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

Author Topic

Omara Otawan
Posted - 2009.04.11 21:13:00 - [451]
 

Edited by: Omara Otawan on 11/04/2009 21:14:46
Originally by: Cletus Graeme


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!



You just misread what I posted. Or its my use of the word 'stacking' that leads people to think about 'stacking penalty' in the eve context.

What I was trying to say is 2 ECM mods dont double your success probability, that could be seen as stacking.

Spartan dax
Posted - 2009.04.11 22:24:00 - [452]
 

Edited by: Spartan dax on 11/04/2009 22:27:44
I still can't understand why CCP thinks using falloff is a good way to reduce long range jamming effectiveness. Having SDA's increase optimal and reduce strength would yield a similar but far more predictable (IE better for the user) result.

Numbers pulled out of My proverbial sphincter. Max skills fitted Scorpion; Strength and optimal bonused.


Before SDA's
ECM racial module 100k optimal Strength 10.

1 SDA + 20% optimal - 10% Strength

After 3 SDA's
ECM Racial module 147k optimal 7.7 strength

Easy to balance, easy to predict results. Makes ECM ships fit for the occasion even further than just choosing racials. No ******ed (mentally challenged) falloff with an already chance based Ewar system. Pure win.

Obviously optimal rigs would get a good nerfbatting.

5pinDizzy
Amarr
Pillow Fighters Inc
Posted - 2009.04.12 14:05:00 - [453]
 

Edited by: 5pinDizzy on 12/04/2009 14:09:52

I prefer the old suggestions better then the new ones.

Sounds like you're starting to back track from ecm whoring alliance whines.

I can't see how the updated suggestions really change anything much.

All it means is bring more of them for each ship type really and we're back to square 1.

I was liking the idea of making the scorpion shorter range as I could then actually put something in the highslots that was actually useful on a support ship like remote reps and remote energy transfers and nos/neuts.

Now though I'm just a bit disapointed.

I was hoping the Scorpion would turn out to be more like a battleship version of the rook, but it seems it's going to be staying as more of a battleship version of a non covops cloak falcon.

Which is just pretty sad for battleship.

Malin folkungs
Posted - 2009.04.12 15:04:00 - [454]
 

Originally by: Cletus Graeme
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.








This is super dooper!!! Love the idea, best solution purposed imo.

Tyronous
Caldari
Pimebeka Mining Corp
Posted - 2009.04.12 16:34:00 - [455]
 

So guys, i think that the modifications you are doing in the moment are good, but i have one idea.
If the Scorpion should the jammers "sniper" ship, it should be able to operate within the normal sniper range. A normal sniper has an optimum range of ~170km + ~30km falloff. The Scorpion jamms on ~110km + ~70km falloff and the statement was the scorpion should be the sniper in fleets. So my idea would be to increase the range bonus far enough so that she could stay with the shooting snipers in the fleet. That would not create any imbalance, because any sniper could shoot on them but would, in my opinion make sense because she should stay with all te other normal snipers in the fleet. Possible you give her 15% optimum range bonus instead of 10% range + falloff, then the scorp should have an optimum range which is high enough to operate at the snipers range.
And another point is that no scorpion which is in range for the close range fighting ships could reach the sniper and it is highly difficult to reach the snipers without enough range. That would decrease her strength as part of the fleet because the "sniper" jammer could not reach the snipers i.e. could not fullfill their role.
So please think about it.

Perry
Amarr
The X-Trading Company
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2009.04.12 19:24:00 - [456]
 

The Fleet Scorpion is dead.

Congratulation on killing the most usefull and most fragile Battleship on the field by "enforcing its role". The role you, ccp, want it to fulfill is to be a long range jammer. Im perfectly fine with that. But lets look at its ECM Optimal with 2x Low Slot ECM mod and 1x ECM range Rig. The Racial Tech II Jammer has now 92km Optimal and around 80km Falloff. Why is this terrible?

