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 : ... 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 ... : last (20)

Author Topic

Vigaz
Posted - 2009.04.02 15:23:00 - [211]
 

Originally by: Gypsio III
When I get on Sisi later I'll have a look at the balance between damper-Scorp and ECM Scorp at fleet ranges again. Carnifex seems to think that ECM Scorp is sensible again though.

But my other concern still seems to be valid. What is the motivation to fly a Rook over a Falcon? Both seem to have the same ECM range and strength. As an ECM pilot, your main concern is ECM, not DPS, and so the superior DPS of the Rook is fairly inconsequential, particularly given the immense tactical utility of the covops cloak.

I still can't help but think that the Rook should get ECM that is slightly stronger or longer-ranged than the Falcon to make up for the immensely powerful covops cloak.

Also, sufficient PG for the Rook to fit a rack of HMLs, MWD and 1600 plate would be necessary - otherwise the first thing to go is the HMLs, leaving you with no DPS advantage over the Falcon anyway.


Sisi Rook it's better than Tq rook imo. less range - more dps. Still I prefer to see a 5% resists than 10% missile velocity bonus. An higher ECM bonus I dont think is needed, but of course better than 10% missile velocity bonus.

It's not clear if there is a plan to keep the idea of Rook @ 40-60km. If not, I think CCP should remove the drone bay (it's a long range Caldari cruiser!) and add a kin damage/RoF to the missile system. Otherwise just change the missile velocity bonus to something more useful @ 40-60Km.

For HAMs, Rook needs better PG (MWD and buffed tank) as stated by Gypsio (HAMs not HMLs typing error I guess).

kessah
Blood Blind
Posted - 2009.04.02 15:48:00 - [212]
 

Dissapointed with the Scorpion changes, id like that to be more like the rook as a close range high jam strength boat with a ROF bonus like with the Widow.

It would make it alot more appealing for us that choose not to fly in large blobs of players and choose to fight at close range.


Sidus Isaacs
Gallente
Posted - 2009.04.02 16:11:00 - [213]
 

Originally by: kessah
Dissapointed with the Scorpion changes, id like that to be more like the rook as a close range high jam strength boat with a ROF bonus like with the Widow.

It would make it alot more appealing for us that choose not to fly in large blobs of players and choose to fight at close range.




Even tho it would be nice, having a fleet ECM ships outweights that.

Isobel Mitar
Gradient
Electus Matari
Posted - 2009.04.02 17:08:00 - [214]
 

Originally by: Arkady Sadik
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.



Yes. Supported.

Right now one of the big problems with ECM is that many ship types (most glaringly T1 cruisers and frigates) are both 1) easy to permajam AND 2) there is no viable way to fit against it.

Cletus Graeme
North Eastern Swat
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2009.04.02 17:12:00 - [215]
 

Edited by: Cletus Graeme on 02/04/2009 17:13:55

Originally by: Vigaz
It's not clear if there is a plan to keep the idea of Rook @ 40-60km. If not, I think CCP should remove the drone bay (it's a long range Caldari cruiser!) and add a kin damage/RoF to the missile system. Otherwise just change the missile velocity bonus to something more useful @ 40-60Km.

For HAMs, Rook needs better PG (MWD and buffed tank) as stated by Gypsio (HAMs not HMLs typing error I guess).


The curent Sisi Rook already has a ROF missile bonus (but no kinetic damage bonus).

I think the 25m3 drone bay which allows for a 5 light drones is a very useful defence against interceptors and enemy drones (aswell as adding 75-100 DPS) and shouldn't be underestimated.

Without any PG improvements to the Rook, with lvl 4 skills, I can fit 5 HML an LSE and an MWD if I fit a single PDS. Alternatively, I can fit 5 HAML, an LSE and an MWD if I fit a single RCU.

Losing a lowslot to a fitting mod means one less SDA but as these have both an ECM strength and an ECM range bonus they now stack with ECM rigs so fitting two of them is fine if you are fitting ECM rigs aswell.

You can have tank, DPS and ECM and while none of them are individually impressive, the combination of all three is. However, if you want to maximise it's performance in one of these roles then you must still choose between them.

