open All Channels
seplocked Ships and Modules
blankseplocked Falcon, the anti-fun of eve
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 : last (11)

Author Topic

Balendin
Posted - 2009.01.15 13:01:00 - [271]
 

Edited by: Balendin on 15/01/2009 13:00:59
No, we should clarify: I have just scratched the Vagina of a thread this is, with the cry baby vaginas being called out for being just what they are.

Anvalor
Gallente
Germania Inc.
D0GMA
Posted - 2009.01.15 13:09:00 - [272]
 

Edited by: Anvalor on 15/01/2009 13:09:52
Originally by: Balendin
Edited by: Balendin on 15/01/2009 13:00:59
No, we should clarify: I have just scratched the Vagina of a thread this is, with the cry baby vaginas being called out for being just what they are.


There is no need to explain what you are. Noone is perfect and we like you how you are as a small little cute crybaby. Laughing

Sung Mina
Posted - 2009.01.15 13:26:00 - [273]
 

my corp has no problem with falcons, we have our own falcons to jam thier falcons

Murina
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2009.01.15 13:35:00 - [274]
 

Edited by: Murina on 15/01/2009 13:36:39
Originally by: Sung Mina
my corp has no problem with falcons, we have our own falcons to jam their falcons



Most ppl who fly in adaptable, versatile and maneuverable gangs have very little problem with falcons whether they have some themselves or not.

In fact falcons tend not to be the best choice to combat other falcons due to the high sig str of recons, if you have a falcon in your gang your much better off assigning your jams elsewhere and letting other ships deal with the hostile ECM ships.

chrisss0r
The Lowbirds
Posted - 2009.01.15 13:40:00 - [275]
 

Originally by: Pac SubCom
Originally by: Camilo Cienfuegos
Until then, it's a moot point.



The "Bayesian method" doesn't influence the final outcome. It's still (1-p)^n, no matter which timeframe your calculations are based on. The real moot point is the pretension that wasting half of your jammers is what CCP created their balance around.

For instance, if the jamming probability of a single jammer is 30%, the Bayesian method does not convert this into 100% on one ship + 30% on a second with two jammers, and this is what I suspect he wants to say. If I win the lottery, this doesn't mean the probability to win is 100%.


This is indeed true. As i stated above the formula is still true once u won't add more jammers.
CCP calculated the chances of beeing jammed or not jammed around the simple formula and it would be the right formula to us if u could only decide in the beginning of the fight how many jammers to apply to a target and could only apply them all at once.

The fact that u can add the jammer one after another converts jamming from a fix chance like it's calculated by all the people here into a staged one and on each stage u can use the information gathered (yes/no) for your decision to deploy another jammer or not.

The result is, that you always have the "maximum" number of jammers free (depending on the outcome of the jammers you have already applied) to break a lock when your deployed jammers fail. Resulting in ALOT more "permajams" than the usually used formula would suggest.

On more than one target the outcome is even more drastic since the falcon can supply the optimal number of jammers on each target instead of, and only in that case the simple formula would be correct. Deciding in the beginning of the fight who to apply how many jammers to and not beeing able to change that decision.

I know the difference is not easy to get but it's a large impact on the question whether or nor someone will be able to lock anything the first maybe 120 seconds after a falcon arrives.

Numbers will not be provided. Not because i talk some blubberish that does not change anything but because calculating this pile of crap is a huge pile of work i don't wanna invest. We are talking about dozens of working hours..

Murina
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2009.01.15 13:56:00 - [276]
 

Edited by: Murina on 15/01/2009 14:17:38




Originally by: chrisss0r


The fact that u can add the jammer one after another converts jamming from a fix chance like it's calculated by all the people here into a staged one and on each stage u can use the information gathered (yes/no) for your decision to deploy another jammer or not.

The result is, that you always have the "maximum" number of jammers free (depending on the outcome of the jammers you have already applied) to break a lock when your deployed jammers fail. Resulting in ALOT more "permajams" than the usually used formula would suggest.

On more than one target the outcome is even more drastic since the falcon can supply the optimal number of jammers on each target instead of, and only in that case the simple formula would be correct. Deciding in the beginning of the fight who to apply how many jammers to and not beeing able to change that decision.




