open All Channels
seplocked Ships and Modules
blankseplocked To ECCM I say...
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4

Author Topic

Xiozor
THE PAROXYSM
Dark Solar Empire
Posted - 2009.01.05 15:47:00 - [1]
 

People say Falcons are balanced, they say, fit ECCM. Theres alot wrong with this, and with Falcons in general.

Now, there arent many ships out there that can fit 2-3 ECCM without completely gimping their setup to just be resistant to falcons. If they do, they no longer have much if anything for tank and/or utilities. Especially with people like me who fly a megathron, and other battleships that only have 4 mids. I fit 1 ECCM out of necessity but that really isnt enough to make a world of difference.

Great, you have fitted all your ships to stop the enemy falcons reliably jamming you, but expended so many mids in the process you have practically nothing in terms of tank for your shield tankers, tackle and your own EW such as TP's and the like.

There is not a single other ship that appears frequently in the game which requires the fitting of very specific modules that are otherwise useless to counter them.

People compare fitting ECCM to fitting a tank, no, it is nothing like fitting a tank because just about every ship in the game does damage and a tank is good against all of them. Only one line of caldari ships jam, against anything else an ECCM is a wasted slot.

And even then, the effectiveness of jamming alone is hardly the problem. Its the nigh-on invulnerability that having 250km range and a cloak gives you. A Falcon pilot has to be STUPID to get killed. If they uncloak on the only 2 ships in the game that can shoot that far being the Apoc and the Rokh then they deserve to die equally as much as people who omnitank their hyperions.

People said from the nano-era "Nano-doesnt mean invulnerability!" and no it never did, but it gave you unprecidented durability, and actual total invulnerability under many circumstances and the same holds true here. If ECM was the problem, then Kitsunes, Blackbirds and Scorpions would be broken too, and they arent.

And sure, I have been screwed over by an ECM Falcon in the past, similarly I have screwed people over with an ECM Falcon and will continue to do so, and have done to me untill this dictation of gameplay and fittings is fixed.

/whine.

daisy dook
Posted - 2009.01.05 16:02:00 - [2]
 

So what would you do about it?

Xiozor
THE PAROXYSM
Dark Solar Empire
Posted - 2009.01.05 16:12:00 - [3]
 

Change the Falcons bounuses, at the moment, the Falcon is the only recon to get 3 bounuses pertaining to a single method of EW. The others have 1 bounus for each of their EWar and a damage bounus.

I propose the Falcon is brought in line with these, left its strength bounus, but stripped of its range and capacitor bounus, given a damage bounus, and perhaps a new type of EWar to compensate.

daisy dook
Posted - 2009.01.05 16:21:00 - [4]
 

Originally by: Xiozor
Change the Falcons bounuses, at the moment, the Falcon is the only recon to get 3 bounuses pertaining to a single method of EW. The others have 1 bounus for each of their EWar and a damage bounus.

I propose the Falcon is brought in line with these, left its strength bounus, but stripped of its range and capacitor bounus, given a damage bounus, and perhaps a new type of EWar to compensate.


Well that's a start - what kind of second ewar?

Would you consider changing the ECM mechanic to not being chance based so that you know if your in optimal your jam will always be effective (I think this is the main reason why ECM does need the range aspect, becasue you can't be sure a ship will be jammed)?

Also if you remove the range bonus how do you suggest the Falcon should be tanked (after all you need 4 midslots for one each of the the racial jammers and it is sensible to have the 3 low slots as SDAs)?

Further, if you just remove the range bonus what's to stop all the Falcon pilots swapping to Rooks at 250km?

Bronson Hughes
ADVANCED Combat and Engineering
Posted - 2009.01.05 16:31:00 - [5]
 

Originally by: Xiozor
the Falcon is the only recon to get 3 bounuses pertaining to a single method of EW.


This currently is the reason why Falcons are generally superior to the other Recon ships. Caldari only have one type of racial-flavored EWar so their recon ships can specialize in it but every other race has two so they split their bonuses up.

