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

Cassius Longinus
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
Posted - 2009.03.31 16:54:00 - [91]
 

Edited by: Cassius Longinus on 31/03/2009 16:56:11
Originally by: Alex Harumichi

Face it: you can't keep both the covert ops cloak and the ranged full-power ECM, the combo is just too powerful (as we've seen, over the last year). Choose one.



Keep range and cloak, kill strength.

But I don't seem to think the cloak is worth as much as you do in terms of tactical positioning. Bubbles dictate range as often as snipes do, so in terms of combat, on average, the way cloaks help is through the lock->jam->cloak->wait->deckloak->lock->jam... cycle, which is a pretty gay mechanic. Find a way to nerf that and no one should complain (they would anyway, but v0v).

Maybe a ranged rook would be OK with bonused rails that let it reach out and touch at it's jamming optimal (say 100-150). But ranged missile boats were of dubious utility before the QR nerf.

Linavin
Mercurialis Inc.
Wildly Inappropriate.
Posted - 2009.03.31 16:58:00 - [92]
 

Quote:
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)


But the close range brawling dynamic with supplementary EW presents an opportunity to really make the ship shine at doing something different, and not limit it to huge sniper battles, which is exactly what your doing now. Sure the Scorpion will be the only real ship whom can compete at sniper ranges, but you destroy virtually every other application of the ship. A ship that has been far too underused even though it can achieve the same ranges your proposing already as it currently stands, yet you still don't see them flying around in fleets. Nerfing the caldari recons won't bring scorpions back into sniper fleets (a particular form of gameplay which only a fraction of the player base even wants to engage in).

Contrary to popular belief Battleships aren't solely flown in fleets, they can most certainly be used in small scale pvp, often to come out victorious against a numerically superior opponent. So why not play to the style of combat where most ships in EvE are used in. And besides, the caldari already have a fleet sniper in the Rokh, a long range missile boat in the raven, does the scorpion really need range? It already has missiles, ECM, and the potential for a massive shield tank (c'mon 8 mids), thats 3 of the Caldari ship tenants; so do you really need to pigeon-hole it into small scale uselessness by giving it a range bonus instead of a damage one? Every other race has a close range brawling BS if not two, but the caldari really don't have a single competent one. Move back to the brawler bonuses, it gives caldari a solid pvp brawler with the potential for unique and out of the box fits given all the slots and potential abilities of the ship.

It would be foolish to squander this chance radically improve a ship that has been underused since Exodus for the sake of keeping a 'long range jammer' (which it already is), or infringing on the Widow's turf (another underused ship within a class of underused ships). Hell if anything the Widow should be the long range jammer, letting recons tackle a larger force while the Widow uncloaks at range, dealing death and ecm from afar as to swing the fight for the recons.

Alex Harumichi
Gallente
Gradient
Electus Matari
Posted - 2009.03.31 17:00:00 - [93]
 

Edited by: Alex Harumichi on 31/03/2009 17:01:12
Originally by: Cassius Longinus
Edited by: Cassius Longinus on 31/03/2009 16:56:11
Originally by: Alex Harumichi

Face it: you can't keep both the covert ops cloak and the ranged full-power ECM, the combo is just too powerful (as we've seen, over the last year). Choose one.



Keep range and cloak, kill strength.

But I don't seem to think the cloak is worth as much as you do in terms of tactical positioning. Bubbles dictate range as often as snipes do, so in terms of combat, on average, the way cloaks help is through the lock->jam->cloak->wait->deckloak->lock->jam... cycle, which is a pretty gay mechanic. Find a way to nerf that and no one should complain (they would anyway, but v0v).

Maybe a ranged rook would be OK with bonused rails that let it reach out and touch at it's jamming optimal (say 100-150). But ranged missile boats were of dubious utility before the QR nerf.


Maybe that'd due to different environments. Cloak may not be quite as critical in 0.0, but in lowsec warfare it's crucial. The ability to keep eyes on enemy and provide surprise ewar when needed is what wins battles, all the time.

If that cloak *really* isn't so important to you, I'd imagine that you'd be happy with a long-range Rook as a Falcon replacement, no?

Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
Posted - 2009.03.31 17:20:00 - [94]
 

Edited by: Gypsio III on 31/03/2009 17:21:08
Originally by: CCP Chronotis

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.


Be VERY careful that you don't make it more effective to fit damps than ECM on a Fleet Scorpion.

Consider a max skilled Scorpion with ewar optimal rigs and 3x SDA. It will have ECM ~100 km optimal, 80 km falloff and ~10 strength. This means that it has a 25% chance to jam an opposing Apocalypse at 180 km.

Now consider a damper-Scorp, with the same ewar optimal rigs and RSD IIs. It has RSD optimal/falloff of 71 km and 91 km, giving a 50% hit chance with the RSDs on a target at 162 km, where the -42.5% lock range will have exactly the same effect as a successful jam cycle.

At 162 km, the RSD Scorp will have a ~50% "jam" chance, whereas the ECM Scorp will have a ~33% chance.
At 200 km, the RSD Scorp will have a ~25% "jam" chance, whereas the ECM Scorp will have a ~17% chance.

This could be a real problem. Independent checking of the numbers would be appreciated!

Relyen
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2009.03.31 17:34:00 - [95]
 

Originally by: quik90
Edited by: quik90 on 31/03/2009 15:31:51
Edited by: quik90 on 31/03/2009 15:19:26

Originally by: Relyen
Bringing both recons in so close, is pretty much suicide. They are already the primary of any gang that is in range. If they pop right in the middle of combat, they will instantly die (most of the time).


Not necessarily, in fact it should create an interesting dynamic which will reduce both the effectiveness of ECM boats and their value as a primary target.

Being forced close will generate a requirement for non-suicidal pilots to fit some sort of tank (buffer or speed) like the other recons and maybe some tackling gear. This in turn will leave room for fewer jammers (2-4 i imagine), reducng their jamming effectiveness. Will ECM boats which only have a high chance of jamming one ship, small chance of two, really justify being primaried over for example a damping/webbing/neutralizing recon or a high dps HAC which are guaranteed incapacitate or shortly destroy a ship? Its all starting to balance nicely imo.


No, Falcons/Rooks will still be quite effective with just 2-4 jammers. Also, that means less jammers to defend themselves. And they will still be very high priority targets. And no real buffer tank (which is all they can fit) will protect them :P

Glen Morange
Posted - 2009.03.31 18:11:00 - [96]
 

Edited by: Glen Morange on 31/03/2009 18:11:25
Originally by: Gloria Lewis
Originally by: quik90

Not necessarily, in fact it should create an interesting dynamic which will reduce both the effectiveness of ECM boats and their value as a primary target.

Being forced close will generate a requirement for non-suicidal pilots to fit some sort of tank (buffer or speed) like the other recons and maybe some tackling gear. This in turn will leave room for fewer jammers (2-4 i imagine), reducng their jamming effectiveness. Will ECM boats which only have a high chance of jamming one ship, small chance of two, really justify being primaried over for example a damping/webbing/neutralizing recon or a high dps HAC which are guaranteed incapacitate or shortly destroy a ship? Its all starting to balance nicely imo.



This post has excellent points that bear repeating. When your falcon gets nerfed, it's no longer overpowered nor a juicy primary.


No, it doesn't. It was made by someone who CANNOT fly a caldari ship, as he would know that there is _no_ way to put a significant tank on a caldari ECM boat. What should a falcon fit? Where? We don't have the lows and fitting for an armor tank, the mids are already overcrowded.

We have T1 resists, 3 low slots, and 7 mid slots. Base shield is 1603 HP, armor is 956. What would your "tank" fit be? 2 ecm modules? Better to have not bothered bringing out the ship. Armor? Structure? Where, oh oracle of knowledge, shall we fit this tank? Where are we going to get the cap for a speed tank when you have ECM mods running?

And of course we would still be primary. Why would you allow for one ship with the slightest possibility of massive fleet disruption (the binary on/off with 20 second knockout of ECM is obscene) survive (or conversely why would anyone bother bringing the ship if it is nerfed until it doesn't do anything and costs as much to fit as a BS)? Can we jam a tackler off? We might be able to, but they are almost guaranteed a 20 second delay while we target and wait for the correct racial jammer to cool down.

