Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 30 .. 38 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Muad' Dib
Gallente Beyond Divinity Inc
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 11:16:00 -
[511]
Originally by: Avon
Originally by: Nikuno Surely the Rook and Falcon should be the other way around? The rook should be the stronger of the 2 at closer ranges with the ability to brawl a little, whilst the falcon should be weaker ecm with it's thinner tank and low to no damage. Even then the Falcon range should max out at the same sort of ranges damps and TD's do.
Yeah, you would expect the combat recon to be the brawler. To be honest, apart from that rather surprising oversight, I think the changes sound okay. You can still use range, but you are in falloff, so effectiveness is reduced. What is wrong with that?
Can't wait to test it all out.
Being only in a 0.0 alliance, who never sees sentry guns, obviously nothing ... for you. Goons did a wrecking on you for foresight ? --- I smack just for myself.
* Your signature file is to large. Please note: we do not allow signature files larger than 24000 bytes - Fallout |
Darth Felin
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 11:18:00 -
[512]
Good changes but can you add some drone bay to falcon please for some lights, at least 15m3 to try to fend off some tacklers? Falcon will need it even more than Rook.
P.S.
Third missile and turret slot will be great also while you are at this.
|
Adaera
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 11:19:00 -
[513]
Edited by: Adaera on 25/03/2009 11:32:58 Everyone has pretty much said everything for me, but just my 2 ISK here on the Falcon/Rook relationship:
The drone bay on the Rook is a great addition - but if you're going to do that, make the Rook the close range brawler. The Falcon is laughable in that role for a variety of reasons, so just swap them round.
Oh and question: Where do you see the Griffin/Kitsune/Blackbird in all this? ___________________
I for one welcome our new bee overlords |
Samiloth Justinian
Evolution Band of Brothers Reloaded
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 11:24:00 -
[514]
The real problems seems to be to make the ECM ships balanced both in 0.0 large scale battles (where every BS worth it’s minerals can shoot 160+ km) and low sec skirmishes. Perhaps it is possible to have mid slot modules that greatly increase the range but that can’t be used in Empire (like bombs, cyno fields, bubbles). In that way we could keep the current 0.0 ranges (with 2 modules or so) while Empire could have the proposed shorter ranges.
Still, if forced to fight at stone throwing ranges in Empire, the falcon will need more damage (1 more launcher at least) and more tank. Falcons fitted for long 0.0 range would also need more slots for jammers if mid slots is used for extra range. Perhaps it is possible to remove a couple of mid slots, give it more high slots and make the jammers high slots modules. With 8 high slots, 3 of which are launcher slots, most essential things could be fitted. Long range snipers will have 6 slots open for jammers if they only have cloak + cyno and skip missiles and probe launcher. Short range Empire fighters don’t need a cyno so they could fit 3 missile launchers, a cloak and 4 jammers.
In that way, falcons must be short ranged in Empire, and falcons fitted for short range would thus get a couple of extra mid slots to use for a tank. Long range 0.0 falcons would not be able to fit a tank since they need an MWD, sensor booster and 1-2 modules for increased range. 8/4/3 slots might do the trick.
Now.. I can’t say that I want this or the OP’s change. I like the falcon as it is now and will be perfectly happy if it remain as it is. I’m just trying to find some alternative to the OP’s insane ideas that forebodes terrible things to come.
|
Diakono
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 11:30:00 -
[515]
Shocking ideas à. Who the hell is complaining so much about Falcons? And where?
ô- Oooo Mommy I canÆt lock the bad guys ships Oooo!ö - The same complainers forget that in their own gang the same sort of ships are jamming the enemy force as well. These ships are not reserved for a single Alliance or Corporation making the game unbalanced (though you could still think of instead of nerfing Falcons - you could just reserve them for BOBR use only)
Having no distance advantage these paper-thin Falcons would be instantly dead. One f****** shot! Why donÆt you just remove them from the game?
If you already have decided to nerf the ECM ships (as we all believe you did and this discussion is just formal) then Falcon and Rook should be really other way around nerfed.
And it is f****** b****** that Falcons stay safe on distance doing their evil job û Falcons die even more often in mid to large encounters since they are default primary targets.
