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) |
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 17:37:00 -
[1]
We have been looking again at ECM ships focusing on their roles and whether these ships can be improved overall to better define their roles a little more. With that in mind, we want to share some of our thoughts and gather constructive feedback and suggestions of your own.
In the days ahead, we will put some changes on sisi to see how they pan out and continue to change or tweak as feedback and playtesting continues.
ECM Range
Generally the ECM optimal range is a little too long with massive optimal ranges possible which would place the ECM specialised ships so far out of the fight to be almost completely safe but suffer no effective hit quality decrease. To bring them closer to the fight we are looking at swapping the base optimal and falloff ranges so at the longer ranges jammers would be operating more in falloff and hence have a lower chance of 'hitting' with their jammers at the extreme ranges.
Signal Distortion Amplifiers
The SDAs are something of a conundrum. They are really only worth fitting on the ECM specialised ships and are the only EWAR enhancing module we have besides the rigs. Currently they increase your ECM strength and we were looking at swapping this to an ECM range bonus and altering either the base strength of the jammers or the ECM strength bonus of the ships so they become less required in every setup and the low slots could be used for tanking for example.
Ship Changes
We have been looking at all the ECM ships (Griffin, Kitsune, Blackbird, Falcon, Rook and Scorpion). We wanted to ensure each ship had a more focused role which was not just bigger, longer range and better than the others so only one wins outright. The two main themes we were looking at was short range brawler and long range sniper. The brawler would focus on ECM strength at shorter range and the sniper would be longer range but weaker with niches in these areas for each of the ships.
Falcon & Rook
The falcon has been changed to be similar to the pilgrim in its role as a ECM brawler at shorter ranges. It has a bigger ECM strength bonus whilst losing its ECM optimal range bonus. In addition its agility and base velocity and have been increased to allow it to be more manoeuvrable at shorter ranges.
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)
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
The Scorpion
We are looking at putting the scorpion into the short range brawler role. To that end we are looking at removing its ECM Optimal range bonus, increasing the ECM strength bonus a little and adding a cruise/siege launcher rate of fire bonus so it can get close and personal.
Summary Scorpion Changes
- removed the ECM optimal range bonus - increased the ECM strength bonus to 20% per level - added a 5% RoF bonus to cruise & siege missile launchers per level.
Summary
Please provide constructive feedback on the ideas and changes. These changes are not yet on sisi and we will announce when they are. As always, everything is subject to change!
|
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 17:37:00 -
[2]
reserved
|
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 17:38:00 -
[3]
reserved
|
|
IceAero
Amarr Shadow Company
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 17:52:00 -
[4]
Edited by: IceAero on 24/03/2009 17:53:23 Amazing :) :)
The base shield HP on the falcon might been a bump though...
|
Count MonteCarlo
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 17:58:00 -
[5]
Would prefer it if they got deleted, but atleast this is a start
|
Larkonis Trassler
Neo Spartans
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 17:58:00 -
[6]
Terrible ideas... analysis inbound.
|
Dark Flare
Caldari Neckbeards International
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 17:59:00 -
[7]
Surely if you up the strength of jammers without SDA IIs, then people will still just fit SDA IIs to make the Rook exactly how it was before, and to make the Falcon ******edly OP at jamming?
|
Prometheus Exenthal
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 17:59:00 -
[8]
While your at it, why not make racial jammers only jam their racial counter part. Since multispecs are there for a reason - MY LATEST VIDEO - BATTLE CRUISE |
Benedic
The Aftermath
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:01:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Benedic on 24/03/2009 18:02:19 Brace for flavor of the year whining.
FINALLY CCP DOES SOMETHING GOOD (needs less strength buffs though plox)
|
Professor Dumbledore
Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:03:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Professor Dumbledore on 24/03/2009 18:04:40 Boy you sure do know how to make things fair and balanced you stupid ****er now we can go back to all ewar is useless ^_^
You guys will never understand your own game i just can't tell you just how stupid this change is.
|
|
Mr Adebisi
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:05:00 -
[11]
I agree ecm needs a hefty nerf, but saying a falcon will act similar to a pilgrim is a bit scary, as pilgrims are completely worthless and no one with half a brain flies them.
|
musgrattio
H A V O C Minor Threat.
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:06:00 -
[12]
The general idea is fine, DO NOT GO OVERBOARD. We still need a ECM boat that can jam around 200km, and I think we'd all agree that needs to be the Falcon. If you want to make the Rook a close range ship, fine, but recons, in general, especially cloaking recons, are generally not going to be used at very short ranges. Keep the Falcon's range as it is, lower its strength, give the Rook more missile damage, changed sig amps to where the Rook would be an excellent mid range damage dealer and ECM boat. Scorp changes are great, the Kitsune is really fine tbh.
|
Telefishopolis
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:06:00 -
[13]
Thank you so much.
|
Dangerously Cheesey
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:07:00 -
[14]
So instead of figuring out how to make other electronic warfare modules (RSD, Tracking Disruptors, etc) more viable in fleet fights, you have just decided to nerf ECM to the point where it will be as useless as the others. Strong work.
|
Euriti
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:08:00 -
[15]
Aww hell yeah
|
OldPueblo
DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:09:00 -
[16]
Yes swap optimal and falloff but swap it on damps as well tia.
|
Bad Messenger
Space Perverts and Forum Warriors United
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:09:00 -
[17]
Apocryptha probe system allready nerfed falcons.
Nerf more caldari ships. Soon there is not any Caldari ship to use in pvp.
|
SauI Tigh
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:10:00 -
[18]
These are all horrible ideas and im angry at ccp if they nerf ecm right after they finish nerfing cruises/torps. None of the ships are going to be able to fit an armor tank with the current low slot set ups if they use an sda or not.
|
Seran Kela
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:13:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Seran Kela on 24/03/2009 18:15:35 Yeah, I expected the Rook to fill the brawler role and the Falcon stay at long distances with weaker strength. Interesting switch though.
Also the scorp should probably remain a sniper to still be useful in fleet engagements - cruise missiles are pretty long range so it just makes more sense to me.
|
Khefron
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:13:00 -
[20]
okay, let me get this straight
a ship with no ehp, 2 unbonused missile slots, and a tanking layer that has to be used for its ewar role is somehow a close range brawler?
Are you serious?
|
|
Bary OBama
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:15:00 -
[21]
Quote: adding a cruise/siege launcher rate of fire bonus so it can get close and personal.
Since you are nerfing ECM, can you make it so missiles are no longer horrible in PvP? Give people a reason to use Caldari ships other than for ECM and ratting?
|
Batolemaeus
Caldari Free-Space-Ranger Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:16:00 -
[22]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
We are looking at putting the scorpion into the short range brawler role. To that end we are looking at removing its ECM Optimal range bonus, increasing the ECM strength bonus a little and adding a cruise/siege launcher rate of fire bonus so it can get close and personal.
Especially for the slow and numb Scorp, a Sniper Role would imo be better. Scorps at really long ranges are never that much of an issue. They are slow, can't really get to their sniping position on their own, and their agility gives a ceptor pilot enough time to close in on them when they warp in. ----------------------------------------------
Originally by: CCP Prism X In New Eden, EVE wins you.
|
Khefron
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:16:00 -
[23]
on the other hand these changes will make the falcon just as useless as the arazu, and pilgrim, leaving the rapier the only recon worth a damn, so I guess this change is appropriate.
|
Ivanova Denisovich
Hobbit Enterprises GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:16:00 -
[24]
If you're going to make Scorpions and especially expensive Falcons 'brawlers' you really need to give them a proper tank. Right now ECM ships have their range balanced by being paper-thin, and their range is also their chief protection against being blown up. Put them right in with the enemy fleet and they'll be targetted first, as they are now, but will have no way to escape and no protection. I don't see anything in this proposal to address that problem.
Even if they did get tanking bonuses, I still can't say I like the idea, however. If you have to nerf them, nerf them down to battleship sniping ranges or reduce their jam strength a little bit.
|
gibbonsssss
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:16:00 -
[25]
why don't you guys make things like remote sensor damps and target painters worth using before nerfing ecm again
|
SauI Tigh
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:18:00 -
[26]
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.
|
DNSBLACK
Gallente Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Associates
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:18:00 -
[27]
Leave them alone please
|
Sertan Deras
Gallente Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:19:00 -
[28]
Edited by: Sertan Deras on 24/03/2009 18:19:41 So you're going to make the Scorpion, the only EWar BS, completely worthless in fleet fights, that never happen closer than 120-150km? Instead, you want people to fly the uninsurable Rook to do fleet EWar?
That doesn't seem like the best idea I've heard recently, but if history tells us anything, CCP will completely ignore every concern posted here and implement it anyway. At this point, I take these little dev posts as "this will happen in the future" warnings more than honest discussions on the merits of the idea.
|
Bacchanalian
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:20:00 -
[29]
The Pilgrim is a terrible model to use for any other ship. As it is it's a bastard stepchild of a ship useful in so few and limited situations that just about any other ship is more useful 99% of the time. Close-range "brawler" ships with less EHP than some t1 cruisers but with pricetags well over that of most battleships aren't "brawlers"--they're easy targets. ____________________ GM Sunshine > oops Neurotica > Hate to see a GM in your gang say 'oops'
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:21:00 -
[30]
I see that the 'better defined role' you have in mind for them is that of gathering dust in a hangar and never undocking.
will update this later with more details of why these ideas are terrible.
|
|
Xiobe
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:21:00 -
[31]
CCP will only be happy when PvP is bland, boring and completely consensual, and the only variety left is in PvE content.
Originally by: CCP Chronotis As always, everything is subject to change!
CCP has never, ever changed its mind about alterations to the mechanics such as these, no matter how short-sighted or stupid such alterations may be. So please don't ****ing patronise us with statements like this. -- lose. their. they're. there. couldn't care less. lego. colour. flavour. |
Salaman Rushid
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:21:00 -
[32]
Tom Smykowski: It was a "Jump to Conclusions" mat. You see, it would be this mat that you would put on the floor... and would have different CONCLUSIONS written on it that you could JUMP TO. Michael Bolton: That's the worst idea I've ever heard in my life, Tom. Samir: Yes, this is horrible, this idea.
Don't try to make ECM ships "brawlers". That is as good an idea as a jump to conclusions mat. The ships are not going to be able to tank and do their role, nor are they going to be able to do DPS and their role. Their role is ECM. How do you do ECM? By staying the hell out of range/tracking/etc of the ships whose role is to blow you the hell up.
|
Dangerously Cheesey
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:21:00 -
[33]
Electronic Warfare needs to be balanced and its hard to argue that the falcon isn't overpowered right now. But completely gutting the falcon and even the scorpion does nothing to bring balance to the various forms of E-WAR. It just makes ECM as generally weak as RSD and TD's. This change would be easier to handle if it was accompanied by some minor buffs to the other forms of E-WAR.
Also, why on earth are you making the COMBAT recon ship, the one specifically designed for better combat power, the long range ship and the FORCE recon, the one that can fit a cov ops cloak, the brawler? Its just common sense that the rook should be the brawler.
|
Panta Rei
Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:22:00 -
[34]
Quote: Force recon ships are the cruiser-class equivalent of covert ops frigates. While not as resilient as combat recon ships, they are nonetheless able to do their job as reconaissance vessels very effectively,
Yes, lets force the falcons into closer range than their more sturdy (still fragile) counterparts.
|
antony hartless
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:22:00 -
[35]
Edited by: antony hartless on 24/03/2009 18:22:55 I hope will be the last nerf, devs must do something new instead of nerf requested by noobs. Seriously, many old players lost tons of isk and time to get skills and implants and they got nerf because ofr ccp. I personaly have trained for at least 2 races for each charater. At least give more cap and tank for falcon, the other recons have good tank relativly to falson. Oh, and add some firepower. Shame to developers for doing this, they admit that the previous nerf of falcon was not good enough. BTW, when you ccp will do something good enough to last 2-3 years?
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:24:00 -
[36]
What about the Rattlesnake and the Widow(Funny how I once again should mention a black-ops. Maybe there's a hint somewhere)? Is that the same as for Scorpion?
|
Panta Rei
Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:24:00 -
[37]
Wait, I get it. This was some sort of well-executed troll, right? Well played, CCP, well played. You got me.
|
Aquemini Amarr
Amarr coracao ardente Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:25:00 -
[38]
As one of the few without a falcon alt, I approve of this change and/or product and/or service.
|
Larkonis Trassler
Neo Spartans
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:25:00 -
[39]
Edited by: Larkonis Trassler on 24/03/2009 18:26:14
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
ECM Range
Generally the ECM optimal range is a little too long with massive optimal ranges possible which would place the ECM specialised ships so far out of the fight to be almost completely safe but suffer no effective hit quality decrease. To bring them closer to the fight we are looking at swapping the base optimal and falloff ranges so at the longer ranges jammers would be operating more in falloff and hence have a lower chance of 'hitting' with their jammers at the extreme ranges.
Generally agreed
Quote:
Signal Distortion Amplifiers
The SDAs are something of a conundrum. They are really only worth fitting on the ECM specialised ships and are the only EWAR enhancing module we have besides the rigs. Currently they increase your ECM strength and we were looking at swapping this to an ECM range bonus and altering either the base strength of the jammers or the ECM strength bonus of the ships so they become less required in every setup and the low slots could be used for tanking for example.
If you don't plate a Falcon these days you're dead anyhow, most falcon pilots will fit a plate, the ones that die (mostly) don't. Add some form of lowslot mod for TDs, Damps and Painters while you're at it or just get rid of SDAs. The standard Falcon rig/lowslot combo will just change from plate 2xSDA and two range rigs to plate, 2x SDA and two strength rigs.
Quote:
Ship Changes
We have been looking at all the ECM ships (Griffin, Kitsune, Blackbird, Falcon, Rook and Scorpion). We wanted to ensure each ship had a more focused role which was not just bigger, longer range and better than the others so only one wins outright. The two main themes we were looking at was short range brawler and long range sniper. The brawler would focus on ECM strength at shorter range and the sniper would be longer range but weaker with niches in these areas for each of the ships.
Falcon & Rook
The falcon has been changed to be similar to the pilgrim in its role as a ECM brawler at shorter ranges. It has a bigger ECM strength bonus whilst losing its ECM optimal range bonus. In addition its agility and base velocity and have been increased to allow it to be more manoeuvrable at shorter ranges.
Wait wat... I disagree here... people will still not fly the Rook and in every other Recon ship class the Combat varient is more effective in every sense (range/dps/highs). Also are these numbers applying to multispecs (which noone uses anyway) or racials? I would rather see the Falcon get a slight nerf to strength (back down to 15%) and have the Rook's remain as is. By all means force Falcons in closer but don't castrate the Rook in this manner.
Quote:
The Scorpion
I actually agree here, well done.
|
Bazman
Caldari Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:26:00 -
[40]
CHANGE THE ECM MECHANIC.
20 Seconds of doing nothing is the problem. -----
|
|
Giganticus
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:27:00 -
[41]
Instead of giving the falcon an agility bonus maybe give it some sort of toughness or sig radius bonus to deal with the closer ranges. It barely has a tank and doesn't have the room for one when using it's ECM. I like the Rook and Falcon changes otherwise though.
Scorpions should be left as-is. It's perfectly fine in it's role, a weakly-tanked EW platform for use in Fleets that operates at general sniping range, and it's too slow to be used in small gangs (where the recons/BB should be used instead). FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF |
Fahtim Meidires
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:29:00 -
[42]
These are my ships, and I kind of like the new options.
Falcon - Use it to set up close range (20km) warp-ins, then uncloak and lock-down at short range when your gang arrives. Awesome, and better than the hilariously broken current falcon that perma-jams the interceptors chasing after it trying to get in tackling range.
Rook - Nice partner with the Cerberus and Eagle for Caldari-style range tanking. Makes a lot of sense actually.
Scorpion - Please give it torpedo bonuses. The scorpion would be the best brawler, already has 8 mid slots for both tanking and ecm. Easy to run 4 jammers + 2 hardeners, and fit 4 siege launchers.
|
El Mauru
Amarr Quantum Industries RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:31:00 -
[43]
I like the changes- especially the rook has become a hell of a lot more attractive with the added drone-bay.
I can see what you are trying to achieve with the falcon (quick to get-in/jam/get-out), but imho it would be served better with a sig radius reduction.
all in all a general thumbs-up -
|
Sertan Deras
Gallente Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:32:00 -
[44]
The change to the Scorpion really is the biggest "what the hell are you thinking" here.
Let me think of the last time I used a BS up close.
...
Yah, I've got nothing. Nearly every BS fight I've been in, in the last year, has been at long range. Making the Scorpion close range may be great for low sec ganking and empire wars, but for the really big battles, it would be useless and unused.
If you want to fiddle with jam strength and the Rook and Falcon, that's fine, Leave the Scorpion alone. It's the only viable, and insurable, fleet EWar platform currently.
|
Une Bastian
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:37:00 -
[45]
Falcon pilot's tears....
they are so sweet.
|
Frabba
GoonFleet
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:38:00 -
[46]
I agree completely with the Falcon nerf. The proposed changes to scorpions will make them mighty worthless in fleets. My experience is fleets are typically 160km off from each other, with ECM typically operating @220km or more. Bring the scorpion inline to engage at the same range as other BS, don't make the scorpion have to come any closer then that. Turning the scorpion into a "short range brawler" will see the ship stop being used in fleet combat.
|
Fahtim Meidires
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:38:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Larkonis Trassler
Falcon & Rook
Quote:
The falcon has been changed to be similar to the pilgrim in its role as a ECM brawler at shorter ranges. It has a bigger ECM strength bonus whilst losing its ECM optimal range bonus. In addition its agility and base velocity and have been increased to allow it to be more manoeuvrable at shorter ranges.
Wait wat... I disagree here... people will still not fly the Rook and in every other Recon ship class the Combat varient is more effective in every sense (range/dps/highs). Also are these numbers applying to multispecs (which noone uses anyway) or racials? I would rather see the Falcon get a slight nerf to strength (back down to 15%) and have the Rook's remain as is. By all means force Falcons in closer but don't castrate the Rook in this manner.
The combat recons are solo hunters, not force multipliers. Not great dps nor great electronic warfare capabilities, but good for one on one encounters. If the rook had a small strength bonus, a good range bonus, decent missile bonuses and a nice base speed it would be great.
The rook is actually great for solo roaming, throw on a bunch of multispecs and go looking for solo ratters in ravens and domis (4 multispecs are mathematically superior in solo encounters than 4 mixed racials).
|
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. Dara Cothrom
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:40:00 -
[48]
So the "brawler" gets 2 unbonused launcher slots as DPS but the "ranged" ship gets a drone bay?
Oooookay....
|
Fahtim Meidires
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:40:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Frabba I agree completely with the Falcon nerf. The proposed changes to scorpions will make them mighty worthless in fleets. My experience is fleets are typically 160km off from each other, with ECM typically operating @220km or more. Bring the scorpion inline to engage at the same range as other BS, don't make the scorpion have to come any closer then that. Turning the scorpion into a "short range brawler" will see the ship stop being used in fleet combat.
That's fine though, because the Caldari already have a great hybrid platform for fleet work. Bringing electronic warfare in at closer ranges lends itself to a more complex chess match between your opposing sniper blobs.
|
Larkonis Trassler
Neo Spartans
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:40:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Sertan Deras The change to the Scorpion really is the biggest "what the hell are you thinking" here.
Let me think of the last time I used a BS up close.
...
Yah, I've got nothing. Nearly every BS fight I've been in, in the last year, has been at long range. Making the Scorpion close range may be great for low sec ganking and empire wars, but for the really big battles, it would be useless and unused.
If you want to fiddle with jam strength and the Rook and Falcon, that's fine, Leave the Scorpion alone. It's the only viable, and insurable, fleet EWar platform currently.
Let me think of the last time I used a BS at long range... If you nerf the range and increase the strength it's still a viable anti support platform with Cruises.
|
|
Proud American
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:41:00 -
[51]
Yeah let me go into close range in a paper thin cruiser that is always the primary target. That sounds like a really good idea.
CCP, can I get some of what you are smoking? |
Seran Kela
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:42:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Malcanis So the "brawler" gets 2 unbonused launcher slots as DPS but the "ranged" ship gets a drone bay?
Oooookay....
Brawler only refers to range. It's main role will still be ecm lock-down, not dps. The combat ship gets drones to boost it's dps, strengthening its role as a solo hunter.
|
Tamyris
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:43:00 -
[53]
Quote: The Scorpion
We are looking at putting the scorpion into the short range brawler role. To that end we are looking at removing its ECM Optimal range bonus, increasing the ECM strength bonus a little and adding a cruise/siege launcher rate of fire bonus so it can get close and personal.
Summary Scorpion Changes
- removed the ECM optimal range bonus - increased the ECM strength bonus to 20% per level - added a 5% RoF bonus to cruise & siege missile launchers per level.
What? How does adding a RoF bonus to a Caldari ship that armor-buffer-tanks and has 4 spots for launchers help make it a close-range brawler? Would you mind explaining some of the reasoning behind this?
Here's what those bonuses will do to the scorpion: - removing optimal bonus: The average scorpion pilot will need to get in closer, exposing him to more danger. - increasing ECM strength: The average pilot will get off a few more jams per battle (5% more per level of Caldari BS to be exact) - 5% RoF: nothing. When is the last time you saw the scorpions as a reliable source of DPS? You bring them in the jam anything and everything that's red, not to kill it. Yes, sure, there are 4 missile launcher slots, but they won't hit anything past 100km while the scorp sits (ideally) at 200+.
As it stands, a few scorpions 200-220km off aren't really an issue - have a few dictors/covops/etc get a warp-in and send some support that way, problem solved. The main defensive layer for the Scorpion is the distance it has between itself and any enemies on grid. By removing that and not adding any other sort of defensive layer, you are essentially making a paper-thin BS that relies on chance (jams) to survive.
|
Myra2007
Shafrak Industries
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:44:00 -
[54]
Edited by: Myra2007 on 24/03/2009 18:44:30 I think i like it but resevere final judgement for sisi tests. ECM is (if at all...) mostly a problem of smaller gangs.
Ensuring that long range capable ecm platforms cannot use a cov ops cloak is imo the key and you've got that one covered. I *thank you very much* for that.
Main question with ecm in smaller fights is imo the positioning for 150km+ jamming. You either have appropriate jam spots or have to make them in preparation of/along the fight.
With a falcon and its covert ops cloak this can often be done without a real chance for the enemy to spot the movement or the ships. Local is helpful but unlike with your most intimate enemies you don't know the falcon alts of some random joe. This often ends in one sided gank fests where one side was tricked into believing it could be a nice fight. And in the long term everyone who is into winning brings enough falcons from the get go. Now i realize there are more counters to falcons than other falcons but many of them don't work in small gangs and/or low sec work. Also they can be quite specific and of limited general use.
Now i am not a player with high moral stand so this char basically exploits things like that for a living. But i sure can imagine a world that is more fun in terms of good fights.
Rooks are easily spotted on the directional scanner. Thus if you want to rely on them enemy intel will probably notice it and can choose to deny a fight if possible. There will still be plenty of room for a "nice surprise" so i don't think it takes too much away from the game.
Consider for example a situation especially in empire (where i.e. a gate can't be bubbled) where your scout next door spots an incoming gang. Said gang waits at the gate for us to jump in and engage. If we brought rooks it would be a major problem to bring them to bear because they would need to warp to the jamspots and become vulnerable to tackle by enemy support. Nowadays a falcon is for the most part easily able to get into a good position due to the cloak. I see this as a good thing as you can still use the devastating power of long range ecm - but your planning and preparation needs to be superior.
Not on to my criticism: as a falcon pilot i'd love for the ship to stay viable. Depending on just how much it gets nerfed please consider that other stats need to be adjusted too(and by that i mean boosted): drone bay/bandwith, launcher slots, capacitor capacity, powergrid etc. I know you are aware of it just saying.
Also such a falcon would probably only be able to field like 2-3 jammers due to need for lses and stuff so the strength of those should be substantial. Consider +1 low for the falcon and +1low/-1med for the scorp so these ships can be somewhat armor tanked.
Rooks range should imo not be nerfed in any way. For low sec work at least 170- 180km jam optimal with racials is a must for effective use and i'd assume (pure speculation though) its even more with fleet work. They already have enough drawbacks imo.