Again, the only useful case for the falcon (and rook) with these changes would be restricted to piracy, as it won't be tenable in larger fleet combat due to the enforced range problems.

russkinnor
Failed Diplomacy
Posted - 2009.03.31 18:28:00 - [97]
 

Originally by: quik90


Err, don't get me wrong i love Falcons, but what do you think? Should it be a bit more "special", just for you? Why is that the falcon pilots are so happy to maintain the staus quo, even it condemns the Rook into obsolecence, or the dubiously cool "close range" role that they don't want their falcon's to fill? Detach you opinions from your ship preference before you post. Can you not see that you have an agenda?




Im not looking from a point of an Agenda, im looking from a point of experience. Just what I have seen with my time inside one. Being informed/knowledgeable on the ship in question should in fact matter. Also, a ship should not be changed simply because no one flies the other "obsolete" Recon. In that situation you change the ship that isnt useful.

I agree with you that they need to do something for the Rook. Making it a viable "close range ship" as it was intended to be that. What that is even I still dont know, since as you said its "obsolete". Most of the Caldari EW pilots I know wont use it and I did try flying one for a while. Problem was I never could find a fitting I liked. Of course that is the same thing most other people who have flown it have said as well.


Also I notice alot of Venom in your posting, perhaps its time for a nap?
Thanks again,
Russ

Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2009.03.31 18:57:00 - [98]
 

Quote:
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
First, I'd like to note that I have personal experience of flying Falcons on my alt, with maxed skills, with numerous kills involving it. I have always argued that Falcon performance needs to be decreased in some way, it's just a quesiton of how we go about doing it.

With that in mind, I'd like to reconsider the proposed SDA change. While I agree that this change does reduce Falcon effectiveness in an acceptable way, my problem with that idea is that it is a boring solution. It still gives people no reason to pause and think about their low slot fitting on dedicated ECM ship, other than to fill all the lows with SDA like a no brainer it is now.

A more interesting SDA change would be to split the module into 2 groups:
1) +20% ECM strength, -20% optimal range
2) +20% optimal range, no ECM strength bonus

In this case, we still have overall decrease of Falcon performance, but people would have to choose what they sacrifice - either keep strong ECM like it is now, but with much reduced range (still outside scramble range of 30 km and with big falloff)
OR they choose long range, but without the 1.4-1.5 ECM strength multiplier that they would normally get by filling lows with SDA mods.

It's certainly more interesting solution than simply having +10 ECM strength and range SDA. Exact numbers could be tweaked for balance. Options are always good

quik90
Posted - 2009.03.31 19:05:00 - [99]
 

Originally by: Glen Morange

Originally by: Gloria Lewis

This post has excellent points that bear repeating. When your falcon gets nerfed, it's no longer overpowered nor a juicy primary.


No, it doesn't. It was made by someone who CANNOT fly a caldari ship, as he would know that there is _no_ way to put a significant tank on a caldari ECM boat. What should a falcon fit? Where? We don't have the lows and fitting for an armor tank, the mids are already overcrowded.

We have T1 resists, 3 low slots, and 7 mid slots. Base shield is 1603 HP, armor is 956. What would your "tank" fit be? 2 ecm modules? Better to have not bothered bringing out the ship. Armor? Structure? Where, oh oracle of knowledge, shall we fit this tank? Where are we going to get the cap for a speed tank when you have ECM mods running?


Oh contrare obsessive Falcon lover, I fly Falcons too. Your comment however smaks of someone who has never flown any recon other than the Falcon. WTF do you think ALL other race recon pilots have been fitting to survive up till now? Minimal speed/buffer tank and your wits! Something pilots like you are clearly missing. With the agility/speed modifications which were originally proposed for the Falcon/Rook(heard no more about this) you could nano your three lows and use a LSE in your mids. Not happy? Well thats what most Rapier pilots have to do to fit dual/tripple webs. Lacking cap? Well wtf, you might have to fit a cap mod.

If you insist on filling your mids and lows with offensive mods dont be surprised when you and your ship variant gets a reputation as a dangerous gank ship which should be primaried, resulting in an instapop, cause your MWD ran dry and you didnt bother buffering.