But instead of changing the Falcon, how about we change the other Recon ships? Make one Recon of each race a specialist in one of the two racial EWar instead of splitting the bonuses between both ships. For example:

CURRENT

Arazu: 1x warp disruption bonus (range), 1x sensor damp bonus (strength), 1x damage bonus, cloak bonus
Lachesis: 1x warp disruption bonus (range), 1x sensor damp bonus (strength), 2x damage bonus

NEW

Arazu: 3x sensor damp bonus (optimal, falloff, strength), cloak bonus
Lachesis: 2x warp disruption bonus (range, range(scrambler only)/cap usage/other), 2x damage bonus

Similar changes would apply to the other non-Caldari recon ships as well so each race had one specialist recon for each type of EWar. This would decrease the flexibility of the ships individually, but it would make each ship far more effective at what it was specialized in and, I think, bring them on-par with the Caldari Recons.

Thoughts?

daisy dook
Posted - 2009.01.05 16:34:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Bronson Hughes
Originally by: Xiozor
the Falcon is the only recon to get 3 bounuses pertaining to a single method of EW.


This currently is the reason why Falcons are generally superior to the other Recon ships. Caldari only have one type of racial-flavored EWar so their recon ships can specialize in it but every other race has two so they split their bonuses up.

But instead of changing the Falcon, how about we change the other Recon ships? Make one Recon of each race a specialist in one of the two racial EWar instead of splitting the bonuses between both ships. For example:

CURRENT

Arazu: 1x warp disruption bonus (range), 1x sensor damp bonus (strength), 1x damage bonus, cloak bonus
Lachesis: 1x warp disruption bonus (range), 1x sensor damp bonus (strength), 2x damage bonus

NEW

Arazu: 3x sensor damp bonus (optimal, falloff, strength), cloak bonus
Lachesis: 2x warp disruption bonus (range, range(scrambler only)/cap usage/other), 2x damage bonus

Similar changes would apply to the other non-Caldari recon ships as well so each race had one specialist recon for each type of EWar. This would decrease the flexibility of the ships individually, but it would make each ship far more effective at what it was specialized in and, I think, bring them on-par with the Caldari Recons.

Thoughts?


Don't forget that the Caldari ships do not have drone bays when trying to balance them against other races.

Bronson Hughes
ADVANCED Combat and Engineering
Posted - 2009.01.05 16:35:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: daisy dook

Don't forget that the Caldari ships do not have drone bays when trying to balance them against other races.


Same can be said for Caldari HACs; CCP doesn't seem to consider that an issue but it is something to keep in mind.

Nuclear Warrior
Posted - 2009.01.05 16:36:00 - [8]
 

Edited by: Nuclear Warrior on 05/01/2009 16:37:18

Xiozor
THE PAROXYSM
Dark Solar Empire
Posted - 2009.01.05 16:37:00 - [9]
 

Edited by: Xiozor on 05/01/2009 16:42:18
Edited by: Xiozor on 05/01/2009 16:38:41
The reason ECM is chance based is because it is many times more powerful than damps (which are extremely easily countered with just a single sensor booster), TD's and (lol)painters. ECM would still be fine at 'normal' EWar range of <100km because it has an absolutely crippling effect on its target.

As for a second EWar type to be introduced for the Falcon. I am not sure. I would need to give that alot of thought and consider everythings feathers that could be ruffled by its introduction, which takes alot longer than identifying how something is broken.

And whats to stop rooks? Nothing. They dont have a cloak, so it would be a very large downgrade from the falcon which owes its resistance to death to its cloak combined with its range.

To compensate for its tank, perhaps, increase slots/starting sensor strength/Jamming strength to compensate for it having to fly closer and use lows for SDA's

The major problem is practical death-proof ships able to reliably immobilize ships from absolutely max range with little oppurtunity to counterattack, having 100% first strike capabilities due to its cloak. And at the very worst gimping the opponents shipfits because they fit to defend against it.

*EDIT

And hell, while I am at it, something else which annoys me is how easy it is for jamming ships to disengage from combat because of being able to Jam and straight away warp. And, thanks to ECM drones for ships with 50 b/w dronebays they can do the same thing. I narrowly escpaed a 1 v 1 that was going badly in my domi doing just this. Make it so you can not warp with a jamming cycle active?

ry ry
Heroes.
Merciless.
Posted - 2009.01.05 16:40:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: daisy dook
Well that's a start - what kind of second ewar?


target painter.

Nuclear Warrior
Posted - 2009.01.05 16:43:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: ry ry
Originally by: daisy dook
Well that's a start - what kind of second ewar?


target painter.