Also please don't nerf kitsune its fun.
Another thing: your ranges are those with multispecs or with racials? With or without skills? What would they look like with range rigs? --
Originally by: Jasper Dark
I agree! Lets go back into caves and lick rocks!
|
Gluecksbaerchi
Quantar Swords
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:45:00 -
[55]
logging into eve-online.com to say awesome proposal would read again.
Give the falcon the agility changes it will need
|
Dierdra Vaal
Caldari Eve University Ivy League
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:45:00 -
[56]
Edited by: Dierdra Vaal on 24/03/2009 18:45:41 a falcon will never be a good close range ship if it stays as paper thin as it is now. someone can so much as sneeze at a falcon at make the thing explode.
Unless you make it a proper speed ship (which seems doubtful) the added agility is not gonna be worth a damn.
Director of Training :: EVE University
|
Fahtim Meidires
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:47:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Proud American Yeah let me go into close range in a paper thin cruiser that is always the primary target. That sounds like a really good idea.
CCP, can I get some of what you are smoking?
You're forgetting that force recons have a cloak and are supposed to use them. Covops should be the scouts, not falcons.
I'm flying a falcon and I set up a warp-in for my small gang. They arrive and engage. The enemy sees them and calls a primary while I'm still cloaked. I then uncloak to begin the surprise ecm lock down.
|
VCBee2777
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:48:00 -
[58]
I will enjoy killing falcons in one shot in my pulse apocalypse after this change
Great Job CCP I hate falcons. Hit em with the nerf bat |
Rumpelstilski
Caldari Divine Retribution Sons of Tangra
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:48:00 -
[59]
VERY nice
Please do something with the kitsune too. A speed bonus and a bit of cap would be hilarious for example (small zooming jamming thingy for inty gangs)
The scorp doesn't need to lose the range bonus completely. It would be perfect if it would still be viable as a glass cannon ecm sniper platform for sniper fleets if he sacrifices lows for sdas
Also, add some cheap-ass sensor strength rigs that give a fixed increase so they can be used on tacklers
Source: http://scrapheap-challenge.com/viewtopic.php?t=24063
|
Cindare
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:49:00 -
[60]
I hope CCP intends to take a real look at community feedback on this, though frankly I have my doubts.
If it's truly the goal of CCP to fix ECM in fleet fights, then they'd only have to do one simple thing. Reduce the range bonus on the Falcon to, say 15% - this would put it within range of enemy snipers, instead of well beyond range of anything but a Rokh or Apocalypse, as it is now. The only ship that deserves the range that the Falcon has now is the Kitsune, a non-cloaking frigate sized ship that currently goes unused because it's terrible. Other than that, ECM ships can and do die often in fleet engagements.
I usually dislike the "scrubs whining for nerfs" sentiment, but unfortunately I believe it's mostly appropriate in this case. In particular the Scorpion is fine. Leave it alone, please.
_______
Turn a new leaf today! Convo me in-game if you'd like to pray the Rosary or just chat with a good-natured Goon. :) |
|
Vadinho
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:51:00 -
[61]
Edited by: Vadinho on 24/03/2009 18:51:20 Cool just destroy the entire purpose behind the Scorpion, that's alright
Can you find a way to remove the Rokh's optimal bonus and give it a drone bonus, I don't think the Caldari are useless enough in fleets yet
|
ctttttttt
Caldari THE FINAL STAND
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:52:00 -
[62]
Im really excited to see how this turns out. A corp mate of mine had what i think is a absolutly great idea for fixing ecm. It might be a little hard to explain in words though but i will do my best. Basically a falcon can jam you just like he can now. BUT ANYONE who has "agressed" you with a hostile action, be it shooting or putting a point/web on you will be UNJAMED to that specific person. Its hard to explain so i will do my best to diagram it.
2 gangs consiting of
ship1, ship2, falcon1
second gang
ship3, ship4
1 and 2 start shooting at 3. 1 applys point/web to 3 - 2 applys point/web to 4. Falcon decloaks and james Both 3-4.
Ship4 is not being point/web or shot at by ship1. So ship4 is jammed to ship1
But both 1 and 2 are shooting 3 making 1 and 2 UNJAMED to ship 3. ship 2 has point/web on 4 - ship 3-4 must switch their target to ship 2 as ship 2 has hostile actions to both ships making him "UNJAMED" to both ship 3-4
The concept is REALLY hard to understand but i think this will eliminate the "abuse" of falcons in small gang warfare. In large gang format they will still be usefull as people will still be getting jammed and might only be able to shoot 1-2 persons.
Hope somone out there might understand what im getting at and could better explain what im trying to get across....
But at the end of the day whatever happens SOMETHING needs to be done about ecm!
|
Yunaka Vicc
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:52:00 -
[63]
Will Centurion set be changed to affect falloff?
|
Fahtim Meidires
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:52:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Tamyris
Quote: The Scorpion
We are looking at putting the scorpion into the short range brawler role. To that end we are looking at removing its ECM Optimal range bonus, increasing the ECM strength bonus a little and adding a cruise/siege launcher rate of fire bonus so it can get close and personal.
Summary Scorpion Changes
- removed the ECM optimal range bonus - increased the ECM strength bonus to 20% per level - added a 5% RoF bonus to cruise & siege missile launchers per level.
What? How does adding a RoF bonus to a Caldari ship that armor-buffer-tanks and has 4 spots for launchers help make it a close-range brawler? Would you mind explaining some of the reasoning behind this?
Here's what those bonuses will do to the scorpion: - removing optimal bonus: The average scorpion pilot will need to get in closer, exposing him to more danger. - increasing ECM strength: The average pilot will get off a few more jams per battle (5% more per level of Caldari BS to be exact) - 5% RoF: nothing. When is the last time you saw the scorpions as a reliable source of DPS? You bring them in the jam anything and everything that's red, not to kill it. Yes, sure, there are 4 missile launcher slots, but they won't hit anything past 100km while the scorp sits (ideally) at 200+.
As it stands, a few scorpions 200-220km off aren't really an issue - have a few dictors/covops/etc get a warp-in and send some support that way, problem solved. The main defensive layer for the Scorpion is the distance it has between itself and any enemies on grid. By removing that and not adding any other sort of defensive layer, you are essentially making a paper-thin BS that relies on chance (jams) to survive.
I never liked the idea of scorpions in fleet work. If you can fly a battleship, bring a sniping platform. Electronic warfare should be conducted at ranges shorter than large sniping ranges, that way they have to deal with anti-support. Falcons and scorps sitting way behind the lines is broken when there is no other equivalent ewar from any other race.
|
Barrey
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:53:00 -
[65]
Edited by: Barrey on 24/03/2009 18:56:23 EvE excels at strategic preparation. Fleets are much more effective if they have balanced capabilities. Removing support roles because they are effective force multipliers essentially forces everyone down the DPS path. As to the specific bonuses: A scorpion in a support role should have optimals to match other battleship's engagement ranges. Making it shorter range than fleet snipers would mean it would never get used.
And a falcon has no tank. It can't armor tank, it uses its mid-slots for its weapons so it can't speed or shield tank. So the only way for a falcon to survive is for the pilot to dictate the engagement's range and terms.
Rather than heavy-handedly nerfing ECM ships across the board, I have three alternative solutions. One problem is that a single skilled falcon can lock down many cruiser-sized ships or 1-2 battleships due to the way ECCM strengths are balanced. I would propose either:
1) Reblance sensor strengthes so that there isn't such a gap between battlehips and cruiser-sized ships and leave the ECM ships as they currently are. On simple way to do this would be to simply add in targetting resolution into the ECM formula. This would essentially give cruisers and frigates a stronger sensor strength, and it would allow people to have anti-ECM capabilities without giving up module slots.
or
2) Divide ECM into long-range/low strength and short-range/high strength categories, through either scripts or separate mods. This would force ECM ships to make the same range/effectiveness trade-off that DPS ships must make.
or
3) Divide ECM mods into cruiser-sized and battleship mods. Much like you can't use heavy turrets to shoot frigates, maybe you shouldn't be able to use the same ECM mods on both an interceptor and a carrier. Although this would effectively decrease the capabilities of an ECM specialized pilot, it would add to fleet diversity and allow another layer to the strategy of equipping a fleet.
|
Fahtim Meidires
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:55:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Vadinho Edited by: Vadinho on 24/03/2009 18:51:20 Cool just destroy the entire purpose behind the Scorpion, that's alright
Can you find a way to remove the Rokh's optimal bonus and give it a drone bonus, I don't think the Caldari are useless enough in fleets yet
Caldari definitely aren't useless in fleet. Rokh is a baller sniper, eagle and vulture are solid anti-support. I've flown both and I like to stay near the back of the sniper blob since I can engage from farther.
|
Pulsar Solaris
Vale Heavy Industries Molotov Coalition
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:55:00 -
[67]
THANK YOU! I want to have your babies. Please ignore all these people that want to permajam half a dozen ship from 200km. Nerf the thing into oblivion. I was tired of playing Falcons Online anyway.
|
Malena Panic
Gallente Veto. Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:56:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Bazman CHANGE THE ECM MECHANIC.
20 Seconds of doing nothing is the problem.
This for the love of all that's holy.
Targeted ECM should have the exact same effect as an ECM burst - break all existing locks - except that as a targeted effect only the target ships locks are broken.
Then change the ECM module cooldown to 10 seconds. Problem solved.
Suddenly ships confronted with an ECM boat have both fitting and tactical options to consider: they can fit sensor boosters to improve their scan strength (and therefore relock time), but in doing so increase their vulnerability to damps and to a lesser extent TDs. Smaller ships lose lock more often but also have the opportunity to relock more quickly, thanks to their higher base scan resolution.
Meanwhile ECM pilots themselves are afforded more tactical choices than just press butan. They can try to break smaller ships' locks more often by staggering ECM, but risk missing jams they would normally get by piling on. They also would have an increased vulnerability to fast tacklers.
Overall, this change would retain the force multiplier effect of ECM, but by *adding* decisions to the target's decision cycle, rather than taking it away. The effect on gameplay will be an increase in complexity and therefore tactical interest for everyone involved.
I urge you to consider this alternative now that you are once again looking at ECM. ... |
Frabba
GoonFleet
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:56:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Cindare In particular the Scorpion is fine. Leave it alone, please.
This. A thousand times this. The main problem people had was with FALCONS. Not scorpions. I don't have a problem with nerfing 200km+ ranges on the scorpion, but bringing us inside 160km is pointless.
|
Rawr Cristina
Caldari Naqam Exalted.
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:56:00 -
[70]
Originally by: someone
Rook:
10% bonus to Shield HP per level 5% bonus to Heavy/Heavy Assault Missile Kinetic Damage per level 5% bonus to Heavy/Heavy Assault ROF per level 20% bonus to ECM strength per level
Falcon:
10% bonus to ECM optimal per level 10% bonus to ECM strength per level 96% to 100% Cloak bonus 10% bonus to ECM falloff per level
this imo.
- Contagious - |
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 18:59:00 -
[71]
Hell, yes!
This is actually along the lines of we've also thought in our corp when we've discussed "how should these ships be balances". Surprising, actually, that CCP seems to be thinking very much along the same lines.
Finally some reason to fly Rooks and Scorps, too.
|
Sacred Glyph
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:00:00 -
[72]
Sounds like a good idea to me. Ignoring all the emo rage about how the falcon pilots wont be able to jam 9 billion miles out, its a good idea, every other recon is relatively close, with a jam range and a web range and neut range etc, the falcon being as far out as it is, is just daft.
Give it a tank and give it jamming, it'll still pwn, and an alternative ship - rook - which will give jam and also range plus damage is a good alternative for pilots.
Scorpion also sounds like a good idea, battleships are meant to battle!
|
Gavin Darklighter
THE FINAL STAND
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:01:00 -
[73]
Another thing you could try is making the ECM mods a turret that way the ship is limited to how many they can fit and you don't have to sacrifice your tank for it. Naturally, the strength and range of the jammers would have to be rebalanced with such a change.
signature picture exceeds the size limit.~WeatherMan |
Yunaka Vicc
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:03:00 -
[74]
Any changes planned for EW Links?
|
Summer Night
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:05:00 -
[75]
Oh good. final us Caldari have our final fleet usefulness removed. maybe more vaga nerfs and less on caldari please. if teh falcon needs to get close it needs ALOT more resists and manurverability to even closly compete to it's counterparts. the range is to keep it out of danger while yo uHOPE to get a jam if your skills are good enough. arazu never looses its damp strenth maybe think about serious ship issues and game play rather then keep reducing an already over nerfed race. bring back missile damage or allow me to move my SP to another skill set.
|
Ituralde
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:05:00 -
[76]
I like the concept of bringing down the range on some of these things in light of the nano nerf, however it's worth reconsidering a bit on the scorpion given the massive effective range of the sniper-line battleships. A Rokh, Apoc, and Megathron can all swat at 200 kms with little difficulty, and given the fundemental long-range philosophy of the Caldari, the battleship-class ewar platform should be able to be effective at least at this range.
The speed on the scorpion and relatively low jam strength that currently exists is in my opinion generally sufficient to balance their current range. Similarly, the lack of the covops cloak capability means they are potentially vulnerable even at range, at least as much as any other sniper-type battleship-class vessel while lacking the damage capability at that range.
So, if you want the scorpion to compete practically with other battleships, it needs the flexibility to operate at the range of any battleship-class vessel.
Perhaps a better idea might be to introduce scripts for ECM the way they exist for every other electronics module in the game. Have one that boosts module range and another that boosts ECM strength, and leave the ship bonuses alone. This means that any ECM ship would be able to perform one role or the other, and would be able to hot-swap between them dynamically. _____________________________ Fear is the mind-killer.
|
Fahtim Meidires
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:08:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Frabba
Originally by: Cindare In particular the Scorpion is fine. Leave it alone, please.
This. A thousand times this. The main problem people had was with FALCONS. Not scorpions. I don't have a problem with nerfing 200km+ ranges on the scorpion, but bringing us inside 160km is pointless.
You have the same problem of your ewar being able to engage outside the range of most snipers trying to kill it. Snipers should always out-range ewar, since within engagement ranges ewar always has the advantage.
|
Bacchanalian
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:08:00 -
[78]
Originally by: Yunaka Vicc Any changes planned for EW Links?
Or the lolactivetank Eos for that matter? ____________________ GM Sunshine > oops Neurotica > Hate to see a GM in your gang say 'oops'
|
Vio Geraci
Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:08:00 -
[79]
Edited by: Vio Geraci on 24/03/2009 19:10:38 While I welcome the changes to the Falcon and Rook on a general level, I do see this as part of the overall trend of nerfing things until they have lost all flavor or potential for surprising variety. I realize t3 ships will be surprising, but it's kind of sad when there are only really a couple ways to fit a given ship.
I dislike the proposed changes to the scorpion. It should have a range comparable to sniping battleships. Making it a close range brawler is castrating a ship that people used to be scared to fly because of how often it would be the primary target. I don't know. I guess I'd rather see the scorpion be a mid-range ECMer, effectively hitting around 100km or so.
edit: I guess I'm a little sad that there are so few real fitting choices to be made anymore, and that the way this seems to have been caused is by making all options equally terrible.
|
Seran Kela
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:09:00 -
[80]
Originally by: Summer Night Oh good. final us Caldari have our final fleet usefulness removed.
Rokh
|
|
Akiba Penrose
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:09:00 -
[81]
I belive this thread summarizes how many of us feel about how ECM currently is implemented. Electronic Warfare Psychology.
The changes looks like an improvement tho,, thx for finally looking into this
|
Neesa Corrinne
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:11:00 -
[82]
I have to disagree with the proposed changes wholeheartedly. The problem with the Falcon isn't the range that it can jam from, it's the fact that there is NO proper counter for it.
Here's my proposal to "fix" the Falcon:
ECCM - Gravimetric II
A secondary electronic array that provides a significant reduction to signature radius and a boost to sensor strength for a short time. This module can be loaded with scripts to increase its effectiveness in certain areas.
Penalty: Using more than one type of this module or similar modules that affect the same attribute on the ship will be penalized.
Attributes Gravimetric Strength: 96% Signature Radius: -10%
Then you add two scripts to the game:
Sensor Strength Modification of Sensor Strength Bonus: 100% Modification of Signature Radius Bonus: -100%
Signature Radius Modification of Signature Radius Bonsus: 100% Modification of Sensor Strength Bonsus: -100%
---------------------------------
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:12:00 -
[83]
Extra reason I'm loving this change: the Goons seem to hate it.
That proves it's good for the game.
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:15:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Neesa Corrinne I have to disagree with the proposed changes wholeheartedly. The problem with the Falcon isn't the range that it can jam from, it's the fact that there is NO proper counter for it.
The range is a huge part of that. If it needs to operate (much) closer, it will also become a lot more vulnerable in multiple ways.
|
VCBee2777
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:18:00 -
[85]
I am a goon. I love this change. I hate falcons. They are really annoying. I am happy with this change. |
Neesa Corrinne
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:18:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Alex Harumichi
Originally by: Neesa Corrinne I have to disagree with the proposed changes wholeheartedly. The problem with the Falcon isn't the range that it can jam from, it's the fact that there is NO proper counter for it.
The range is a huge part of that. If it needs to operate (much) closer, it will also become a lot more vulnerable in multiple ways.
If you even halve the range it will become completely useless. The problem with the Falcon isn't that the ship or it's bonus is too powerful, it's that the counter for it is a useless paperweight until someone puts a jammer on you and even then the strength isn't high enough to keep from being jammed.
Leave the Falcon alone, fix ECCM. This will mean that every gang will have a couple of heavy tacklers with ECCM in their mids (My version of ECCM which doesn't suck bawls) whose sole purpose in life is to grief falcons... and if not, then the gang is fail. ---------------------------------
|
Targeteer
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:19:00 -
[87]
ECM is the only role I enjoy playing in EVE. Many pilots hate flying ECM ships because it involved no direct damage to ships. At least with ECM I can positively contribute to a large battle before anti-support takes me out.
By turning ECM ships into "brawler" cannon fodder, the role of ECM is effectively dead. Long-range ECM with a paper-thin ship gave players a chance to survive in battle (except Rooks with their short-range, what a dumb set-up and it's currently the first thing to get nuked in fleet battles).
CCP killed Remote Sensor Dampeners a while back without thinking about their bad decision. I suppose CCP needs to nerf ECM so their Wormhole "Sleepers" content becomes tougher.
Sometimes I wonder if CCP even understands their own game.
Ask your Band of Brother Reloaded bribed bum buddies to do more testing for you. They aren't going to be useful to EVE much longer.
|
Dano Ei
Viziam
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:20:00 -
[88]
A Falcon range nerf was overdue as muppets jammed to >200km out but this is a bit ******ed. A Falcon is not a brawler, it has a utterly **** tank and fitting a plate and a rep wont change that because of base stats.
I usually dont uncloack my Falcon <40 km as the likelyhood it will die is close to 100%.
Awesome jam vs. no tank at all is the Falcon. Some nerf on range i agree on but this is completly overdoing it. Make it so they can be effectivly hit by snipers and its all balanced again (lets say max. lock at 150km for a falcon, something like that).
p.s. lol at pilgrim reference. yeah you see them all around brawling...ow wai- no they all just died Laughing
|
Morikai Acler
Caldari Demon Theory Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:20:00 -
[89]
If you want to make the Scorp a close range brawler ecm boat the best thing you could do is make it a cross between what it is now, and what it use to be back in 04 before the ECM bonus's were put on it. I believe the bonus's on it back then were hybrid optimal or missile dmg, and 10% shield HP per level. I remember Scorps having a lot of shields back then.
If you want to make it a close ranger brawler, then the best thing would be 15% to ecm strength per level and 10% shield HP per level. It wouldn't be a viable close range dmg dealer due to the lack of missile or hybrid hardpoints. But, if you don't give a weapon specific bonus it leaves it open to use rails, blasters or cruise/torps. That and you might need to change the hardpoint layout to 5/5 or 6/4 Missile/turret.
As far as the Falcon goes, thats still not too bad of a jamming range, considering they have covert cloak to use. But, they're paper thin, you may need to increase their tank and offensive abilities just.... slightly.
|
Fox Ogmo
Net 7 The Last Brigade
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:21:00 -
[90]
Originally by: Dangerously Cheesey So instead of figuring out how to make other electronic warfare modules (RSD, Tracking Disruptors, etc) more viable in fleet fights, you have just decided to nerf ECM to the point where it will be as useless as the others. Strong work.
As frustrating as hostile ECM boats are i have come to accept them, and must agree with Cheesey, especially when considering us poor minnies with target painters + 60% webs..
|
|
Thetys
Caldari Breed of Malakka
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:22:00 -
[91]
finally! thank you soo much CCP, keep up the good work! put some more focus on the "small group pvp" in low sec please (10-15 pilots at each side) ------ |
Ken Goku
Gallente Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:23:00 -
[92]
This is ******ed and you're ******ed.
hth
|
Fahtim Meidires
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:23:00 -
[93]
Originally by: Vio Geraci Edited by: Vio Geraci on 24/03/2009 19:10:38 I dislike the proposed changes to the scorpion. It should have a range comparable to sniping battleships. Making it a close range brawler is castrating a ship that people used to be scared to fly because of how often it would be the primary target. I don't know. I guess I'd rather see the scorpion be a mid-range ECMer, effectively hitting around 100km or so.
edit: I guess I'm a little sad that there are so few real fitting choices to be made anymore, and that the way this seems to have been caused is by making all options equally terrible.
I don't know what to do with the scorpion. It's the only battleship with an ecm bonus other than black ops, which by itself makes it a weird little ship. The cruise missiles were never entirely useful in fleet. It's just so different from every other battleship, the ship class that represents raw power.
I agree that the best use for the scorpion is anti-support at 100km-ish ranges, similar to the pulse-apoc.
|
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. Dara Cothrom
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:24:00 -
[94]
Originally by: Seran Kela
Originally by: Malcanis So the "brawler" gets 2 unbonused launcher slots as DPS but the "ranged" ship gets a drone bay?
Oooookay....
Brawler only refers to range. It's main role will still be ecm lock-down, not dps. The combat ship gets drones to boost it's dps, strengthening its role as a solo hunter.
Solo hunters don't need to engage at long range. because if they do, their target just leave.
Bringing the Falcon into Scorch/HML/Sentry range simply dooms it to die without even the compensation of being able to inflict a little damage first.
Meh well whatever, I can fly plenty of other ships. Shame CCP have decided to nerf a ship without fixing the broken ships that are supposed to counter it. GG!
In before Arazu pilots stop gloating and realise this doesn't help them one tiny bit...
|
Yonker
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:26:00 -
[95]
Originally by: Alex Harumichi Extra reason I'm loving this change: the Goons seem to hate it.
That proves it's good for the game.
Because it is absolutely ******ed in any fleet situation. ECM is fine how it is, it gives another fleet role other than Tackler, Anti-Tackler, Sniping BS.
ECM lives due to range, the ECM ships give up their tank to fit ECM modules and you want to make them 'close range brawler' ships? This is ******ed, they will get primaried and die instantly.
The range isn't a problem, people are just not use to countering it.
Here is a secret to counter Falcons in any medium/large engagement, ready? 1 Cruiser with Combat Probes, Point, Web and ECCM. It takes all of 20 seconds to setup probes, 6 seconds to scan and you can just right click on that mean ole falcon and warp to 0. He can't get away and will melt in a few vollies. Then you just scan again, find another falcon, right click -> warp to 0 and melt him as well. At the very least they will have to warp off.
Alternatively, just nerf the effect of ECM. Make it so it breaks locks and only locks them out for 5 seconds (and +1 second for each level of BS, Cruiser, Battleship and Recon(stacking with Cruiser).
Kneejerk nerfing of ECM is pretty silly, there are many counters... and anything that moves us away from the generic Tacklers -> Sniper fleet role the better.
|
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. Dara Cothrom
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:26:00 -
[96]
Originally by: Fahtim Meidires
Originally by: Vio Geraci Edited by: Vio Geraci on 24/03/2009 19:10:38 I dislike the proposed changes to the scorpion. It should have a range comparable to sniping battleships. Making it a close range brawler is castrating a ship that people used to be scared to fly because of how often it would be the primary target. I don't know. I guess I'd rather see the scorpion be a mid-range ECMer, effectively hitting around 100km or so.
edit: I guess I'm a little sad that there are so few real fitting choices to be made anymore, and that the way this seems to have been caused is by making all options equally terrible.