Falcons look like a safe God-mode play only for noobs who is getting daily chased around low sec. All these noobs are thinking that their ship got lost because of this bloody Falcon 200km away of the gate û Otherwise! û O boy, O boy (Noob tells the tale later) û ôI would have kicked so many asses from the gate camp if I could have locked ANYTHING!!!ö
|
Warrio
Southern Cross Incorporated Dara Cothrom
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 11:34:00 -
[516]
"Falcon becomes more like the Pilgrim"... Mmm, I wish the Pilgrim could operate at 50km... sXe |
Malena Panic
Gallente Veto. Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 11:38:00 -
[517]
Originally by: Jarod Leercap I'd recommend making E-war abilities complementary...
ECM: I'd give this two inherent effects by default "ping" and "drone". "Ping" would have a chance of immediately braking all target locks (established and in progress). "Drone" would have a chance to delay the ability to start targeting a new target for a time, and a chance of at breaking each *individual* lock. I'd have two ECM scripts; the first would reduced range, improved drone, and elminated ping, and the second would increase range, improve ping, and eliminate drone.
Dampeners: I'd change the scripts for dampeners. I'd have the first decrease effective range, improved the target range reduction, and eliminated the sensor resolution impact, and I'd have the second script improve effective range, eliminate the target range reduction, and improve the signature sensor resolution impact.
Basically, the idea would be to give the Falcon and Arazu the ability to sufficiently degrade an opponent's sensors to be able to solo or support a small, short range gang. Likewise, the goal would be to give the Lachesis and Rook the ability to operate meaningfully in larger fleets--with the proviso that they work best when they work together.
I like this idea too!
Bottom line is that it's the ECM mechanic that needs to change. ... |
huxorator
Intergalactic Serenity Skunk-Works
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 11:53:00 -
[518]
A more easy way to rebalance EWAR and Recons would be to just remove all Recons except Rapier from the game. That class will be pretty useless, or at least very overprized for what they do. --- IGS Website | Killboard | Game-Time Cards |
Jovoich
Kleinrock Heavy Industries The Kadeshi
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 11:54:00 -
[519]
HINT - Fit ECCM!!!!!!
We had a 4 BS RR gang the other day... I was the only one to fit ECCM... I got jammed once, while the other were perma jammed! They fielded 3 falcons.
I call 'Bull****' CCP. Isn't it great that the alchemy process was introduced & can 'take up the slack?' |
Hophmann
Cafe Quafe
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 11:56:00 -
[520]
Originally by: Bazman CHANGE THE ECM MECHANIC.
20 Seconds of doing nothing is the problem.
Agree to this!
|
|
Scarlet Pimpernel
Clan Eshin
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 12:03:00 -
[521]
Originally by: Freyya I have a better idea; Leave the falcon as it is but give the arazu a 200+ km scrambler range, give the pilgrim a 200Km tracking disruption (no not a neut one, that would make it overpowered :P) and the rapier a 200Km target paining range...ohh alright a 200km web range then.
There problem solved with purrrrfectly balanced recons. With only recons in mind then. All the whiners happy and all the buff other recons people happy too. Win Win no?
You missed out the bit where all their other bonuses (and drone bays) were removed.....
|
DNSBLACK
Gallente Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Associates
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 12:03:00 -
[522]
BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF ECCM
1. Leave the ship platforms alone they take months to train into and if you nerf the ship you basically said screw your training time we dont care.
2. Now training into a counter is not as long BUUUUUUUUUUUUUFFFFFFFFFFFF ECCM and make it the counter. Make the gank ships and there super tanks use a slot to safe their ship from the o so evil falcon.
3. The falcon give up tank and DPS for jam. make the other ships give up 1 or 2 slots to defend them against the Falcon. Balanced
4. For all that is holy recruit a falcon pilot and bam balance. The one poster was right these ships are not being horded by one or another group. Start training or recruiting and you counter why rely on the dev to mess this up.
|
van Uber
Swedish Aerospace Inc Southern Cross Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 12:03:00 -
[523]
Originally by: SauI Tigh Also "We have been looking at all the ECM ships (Griffin, Kitsune, Blackbird, Falcon, Rook and Scorpion)"
Hmm notice a ship missing there? No since your part of the rebalancing group I guess not. Its the WIDOW. You forgetting it isn't a surprise since you have forgotten all about it since you released it over a YEAR ago and haven't touched it since even though you admitted in a live dev blog that they came PRE-nerfed.