What makes flying force recons other than the Falcon interesting is that they are ships that can produce a strong positive effect with the drawback that you are likely be primaried. This always makes the decision to decloak and engage a tense one. I guess Falcon pilots sitting 150km from the hurt just aren't used to making this risk vs gain decision, just like they dont know how to sacrifice gank for tank.

Originally by: Glen Morange

Can we jam a tackler off? We might be able to, but they are almost guaranteed a 20 second delay while we target and wait for the correct racial jammer to cool down.


Consider fitting a sensor booster and multispecs then and live with the concequences. More decisions for you to make, and fewer spaces for your EW mods, congratualions on becoming a real recon pilot.

Originally by: Glen Morange

Again, the only useful case for the falcon (and rook) with these changes would be restricted to piracy, as it won't be tenable in larger fleet combat due to the enforced range problems.


You have no imagination. Anyway where is the problem, other than your personal problem of having to decide on another ship that is more suitable to a specific situation? Your desire to only fly the Falcon shouldn't be a reason for you to argue against the changes, you must be impartial enough to admit this.

Miyamoto Isoruku
Caldari
Original Sin.
Posted - 2009.03.31 19:26:00 - [100]
 

Frankly I loved the idea of having the Rook be a mid-range brawler, like the Curse, and hope CCP does not abandon it.

Lindsay Logan
Posted - 2009.03.31 19:39:00 - [101]
 

Some more thoughts:

The thing however in bringing Rook and Falcon close in is that they will die quickly. They more or less need the SDA to be effective ECM users, due to the chance based nature of the EWAR type, and that meas less damage and tank mods. Low chances for jamming means higher chance of getting popped (since ECM ships are a high priority), and with the current grid size they will not have enough buffer to really save them, nor the slots since you want at least 4 jammers, neither weapons to fend of attackers effectively.

ECM is an importent tool to the Caldari, and should not be 100% comparable to the other races EWAR. It is after all one of the strong sides of what they do in combat. Not to mention they are the only race to have an EWAR dedicated BS. ECM is almost to the Caldari as drones are to the Gallente, keep that in mind as well.

And to those that say that the Cladari recons should be forced to duke it out close range on par with other races need to look at what the said recons offers now. Currently they got a lot of bonuses to ECM, not anyhting else, and they can not operate solo like some of the ohter recons.

I would like them to tho, I would love a Falcon that can fit weapons and effective ECM mods and still lock down ships. A pirate boat in other words. The drone bay goes a long way to help on this, and is indeed a very welcome addition. But to be able to function solo they need more grid, essentially. Rook in particular, now that it seems to become more viable in the role; Strong ECM and some damage + a mediocre tank and MWD+Tackle will make it a pretty nice small gang boat.

Take away too much of the ECMs value, and you remove some insentive to actually train and use Caldari, cause lets face it. Caldari is not popular for PvP right now, due to the medicore medium sized ships. Particulary the medium sized sniper boats (Moa and Eagle is not that good). The Caracal lack grid to be useful at anything else then long range support dps, and here missile travelling comes into the picture (it can be a decent anti support ship tho).

All in all I know Caldari is range focused, but considering that EVE combat usually takes place within 20 to 30 km (gates and stations) or 100km + (sniping, POS stuff, cap fights) the medium sized sniper boats that got optimals of 40 to 60 km serve no real purpouse as they are no real use to gangs so either close or very long range is the most viable imo (Currently the Falcon is great for long range, maby a bit too good, but the Rook lacks effectivness now). Missiles is supposed to make up for some of the range issues that caldari got, with no optimal and no tracking and such, but due the the kinetic only bonus for most of the ships, they loose out once again as the kinetic is the resistance that is generally high unless facing minmatar T2, thus loading other damage types is often better. So in essence the caldari got a bonus that is not really useful on may of the missile ship, and loose dps over it. That is why the Falcon is so popular as well, its a very effective long range medium sized ship, while not doing damage it can lock down other ship taking it out of the figh for long periods (and thats all it do).

But I digress. I essens one need to see ECM in the bigger context. ECM is not only a recon only thing for the Caldari, but a large racial trait, and should be treaed as such. Missile do need some rework as well to make Caldri BS sized missiles more useful (cruise missiles in particular), and a lot of Caldari ships needs grid bonuses, but that is for discussing in other threads.