Fleets fight at around 150km. Tempest, Apoc, Megathron and Rokh reach and surpass this range even only using their Optimal. They dont even use Falloff at this range. (Okay Tempest a bit but single digit). The new Scorp will be in deeeeeeep Falloff. The allready unreliable ECM will become so weak its not efficent anymore to use a Scorpion over anything else. Even the specialised Caldari Battleship Pilots will have to switch over to the expensive Rokhs to be of any use soon.

Even right now on Tq its difficult to jam a battleship. I use my Scorp to jam Sniper HACs most of the time because its just too inefficent to use ECM on hostile Battleships. Soon the chance to Jam even a Zealot with meager 13 Sensor Strength will be less then 30% in Falloff. Thats a joke.

I see three Options:

1) Scorpion stays long range ECM Plattfrom and gets a proper ECM Range Bonus of AT LEAST 20%. No Less.

2) Scorpion is compensated for ECM nerf by getting more Turrets, more Grid and a Hybrid Optimal Range Bonus. If ECM is mostly useless, let it be a secondary Sniper after the Rokh. Less Hitpoints but ECM as Tank.

3) Nerf it like stated. This will make Scorpion useless for fleets and anything else.


Omara Otawan
Posted - 2009.04.12 20:23:00 - [457]
 

The main issue imo is its impossible to balance the ecm ships for fleet warfare as well as skirmish warfare.

So the question is, is it acceptable that ecm is powerful in skirmishes, or is it acceptable it is worthless in fleet fights?

Difficult question balance-wise, but maybe the answer lies in the first 'M'of MMO...

Spartan dax
Posted - 2009.04.12 22:41:00 - [458]
 

Originally by: Perry

Soon the chance to Jam even a Zealot with meager 13 Sensor Strength will be less then 30% in Falloff. Thats a joke.




That's not how fallof works. It would be better if the ECM modules strength dropped as it went further into falloff but it doesn't work like that. If you have 6 ECM's only 3 will typically work while in one falloff and they will do so at full strength.

So while in falloff you will be dually Chancebased. This is fubared for a number of reasons, racial jammers being one. A much better alternative would be to just lower the strength the further out you get, as per my suggestion a few posts up, to make sure you always get to do that diceroll vs sensorstrength.

And there's nothing to stop us from having a Strength SDA's as well that Lowers optimal so that ECM ships by default don't have high sensorstrength within Disruptor range.

This whole falloff business is just a sham and poor gamedesign.

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2009.04.13 10:13:00 - [459]
 

Originally by: Spartan dax
That's not how fallof works. It would be better if the ECM modules strength dropped as it went further into falloff but it doesn't work like that. If you have 6 ECM's only 3 will typically work while in one falloff and they will do so at full strength.


Heh. And what, exactly would the difference be? (Hint: none.)

Sangre Elle
Amarr
Quest Shipping
Posted - 2009.04.13 12:12:00 - [460]
 

Originally by: Antioch Red
Give all the ew comparable ranges and then you begin to achieve balance.


This.

Regards,

Falcon Pilot.

Spartan dax
Posted - 2009.04.13 12:16:00 - [461]
 

Originally by: Gypsio III
Originally by: Spartan dax
That's not how fallof works. It would be better if the ECM modules strength dropped as it went further into falloff but it doesn't work like that. If you have 6 ECM's only 3 will typically work while in one falloff and they will do so at full strength.


Heh. And what, exactly would the difference be? (Hint: none.)


Gypsio you surprise me. OFC there would be a difference with a strength reduction falloff instead of module reduction. Different jamming priorities for starters, more support less BS. The support would have better chances of not getting jammed etc etc.

Your supposition holds true if we assume Scorps will continue with their current behavior of jamming BS's though. But that's an assumption I'm not willing to make or concede to.

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2009.04.13 12:29:00 - [462]
 

Originally by: Spartan dax
Gypsio you surprise me. OFC there would be a difference with a strength reduction falloff instead of module reduction. Different jamming priorities for starters, more support less BS. The support would have better chances of not getting jammed etc etc.

Your supposition holds true if we assume Scorps will continue with their current behavior of jamming BS's though. But that's an assumption I'm not willing to make or concede to.