Really deserves to be repeated.
|
Colonel Xaven
Decadence. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 12:04:00 -
[524]
Originally by: Hophmann
Originally by: Bazman CHANGE THE ECM MECHANIC.
20 Seconds of doing nothing is the problem.
Agree to this!
You could check the market in these 20 seconds, or use your corp chat to say hi or many other things. Ok, 20 seconds are a short time to call your girlfriend, but you could write her a short message. A little bit more fantasy, please!
Proud member of RZR - Decadence. |
Spunknick
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 12:09:00 -
[525]
1. Fit ECCM 2. Here goes CCP nurfing stuff again cause of whinebags. The nurfing of things is going to be the downfall of this game one day.
Again...dare I say...CCP does not need to nurf anything with ECM...they have already introduced ECCM. If you are going to do anything...give ECCM more power to counter ECM. Freaking quit nurfing stuff!!! Just start introducing something stronger to counter. |
Mark Marlowe
Caldari Thundercats RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 12:13:00 -
[526]
Well nerf has been comming for a while, but its ok to be sensable about it /Rage ON Using falcon for a close in brawler is kinda stupid (no offence), this ship uses range and Electronic Warfare (here after refered to as EW) as tank. Are you suggesting that the Falcon uses a Armor tank? Maybe give the Falcon a +5% bonus to all armor resists while you are at it? Normally a ECM pilot would use as many mid slots as possible for EW. Caldari ships are SHIELD tankers! And giving the 'long range Rook' drones... The long range drone type? I guess the next 'nerf' will be to nerf Railguns.. So remove the Rokh range bonus and and give them a Shield booster bonus maybe AFAIK Caldari doctrine was based on long range warfare! /Rage OFF
Well now I have emoed a little and I guess its time to get constructive, here are my suggestions ">>>>>" for 'NERF' / 'improvement':
Griffon: Frig +15% ECM strength -10% ECM module Cap use.
Kitsune: Frig +20% ECM strength -10% ECM module Cap use. EAS +10% ECM Optimal range >>>>> +10% ECM Falloff Range -5% ECM module Cap use. >>>>> +5% Capacitor Capacity
Blackbird: Cruiser +15% ECM strength +20% ECM Optimal range >>>>> +20 ECM Falloff Range
Falcon: >>>>> +50 to base capacitor capacity! Cruiser -10% ECM module Cap use +20% ECM Optimal range >>>>> +20% ECM strength Recon +20% ECM strength >>>>> +20% Falloff Range *Cloak CPU bonus.
Rook: Cruiser -10% ECM module Cap use +20% ECM Optimal range >>>>> +20% ECM Falloff Range Recon +20% ECM strength >>>>> +10% ECM Optimal Range +5% H.&L Kin. Missile Dam. >>>>> +10% Missile Velocity.
Scorpion: BS +15% ECM strength +20% ECM Optimal range >>>>> +20 ECM Falloff Range
Widow: No Changes
>>>>>I would allso suggest boosting the falloff range on the ECM mods by 50% but that is all.
By replacing optimal bonuses with Falloff bonuses ECM ships at long range will be reduced by app. 50% effectiveness while not changing the ECM effects at shorter ranges. As it is I think the main problem/complaint with ECM boats today is that they are able to work very effectively at long ranges.
Unfortunatly then I think that if the Nerf is to hard then we will stop seeing ECM ships used in EVE. Only real use for EW ships is in PVP atm.
|
Scouting POS
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 12:13:00 -
[527]
MAYBE the simplest and easyest option would be leave all the ships unchanged and to just reduce Optimal range on the ECM modules by 30% and increasing the falloff by 50%!!! This would make the ECM boats unable to work at extrem ranges with optimal effect.
While you are at it, why not change the Arazu and the Lachesis and change the RSD effectiveness bonus from 5% to 10% or even 15% or call me crazy 20%, maybe they will get used again?
|
Scarlet Pimpernel
Clan Eshin
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 12:15:00 -
[528]
For those of you referencing the Widow
The reason it isn't mentioned is this:
Caldari Battleship Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to cruise and siege missile launcher rate of fire and 10% bonus to cruise missile and torpedo velocity per level
Black Ops Skill Bonus: 20% bonus to ECM target jammer strength and multiplies the cloaked velocity by 125% per level
Note: can fit covert cynosural field generators and covert jump portal generators. No targeting delay after decloaking
Notice anything?