How do you reconcile the fact that your ideas about the falcon "perma" jamming more frequently that you think ppl understand relies on it being fitted with a rack of one type of racial and facing the correct racial ships. And that it also only applies if your trying to jam a single ship instead of multiple targets.

After all most falcons only have 1 racial per race or maybe 1 of 3 races and 2 of a a forth race depending on the fit...

Lets be honest if i have 1 of each racial and i miss with my gallente jammer on a gallente ship the amarr, caldari and mini jammers are only gonna have a minor and marginal chance to get a successful jam against it and as such only raise the odds very slightly of a "perma" jam.

Yarissia
Posted - 2009.01.15 14:36:00 - [277]
 

Originally by: Murina

Lets be honest if i have 1 of each racial and i miss with my gallente jammer on a gallente ship the amarr, caldari and mini jammers are only gonna have a minor and marginal chance to get a successful jam against it and as such only raise the odds very slightly of a "perma" jam.


Ehm no. An off racial still has between 4 and 5 strength on the other races. That comes down to around 25% chance to jam a battleship (sensorstrength between 20-23). With 3 wrong racial this means that the chance of the bs not being jammed is 0.75^3=0.42. That means that you still have a chance of 58% of jamming a battleship with 3 wrong racials, thats not a slight effect on the odds. It gets even worse for things like cruiser,hacs,bcs,cs so the numbers i used here are actually a little bit in favor of the falcon since it has to jam a pretty hard target.

Murina
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2009.01.15 14:45:00 - [278]
 

Originally by: Yarissia
Originally by: Murina

Lets be honest if i have 1 of each racial and i miss with my gallente jammer on a gallente ship the amarr, caldari and mini jammers are only gonna have a minor and marginal chance to get a successful jam against it and as such only raise the odds very slightly of a "perma" jam.


Ehm no. An off racial still has between 4 and 5 strength on the other races. That comes down to around 25% chance to jam a battleship (sensorstrength between 20-23). With 3 wrong racial this means that the chance of the bs not being jammed is 0.75^3=0.42. That means that you still have a chance of 58% of jamming a battleship with 3 wrong racials, thats not a slight effect on the odds. It gets even worse for things like cruiser,hacs,bcs,cs so the numbers i used here are actually a little bit in favor of the falcon since it has to jam a pretty hard target.


The figures may or may not be right but even so you need 3 jammers for a roughly 50% chance to jam a battleship with no counter fitted.

Yarissia
Posted - 2009.01.15 14:47:00 - [279]
 

Originally by: chrisss0r

The fact that u can add the jammer one after another converts jamming from a fix chance like it's calculated by all the people here into a staged one and on each stage u can use the information gathered (yes/no) for your decision to deploy another jammer or not.

The result is, that you always have the "maximum" number of jammers free (depending on the outcome of the jammers you have already applied) to break a lock when your deployed jammers fail. Resulting in ALOT more "permajams" than the usually used formula would suggest.


Only against multiple targets. If you only jam one target it doesnt matter for the chance of being jammed if you turn on one jammer after the other or all at the same time. This is because the chances of jamming are not correlated to each other. In other words your off-racials jammers dont mind if your racial got a jam or not they will still jam with the same chance.
The only thing you will get if you jam-look if jam worked-turn on next jammer is more cap and obviously a couple of free jammers.
Against one target this doesnt really matter.
But i agree with you that on multiple targets it does play a major roll if you do that or not, and also that this is kinda hard to calculate(there are lots of different situations and outcomes to think of here).

chrisss0r
The Lowbirds
Posted - 2009.01.15 14:53:00 - [280]
 

Edited by: chrisss0r on 15/01/2009 14:59:15
Edited by: chrisss0r on 15/01/2009 14:57:32
Edited by: chrisss0r on 15/01/2009 14:55:06
Edited by: chrisss0r on 15/01/2009 14:53:12
Originally by: Yarissia
Originally by: chrisss0r

The fact that u can add the jammer one after another converts jamming from a fix chance like it's calculated by all the people here into a staged one and on each stage u can use the information gathered (yes/no) for your decision to deploy another jammer or not.

The result is, that you always have the "maximum" number of jammers free (depending on the outcome of the jammers you have already applied) to break a lock when your deployed jammers fail. Resulting in ALOT more "permajams" than the usually used formula would suggest.