The Sisi Falcon currently has the same ECM capabilities as the Sisi Rook. The Falcon always had more PG then the Rook so it's easier to fit a tank and the covops cloak compensates for the lack of DPS.

The real question is whether it can operate effectively in falloff yet still remain far enough away to avoid being tackled.(i.e. 50-100km)

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2009.04.02 17:25:00 - [216]
 

Originally by: Sidus Isaacs
Originally by: kessah
Dissapointed with the Scorpion changes, id like that to be more like the rook as a close range high jam strength boat with a ROF bonus like with the Widow.

It would make it alot more appealing for us that choose not to fly in large blobs of players and choose to fight at close range.




Even tho it would be nice, having a fleet ECM ships outweights that.


No, it really doesn't. Don't get me wrong - I've always said that the scorp was spectacular because of cost vs effectiveness+survivability, but the way these changes are panning out - you don't have a viable fleet BS and I don't have a close range RR ECM/Gank boat. We're both boned, and that's no good.

Seriously, my first scorp the moment this goes live will be a RSD scorp because it's more effective (arguably much more effective if you consider things like relocking time and cycle time vs the aggregate chance to jam in falloff).

-Liang

Alex Harumichi
Gallente
Gradient
Electus Matari
Posted - 2009.04.02 17:30:00 - [217]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren

No, it really doesn't. Don't get me wrong - I've always said that the scorp was spectacular because of cost vs effectiveness+survivability, but the way these changes are panning out - you don't have a viable fleet BS and I don't have a close range RR ECM/Gank boat. We're both boned, and that's no good.

Seriously, my first scorp the moment this goes live will be a RSD scorp because it's more effective (arguably much more effective if you consider things like relocking time and cycle time vs the aggregate chance to jam in falloff).

-Liang


That's a very valid argument. If the new Scorp is best used in fleet battles with damps, it means that something is wrong here.

Either give it more range, so it can *actually* use ECM from fleet ranges.

Or drop that idea, and make it the close-range brawler lots of people seem to want. Let damps be the fleet-range ewar of choice.

The current version seems to give neither a useful fleet ECM ship, nor a useful small-gang ship. Everyone loses.

Cletus Graeme
North Eastern Swat
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2009.04.02 18:00:00 - [218]
 

Edited by: Cletus Graeme on 02/04/2009 18:02:26

Originally by: Alex Harumichi
The current version seems to give neither a useful fleet ECM ship, nor a useful small-gang ship. Everyone loses.


I agree with this but for slightly different reasons. Let's examine the fleet Scorpion.

On Sisi racials have had their optimal range reduced from 54km to 32km and their falloff increased from 27km to 35km.

The Sisi Scorpion has a reduced optimal range bonus of 15% instead of 20% per level but now also gets a fallof bonus of 25% per level.

This means that a pilot with with max skills and 3 ECM range rigs fitted has an ECM optimal+fallof of 128+80.

In order to operate at fleet distances (i.e. 150-200km) the pilot must reduce his chance of jamming by upto 50% by operating within falloff. The Scorpion can fit upto 4 SDAs to compensate for this by boosting it's ECM strength to pref nerf levels (i.e approx 10).

The problem is that this setup requires maxed skills (BS 5, Long Range Jam 5, Freq Mod 5) and 3 ECM range rigs and 3/4 SDAs to work. This seems a bit extreme!


TheLibrarian
Minmatar
Tides Of War
Posted - 2009.04.02 18:21:00 - [219]
 

Edited by: TheLibrarian on 02/04/2009 18:31:32
Originally by: Cletus Graeme


The problem is that this setup requires maxed skills (BS 5, Long Range Jam 5, Freq Mod 5) and 3 ECM range rigs and 3/4 SDAs to work. This seems a bit extreme!




Not only is the skill requirement extreme just to reach close to the max range you need. You will have absolutely zip tank if your fitting 3/4 SDA's and 3-5 jammers.

While I dont think the argument that skills being level 5 is too valid, the point that even at level 5 skills your still not doing what you need to do is very valid. I also fail to understand why it is required to have a fleet ECM battleship that is insurable. We are completely duplicating ships scorp/falcon just to make sure that one is insurable? Instead of making a completely new ship role in the game which many people would comfortable want to fly.