The minmatar already have this one tagged. But to be honest, it makes alot more sense on Caldari...

So, perhaps give Caldari TP's as a secondary and invent a new one of minmatar... You know, one people might actually fit to their ships?

Cautet
Celestial Apocalypse
Posted - 2009.01.05 16:44:00 - [12]
 

Why not post in one of the 100 existing threads on Falcons instead of starting a new one?

Xiozor
THE PAROXYSM
Dark Solar Empire
Posted - 2009.01.05 16:48:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Cautet
Why not post in one of the 100 existing threads on Falcons instead of starting a new one?


Because mine is special of course.

That, and I am pretty sure its considere hijacking.

Il Morte
Posted - 2009.01.05 16:51:00 - [14]
 

The use of ECCM to counter a Falcon is the best measure. You only need 1 ECCM specific to your race sensor type. You do not need one for all race types.

1 ECCM can succesfully protect you from the ecm effects of a Falcon. I actually kept my lock with 2 trying to jam me with only a low slot eccm mod.

As for the Falcon being able to operate at over 200km away and cloak. Doesn't bother me in the least as it is one less ship avaliable to put DPS on me, and without its ability to jam me it really becomes a usless piece of space junk.

daisy dook
Posted - 2009.01.05 16:51:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Xiozor
Edited by: Xiozor on 05/01/2009 16:38:41
The reason ECM is chance based is because it is many times more powerful than damps (which are extremely easily countered with just a single sensor booster), TD's and (lol)painters. ECM would still be fine at 'normal' EWar range of <100km because it has an absolutely crippling effect on its target.


Can I mention drones and FOF missiles (I'll leave off samrt bombs), it's a strong effect but not crippling.

Originally by: Xiozor

As for a second EWar type to be introduced for the Falcon. I am not sure. I would need to give that alot of thought and consider everythings feathers that could be ruffled by its introduction, which takes alot longer than identifying how something is broken.



That's always the difficulty - creatively critiquing a situation; it's easy to say nerf. I'm of the opinion that Falcons (and all ECM birds, because I think you are finding the ECM to be the problem really) can be driven from the field (ie dealt with).

Originally by: Xiozor

To compensate for its tank, perhaps, increase slots/starting sensor strength/Jamming strength to compensate for it having to fly closer and use lows for SDA's.


That's good, but Caldari are shield tankers... moar mid-slots or maybe script jammers rather than seperate jammers for each race?

Originally by: Xiozor

And whats to stop rooks? Nothing. They dont have a cloak, so it would be a very large downgrade from the falcon which owes its resistance to death to its cloak combined with its range.

Originally by: Xiozor

The major problem is practical death-proof ships able to reliably immobilize ships from absolutely max range with little oppurtunity to counterattack, having 100% first strike capabilities due to its cloak. And at the very worst gimping the opponents shipfits because they fit to defend against it.


Whats the difference between a ship uncloaking and a ship warping in to 250km? You can't say it if fine for a Rook but not fine for a Falcon.


Bellum Eternus
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2009.01.05 16:54:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Xiozor
Change the Falcons bounuses, at the moment, the Falcon is the only recon to get 3 bounuses pertaining to a single method of EW. The others have 1 bounus for each of their EWar and a damage bounus.

I propose the Falcon is brought in line with these, left its strength bounus, but stripped of its range and capacitor bounus, given a damage bounus, and perhaps a new type of EWar to compensate.


No. If you remove it's range bonus, then it has to fight inside sentry range. Remove it's strength bonus.

Nuclear Warrior
Posted - 2009.01.05 17:00:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: daisy dook

Can I mention drones and FOF missiles (I'll leave off samrt bombs), it's a strong effect but not crippling.



Good job theres a good number of people who take cruise missile launchers to fights... Oh wait theres only 2 ships that can actually fit a decent number of them, Ravens and Phoons. As for drones, I dont see many people fitting enoungh drone link augmentors to go to the full 250km. I dont even think it is possible...

Originally by: daisy dook

That's always the difficulty - creatively critiquing a situation; it's easy to say nerf. I'm of the opinion that Falcons (and all ECM birds, because I think you are finding the ECM to be the problem really) can be driven from the field (ie dealt with).



The problem is, to really counter a falcon to need to fit to specifically counter a falcon to only moderate success. That is whats wrong.