Only against multiple targets. If you only jam one target it doesnt matter for the chance of being jammed if you turn on one jammer after the other or all at the same time. This is because the chances of jamming are not correlated to each other. In other words your off-racials jammers dont mind if your racial got a jam or not they will still jam with the same chance.
The only thing you will get if you jam-look if jam worked-turn on next jammer is more cap and obviously a couple of free jammers.
Against one target this doesnt really matter.


This is not correct because the number of free jammers determines wheather i can permajam or not drastically. Against a single target it is an advantage to have jammers free in the event of having the applied jammers to target miss a cycle so u can jam him again before he can get a lock. By adding one jammer after another you can determine the exact number of jammers needed to jam a target and thus keep the maximum number of jammers free.
As i stated before this biases the likelehood of jamming a target into the period the first cycles of jams occur.

Murina:
My argument is not simply that more jammers are better. You miss the point completely and should just shut up instead of showing off your lack of understanding.

If the falcon has 6 jammers, faces 6 opponents and puts 1 jammer on each of them the bayesian calculus is not needed at all, so the usual formula applies. one more reason why falcons kill small gangfights. The less targets the bigger shift of permajamming propability into the period till all jammers are applied

Yarissia
Posted - 2009.01.15 14:56:00 - [281]
 

Originally by: Murina

The figures may or may not be right but even so you need 3 jammers for a roughly 50% chance to jam a battleship with no counter fitted.


Its actually closer to 60% and usually you should have a racial for that bs in the first place(which already has a 60 to 70% chance to jam a bs), the off racials only come into play if your racial misses and you REALLY need that guy jammed. And normally a falcon has 5(4 of each race+joker) racials which means that even in a worst case situation you still have 4 jammers to absolutly jam that one ship(in this case the chance to jam is pretty close to 70%).
And yes these numbers are against a battleship with no counter fitted, but you wont always encounter eccmed bs. I heard sometimes people also came in ships like frigs,cruiser,bcs and their t2 variants and these are all easier to jam.

Another thing i didnt mention here (and this also counts in favour off the falcon) is the relock time of bs, which actually also plays a roll if you wanna know the time your opponent cant lock.

Murina
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2009.01.15 15:00:00 - [282]
 

Originally by: chrisss0r


Murina:
My argument is not simply that more jammers are better. You miss the point completely and should just shut up instead of showing off your lack of understanding.


I understand plenty pal its your lack of real time experience and reliance on sheer numbers that is letting you down.

1. against a single target having jammers free makes no difference and no sense at all as you will either get a jam or not and holding a jammer back just in case you do not is pointless.

2. Against multiple ships it makes sense to put racial jams on the ships they will effect most in order of threat levels of the said ships.

chrisss0r
The Lowbirds
Posted - 2009.01.15 15:02:00 - [283]
 

Edited by: chrisss0r on 15/01/2009 15:03:01
Originally by: Murina
1. against a single target having jammers free makes no difference and no sense at all as you will either get a jam or not and holding a jammer back just in case you do not is pointless.



Well now i really know why you think the falcon is balanced. You just suck at getting everything out of ecm. And please stop pretending to understand what i'm saying everyone with better knowledge in statistic calculus just laughs at your counter arguments

Murina
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2009.01.15 15:05:00 - [284]
 

Originally by: Yarissia
And normally a falcon has 5(4 of each race+joker) racials which means that even in a worst case situation you still have 4 jammers to absolutly jam that one ship(in this case the chance to jam is pretty close to 70%).
And yes these numbers are against a battleship with no counter fitted, but you wont always encounter eccmed bs.


70% chance to jam a non-counter fitted BS?, that is 4 mid slots on a bonused ECM ship btw...

Originally by: Yarissia
Another thing i didnt mention here (and this also counts in favour off the falcon) is the relock time of bs, which actually also plays a roll if you wanna know the time your opponent cant lock.


Jam cycle = 20 seconds, lock time a BS gets on a cruiser is around 10 seconds giving the BS (depending on race) upto 3 volleys.

Murina
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2009.01.15 15:09:00 - [285]
 

Edited by: Murina on 15/01/2009 15:12:16




Originally by: Murina
1. against a single target having jammers free makes no difference and no sense at all as you will either get a jam or not and holding a jammer back just in case you do not is pointless.