I mean when I saw the changes for the scorpion I was like wow. Caldari are now going to have 3 amazing battleships. The logistics close range remote repping scorpion was going to be freaking fantastic. Now its just the same subpar battleship that is there to die because it can get insurance.

Bleh. I feel like I am ranting for the first time. But atleast ECM is being changed so I can't be to unhappy. Although now its more a nerf for pirate falcons than anything, since we can no longer jam outside of gate gun range, but people will still be well outside of our tackling range. Sad

Linavin
Mercurialis Inc.
Wildly Inappropriate.
Posted - 2009.04.02 18:48:00 - [220]
 

Edited by: Linavin on 02/04/2009 19:50:48
Quote:
It (the Scorpion) definitely had a role and a place and we liked it however it did leave a big gap in the fleet warfare role combined with the other changes (though perhaps this is indicative of deeper issues with fleet warfare and use of engagement ranges as a whole which rule out many ships from having a place there).



The worst problem with a range bonus'd Scorp is that we already have a Scorpion that can do that. And guess what? Nobody flys them currently. Nerfing falcon range won't magically make Scorps start showing up in fleets, and especially if they'll be fighting in their jammer's falloff the whole time as opposed to having 150+ optimal like now. The whole point here is that this is a downgrade, and just because a ship fills a role dosen't mean it suddenly gets used. This is especially true if that role is only a really small part of gameplay that most players don't participate in.

Why be so stubborn on forcing the Scorpion into a role with little applications outside fleets and questionable effectiveness even in fleets. Doing so is simply a condemnation into uselessness until the next big balance patch.

The worst part is that I don't really see why Caldari doesn't deserve a more multipurpose battleship for smaller gangs like every other race. The whole Caldari range gimmick is getting old (hell your decreasing the optimal of ECM in general by a huge amount), so why not let one of the battleships relfect this new kind of thinking. ECM and a bit of dps can be what a Caldari character can contribute to a small gang not just on the cruiser level with the new Falcon, but the Scorpion too.

Kytanos Termek
Caldari
Perkone
Posted - 2009.04.02 19:02:00 - [221]
 

Edited by: Kytanos Termek on 02/04/2009 19:04:57
Edited by: Kytanos Termek on 02/04/2009 19:04:30
I have to agree with Lina

But, Do not nerf the scorpion so hard it cannot operate effectively at 100+ ranges, which as a 0.0 pilot. Is what I see most sniper fleets operating at. Most are at 100-150 and that should be the scorpions. "sweet spot" I see no reason to have the sniper fleet way back there, the enemy fleet in front, and a big clump of scorpions in the middle with a large sign stuck on top saying "Shoot here first, were closer".

Gneeznow
Minmatar
Ship spinners inc
Posted - 2009.04.02 19:22:00 - [222]
 

Originally by: Arkady Sadik
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.



This is a good idea, would be awesome if some variant of this idea was implemented.

sylvester stallowned
Trotters Independent Trading
Posted - 2009.04.02 19:36:00 - [223]
 

Edited by: sylvester stallowned on 02/04/2009 20:45:05
Edited by: sylvester stallowned on 02/04/2009 20:28:27
Originally by: Arkady Sadik
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.



This is a good idea, but do not replace the existing active Mid-slot module, either create a new module or replace the lowslot ECCM module with this, so the 2 can be combined.

CCP Chronotis, PLEASE give us some more options for ECCM:

Here are some suggestions:

1: A Flat bonus variant of the current ECCM mods: maybe change the lowslot module to this?

2: ECCM RIGS: I see no reason why these are not in game

3: ECCM Hardwires: 1%, 3%, 5% like there is a hardwire for just about everything else.

Combining these 3 changes would allow ships to actually be setup to have a valid counter to ECM, If you were expecting to encounter an opponent that overly uses ecm ships( i.e. 6 falcons in a 20 man gang). But it would be at the sacrifice of something else in your ship setup like everything else in eve.


DeathsEmbrace
Minmatar
Beyond Divinity Inc
Excuses.
Posted - 2009.04.02 23:13:00 - [224]
 

Edited by: DeathsEmbrace on 02/04/2009 23:15:13
Please stick to the original idea, 30% to ecm strength per recon level on these boats take an already overpowed boat and boosts them. Bring the falcon/rook inline with the other recons to balance it out. 30-50km combat range, 10% strength bonus to main ewar/ecm (tp's, rsd's, td's are already have a 10% and under bonus). The falcon/rook has no viable combat ewar e.g nos/neuts for amarr recons; webs for minmatar; scrams/disruptors for gal. Use the other 20% of bonus's in 2 types as you have done for the other recons for an offensive ewar. e.g

10% per lvl to ecm burst radius
10% per lvl to ecm burst strength

This would balance the Falcon/Rook against the other recons. Under the current sisi status the Falcon/rook can still jam at 50-100km (150km max in fall off) and has gained a 10% per lvl (50% max) bonus to their ecm strengths. At 20% per lvl a bs requires 2 eccm's to avoid perma jamming, even then jam cycles will get the bs. With that extra 50% a bs will need another 1/2 eccm's fitted to have the same chance of not being jammed. Thats 3/4 mids to counter one "possible" recon.

For the record I fly all recons except the falcon/rook and have been extensively testing the changes with an alliance mate who can fly them.

Arkady Sadik
Minmatar
Electus Matari
Posted - 2009.04.02 23:27:00 - [225]
 

Originally by: DeathsEmbrace
Please stick to the original idea, 30% to ecm strength per recon level on these boats take an already overpowed boat and boosts them.


When I first saw the +30%, I thought the same - "they can't be serious!". But a few calculations later, it turns out that an old Falcon with all skills at 5 and 3x SDA II has the same jam strength as the new Falcon with all skills at 5 3x SDA II (3.14 modifier old vs. 3.16 modifier new). With Recons 4, it's actually less effective. What this changes is not their effectiveness in jamming, but their need to fit SDA IIs. But fitting less SDA IIs means they have less jam strength than before still. So I'd say the +30% - while sounding like a lot at first - is actually quite balanced.

Bellum Eternus
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2009.04.02 23:39:00 - [226]
 

Originally by: Arkady Sadik
Originally by: DeathsEmbrace
Please stick to the original idea, 30% to ecm strength per recon level on these boats take an already overpowed boat and boosts them.


When I first saw the +30%, I thought the same - "they can't be serious!". But a few calculations later, it turns out that an old Falcon with all skills at 5 and 3x SDA II has the same jam strength as the new Falcon with all skills at 5 3x SDA II (3.14 modifier old vs. 3.16 modifier new). With Recons 4, it's actually less effective. What this changes is not their effectiveness in jamming, but their need to fit SDA IIs. But fitting less SDA IIs means they have less jam strength than before still. So I'd say the +30% - while sounding like a lot at first - is actually quite balanced.


No it's not. My falcon has 14.77% jam strength now with racials, and that's not even using faction ECM. That's way overpowered.

RyMcQeN I
Caldari
Failure Avoidance Insurance Limited
Posted - 2009.04.02 23:49:00 - [227]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Responding generally to some suggestions:

Close range scorpion was cool, we want that!

It definitely had a role and a place and we liked it however it did leave a big gap in the fleet warfare role combined with the other changes (though perhaps this is indicative of deeper issues with fleet warfare and use of engagement ranges as a whole which rule out many ships from having a place there).




I think when you consider the Scorpion in the fleet warfare role you need to compare it to the Tier 1 Battleships of the other races. When you are doing fleet warfare (ie. long range sniping etc.) the battleships typically used are the Tier 2 and Tier 3 variants. Its not often that you see Typhoons, Dominixs, and Armageddons in fleet battles. They are close range battleships. If you keep the scorpion on par with this, then it makes sense for it to have the close range bonus's.

I suppose in the case of Caldari, the close range brawler currently would be the Raven, even though its the Tier 2 model. It is possible to go close range with the scorpion but it doesn't have the damage currently.

To summarize, I think that the close range brawler scorpion is a good idea, and I agree that the need to maintain its role in fleet warfare is a problem indicative of fleet warfare itself.

Arkady Sadik
Minmatar
Electus Matari
Posted - 2009.04.02 23:50:00 - [228]
 

Originally by: Bellum Eternus
No it's not. My falcon has 14.77% jam strength now with racials, and that's not even using faction ECM. That's way overpowered.


EFT says that the current Falcon with "All level V" and 3x SDA II has a racial jam strength of 14.14. That's not very far off from your value there. Of course, you could argue that that's way overpowered, and I'm not going to argue against that, but it's not a big change to now, which is what I said in my post.

Am I missing something?

Your number seems higher than I'd expect, though:

Old Falcon:
+20% per ship level (*2)
+20% per SDA II (*1.2 *1.174 *1.114)
=> *3.14

New Falcon:
+30% per ship level (*2.5)
+10% per SDA II (*1.1 *1.087 *1.057)
=> 3.16

Add 25% for the skill and 3.6 base strength for the racials, and you get 14.13 for the old Falcon and 14.22 for the new. Not sure how you get to 14.77 from the 14.22, which is a 4% bonus - did you plug in jam strength rigs or so as well?

Kixu
Earned In Blood
Posted - 2009.04.03 00:01:00 - [229]
 

I think the unmentioned elephant standing in the room is that ecm is really really boring!!
Change the effect to something other then target breaking;

Overheats enemies modules.

Deactivates random modules.

Removes random targets from overview every successful cycle.
Arrow This one would be really cool, could randomize where they are listed too despite settings, which would be FUN to combat. Also makes sense from an e-war perspective.

I realise that there is only so much time allowed from developers for fixes and all that, but putting some real effort into ecm could make it much more fun then current "I'm jammed" and waiting 20 seconds or if the e-war is too great sitting idle until you die / deagress and leave.

So many times I have been in a small gang engagement where each side has a falcon and it just results in a stalemate with neither side getting any kills, or one side having a falcon/ecm boat and the other being unable to do anything which is about as fun as killing npcs. (3+ cruiser size ships effectively nullified is not cool).

The issue you are currently addressing is that falcons are near invulnerable while making ships unable to do anything, really the main problem is that ecm is not fun in any way, shape or form to fight against or have on your side.

AZN Steve
Amarr
Posted - 2009.04.03 00:29:00 - [230]
 

- make jammers pulse instead of cycle : keep the 20 second duration , but reduce the actual jam to only 1 second
- leave the jamming ships as they are now ( on TQ )
- make ECCM modules give a fixed amount of sensor strength , same for sensor backup arrays
- increase the effectiveness of remote sensor dampeners

result :

- no gay 20 sec of doing nothing , just a 1 second lock breaker .
- makes sensor damps usefull again
- not OP
- promotes the use of other recons besides the falcon
- can still make a target unable to lock for a while , but it takes 2 different recons now instead of just 1 falcon

Bellum Eternus
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2009.04.03 00:33:00 - [231]
 

Originally by: Arkady Sadik
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
No it's not. My falcon has 14.77% jam strength now with racials, and that's not even using faction ECM. That's way overpowered.


EFT says that the current Falcon with "All level V" and 3x SDA II has a racial jam strength of 14.14. That's not very far off from your value there. Of course, you could argue that that's way overpowered, and I'm not going to argue against that, but it's not a big change to now, which is what I said in my post.

Am I missing something?

Your number seems higher than I'd expect, though:

Old Falcon:
+20% per ship level (*2)
+20% per SDA II (*1.2 *1.174 *1.114)
=> *3.14

New Falcon:
+30% per ship level (*2.5)
+10% per SDA II (*1.1 *1.087 *1.057)
=> 3.16

Add 25% for the skill and 3.6 base strength for the racials, and you get 14.13 for the old Falcon and 14.22 for the new. Not sure how you get to 14.77 from the 14.22, which is a 4% bonus - did you plug in jam strength rigs or so as well?


Yep. Jam strength rigs. In hindsight not really worth it (4%). However, I don't see Falcons being used any differently than they are right now: max strength ECM at as far a range as possible and simply aligned/warp out when attacked. Small tacklers will be permajammed, so they're not an issue.

Anyway, all I see at this point are Falcons being used at shorter ranges, which is good in general, really bad for pirates. And Falcons operating at 70-80km will have very little problems with drones.

The Djego
Minmatar
Hellequin Inc.
Posted - 2009.04.03 00:52:00 - [232]
 

Originally by: Gneeznow
Originally by: Arkady Sadik
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.



This is a good idea, would be awesome if some variant of this idea was implemented.


Supported, but make it 40-50 Points. A ECCM should mean something(ONE ECCM not 2-3 like you need them now), im still permajammed in a Tier 3 BS with overheated ECCM having 50 Points Sensor strenght by a Falcon and as it looks now you even give more jamming power to the ships, not less.

Back on the Topic, actualy WTF? The problem with the Falcon is Cov Ops Cloak + Jammingpower + huge Range that make them pawn anything in small Gangs with beeing well out of range. A falcon that have to operate at 50km can be shoot(and will be for a reason) it has to use Slots for Tank like any other Recon to(you can fit the same tank like other Recons, you can operate at the same ranges). Yet it would be still more usefull than a Arazu, Rapier or Pilgram for a gang in most of the practical combat scenarios today. Im fine with huge ranges on the other Jamming ships(Rook and BB for Fleet jamming), but on a ship with a Cov Ops Cloak it is utterly broken.

Also I liked the Idea of a short range torp Scorp more, that sound like a lot of fun to play in small Gangs.






Wannabehero
Wayward Ventures
Posted - 2009.04.03 02:00:00 - [233]
 

After thinking about it, I like lowering the optimal and increasing the falloff as a method to readjust the range/power relation of ECM. I however think that there is still not quite enough falloff on ECM in the current change. The scorpion especially could use a heftier boost to falloff, given it's significantly lower jam strength.

Along this same line of thinking, the other non-propulsion based EW systems could benefit from a similar treatment as these ECM changes: less optimal, more falloff. Give tracking disruptors, sensor dampeners, and target painters the ability to be used at 'sniping' ranges to near equal effectiveness (read: chance to succeed due to range) as ECM, but through heavy falloff penalty. Likewise, make mid-range use of these modules still subject to occasional failure due to lowered optimal.

Lastly, yes please, more modules to influence EW. SDA type modules for sensor damps, tracking disruptors, target painters, warp disruptors, and webifiers would be most welcome. Come on, you know you guys can balance them appropriately, please implement it!

Nerogk Shorn
Caldari
Invicta.
Posted - 2009.04.03 02:49:00 - [234]
 

Man, what happened to the Rook changes that made it an actually viable choice in comparison to the Falcon. Give it reduced range at higher strength than the falcon. I'd really like to see it get used more often... Hell i have Recon V and a falcon. I want to use the Rook please. I don't care if you nerf the Falcon to make the Rook an actual option, because right now it pretty much isn't.

DiseL
Dirt Nap Squad
Posted - 2009.04.03 03:11:00 - [235]
 

Edited by: DiseL on 03/04/2009 23:59:02
Edited by: DiseL on 03/04/2009 03:22:10
I must say these changes are disappointing to say the least! A Falcon with 3 SDA II's, 2 Particle Dispersion Projectors, and max skills gives a 74km optimal and 53km falloff. Pathetic at best. The same current setup yields 228km optimal and 40km falloff. A 68% optimal nerf is a bit much. A Scorpion setting out at either it's optimal (around 100k) or max range (around 180k) is still first ship to die in every fleet battle. It's jamming ability at 180km will be laughable and even worse to set 50-70km inside the rest of his fleet to be in optimal. The Rook changes are not bad but I really don't like it being the range ship. Being a combat recon it should be the ship of choice between the two that has the possibility to lock down and kill a target on it's own. Give it an additional low slot and a higher ECM strength but at close range. There is really no point in an ECM boat setting out at 120km spamming missiles. On top of that the Falcon is now the close range ship which means it will probably be running a mwd most of the time so taking away the cap bonus is going to hurt.

It amazes me that something that was buffed in recent years to fix a previous nerf can once again be unbalanced enough to require this much tweaking. What exactly was the thought process that went into these changes before? Constantly hammering different races, different ships, different mods, with the nerf bat is not good for the game whether it is for balancing or not.

Nataly Logoffsky
Posted - 2009.04.03 03:43:00 - [236]
 

the only thing im sure is - DONT give jammer ships dronebay!!!
imagine tanked falcon, with neutralizer, disruptor, jam, and dronebay!!!!

and finally give the 5th med drone to poor arazu!!! you nerfed it for years! dampers, drones, speed...


Yon Krum
The Knights Templar
R.A.G.E
Posted - 2009.04.03 04:00:00 - [237]
 

Originally by: RyMcQeN I
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Responding generally to some suggestions:

Close range scorpion was cool, we want that!

It definitely had a role and a place and we liked it however it did leave a big gap in the fleet warfare role combined with the other changes (though perhaps this is indicative of deeper issues with fleet warfare and use of engagement ranges as a whole which rule out many ships from having a place there).




I think when you consider the Scorpion in the fleet warfare role you need to compare it to the Tier 1 Battleships of the other races. When you are doing fleet warfare (ie. long range sniping etc.) the battleships typically used are the Tier 2 and Tier 3 variants. Its not often that you see Typhoons, Dominixs, and Armageddons in fleet battles. They are close range battleships. If you keep the scorpion on par with this, then it makes sense for it to have the close range bonus's.

To summarize, I think that the close range brawler scorpion is a good idea, and I agree that the need to maintain its role in fleet warfare is a problem indicative of fleet warfare itself.


These are very astute points.

I think, Chronotis, that you're missing a point in fleet warfare. Namely, though people do bring Scorpions out for ECM "sniping", FCs would rather they not. Even the Blackbird is considered to be more effective due to its smaller sig radius, faster locking time, and align time. Also, Scorpions are primary targets because (like destroyers for support) they are easy to lock and die very fast.

So why do we even need an ECM sniping battleship, when no other race has a sniping EW ship?? Better to change it into a defined close-range role and let the long-range work get done by the T1 and T2 cruisers. I assure you, it will get used.

In the SB thread you said you didn't want to litter your database with under-used relics. The Scorpion is one such relic, used at all primarily because it can be insurance-tanked rather well. That's sad.

--Krum

Missy krunk
Republic Military School
Posted - 2009.04.03 04:06:00 - [238]
 

ECM ships should not need to fit four racials to do their job. They also should not be able to jam multiple ships from range with the ease they have now.

My idea is based off of real world EWAR ships. Jamming requires enormous power to swamp the sensors of the target. So i think that should carry over to Eve ships.

1. Make frigate, cruiser and BS class ECM mods, with the range and power consumption tailored to the mod. Frigs having short range and BS's having the ultra long fleet range.

2. Make the power usage prohibitive. Running ECM should be hell on your cap. Running 1 might not be too tough while running more will run you dry.

3. Give ECM's scripts for each type of sensor. Instead of a falcon needing 4 racial's to cover whatever might appear that need jamming, it can get by with 1 ECM mod and 4 scripts to cover any opponent. If point 2 is balance correctly, there will be no need to worry about someone running 4 ECM mods and switch scripts to jam, their cap won't support it.

I did not post any math because the numbers to balance all of that would require testing, but I think the core ideas should work with a little effort. These changes would make ECM mods a little more attractive to non EWAR boats, but without the ship bonus of the Falcon or Rook they should be very hit or miss. I am not sure where to fit multispectrums into the equation, I must admit though.

Bastaardicious
FinFleet
Raiden.
Posted - 2009.04.03 08:08:00 - [239]
 

Can't all those whiners about ECM just please fit ECCM as that is intended to counter ECM ? And then stop whining?

This whole nerf gives me the thought that if you bash the CCP forums long enough about a certain ship, with enough people, you will get your way eventually. Falcon is a good ship, and the people who cry about ECM should reconsider their fittings IMO. This game is all about strategy, and you can't expect it all to go the way you want it to go. Stop whining, more ECCM, everyone happy.

Sigras
Gallente
Conglomo
Posted - 2009.04.03 08:34:00 - [240]
 

Edited by: Sigras on 03/04/2009 08:34:08
@Bastaardicious

The argument isnt that the falcon is a good ship, the argument is that the falcon is a necessary ship for medium to large fleet combat as the only way to counter one is with another falcon.

Thats the reason speed was nerfed, the only way to counter it was with more speed, so that removes strategy because everyone always brings the same thing all the time.

That and your argument is axiomatically wrong as the ECCM currently sucks on anything sub battleship sized. (twice a terrible sensor strength is still terrible sensor strength)


Pages: first : previous : ... 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 ... : 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