Hmmm. Maybe I misunderstood you? I was saying that there's no difference in the to-jam chance between ECM that, in falloff, has a “to-hit” chance (as currently is the case) and ECM that always hits in falloff, but with appropriately reduced jam strength.

E.g. Attempting to jam a SS 20 target with a Strength 8 jammer at one-falloff range. Currently, we get a 50% “to-hit” roll, followed by the 40% “to-jam” roll, giving a 20% jam chance. If we altered mechanics such that ECM always “hit” in falloff, but with a reduced strength, then we’d get a 100% “to-hit” chance, but jammer strength would have been halved to 4, giving a 20% “to-jam” chance – the same as under current mechanics.

But I may have misread your post and now am blathering on about something completely irrelevant. Laughing

Spartan dax
Posted - 2009.04.13 12:46:00 - [463]
 

No you understood that part perfectly. I'm just saying that it would create a different behaviour in jamming priorities to keep the successrate high on the ECM modules. IE instead of choosing a SS 20 ship you'd go after a SS 13 ship. Would make life easier for friendly support I'd wager when they drop into the hostile blob.


Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2009.04.13 15:55:00 - [464]
 

Well, maybe I'm being thick, but I'm still not seeing the difference between a 50% to-hit module chance, and a 100% to-hit chance with halved jam strength.

Quesa
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2009.04.13 19:02:00 - [465]
 

Edited by: Quesa on 13/04/2009 19:02:36
Try keeping the jamming str static throughout the falloff and reduce the time that you are jammed by ever increasing amounts as the ECM pilot increases his distance past optimal. All the while the cycle time remains the same.

This will force ECM pilots to stay within the danger zone and try to get a full jam, or fly at invuln ranges but less effective at removing a targets ability to fight back.

Along with these changes you need to:

Completely revamp or buff ECCM modules. Give them a static sensor strength boost increase of say, 30.

Move the Scorpion to a Fleet Sniper ship with optimal bonuses so that at BS lvl4 and ECM skills at lvl4 you can achieve a 160-180 optimal. Give 4 turret slots and a bonus to range comparable to the Rokh.

Off the wall suggestion:
Give Falcon Multispec bonuses only, thus forcing them into the danger zone and removing them as a Fleet ECM ship. Couple this with a reduction of jam time when in falloff while maintaining the cycle time, it could mean more interesting fights and require Falcons to buffer/tank up.

Another off the wall suggestion:
Keep the ECM cycle time the same but reduce the time a target can be jammed. 20 second cycle time -> 10-15 second jam time.

5pinDizzy
Amarr
Pillow Fighters Inc
Posted - 2009.04.13 20:02:00 - [466]
 

After reading this whole thread I've been put in the mood to just delete all the ewar bonused caldari ships from the game.

If there was any real balance in the game then the called primaries wouldnt be the same old shiptypes in every single fight.






Robert Caldera
Posted - 2009.04.13 21:31:00 - [467]
 

Originally by: 5pinDizzy
After reading this whole thread I've been put in the mood to just delete all the ewar bonused caldari ships from the game.

If there was any real balance in the game then the called primaries wouldnt be the same old shiptypes in every single fight.


I translate: make the ships all the same finally, the way it does not matter anymore what you declare primary to get rid of all that annoying stuff called "strategy".

Fish Mittens
Minmatar
0utbreak
Posted - 2009.04.14 02:04:00 - [468]
 

Originally by: Quesa
Edited by: Quesa on 13/04/2009 19:02:36
Try keeping the jamming str static throughout the falloff and reduce the time that you are jammed by ever increasing amounts as the ECM pilot increases his distance past optimal. All the while the cycle time remains the same.

This will force ECM pilots to stay within the danger zone and try to get a full jam, or fly at invuln ranges but less effective at removing a targets ability to fight back.

Along with these changes you need to:

Completely revamp or buff ECCM modules. Give them a static sensor strength boost increase of say, 30.

Move the Scorpion to a Fleet Sniper ship with optimal bonuses so that at BS lvl4 and ECM skills at lvl4 you can achieve a 160-180 optimal. Give 4 turret slots and a bonus to range comparable to the Rokh.