It doesn't get a range bonus as it is (notice how high use they are - but thats also a symptom of the price and that Black Ops are pretty gimmicky)
I look forward to the second draft of the ECM changes devs where my ECM ships all get a tank, damage, drones & a second E-War type (oh there isn't one free) for the Recons in exchange for the new much-shorter-range-yet-no-longer-chance-based ECM to bring them in line with the other E-War modules
|
Ferocitana
Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 12:15:00 -
[529]
Just to turn this EW nightmare upside down. why is all non caldari EW cruiser equally bad to make the caldari EW seem so powerful? Buff all the other EW and make it worth using. tracking disruptor disrupt missiles, swap falloff/optimal on dampeners, targetpainting...(I give up). ECM, swap optimal/falloff and whatever to balance them meet the other ew half way.
CCP, Please dont screw up ECM all the way down to the other EW. Balance all 4 EW by buff the others, debuff ECM.
|
D'Artagnan
Bladerunners KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 12:16:00 -
[530]
Dear CCP
Here are my ideas, to rebalance this.
Change the ECM mods to be high slot modules.
Make the changes to the Falcon this: - ECM Strength Bonus increased from 20 to 25% per level - ECM Optimal Range Bonus removed (52km optimal / 81km falloff w/ 2*SDA IIs) - 5% shield resistance per level. (increase its shields as well)
This would better fit your idea of a short range brawler. This way Falcons will have to fight at a close range but would be hard work to kill. So fleets have the choice of: 1. Ignoring the Falcon as it jams away 2. Dedicate a decent amount of time to killing it
The falcon would have very limited firepower so this would not make it over powered in 1 vs 1 situations.
|
|
Pellit1
Caldari Bushwhackers Rough Necks
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 12:18:00 -
[531]
Isn't this going to render ECM ships completely useless for on stations and gates?
|
Sarah Norbulk
Annihilate. Dara Cothrom
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 12:21:00 -
[532]
Originally by: Samiloth Justinian
Originally by: Alex Harumichi
That said: many of our Falcon pilots actually tend to use mostly multispecs, if they don't know what they are facing. One of them (who is a researcher in real life and good with statistical math) did the maths on that and came to the conclusion that only-or-mostly multispecs is the way to go (unless you know what you are facing).
... so ECM pilots do have the "affects everyone" option, and the maths say it's often also a very good choice.
I canÆt agree with that math. It is not only a matter of strength, but also range. With racials I get a range of 213+38 (240 targeting range with 1 SB), with a multi I get 142+25. At 167 km range the majority of the enemy BS fleet + support snipers can shoot me down if they want to, and since people actually want to shoot falcons down (I always want that when I face them), they will take the chance when they get it.
Originally by: Alex Harumichi
(naturally you choose racials if you know the enemy fleet, that's a different matter)
Well, it is often a good bet that all races are involved in a fleet (Amarr more then the rest), and it never hurt to have extra Caldari jamming power to deal with those ECM loving bastards.
The thing with this thread is that the posters are talking about different kind of fights. I think that those who believe the falcon is balanced are talking about 0.0 fleet battles, some even about small 0.0 battles. Those who like the nerf are probably those who are working in small gangs (less then a dozen) often in low sec. From a fleet perspective, the prospect of being within shooting range of 200+ BS when entering fighting range for a falcon is just not a useful feature for the ship, because those who notice the falcon popping up on the overview will lock and fire.
I think that this nerf will basically make the falcon useless in fleet battles, but it may still have a role to fill in gang fights, most likely in a more balanced way.
Originally by: Alex Harumichi
Added: Samiloth, thanks for a reasoned reply, amidst all this shouting and screaming it's very welcome.
