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 : 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (20)

Author Topic

Young Team
Posted - 2009.03.31 12:06:00 - [31]
 

These changes bring Falcons within the range of long range snipers, thus removing the only valid whine - that they can operate at 200km+ with impunity.

Now all you gotta do is shoot them.
Hell, even locking them should remove them from the battle, at least temporarily.

Thankyouthankyou for keeping the Scorp in its current role.
I'm guessing the higher number of slots referred to means that you expect Scorps to use a couple of SDA's in the low slots?
Unfortunately this will kill off armor tank Scorps (most used in sniper fleets).
Scorps in fleets will have to use most of their midslots for shield tank, leaving no room for jammers.

Scorps are fine it seems to me.

Carniflex
StarHunt
Fallout Project
Posted - 2009.03.31 12:07:00 - [32]
 

The general idea of this second iteration seems considerably better as general idea than previous iteration. However - Widow and perhaps Kitsune (altho that one is relatively okish in general) might benefit from some additional tweaking.

Kitsune 'problem' is inadequate lokcing range to fully utilize range as defence. As it's lacking range then perhaps small tweak to make it slighly faster with afterburners but not overly fast with mwd.

Widow .. well .. and black ops in general. They have many issues starting with jump range / fuel and ending with their tier 1 counterparts being able to outperform them in actual combat. I think black ops would deserve separate visit where all of them are looked at once instead of just visiting them one by one when their number comes up in change list. In my personal opinion Widow is a bit misplaced as hybrid e-war platform. It would do better as combat platform as cloaking ECM ship role is already filled by Falcon for cheaper. Ie - make it more like Rattlesnake than like Scorpion.

Alex Harumichi
Gallente
Gradient
Electus Matari
Posted - 2009.03.31 12:09:00 - [33]
 

Originally by: Young Team
These changes bring Falcons within the range of long range snipers, thus removing the only valid whine - that they can operate at 200km+ with impunity.



No, being able to operate from 150km with impunity (much due to covops cloak) is a very valid complaint, and one which this change hardly solves. In lowsec warfare, Falcons sit usually in the 150km ballpark, and there is very little you can do against them except bring more Falcons.

Guess well see that sort of "game balance" continue. Sigh. I had hopes there, for a while.

TZeer
BURN EDEN
Posted - 2009.03.31 12:14:00 - [34]
 

Originally by: Alex Harumichi
Originally by: Young Team
These changes bring Falcons within the range of long range snipers, thus removing the only valid whine - that they can operate at 200km+ with impunity.



No, being able to operate from 150km with impunity (much due to covops cloak) is a very valid complaint, and one which this change hardly solves. In lowsec warfare, Falcons sit usually in the 150km ballpark, and there is very little you can do against them except bring more Falcons.

Guess well see that sort of "game balance" continue. Sigh. I had hopes there, for a while.



Stop whining, we dont even know what the maximum theoretical optimum you can get out of the falcon is yet. Wait until we get some hard numbers on the table before we rage more, shall we?

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2009.03.31 12:16:00 - [35]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Things


Some generic comments:

SDAs must be balanced such that not fitting them is a viable option. If their bonus to ECM strength and range is too good, then no-one will fit anything else, as is currently the case. I preferred the range-only bonus tbh, unless the dual bonus is weak - but even 10% to strength/range may still make it stupid to fit anything other than SDAs.

Scorpion should indeed be kept in the role of cheap disposable fleet BS - meaning effectiveness at range and rails.

Balancing the Falcon and Rook will be tricky - the covops cloak is immensely powerful. It's not enough to just give the Rook some missile DPS, the Rook will probably have to offer some significant ECM strength advantage (via raw ECM strength or ECM range) over a Falcon at a range where its missiles are still useful.

Alex Harumichi
Gallente
Gradient
Electus Matari
Posted - 2009.03.31 12:20:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: TZeer
Originally by: Alex Harumichi
Originally by: Young Team
These changes bring Falcons within the range of long range snipers, thus removing the only valid whine - that they can operate at 200km+ with impunity.



No, being able to operate from 150km with impunity (much due to covops cloak) is a very valid complaint, and one which this change hardly solves. In lowsec warfare, Falcons sit usually in the 150km ballpark, and there is very little you can do against them except bring more Falcons.

Guess well see that sort of "game balance" continue. Sigh. I had hopes there, for a while.



Stop whining, we dont even know what the maximum theoretical optimum you can get out of the falcon is yet. Wait until we get some hard numbers on the table before we rage more, shall we?


Fair enough Smile.

If the new Falcon ECM optimals are below 100km (with lows full of SDAs factored in), then it might work out. Also needs for the Rook to have some clear advantage. As the thread title says, we need a role for each of the ECM ships, a (real!) reason to fly each of them.

Alex Harumichi
Gallente
Gradient
Electus Matari
Posted - 2009.03.31 12:22:00 - [37]
 

Edited by: Alex Harumichi on 31/03/2009 12:23:24
Originally by: Gypsio III

SDAs must be balanced such that not fitting them is a viable option.
...
Balancing the Falcon and Rook will be tricky - the covops cloak is immensely powerful.


Both of these points are extremely important to the issue. I get the feeling that the devs don't quite understand just how critical the covops cloak is to the fact that the Falcon is so overpowered. The Rook needs to be much better in order for it to have a role.


Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2009.03.31 12:24:00 - [38]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Following on from the previous round of feedback which was very good. I wanted to update you all on the proposed changes to ECM and ECM specialised ships.

The main changes following the first round of feedback are as follows in summary:

1. The base ECM jammer optimal and falloff ranges have been changed so there is a shorter optimal range but longer falloff range which is affected by numerous bonuses.

2. Signal Distortion Amplifiers (low slot ECM enhancers) have been changed to provide a bonus to both ECM strength and range and their bonus changed respectively.

Currently, the SDA II will give a 10% ECM optimal range and 10% ECM strength

3. Caldari Recon ships (Falcon & Rook) will have their ECM range reduced so they will not be effective at such huge distances any more but will still be much longer range than any of the other recons are capable off. In lieu, they will gain a ECM strength bonus increase and a small damage increase through addition of drone bay and the some additional bonus changes such as heavy missile velocity to increase the range at which they can damage targets as well as being able to jam them.

Without any other rigs or modules fitted with max skills, the BZ-5 (caldari jammer) will have an optimal range of 48km and falloff of 53km with a strength of 11.25 to gravimetric. The same bonuses are applied to the Rook.

4. The scorpion will be kept in the role of long range ECM platform useful in the longer range fleet fights. This made more sense as the ship is large and not very agile and is better able with its higher number of slots to reach the required distances. The max range will be the same as before but it will operate more in ECM falloff range now.

The scorpion with max skills and a BZ-5 (caldari racial jammer) will have a optimal range of 72km and a Falloff range of 80km with a ECM strength of 7.875 without any other modules or rigs fitted.

Feedback is welcome on these latest changes and as ever, this is not set in stone and things may change following further playtesting and feedback.





Good to see the Scorpion stay as it was mostly though it'll be more in falloff.

The SDAs will as I said in the last thread be mandatory no matter what they do since they are the only ECM boosting mod. (It's like most ships that shoot projectiles have gyros, lasers have heat sinks, etc. Whatever gives an edge becomes mandatory)

What about the blackbird?

Falcon and Rook probably will be destroyed more often which is the goal I'm sure. Although I can fly them I never have in game choosing to use the cheaper Blackbirds and Scorpions. The addition of the drones I don't know if would be helpful to them. Considering their somewhat frail tanks I'm not sure they'd last long enough to get much use out of the drones in fleet warfare, though in small gangs it would be more useful.

Gneeznow
Minmatar
Ship spinners inc
Posted - 2009.03.31 12:27:00 - [39]
 

these changes still make the falcon very overpowered when it comes to small gang pvp, ECM needs to operate mostly in falloff for the falcon, the rook on the otherhand should get the optimal bonus because at least you can see it coming, the thing that ruins small gang pvp is the falcons ability to pop up out of nowhere because it can warp cloaked.

Robert Caldera
Posted - 2009.03.31 12:27:00 - [40]
 

Edited by: Robert Caldera on 31/03/2009 12:33:39
dont bring the falcons in the fire range of other ships.
Falcon is always primary, its nonsense to operate at close range while sitting in a paper plane, which everybody shoots at. Nobody would use such a T2 expensive ship anymore due to the high probability for losing it right after decloaking.

For the rook: reduce the ECM bonus and give it a stronger tank so its a viable option for short range battle in cost of the ECM efficiency. This would make it different from the falcon, like any other ship class differing in its operating range.

And all the discussion about SDAs, its only logical to fit devices according to the primary task of a ship, which IS ECM for the falcon and Scorpion.

Mohenna
Caldari
Knights of the Dark
Posted - 2009.03.31 12:30:00 - [41]
 

Edited by: Mohenna on 31/03/2009 12:37:34
Edited by: Mohenna on 31/03/2009 12:34:16
Originally by: Vigaz
Rook doesn't need missile velocity bonus ! please consider to add 5 % resistances per level.

/signed

edit: I approve the falloff driven balancing.

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2009.03.31 12:32:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: Alex Harumichi
Edited by: Alex Harumichi on 31/03/2009 12:23:24
Originally by: Gypsio III

SDAs must be balanced such that not fitting them is a viable option.
...
Balancing the Falcon and Rook will be tricky - the covops cloak is immensely powerful.


Both of these points are extremely important to the issue. I get the feeling that the devs don't quite understand just how critical the covops cloak is to the fact that the Falcon is so overpowered. The Rook needs to be much better in order for it to have a role.


Of the top of my head, the advantages of the Rook could be:

Much more DPS than Falcon at a range where it's useful (so needs missile velocity bonus).
More defence against tacklers (so 25/50 m3 of drones with 25 m3 bandwidth (e.g. Warriors and light ECM drones), whereas Falcon has no drone bay).
Faster/more agile/smaller sig.
Greater ECM strength/optimal/falloff bonus.

Yeah, there's a lot there, but I think that's the level of stuff necessary to counter the covops cloak. It really is that powerful. But the devil is, as always, in the detail.

Myra2007
Millstone Industries
Posted - 2009.03.31 12:37:00 - [43]
 

Your first iteration of changes was much better. Now you gradually cave in and it gets worse with every move. Please go back from where you came and stay on course. These changes will not benefit small gang warfare!

Gaia Vita
Posted - 2009.03.31 12:47:00 - [44]
 

Edited by: Gaia Vita on 31/03/2009 12:49:40
Originally by: Myra2007
Your first iteration of changes was much better. Now you gradually cave in and it gets worse with every move. Please go back from where you came and stay on course. These changes will not benefit small gang warfare!


Agreed. I've seen no serious poster advocating maintaing the current ECM mechanics. WTF are you thinking CCP, was this all an effort to waste everybodies time? Hold on to the original inspiration for the changes.

With defined roles for the Rook and Falcon, and the SDA as an optional rather than compulsory module: the result will be a more varied and interesting battlefield, even if in some way it turns out to be unbalanced. Its what both ECM and ECCM orientated pilots have wanted for longer than i think you realise.

CCP Chronotis

Posted - 2009.03.31 12:50:00 - [45]
 

I updated the original post with some ECM stat examples which is hopefully enough though shout if you need any more. We will be applying changes to sisi very frequently now based on feedback and sisi so will update when these changes or any others hit sisi.

Re: the scorpion change:

This was a tough call, the close range role would have been great for gang work but combined with the other changes meant there was not a long range variant and the battleship class made more sense to have in this role for fleet warfare despite the cool short range role it could of had.

The widow will remain focused on close range attacks which means it is not inheriting the role of the scorpion and we think that is fine (though yes the black ops as a whole need a little love and they are getting some)

Re: SDAs

Players who want to 'ECM Tank' their ships can do so and gain a range and strength increase however coupled with the ship bonus changes, there should be less need to focus on ECM tanking the ships alone and it is quite easy to come up with setups.

Changes may still happen on these, but we want to see how all the current changes as a whole to ECM jammer range and strength on each of the ships affects the desire to fully 'ECM tank' at the expense of a HP tank.


TZeer
BURN EDEN
Posted - 2009.03.31 12:50:00 - [46]
 

Originally by: Alex Harumichi
Originally by: TZeer
Originally by: Alex Harumichi
Originally by: Young Team
These changes bring Falcons within the range of long range snipers, thus removing the only valid whine - that they can operate at 200km+ with impunity.



No, being able to operate from 150km with impunity (much due to covops cloak) is a very valid complaint, and one which this change hardly solves. In lowsec warfare, Falcons sit usually in the 150km ballpark, and there is very little you can do against them except bring more Falcons.

Guess well see that sort of "game balance" continue. Sigh. I had hopes there, for a while.



Stop whining, we dont even know what the maximum theoretical optimum you can get out of the falcon is yet. Wait until we get some hard numbers on the table before we rage more, shall we?


Fair enough Smile.

If the new Falcon ECM optimals are below 100km (with lows full of SDAs factored in), then it might work out. Also needs for the Rook to have some clear advantage. As the thread title says, we need a role for each of the ECM ships, a (real!) reason to fly each of them.



Quote:
Without any other rigs or modules fitted with max skills, the BZ-5 (caldari jammer) will have an optimal range of 48km and falloff of 53km with a strength of 11.25 to gravimetric. The same bonuses are applied to the Rook.


Quote:
Currently, the SDA II will give a 10% ECM optimal range and 10% ECM strength


Are we happy now?

Alex Harumichi
Gallente
Gradient
Electus Matari
Posted - 2009.03.31 12:50:00 - [47]
 

Originally by: Robert Caldera
Edited by: Robert Caldera on 31/03/2009 12:33:39
dont bring the falcons in the fire range of other ships.
Falcon is always primary, its nonsense to operate at close range while sitting in a paper plane, which everybody shoots at.



That's what every single other cloaking recon has to do. Ffs.

Do you really think an Arazu or a Rapier tanks better than a Falcon?

Lindsay Logan
Posted - 2009.03.31 12:55:00 - [48]
 

Edited by: Lindsay Logan on 31/03/2009 12:56:38
Edited by: Lindsay Logan on 31/03/2009 12:55:34
The thing I am concerned about with Caldari ECM is if you make the strenght too low, they will have too littel chance to jam anyhting decently.

Since ECM is the only ECM that do not have a reliable constant effect it can very easily become either overpowerd or underpowerd.

Scorp as fleet ECM is a good thing, tho I am concerned it it has a tad low ECM strenght.

More or less 1/2 of the reason to fly Caldari is the ECM. Really. The other half is superb capitals. (and the snipr Rokh, the rest is mediopcre at best, with a few exception of course like the Onyx, Harpy adn Drake).

Alex Harumichi
Gallente
Gradient
Electus Matari
Posted - 2009.03.31 12:56:00 - [49]
 

Originally by: TZeer


Quote:
Without any other rigs or modules fitted with max skills, the BZ-5 (caldari jammer) will have an optimal range of 48km and falloff of 53km with a strength of 11.25 to gravimetric. The same bonuses are applied to the Rook.


Quote:
Currently, the SDA II will give a 10% ECM optimal range and 10% ECM strength


Are we happy now?



Those numbers actually do sound quite reasonable. So a Falcon would need to either get in pretty close, or operate in falloff. Ok, that could work.

I'm still concerned with the "why would anyone want to fly a Rook over a Falcon?" question, but maybe numbers will clear that up, too. I'd actually be fine with Rook having more ECM range -- IMHO the problem is the old Falcon combo of covops cloak + range. Either one of those, by itself, is potentially ok.

Sidus Isaacs
Gallente
Posted - 2009.03.31 13:00:00 - [50]
 

Edited by: Sidus Isaacs on 31/03/2009 13:00:34
Originally by: Alex Harumichi
Originally by: TZeer


Quote:
Without any other rigs or modules fitted with max skills, the BZ-5 (caldari jammer) will have an optimal range of 48km and falloff of 53km with a strength of 11.25 to gravimetric. The same bonuses are applied to the Rook.


Quote:
Currently, the SDA II will give a 10% ECM optimal range and 10% ECM strength


Are we happy now?



Those numbers actually do sound quite reasonable. So a Falcon would need to either get in pretty close, or operate in falloff. Ok, that could work.

I'm still concerned with the "why would anyone want to fly a Rook over a Falcon?" question, but maybe numbers will clear that up, too. I'd actually be fine with Rook having more ECM range -- IMHO the problem is the old Falcon combo of covops cloak + range. Either one of those, by itself, is potentially ok.



As for Rook over Falcon. Currently if it do not get a decent grib boost there is no reason.

The Rook could be a pretty nice close range ECM ship if it had grid to fit a MWD+Buffer+HAMs (or a full rack of HML).

Currently it lacks in that department, and I see no use to use it ever :(. With the new changes it might be better, but still some stats are missing so I can not comment on it 100% yet.

Make Rook something like the Curse, a close range ship more suited for samll engagements and low sec romaing.

But herein lies a problem as well, with SDA now giving bonuses to stenght again, 3 of them is mandatroy (really, it is!), so no other low slots for damage or tanking. :(

Mila Prestoc
Posted - 2009.03.31 13:00:00 - [51]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
I updated the original post with some ECM stat examples which is hopefully enough though shout if you need any more. We will be applying changes to sisi very frequently now based on feedback and sisi so will update when these changes or any others hit sisi.

Re: the scorpion change:

This was a tough call, the close range role would have been great for gang work but combined with the other changes meant there was not a long range variant and the battleship class made more sense to have in this role for fleet warfare despite the cool short range role it could of had.

The widow will remain focused on close range attacks which means it is not inheriting the role of the scorpion and we think that is fine (though yes the black ops as a whole need a little love and they are getting some)

Re: SDAs

Players who want to 'ECM Tank' their ships can do so and gain a range and strength increase however coupled with the ship bonus changes, there should be less need to focus on ECM tanking the ships alone and it is quite easy to come up with setups.

Changes may still happen on these, but we want to see how all the current changes as a whole to ECM jammer range and strength on each of the ships affects the desire to fully 'ECM tank' at the expense of a HP tank.




Make the Rook the long range ECM ship, hence vastly different and well compensated for lack of cloak compared to the Falcon.

Shoe horning a big, slow BS with its long lock times (unless filling ECM slot with sensor boosters to get range + lock speed) is not the answer.


SDAs at 10% and 10% will still be a must fit mod, where with only the range bonus you don't have to fit them, like say when in a RR gang with a Scorp so jamming up close.

Alex Harumichi
Gallente
Gradient
Electus Matari
Posted - 2009.03.31 13:04:00 - [52]
 

Originally by: Mila Prestoc

Make the Rook the long range ECM ship, hence vastly different and well compensated for lack of cloak compared to the Falcon.



This would be my choice, too. Make Rook the ranged ECM platform (also capable of fleet ranges).

Revisit the idea of making the Scorp a closer-range brawler. It has the capability of fitting enough tank to actually survive for a while, especially in lowsec small-gang warfare, with RR... and what the Caldari actually lack at the moment is a ship that can combine ECM with dps. The Scorp is the ideal candidate for that.

Also, making Rook the longrange platform gives it a clear role over the Falcon.

Gloria Lewis
Caldari
GoonFleet
Posted - 2009.03.31 13:05:00 - [53]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis

This was a tough call, the close range role would have been great for gang work but combined with the other changes meant there was not a long range variant and the battleship class made more sense to have in this role for fleet warfare despite the cool short range role it could of had.


Exclamation There doesn't have to be a long range variant Exclamation

Dee Carson
Caldari
Child Head Injury and Laceration Doctors
Posted - 2009.03.31 13:11:00 - [54]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis

Without any other rigs or modules fitted with max skills, the BZ-5 (caldari jammer) will have an optimal range of 48km and falloff of 53km with a strength of 11.25 to gravimetric. The same bonuses are applied to the Rook.


Chronotis:

Can you please provide the detail base ship + bonus info and base module stats used to derive these items?

Thanks,
DC



Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2009.03.31 13:11:00 - [55]
 

Thanks for the update.

But I'm still concerned that, even at 10% range/strength, SDAs are essential mods. And, as far as I can tell, the Falcon has the same strength and range bonuses as the Rook, making the Rook pointless. The Rook must have advantages in ECM range/strength to counter the covops cloak.

Alex Harumichi
Gallente
Gradient
Electus Matari
Posted - 2009.03.31 13:15:00 - [56]
 

Originally by: Gypsio III
Thanks for the update.

But I'm still concerned that, even at 10% range/strength, SDAs are essential mods. And, as far as I can tell, the Falcon has the same strength and range bonuses as the Rook, making the Rook pointless. The Rook must have advantages in ECM range/strength to counter the covops cloak.


Yeah. To reiterate what I said above: make the Rook the ranged platform. That gives it a clear role that is distinct from the Falcon (choose either cloak or range, not both). Give it plenty of range, but maybe a bit less strength. Make it usable in fleet combat, if fitted all-out for range.

As long as the Rook is "sort of like the Falcon, except without cloak", nobody will fly it. The cloaking ability is Just. That. Good. combined with ECM.

Team Dresch
North Eastern Swat
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2009.03.31 13:17:00 - [57]
 

So what does that make the optimal and falloff on a Falcon as they are currently fit - SDA II x 3, Sensor Booster w/Targeting range and 2x ECM range rigs?

Abrazzar
Posted - 2009.03.31 13:18:00 - [58]
 

Any thought on removing the ECM Burst activation limit for the Scorpion? This would give the Scorpion a close range role, especially against spider tanks.

Vigaz
Posted - 2009.03.31 13:19:00 - [59]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis

Without any other rigs or modules fitted with max skills, the BZ-5 (caldari jammer) will have an optimal range of 48km and falloff of 53km with a strength of 11.25 to gravimetric. The same bonuses are applied to the Rook.



48km optimal range + 53km falloff and you think that Rook needs missile velocity bonus to reach 120/130km? Why? if u want to stay into the limit of falloff (so why flying a Rook and not a Falcon?) you need just to add 1 rig to reach 100Km with Rook.

Can someone explain me the reason for a drone bay (short range) and a missile velocity bonus (long range) at the same time? To protect the Rook against inty is a no-sense. (a ceptor has 8-14 points... just use a racial/multi jammer, problem solved @ 90% at the first cycle).

Young Team
Posted - 2009.03.31 13:26:00 - [60]
 

Would it be fully insane to make the give the Rook enough tank and DPS to be a (gasp) Caldari solo-boat? (Probe, warp in, point, jam, DPS)
Maybe give it rails instead of missiles even?



Pages: first : previous : 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : 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