Now, I have not seen the new stats in detail, and can not comment further on it, just general thoughts about it.

Robert Caldera
Posted - 2009.03.31 19:48:00 - [102]
 

give the rook some better tank and dps in cost of ECM range/efficiency so there is a ship differently from the falcon.

Arkady Sadik
Minmatar
Electus Matari
Posted - 2009.03.31 20:05:00 - [103]
 

I like the current direction. The numbers noted in the first post are really good - 60km optimal, 80km useful jam range in falloff sounds about right for a Falcon. I have a few suggestions, though.

First, drop SDAs completely. Balancing ships without these is much easier, as you can give each of them a dedicated role without requiring the low-slot modules. There are rigs for those who want the bonuses, just like for other ewar.

Also, change ECCM to give a fixed bonus, not a percentage. Currently, ECCM is barely useful on BS and some T2 cruisers (which usually do not have the mid slots to spare). Giving them a fixed +30 sensor strength would turn the module into a seriously useful module for all ship sizes.

Finally, consider dropping the racial ECM. Boost multispectral ECM so they work at the desired ranges, but with less strength than the current racials. Again, much easier to balance without having to account for all the possibilities with racials.

Cletus Graeme
North Eastern Swat
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2009.03.31 20:08:00 - [104]
 

Originally by: Vigaz
Rook:
Rook doesn't need missile velocity bonus ! please consider to add 5 % resistances per level.

EDIT: a max skilled Rook pilot can use heavy from 88km in TQ atm (without rig/imp), adding a velocity bonus this value will increase up to 120km - 130km -> much more than required; also considering the new drone bay (max range 60/70km?) it sounds wrong to me.



I think the missile velocity bonus has less to do with giving the Rook longer range (which it doesn't need) and more to do with making the missiles reach their target faster (i.e. decreasing the delay in dealing damage). However, I'm not sure exactly how much this will really help if the Rook is already at close/medium range (i.e. 50km or less).

Giving it a shield resist bonus instead would definitely be useful.

Sidus Isaacs
Gallente
Posted - 2009.03.31 20:18:00 - [105]
 

Originally by: Cletus Graeme
Originally by: Vigaz
Rook:
Rook doesn't need missile velocity bonus ! please consider to add 5 % resistances per level.

EDIT: a max skilled Rook pilot can use heavy from 88km in TQ atm (without rig/imp), adding a velocity bonus this value will increase up to 120km - 130km -> much more than required; also considering the new drone bay (max range 60/70km?) it sounds wrong to me.



I think the missile velocity bonus has less to do with giving the Rook longer range (which it doesn't need) and more to do with making the missiles reach their target faster (i.e. decreasing the delay in dealing damage). However, I'm not sure exactly how much this will really help if the Rook is already at close/medium range (i.e. 50km or less).

Giving it a shield resist bonus instead would definitely be useful.


A velocity bonus do help HAM's tho.

Sidus Isaacs
Gallente
Posted - 2009.03.31 20:23:00 - [106]
 

Edited by: Sidus Isaacs on 31/03/2009 20:24:40
Dual posted.

Cletus Graeme
North Eastern Swat
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2009.03.31 20:27:00 - [107]
 

Edited by: Cletus Graeme on 31/03/2009 20:33:42
Originally by: Ephemeron
A more interesting SDA change would be to split the module into 2 groups:
1) +20% ECM strength, -20% optimal range
2) +20% optimal range, no ECM strength bonus

[..]

It's certainly more interesting solution than simply having +10 ECM strength and range SDA. Exact numbers could be tweaked for balance. Options are always good


I agree that the SDA changes need more consideration if CCP wants more variation in setups. Giving them a range bonus as well as a strength bonus makes it even better to fit them in your lowslots over anything else.

The actual bonuses offered by SDA should complement the changes to the ECM ship bonuses.

A possible solution would be to swap the current strength bonus to a range bonus thus forcing pilots to choose to use their lowslots for either better ECM range or better armor tank.

Alternatively, introducing two variations of SDA as you suggested would also increase the choices available and result in more variation in setups.