Originally by: daisy dook

That's good, but Caldari are shield tankers... moar mid-slots or maybe script jammers rather than seperate jammers for each race?


I think an extra midslot and higher sensor strength would work out well, Scripted jammers though... Maybe if you could fit a multispec script to a racial, but not the other way around. That would make things far too easy.

Originally by: daisy dook

Whats the difference between a ship uncloaking and a ship warping in to 250km? You can't say it if fine for a Rook but not fine for a Falcon.




Quite simply the ability to re-cloak between cycles meaning even if a countership is on the grid, if it is just the one it can be easily gotten around by the falcon recloaking.

Xiozor
THE PAROXYSM
Dark Solar Empire
Posted - 2009.01.05 17:01:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Originally by: Xiozor
Change the Falcons bounuses, at the moment, the Falcon is the only recon to get 3 bounuses pertaining to a single method of EW. The others have 1 bounus for each of their EWar and a damage bounus.

I propose the Falcon is brought in line with these, left its strength bounus, but stripped of its range and capacitor bounus, given a damage bounus, and perhaps a new type of EWar to compensate.


No. If you remove it's range bonus, then it has to fight inside sentry range. Remove it's strength bonus.


Inside sentry range... you mean like all the other recons?

Getting rid of its strength bonus would make it totally worthless.

Mc Fraser
Minmatar
ROMANIA Renegades
ROMANIAN-LEGION
Posted - 2009.01.05 17:31:00 - [19]
 

hear hear

Murina
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2009.01.05 17:37:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Xiozor


Inside sentry range... you mean like all the other recons?




And inside large pulse range.......

Bringing falcons or ecm ships in to close range will make them worthless as they use a chance based ewar system and the other recons do not and work perfectly with their ranges.

daisy dook
Posted - 2009.01.05 17:57:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Nuclear Warrior
Originally by: daisy dook

Can I mention drones and FOF missiles (I'll leave off samrt bombs), it's a strong effect but not crippling.



Good job theres a good number of people who take cruise missile launchers to fights... Oh wait theres only 2 ships that can actually fit a decent number of them, Ravens and Phoons. As for drones, I dont see many people fitting enoungh drone link augmentors to go to the full 250km. I dont even think it is possible...


Nicely taken out of context... the original point was about bringing the Falcon within 100km.

Originally by: Nuclear Warrior

The problem is, to really counter a falcon to need to fit to specifically counter a falcon to only moderate success. That is whats wrong.



300DPS Cerberus not good enough for you, or don't you think ECCM matches your outfit?

Originally by: Nuclear Warrior

Originally by: daisy dook

That's good, but Caldari are shield tankers... moar mid-slots or maybe script jammers rather than seperate jammers for each race?


I think an extra midslot and higher sensor strength would work out well, Scripted jammers though... Maybe if you could fit a multispec script to a racial, but not the other way around. That would make things far too easy.



Are you sure, just imagine how many crusier and below hulls a Falcon will be able to jam if they could convert their off race jammers to multi-spec?

Originally by: Nuclear Warrior

Originally by: daisy dook

Whats the difference between a ship uncloaking and a ship warping in to 250km? You can't say it if fine for a Rook but not fine for a Falcon.




Quite simply the ability to re-cloak between cycles meaning even if a countership is on the grid, if it is just the one it can be easily gotten around by the falcon recloaking.


Uncloak, sensor recalibration (takes time) means the counter ship will lock you first...

Lavraen
Animus Furandi
Posted - 2009.01.05 17:57:00 - [22]
 

Posting in my 100th nerf falcons thread

Materia Hunter
Posted - 2009.01.05 18:07:00 - [23]
 

I'd quite like to see a drone added to the game that targets for the ship.
Each drone of this type allows one ship to be targeted, even when jammed. The drone itself should be jammable, but have a sensor strength to reflect its niche role.

Make the drone a suitable size / bandwidth so it can only be used on certain ships, or make it so only certain ships can use the drone at all via bonuses.

Colonel Xaven
Decadence.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2009.01.05 18:14:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Il Morte
1 ECCM can succesfully protect you from the ecm effects of a Falcon. I actually kept my lock with 2 trying to jam me with only a low slot eccm mod.