Originally by: chrisss0r
Well now i really know why you think the falcon is balanced. You just suck at getting everything out of ecm.


Leaving jammers free against a single target helps get more out of ECM how?. A target is either jammed or its not pal waiting to find out and then activating your "saved" jammers has no greater chance of jamming a single ship than just throwing them all on in the first place.

If your math does not tell you that i suggest you start using your fingers when you count.Laughing



Originally by: chrisss0r
And please stop pretending to understand what i'm saying everyone with better knowledge in statistic calculus just laughs at your counter arguments


And ppl who actually play eve are laughing at your stupid paper tiger arguments.

Camilo Cienfuegos
Earned In Blood
Posted - 2009.01.15 15:12:00 - [286]
 

Edited by: Camilo Cienfuegos on 15/01/2009 15:12:46
Using 3 non racial jammers to jam a tier 3 battleship:

(1-(1-4.708/23)^3)*100 = (1-(1-0.205)^3)*100 = (1-0.795^3)*100 = (1-0.502)*100 = 0.498*100
= 49.8% or 50%

That's just linear as well, the real probability would work out slightly higher.

Quote:
Leaving jammers free against a single target helps get more out of ECM how?


The principle is exactly the same as ensuring your jammers are not set to auto repeat.

Murina
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2009.01.15 15:19:00 - [287]
 

Edited by: Murina on 15/01/2009 16:56:39

Originally by: Camilo Cienfuegos



Quote:
Leaving jammers free against a single target helps get more out of ECM how?


The principle is exactly the same as ensuring your jammers are not set to auto repeat.


It makes no sense against a single target not to just put all your jams on it in the first place as its not like theirs any other ships around to save any for.

In fact if you click one jammer and wait a few secs to see if it hits then another then another it could give the target ship a chance to lock one of your ships that's within range and fire or assign drones ect ect before you get through your entire rack, especially if its the last jam you assign that gets a activation.

While if you just sling them all on him str8 away the odds are exactly the same for a jam but if one does activate he does not have a chance to lock and shoot ect ect one of your gangs ships.

How hard is that to understand?.

chrisss0r
The Lowbirds
Posted - 2009.01.15 17:02:00 - [288]
 

Originally by: Murina

It makes no sense against a single target not to just put all your jams in it in he first place as its not like theirs any other ships around to save any for.

In fact if you click one and wait a few secs to see if it hits then another then another it could give the target ship a chance to lock one of your ships thats within range and fire or assign drones ect ect before you get through your entire rack, especially if its the last jam you assign that gets him.

While if you just sling them all on him str8 away the odds are exactly the same for a jam but if one does activate he does not have a chance to lock and shoot ect ect one of your gangs ships.

How hard is that to understand?.


This is indeed true but only viable as long as you can be sure the fight won't last longer than 20 seconds. For every next jam cycles you will have wasted free jammers u would have had in many cases thus increasing the probability of your target to get a lock.

This post again shows that you did not understand what i'm talking about.
Bayesian probaility calculus is not about changing chances. The jam chances for The single jammer are still the very same but it's about gathering information.
instead of wasting all your jammers on the single target and allowing him a 20 seconds logspan in case they all should fail you just apply as many as needed. Jamming is not a single point event when u deploy your jammers 1 by 1. It get's staged and every new stage allows you to chose if you should apply another jammer and this is resulting in alot more permajams until all jammers are applied. Read the wikipedia article and freaking try to understand it.
Statistic calculus does not use the bayesian formula just for the simple joy it brings while havin the same results as your simple calculus.


Murina
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2009.01.15 17:09:00 - [289]
 

Edited by: Murina on 15/01/2009 17:21:57




Originally by: chrisss0r
Originally by: Murina

It makes no sense against a single target not to just put all your jams in it in he first place as its not like theirs any other ships around to save any for.

In fact if you click one and wait a few secs to see if it hits then another then another it could give the target ship a chance to lock one of your ships thats within range and fire or assign drones ect ect before you get through your entire rack, especially if its the last jam you assign that gets him.

While if you just sling them all on him str8 away the odds are exactly the same for a jam but if one does activate he does not have a chance to lock and shoot ect ect one of your gangs ships.

How hard is that to understand?.


This is indeed true but only viable as long as you can be sure the fight won't last longer than 20 seconds. For every next jam cycles you will have wasted free jammers u would have had in many cases thus increasing the probability of your target to get a lock.




No matter the odds of jamming if i have 5 jammers all activated at the same time or every 4 seconds (over a 16 second period) the odds of each jammer actually jamming him is exactly the same.


uzumoreru
Posted - 2009.01.15 17:20:00 - [290]
 

Originally by: Murina
No matter the odds of jamming if i have 5 jammers all activated at the same time or every 4 seconds (over a 16 second period) the odds of each jammer actually jamming him is exactly the same.

Now


Wrong, your odds of jamming him over time (ie, beyond a 20 second period as chriss0r said) are worse. The ideal is 100% time spent jammed, your method of applying jams is, over time, the worst way possible; the best way is to stagger them.

Murina
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2009.01.15 17:26:00 - [291]
 

Edited by: Murina on 15/01/2009 17:30:25

Originally by: uzumoreru
Originally by: Murina
No matter the odds of jamming if i have 5 jammers all activated at the same time or every 4 seconds (over a 16 second period) the odds of each jammer actually jamming him is exactly the same.

Now


Wrong, your odds of jamming him over time (ie, beyond a 20 second period as chriss0r said) are worse. The ideal is 100% time spent jammed, your method of applying jams is, over time, the worst way possible; the best way is to stagger them.


So if your first cycle of jams miss and in the second cycle its the last jammer you activate that nails him it could be upto 30-40 seconds into the fight before you get a activation...while the other method gets all jammers activated twice in the first 20-21 seconds of the fight.

You seem to think im arguing the math but im not im pointing out the impracticality of it cos its a classic on paper vs practical application argument.

Lilith Velkor
Minmatar
Heretic Army
B A N E
Posted - 2009.01.15 18:09:00 - [292]
 

Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 15/01/2009 18:14:15
Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 15/01/2009 18:10:24
Originally by: chrisss0r

Numbers will not be provided. Not because i talk some blubberish that does not change anything but because calculating this pile of crap is a huge pile of work i don't wanna invest. We are talking about dozens of working hours..


What about a simulation x jammers vs 1+y targets, generate a few 100k samples over 120sec period and be done with that.

Could be the best way to answer the question since there are quite many factors to include like target lock time which can have a huge impact, user reaction time on side of the jammer and the target, target fleet composition vs jammer loadout, overlapping jamming cycles and I bet there are more.

And then, I think there is the whole issue with the discussion having some people talking about time jammed or not, and the others about 'can shoot' or cant shoot'.

Amira Shadowsong
Caldari
Posted - 2009.01.15 20:07:00 - [293]
 

Originally by: Lilith Velkor
Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 15/01/2009 18:14:15
Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 15/01/2009 18:10:24
Originally by: chrisss0r

Numbers will not be provided. Not because i talk some blubberish that does not change anything but because calculating this pile of crap is a huge pile of work i don't wanna invest. We are talking about dozens of working hours..


What about a simulation x jammers vs 1+y targets, generate a few 100k samples over 120sec period and be done with that.

Could be the best way to answer the question since there are quite many factors to include like target lock time which can have a huge impact, user reaction time on side of the jammer and the target, target fleet composition vs jammer loadout, overlapping jamming cycles and I bet there are more.

And then, I think there is the whole issue with the discussion having some people talking about time jammed or not, and the others about 'can shoot' or cant shoot'.


Why are you still debating with chrisssor? You know he is right. You don't need a simulation.

Grendelsbane
Posted - 2009.01.16 02:25:00 - [294]
 

Originally by: Gorefacer
I endorse anything that creates more fights and reduces ease of escape for people in general.

Even though I'm terrible and it means I'll lose more ships.






You have it bass-ackwards. What EVE needs is a reason for people to stand and fight, not a mechanism to prevent them from leaving (which is the brute-force, unenlightened method CCP has pursued for years, which simply doesn't work and leads to all sorts of unintended problems).

Dray
Caldari
Euphoria Released
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2009.01.16 02:34:00 - [295]
 

Way to much recall here for my liking, in my experience I can live with falcons, using them and fighting against them, it's too easy to think your perma-jammed a whole fight, there's so many things happening and people dont keep track of whats going on and bias is always natural.

I've done it myself but luckily enough I've been playing the game a long time and with some good people who also recall the same fights in different ways and from the different viewpoints a whole different picture can emerge.

I'm not saying you weren't perma-jammed I've had fight where I might as well have been but that's what an EW ship does, I really dont see the problem, for me the main thing in a fight is not to panic and pay attention, I know this sounds like pvp 101 but seriously in the time I've played this game I've seen it a million times from the best to the worst.

Just remember anecdotal evidence is worth nothing, numbers aren't worth much more, i fly falcons sometimes and sometimes i don't but falcons do not and never have scared me you work around it and get on with it.

I really don't care what the numbers say or some ones perception of the overpowered falcon ruining their game experience, that's what they do.

What will ultimately break this game is the constant cries for nerfs, maybe eccm needs a boost but I've flown in rr bs gangs and we've always fit eccm and it did make a difference, that's not rose tinted sunglasses telling you this, that's on the job experience.

In skilled hands the falcon should be a pain in the arse, and rightly so, its an ecm boat.

Stop crying, start f**king trying, or play something else, its not about fair its about ruining the other guys day and using the right tools for the job.

If I'm in a fair fight I want to know what I did wrong so I can avoid doing it again.

Eve in a nutshell.

Lilith Velkor
Minmatar
Heretic Army
B A N E
Posted - 2009.01.16 02:43:00 - [296]
 

Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 16/01/2009 03:02:53
Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 16/01/2009 02:53:59
Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 16/01/2009 02:49:24
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong

Why are you still debating with chrisssor? You know he is right. You don't need a simulation.


If you did care to read, he is unable to provide any result at all. So, he is right about what?

His objections have however, in contrast to yours, a ground to stand on.

Since he provides no result, we are left to speculate about the actual impact.

This is where a simulation comes into play, it can, without doing much analysis, provide just a heap of data that takes into account the many variables we have to consider to find out if you are right and there is an issue with 'permajamming'.


A simple scenario taking 5 racial vs 5 ships at 28 sensor strength compared to the same jammers vs 56 sensor strength at a 8 second locktime over a 120 second timeframe reveals why eccm is a good idea, and yes, if he has 5 proper racials for your unhardened ship you are most likely not getting more than 12 seconds shooting time if any if you are the first target.

This can be considered a worst-case scenario though.

Amira Shadowsong
Caldari
Posted - 2009.01.16 03:09:00 - [297]
 

Originally by: Lilith Velkor


If you did care to read, he is unable to provide any result at all. So, he is right about what?




The result is quite obvious. There just is no point in explaining college physics to monkeys. Therefor he can't be arsed to waste hours to calculate the result of something quite obvious. A result you will ignore and troll. That's why.

Lilith Velkor
Minmatar
Heretic Army
B A N E
Posted - 2009.01.16 03:11:00 - [298]
 

Originally by: Amira Shadowsong
Originally by: Lilith Velkor


If you did care to read, he is unable to provide any result at all. So, he is right about what?




The result is quite obvious. There just is no point in explaining college physics to monkeys. Therefor he can't be arsed to waste hours to calculate the result of something quite obvious. A result you will ignore and troll. That's why.


Honestly, I seriously doubt you even understand a fraction of the 'college physics' involved Rolling Eyes

Amira Shadowsong
Caldari
Posted - 2009.01.16 03:12:00 - [299]
 

Originally by: Lilith Velkor


Honestly, I seriously doubt you even understand a fraction of the 'college physics' involved Rolling Eyes


Try me...shall we start talking about fourier transforms dear? Shall we?

Arbiter Reformed
Minmatar
Garnet Resources
Posted - 2009.01.16 04:05:00 - [300]
 

Edited by: arbiter reformed on 16/01/2009 04:17:32
yep this has happend to me no matter what i fly, people dont care anymore, falcons and ecm as a whole needs to change its fuking rediculos


and to be constructive, why dont sensor boosters boost sensor strength? eccm doesnt work as well as it should. although the problem is multimple hostiles with falcon v 1 person without. any module - the way ecm works at the moment- just arnt what you can consider a viable counter. ecm sucks balls


Pages: first : previous : ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 : last (11)

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