I don't know what to do with the scorpion. It's the only battleship with an ecm bonus other than black ops, which by itself makes it a weird little ship. The cruise missiles were never entirely useful in fleet. It's just so different from every other battleship, the ship class that represents raw power.
I agree that the best use for the scorpion is anti-support at 100km-ish ranges, similar to the pulse-apoc.
The best thing that could be done for the scorpion would be to add 2 more highslots + 2 missile slots and give it bonuses for heavy missiles instead of cruise. Make it a genuine antisupport platform.
Either that or turn it into a turret boat with a tracking bonus.
|
Seran Kela
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:27:00 -
[97]
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Seran Kela
Originally by: Malcanis So the "brawler" gets 2 unbonused launcher slots as DPS but the "ranged" ship gets a drone bay?
Oooookay....
Brawler only refers to range. It's main role will still be ecm lock-down, not dps. The combat ship gets drones to boost it's dps, strengthening its role as a solo hunter.
Solo hunters don't need to engage at long range. because if they do, their target just leave.
Bringing the Falcon into Scorch/HML/Sentry range simply dooms it to die without even the compensation of being able to inflict a little damage first.
Meh well whatever, I can fly plenty of other ships. Shame CCP have decided to nerf a ship without fixing the broken ships that are supposed to counter it. GG!
In before Arazu pilots stop gloating and realise this doesn't help them one tiny bit...
Yes. Falcons will no longer be able to sit at range to jam ships, they will have to fly in risky situations using their cloak as defense to be effective. This kills solo falcons but not gang-multiplier falcons.
|
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. Dara Cothrom
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:27:00 -
[98]
Originally by: Yonker
Originally by: Alex Harumichi Extra reason I'm loving this change: the Goons seem to hate it.
That proves it's good for the game.
Because it is absolutely ******ed in any fleet situation. ECM is fine how it is, it gives another fleet role other than Tackler, Anti-Tackler, Sniping BS.
ECM lives due to range, the ECM ships give up their tank to fit ECM modules and you want to make them 'close range brawler' ships? This is ******ed, they will get primaried and die instantly.
The range isn't a problem, people are just not use to countering it.
Here is a secret to counter Falcons in any medium/large engagement, ready? 1 Cruiser with Combat Probes, Point, Web and ECCM. It takes all of 20 seconds to setup probes, 6 seconds to scan and you can just right click on that mean ole falcon and warp to 0. He can't get away and will melt in a few vollies. Then you just scan again, find another falcon, right click -> warp to 0 and melt him as well. At the very least they will have to warp off.
Alternatively, just nerf the effect of ECM. Make it so it breaks locks and only locks them out for 5 seconds (and +1 second for each level of BS, Cruiser, Battleship and Recon(stacking with Cruiser).
Kneejerk nerfing of ECM is pretty silly, there are many counters... and anything that moves us away from the generic Tacklers -> Sniper fleet role the better.
The real shame here is lack of imagination. ECM just isn't a good mechanic to start with. Scrap it and make the Caldari EW something entirely different.
|
Yunaka Vicc
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:28:00 -
[99]
This change makes Falcon ECM effectiveness comparable to Arazu but without drones, damage bonus, secondary EW bonus.
|
Fahtim Meidires
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:29:00 -
[100]
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Fahtim Meidires
Originally by: Vio Geraci Edited by: Vio Geraci on 24/03/2009 19:10:38 I dislike the proposed changes to the scorpion. It should have a range comparable to sniping battleships. Making it a close range brawler is castrating a ship that people used to be scared to fly because of how often it would be the primary target. I don't know. I guess I'd rather see the scorpion be a mid-range ECMer, effectively hitting around 100km or so.
edit: I guess I'm a little sad that there are so few real fitting choices to be made anymore, and that the way this seems to have been caused is by making all options equally terrible.
I don't know what to do with the scorpion. It's the only battleship with an ecm bonus other than black ops, which by itself makes it a weird little ship. The cruise missiles were never entirely useful in fleet. It's just so different from every other battleship, the ship class that represents raw power.
I agree that the best use for the scorpion is anti-support at 100km-ish ranges, similar to the pulse-apoc.
The best thing that could be done for the scorpion would be to add 2 more highslots + 2 missile slots and give it bonuses for heavy missiles instead of cruise. Make it a genuine antisupport platform.
That's how the drake was made.
Quote:
Either that or turn it into a turret boat with a tracking bonus.
God that's a cool idea and makes a lot of sense.
|
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:30:00 -
[101]
Originally by: Targeteer
By turning ECM ships into "brawler" cannon fodder, the role of ECM is effectively dead.
You *did* read the OP, didn't you? The part where the Rook is still a ranged platform? Sure, it will need to be a *bit* closer or operate in falloff... but that's what the Lachesis and Arazu have needed to pretty much always, too.
|
Jonathan Priest
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:30:00 -
[102]
Edited by: Jonathan Priest on 24/03/2009 19:30:48 I really like the proposed scorpion and signal distortion amp changes. It'll be nice having the option to throw some BCS on and do some damage without gimping yourself.
|
But Sects
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:32:00 -
[103]
WHINERS WIN!
WHINERS WIN!
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
|
Kebabski
coracao ardente Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:32:00 -
[104]
People whinign escp goons that falcon doesn't need nerfing fail. Saying falcon is cool for pvp and is keeping pvp interessting, while it's actually the one ship that ****s pvp all the time. ''Let's try to take that small gang on in my won'', meh falcon decloaks and permajammed. jammers are overpowered anyway, being able to permajam someone shouldn't be possible, takes the fun out of the game
'Peachy Lil Babe'
|
Cpt Cosmic
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:32:00 -
[105]
removing the optimal of the scorps destroys its use in sniper battles. also scorp is paper thin and is always primaried first, you should build the bonuses around this.
|
DaiTengu
Gallente GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:32:00 -
[106]
I don't fly ECM ships, nor do I fly anything caldari in regular fights.
However, I'm not sure if this change was thought through completely. Unless you're planning on giving armor tanking bonuses to the scorpion and the Falcon, there's no way that these ships will even be remotely effective.
You're taking a ship that's a shield tanker, who uses it's midslots not for shield tanking, but for e-war modules instead. The only thing that these ships have going for them right now is the ability to jam at range, if anyone lands on top of them, they're toast.
I'm all for balancing ewar, don't get me wrong. the ability for a falcon to jam 2-3 carriers is insane, but this isn't the way to do it. There is no balancing here, this is just making the ewar platform completely unusable.
|
Fahtim Meidires
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:35:00 -
[107]
Originally by: Malcanis
The real shame here is lack of imagination. ECM just isn't a good mechanic to start with. Scrap it and make the Caldari EW something entirely different.
Gallente - Sensor, warp drive disruption Amarr - Turret, capacitor disruption Minmatar - Signature, propulsion disruption Caldari - Jamming
Agreed it's very weird.
|
Panzram
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:35:00 -
[108]
As a falcon hater i say bravo. Was hoping for a subtle nerf but making them short range "brawlers" (hah!) really twists the knife. Oh, and making the combat recon the long range one is brilliant (if you're trying to screw over ecm pilots that is) with the useless drone bonus the icing on the nerf cake. Rook use will remain at current levels, ie almost none, and falcon use will plummet in fleet warfare. If you carry through with this there is no saving the falcon, and i say good riddance. You take a nice crap on the scorpion too to round out the carnage. Don't be discouraged by the negative responses from the ECM fairies, dragging the last e-war platfrom down to the near uselessness of the others IS a type of balancing. Removing the hulls altogether would tidy up the market too.
|
Vio Geraci
Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:36:00 -
[109]
Originally by: Fahtim Meidires
I don't know what to do with the scorpion. It's the only battleship with an ecm bonus other than black ops, which by itself makes it a weird little ship. The cruise missiles were never entirely useful in fleet. It's just so different from every other battleship, the ship class that represents raw power.
I agree that the best use for the scorpion is anti-support at 100km-ish ranges, similar to the pulse-apoc.
I agree that it's quite strange in that there are no other battleship platforms for ewar. I'd like to see other races get larger platforms for ewar, but maybe CCP has just decided that there shouldn't be any such platform and that the scorpion should be relegated to close-range and therefore useful only for camping gates and stations --a lowsec and empire ship rather than a nullsec ship.
|
Yonker
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:37:00 -
[110]
Originally by: Kebabski People whinign escp goons that falcon doesn't need nerfing fail. Saying falcon is cool for pvp and is keeping pvp interessting, while it's actually the one ship that ****s pvp all the time. ''Let's try to take that small gang on in my won'', meh falcon decloaks and permajammed. jammers are overpowered anyway, being able to permajam someone shouldn't be possible, takes the fun out of the game
If only there were some single module that cuts ECM effectiveness in half... hmmm.
You don't even need everyone to fit ECCM. Just 1 anti-ECM ship... ECM ships have 0 tank.
|
|
Frabba
GoonFleet
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:37:00 -
[111]
Originally by: Kebabski People whinign escp goons that falcon doesn't need nerfing fail. Saying falcon is cool for pvp and is keeping pvp interessting, while it's actually the one ship that ****s pvp all the time. ''Let's try to take that small gang on in my won'', meh falcon decloaks and permajammed. jammers are overpowered anyway, being able to permajam someone shouldn't be possible, takes the fun out of the game
Most goons from what I have seen actually were expecting the Falcon nerf. It's the scorpion nerf that is suprising us.
|
Loki L'Odin
Gallente Asshats and Alcoholics Turbo.
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:37:00 -
[112]
win
that is all
|
Fahtim Meidires
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:38:00 -
[113]
Originally by: DaiTengu I don't fly ECM ships, nor do I fly anything caldari in regular fights.
However, I'm not sure if this change was thought through completely. Unless you're planning on giving armor tanking bonuses to the scorpion and the Falcon, there's no way that these ships will even be remotely effective.
You're taking a ship that's a shield tanker, who uses it's midslots not for shield tanking, but for e-war modules instead. The only thing that these ships have going for them right now is the ability to jam at range, if anyone lands on top of them, they're toast.
I'm all for balancing ewar, don't get me wrong. the ability for a falcon to jam 2-3 carriers is insane, but this isn't the way to do it. There is no balancing here, this is just making the ewar platform completely unusable.
Disagreeing honestly. The Rook becomes a great solo hunter once you add the drones and better missiles. Falcons now have to show restraint and take calculated risks when engaging as opposed to before (250km cloak jam is no risk).
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:38:00 -
[114]
Edited by: Alex Harumichi on 24/03/2009 19:41:56 Edited by: Alex Harumichi on 24/03/2009 19:39:26
Originally by: Yunaka Vicc This change makes Falcon ECM effectiveness comparable to Arazu but without drones, damage bonus, secondary EW bonus.
You don't use damps much, do you?
If you did, you'd realize that at closer ranges (the ranges most battles tend to happen) damps don't do squat. In addition, due to stacking penalty anything more than 4 damps is useless (and that 4th doesn't add much). Also, outside shortish optimal (and note damp ships have *no* range bonus whatsoever) it becomes random.
Oh, and you usually need 3+ damps on one ship to have any useful effect.
Compare and contrast with ECM. 100% shutdown of weapons, regardless of ship weapon range. No stacking penalty. Even one module "hit" is enough to totally shut down a ship.
ECM is vastly more powerful than damps. No contest. That's the *reason* you see Falcons all over the place, instead of Arazus or Lachs. Duh.
|
Fahtim Meidires
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:39:00 -
[115]
Originally by: Vio Geraci
Originally by: Fahtim Meidires
I don't know what to do with the scorpion. It's the only battleship with an ecm bonus other than black ops, which by itself makes it a weird little ship. The cruise missiles were never entirely useful in fleet. It's just so different from every other battleship, the ship class that represents raw power.
I agree that the best use for the scorpion is anti-support at 100km-ish ranges, similar to the pulse-apoc.
I agree that it's quite strange in that there are no other battleship platforms for ewar. I'd like to see other races get larger platforms for ewar, but maybe CCP has just decided that there shouldn't be any such platform and that the scorpion should be relegated to close-range and therefore useful only for camping gates and stations --a lowsec and empire ship rather than a nullsec ship.
If they turn the scorp into a hybrid ship with a tracking bonus and ewar strength it becomes a great anti-support ship.
|
ScoRpS
0utbreak KrautbreaK
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:40:00 -
[116]
eccm is just too weak to meaningfully counter ecm without using up say 3 slots so thats a 1:3 ratio for a modi****of success. So although i welcome these changes i would also like to see eccm modules being boosted to help further balance the situation for remote reppers vs ew.
|
Malena Panic
Gallente Veto. Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:41:00 -
[117]
Originally by: Neesa Corrinne I have to disagree with the proposed changes wholeheartedly. The problem with the Falcon isn't the range that it can jam from, it's the fact that there is NO proper counter for it.
Here's my proposal to "fix" the Falcon:
ECCM - Gravimetric II
If you'd ever fit ECCM you'd know the pointlessness of wasting a precious midslot on a chance based mechanic.
The problem isn't the Falcon, it's 'twenty seconds with your thumb up your ass'. Fix the game mechanic instead of trying to 'balance' the ships please.
... |
deltauk1
Vale Heavy Industries Molotov Coalition
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:41:00 -
[118]
I fly both a rook and falcon (max sp's) and totally agree with the optimal nerf as jamming from 200k is a little ridiculous. If the sda are going to have a range rather than strength bonus is there really any need to nerf the ship jam strength bonus as filling lows with sda's makes a big difference to how many cycles you get in and without them your not going to be permajamming 6 or seven ships even with current ship strength bonuses. I think the removal of ridiculous optimals and sda strength bonuses would be an adequete nerf. Also doing this will boost eccm modules efficiency unless you intend on rendering them obsolete through these changes? Role wise I think nothing needs changing there, making a falcon a close range ship is crazy and is basically just turning it into expensive cannon fodder, if you really intedn on changing the roles give the rook an rof bonus and make that the close range 'brawler' it is the 'combat' recon after all and the falcon should remain the 'tactical' ecm boat. These changes will make life a lot easier for hostile gangs as all they'll need is a cerb loaded with eccm and em missles to take out any ew boat as they'll be well within missle range, that's not to mention other sniper ships. Personally I'd like to see the optimal nerf come into play although the falon have the same optimal as the planned range for the rook and leave sda's as they are that way ecm boats retain they're strength but are forced into range of hostile ships meaning they have to concentrate more jammers on snipers etc leaving less to use on the rest of the enemy fleet this would also still give use to eccm modules. On a final note I think a lot of this has come abotu through the abuse of ecm ships especially falcons, we recently had an engagement with a hostile gang of 17, 7 of their ships were falcons which was over 1 falcon for two of our ships, I understand people play the game how they like but use of ecm like that is what gives it such a bad name. that's my say on the proposed changes anyway
|
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. Dara Cothrom
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:41:00 -
[119]
Originally by: Seran Kela
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Seran Kela
Originally by: Malcanis So the "brawler" gets 2 unbonused launcher slots as DPS but the "ranged" ship gets a drone bay?
Oooookay....
Brawler only refers to range. It's main role will still be ecm lock-down, not dps. The combat ship gets drones to boost it's dps, strengthening its role as a solo hunter.
Solo hunters don't need to engage at long range. because if they do, their target just leave.
Bringing the Falcon into Scorch/HML/Sentry range simply dooms it to die without even the compensation of being able to inflict a little damage first.
Meh well whatever, I can fly plenty of other ships. Shame CCP have decided to nerf a ship without fixing the broken ships that are supposed to counter it. GG!
In before Arazu pilots stop gloating and realise this doesn't help them one tiny bit...
Yes. Falcons will no longer be able to sit at range to jam ships, they will have to fly in risky situations using their cloak as defense to be effective. This kills solo falcons but not gang-multiplier falcons.
Hahahaha are you serious? "Solo Falcons"? Tell me you were being ironic? Please?
Reality check: Falcon has a 5-6 second targeting delay, plus a none-too-exciting scan res. If it has to be at ~50Km, even cruisers can target it, easily targeting it before the falcon can lock. No "using your cloak for defence" when targeted.
What will actually happen is: uncloak, try and get 1 jam against a few targets, warp out. If there are any bubbles, then the Falcon is effectively prevented from returning. If there are gate guns, the falcon cannot engage at all (I for one welcome our new unbreakable lo-sec RR BS blob overlords ).
Thus the new Falcon is only really useful in high-sec or as a kind of alternate heavy covops.
|
Seran Kela
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:42:00 -
[120]
Originally by: Malena Panic
Originally by: Neesa Corrinne I have to disagree with the proposed changes wholeheartedly. The problem with the Falcon isn't the range that it can jam from, it's the fact that there is NO proper counter for it.
Here's my proposal to "fix" the Falcon:
ECCM - Gravimetric II
If you'd ever fit ECCM you'd know the pointlessness of wasting a precious midslot on a chance based mechanic.
The problem isn't the Falcon, it's 'twenty seconds with your thumb up your ass'. Fix the game mechanic instead of trying to 'balance' the ships please.
This is the thread to offer your alternative Caldari ewar mechanic.
|
|
Laodamia
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:44:00 -
[121]
Originally by: Panzram As a falcon hater i say bravo. Was hoping for a subtle nerf but making them short range "brawlers" (hah!) really twists the knife. Oh, and making the combat recon the long range one is brilliant (if you're trying to screw over ecm pilots that is) with the useless drone bonus the icing on the nerf cake. Rook use will remain at current levels, ie almost none, and falcon use will plummet in fleet warfare. If you carry through with this there is no saving the falcon, and i say good riddance. You take a nice crap on the scorpion too to round out the carnage. Don't be discouraged by the negative responses from the ECM fairies, dragging the last e-war platfrom down to the near uselessness of the others IS a type of balancing. Removing the hulls altogether would tidy up the market too.
this
|
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. Dara Cothrom
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:44:00 -
[122]
Originally by: Frabba
Originally by: Kebabski People whinign escp goons that falcon doesn't need nerfing fail. Saying falcon is cool for pvp and is keeping pvp interessting, while it's actually the one ship that ****s pvp all the time. ''Let's try to take that small gang on in my won'', meh falcon decloaks and permajammed. jammers are overpowered anyway, being able to permajam someone shouldn't be possible, takes the fun out of the game
Most goons from what I have seen actually were expecting the Falcon nerf. It's the scorpion nerf that is suprising us.
Yes well let's face it the legions of overpowered Scorpions dominating all other battleships had to go for the good of the game.
|
Seran Kela
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:45:00 -
[123]
Originally by: Malcanis
Hahahaha are you serious? "Solo Falcons"? Tell me you were being ironic? Please?
Reality check: Falcon has a 5-6 second targeting delay, plus a none-too-exciting scan res. If it has to be at ~50Km, even cruisers can target it, easily targeting it before the falcon can lock. No "using your cloak for defence" when targeted.
What will actually happen is: uncloak, try and get 1 jam against a few targets, warp out. If there are any bubbles, then the Falcon is effectively prevented from returning. If there are gate guns, the falcon cannot engage at all (I for one welcome our new unbreakable lo-sec RR BS blob overlords ).
Thus the new Falcon is only really useful in high-sec or as a kind of alternate heavy covops.
I mean it in a good way. Oftentimes falcon pilots sit around by themselves far off a gate knowing full well that nobody will catch them. Anybody who used a falcon solo in combat is an idiot - now, anybody who uses a falcon solo period should just be flying a buzzard.
|
Alekanderu
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:46:00 -
[124]
nobody disagrees with nerfing the falcon, it's way too powerful as it is right now, but there is no reason whatsoever to change the scorpion
|
Neesa Corrinne
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:46:00 -
[125]
Originally by: Malena Panic
Originally by: Neesa Corrinne I have to disagree with the proposed changes wholeheartedly. The problem with the Falcon isn't the range that it can jam from, it's the fact that there is NO proper counter for it.
Here's my proposal to "fix" the Falcon:
ECCM - Gravimetric II
If you'd ever fit ECCM you'd know the pointlessness of wasting a precious midslot on a chance based mechanic.
The problem isn't the Falcon, it's 'twenty seconds with your thumb up your ass'. Fix the game mechanic instead of trying to 'balance' the ships please.
I have fit ECCM... several times. I know exactly how useless it is. This is why I'm proposing these changes, so that if you have one or two heavy tacklers or mid range snipers in a fleet with my version of ECCM on, then they will actually have a chance to grief the falcons. ---------------------------------
|
Proud American
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:47:00 -
[126]
In Eve, they came first for the Dampeners, And I didnÆt speak up because I didn't fly Gallente Recon ships;
And then they came for the Nosferatu, And I didnÆt speak up because I didn't fly Amarr Recon ships;
And then they came for the Webs, And I didnÆt speak up because I didn't fly Minmatar Recons ships;
And then . . . they came for the ECM . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up. |
Alekanderu
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:48:00 -
[127]
Originally by: Fahtim Meidires If they turn the scorp into a hybrid ship with a tracking bonus and ewar strength it becomes a great anti-support ship.
who cares about another anti-support ship, there are a whole bunch of extremely effective anti-support ships already, the scorpion will just not be flown in 0.0 fleets
all your ideas and opinions in this thread have been horrible and wrong
|
Fahtim Meidires
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:49:00 -
[128]
Originally by: Alekanderu nobody disagrees with nerfing the falcon, it's way too powerful as it is right now, but there is no reason whatsoever to change the scorpion
Well, nobody ever seriously uses the cruise missiles, it only exists as a battleship-sized blackbird.
|
Peter Powers
FinFleet Band of Brothers Reloaded
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:49:00 -
[129]
i think you confused ships.
the falcon is the force recon, the rook is the combat recon.
the combat recon should be the one that goes right into a fight and should be a bit tougher
while the force recon should be the one which tries to avoid direct combat.
Originally by: Falcon Info
Force recon ships are the cruiser-class equivalent of covert ops frigates. While not as resilient as combat recon ships,
Originally by: Rook Info
Filling a role next to their class counterpart, the heavy assault ship, combat recon ships are the state of the art when it comes to anti-support support. They are also devastating adversaries in smaller skirmishes, possessing strong defensive capabilities in addition to their electronic superiority.
the proposed changes break with the roles of those ships.
|
Fahtim Meidires
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:50:00 -
[130]
Originally by: Alekanderu
Originally by: Fahtim Meidires If they turn the scorp into a hybrid ship with a tracking bonus and ewar strength it becomes a great anti-support ship.
who cares about another anti-support ship, there are a whole bunch of extremely effective anti-support ships already, the scorpion will just not be flown in 0.0 fleets
all your ideas and opinions in this thread have been horrible and wrong
Why does the scorpion exist? It has no purpose at the moment. Zero. It sucks at damage because missiles suck in fleet and is not much better than a blackbird. Might as well change it into something interesting.
|
|
Fahtim Meidires
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:53:00 -
[131]
Originally by: Peter Powers
Originally by: Falcon Info
Force recon ships are the cruiser-class equivalent of covert ops frigates. While not as resilient as combat recon ships,
Originally by: Rook Info
Filling a role next to their class counterpart, the heavy assault ship, combat recon ships are the state of the art when it comes to anti-support support. They are also devastating adversaries in smaller skirmishes, possessing strong defensive capabilities in addition to their electronic superiority.
the proposed changes break with the roles of those ships.
The roles are pretty poorly worded. Force recons could be force multipliers in small-medium gangs. Combat recons could be good solo ships.
|
LOPEZ
HOMELESS. The Shelter
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:53:00 -
[132]
Sorry but I think the changes are not to bad. I've flown falcons a lot, and frankly it's boring. I can just sit at a massive range, jam everything I need to, and warp out if i need to.
Bringing a falcon in close will force the pilot to actually pay attention. To *gasp* actually use their brains.
Good falcon/rook pilots will still be a pain in the ass to people and the bad ones... well they will stop flying the ships cause "they got nerfed to hard".