Off the wall suggestion:
Give Falcon Multispec bonuses only, thus forcing them into the danger zone and removing them as a Fleet ECM ship. Couple this with a reduction of jam time when in falloff while maintaining the cycle time, it could mean more interesting fights and require Falcons to buffer/tank up.

Another off the wall suggestion:
Keep the ECM cycle time the same but reduce the time a target can be jammed. 20 second cycle time -> 10-15 second jam time.


These are all fantastic suggestions, especially for ECCM, I love the idea of a flat bonus ECCM mod, but it should not replace the existing % based mods, it should be in addition to them.

Also we should have rigs for ECCM.


nomore lies
Posted - 2009.04.14 02:10:00 - [469]
 

Edited by: nomore lies on 14/04/2009 02:39:31
When I have read first time this post I was **** off like hell , many my eve friends told me that I am exaggerating but now even they realize that this game is dieing . There is no problem in ECM , the problem is that electronic warfare is weaker than should be . After this nerf from what I can see in 0.0 will came another big problem , there will be nothing to counter snipers so soon I smell in sniper nerfing ugh ( there is no anymore speed dps , and now long range ecm will be past tense ). For smaller fight also dont c future in ecm since ecm ship will be need in drone range and even if they get some cycle drones will still hit ecm ship . Few of you told ah nice ccp is making now that ecm ships must start using tanks , dont c a point on having a tank on ship that is not made for making dmg . We all know that caldari can not fight solo , but they are gods in supporting , now they will start suck even in that . We are not killing here only tactics , ships & ecm but we are killing a race Exclamation There will always be someone complaining about something , and never we be possible that all are happy , but why not ask to all players ( making one special petition ; 1 vote per account ) to see what they are thinkg about all that ?

Edghariuss I
Posted - 2009.04.14 02:16:00 - [470]
 

There are few nice proposal , making others force recons stronger , boosting ECCM , improving more el. warfare ect . And all sounds better to me than nerfing ECM . My 2 c .

Omara Otawan
Posted - 2009.04.14 03:09:00 - [471]
 

Edited by: Omara Otawan on 14/04/2009 03:09:33
Originally by: Fish Mittens

Also we should have rigs for ECCM.



Thats a nice idea in itself, though it wouldnt help.

The only thing that would happen is people going all "waaah I shouldnt need to drop a trimark rig just to counter ewar".

Sad but true.

Quesa
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2009.04.14 03:10:00 - [472]
 

Edited by: Quesa on 14/04/2009 03:18:59
Originally by: Fish Mittens
Originally by: Quesa
Edited by: Quesa on 13/04/2009 19:02:36
Try keeping the jamming str static throughout the falloff and reduce the time that you are jammed by ever increasing amounts as the ECM pilot increases his distance past optimal. All the while the cycle time remains the same.

This will force ECM pilots to stay within the danger zone and try to get a full jam, or fly at invuln ranges but less effective at removing a targets ability to fight back.

Along with these changes you need to:

Completely revamp or buff ECCM modules. Give them a static sensor strength boost increase of say, 30.

Move the Scorpion to a Fleet Sniper ship with optimal bonuses so that at BS lvl4 and ECM skills at lvl4 you can achieve a 160-180 optimal. Give 4 turret slots and a bonus to range comparable to the Rokh.

Off the wall suggestion:
Give Falcon Multispec bonuses only, thus forcing them into the danger zone and removing them as a Fleet ECM ship. Couple this with a reduction of jam time when in falloff while maintaining the cycle time, it could mean more interesting fights and require Falcons to buffer/tank up.

Another off the wall suggestion:
Keep the ECM cycle time the same but reduce the time a target can be jammed. 20 second cycle time -> 10-15 second jam time.


These are all fantastic suggestions, especially for ECCM, I love the idea of a flat bonus ECCM mod, but it should not replace the existing % based mods, it should be in addition to them.

Also we should have rigs for ECCM.




I just didn't want any ship to become that "impossible" ship to jam. Carriers run around with a (~70?) sensor str, which with 1 ECCM would put it at 100 sensor str. The number would obviously have to be played with, and I'd even be for increasing that number (considering it's a modules SPECIFICALLY designed to deal with ECM effects). Right now it's a really bad module on anything lower than a Battleship.