ItÆs good to read that my posting was taken as it was intended :)
You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar. Having fought in both large scale fleet engagements and small roams that what is balanced for one, can be quite broken for another. In moderate sized sniper fleets the Falcon is a reasonable asset and is not horribly overpowered. It's counterable and easily killed. However, I prefer small gangs, and if me and 2-3 mates go for a little roam through lowsec Falcons become a major issue. With only 3-4 pilots in a gang any member fit specifically for anti-falcon is a significant loss to the rest of the group, as sniper BS don't do good DPS and most lowsec fights take place within point range(24km). This leaves the only viable counter as a Falcon of our own as that will not be wasted if there is no other Falcon. However, this leads to boring one sided fights as well if the other side doesn't have a Falcon.
I think the new Falcon could be good fun for small gang or solo work if CCP does it right. It would need more DPS. I think a 40m3 drone bay and an extra launcher with a RoF bonus would do the trick. Fit MWD, point, 2x LSE, and 3 multispecs in mids. You're only gonna jam one target, but the other recons can only incapacitate one target at a time, too, so you gotta deal with it. You'll still have EWar range advantage over the other recons. My two cents as a primarily lowsec PvPer, feel free to flame. :P |
Karezan
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 12:22:00 -
[533]
So I decided to play around some with EFT.
In terms of tanking, the falcon is pretty much ****ed (surprise surprise). You either don't fit any PvP mods or ECM at all, and still get only get a mediocre tank, or you fit all that (point, mwd, a few ECM mods) and you have no buffer at all as the ship that will be primaried first.
In terms of DPS, well the good news here is that the falcon can perform about as well as one single Hammerhead II from a pilgrim (or other drone bonused ship). Look at that thing brawling, it's putting out the kind of damage of one single drone!
Incidentally, I imagine the bralwer falcon would probably lose the duel if it was fighting a single hammerhead II.
So why in the world would anyone fly a ship that costs 100m for just the hull, all to do mediocre jamming, about as much dps as a 3 hour old character in a Velator, and get popped 15 seconds into the fight? Really I'd love to know.
There's other ships whose design is pretty much that they're gonna die the second the fight starts, and some of them have very important roles in fleets. Light dictors are probably the best example there. They can be the difference between the enemy fleet warping away when they start losing, or getting decimated. Even if the light dictor is popped very quickly (and they will be), as long as he managed to drop some well placed bubbles, he's played his part. He's out 25m (and most alliances will help with the cost of light dictor losses simply because they are so important), but by performing his role well he could have easily cost the opposing alliance 10-100x as much (or more) in ships that blew up because they couldn't warp off.
A suicide falcon, on the other hand, will not be like this. It costs 4x as much, as soon as it dies it's ECM dies with it, and it's dps is so low it can't even be measured. So how do the devs imagine a falcon will deal with being primary first? How will it survive long enough to perform it's role for a while? How will it manage to fit pvp mods (mwd, point), ecm, and a tank, all at once? How will it not become yet another useless ship?
|
Inquisitor Hamlin
Amarr Exhaulted Hand of the Prophet
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 12:22:00 -
[534]
It seems like this is really overkill for a problem that already has a solution, fit ECCM or any good sniping anti-ECM BS. If CCP must listen to the noobs screaming "Nerf the Falcon!" and do something about it, please consider boosting ECCM bonuses or boosting sensor strength on interceptors before deciding to completely make the ship useless.
Tank - Range has always been the Falcons only defense. The ship is paper thin and can be two volley'ed by any sniping fit battleship. If you reduce the range the falcon will always be primaried and will have zero survivability in a fleet engagement.
Piracy - Reduction of range means that pirates simply will not be able to use the ship. Gate guns operate out to 150km and a falcon will pop in 2-3 volleys from a gate gun. The rook would also operate within that range, and it pops nearly as fast, so it would be useless for piracy as well.
Jam Strength - What good is an extra 5% jam strength if you can only get one jam cycle off before you pop?
The solution to the falcon is ECCM. If you have to fix the problem boost the ECCM modules to benefit people who know how to fit them.
Just a thought - If you made a few more Caldari ships good pvp ships, do you think you might find less people flying falcons?
|
Mai Hantaka
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 12:24:00 -
[535]
Others have said it, I'll just repeat it: given the general roles of the class (combat recon, force recon) and the slot configuration the rook should be the brawler, the falcon the snipah.
|
Pellit1
Caldari Bushwhackers Rough Necks
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 12:28:00 -
[536]
Originally by: Inquisitor Hamlin
Tank - Range has always been the Falcons only defense. The ship is paper thin and can be two volley'ed by any sniping fit battleship. If you reduce the range the falcon will always be primaried and will have zero survivability in a fleet engagement.