I think actually some people (OP too) do not know about those low slot modules. If so, here is a link:

Item Database > Ship Equipment > Electronic Warfare > Sensor Backup Arrays

Ralarina
Caldari
Vivicide
Posted - 2009.01.05 18:27:00 - [25]
 

I dont understand the need to be "falcon proof". You can't be "Curse" proof; you can't be "Arazu proof" and you can't be "Rapier proof".

Oh sure, you can add two heavy cap boosters and for a few minutes a Curse wont be able to drain you to 0, but it will get there (and to counter it, it's going to take two of your mid slots), or you can add multiple tracking computers...

Sure, you can add 2 sensor boosters and be able to lock more than 30km away or in under a minute, but again, that's two mid slots gone... plus the WCS to counter the increased range of the warp disruptors.

You can use Halos and a load of speed mods to lower the effectiveness of being webbed and target painted...

but at the end of the day, all the recons still affect you. Why people think adding 3 ECCMs will mean you can't be jammed is beyond me.

Max Hardcase
The Scope
Posted - 2009.01.05 19:19:00 - [26]
 

Edited by: Max Hardcase on 05/01/2009 19:23:36
Edited by: Max Hardcase on 05/01/2009 19:20:27
Originally by: Ralarina
I dont understand the need to be "falcon proof". You can't be "Curse" proof; you can't be "Arazu proof" and you can't be "Rapier proof".

Oh sure, you can add two heavy cap boosters and for a few minutes a Curse wont be able to drain you to 0, but it will get there (and to counter it, it's going to take two of your mid slots), or you can add multiple tracking computers...

Sure, you can add 2 sensor boosters and be able to lock more than 30km away or in under a minute, but again, that's two mid slots gone... plus the WCS to counter the increased range of the warp disruptors.



You can use Halos and a load of speed mods to lower the effectiveness of being webbed and target painted...

but at the end of the day, all the recons still affect you. Why people think adding 3 ECCMs will mean you can't be jammed is beyond me.


Rolling Eyes
The point is that ECCM is deadweight. 3x ECCM equals 100%-75% of the mids of a great majority of all ships. 2x Sensor boosters gives a damn good bonus when you are not being damped,Ditto tracking computer. I already think WCS are a waste of space on combat fittings ( even with the more ample room for low slot modules), so please dont go there.

For ECCM to be more viable a good starting point would be to provide a flat% to make ANY racial EW not work.

Random ECM musings..
5 sec cooloff timer
+%sig radius on active ECM modules

Ralarina
Caldari
Vivicide
Posted - 2009.01.05 19:36:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Max Hardcase

For ECCM to be more viable a good starting point would be to provide a flat% to make ANY racial EW not work.



You mean like... a sensor backup array?

Ralarina
Caldari
Vivicide
Posted - 2009.01.05 19:38:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: Max Hardcase

The point is that ECCM is deadweight. 3x ECCM equals 100%-75% of the mids of a great majority of all ships.



But you don't need 3x ECCM on every ship.

If you're in a gang and the other side has a falcon, then all of you with 1 ECCM or one sensor backup array means it's that much harder to jam all / any of you. The falcon loses more cycles, takes more to jam you... as a result ok, individuals may still get permajammed but the gang as a whole is suddenly 30% less jammed overall.

Yeah if the Falcon's concentrating on one particular ship, that's gonna be out of the fight regardless but overall, it works for the gang.

Colonel Xaven
Decadence.
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2009.01.05 19:48:00 - [29]
 

You only need one ship with decent ECCM that goes for that Falcon.

Nuclear Warrior
Posted - 2009.01.05 19:53:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: Ralarina

But you don't need 3x ECCM on every ship.

If you're in a gang and the other side has a falcon, then all of you with 1 ECCM or one sensor backup array means it's that much harder to jam all / any of you. The falcon loses more cycles, takes more to jam you... as a result ok, individuals may still get permajammed but the gang as a whole is suddenly 30% less jammed overall.

Yeah if the Falcon's concentrating on one particular ship, that's gonna be out of the fight regardless but overall, it works for the gang.


Thats the problem though. The best way to deal with a falcon is to bring enough ships so it cant jam them all. And the solution to that? Another falcon!

So once again, EVE slowly strangles the life out of pilots who want to fly solo or with 1/2 others.

The logical conclusion of your point is we should kill Solo/small group PvP and all fly in 300 man battleship blobs. And I agree. That is the best way to counter a falcon.


Pages: [1] 2 3 4

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