Instead of adding a % modifier to the static value, maybe they should keep a static value and add a % reduction to the duration of the jam.

Edit: The two effects should be doubled by overheating as well.

Nicole Sheridan
Posted - 2009.04.14 03:17:00 - [473]
 

I dont understand why ECM is at 40km, every thing else in EVE is less than 25km (Noz, Scrambler, Web etc..)
-Make ECM a short range jammer like the other modules.
-At least the other modules you have a counter balance, but ECM doesnt. Once you are jammed, you are done.
-The core basic of eve are ship, guns/missiles, armor, shield and energy. When did we become WoW's Spellcaster and WoW's AOE on ships. ECM destroyed the core foundation of EVE.

Dev team, stick w/ the basic, ships vs ships... it works since 2003. We don't want to play WoW's spellcasting.

Quesa
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2009.04.14 03:24:00 - [474]
 

Originally by: Nicole Sheridan
I dont understand why ECM is at 40km, every thing else in EVE is less than 25km (Noz, Scrambler, Web etc..)
-Make ECM a short range jammer like the other modules.
-At least the other modules you have a counter balance, but ECM doesnt. Once you are jammed, you are done.
-The core basic of eve are ship, guns/missiles, armor, shield and energy. When did we become WoW's Spellcaster and WoW's AOE on ships. ECM destroyed the core foundation of EVE.

Dev team, stick w/ the basic, ships vs ships... it works since 2003. We don't want to play WoW's spellcasting.



Your speaking of the secondary ewar of the other recons and the lowest range-highest utility ewar for the Arazu/Lach (scram). Comparing ECM to those doesn't make sense and is viewed as a poor attempt to slant an argument.

All other recons have some other/secondary ewar capability, Caldari recons do not. So the strength of that single ewar has to reflect that.

Sol Halcon
Minmatar
Brotherhood of the Eastern Light
Posted - 2009.04.14 06:13:00 - [475]
 

Edited by: Sol Halcon on 14/04/2009 06:37:33
Edited by: Sol Halcon on 14/04/2009 06:13:48
Originally by: nomore lies
Edited by: nomore lies on 14/04/2009 02:39:31
When I have read first time this post I was **** off like hell , many my eve friends told me that I am exaggerating but now even they realize that this game is dieing . There is no problem in ECM , the problem is that electronic warfare is weaker than should be . After this nerf from what I can see in 0.0 will came another big problem , there will be nothing to counter snipers so soon I smell in sniper nerfing ugh ( there is no anymore speed dps , and now long range ecm will be past tense ). For smaller fight also dont c future in ecm since ecm ship will be need in drone range and even if they get some cycle drones will still hit ecm ship . Few of you told ah nice ccp is making now that ecm ships must start using tanks , dont c a point on having a tank on ship that is not made for making dmg . We all know that caldari can not fight solo , but they are gods in supporting , now they will start suck even in that . We are not killing here only tactics , ships & ecm but we are killing a race Exclamation There will always be someone complaining about something , and never we be possible that all are happy , but why not ask to all players ( making one special petition ; 1 vote per account ) to see what they are thinkg about all that ?

QFE

Does CCP even remember the stealth bomber boost? Remember when Caldari was the only one with 3 launchers? The solution was to boost the other bombers to 3 launchers, and problem solved. No one had any more complaints, at least not viable ones anyway. So give the other EWAR ships a bit of a boost. Give the Arazu the ability to counter the Falcon. It should be able to but it's range is so bad it can't counter another Arazu. Same for the Pilgrim and Curse.

Then there is this business of putting on a tank and rifles on a Falcon (a 100 Mil ISK ship) and take it into the blob. Well, after testing this, we find that you last a whole 5 seconds instead of the 2 you last without it, and all the slots for ECM are now used in tank so there is no ECM on it anyway. You're better off in a cheap Moa. At least you will last a bit longer and maybe get in on a kill mail. Also when you do die, you won't be out a 100 mil. You can dress up a Honda to look like a Harley all you want, in the end it's still a Honda.