Bravo CCP. Appreciate you forcing people to know how to fly ships well to enjoy them. No more "i win button from 170km+". Revelation Eclipse |
Incantare
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:54:00 -
[133]
Edited by: Incantare on 24/03/2009 19:54:45 What about THE WIDOW? Currently it's only redeeming factor as an ECM ship is being tied for highest ECM strength while having more mids than a falcon. With the falcon's bonus at +25% you are killing that advantage while leaving it with all its current drawbacks.
|
Alekanderu
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:55:00 -
[134]
Originally by: Fahtim Meidires
Originally by: Alekanderu
Originally by: Fahtim Meidires If they turn the scorp into a hybrid ship with a tracking bonus and ewar strength it becomes a great anti-support ship.
who cares about another anti-support ship, there are a whole bunch of extremely effective anti-support ships already, the scorpion will just not be flown in 0.0 fleets
all your ideas and opinions in this thread have been horrible and wrong
Why does the scorpion exist? It has no purpose at the moment. Zero. It sucks at damage because missiles suck in fleet and is not much better than a blackbird. Might as well change it into something interesting.
you don't know what you're talking about at all
you can fit more jammers, sensor boosters and rigs on a scorp which makes it a better ecm platform than the blackbird, and it also doesn't pop as soon as an apoc looks at it, which makes it better for fleet work
|
Fahtim Meidires
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:56:00 -
[135]
Originally by: Incantare Edited by: Incantare on 24/03/2009 19:54:45 What about THE WIDOW? Currently it's only redeeming factor as an ECM ship is being tied for highest ECM strength while having more mids than a falcon. With the falcon's bonus at +25% you are killing that advantage while leaving it with all its current drawbacks.
Widow can provide dps and ewar from outside of 100km. Not many other ships can do that (i guess the rook will be able to). Black ops ships should look a lot like their combat recon counterparts as far as bonuses.
|
saltrock0000
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:58:00 -
[136]
yeah great plan, nurf the ONLY ships caldari have for pvp.. the ONLY ships of any use as you know missiles arnt ment for pvp!!
If these nurfs keep happeneing you will loose alot of players.. I call for a nurf of mining lasers, cargo holds and the amount of gravoimetric sites inside these wormholes.... stop loving the ISK sellers, and respect the pvpers
|
Shifter Stark
The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:58:00 -
[137]
I've been flying caldari recons for a while, so I'm not at all surprised to see that they're being rebalanced.
Falcons are made of paper and don't have any weapon system bonuses, so it doesn't really make sense to turn them into a 'brawler' when that's pretty clearly the rook's role. The rook has 20% higher EHP and has the hardpoints to fit a decent weapons system. I think that if you upped the rook jam strength bonus, and gave it maybe a launcher rate of fire bonus while removing the range bonus that people might actually fly it.
That said, if a falcon wants to stay safe, it should definitely be jamming in falloff. So, maybe removing the range bonus and giving it a falloff bonus would be more appropriate.
|
Spurty
Caldari Amok. Minor Threat.
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 19:59:00 -
[138]
falcon and rook look/feel backwards.
ECM ships only paperthin as people don't fit any tank to them. Drop one of those ECM modules and fit some shield extenders.
Any one fitting a rapier with all mid slots filled with webs and tps is going to be laughed at, why not laugh at caldari as well?
Originally by: Butter Dog
I think you'll find that 10 seconds > 1 month
|
Yonker
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:00:00 -
[139]
Originally by: Neesa Corrinne I have fit ECCM... several times. I know exactly how useless it is. This is why I'm proposing these changes, so that if you have one or two heavy tacklers or mid range snipers in a fleet with my version of ECCM on, then they will actually have a chance to grief the falcons.
ECCM is really annoying to an EWAR Pilot. It changes your Jam chance from like 60% to ~30%. While you may not feel that as a pilot ("oh god I got jammed, f this ECCM"), on a large scale ECCM is pretty strong.
They could change it so that ECCM cut the jam time in half, that'd pretty much fix everyone's problem with ECM. One module to cut it in half 2 for nearly no effect... I wish something like that existed for damage.
|
eliminator2
Gallente THE FINAL STAND
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:00:00 -
[140]
this is like blaster nerf all over again
people give more and better ideas yet CCP goes with fail ideas of there own seriously find some new idea's people in you corporation CCP these ****ing sux
and just after a good expansion as well "sigh"
y not just boost every ships ecm strengh and be done with it
|
|
Jedziah
Asshats and Alcoholics Turbo.
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:02:00 -
[141]
ECM ships in their current state neither swing the course of a fight or win a fight.
THEY PREVENT FIGHTS
CCP, today you have made the best step for many a year. Even surpassing the great work of Quantum Rise.
One comment I have to you Caldari whining chaps is how much of a beast the Scorpion will become with a RoF bonus on torps and 8 mid slots for PvP.
700 dps with drones and just under a 2k dps tank will make the Scorpion a real dark horse PvP battleship.
|
Fahtim Meidires
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:03:00 -
[142]
Originally by: Alekanderu
Originally by: Fahtim Meidires
Originally by: Alekanderu
Originally by: Fahtim Meidires If they turn the scorp into a hybrid ship with a tracking bonus and ewar strength it becomes a great anti-support ship.
who cares about another anti-support ship, there are a whole bunch of extremely effective anti-support ships already, the scorpion will just not be flown in 0.0 fleets
all your ideas and opinions in this thread have been horrible and wrong
Why does the scorpion exist? It has no purpose at the moment. Zero. It sucks at damage because missiles suck in fleet and is not much better than a blackbird. Might as well change it into something interesting.
you don't know what you're talking about at all
you can fit more jammers, sensor boosters and rigs on a scorp which makes it a better ecm platform than the blackbird, and it also doesn't pop as soon as an apoc looks at it, which makes it better for fleet work
I've flown buzzards, falcons and scorpions almost exclusively for the past 6 months. I guess what I'm arguing is that the scorpion's role is so out of place. If you want a battleship-sized ewar platform, fly black ops. It makes no sense for the scorpion to even exist since there are no other T1 ewar battlships.
|
Mr Frog
Asshats and Alcoholics Turbo.
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:03:00 -
[143]
YES, FERKING YES!!!
Best change ever.
|
eliminator2
Gallente THE FINAL STAND
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:04:00 -
[144]
Originally by: saltrock0000 yeah great plan, nurf the ONLY ships caldari have for pvp.. the ONLY ships of any use as you know missiles arnt ment for pvp!!
If these nurfs keep happeneing you will loose alot of players.. I call for a nurf of mining lasers, cargo holds and the amount of gravoimetric sites inside these wormholes.... stop loving the ISK sellers, and respect the pvpers
u never seen a gank rokh shield tank + blasters? seriously get out into the real pvp more mmmkay
|
ArmyOfMe
The Athiest Syndicate Advocated Destruction
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:04:00 -
[145]
im not a big fan of ecm, and i tend to hate the falcon.
but come on, calling the falcon for a brawler with its 2 launcher slots is just cruel to any falcon pilot out there
|
Mahke
Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:05:00 -
[146]
For the scorp, how about giving a bonus to passive tanking (10% shield size/level or 5% resist) instead of a missile bonus?
This would allow it to be more of a brawler while retaining the role as a primarily ECM focused ship. [that is IF you decide to make it a "brawler"]
Also, please please please leave us at least one t1 ship, be it the scorp or blackbird, that is capable of using ecm at t2 sniping fleet ranges. Don't make us completely obsolete in range gangs .
|
SDragoon
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:05:00 -
[147]
Edited by: SDragoon on 24/03/2009 20:07:02 The only problem I see here is in low sec. With these changes outlaws will no longer be able to field falcons as jamming within gate range will get them insta barbecued. It's true the rook can fill this role (to a much weaker degree) but when these changes come around there will be a lot of people stuck with a falcon that now need a rook to do their job.
It would also make sense that the rook should be the up close brawler instead of the falcon, it has more firepower and the addition of drones is going to be useless at the ranges it will be used at. I know people think the combination of covop cloak with long range is over powered, but with a reduction in strength and range bonus will force them to reduce their power substantially in order to be able to continue to jam at these ranges.
Once again I think the easiest solution is to buff the optimal range of damps by 60-80%. This will allow them to be a thorn in the side of anyone trying to jam at these extreme ranges while still allowing so called brawling ECM. It's also a much easier change then moving all these bonuses around and will take less time to balance.
|
Alekanderu
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:06:00 -
[148]
Edited by: Alekanderu on 24/03/2009 20:06:59
Originally by: Jedziah ECM ships in their current state neither swing the course of a fight or win a fight.
THEY PREVENT FIGHTS
CCP, today you have made the best step for many a year. Even surpassing the great work of Quantum Rise.
One comment I have to you Caldari whining chaps is how much of a beast the Scorpion will become with a RoF bonus on torps and 8 mid slots for PvP.
700 dps with drones and just under a 2k dps tank will make the Scorpion a real dark horse PvP battleship.
torps are useless for pvp apart from maybe some lowsec stuff and empire station camping
the only ecm ship that needs a nerf is the falcon; there's nothing wrong with ecm in itself, it's just that the alternatives (such as other e-war) need to be made viable again
|
Mr Frog
Asshats and Alcoholics Turbo.
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:06:00 -
[149]
Originally by: saltrock0000 If these nurfs keep happeneing you will loose alot of players.. I call for a nurf of mining lasers, cargo holds and the amount of gravoimetric sites inside these wormholes.... stop loving the ISK sellers, and respect the pvpers
wut.
|
Incantare
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:09:00 -
[150]
Originally by: Fahtim Meidires
Widow can provide dps and ewar from outside of 100km. Not many other ships can do that (i guess the rook will be able to).
With the changes given in the original post it'll have the similar range to falcon since neither will have a range bonus.
Quote: (52km optimal / 81km falloff w/ 2*SDA IIs)
or slightly more with a third SDA. Yes it does some damage, and has more hp. It also aligns slower, costs far more, has a much larger sig but most importantly has a terrible locking time which is especially important when fighting other ECM ships.
Quote:
Black ops ships should look a lot like their combat recon counterparts as far as bonuses.
Its bonuses will be closer to that of the falcon than the rook.
|
|
oei
Balls Deep Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:10:00 -
[151]
As a Falcon pilot, I welcome these changes.
But while your at it, bump the PG up a bit, replace one of the turrent slots to another missile slot and give it at least a 40m3 drone bay.
|
sylvester stallowned
Trotters Independent Trading
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:12:00 -
[152]
At last! This is such a needed change, Even before the nano-nerf falcons were overpowered, since then it makes it impossible to chase down a falcon with fast support that is sat at 150-200k away jamming.
What other recon in game has a standard fit with no form of buffer? None, apart from the falcon.
Now with the change, I just hope that this will bring falcons into the 40-60k range to be 100% effective at jamming (with rigs) This will force them to maybe fit 2 large shield extenders like most other recons have to.
CCP, please consider ECM rigs in your balancing here.
Also how about introducing a rig for ECCM? There are very few options to make ECCM viable at the moment.
|
Angelica Claes
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:14:00 -
[153]
Good CCP killed last Caldari ship - falcon. Continue in the same spirit. You soon will lose all subscribers, from for that that methodically kill race behind race. Now you killed Caldari there are no ships for PvP
|
Yunaka Vicc
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:15:00 -
[154]
Originally by: sylvester stallowned it makes it impossible to chase down a falcon with fast support that is sat at 150-200k away jamming.
It seems that you've missed Apocryph scan changes.
|
Sebea
Bottomfeeders Science and Research
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:15:00 -
[155]
angry goons itt.
seriously, its about time the falcon took it in the ass, every other recon has been brutally ****d over the past 2 years.
Look at the poor pilgrim. LOOK AT IT.
Now it will have a buddy in station to keep it company.
|
TimMc
Gallente The Black Rabbits The Gurlstas Associates
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:16:00 -
[156]
/support.
|
shantaa
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:17:00 -
[157]
Big thumbs up for the Scorpion change, the Scorpion has needed a weapons bonus for a long time.
As for the falcon and rook, I appreciate they are overpowered with their 250km jamming range. But the rook is the combat recon and should rightfully take the role of short range brawler. The falcon however is a fleet recon, a fleet support orientated ship not a combat ship. As such is better suited to weaker long range hide and seek style jamming.
|
Astal Atlar
Caldari Priory Of The Lemon Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:20:00 -
[158]
I can't believe what i read... falcon and rook are good as they are,if the changes ccp consider are aplied they will efectively kill the ewar,who need a falcon arround 80km when you can shot it in seconds well in range of most of your fleet,ecm is good as it is right now,it i just the people who don't know how to fight and whine. And what is the use for my scorp being with more dps this is not his role and while other fleet bs are snaiping from 150+ he will be just killed unable to jam the enemy bs what is his role right now. This is insanity honestly.....
|
Ubidak
Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers Reloaded
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:20:00 -
[159]
Edited by: Ubidak on 24/03/2009 20:24:50 If you feel that separation of ECM boats between long and close ranged is inevitable, make it at least other way around: rook for close and falcon for long. This kind of change may make rooks more popular for fleet fights, while falcon will mostly maintain its current role. Doing it the way you propose now will render both ships almost useless, especially falcon. Don't really care about flying coffins called scorpions.
Edit: you may consider introducing a skill for the ship sensor strength increase as a counter-ecm measure.
|
VB Sarge
Asshats and Alcoholics Turbo.
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:20:00 -
[160]
I would first like to say, I appreciate CCP looking into this and I think the changes proposed so far are genius. I feel that the changes put the ECM boats directly in line with the rest of the recons, as well as other battleship/cruisers/etc.
To those that think these changes are ridiculous, I would like to point out a few things here:
1) Comparing the Falcon to the Rapier... As it stands now, the Rapier has just under 300 LESS effective hit points than the Falcon (all skills at 5) The Rapier has 1 more low slot, but 1 less mid slot than the Falcon. If you put 2x LSE II's on the Falcon, it has more shield HP than the Rapier. If you fit it for speed, yes, it will go a little bit slower than the Minmatar Recon, but seeing as how Minmatar have higher base speeds and are the race that for all general purposes, are meant to go faster, it sort of makes sense. It'll (Falcon) will be in line with the rest of the Recons as far as speed goes.
2) At the "Arazus and Pilgrims are crap and no one flies them" comment... lol? Learn to play outside of a 300 man blob?
3) I have to say, a 600+ dps Battleship that can also completely take another ship or two out of a fight, still ridiculous.
4) This is going to be an insane revitalization for the Rook. The fact that it will (with the proposed changes) be able to fight with HAM's and Drones and still jam at around 60km is pretty insane.
5) The most important part of this, is it doesn't turn these ECM ships into invulnerable wtf pwn machines. The fact that you'll actually be able to fight back against Falcon's and the like, is a godsend.
As for some more feedback, are you (CCP) looking at the removal of sig amps from the game possibly? And on top of that, will there be some sort of balance factor with ECCM modules? As it is right now, Every battle I've flown in with ECCM when I ran into a Falcon, I'm still jammed all to hell and removed from the fight, it would be nice if the "counter" to ECM actually worked a bit. Just my only gripe with this.
CCP wins yet again, and to everyone who is crying about these proposed changes, learn to fly a recon with skill, kk ^.^
-Sarge
|
|
But Sects
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:21:00 -
[161]
Originally by: Jedziah ECM ships in their current state neither swing the course of a fight or win a fight.
THEY PREVENT FIGHTS
CCP, today you have made the best step for many a year. Even surpassing the great work of Quantum Rise.
One comment I have to you Caldari whining chaps is how much of a beast the Scorpion will become with a RoF bonus on torps and 8 mid slots for PvP.
700 dps with drones and just under a 2k dps tank will make the Scorpion a real dark horse PvP battleship.
This is probably one of the dumbest things I have read on the forums, so first off, congratulations.
Now on to my point:
Since when did ECM prevent fights? You mean your trying to do sneaky ninja lone ranger solo stuff <.< >.> and a falcon shows up while your ganking that BS and now you can't fight? Wait... you mean that poor ratter called in a friend who used electronic warfare to escape your gank? OMG HOW OVERPOWERED. Your enemy brings ecm friends, bring ECM counters (sniping turret boats or *gasp* your own ecm). Its not a single player game. And please dont say "omg but they have like over 9000 falcons!" cause a fleet of falcons is garbage, and everyone knows that. I dont know where people fly that they run into these supposed 200 man falcon gangs, but I'd like to see it first hand.
Secondly, a Scorpion "dark horse PvP battleship" lol.
Missiles are absolute garbage. Plain and simple, with terrible module lag now the mainstay of fleet fights you need ships that can immediately put a whole in someones ship, and missiles dont do that. Yeah you can fit a nice buffer on a scorp if you want to neglect your ecm, but then whats the point cause i can buffer the hell out of an abby and get much more DPS. "sustained tank" is a laughable joke unless your main fleet battles consist of you fighting against a 50+ gang of guristas setting up a blockade in Motsu. From your Alliances sweet battleclinic stats I can tell you guys are real pro pvp'ers too. You fly that darkhorse scorp and see how it works out.
|
Ryd'Ia
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:25:00 -
[162]
Originally by: musgrattio Edited by: musgrattio on 24/03/2009 18:22:57 The general idea is fine, DO NOT GO OVERBOARD. We still need a ECM boat that can jam around 200km, and I think we'd all agree that needs to be the Falcon. If you want to make the Rook a close range ship, fine, but recons, in general, especially cloaking recons, are generally not going to be used at very short ranges. Keep the Falcon's range as it is, lower its strength, give the Rook more missile damage, change sig amps to where the Rook would be an excellent mid range damage dealer and ECM boat. Scorp changes are great, the Kitsune is really fine tbh.
edit: I'll explain. The Falcon is the ship you use for probing/cynos, so you generally don't fit weapons on it, and even if you do, they're useless. So you're completely changing the ship here, you're forcing it to go short range, with basically no defenses. Don't do that. Keep cloaking recons long range. Simply forcing the Falcon to jam in its falloff would be a welcome change. Something like 80km optimal/80km falloff with lvl 4 jamming skills would be perfect for the Falcon, especially if Sig Distortion Amps have a 5% effect to optimal/falloff, and you keep ECM strength rigs. Falcons will still be able to jam at long ranges, but they'll have to fit specifically for it, and since it's falloff, it's not a sure jam every time.
Change ECM optimal to a base of 50km, base falloff of 50km.
A Rook with these bonuses would be optimal
20% bonus to ECM strength per level 5% bonus to shield capacity per level 5% bonus to Heavy/Heavy Assault Missile Velocity per level 5% bonus to Heavy/Heavy Assault ROF per level
Falcon:
10% bonus to ECM optimal per level 10% bonus to ECM strength per level 96% to 100% Cloak bonus 10% bonus to ECM falloff per level
There you go, you have 2 ships that while nerfed, are still very, very useful.
TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU MUSGRATTIO....PLEASE CCP, You need to keep the Falcon has a long range jammer...
Regards,
Ryd'Ia
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:28:00 -
[163]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Generally the ECM optimal range is a little too long with massive optimal ranges possible which would place the ECM specialised ships so far out of the fight to be almost completely safe but suffer no effective hit quality decrease. To bring them closer to the fight we are looking at swapping the base optimal and falloff ranges so at the longer ranges jammers would be operating more in falloff and hence have a lower chance of 'hitting' with their jammers at the extreme ranges.
Very bad idea. To be effective enough at jamming to be worth bringing to a fight, an ECM ship is forced to use all of its mid slots for ECM, which means zero tank. Forcing ECM ships in even closer than just removing the ECM bonus would make ECM even more of a suicide job than it is now. The moment you fail a jam cycle (and you will), you insta-pop. The ONLY defense you have against getting insta-popped is to be out of range of every single un-jammed hostile ship on the grid.
Additionally, cut ECM range and damps become stupidly overpowered, since they're now operating at the same ranges, but damps have zero failure chance.
Quote: The SDAs are something of a conundrum. They are really only worth fitting on the ECM specialised ships and are the only EWAR enhancing module we have besides the rigs. Currently they increase your ECM strength and we were looking at swapping this to an ECM range bonus and altering either the base strength of the jammers or the ECM strength bonus of the ships so they become less required in every setup and the low slots could be used for tanking for example.
Bad idea. Remember the reason for SDAs in the first place? As much as I hate being forced to use all of my low slots on them, if you make this change, you'll be right back to the old problem of the random multispectral on every ship.
Also a problem with this plan: using lows for tanking does not work. Not only do the ECM ships lack the low slots for more than a token armor tank, but how many Caldari pilots have the armor tank skills (or are willing to train them for so few ships)?
The falcon has been changed to be similar to the pilgrim in its role as a ECM brawler at shorter ranges. It has a bigger ECM strength bonus whilst losing its ECM optimal range bonus. In addition its agility and base velocity and have been increased to allow it to be more manoeuvrable at shorter ranges.
Quote: 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)
Poor changes. If you're going to force the Falcon in close, at least give it some useful weapons. 3x launchers, 5% ROF/level, 40m3 drone bay like the other recons. An agility bonus is just worthless, if you're ever in a position where you have to rely on it, you're going to be dead within seconds.
Quote:
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
Major nerf. Do you really hate the Rook or something? It's already trash (just like the Lachesis and Huginn) because it gains no ewar advantage over the force recon (while dps is still poor), and now you want to nerf it even more?
Worst of all, the changes don't even make any sense. The Rook is the combat recon, it should be up close and doing damage (as the drone bay suggests), not sitting at extreme range with nothing but ECM. -----------
|
Korako Kosakami
Zawa's Fan Club
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:30:00 -
[164]
Awesome changes. Should make flying ECMships much more interesting. Thanks! |
Loki L'Odin
Gallente Asshats and Alcoholics Turbo.
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:30:00 -
[165]
Originally by: But Sects
Originally by: Jedziah Sensible stuff...
This is probably one of the dumbest things I have read on the forums, so first off, congratulations.
Pretty much how I see it. Actually re-typed it for you.
Linkage
You can find it on a google search too, no need for the dross on battleclinic, would talk about your stats....but wait hiding behind a alt...interesting.
|
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. Dara Cothrom
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:31:00 -
[166]
Originally by: Angelica Claes Good CCP killed last Caldari ship - falcon. Continue in the same spirit. You soon will lose all subscribers, from for that that methodically kill race behind race. Now you killed Caldari there are no ships for PvP
Respeccing ftw
I almost wouldn't mind CCP breaking the ECM ships if they were fixing the other EW ships - particularly the Gallante.
|
Jedziah
Asshats and Alcoholics Turbo.
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:31:00 -
[167]
Originally by: But Sects
Originally by: Jedziah ECM ships in their current state neither swing the course of a fight or win a fight.
THEY PREVENT FIGHTS
CCP, today you have made the best step for many a year. Even surpassing the great work of Quantum Rise.
One comment I have to you Caldari whining chaps is how much of a beast the Scorpion will become with a RoF bonus on torps and 8 mid slots for PvP.
700 dps with drones and just under a 2k dps tank will make the Scorpion a real dark horse PvP battleship.
This is probably one of the dumbest things I have read on the forums, so first off, congratulations.
Now on to my point:
Since when did ECM prevent fights? You mean your trying to do sneaky ninja lone ranger solo stuff <.< >.> and a falcon shows up while your ganking that BS and now you can't fight? Wait... you mean that poor ratter called in a friend who used electronic warfare to escape your gank? OMG HOW OVERPOWERED. Your enemy brings ecm friends, bring ECM counters (sniping turret boats or *gasp* your own ecm). Its not a single player game. And please dont say "omg but they have like over 9000 falcons!" cause a fleet of falcons is garbage, and everyone knows that. I dont know where people fly that they run into these supposed 200 man falcon gangs, but I'd like to see it first hand.
Secondly, a Scorpion "dark horse PvP battleship" lol.
Missiles are absolute garbage. Plain and simple, with terrible module lag now the mainstay of fleet fights you need ships that can immediately put a whole in someones ship, and missiles dont do that. Yeah you can fit a nice buffer on a scorp if you want to neglect your ecm, but then whats the point cause i can buffer the hell out of an abby and get much more DPS. "sustained tank" is a laughable joke unless your main fleet battles consist of you fighting against a 50+ gang of guristas setting up a blockade in Motsu. From your Alliances sweet battleclinic stats I can tell you guys are real pro pvp'ers too. You fly that darkhorse scorp and see how it works out.
Wow, I would love to leave alone what you just said but you are just a special petal.