Piracy - Reduction of range means that pirates simply will not be able to use the ship. Gate guns operate out to 150km and a falcon will pop in 2-3 volleys from a gate gun. The rook would also operate within that range, and it pops nearly as fast, so it would be useless for piracy as well.
Jam Strength - What good is an extra 5% jam strength if you can only get one jam cycle off before you pop?
The solution to the falcon is ECCM. If you have to fix the problem boost the ECCM modules to benefit people who know how to fit them.
Pretty much what I was thinking, but with more detail
|
Mean McCrabby
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 12:28:00 -
[537]
PLEASE- FACTION AND OFFICER ECM MODULES
I would like the ability to trick out my falcon with super expensive ecm modules that give it a little better performance, just like any other ship gets faction and officer modules.
I HATE the idea of limiting the falcon to very close range. This will mean I cant give support where its needed (often very far away) Just make the strength smaller the further out it goes.
Range truly is the only defense for an ECM bird because if I have to decloak within 60km of a target to engage, and a curse happens to be closeby, chances are I wont jam him and I will be neuted almost immediately and be put out of the fight/scrambled by an arazu and pwned.
Dont force an ECM ship to get up close, just make it less effective the further out it goes.
|
Karezan
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 12:33:00 -
[538]
Originally by: Sarah Norbulk You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar. Having fought in both large scale fleet engagements and small roams that what is balanced for one, can be quite broken for another. In moderate sized sniper fleets the Falcon is a reasonable asset and is not horribly overpowered. It's counterable and easily killed. However, I prefer small gangs, and if me and 2-3 mates go for a little roam through lowsec Falcons become a major issue. With only 3-4 pilots in a gang any member fit specifically for anti-falcon is a significant loss to the rest of the group, as sniper BS don't do good DPS and most lowsec fights take place within point range(24km). This leaves the only viable counter as a Falcon of our own as that will not be wasted if there is no other Falcon. However, this leads to boring one sided fights as well if the other side doesn't have a Falcon.
I think the new Falcon could be good fun for small gang or solo work if CCP does it right. It would need more DPS. I think a 40m3 drone bay and an extra launcher with a RoF bonus would do the trick. Fit MWD, point, 2x LSE, and 3 multispecs in mids. You're only gonna jam one target, but the other recons can only incapacitate one target at a time, too, so you gotta deal with it. You'll still have EWar range advantage over the other recons. My two cents as a primarily lowsec PvPer, feel free to flame. :P
This is the crux of the issue really.
I think the easiest fix to to remove the range on the falcon and rook.
Without it, they would simply die to sniper BS, meaning the scorpion would replace them in sniper BS fleet ops. The scorpion would be with the rest of the snipers, it can be shot at, and it can actually tank decent enough to live for a while.
Without the massive range bonus, the falcon and rook would be much closer in small scale engagements, so it would be much easier to burn towards them and force them to warp/die.
Seems like that change alone would deal with a lot of the issues.
|
Veryez
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 12:34:00 -
[539]
Do you play this game? Do you use these ships?
Constructive feedback, If you don't fly the ship, don't offer/make suggestions on how to improve it.
More specifically:
You want the falcon to be a close range brawler? 3 high slots isn't 'Brawler type DPS', nor is 3 low slots a 'close range tank' The Pilgram can do its role since it's DPS come from - drones thus losing no slots for it's damage. Also since most of it's EW come from high slots, it doesn't suffer eating up it's tank to field EW. And I would fly this over an Onyx why?
Rook, lets see nobody used the falcon when it had a 15% bonus, so now their going to use the rook when it's bonus is reduced to 15%. And a drone bay for a long range ship? You're just kidding yourselves. No thank's I think I'll stick to my eagle for long range DPS (or cerb if I want a missile shooter).
Scorpion - a short ranged brawler with 4 bonused weapon slots and a 4 slot tank? Not to mention the fact that to do damage with missiles you need a web and/or target painter. How is this better than a torp raven?