I'd prefer to split the proposed bonuses out into two separate modules but with no penalties, so we must choose between either range or strength. This would complement the current ECM rigs.

i.e. Something like this:

Signal Distortion Amplifier: +10% ECM jam strength
Signal Distortion Projector: +10% ECM optimal range

Cletus Graeme
North Eastern Swat
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2009.03.31 20:32:00 - [108]
 

Edited by: Cletus Graeme on 31/03/2009 20:31:49
Originally by: Sidus Isaacs
A velocity bonus do help HAM's tho.


Very good point! If HAMs also become viable to use then that's a major DPS boost right there. However, I don't think the Rook currently has enough grid to fit them and a tank so that would need to be looked at too.

Gromik
The Yaar Offices of Pointe Webb and Podemall
Posted - 2009.03.31 20:33:00 - [109]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis

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

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.




Just some quick math, 2 SDA would give a Falcon a jam strength of 11.25*1.1*1.087 (assuming stacking) = 13.45
Range would be 48km*1.1*1.087 = 57.4km optimal.
Sounds good to me range-wise.

I really, really would have loved to play with the original Scorpion changes. A high-strength, close range brawler would have been fun, in my opinion. Long range fleet jammer isn't that exciting to me. :(


Threv Echandari
Caldari
Moira.
Rote Kapelle
Posted - 2009.03.31 20:33:00 - [110]
 

OK Wahts the word on the Blackbird, Griffin and Kitsune? Do they stay the same?

Cletus Graeme
North Eastern Swat
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2009.03.31 20:41:00 - [111]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
4. The scorpion will be kept in the role of long range ECM platform useful in the longer range fleet fights.


I'm glad that the long range fleet Scorpion is not being nerfed but why not make it also useable in close range fights?

BS should be versatile. A Rokh can be fit with either Blasters or Rails. A Raven can be fit with either Cruise or Torps. Both ships operate usefully with either setup. The same is true for most other battleships which can be fit for either close or long range.

Also, the Caldari lack an effective close range RR BS as both the Rokh and Raven shield tank well but armor tank badly.

I'm not sure exaclty what bonuses or slot changes (if any) the Scorp needs to also be useful in close range pvp but I do think it's something that CCP should look at.

Vulcar Dumas
Posted - 2009.03.31 20:50:00 - [112]
 

Has anyone proposed the idea of making ECM modules sized based?

Meaning that a standard griffin would have weaker strength modules on its ships than say a cruiser sized ship allowing the possibility of not nerfing the range of the ships but allowing the modules to dictate what class of ships it can jam successfully with.

I once flew a griffin to a capital fleet fight as a support wing [back when i was very young and poor], i was able to successfully jam a capital ship in the griffin, which to me is a little overpowered. However if there was a way to regulate the strength of the module based on module size then I would have a very slim possibility of jamming anything above a T1 cruiser with constant repeating.

I don't know if this has been submitted as a possibility, and do not know if this is the best way to stop the range nerfing on paper thin ships so please be considerate and take this as an idea.

Also CCP should fix the ECCM modules as they are currently useless, and maybe add an added effect of an ECCM module to shrink the amount of time the pilot is jammed.

Thanks, and again this is a suggestion that I hope may be beneficial but who knows.
Very Happy


Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2009.03.31 21:07:00 - [113]
 

Quote:
Signal Distortion Amplifier: +10% ECM jam strength
Signal Distortion Projector: +10% ECM optimal range
My problem with that idea is that the nerf becomes to severe - as you reduce all dedicated ECM ship strengths by about 20% AND reduce their optimal operating ranges

As I said before, I do think Falcons should be nerfed, but I don't want it to be done using the CCP Nerf Sledgehammer - I want some more surgical type of instrument. ECM should not suffer the fate of nano

Bilaz
Minmatar
Fremen Sietch
DarkSide.
Posted - 2009.03.31 21:22:00 - [114]
 

sda giving both strength and optimal makes no sense. make them 2 different modules, have different scripts or leave just 1 bonus. i thought whole "sda changes" point was to make players decide what they want of their ship - there is no deciding when you get everything you need.

Sekundar Burnes
Origin.
Black Legion.
Posted - 2009.03.31 21:44:00 - [115]
 

Lots of people fly Falcons, few people fly Rooks. Yet the Rook is in most ways a better ship than the Falcon. The Rook has much better resists, higher sensor strength, lower sig radius and so on. But the Falcon can warp cloaked.

That's why there is all this emotion on the boards, btw. If all Caldari pilots flew Blackbirds or Scorpions or Rooks the conversation would be more civil. The frustration comes in when a gang fight is going and you think you have a good chance - and then the Falcons uncloak.

The problem is that this tactic is both effective and necessary. Effective because a jam takes another ship out for 25 seconds or more (20 sec jam + relock). Necessary because if your opponents count your ECM ships and don't like the number they are far less likely to engage.

If I were the Ishukone Corporation I would make ECM modules that fit in the high slot but with radically lower range. I bet that would solve most of the issues here.




Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
Posted - 2009.03.31 22:16:00 - [116]
 

Awesome idea. Remove ECM from fleet battles while doing nothing to change its domination in 1v1s. Why didn't I think of that?



Hint: CCP, play your damn game. We know there have been accusations of cheating, but I would much rather have dev characters in BoB/goons/whoever than a bunch of developers who are this out of touch with the current environment.

Cletus Graeme
North Eastern Swat
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2009.03.31 22:40:00 - [117]
 

Originally by: Ephemeron
Quote:
Signal Distortion Amplifier: +10% ECM jam strength
Signal Distortion Projector: +10% ECM optimal range
My problem with that idea is that the nerf becomes to severe - as you reduce all dedicated ECM ship strengths by about 20% AND reduce their optimal operating ranges


I also agree that CCP should be very careful not to over-nerf the Falcon but I don't follow your reasoning here.

Afaik the Falcon jam strength is remaining unchanged (20% per level) as only it's range is being nerfed. The Rook is getting a slight bonus to it's jam strength (from 20% to 25%) to compensate for it's lack of cloak so it's worth flying again.

If the SDA bonus also remains at 10% (as I'm suggesting) then where is the nerf to jam strength?

sylvester stallowned
Trotters Independent Trading
Posted - 2009.03.31 22:46:00 - [118]
 

So what will be the actual optimal and falloff ranges of a Typical Falcon and Rook with 2 SDAs and 2 ECM range rigs, assuming recon and support skills are at level 4?

Also what is the effect of ECM jam strength in falloff? I have never understood exactly how this works, i.e. you are trying to jam somebody at 1x your falloff. With turrets this equals a 50% chance of hitting, does this equate to a 50% of the ECMs jammer strength?

Dr Resheph
Amarr
YOU ARE NOW READING THIS LOUDLY
Posted - 2009.03.31 22:54:00 - [119]
 

What started as an issue with overpowered Falcons has led to a general nerf and stats reshuffle. I don't see anything to make the ships more interesting.

You've ignored a valuable alternative suggestion in the previous thread. I'll repeat it here in condensed form:

1. Multispecs and Racials have the same strength, cap and cycle time. Multispecs have half the optimal and falloff of Racials.
2. Multispecs only break the lock, and the target can begin to reacquire immediately. Racials keep the target pinned for 50% of the module's cycle time.
3. Blackbird and Falcon get cycle time and strength bonuses, making them ideal with Multispecs.
4. Scorpion and Rook get range and jamming duration bonuses, making them ideal with Racials.
5. Griffin and Kitsune get ECM Burst cap and strength bonuses.

What this means is that all Caldari EW ships still get ECM strength to make them superior to other race's ships. There are three ECM jammer types and two ship choices for each (tech 1 and tech 2). Any Caldari EW ship can still use any ECM module, but it's 2nd bonus will be useless or slightly good/bad.

Spartan dax
Posted - 2009.03.31 23:24:00 - [120]
 

Looked up the numbers and yeah, damps will be the Ewar module for fleets if the currents stats won't change. Not only do they have better hit chance, they work on all races as well. And you'll be able to armourtank as well. A no brainer IOTW.

Get rid of the SDA's and balance from there. If the verdict from ccp is that ECM were to powerfull they need to nerf that. The ships themselves always sucked and is in dire need of love. Getting rid of SDA's will do that to a huge extent.



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