Unless all of your fights consist of 250 vs 250 then it doesn't really matter what BS you are in, it matters what your name begins with for the most part.
I never said it would be 'better' than an Abaddon. However 700dps, several utility highs for heavy neut / smartbombs and a monster active tank cannot be frowned at.
A subtle mix of a sub 1k dps tank and a mix of ECM is going to make a savage ship of the Scorpion, regardless of your tear filled words.
Secondly, you obviously have no idea who we are or what we do so I cannot even begin to be bothered to explain how a Falcon prevents a fight.
Post on your main on here, no one will hurt you for doing so.
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:32:00 -
[168]
Originally by: Merin Ryskin
Additionally, cut ECM range and damps become stupidly overpowered, since they're now operating at the same ranges, but damps have zero failure chance.
False for lots of reasons. As you very well know.
|
General Coochie
The Bastards
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:33:00 -
[169]
Edited by: General Coochie on 24/03/2009 20:36:39 Looks good IMO.
Falcon getting stronger feels weird, but its the range thats always been the real problem.
As for ppl saying falcon lacks tank to be short range. You can fit a tank! Just as all the other recons have to. Rapier fits LSEs, Pilgrim fits plates, Curse fits LSEs, Lachesis and Arazu also need some kind of tank. Welcome to the other recons world; affecting only one ship at the time. (well falcons still be affecting 2-3 I guess even with a nice mid slot tank)
The falcon with stronger ECM would need less jammers to be as effective as they been before, they can trade those fewer jammers for some mid slot tanking without a problem and they will still be more effective then all the other recons.
Got Cooch?, solo PvP movie
|
DNSBLACK
Gallente Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Associates
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:35:00 -
[170]
Edited by: DNSBLACK on 24/03/2009 20:37:14 OMG leave them alone please. HERE is a suggestion.
BUFFFFFFFFF ECCM, BUFFFFFFFFFFFF ECCM . Make the wine nerf babies in this post use one of there slots of there super gank boats to fight the ecm of a falcon. BUFF moduals before you buff an entire platform for phuk sake.
Make FC have to counter the ecm boats. I have dedicated pilots who love and fly the falcon cause they dont want to fight they like the role of the jammer ship. They like seeing 0% on kill mails. They are role driven. To all the cry babies go find one of those pilots and recruit them and you have solved your perma jam problem.
|
|
Kulmid
Asshats and Alcoholics Turbo.
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:36:00 -
[171]
Originally by: General Coochie Looks good IMO.
Falcon getting stronger feels weird, but its the range thats always been the real problem.
As for ppl saying falcon lacks tank to be short range. You can fit a tank! Just as all the other recons have to. Rapier fits LSEs, Pilgrim fits plates, Curse fits LSEs, Lachesis and Arazu also need some kind of tank.
The falcon with stronger ECM would need less jammers to be as effective as they been before, they can trade those fewer jammers for some mid slot tanking without a problem and they will still be more effective then all the other recons.
This.
Everyone saying the Falcon has no tank, that's because YOU fit no tank, not because it can't be done. Sacrifice some EWar and slap on a tank just like every single recon has to do.
_________________
|
Adam C
Caldari coracao ardente Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:36:00 -
[172]
ecm are fine as they are rr bs breakers, long range fleet engagements etc.
they just need to be more expensive to counter the popular use of them
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:37:00 -
[173]
As for the correct nerf: first of all, see my sig. Don't give in to the whiners who can't figure out how to deal with Falcons. Now, once you decide to focus on balance, you can make some constructive changes.
Falcon:
No change. Instead of nerfing the Falcon, fix the problems with your game environment that encourage blobbing and give no incentive to leave the recon alts at home.
Rook:
Make it a mini Scorpion. Change the ECM optimal bonus to a missile ROF bonus, add a 25m3 drone bay. Ideally, the Rook would get something similar to the marauder/Sansha trick: 150% bonus to ECM, only allowed to fit 3x ECM modules and no SDAs. That would allow the Rook to fit MWD, 3x ECM, and have three slots left for tank/tackle while keeping its lows free for BCUs. The result: a close-range combat ship that still uses ECM as a primary defense, but that has enough dps/tank to actually survive in the close-range environment.
Scorpion:
Can go either way, your proposed changes are a major nerf to the Scorpion as a fleet ship, but a major boost to it as a solo/small-gang ship. Either ship would be fine, the only question is which one the players want more.
But if you're going to make it a close-range combat ship, it needs to gain a full 6x launcher hardpoints as well as the damage bonus.
Widow:
Just scrap it already. It was a complete failure as an ECM ship, and you should consider the fact that you didn't even bother to mention it here a sign that it isn't supposed to be one.
Change the hull to the Rokh (make it use Scorpion BPOs if you have to keep invention straight, just don't make me look at the ugly hull anymore), paint it black, give it 6x guns (8x highs), 10% hybrid optimal, 5% shield resists on the battleship skill, 5% hybrid damage on the black ops skill. -----------
|
Thoregras
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:38:00 -
[174]
Do CCP really have a clue what they are doing?
Increase the chance that Falcon can jam you, when they can already permanently jam multiple ships..
Yeah bring them in a little closer but they are still going to be engaging at 100km ish how is that "close range brawler"
When are dampners gonna get some love, specifically the ships that are designed to use Dampeners? Why cant my arazu negate 4 ships from a fight? why can it only just manage to negate 1 ship?
If your going to balance the ships do it properly stop being so wishy washy about it. You obviously have no clear goal about what you actually wanna do with the whole of Ewar
What about sticking scripts in ECM modules like has been done with dampeners? What about actually make a sensible balance for once? Oh and try and keep the bonus's right to the race and back story..
Also - Arii Smith is a CORP THIEF, Please do not buy that character, as we will leave it KOS after the transfer. |
General Coochie
The Bastards
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:38:00 -
[175]
Edited by: General Coochie on 24/03/2009 20:39:37
Originally by: DNSBLACK OMG leave them alone please. HERE is a suggestion.
BUFFFFFFFFF ECCM, BUFFFFFFFFFFFF ECCM . Make the wine nerf babies in this post use one of there slots of there super gank boats to fight the ecm of a falcon. BUFF moduals before you buff an entire platform for **** sake.
Make FC have to counter the ecm boats. I have dedicated pilots who love and fly the falcon cause they dont want to fight they like the role of the jammer ship. They like seeing 0% on kill mails. They are role driven. To all the cry babies go find one of those pilots and recruit them and you have solved your perma jam problem.
I could live with that IF the min recons got a webber strength bonus, gallente recons a 7.5 or even 10% damp bonus. So they are also really useful recons. So that you actually have to really counter those ewars to. Why is it that only ecm should be the only ewar a gang needs to setup against to counter? No reason at all actually.
Got Cooch?, solo PvP movie
|
Frug
Repo Industries
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:39:00 -
[176]
Sounds like a plan.
Scorpion buff plz thx omg.
- - - - - - - - - Do not use dotted lines - - - - - - If you think I'm awesome say BOOO BOOO!! - Ductoris Neat look what I found - Kreul Whisper/PrismX 4 emperor |
EgoMan
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:40:00 -
[177]
Another one bites the dust...because the cry babies always prevail. I like the idea that the rook can be a more effective ship but then again in a roaming cruiser gang I already use one with great results. It's never a good thing when a nerf comes down the pipe. Instead of becoming smarter than your enemy and equipping eccm and bringing your own falcons we will just make them useless so that eve warfare can become one dimensional and only characters with hacs and battleships can roam around owning everyting. Same crap different day.
|
El'essar Viocragh
Minmatar Meltdown Luftfahrttechnik
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:40:00 -
[178]
Rook dronebay: welcome to eve versatility, caldari pilots.
Scorpion: this ship should really keep its range, so it is still viable for fleets. -- [17:47] <Mephysto> its dead, jim |
Spindeln
Duty.
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:42:00 -
[179]
Swapping optimal and falloff is brilliant.
Range really is the number one issue with ECM, tightly followed by the way too safe life of cloaky falcons. I would probably have cut the range even further, but apart from that it looks a solid plan.
|
Centra Spike
Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:45:00 -
[180]
"Close range brawler."
How am I supposed to offer constructive criticism when you are starting with off with such an exceptionally terrible idea?
Wait, no let me imagine for a second decloaking next to someone and attempting to jam them. My agility and base velocity bonus will keep me alive! ------
|
|
Jedziah
Asshats and Alcoholics Turbo.
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:47:00 -
[181]
Quote: The falcon has been changed to be similar to the pilgrim in its role as a ECM brawler at shorter ranges. It has a bigger ECM strength bonus whilst losing its ECM optimal range bonus
As per this comment,
One would expect that the Pilgrim receives a higher energy emissions bonus over the Curse to make up for a shorter range.
This is however not the case and should probably be brought in line with the Falcon.
|
ShadowGod56
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:48:00 -
[182]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Falcon & Rook
The falcon has been changed to be similar to the pilgrim in its role as a ECM brawler at shorter ranges. It has a bigger ECM strength bonus whilst losing its ECM optimal range bonus. In addition its agility and base velocity and have been increased to allow it to be more manoeuvrable at shorter ranges.
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)
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
im glad that there trying to make the rook now a ballanced, but i think it should be the other way around, the falcon should get the range bonus but not as strong of a chance of jamming, and the rook should be the brawler with the strong ECM.
it would make no sense to make the falcon get in close range when its only got 3 slots it can fit missiles to, it doesn't have the same ability as the pilgrim, the only reason the pilgrim has this ability is because it has a drone bonus and a nuet/nos bonus.
the only thing keeping the falcon alive most of the time is its range so taking it away from it is going kill the ship and it will turn into what the rook is now. the rook would be the best thing for a close range brawler because it has a bonus towards missiles, and with strong ECM bonus it would be more effective and people might actualy want to use the damn thing.
|
General Coochie
The Bastards
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:49:00 -
[183]
Originally by: Centra Spike "Close range brawler."
How am I supposed to offer constructive criticism when you are starting with off with such an exceptionally terrible idea?
Wait, no let me imagine for a second decloaking next to someone and attempting to jam them. My agility and base velocity bonus will keep me alive!
50-70km isnt exactly next to someone. Look at the bright side you will have even more powerful jammers should this happen. So you need less jammers for same jamming efficiency allowing you to fit a tank just like all the other recons have to do.
Got Cooch?, solo PvP movie
|
Kulmid
Asshats and Alcoholics Turbo.
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:49:00 -
[184]
Originally by: Centra Spike "Close range brawler."
How am I supposed to offer constructive criticism when you are starting with off with such an exceptionally terrible idea?
Wait, no let me imagine for a second decloaking next to someone and attempting to jam them. My agility and base velocity bonus will keep me alive!
Try taking off a few jammers and putting on some tank.
_________________
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:50:00 -
[185]
Edited by: Alex Harumichi on 24/03/2009 20:52:45 Edited by: Alex Harumichi on 24/03/2009 20:51:07
Originally by: Centra Spike "Close range brawler."
How am I supposed to offer constructive criticism when you are starting with off with such an exceptionally terrible idea?
Wait, no let me imagine for a second decloaking next to someone and attempting to jam them. My agility and base velocity bonus will keep me alive!
Welcome to the wonderful world of the Arazu. Feel free to fit a plate in lows, like Arazu needs to do. Or sacrifice EW power for shield tank. Also, like Arazu needs to do.
|
Adam C
Caldari coracao ardente Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:52:00 -
[186]
Edited by: Adam C on 24/03/2009 20:53:57 I don't like the current idea's of changing ecm warfare
- bringing them closer to get killed more.
Personally I rarely use falcons. I prefer to use an arazu to counter a falcon.
Typically if falcons are jamming from <200km good support ships should be able to counter that tactic within a minute or som, eliminating the warp-in spot and thats fine. Kind of fun to get it right and kind of frustrating to get it wrong.
CCP Chronotis your current thinking to make everything close so everything dies more may be diminishing tactics.
- ECM warfare is good for breaking excessive amounts rrbs usage. - Long range fleet engagements
Yes we do see falcons in most gangs it is frustrating to gamers who don't know how to form their fleets to counter them. That's their problem now isn't it.
But sure I wouldn't want 00's of falcons in everygang that is the only thing that needs to be balanced. Increase the expense of them is the only thing I can suggest.
|
Mortimer Phinn
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:54:00 -
[187]
Maybe ECM modules should work more like turrets. Remove the racial aspect of them and add a multiplier for strength depending on how many are put on a given target. A megathron can shoot 7 targets each with one gun, but will do crap for damage, it is only when you put all guns on one target that they reach their effectiveness. Do the same with ECM, put one on a target and you really won't accomplish much, put 4 ECM on a target and he is permajammed for all intents and purposes, but you are now only affecting one ship.
|
Dagda Morr
Seppuku Warriors
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:56:00 -
[188]
Broadly, I think the ECM fixes are probably needed - they seem somewhat confused though.
The Scorpion is hardly a ship that people complained about - the ECM range is completely appropriate for it's function as a fleet battleship.
I'm confused about the Rook/Falcon changes though - Surely the ship mounting a covops cloak should be the long-range sniper ecm and the short range brawler should have the drone bay and added jam strength.
Whichever ship is picked to be short range, it needs to have better durability regardless. If the ship wants to even mount the modules it's intended for, it gives up almost all it's tank.
|
Rexthor Hammerfists
Rage of Inferno Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:56:00 -
[189]
What about giving the falcon and scorp armor resist bonuses. Its completely out of the line for caldari ships, but so are missiles on gallente ships like the lachesis, or drones on amarr ships like the pilgrim and curse.
It would be completely in line with how current gangs work, and the only way to make the falcon and scorp work as close range brawlers. -
|
ShadowGod56
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:56:00 -
[190]
Originally by: Kulmid
Originally by: Centra Spike "Close range brawler."
How am I supposed to offer constructive criticism when you are starting with off with such an exceptionally terrible idea?
Wait, no let me imagine for a second decloaking next to someone and attempting to jam them. My agility and base velocity bonus will keep me alive!
Try taking off a few jammers and putting on some tank.
it would serve no purpose AT ALL being closer to the battle, yeah the falcons 3 high slots are really going pump some serious DPS into the target, and even if you put a better tank on the falcon waht will that do? nothing range is its strength it need to be switched with the rook
|
|
Stuart Price
Caldari The Black Rabbits The Gurlstas Associates
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 20:58:00 -
[191]
I like most of this but am going to jump on the rapidly developing bandwagon.
Falcon should keep its range. Being forced to jam in falloff with reduced strength is all that's needed. Make the Rook the brawler. Let it fit HAMs, light drones and a mix of buffer and jamming to be useful in small gangs.
Scorpion I'm undecided on since I can see wisdom is giving it either role tbh. If you make it a long-range ship then the second bonus can be either a missile speed bonus OR a shield amount bonus.
Another consideration is this:
E-war takes medslots. Shield mods take medslots. An ECM ship can use it's e-war OR it can tank. It cannot do BOTH at the same time (without being terrible at both). The matari recons already suffer this as well. Much as I hate to suggest it, another possible solution would be to hard-lock the amount of ECM modules you can mount (along similar lines to only being able to fit one MWD, or a certain amount of turrets etc) and make all ECM multispec with the ability to script them against specific races.
Putting the 'irate' into 'Pirate' |
Merdaneth
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 21:01:00 -
[192]
Edited by: Merdaneth on 24/03/2009 21:02:00 CCP Chronitis, your major beef is with the ECM mechanic itself, it will always make it very hard to properly define ECM ship's roles. Basically, ECM is nearly literally a 'remove your opponent from the game from X seconds' mechanic. Such a mechanic is very very rarely fun to play against.
See this well-read and (surprisingly) full of decent responses thread here: Electronic Warfare Psychology
As for some misconceptions: Signal Distortion Amplifiers are not *only worth fitting on ECM specialized ships*. In fact, I have multiple setups fitting SDA's, and I fly Amarr only.
What is true, is that the difference between ECM specialized ships and non-specialized ships is so large that when you can fly an ECM specialized ship, there is little reason to fit an ECM module to a non-specialized ship. In fact, the difference is so large that I rely on it when flying my ECM fitted Amarr ships, nobody sees it coming. This difference is much more marked than with other forms of EW. Ships of all types and sizes fit TD's, Neutralizers, Nosferatu's, Painters, Scramblers, Webifiers etc. but only ECM spec ships tend to fit ECM.
CCP decided in the past that ECM was 'so powerful' that only specialized ships should be able to effectively use it, which has somewhat resulted in the current level of specialization, and the popularity of only certain shiptypes.
A big problem with ECM as well is that it has only a single size of jammers, and thus affects smaller ships with much greater effectiveness, with no feasible way to counter it for most frig and cruiser size ships. As pointed out by others, a single Griffin in an FW plex is very hard to bypass.
Currently by upping the ECM strength bonusses, and changing SDA's to range bonus, you make it even more neccessary for ECM specialized ships to super-specialize, and thus increase the changes of a Falcon being primary. The strength of the effect, and the role specialization helps create the current 'all-or-nothing' no fun enviroment.
Why do these changes make it more fun for everyone involved?
____
The Illusion of Freedom | The Truth about Slavery |
JackofHearts
Viper Squad Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 21:02:00 -
[193]
what about people who fight in low sec? can we still be out 170km's ?
|
Thoregras
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 21:03:00 -
[194]
Edited by: Thoregras on 24/03/2009 21:04:34 I have a simple solution, reduce the optimal, falloff & strength of all jamming modules by 1/3rd and give them 2 scripts one that increases range by 100% and 1 that increases strength by 100%
Done simple and balanced.
Oh and you might wanna actually have a look at the maths of ECM coz more often than not falcons perma jam there target. Which tbh should never happen.
Also - Arii Smith is a CORP THIEF, Please do not buy that character, as we will leave it KOS after the transfer. |
Vasili Z
Foundation Sons of Tangra
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 21:11:00 -
[195]
Holy ****ing Jesus, it's about damn time. I approve.
Whining does work. -------
Eve requires no skill anymore |
ShadowGod56
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 21:11:00 -
[196]
Originally by: Thoregras Edited by: Thoregras on 24/03/2009 21:04:34 I have a simple solution, reduce the optimal, falloff & strength of all jamming modules by 1/3rd and give them 2 scripts one that increases range by 100% and 1 that increases strength by 100%
Done simple and balanced.
Oh and you might wanna actually have a look at the maths of ECM coz more often than not falcons perma jam there target. Which tbh should never happen.
high % numbers is not perma jamming, if you can find a an example that has a 99.9-100% chance of jamming chance i will stand corrected.
|
Renarla
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 21:11:00 -
[197]
Remove non-racial jam strength from the specialized mods, so that racial jammers will only jam the race they're meant to jam, and all will be well along with the proposed changes.
|
Dee Carson
Caldari Seppuku Warriors
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 21:12:00 -
[198]
Falcons should still have a range advantage over Rooks.
Rooks should have DPS advantage over Falcons.
Scorps should... Well... Scorps should continue to look more like an interweb spaceship than a Domi.
DC
http://deecarson.blogspot.com/ |
Vasili Z
Foundation Sons of Tangra
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 21:13:00 -
[199]
Originally by: Renarla Remove non-racial jam strength from the specialized mods, so that racial jammers will only jam the race they're meant to jam, and all will be well along with the proposed changes.
This idea's pretty chill, I also approve. -------
Eve requires no skill anymore |
Odinegras
Gallente 0utbreak KrautbreaK
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 21:15:00 -
[200]
Originally by: ShadowGod56
Originally by: Thoregras Edited by: Thoregras on 24/03/2009 21:04:34 I have a simple solution, reduce the optimal, falloff & strength of all jamming modules by 1/3rd and give them 2 scripts one that increases range by 100% and 1 that increases strength by 100%
Done simple and balanced.
Oh and you might wanna actually have a look at the maths of ECM coz more often than not falcons perma jam there target. Which tbh should never happen.
high % numbers is not perma jamming, if you can find a an example that has a 99.9-100% chance of jamming chance i will stand corrected.
racial jammer on a falcon gives a jam strength of 14. Inties have 10 ish sensor strength. So Inties can be jammed 100% of the time.
|
|
Thoregras
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 21:16:00 -
[201]
Originally by: ShadowGod56
Originally by: Thoregras Edited by: Thoregras on 24/03/2009 21:04:34 I have a simple solution, reduce the optimal, falloff & strength of all jamming modules by 1/3rd and give them 2 scripts one that increases range by 100% and 1 that increases strength by 100%
Done simple and balanced.
Oh and you might wanna actually have a look at the maths of ECM coz more often than not falcons perma jam there target. Which tbh should never happen.
high % numbers is not perma jamming, if you can find a an example that has a 99.9-100% chance of jamming chance i will stand corrected.
racial jammer on a falcon gives a jam strength of 14. Inties have 10 ish sensor strength. So Inties can be jammed 100% of the time.
Also - Arii Smith is a CORP THIEF, Please do not buy that character, as we will leave it KOS after the transfer. |
Gespenst Jager
Pumpkin Scissors Bright Side of Death
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 21:16:00 -
[202]
CCP Chronotis
Lol Nice idea but this is not enough. After this nerf players will still have possibility to create Caldari chars and to fly on the caldari ships. It is unfair. So i demand completely remove Caldari race from EVE and close this question
|
Pattern Clarc
Celtic Anarchy Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 21:16:00 -
[203]
I think you forgot to boost the pilgrim (it doesn't have stronger ewar bonuses than the curse).
Also, is it too much to ask for hybrid bonuses on one of those ewar ships? ____
My Blog Is Awesome
|
Dee Carson
Caldari Seppuku Warriors
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 21:16:00 -
[204]
Originally by: ShadowGod56 high % numbers is not perma jamming, if you can find a an example that has a 99.9-100% chance of jamming chance i will stand corrected.
The determinate factor is the sensor strength of the target.
I will permajam every hull with sensor strength less than 14 or so in my preferred Falcon fit.
For battleship targets (sensor strength of 22 or so), I have to be ready to apply 3 jammers for a 94% probability of success.
DC
http://deecarson.blogspot.com/ |
Xiobe
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 21:17:00 -
[205]
Originally by: Thoregras Oh and you might wanna actually have a look at the maths of ECM coz more often than not falcons perma jam there target. Which tbh should never happen.
You can perma-damp, perma-tracking-disrupt (heh) and perma-target-paint (rofl). Why not perma-jam?
Originally by: ShadowGod56 high % numbers is not perma jamming, if you can find a an example that has a 99.9-100% chance of jamming chance i will stand corrected.
Falcon: Jam Strength of 13.5 Interceptor: Sensor Strength of 12
100% Jam every time. :) -- lose. their. they're. there. couldn't care less. lego. colour. flavour. |
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 21:18:00 -
[206]
Any chance of applying the same logic to the Gallente and Minmatar recons?
Give Lachesis a damp range bonus, increase Huginn web range bonus. Might make them more interesting. Make Arazu and Rapier the more close-range ships.
|
Lord TYMAN
You're Doing It Wrong
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 21:20:00 -
[207]
Edited by: Lord TYMAN on 24/03/2009 21:21:45 edit : actually read some of the other replies, seems I was right on the money
Could I be as bold as to suggest the following (might have already been suggested but there's not a big chance im going to read 7 pages of whine)/
o Keep falcons as long range jammers - but obviously nerf the strength as the victim becomes further away. ie - within 40km the jam strength is similar to what it is now, but at 200km the chances of jamming are greatly reduced
o Make the rook something other than a complete joke. I EFTd one the other day, i think i couldn't get it above 90dps. make the rook the "brawler" ship you speak of, but boost it's dps significantly and make it have very good close range jamming strength. put it on par with the curse as being a "oshi" recon.
that is all.
|
cok cola
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 21:21:00 -
[208]
imho, take the falcon range down in the same perportion that inty's were slowed recently since that indirectly buffed their range, and lower the ammnt of time a target is jammed by half so ecm is more of a lockbreaker, bs's take a long time to relock anyways, and thats enuff. ------------------------------------------
|
Kil2
Club Bear Turbo.
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 21:21:00 -
[209]
Edited by: Kil2 on 24/03/2009 21:24:27 so freaking excited.
im sure balancing ecm for both small gang and fleet is not easy, but from the small gang side these ships have been a problem large enough to force a lot of my corp mates to basically stop pvping. these changes are ideal for our type of pvp. no more falcon alt behind every single pilot you engage, since flying a falcon or scorp will actually require attention and management now.
good job guys, thanks <3
edit: btw you guys that think caldari cant pvp are wrong. again im no fleet expert, but i fly more and more caldari in small gangs all the time. ferox 4 life
|
Lilredridinghood
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 21:25:00 -
[210]
other than optimal and falloff of ecm being switched, which i think is a good idea, thats alot of mucking around for something an eccm boost could have done.
|
|
GateScout
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 21:25:00 -
[211]
Edited by: GateScout on 24/03/2009 21:26:17 Shorten the falcon range? Fine....but how about making it a bit faster and more agile?
None of these ships can tank or do any damage...and they are slow and bulky. Who is going to bring them "up close and personal?" A short range brawler falcon? Damage dealing scorpion? Rook with a micro drone bay? You're kidding right?
If the goal is to get people to avoid flying Caldari ECM ships, you've just found a perfect solution.
|
KingDiomedesAlt
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 21:27:00 -
[212]
wow nice idea totally killing off falcons the only decent caldari ship, so now pirates cant use falcons in low sec, and who the fk would bring a falcon in close range?? peoples only beef was that they didnt know how to counter a falcon and so now your talking about making fleets brain dead as they dont have to worry about being jammed as their drones would be able to pop a falcon in about 5 secs, i know what lets shield tank a falcon and fit missile launchers on it, oh hang on then its not a jamming ship its a weak as pee pile of poo nice work
|
Vaedian GER
Excidium.
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 21:28:00 -
[213]
Edited by: Vaedian GER on 24/03/2009 21:28:38
Quote: Falcon: - ECM Optimal Range Bonus removed
I f**king love you Chronotis!
<3
P.S.: I'm a -10.0 Low-Sec Pirate.
|
Vera Faulk
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 21:32:00 -
[214]
Have any of you ever actually flown any of these ships in real pvp?
The falcon, which is a great ship for small gang (50 or less per side) is only safe at the range it is currently able to fight at. As an extremely fragile ship, that range gives it a buffer so that it might get out if it misses a jam - recons are supposed to be slippery. If you get much closer than 120km, you are an eyeblink from being popped - a sniping hac will 3-shot a falcon before it can escape if it isn't aligned, and a sniping BS will do so even quicker.
The scorpion, which is a good ship in larger fleets, again is only somewhat safe by virtue of it's range. Scorpions are quite fragile as far as fleet BS are concerned, missiles are terrible in laggy environments, and the damage increase would do next to nothing to make it a viable ship. Weapons on a scorp are defense against tacklers, its real role is in shutting down enemy BS.
Have any of you devs considered data-mining the various corp killboards to see what is killing what? How about having in-depth consultations with groups of pvp players to see what their opinions are on the various ships.
As a final note, have you ever thought about slow, gradual changes to ships/roles and see how that works? It seems that every time you guys make a change, you dramatically change the roles/abilities of a ship, which radically shifts the battlefield, quite frequently with disastrous results for those who have invested months of training and play time to the ships changed? Nearly everytime you nerf or change a ship, you make it nearly unusable. Instead, you could make some minor adjustments, and see how it plays out, with further refinements if needed, and the occasional rollback if you find that you've missed the mark.
|
WildcardTrek
Caldari Celestial Janissaries Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 21:35:00 -
[215]
Ok so the only ewar ship that is remotely useful your going to smack over the head with the nerfbat, with the improvement of the humongus gates, nerf to missiles, initial nerf to ECM, nerf to Caldari in general on every whim, I am glad now that I can fly every Caldari ship that it totally useless, glad I trained the other races so I am not totally useless after years in eve and milions of wasted Caldari SP.
Why not just take Caldari out of the game all together, I mean they are pretty much useless now as it is. Make it a story line thing like the Sleepers ate them or something.
|
VoiceInTheDesert
Zebra Corp Circle-Of-Two
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 21:36:00 -
[216]
Ok...this might be a bit much.
The way I see it, the only changes that should be made are:
Reduce Falcon strength, keep range. (Sniper) Reduce Rook range, keep strength (brawler) Leave the scorp alone, no one has been complaining about it. Same with BB and Griffon.
|
AnmmnA
Princeps Corp Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 21:36:00 -
[217]
Originally by: General Coochie Look at the bright side you will have even more powerful jammers should this happen. So you need less jammers for same jamming efficiency allowing you to fit a tank just like all the other recons have to do.
People who neved flown a Falcon, shouldn't talk about.
Let's see. This patch will not increse ECM strength. Fom on e side, increses ship bonus, but from other side, remove bonus from SDA fitted in low-slots. So, at last, ECM strength will remain as ever. Not stronger.
Other recons, can do their job, whit just few modules. Cause his modules works fine in all races. ECM just works whit right race. So if you want do something acceptable, you must waste 4 med-slots. Minimum, one for each race. If you want some really garantee of success, must spend 6 med-slots + 2 low-slots. Why others recons don't have to waste all those slots ? And please ... don't talk about multspectrals. Falcons eventually must jam ships harder than hull-frigates, you know ?
|
cok cola
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 21:36:00 -
[218]
Originally by: Pattern Clarc I think you forgot to boost the pilgrim (it doesn't have stronger ewar bonuses than the curse).
signed ------------------------------------------
|
Thoregras
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 21:37:00 -
[219]
Originally by: Vera Faulk Have any of you ever actually flown any of these ships in real pvp?
The falcon, which is a great ship for small gang (50 or less per side) is only safe at the range it is currently able to fight at. As an extremely fragile ship, that range gives it a buffer so that it might get out if it misses a jam - recons are supposed to be slippery. If you get much closer than 120km, you are an eyeblink from being popped - a sniping hac will 3-shot a falcon before it can escape if it isn't aligned, and a sniping BS will do so even quicker.
The scorpion, which is a good ship in larger fleets, again is only somewhat safe by virtue of it's range. Scorpions are quite fragile as far as fleet BS are concerned, missiles are terrible in laggy environments, and the damage increase would do next to nothing to make it a viable ship. Weapons on a scorp are defense against tacklers, its real role is in shutting down enemy BS.
Have any of you devs considered data-mining the various corp killboards to see what is killing what? How about having in-depth consultations with groups of pvp players to see what their opinions are on the various ships.
As a final note, have you ever thought about slow, gradual changes to ships/roles and see how that works? It seems that every time you guys make a change, you dramatically change the roles/abilities of a ship, which radically shifts the battlefield, quite frequently with disastrous results for those who have invested months of training and play time to the ships changed? Nearly everytime you nerf or change a ship, you make it nearly unusable. Instead, you could make some minor adjustments, and see how it plays out, with further refinements if needed, and the occasional rollback if you find that you've missed the mark.
Its called a time sink so we keep on paying to train for more stuff its how CCP keep eve a viable business.
Also - Arii Smith is a CORP THIEF, Please do not buy that character, as we will leave it KOS after the transfer. |
RazorCRO
Caldari The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 21:37:00 -
[220]
You got it wrong way...
Rook = close range Falcon = long range
rest is really fine.
|
|
Jack Gates
Gallente GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 21:41:00 -
[221]
this is honestly pretty dumb.
just fix the sensor strength so that falcons can't permajam battleships and get off a jam every other cycle on dreadnoughts and it's fine. right now, that's really the only problem with ecm. don't make "ecm brawlers," good god
|
Commissar Kate
Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 21:45:00 -
[222]
Falcon is fine, I don't see any reason to change it.
|
Jack Gates
Gallente GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 21:45:00 -
[223]
hey ccp you remember when one of your guys said he thought we might start fitting both ABs and MWDs on our ships after the speed nerf?
yeah.
|
Jack Gates
Gallente GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 21:47:00 -
[224]
you guys are dumb.
|
Lord CH0w
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 21:47:00 -
[225]
umm dear devs....
1. i love the scorp change :) 2. why would u give a long range ship (sniper as u call it) a drone bay? i mean please say what scenario was proposed to force this idea ? anti-inty??? i mean when u want to "snipe" with ur ecm isnt it obvious that ALL your med slots gonna be filled with ECM and optional MWD/sensor booster?? how is the rook supposed to fend itself? becoming more useless is not the way i think...and if u want to introduce an idea when u need to field X number of rooks more so evey1 can fit aditional warp disruptor then i dont think its a road u want to go couse in some time u will see nerf rook/falcon threads again 3. short range seems ok - but imo swap the drone bays between falcon and rook and give rook more ecm range - really and finally the bonus count - u removed falcon bonus and gave???yea its missing ... please think about what u want to give
cheers and have fun brainstorming
|
Morikai Acler
Caldari Demon Theory Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 21:48:00 -
[226]
Who all was around back before Recons came into the game? *raises hand* Who here was around before the Original nerf to ECM, which caused the changes to the Scorp and Blackbird for ECM bonus's? *raises hand*
Who else was here when they nerfed ECM a second time, again lowering jamming strength to compensate for the Falcon/Rook? *raises hand*
Who here remembers when the Scorp had turret and Shield tank bonus, yet was still also a mainline ECM boat? *raises hand*
Here's what I see, any ship that has 6 or more mid slots is going to be viable as an ECM boat. Most caldari ships have 6 or more short of certain command ships. Now any ship that gets a scan strength bonus is going to do better, which would be the recons, BB, Scorp, Widow.
It looks like they're starting to undo some of the nerfing that was done to ECM, but in order to do so, they need to balance the relevant ships.
I do agree with many that the Rook is the combat recon ship and needs to be the up close brawler, and falcon needs to be the long range jammer.
I can also see from many peoples posts in this thread that all too many people are stuck in the long range sniping rut. What happens to a long range sniping fleet when you use cloaked ships and bm's to drop a close range gank fleet, with hictors and dictors on em?
|
Jack Gates
Gallente GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 21:49:00 -
[227]
"ecm brawlers"
|
Lt Angus
Caldari End Game. Dead End.
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 21:49:00 -
[228]
while you are at it make multispecs same range as racials else they will drop down to unusable ranges not that they are used much anyway. please resize your signature to the maximum allowed file size of 24000 bytes. Navigator Shhhh, Im hunting Badgers |
Guillame Herschel
Gallente Buffalo Soldiers
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 21:50:00 -
[229]
No other E-WAR has the capability to completely incapacitate the target's offense. That's where ECM is imbalanced. It's not about range or strength, it's about being completely unable to do anything to counter being jammed, except warping off.
A pilot affected by TD can maneuver to reduce transversal, or close on his adversary to within the reduced optimal range of his guns.
A pilot affected by SD can get a lock, he's just slower, or needs to move closer.
A pilot affected by TP can maneuver to increase transversal, or could have fit Halo implants.
In all these cases, the pilot can respond by also applying E-WAR to his adversary.
ECM is the only E-WAR where the pilot simply has to wait out the cycle, and hope it doesn't affect him on the next (often a vain hope). Fitting an ECCM does nothing for him once a jam is achieved. And unless you're in a BS, fitting an ECCM won't raise your sensor strength enough to avoid being jammed most of the fight.
The way to balance ECM seems plain enough to me: boost ECCM. Instead of granting a percentage boost to sensor strength, make it boost a fixed amount, say 10 points for the base T1 mod and increasing to 20 points for the T2. This will help small ships avoid being perma-jammed due to low intrinsic sensor strength. Add rigs to the game that boost sensor strength, or the effectiveness of ECCM. If you activate an ECCM module while jammed, it should have a chance to break the jam. Reduce ECM's cycle time to 10 seconds, like all other E-WAR. And lastly, paint the Falcon hot pink with lime green camo stripes.
-- The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then --
|
Dee Carson
Caldari Seppuku Warriors
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 21:52:00 -
[230]
Originally by: Jack Gates just fix the sensor strength so that falcons can't permajam battleships and get off a jam every other cycle on dreadnoughts and it's fine. right now, that's really the only problem with ecm. don't make "ecm brawlers," good god
There's not a single battleship that can be permajammed. Again, max jam strength for racial module is about 14. Lowest sensor strength battleship is 17. 8 of the 12 hulls have sensor strength greater than 21.
DC
http://deecarson.blogspot.com/ |
|
Zolian
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 21:53:00 -
[231]
If you give the scorp is 10% shield hp / level bonus back, all is forgiven!
I'm also loving the idea of armor resist bonus on some ECM boats, consider it.
|
Miyamoto Isoruku
Caldari Noir.
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 21:54:00 -
[232]
Give the "brawler" ECM ships an extra lowslot so that they can fit a decent tank.
|
Centra Spike
Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 21:54:00 -
[233]
Originally by: Alex Harumichi Edited by: Alex Harumichi on 24/03/2009 20:52:45 Edited by: Alex Harumichi on 24/03/2009 20:51:07
Originally by: Centra Spike "Close range brawler."
How am I supposed to offer constructive criticism when you are starting with off with such an exceptionally terrible idea?
Wait, no let me imagine for a second decloaking next to someone and attempting to jam them. My agility and base velocity bonus will keep me alive!
Welcome to the wonderful world of the Arazu. Feel free to fit a plate in lows, like Arazu needs to do. Or sacrifice EW power for shield tank. Also, like Arazu needs to do.
Because all ships should be exactly the same. ------
|
Oghma Grianainech
Minmatar The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 21:55:00 -
[234]
Another stupid useless fail idea by CCP Devs.
A falcon is already paperweight and honestly any snipe fit BS (**** I even know a damn hurricane fit that hits that far) could hit a falcon so instead why don't people get more organized in their fleet setups. Also don't forget a falcon has to get to range after jumping into a gatecamp. Seriously these are the same people that were whinning about nano setups cause they couldn't use half a brain to bring along some minnie recons in their gangs and stuck like deadmeat to their 1vs1 Battleship fits from stoneage.
My 2 cents go with KingDiomedesAlt, Vera Faulk, along with many others in this thread that seem to have actually flown these ships. BB, Falcon, etc.
|
GateScout
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 21:55:00 -
[235]
Originally by: Guillame Herschel
ECM is the only E-WAR where the pilot simply has to wait out the cycle, and hope it doesn't affect him on the next
ECM is the only E-WAR that is chanced based.
Make the falcon more like the other E-WAR ships....and make ECM hit 100% of the time. That means faster, more agile, and the ability to fit at least some sort of damage/tank.
Better? Didn't think so.
|
Letifer Deus
181st Legion W A S T E L A N D
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 21:57:00 -
[236]
scorp should have 10% shield HP bonus instead of a silly RoF bonus. If it is going to be closer it needs survivability way more than another 100 dps.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Brought to you by the letter ARRR!" |
drapo
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 21:59:00 -
[237]
I welcome the changes, long overdue. If there is anything that limits the "fun factor" in Eve, it's solo or small gangs against the overpowered falcon. The nerf doesn't go far enough, but you take what you can get I suppose.
|
GTC seller72
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 22:01:00 -
[238]
Why give the rook the drone bay when its going to be a ranged ship and the falcon no drone bat when its supposed to be close range....
|
Guillame Herschel
Gallente Buffalo Soldiers
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 22:02:00 -
[239]
Originally by: GateScout
Originally by: Guillame Herschel
ECM is the only E-WAR where the pilot simply has to wait out the cycle, and hope it doesn't affect him on the next
What's your point?
Can you read? I made my point. Go read it again.
Quote: Make the falcon more like the other E-WAR ships....and make ECM hit 100% of the time and each module work equally well on each race.
That's fine, so long as ECCM is changed to be a viable counter to ECM. It actually makes a hell of a lot more sense for ECM not to be chance-based.
Betcha didn't see agreement coming, didja?
-- The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then --
|
KingDiomedes
Caldari SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 22:04:00 -
[240]
why dont u just kill off caldari for good then you can give me all the wasted sp ive spent a year piling into caldari since they are now totally useless
|
|
Valkorsia
Caldari Battlestars GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 22:05:00 -
[241]
Congrats CCP on making Caldari worthless.
|
Der Seben
Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 22:06:00 -
[242]
CCP i really hate you for that.
|
MMak
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 22:06:00 -
[243]
Who is that idiot? Who proposed it?! Close range on falcon without any tank? ****..
|
Amy Wang
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 22:09:00 -
[244]
Why give a drone bay to the Rook (which it cant use at its supposed snipe range anyway) while giving no drone bay to the falcon (which it actually could use in its supposed brawler (lol) role).
Besides ALL recons have the same drone bay in both of their incarnations why make a difference here? Give Falcon and Rook the 25m¦ drone bay or actually better a 40m¦ one which is what all other recons at least have.
Also if you intend a "brawler" role for the falcon then maybe consider giving it an option to tank properly while being not completely useless in its ECM role?
The range advantage was its only real defense, now you are forcing it to fit tanking modules thereby reducing the available slots for ECM so this results in a DOUBLE NERF: The intended and justified range nerf and the probably not intended but nonetheless included ECM slot nerf due to need of tank modules.
So as weird as it may sound, the ship needs a bigger ECM Str boost then you proposed to still work in that close range brawler role.
|
Letifer Deus
181st Legion W A S T E L A N D
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 22:09:00 -
[245]
Edited by: Letifer Deus on 24/03/2009 22:10:51
Originally by: Valkorsia Congrats CCP on making Caldari worthless.
Originally by: KingDiomedes why dont u just kill off caldari for good then you can give me all the wasted sp ive spent a year piling into caldari since they are now totally useless
This stuff hasn't even made it to SISI yet. STFU
Originally by: Amy Wang Why give a drone bay to the Rook (which it cant use at its supposed snipe range anyway)
My guess is to give it a chance of fending off an inty that has come out to tackle it. Either by destroying it with hobs/warriors or breaking lock with ecm drones. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Brought to you by the letter ARRR!" |
JgGravy
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 22:10:00 -
[246]
For every person on this complaining, there are 3-4 right now doing something in front of their computer i can't say in public.
I think it's a great change, having a Caldari character myself and toying with the ECM i enjoyed it. But it wasn't for me, sure you can get on the KM, by making said target useless. From a fight to win aspect, it's great. For a fight to fight aspect, it sucks. I've actually had luck with a Arazu/Lachies against falcons in the past. Stay cloaked longer than they do, when they hit their targets, you hit them back. Also by flying one of said ships you often become the target of the falcon pilot. Letting someone else in your fleet to get said target while you die.
One person said it great here, as every other race's recons got nerfed, the defense for the Caldari has gone out the window. Maybe had you boys stuck up for us, we would have been there. But now, it's your turn to bend over and enjoy.
|
Jarne
Increasing Success by Lowering Expectations Vanguard.
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 22:14:00 -
[247]
I have the following proposal:
Change the close-range ship's bonus to jus affect multispectral jammers. A few reasons:
- It reduces range - It reduces maximum possible jamming strength while keeping average strength - It increases flexibility which is need when close-range, where you have to jam what is near you and can't select targets that easily - Having better working multispecs decreases the number of jammers needed, making it possible to fit scramblers or a shield tank
Also I find it strange that the long-range ship gets the damage bonus and the drone bay. I would find it logical to have that on the short range ship.
Scorp useful in RR-gangs would be great. - Success=Achievements/Expectations
|
Spartan dax
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 22:15:00 -
[248]
Well Chronotis, since you guys finally figured out that SDA's Force the ECM ships to stock up on jammers and be usefull for nothing else but jamming and now have decided to change it, take a look at racials while you're at it.
By removing racials and introducing a multispec with slightly higher strength than today but lower than todays racials we'll see ECM ships with only 1-3 jammers instead of 4-5, giving the ECM ships far greater utility as well as being a huge nerf to the "ECM whiners club" as there is less jamming modules around.
It will also make ECM ships extremely sturdy tacklers as they will be with a 3-4 slot Shieldtank, 1 ECM, Point, Web and MWD. A ship to be feared when it drops next to you instead of as today where it just goes "pof".
New Falcon btw ECM Strength Bonus 25% per level 5% Shieldresistances per level Force reconstuff per level.
More agility, speed and maybe 85 more PG, 3/3 turret/launcher slot configuration instead of 2/2 and since it's supposed to be closer increase it's scan res as well slightly and give it a dronebay! A close range tackler with less dps and slower lock than a frig? That would be useless. Drone bay!
Love the proposed scorp but give it a 125m3 drone bandwidth. The Rook deserves a 10% missile velocity bonus so screw the dronebay.
|
Algey
The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 22:15:00 -
[249]
Awsome, so now falcons will be in close, doing no damage and getting insta popped.
Yep, you've certainly fixed ECM :D
|
Ezekiel Sulastin
Gallente Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 22:16:00 -
[250]
What was I told when CCP nerfed the crap out of damps? Less QQ, adapt or die, can I has ur stuff?
We'll see how it turns out. Until then, please read your posts when the damp and nos nerf occurred and feel the other side again, like the last time ECM was nerfed. ---- zzzz ... zzzz ... zzzz |
|
Momoha
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 22:17:00 -
[251]
Cool, now I'll never bother training up a Falcon.
|
Zamolxiss
Amarr ROMANIA Renegades Legiunea ROmana
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 22:20:00 -
[252]
Brilliant approach Chronotis! you have a cookie from me
A few suggestions
1'st. Falcon(being an Ishukone design) needs a third turret hardpoint and a Medium Hybrid Turret damage bonus, and should also mimic the Rook's small drone bay.
Reason - as a brawler, the new falcon should be able to dish out 'some' dps.. not excessive, but still.. the same way the Arazu, Rapier and Pilgrim do..
2'nd. Scorpion needs a Large Hybrid Turret damage bonus instead of the Cruise/Torp ROF one.. if the Missile ROF is kept tho, another missile launcher hardpoint shold be added.
Reason - 4 bonused Cruise launchers have t2 frig dps, and that's simply unresonable for a battleship, even an ewar oriented one.. also, damage bonused siege launchers do little in the way of tangible DPS, without a missile velocity bonus the actual range is a joke even with maxed skills, and as it stands right now for torps, without multiple bonuses(range, rof/damage, explosion velocity) they do lol damage even to bs's if they aren't static..
3'rd I know it's off the issue, but seeing you've finaly tackled the Caldari Recons i'd like to mention the Lachesis witch really needs it's 'split damage bonus/weapon sistems' revised, it's to far behind the Huginn and the Curse wothout shining at EWAR like the Rook... even if that means 5 dual bonused Launchers/Hybrid Turrets.. it doesn't need to suck this bad!
ps. If you get to read this Chronotis, feel free to claim a second cookie
|
Horeta
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 22:22:00 -
[253]
Edited by: Horeta on 24/03/2009 22:25:19 missiles are really NOT sniper weapons. so switch roles of falcon and rook. falcon as longrange and rook as combat shortrange. so rook can at least use his drones.. and i don't think that 3 lows are enough for tank.
|
Letifer Deus
181st Legion W A S T E L A N D
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 22:24:00 -
[254]
I'll say it again: scorp should get 10% shield HP bonus instead of 5% launcher RoF. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Brought to you by the letter ARRR!" |
Athren Glasconju
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 22:26:00 -
[255]
ECM ships are always primaried, putting them close to the enemy, with the sniper fleet its supporting 50km behind it... would make it 100mil isk worth of pure fail.
The only thing caldari pilots are even worth doing in pvp is ECM, take that away, and only thing we good for now is semi-afk mission runners in ravens.
...or using our drakes as bait ships.
I could deal with the missle nerf... ...but this would put the final spear into the dying heart of the Caldari, whoes only purpose in pvp would be easy killmails for our enemies.
|
Lucas Quaan
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 22:28:00 -
[256]
Originally by: musgrattio Change ECM optimal to a base of 50km, base falloff of 50km.
A Rook with these bonuses would be optimal
20% bonus to ECM strength per level 5% bonus to shield capacity per level 5% bonus to Heavy/Heavy Assault Missile Velocity per level 5% bonus to Heavy/Heavy Assault ROF per level
Falcon:
10% bonus to ECM optimal per level 10% bonus to ECM strength per level 96% to 100% Cloak bonus 10% bonus to ECM falloff per level
There you go, you have 2 ships that while nerfed, are still very, very useful.
+1
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 22:30:00 -
[257]
I TOLD YOU SO
Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Death of Virtue is Recruiting
|
Horeta
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 22:34:00 -
[258]
and general idea of taking ships that are ALWAYS PRIMARY in short range is fail. noone use them and noone will use them. if you want them really at closerange, give them tanking ability like hics.
|
Mistress Frome
SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 22:39:00 -
[259]
Originally by: Horeta and general idea of taking ships that are ALWAYS PRIMARY in short range is fail. noone use them and noone will use them. if you want them really at closerange, give them tanking ability like hics.
Don't take it close range then. You have ~80km of falloff to take advantage of, why not use it? ---
|
Pian Shu
SPORADIC MOVEMENT Cruor-Salax Legion
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 22:41:00 -
[260]
Since we're voting ...
I like the proposed changes for the Rook and the Falcon. It makes sense to me that now an ECM pilot will have to choose between having a racial jammer for every possible encounter and fitting a tank so that they can survive.
I would like to see drone bays on both ships, though. All the other recons have at least 40 m3 drone bays. I do see why it would be overkill to give the ECM boats the ability to field 40 m3 of drones, maybe they could have bays of that size with only 25 m3 of bandwidth?
I fly Caldari ships and have been working my way up to recons, but I veered off course when I realized that all Falcon pilots essentially fly the same ship (racial rack + pilots choice, sensor booster and MWD in the mid slots, SDAs in the low slots and a cloak for the high slot). If you don't fly your Falcon in this configuration with 200 km warp-ins then you are ridiculed. How is that fun?
You didn't talk about the Kitsune, though. Any chance of replacing its optimal range bonus with something more useful? It doesn't have the targeting range necessary to use the bonus, and to be honest I'd rather have my small, fast ship closer to something with turrets than farther away. A signature radius bonus might be nice. Or perhaps a bonus to remote ECCM?
|
|
Athren Glasconju
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 22:43:00 -
[261]
Actually, on seconds thoughts, I still dont like messing with the range of ecm modules themselves, BUT... I do like the idea of swapping the roles of the falcon with the rook, (allow the rook[non-cloaker] to get a 200km ecm range so its sitting with the sniper fleet its supporting[which wont be cloaked either]) but, only if you give the falcon some better tanking, so it can better support its other force recon counter-parts, like the rapier.
|
Lijhal
FrEE d00M Fighters
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 22:44:00 -
[262]
Originally by: Lucas Quaan
Originally by: musgrattio Change ECM optimal to a base of 50km, base falloff of 50km.
A Rook with these bonuses would be optimal
20% bonus to ECM strength per level 5% bonus to shield capacity per level 5% bonus to Heavy/Heavy Assault Missile Velocity per level 5% bonus to Heavy/Heavy Assault ROF per level
Falcon:
10% bonus to ECM optimal per level 10% bonus to ECM strength per level 96% to 100% Cloak bonus 10% bonus to ECM falloff per level
There you go, you have 2 ships that while nerfed, are still very, very useful.
+1
this!
For the Scorp ... remove the ecm stuff .. add 5% Large hybrid RoF & 5% Large Hybrid dmg bonus on it .. add 2 turret hardpoints and 1000pg; 75cpu on it and we'll be fine
thx
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 22:45:00 -
[263]
Originally by: drapo I welcome the changes, long overdue. If there is anything that limits the "fun factor" in Eve, it's solo or small gangs against the overpowered falcon.
yes you see the solution to overpowered falcons was to make the blackbird and griffin and kitsune worthless and take away all character from the scorpion.
|
Freyya
Eve Liberation Force Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 22:47:00 -
[264]
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? ___________
NOW COLLECTING ISD AND CCP AUTOGRAPHS It'll be worth something someday. -Rauth
|
GuardianVale
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 22:47:00 -
[265]
hey CCP Chronotis you're a ****ing moron that doesn't know a god damn thing about your own game
peace
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 22:49:00 -
[266]
You know what's really hilarious, in a sad way? Everyone is complaining about the Falcon in solo and small-gang fights, the fleet pilots just insta-pop them with sniper battleships/HACs. And guess what these changes are going to do in a solo or small-gang fight: absolutely nothing. Falcon alts with the new Falcon will still perma-jam one or two targets just fine and ruin every "1v1" they get into, and people will still fill the forums with whine threads about it. -----------
|
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 22:51:00 -
[267]
What idiot thinks people will fly a short range instapop falcon with no tank?
|
TraininVain
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 22:53:00 -
[268]
Edited by: TraininVain on 24/03/2009 22:56:50 CCP chaps. I think you're roughly onto something with the range thing. I think in it's current state being 150+ off and working full effect is silly.
I think you're overcooking it with the Falcon though.
The Pilgrim is a poor point of reference. The Pilgrim has is generally used as a close range hit and run boat from what I can see.
The Falcon is just not that kind of boat. Whereas the Pilgrim has useful stuff to go in mid (stuff that helps it be at short range) and high slots (short ranged stuff) and a drone bay the Falcon is, by nature of Caldari e-war, a one trick pony... er .. spaceship.
It jams and that's all. The highs are generally utility slots. It's double bonused for one kind of e-war instead of being bonused for the same e-war as T1 AND getting a hefty range bonus on something else.
What's more you're ADDING jam strength to balance it (further?) gimping ECCM.
I honestly think looking into some secondary caldari e-war might be the way to go here.
No clue what it should be, but that's why you make the big bucks.
|
Marlenus
Caldari Ironfleet Towing And Salvage Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 22:53:00 -
[269]
I used to fly a Scorpion in faction warfare. In those days we had a ton of people flying around at extreme range, trying to cause us various kinds of trouble from out there (mostly sniping our support ships).
I used the range of the Scorp to mess up their fun. It was awesome in that role, and a lot more survivable than a Falcon or a Blackbird would have been. Specifically I needed the toughness to keep my expensive ECM range rigs alive. ;-)
I don't have any problem with turning the Scorp into a brawler, but I don't think it should lose all its range bonuses. Shorten the range, sure. But don't kill it entirely. Sometimes it's nice to have a sturdy ship that can reach all the way out to some sniper and turn him off.
It's important to remember that ships sometimes have roles (fleet protection, area denial) that don't involve killing things. ------------------ Ironfleet.com |
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 22:55:00 -
[270]
Originally by: Jack Gates "ecm brawlers"
aka "explosion"
|
|
Athren Glasconju
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 22:58:00 -
[271]
Originally by: Esmenet
Originally by: Jack Gates "ecm brawlers"
aka "explosion"
"The target".
|
Konno Yoshiho
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 22:59:00 -
[272]
It is becoming more and more apparent that nobody at CCP realy plays their own game. The Caldari ships are the only ECM ships that work exactly like they should. So how about instead of breaking the thing that works to put it back in line with the rest of this steaming heap, those clowns fix the broken bits instead?
It is my hope that, CCP will find a competent developer to take over, and sell, sell, sell.
|
Raquel Trotter
Trotters Independent Trading
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 23:02:00 -
[273]
THANK YOU CCP! Much <3 CCP Chronotis. At last a decent attempt at balance!
Don't listen to all the whiners and cry-babies who want to sit at 200k+ in a cloaking recon with no risk whatsoever.
The role change of the close range falcon and long range rook is excellent! The whole point of covert-recons IMO is to sneak up close to a target, not to setup at extreme range, no other cloaking recon can do this. If you swap the roles then please make the pilgrim, arazu and rapier have 100km effective range on their EW.
|
Cailais
Amarr Diablo Advocatus Vanguard.
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 23:02:00 -
[274]
Overall I would agree with these changes. I predominantly fly the pilgrim however, and on that basis if you want a falcon to be a 'brawler' in the same style in needs a tank to match.
Potential solutions might be to improve its base resists, and reduce its base signature radius alternatively to provide an alternate shield boost / hp bonus. Quite how that fits in to the overall bonus pattern of force recons is a bit harder to judge - but the basic principal remains the same - if you're up close you need the tanking ability to survive to make any other bonus relevant.
C.
Originally by: Capa So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.
|
DiseL
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Associates
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 23:03:00 -
[275]
How many times can CCP nerf/buff a single item before figuring out they should have left it alone in the first place. A Falcon will be absolutely toast now unless you can guarantee jamming the entire hostile fleet. Even then fast ships with drones like Vaga's, Ishtars, Rapiers, etc. will eliminate Falcons from the fight immediately.
Giving the drone bay to the sniper/long range version of the ship and not the close range version is laughable at best. Combine this with the stealth bomber being pulled in close with Siege launchers and you now have two ships with paper tanks being geared towards close range combat. So now with the Signal Distortion Amps being changed you can fit an armor tank or damage mods on your Caldari recon. Wait, your really expecting a close range Falcon with a 3 low slot armor tank to be viable? Engaging any gang with multiple AF's, Inty's, nano Hacs, etc. and your dead.
The missile velocity bonus on the Rook is a joke because missile's in pvp are also a joke now. Is this quote for real, "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"? Three heavy launchers with zero damage bonus at 100km while rendering the drone bay useless I would not call "real damage".
Balancing the game by making significant changes to one area only causes an imbalance somewhere else down the line. This is why we continue to see nerfs come full circle. Maybe CCP should look up subtlety in the dictionary and try it for a change.
|
Nemtar Nataal
Demonic Retribution Minor Threat.
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 23:05:00 -
[276]
You know some one a while back suggested that you canged the optimal range bonus to fall off....this was a really good idear as it would force the ECM pilote to chose between effectiveness and safety!
You should really have taken a look at that option as it would have worked a lot bether with Ewar ships not making the paper thin hauls completely uselless in combat...remember a falcon or rook will get instant poped in any fleet battle so your current system is right back to the trenches where everyone just brings max DPS...
I know you want to give the ships diffrent roles an everything but you should really rething this change. Changing optimal range to falloff would also help a lot for making damps the primory counter for ECM again...which currently is very useless dure to the limited range of damps and the awesome range of ECM.
Check it out im sure you can do somethign good with it...i hope...dont let this changes be final cause frankly i think they will just make people hate ECM even more...both the people who fly the ECM ships and the people who meat them in combat....
|
Jason Edwards
Internet Tough Guy
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 23:06:00 -
[277]
I use the blackbird everyday... I'm very worried about this nerf because we essentially are primary and die anyway.
Quote: ECM Range Generally the ECM optimal range is a little too long with massive optimal ranges possible which would place the ECM specialised ships so far out of the fight to be almost completely safe but suffer no effective hit quality decrease. To bring them closer to the fight we are looking at swapping the base optimal and falloff ranges so at the longer ranges jammers would be operating more in falloff and hence have a lower chance of 'hitting' with their jammers at the extreme ranges.
This is because snipers operate usually in 150-200km. Anything longer and their dps tends to not be enough vs falcons. Giving them opportunity to warp and run.
Quote: The SDAs are something of a conundrum. They are really only worth fitting on the ECM specialised ships and are the only EWAR enhancing module we have besides the rigs. Currently they increase your ECM strength and we were looking at swapping this to an ECM range bonus and altering either the base strength of the jammers or the ECM strength bonus of the ships so they become less required in every setup and the low slots could be used for tanking for example.
The same as eccm?
Quote: The falcon has been changed to be similar to the pilgrim in its role as a ECM brawler at shorter ranges. It has a bigger ECM strength bonus whilst losing its ECM optimal range bonus. In addition its agility and base velocity and have been increased to allow it to be more manoeuvrable at shorter ranges.
I was thinking. Completely the opposite. Rook being the dmg dealer and not the cloaker. It tends to be closer in. While the falcons are the ones at 200km.
Quote: Summary Scorpion Changes - removed the ECM optimal range bonus - increased the ECM strength bonus to 20% per level - added a 5% RoF bonus to cruise & siege missile launchers per level.
Sorry but all I can see here is the complete nerf of the scorpion. Let me explain the scorpion.
It is a blackbird. With less slots devoted to ecm because of the increased cost and target of the ship. Scorpions often get primaried by dps. Add on top of that. Cruiser 4 is easier to train the battleship 4. So in a sense blackbird is much better.
The real use of the scorpion wasnt the ecm. It was the ECM Burst. Ecm burst on scorpion was great. Literally afaik the only ship who bonused the ecm burst. Now you are removing the optimal range bonus and making ecm burst horrible and worthless.
Currently my alt flies griffins and blackbird. Eventually moving into falcon and cheap huge buffer torp scorps for fleet ops. The idea being I'd warp into the blob and burst the hell out of them until they are able to kill me. The huge buffer being key. At the same time I could get a few torps out on the targets.
I guess I might just say FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF it. Leave caldari completely because after this... what caldari ship will want to be in pvp? ------------------------ To make a megathron from scratch, you must first invent the eve universe. ------------------------ Life sucks and then you get podded. |
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 23:08:00 -
[278]
I will paraphrase my CEO here, as I believe his words are pertinent to the new role the falcons will fill and the consequences this has for falcon pilots:
Keep running *****, your still in my optimal.
Now EVE related mod proof Disco Kitteh |
ChalSto
LOCKDOWN. Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 23:09:00 -
[279]
omg....thats.....so.......freaking.....AWESOME Originally by: Agmar ----------------------------------------------- "The North is so ghey that even the NPCs fly ravens." |
daisy dook
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 23:10:00 -
[280]
Originally by: Spartan dax Well Chronotis, since you guys finally figured out that SDA's Force the ECM ships to stock up on jammers and be usefull for nothing else but jamming and now have decided to change it, take a look at racials while you're at it.
By removing racials and introducing a multispec with slightly higher strength than today but lower than todays racials we'll see ECM ships with only 1-3 jammers instead of 4-5, giving the ECM ships far greater utility as well as being a huge nerf to the "ECM whiners club" as there is less jamming modules around.
It will also make ECM ships extremely sturdy tacklers as they will be with a 3-4 slot Shieldtank, 1 ECM, Point, Web and MWD. A ship to be feared when it drops next to you instead of as today where it just goes "pof".
New Falcon btw ECM Strength Bonus 25% per level 5% Shieldresistances per level Force reconstuff per level.
More agility, speed and maybe 85 more PG, 3/3 turret/launcher slot configuration instead of 2/2 and since it's supposed to be closer increase it's scan res as well slightly and give it a dronebay! A close range tackler with less dps and slower lock than a frig? That would be useless. Drone bay!
Love the proposed scorp but give it a 125m3 drone bandwidth. The Rook deserves a 10% missile velocity bonus so screw the dronebay.
What he said, needing 4 racial jammers to have a credible chance of jamming an unknown ship is a heavy price for a Falcon to pay.
|
|
Pian Shu
SPORADIC MOVEMENT Cruor-Salax Legion
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 23:13:00 -
[281]
Edited by: Pian Shu on 24/03/2009 23:14:37
Originally by: Merin Ryskin You know what's really hilarious, in a sad way? Everyone is complaining about the Falcon in solo and small-gang fights, the fleet pilots just insta-pop them with sniper battleships/HACs. And guess what these changes are going to do in a solo or small-gang fight: absolutely nothing. Falcon alts with the new Falcon will still perma-jam one or two targets just fine and ruin every "1v1" they get into, and people will still fill the forums with whine threads about it.
Not true.
What do you consider "small gang"? I like to think of a small gang as around 5. With these changes, one Falcon will not be able to jam four of your buddies and ignore you because he'll be within range. And, he'll be within range of FoF missiles (what? missiles aren't useful in PvP?) and drones. If the Falcon fitted a tank, he won't be as easy to kill, but he won't be able to jam everyone either. These changes make it about choice instead of doing the same thing over and over again.
There's no such thing as a 1v1; remember that and you won't be upset when a Falcon jams you, a Pilgrim neuts you or an Arazu damps you while you're shooting at something you had a 50/50 chance of winning against.
What is infuriating about the Falcon is that it in addition to rendering a ship useless, it is practically invulnerable. The range change is exactly what is needed.
Falcon alts are easy now because you don't really have to do much thinking. You simply warp in at 200km and jam the target. There is no danger. With these changes, its more complicated than that -- you're in danger, especially if you miss a jam.
(see, I can bold and italicize things too, and I'll raise you an underscore)
|
GateScout
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 23:15:00 -
[282]
Edited by: GateScout on 24/03/2009 23:15:29
Originally by: Guillame Herschel Can you read? I made my point. Go read it again.
And your conclusion is incorrect at elast in my opinion). ECCM works great when paired with a racially limited, chanced based module like ECM. Comparing it to other e-war without this acknowledgment misses a key part of the argument.
Originally by: Guillame Herschel That's fine, so long as ECCM is changed to be a viable counter to ECM.
ECCM is fine. Personally, I'd like to see a script for a sensor booster that increased sensor strength while limiting scan res and targeting range....but that won't happen.
Originally by: Guillame Herschel It actually makes a hell of a lot more sense for ECM not to be chance-based.
...or just give a large strength bonus to multispecs.
|
Deva Blackfire
D00M.
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 23:16:00 -
[283]
Me likes changes. Falcons were afk-alt-tab ships. Now they will need at least some degree of skill to use.
So whats next after falcons? Titans maybe, its long overdue and you know it :D
|
Eventy One
Magellan Exploration and Survey
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 23:20:00 -
[284]
Sounds like this has been given alot of thought.
ECCM is currently under used as a weapon against ECM. It has but a single purpose of countering ECM - what changes are coming down the pipe for ECCM. How will these range vs strengh changes effect it?
|
Khandahar Bob
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 23:23:00 -
[285]
Originally by: GateScout
Personally, I'd like to see a script for a sensor booster that increased sensor strength while limiting scan res and targeting range....but that won't happen.
That's genius.
|
Master Hu
Caldari Flight of the Phoenix Dirt Nap Associates
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 23:28:00 -
[286]
Some Recon ship questions and ideas:
If Minmatar recons web bonus work 100% of the time on targets, and Amarr neuts work 100% of the time on targets, and Gallente point bonus works 100% of the time, then why Caldari ECM chance based? Shouldn't it work 100% of the time on targets within it's range just like the others?
Why nerf something that is chance based on ship skills and fitting when the others are not?
So I guess you need to put the Falcon in a class as the other recons, if within range then it jams 100% guaranteed but within a certain range. Give them a boost to resistance since they will now to be close combat ships. And agility is of no consequence really, the falcon is snap/crackle/boom in 1 shot from a BS anyway. Time to give it some beef inline with the other recon ships.
If you are going to change the makeup of a ship and it's roles, then you need to make it survivable like the others as well.
|
Ephemeron
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 23:31:00 -
[287]
I read the proposed changes and 1 thing immidiately stands out:
it seems like the roles of Falcon and Rook are reversed
Rook has better resistences, much better weaponry - it seems like the best choice for short range combat. It should have stronger ECM at small range.
Falcon on other hand is less defensible, much weaker weapons, and it's ideal for sneaking about - it is most suitable for operating at long sniper ranges. It should have weaker ECM and long range.
Do you see how that makes more sense?
|
MaDeX
Rising Devils United Pod Service
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 23:36:00 -
[288]
Originally by: Master Hu Some Recon ship questions and ideas:
If Minmatar recons web bonus work 100% of the time on targets, and Amarr neuts work 100% of the time on targets, and Gallente point bonus works 100% of the time, then why Caldari ECM chance based? Shouldn't it work 100% of the time on targets within it's range just like the others?
Why nerf something that is chance based on ship skills and fitting when the others are not?
So I guess you need to put the Falcon in a class as the other recons, if within range then it jams 100% guaranteed but within a certain range. Give them a boost to resistance since they will now to be close combat ships. And agility is of no consequence really, the falcon is snap/crackle/boom in 1 shot from a BS anyway. Time to give it some beef inline with the other recon ships.
If you are going to change the makeup of a ship and it's roles, then you need to make it survivable like the others as well.
You're wrong, explain why my minnie recon had 90% web now 50%.
If anything the minnie recon would need a boost only to that ship.
|
Renarla
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 23:36:00 -
[289]
Originally by: Master Hu Some Recon ship questions and ideas:
If Minmatar recons web bonus work 100% of the time on targets, and Amarr neuts work 100% of the time on targets, and Gallente point bonus works 100% of the time, then why Caldari ECM chance based? Shouldn't it work 100% of the time on targets within it's range just like the others?
Why nerf something that is chance based on ship skills and fitting when the others are not?
So I guess you need to put the Falcon in a class as the other recons, if within range then it jams 100% guaranteed but within a certain range. Give them a boost to resistance since they will now to be close combat ships. And agility is of no consequence really, the falcon is snap/crackle/boom in 1 shot from a BS anyway. Time to give it some beef inline with the other recon ships.
If you are going to change the makeup of a ship and it's roles, then you need to make it survivable like the others as well.
Because it's the only form of EWar that can remove any ship from any fight with 100% effectiveness.
|
Liang Nuren
No Salvation Blackguard Coalition
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 23:36:00 -
[290]
TBH, I don't know how it will work out but I'm really concerned about the overall strength of ECM.
The Scorp would then have (assuming SDA's went from strength to range) with <Racial> ECM II: 3.6 base * 1.25 (skills) * 2 (bs 5) = 9 ECM strength
..... RUSRS? That's your idea of a "brawler"? Thanks for the ROF bonus. Make sure to give it 6 launchers, because that's all I need. 6 launchers, 8 mids, 4 lows, 5% ROF Bonus. KTHX.
-Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org |
|
Sidus Isaacs
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 23:37:00 -
[291]
This is all very interesting. I would consider one more chage to the Falcon:
Give it a 3rd launcher hardpoint.
|
Hai Guys
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 23:38:00 -
[292]
Changes seem reasonable, though the Rook should be the close range brawler and the Falcon should have the range.
The way it's proposed doesn't make any sense.
|
Lindsay Logan
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 23:38:00 -
[293]
The Scrop changes looks very nice :).
That makes me love the Scrop again :).
And I concur, give the Falcon 3 x launcher points.
|
Sidus Isaacs
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 23:39:00 -
[294]
Originally by: Hai Guys Changes seem reasonable, though the Rook should be the close range brawler and the Falcon should have the range.
The way it's proposed doesn't make any sense.
I think it do. That Cov ops cloak combined with the new bonuses mkaes it very nice indeed.
|
Murdah
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 23:42:00 -
[295]
Signal Distortion Amplifiers
The SDAs are something of a conundrum. They are really only worth fitting on the ECM specialised ships and are the only EWAR enhancing module we have besides the rigs. Currently they increase your ECM strength and we were looking at swapping this to an ECM range bonus and altering either the base strength of the jammers or the ECM strength bonus of the ships so they become less required in every setup and the low slots could be used for tanking for example.
Umm, 1600MM plate Falcon FTW? Have you guys actually ever logged into this game? It's gonna rain down Murdah |
haq aan
Omega Enterprises Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 23:44:00 -
[296]
1- (Originally by: GateScout) Personally, I'd like to see a script for a sensor booster that increased sensor strength while limiting scan res and targeting range.
2- * Redesign the current dice based ' Now u go afk for 20 sec! ' ECM Mechanics !!!
Thoose 2 are the only ideas in this thread that leads to better EVE.
Only then u can decide the bonus' of ships.
haq
|
Lucy Winter
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 23:46:00 -
[297]
Originally by: Khandahar Bob
Originally by: GateScout
Personally, I'd like to see a script for a sensor booster that increased sensor strength while limiting scan res and targeting range....but that won't happen.
That's genius.
Definitely genius.
|
Chssmius
Capital Support House of Mercury
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 23:48:00 -
[298]
The rook should be closer in and the falcon further away. Replace the ECM range bonus with 5% or 10% missile velocity per level(for cruiser skill).
15% ECM strength bonus per recon level is fine. But replace the 5% kin missile damage with something like 5% shield resist per recon level, 7.5% or 10% shield HP per recon level.
Quote:
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)
They are basically trying to swap the roles of the rook and the falcon.
Reducing a falcons optimal range to less than quarter of what it was(the 2 SDA IIs add to range not strength in the given example) while doubling the falloff with a slight boost in jamming strength. The falcon has junk for damage options. Needs at least 3 mids to fit something resembling a tank. I am having trouble envisioning a falcons use in the future, as 3 mids would be half the ECM modules on most falcons.
This may turn the falcon into a "drive by only" ewar platform. Kind of like stealth bombers are now only more expensive, harder to train for, and easier catch. I am having trouble envisioning situations where pilots and FC's would rather have a falcon than "something else," though I may not be using my imagination. The falcons biggest advantage before these proposed changes was that the tremendous range meant it wasn't a liability to a fleet.