Here's the real kicker. In their mad rush to nerf the Falcon and Rook, they made the Blackbird the most powerful ECM ship in the game. A ship anyone can get after less than a week in the game. That's a sure sign of just wanton nerfing, to please a few "we want a win button" types, without a single look at the rest of the game as a whole.

Welcome to "Tank and DPS Online"

ollobrains
5th Front enterprises
Chain of Chaos
Posted - 2009.04.14 06:41:00 - [476]
 

with the changes how will this affect combat against sleepers

Lornnar
Posted - 2009.04.14 07:29:00 - [477]
 

Edited by: Lornnar on 14/04/2009 07:34:12
give it up^^
the reason is not to *fix* anything but to destroy the ECM to please the most crying *tank and dps* dumb faction (that will find asap a other thing to cry).

There were much solutions of the Problems here but you see nothing of it implemented at Sisi....everyone can live with 100-120km optimal and max 150km range (with falloff), it will hit falcon alts but allow the Falcon to stay usefull (anyway in range of sniper´s and other) but no.
Arazu with adjusted dampener range would be a dream anti falcon ship but *tank and dps* dont fly arazu too.

At other side those idiots (really you cannot say it in other way) rebuild the falcon to the strongest gank ship for pirates..as its now look for a ship not bigger as bc (at best with no/few drohnes) put electron rails, 2 light t2 drohnes, cover ops cloak and some jammer + scrambler/mwd...jump and fly until 2 km out of you traget, entcloak,jamm and kill^^ from fleet ecm recon to solo gank boot..this is the brainpower of the devloper^^

anyway, age of sniper ships is coming (as the last counter to them except other sniper ships will now be destroyed).

and the best one thing is...the solo and small gangs will be hurt by the *new* falcon much more as today...you can still jamm a solo player to death from 70km or 2-3 as you oversee very good what happens, drones etc and have now more ecm strengh^^

But in Fleetfights with hundred´s or more ships and drohnes/fighters you will be instant dead (alone to lag and drohne/fighter aggro).
So ecm will go stronger in solo/small gang (that has whines about Falcon) and useless in big fights (where no one has complain about it)....brainpower of devloper^^

sorry for all english mistakes

Suitonia
Gallente
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2009.04.14 08:28:00 - [478]
 

These sound like very reasonable changes. I'd like to thank you for constantly updating the orginal post and adapting your suggested ideas with the feedback you have recieved.

Theron Gyrow
Gradient
Electus Matari
Posted - 2009.04.14 11:07:00 - [479]
 

Originally by: Gypsio III
Well, maybe I'm being thick, but I'm still not seeing the difference between a 50% to-hit module chance, and a 100% to-hit chance with halved jam strength.


Well, if you have 12 jam strength and are far enough in falloff that your to-hit chance is 75%, you have 25% chance to fail jamming a <=9 sensor strength ship instead of always permajamming it. But yeah, other than permajams turning to non-permajams, there is no difference.

Sky Marshal
IMpAct Corp
Not Found.
Posted - 2009.04.14 11:43:00 - [480]
 

Edited by: Sky Marshal on 14/04/2009 11:48:11

Originally by: nomore lies
Edited by: nomore lies on 14/04/2009 02:39:31After this nerf from what I can see in 0.0 will came another big problem , there will be nothing to counter snipers so soon I smell in sniper nerfing ugh


This would be Logistics before anything else IMO. A good amount of Logistics in a fleet, who will remote themselves and their teammates, are really hard to destroy but can be stopped with ECM. After the nerf, it won't anymore, you will have to go to close range to try to damp them, so maybe 1 minute of survival. The winner of a fight will be the one who will have 8+ Logistics.

You are right, CCP don't realize than nerf something always generates an unintended consequence, an other problem... They created the Speed Nerf, who required to over-nerf missiles, and as speed was low, it was difficult to counter Falcons (I planned to pilot one, as missiles are now sucky), so nerf Falcon, who will... Nerf are necessary, sometimes, but Boost would generate LESS problems.



Anyway, there is no more Chronopolis in this thread.


Pages: first : previous : ... 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 : 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