Do you seriously think people will fly these ships?
Here's a better suggestion. Save all your brainpower. Let's turn this into the game the whiners want. Remove all EW ships and modules from the game, in addition remove all ships that can't either tank or gank. If a ship has a bonus to anything besides damage and tank, simply remove it. Now for all those lost skillpoints, allow a one time respec - allow the players to put the skill points where they want. Simply admit that EW was a mistake and it won't be allowed to influence battles anymore - because that is what you are doing bit by bit with every EW nerf you come up with.
Don't agree with me? You nerfed ECM by 100% and reduced ECM ships to having no tanks by hardly boosting their bonuses and adding SDA. You claimed 'Range was their tank'. Why, because unbonused ECM was too powerful. You nerfed Sensor damps into uselessness by the addition of scripts and changing the way the bonuses are computed. You nerfed webs so hard that even 2 webs don't have the stopping power of one. Oh yeah and you boosted Target damps to effect falloff - great another amarr boost.
Do you see a pattern here, a good number of people whine because the game isn't just 'tank and gank' they want the biggest guns and the biggest tanks to win every battle. Tactics - they can't be bothered. If this is the EvE that CCP wants, then fine. Just remove the modules, there is no shame admiting you were wrong. Nobody is perfect. Just allow those who trained for the removed modules/ships to move their SP into an area that's still supported and we can all move on.
|
Brynden Rivers
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 12:38:00 -
[540]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Falcon & Rook
Summary Falcon changes
- ECM Strength Bonus increased from 20 to 25% per level - ECM Optimal Range Bonus removed (52km optimal / 81km falloff w/ 2*SDA IIs) - Increase in general manoeuvrability (might give agility bonus to it to replace the ECM optimal range bonus)
That 2*SDA IIs are increasing range, base strength or what in this imaginary setup? I'm asking that because you stated that purpose of SDA's might be changing.
What you get here is faster moving caldari cruiser, that will prolly still be the least agile recon due to its base mass. That falcon won't be able to kill anything (it can't kill even now) --> it will become useless and obsolete. Even if you suggest that shield tanking race should use 3 low slots for armor tanking, that doesn't make up for the pitifull 2 launcher high slots.
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
The rook operates at longer ranges, able to attack at distance and whilst having a weaker ECM strength but longer ECM range than the falcon can lay some real damage on its target gaining a heavy/heavy assault and standard missile velocity bonus in addition to a small drone bay for additional utility.
Summary Rook Changes
- ECM strength bonus decreased to 15% per level - ECM Optimal Range bonus decreased to 15% per level (92km optimal / 81km falloff) - 5% Heavy/Heavy Assault missile velocity per recon ship level added (105km range with heavy missiles at max skills) - 25m3 drone bay / 25 mbit bandwidth added
This Rook will be able to jam at greater range, ECM strenght is nerfed so permajammin is prolly out of the picture, but it won't have the range to hit anything with missiles outside of optimal - as Falcon now.
So conclusion is -> Falcon becomes obsolete, Rook becomes new Falcon, but with nerfed ECM strength, 5 light drones and no covop cloak. If new Rook pilot looks to make some dmg, then no normal cloak too.
If CCP really plans swapping roles for Falcon&Rook, it would be great for Rook to gain another high slot for normal cloak due to loldmg that missile launchers put out.
If the plan changes, then I would suggest to make a Rook useable recon by giving it agility bonus proposed for Falcons, another high slot for normal cloak, drones - maybe, maybe not. And no ECM range bonus.
Falcon -> just take them closer under 200km range, maybe reduce ECM strenght. Even now, Cerberus is efficient antifalcon solution, under 200 more ships could hit it and it's pretty obvious Falcons would be primaried and one-volleyed to pod. Which could make that ship obsolete too.
BTW, before doin anything, CCP should take in account that midslots usage for ECM makes caldari recons unable to web and scram.
Maybe the answer is to completely redisgn caldari recons and ECM concept - move the ECM in lowslots, add one max two lows to cali recons and reduce mids, but make it enough for some tank, web and scram. Since all races are whining bout their recons (besides ammar maybe) - CCP should consider completely redesigning all recons. Not nerfing one by one.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 30 .. 38 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |