, if you bring them in to 50km there going to always get wasted the moment they decloak. If anything make it so you can't fit senor boosters on it, so they can't sit 200 km of jamming.

More importantly what is needed is a defined role for the Rook, because as it stand no one fly's them because there is not advantage over the falcon. The best solution is to give the Rook a range bonus. As I stated above. only change the falcon so that it can't fit sensor boosters making its optimal range only 100km with militi spics. And Give the Rook a rang bonus and let it fit senor boosters so that it can sit 200+ km of jamming. The rook should be able to jam at the longest range compared to the other ew boats. that way you can ether pick cloak or range not both.

The Scorp is a had choice, I think pilots should have the option to ether go long range with it or close range ecm. Give the scorp enough resitances for a buffer tank, wile stil able to fit some ew mods for close range, or if the pilot wants they can fit for long range with a full set of ew mods in the mids. with these changes you would have a close range ew boat (Scorp) mid range (falcon) long Range (Scorp) Longest Range (rook). that way all the ew boats have a clear role were one ship can't fit all of them

Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
Posted - 2009.04.10 23:46:00 - [440]
 

Originally by: StarConquer212
It already is paper thin and has no dps. Plus every one shoots at them any way, if you bring them in to 50km there going to always get wasted the moment they decloak.
Ummm... Welcome to the life of a Arazu or Rapier pilot. Honestly, why should the Falcon get the uber range safety while none of the other recons do. Arazu and Rapier dps also sucks, and they have laughable tanks as well.

Susan Delgad0
Caldari
Origin.
Black Legion.
Posted - 2009.04.11 03:21:00 - [441]
 

Edited by: Susan Delgad0 on 11/04/2009 03:54:38
Quote:
interestingly there are no falcon pilots here who argue against a nerf. they all agree that the ship could do with some tweaking.


That's not true. It's just useless to post, no one wants to hear it. I've read 15 pages of people whining, that's 2 hours I'm not going to get back, and where the real crime here lies! That's what the eve forums are for I guess...

15 pages of crap, the only decent post is this:

Quote:
I don't think that ECM jam strength is the problem. I also don't agree with CCP that ECM jam range is the problem. The problem is that jammers can be stacked onto the same target without penalty.



Nice job Cletus, this is a solution that can begin to fix the problem, not create new ones. If only you were a dev. we might achieve the balance that so many claim to want but lack the intellect to see.

Best,

~s~

Xorth Adimus
Caldari
Blackwater USA Inc.
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2009.04.11 08:31:00 - [442]
 

Originally by: DelboyTrotter
Originally by: DiseL

I love this arguement. Why doesn't the secondary Ewar bonus ever get mentioned on the other 3 recons. TP on the Rapier, Damps on the Arazu, and TD's on the pilgrim. So all four races get two ewar related bonuses. The Falcon having only one Ewar type gets both ewar bonuses to it. So you want to take one of the bonuses away from the Falcon and now it has one Ewar type with one Ewar bonus while the other three races have 2 and 2. Brilliant form of balancing.


Because the secondary EWAR bonus are pathetic.

Tell you what, you can have the Rapiers TP bonus on the falcon, and give the rapiers webs a 100km range and give them a 90% chance of reducing any ships speed to 0km/s instantly for 20 seconds. Then we can fit rapiers with 4 webs and a sensor booster, and lock down 4 different ships form 100km away in complete safely.




Yes please! Shocked

It is a perfect example of how the falcon is a T2 specialised ship and the other cloaking recons are not. Fix them all; first bonus is range (I agree falloff is the way to go make people pay for doing it at extreame ranges and give them the choice and flexability), second is strength with the cloaking version of the recon having less range. Problem is nerfing is easier, so here we go!

Esmenet
Gallente
Posted - 2009.04.11 09:57:00 - [443]
 

Originally by: Vladimir Norkoff
Originally by: StarConquer212
It already is paper thin and has no dps. Plus every one shoots at them any way, if you bring them in to 50km there going to always get wasted the moment they decloak.
Ummm... Welcome to the life of a Arazu or Rapier pilot. Honestly, why should the Falcon get the uber range safety while none of the other recons do. Arazu and Rapier dps also sucks, and they have laughable tanks as well.



Brilliant thinking. If one ship is useless, lets make sure they are all useless.

Esmenet
Gallente
Posted - 2009.04.11 10:00:00 - [444]
 

Originally by: Cletus Graeme

I don't think that ECM jam strength is the problem. I also don't agree with CCP that ECM jam range is the problem.

The problem is that jammers can be stacked onto the same target without penalty.



/Thread

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2009.04.11 10:49:00 - [445]
 

Sisi Scorpion:

Caldari Battleship Skill Bonus:
15% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per level
10% bonus to ECM Target Jammer optimal and falloff range per level

A couple of pages ago I pointed out that, at fleet ranges, a Scorp was better off fitting RSD. Now its range has been nerfed. Lolz.

RIP Fleet ECM Scorp. CCP, if you don't want Scorps to be viable in sniper fleets, at least gives a close-range brawler.

darrolav
Posted - 2009.04.11 11:41:00 - [446]
 

With ECM changes a major issue about the rook will be powergrid, 600 base stat is just too low to fit 5 missile launchers T2(HAM/HML), MWD and some buffer tank without powergrid rigs and low mods.

Commandante Caldari
Dark-Rising
Posted - 2009.04.11 12:30:00 - [447]
 

Edited by: Commandante Caldari on 11/04/2009 12:53:09
Originally by: The Djego
Edited by: The Djego on 09/04/2009 13:46:35

Lets see this are Ishatar, Vaga, Raiper, Huggin, Ceptor, Falcon -> 6 Ships to counter one(and by counter i mean foring it to leave since you canīt kill a Falcon with them if the Falcon pilote is at the controlls).

Because it would change nothing at all?
Thats stupid. The one that is lazy is exactly you, you wonīt invest into expensive Fittings or Ships to have a chance to slug it out. You wonīt put your alt at risk while PVPing. You want the most broken ship in small gang still be the most broken in small gang.

The Falcon will still a very powerfull force multiplyer with a shorter range(more powerfull than the other Recons actualy what is still broken) while now having to face risks for beeing able to use a Cov Ops Cloak. If it is not about the Cov Ops Cloak you could use a Scorp for this(oh wait thats actualy a risk to move it around and to use it). Rolling Eyes




First at all: I use expensive, rigged setup.

Second: fighting dual is hard. It's beyond beeing lazy because I do not jam a hauler or smaller ship and kill it with my main's BS.
THAT'S lame and lazy. Who ever tried dual boxing [on one screen with two windows] for challanging PvP knows what I am talking about.
The rest should please first try and THEN discuss or give a right statement to this. It's not THE win button and a good way to fly "solo".

You can't focus on two ships at the same time. You deal with bad delays in combat by switching and leaving the main/alt alone.
That's the big risk in dual boxing because you risk two ships when the fight is going a hard one. Once the Falcon is out of the fight you have a low chance left to save your main's ship.

A good skilled and organized fleet/camp is a challange. Solo you have no chance.
I just lost my Falcon two days ago because the camp brought a sniper in and a pilot I expected in a Huginn came with a counter Falcon.
Result: while starting the fight and beeing engaged by 6 ships my main got jammed by the Falcon, the Falcon jammed my Falcon and the Sniper did a good job.
Finally my expensive setup helped me to jump out.

That happens if you can't take care on two windows action at the same time and a camp's counter ECM was well done and successfully.

And if I lose a Mega and Falcon we talk about 350m minimum loss.

Any questions?

Omara Otawan
Posted - 2009.04.11 16:38:00 - [448]
 

Edited by: Omara Otawan on 11/04/2009 16:53:48
Originally by: Cletus Graeme

Originally by: Omara Otawan
As it stands, the current strength of a single racial on TQ is enough to permanently jam any HAC without ECCM fitted (even a blackbird does that pretty well actually).


This is a misrepresentation of the facts.
(stuff)




Dont try and teach me about how ecm works, I've flown them excessively for 2.5 years now and do know pretty well how they work.

I've also flown HACs for quite some time, and while its true that you get maybe one cycle unjammed against a properly skilled ecm ship in a regular fight, its safe to say you are jammed 95% of the time.

If we're looking at a max skilled ecm pilot (most of them actually are if they are serious about it), the sensor str numbers you quoted for HACs clearly show that 5 out of 8 are indeed permanently jammed (100%), 2 get jammed 98% of the time, and one 95%...



And just to correct you here, both 'jamming strategies' you have listed are what only inexperienced pilots would use, the proper way to do it is what we call 'cycle jamming', i.e. use your jammers one by one and only use a 2nd one if you failed to get a cycle in.


Originally by: Esmenet
Originally by: Cletus Graeme

I don't think that ECM jam strength is the problem. I also don't agree with CCP that ECM jam range is the problem.

The problem is that jammers can be stacked onto the same target without penalty.



/Thread


Not understanding how ECM works ftl. They do not stack because their effect is not reliable, i.e. chance based.

RSDs for example stack because their effect works always, not just if you're lucky.

Besides, if you know how the math behind the success calculation for multiple jammers works, you'd realize that ECM modules do indeed stack.

Hint: putting 2 ECM modules on a single target doesnt double your chance to jam.

StarConquer212
Tri-gun
Auctorita Alliance
Posted - 2009.04.11 19:02:00 - [449]
 

Originally by: Esmenet
Originally by: Vladimir Norkoff
Originally by: StarConquer212
It already is paper thin and has no dps. Plus every one shoots at them any way, if you bring them in to 50km there going to always get wasted the moment they decloak.
Ummm... Welcome to the life of a Arazu or Rapier pilot. Honestly, why should the Falcon get the uber range safety while none of the other recons do. Arazu and Rapier dps also sucks, and they have laughable tanks as well.



Brilliant thinking. If one ship is useless, lets make sure they are all useless.


Thank you, it seems a lot of people are complaining about the other recons and not having anything better to add other then that. The point of this thread is to point out what these ships need changed to have there rolls defined, not to complain about how uber these ships are compared to the others, and how they should be just as bad as the others. If the other recons need fixing find that thread and comment on it there not here.

Cletus Graeme
North Eastern Swat
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2009.04.11 19:06:00 - [450]
 

Edited by: Cletus Graeme on 11/04/2009 19:19:49

Originally by: Omara Otawan
Dont try and teach me about how ecm works, I've flown them excessively for 2.5 years now and do know pretty well how they work.


Then don't make sweeping generalisations without properly qualifying what you're saying.

Originally by: Omara Otawan
I've also flown HACs for quite some time, and while its true that you get maybe one cycle unjammed against a properly skilled ecm ship in a regular fight, its safe to say you are jammed 95% of the time.


This is correct, but only if you have a max skilled ECM pilot in a Recon fitted specifically to maximise jam strength, which is a pretty big assumption to make.

You chose HACs because they suited your argument while ignoring other ship clases such as HICs, Recons, CS and BS. If HACs are perma -jammed too easily then, instead of nerfing ECM, perhaps they need a boost?

Originally by: Omara Otawan
If we're looking at a max skilled ecm pilot (most of them actually are if they are serious about it)


No, they aren't. Many pilots can't afford to spend the time to max their ECM skills as it restrcits them to flying nothing but ECM ships for several months. I am one such pilot. Infact, the long train time and specialised nature of these ships is what has led players to train Falcon alts.

Originally by: Omara Otawan
And just to correct you here, both 'jamming strategies' you have listed are what only inexperienced pilots would use, the proper way to do it is what we call 'cycle jamming', i.e. use your jammers one by one and only use a 2nd one if you failed to get a cycle in.


Neither of the strategies I listed exclude the use of cycle jamming which is a technique that every competent ECM pilot uses. I was talking about a choice which must be made i.e which targets the ECM pilot attempts to jam. Cycle jamming describes how the ECM pilot attempts to jam a target. They are two separate things. However, it is true that (2) benefits from cycle jamming much more than (1).

Racial jammers are generally favoured over multispecs but as there are 4 types an ECM pilot can only fit 1-2 of each unless he has intel on the enemy gang composition.

In a fleet fight or a situation where there is no intel available it makes sense to bring a mix of all types which lends itself to a strategy where jammers are used to jam multiple targets.

In a small gang fight where the enemy ship composition is known the ECM pilot can fit to disable specific ships. Even without any intel he will typically still concentrate on attempting to only jam the most dangerous targets.

Cycle jamming is used in all the above situations.

Originally by: Omara Otawan
They do not stack because their effect is not reliable, i.e. chance based.


Originally by: Omara Otawan
Besides, if you know how the math behind the success calculation for multiple jammers works, you'd realize that ECM modules do indeed stack


First you claim that they don't stack and then you claim they do. Make your mind up!

Jammers do not stack. They work using independent probability. This means that the chance for each jammer to succeed is independent of how many are used. However, using multiple jammers on a single target does increase your overall chance of getting a jam.

What would adding a stacking penalty mean?

If the ECM pilot was cycle jamming a single target and the first jammer failed then he'd continue to use jammers on the same target until one of them succeeded.

Normally each jammer would have an equal chance to succeed. However, with the addition of a stacking penalty the second and any successive jammers used will have their chance to jam further reduced.

In other words, the chance to jam is no longer independent as it now also depends on how many (failed) jammers have already been used.


Pages: first : previous : ... 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 ... : 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