With these changes, if a falcon engages at 70 km* from the center of a fight that is otherwise confined within point range then something like an interceptor could be on top of it in the time it takes a single jam cycle to finish.
*~18km into falloff with perfect skills means ~90% of max effectiveness. Point range is a bubble 20 km in diameter. Interceptor is assumed to immediately break off from the fight and close on the falcon at ~5 km/s while the falcon MWDs away at ~1km/s. Interceptors is assumed to only need to get inside of 20 km of the falcon and traverse through 10 km of the fight. This leave 40 km which should be covered in approximately 10 seconds which is half the duration of an ECM module. Even if the interceptor is slower, the falcon faster, the "fight bubble" bigger, and the interceptor doesn't break off immediately, there is still a good chance that it would catch the falcon before it finishes its first cycle.
By the end of the first cycle the falcon has probably been called primary and been locked by enough of the enemy to make for unpleasant times. The second ECM cycle(remember, chance based) had better jam the interceptor is all I can say. The good news is interceptors don't have great sensor strength, but some pilots might take to fitting overheated ECCM's to something like a Stiletto which would put the issue up to lady luck.
The other alternative for a falcon would be to be 50% effective at 60% its previous operating range. Unless ECM base strength is significantly boosted this sounds like a losing combination. I don't understand CCPs obsession with using a sledge hammer to drive a tack.
Quote:
Summary Scorpion Changes
- removed the ECM optimal range bonus - increased the ECM strength bonus to 20% per level - added a 5% RoF bonus to cruise & siege missile launchers per level.
If the objective is to make the Scorpion a "brawler" then forget about a RoF bonus and add something to help it tank getting primaried.
Take The EvE Personality Test today! |
Artemis Dragmire
Veto. Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 23:48:00 -
[299]
Posting my support for these changes.
Bring the falcon into the same range category as the Arazu. This is a great plan.
|
Rina Wright
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 23:49:00 -
[300]
Wow, you guys in CCP are full with great ideas. I guess you didn't pay attention how much falcon cost in the market recently plus, let me fill you in on that falcon doesn't have any tank whatsoever, it's only chance to survive is to keep the distance. I thought falcon is at least one good pvp ship that caldari race has but I guess it's gonna change soon. Just concentrate on fixing bugs, don't mess with ships!!!
|
|
Nemtar Nataal
Demonic Retribution Minor Threat.
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 23:52:00 -
[301]
Edited by: Nemtar Nataal on 24/03/2009 23:56:14
Originally by: Ephemeron I read the proposed changes and 1 thing immidiately stands out:
it seems like the roles of Falcon and Rook are reversed
Rook has better resistences, much better weaponry - it seems like the best choice for short range combat. It should have stronger ECM at small range.
Falcon on other hand is less defensible, much weaker weapons, and it's ideal for sneaking about - it is most suitable for operating at long sniper ranges. It should have weaker ECM and long range.
Do you see how that makes more sense?
You are so right...and you know what the best thing about it is...if CCP does make that change it will mean that ECM ships are pritty much right back where they were 3 years ago :)
I still like changing ECM optimal range to ECM fall off.
Then for the Rook you give it the 25% bonus to ECM jamming strength and less fall off but a 5% bonus to optimal range but give it less fall of like 5% or 10%. Then "leave" the agility bonus for the falcon as its really usefull for somthing that basically made from tinfoyl...
|
BoB's Dream
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 23:53:00 -
[302]
How many time BS live in fleet battle? How many Scorpion you see in fleet battle(percent from all fleet BS)? Missile BS (Raven/Scorp) is not fleet ship. Scorpion now used only as ECM ship. Long distance jamming is a bonus. After this changes Scorpion:
- not tank - not damager - not ECM ship
not fish/not meet
good job CCP
|
Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 23:55:00 -
[303]
One method to balance ECM would be to change the functionality of it. Switch it from a chance based but binary effect to a always succeeding but relative effect.
Connect the seemingly arbitrary sensor strength with a ship stat that has actually an effect outside ECM calculations, like Max Locked Targets.
Calculation would then be: Jam Strength / Sensor Strength = Percentage by which Max Locked Targets is reduced
Jam strength stats would have to be rebalanced to fit to the new system.
This would make ECM more reliable, better to counter by ECCM and better in line with the other ewar modules that have a similar functionality.
Oh and just drop the activation amount limit of ECM bursts on the Scorpion to make it more viable. It'd be the poison for every spider tank. -------- Ideas for: Mining
|
Dr Resheph
Amarr YOU ARE NOW READING THIS LOUDLY
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 00:00:00 -
[304]
The old deterministic EW system was a lame game of rock paper scissors, but at least it had one thing going for it which the current mechanics dont:
EW ships were good for their mid slots as much as their bonuses (which there weren't any, at first). And while this might not be a smart direction to take again given how many ships have a large amount of mid slots.. it warrants considering as a partial solution.
My fix for EW goes something like this.
ECM Modules - Multispectral and Racial jammers should have the same strength, and approximately the same duration (20 seconds). Multispectral jammers would only break the lock while racial jammers would keep the target actively jammed for 10 out of 20 seconds. One is for causing chaos, the other for tactical suppression. Cap use on multispecs need not be high, because it effectively forces cap bonuses on the smaller ECM ships. Main difference should be range - Multispecs about 50% of Racials
ECM Ships - Bonuses to jammed duration time can be included, besides range, cap and strength. A Scorpion's racial jammer for instance, might hold a target jammed for 15 out of the 20 seconds of module duration (10% per level) for a successful jam.
To break down their roles:
- Kitsune should get bonuses to ECM burst and not standard jammers, which is currently a completely unloved and unused module. Frigs don't have the mid slots, target slots or cap to jam the numerous enemies that could potentially insta-pop them. And they can't be the only ship in a small/fast force to fight at range. The power of this ship then depends entirely on how its flown. No messy target management, but could potentially cause allies trouble too.
- Blackbird and Rook should get multispectral bonuses to lower their cycle time and cap use (10% per level) effectively making one Multispec module as effective as two on a Scorp/Kitsune/Falcon. This would allow them to cause chaos more quickly and surgically. But the ships themselves fight at much closer ranges than either Falcon or Scorp.
- Scorpion should get the best EW strength bonuses, because its the fattest and priciest target (disregarding recent T2 spike) in fleet warfare. It's also the most likely to need sensor boosters, so it isn't sensible to turn it into a multiple-target juggler. And high strength is more important against larger targets like BS and capitals, which the scorp doesn't have issue with.
- Falcon should have range bonuses, since it can lock at twice the range of Scorp by default and much faster - putting less emphasis on sensor boosters. Because it doesn't fight as well as Rook and doesn't have the multispec bonuses, it has no purpose in being at close combat ranges. But with the exception of Scorpion, its jamming strength is still equal. In other words, its the most defensive/survivable EW platform to compensate for what other ships have.
I have some more ideas about other forms of EW.
Dampeners right now are pretty broken because they rely on stacking multiple modules for any serious effect - and even then there are circumstances in any engagement where lock range and lock speed are completely irrelevant. They should have a defensive effect on the ships using them, like reducing signature radius because of all the spatial distortions being emitted - making them harder to lock and gank by all enemies to some degree, and not just one.
Painters are just plain stupid, because there are no equivalent modules which it counters. In my opinion, they need to have some gameplay integrated with the tactical overview or solarsystem map. ie, paint somebody and they become a warpable object to anybody in your gang. Great for fleet maneuvers because it doesn't rely on a frigate getting right up someone's butt (or nearby wrecks/cans/sentries).
Tracking Disruptors have the least problems, so I won't go into much detail there. But their current format makes them boring as hell to use.
|
Bobby Atlas
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 00:01:00 -
[305]
The sensor damps are absolutely useless, how about actually focusing on sensor damps for a change. Take stock of the statistical data that CCP retains to generate base lines on the reality of how insignificant sensor damps have become; a marginalized ewar asset where by even the specialized gallente recons make no effective use of the damps.
I do support changes in range to ECM ships, especially the recon class caldari ECM boats as there upper limit on range can put them so far out that they are near invincible. We long tolerated over powered Sensor Damps then/now tolerate over powered ECM in the face of gimped Sensor Damps. It is time CCP realize that the Sensor Damps and ECM can serve as counter-balances for each other if you actually looked at them both in the same context at the same time, instead of every year picking only one of them apart , nerfing the other and leaving a perpetual imbalance.
|
Kalissa Dauntless
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 00:03:00 -
[306]
You're going to make the falcon a brawler? You do know it's made of tin foil and falls apart when a small insect passes somewhere close to it?
Instead of all this jiggery pokery nonsense which will throw things into the total unknown, why not simply do this: Reduce the ECM strength of the ship, giving targets more of a chance to resist jamming.
Bellum's thread on it
|
Nemtar Nataal
Demonic Retribution Minor Threat.
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 00:06:00 -
[307]
Originally by: Bobby Atlas The sensor damps are absolutely useless, how about actually focusing on sensor damps for a change. Take stock of the statistical data that CCP retains to generate base lines on the reality of how insignificant sensor damps have become; a marginalized ewar asset where by even the specialized gallente recons make no effective use of the damps.
I do support changes in range to ECM ships, especially the recon class caldari ECM boats as there upper limit on range can put them so far out that they are near invincible. We long tolerated over powered Sensor Damps then/now tolerate over powered ECM in the face of gimped Sensor Damps. It is time CCP realize that the Sensor Damps and ECM can serve as counter-balances for each other if you actually looked at them both in the same context at the same time, instead of every year picking only one of them apart , nerfing the other and leaving a perpetual imbalance.
Here Here...well sayed m8
|
Valkorsia
Caldari Battlestars GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 00:06:00 -
[308]
Originally by: MMak Who is that idiot? Who proposed it?! Close range on falcon without any tank? ****..
This should be quoted several times until CCP understands their own game mechanics. |
VaderDSL
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 00:08:00 -
[309]
Give the falcon a bit of a tank, but to be hones you'll have to actually think tactically before you uncloak a falcon or two, no longer can you uncloak whenever you want and start jamming, you'll have to be smart about it, as it should be. Rapiers, Arazu's, Pilgrims have all had to learn how to pick targets, when to uncloak and how to survive, the falcon pilots will adapt, there will be tactics. Suck it up and roll with the changes.
|
Nemtar Nataal
Demonic Retribution Minor Threat.
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 00:08:00 -
[310]
Originally by: Kalissa Dauntless You're going to make the falcon a brawler? You do know it's made of tin foil and falls apart when a small insect passes somewhere close to it?
Instead of all this jiggery pokery nonsense which will throw things into the total unknown, why not simply do this: Reduce the ECM strength of the ship, giving targets more of a chance to resist jamming.
Bellum's thread on it
Cause it will only make ECM viable in small scale engagements as large fleets have massive numbers of ships with way to high sensor strenght.
|
|
Fear Not
The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 00:09:00 -
[311]
Originally by: musgrattio Change ECM optimal to a base of 50km, base falloff of 50km.
A Rook with these bonuses would be optimal
20% bonus to ECM strength per level 5% bonus to shield capacity per level 5% bonus to Heavy/Heavy Assault Missile Velocity per level 5% bonus to Heavy/Heavy Assault ROF per level
Falcon:
10% bonus to ECM optimal per level 10% bonus to ECM strength per level 96% to 100% Cloak bonus 10% bonus to ECM falloff per level
There you go, you have 2 ships that while nerfed, are still very, very useful.
+1
This seems a fair compromise.
|
Tykkis
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 00:09:00 -
[312]
I think the problem is that Falcon and Rook have excellent ship bonuses, 3 bonuses focused on single module. Combine this with 7 midslots and you got something to whine about.
Consider giving the ships 2 bonuses for ECM(cap use + str or range) and 2 for missile dmg and whatever. reduce 1 midslot maybe and add 2 launcher hardpoints to falcon.
|
Levaria
Gallente Ever Flow Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 00:11:00 -
[313]
The Falcon pilot inside me contained within the cold hard exterior harbering the warm fuzzy ecm loving interior cries out against the nerf (somewhat) BUT. I can understand where many other players and CCP members are coming from. I do agree that I have grown somewhat complacent and enjoyed the fact that I could sit at over 200+km and bbqsauce jam other pilots with little or no risk. Do I like that..Yes...is it fair, depends. I sure as heck didnt like being jammed from that far out, but at least I was prepared most of the time (brough other Falcon's with to counter ECM, had ceptors, ECCM's fitted). For those time's that I was not, I wished that I could cave in the skull of that particular pilot's Falcon. That said. I do think the Falcon needs a rebalance, but if they intend to make it short range it needs BONUSES, the only tank the Falcon has was is it's range. If it is to get up close and into someone's face it needs to be able to SURVIVE, more low slots, launcher and damage bonuses, better resists, speed, etc..... I never thought the day would dawn when I would write a post about Falcon's getting up close and pew pew. But hey this is Eve. Anyhow, CCP I hope you pay attention to the good and the bad in these post's and take it with a grain of salt. I am trusting you with my baby (the falcon) so make her daddy...errr mommy proud. ~Pirates May Cry but Care Bears will die!~
|
Robsta Craw
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 00:12:00 -
[314]
play your own game much? I think not.
1) ECM is primary so flying one as a brawler is pretty funny. range is your only protection. 2) ECM is primary so for a few moments in time the ship is awesome then poof. which is fine as long as you are worth flying. 3) RoF bonus on a Scorpion doesnt make it a brawler it makes it a low DPS worthless primary. missiles have no place in fleet warfare.
Id suggest looking harder at ECCM and fixing the other 3 races EWAR rather than breaking the fourth. Reducing strength of ECM by 25% wouldnt break it, killing the range and making it a brawler on the other hand is pretty rediculous. Im sure all of this has been said 50x over so I will stop here.
|
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 00:12:00 -
[315]
That's why I not fly Caldari. What the point of flying OP race and then - bah - get hit by "nerfbat"? Well over five years of flying IWIN ships - go on screaming, guys, you deserve it! -- Thanks CCP for cu |
Flex Carter
Caldari Caldari Independant Mining Association
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 00:13:00 -
[316]
Wow.... Nice wake-up call Devs. Now go get'em... Oh wait, those are my ships.
|
Allahs Warrior
Gallente I.M.M
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 00:15:00 -
[317]
Scorp is fine tbh No need to change the scorp, it can't escape like the falcon, can sit and boost the sniping BS's strength and actually have a role, since it doesn't have much of a tank.
|
Valkorsia
Caldari Battlestars GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 00:23:00 -
[318]
Quote: the only tank the Falcon has was is it's range. Quote:
And the counter to that was always using intercepters to chase down Falcons and get them off the field quickly.
Quote: If it is to get up close and into someone's face it needs to be able to SURVIVE, more low slots, launcher and damage bonuses, better resists, speed, etc.
There is no chance for survival in a Falcon in any kind of small gang engagement if you are in the optimals and scram/disruptor/web range of everything on the field with a pulse of the mwd. You can't jam everything.
CCP might as well paint a flashing 'Primary' target on the ship if these changes are implemented.
Quote: I never thought the day would dawn when I would write a post about Falcon's getting up close and pew pew.
None of us did. |
Sugarush
KIA Corp KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 00:24:00 -
[319]
Horrible ideas.
The only reason the falcon survives a fight is because it remains out of range. Even then it still has to be wary of tacklers. If you are going to nerf the optimal range of ECM, you really need to buff the resists of the EWAR ships. Otherwise they are always primary and get nuked the second they try to do their job. Try to use a falcon at 80k and see what happens to it.
|
Quesa
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 00:24:00 -
[320]
I'm okay with the range change.
The problem I'm having with bringing Falcons in closer is that the only thing they bring to the table is ECM. They don't bring DPS, they don't have any REAL survivability except for their ability to cloak.
You mentioned wanting to change the Falcon into a short range brawler, however the Pilgrim has a good amount of DPS via T2 Med drones and the abusive ability to nuke anyone's cap. Coupled with turret disruption and nearly the lowest sig radius of all Force Recons, makes this an ideal brawler. When you look at the Falcon, all you can imagine is a fragile, stale chip hanging from your ceiling just out of your reach that is only attached by an old piece of masking tape and thin piece of fishing line. When you try to tank up a Falcon, or any Caldari ship for that matter, you increase the sig radius of that ship by many times what you started with, creating not only a ship that will always be primaried, but a ship with the sig radius of a capitol thus easy to nuke very fast.
Most of us Caldari Pilots have already come to terms that our ships just aren't PvP friendly and cross-trained, the Falcon was one of those ships that actually made us feel like our racial ships had a place in fleets.
Again, I will agree that my ability to jam outside a double sensor boosted Sniper was a bit much and what you are suggesting is interesting, however you aren't giving the Falcon the necessary survivability tools to become a brawler such as the Pilgrim.
To comment on the other Force Recons. The ridiculous lack of EWAR strength of the other recons forces them to not fit for their primary EWAR abilities, such as Damps and Target Painters. When an Arazu equips for EWAR + Tackle ganking ratters, you fit 3 Damps and a couple disruptors. You have to use all 3 damps on a BS and pray to God they don't have a sensor booster to counter them.
I applaud your thinking in trying to bring Caldari ECM more in line with other ECM but you have a long way to go before you'll get any positive feedback from Falcon/Rook pilots about changes. Don't listen to the Falcon winers either, they are not interested in balance in the slightest only the vindication that their incessant whining will yield a more favorable engagement.
|
|
SniperWo1f
Omega Enterprises Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 00:26:00 -
[321]
so wait the falcon with it's 1900 shield is going to be right in the thick of it with no resistance tank bonuses and all it's mids filled with ecm . oh yeah good thinking .
rook long at 100k umm yeah lets put paper with the range of almost everybody in a bs or sniper hac yeah thats a recipe for disaster .
scorp a is now ghetto raven . thats amazing .
all these ecms ships are supposed to be tanking with their mids now right ... what about the ecm mods ..oh wait they can mix i mean and invuln yeah that'll save you or wait how about we just change caldari to armor tankers and just delete all shield mods .
yay ccp way to stick it to the falcon ! those ships were so annoying i almost had to use tactics thanks ccp !
"In Rust We Trust"
|
Valkorsia
Caldari Battlestars GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 00:29:00 -
[322]
Edited by: Valkorsia on 25/03/2009 00:29:57
Originally by: SniperWo1f so wait the falcon with it's 1900 shield is going to be right in the thick of it with no resistance tank bonuses and all it's mids filled with ecm . oh yeah good thinking .
rook long at 100k umm yeah lets put paper with the range of almost everybody in a bs or sniper hac yeah thats a recipe for disaster .
scorp a is now ghetto raven . thats amazing .
all these ecms ships are supposed to be tanking with their mids now right ... what about the ecm mods ..oh wait they can mix i mean and invuln yeah that'll save you or wait how about we just change caldari to armor tankers and just delete all shield mods .
yay ccp way to stick it to the falcon ! those ships were so annoying i almost had to use tactics thanks ccp !
Best, most accurate post in this whole thread. |
Cutie Chaser
Gallente Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 00:30:00 -
[323]
Could we get an extra 1-2 launcher slots on the scorpion? Then there might be a chance at being a short-range brawler. *** Thats a Templar, the amarr fighter. Its a combat drone used by carriers. |
Cletus Graeme
Caldari Duty.
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 00:33:00 -
[324]
Edited by: Cletus Graeme on 25/03/2009 00:34:15
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
ECM Range
This is a great idea as long as it is applied correctly to right the ships. Please also don't forget that ECM ships currently have minimal tank and dps so if you nerf their ECM ability then you must boost something else to balance this. If ECM is overpowered and needs nerfing a little that's fine but don't make ECM ships useless to fly when you do that.
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Signal Distortion Amplifiers
Another great idea.
These mods were originally added to prevent NON ECM ships from being able to jam effectively unless they sacrficed low slots to fit them. It was felt that ECM ships could afford to use the low slots to do this. As a result they are only used by ECM ships but take up slots that could be usefully used for something else E.g. tank, damage, mobility, eccm (via backup arrays), scan res (via sensor amps) etc etc
Completely removing these mods and moving the bonuses they provided into the ECM ship bonuses will keep these ships effective while still preventing ECM from being useful on other ships (as orignially intended) and als free up lowslots for use.
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Ship Changes
Modifying the ships so that they provide diversifed roles is a superb idea. Starting with long vs short range ECM is a good initial approach but don't forget to compare each ship individually with the others. There should be something unique that each ship offers, different from the others, that makes it worth flying. IMO, this should be true for ALL ships in EvE.
E.g one might excel at jam strength, another at range, another at number of jammers (i.e more midslots) etc
Obviously, there's a limit on how varied ECM can be between ships so other ship attributes can also enter the balancing equation (damage/tank/mobility etc)
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Falcon & Rook
Personally, I think you have these ship changes the wrong way around. Falcons have minimal dps/tank and rely on their cloak to survive so making them into close range ships seems silly.
You can't directly compare the Falcon with the Pilgrim because unlike the Falcon, the Pilgrim has offensive capability (via nos/neuts and drones) which makes it worthwhile getting close to a target. To make them comparable you'd have to also give the Falcon some offensive capability which would probably make it overpowered.
It would make more sense to allow the Falcon to maintain range as it's tank but give the Rook some bonuses that would allow it to engage at close range without instapopping. The fact that missiles take time to reach their target and are better of used at close range is another reason to support making the Rook the close range ECM ship. Until now, it's kinetic missile bonus has only been useful in a defensive role as it can jam well outside it's own missile range.
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
The Scorpion
I like the suggested changes as they bring the Scorp closer to the Raven as a close range missile boat and we all know (see above) that long range missiles suck in PvP. TBH, any changes to this ship are worth considering as it is very seldom used anymore which is sad.
|
Mei Han
Mythos Corp RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 00:34:00 -
[325]
Edited by: Mei Han on 25/03/2009 00:36:56 Arazu pilots such as myself are forced to play in a 60Km radius while at the same time sacrifice valuable midslots in order to fit some LSEs for survival. And after all that the best effect of the Arazu ship since Damps are **** is to hold 3 or 4 targets unable to warp, but able to distance themselves from us or kill us. So am very sorry but i laugh at kids that lost their "easymode" toy in their game.
Even though i never whined for Falcons, I was always read an answer to the falcon whiners. "Fit an ECCM!" Now i can gradly say back at them "Fit some tank and get used to die like the rest Recons!
If every Ewar was as "balanced" as ECMs in Falcons are... we would make a post in CAOD every time we managed to lock something.
|
SheriffFruitfly
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 00:35:00 -
[326]
Amazing how the whiners win everytime.
Just ban Caldari, and be done with it, ccp. __________________________________________________________
|
Verone
Gallente Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 00:36:00 -
[327]
I like where you're heading with this, but there's a fundamental difference in the way a Pilgrim and a Falcon work that means simply swapping the Falcon's role bonuses makes it useless rather than making it a Caldari version of Pilgrim.
The entire slot layout of the Falcon, Scorp and Rook would need to be radically re-designed to ensure it worked properly at close ranges.
\o/ EON FICTION WRITER OF THE YEAR! \o/
>>> THE LIFE OF AN OUTLAW <<< |
SusanXP
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 00:42:00 -
[328]
lol way to go CCP.
For Caldari we had:
Missile Nerf ECM Nerf Missile Nerf #2 ECM Nerf #2
Sweet. Haven't seen any other race nerfed that hard. Caldari ships were never the solo-pvp boats ok, but takin away the fleet capable ships as well renders Caldari quite useless.
Good job indeed!
Instead of nerfing just every thing to useless either leave it like it was and peeps will find a solution (yes i liked dual-MWD and 10 drones and instapoppin frigs with torps :P ) or just nerf all things that arise as useable till all things suck and noone wants to play anymore.
Way to go!
|
Haakelen
Gallente Angels. Acid.
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 00:45:00 -
[329]
Sometimes it seems like you're actually, seriously trying to kill your game, CCP. This idea is of the same quality as your carrier ideas, and QR. Which is to say, it's ****. But hey, this adds to the list of T2 ships that are ****ing worthless. Now you can just nerf logistics, inties, and hictors, and nobody will ever fly a T2 ship again. Except for your precious legion of drooling mongoloid L4 mission farming WoW converts.
|
Vaustrien
Caldari The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 00:46:00 -
[330]
I got Recon V and flew Rapiers and Falcons.
You nerfed webs at the end of 2008.
Now you are planning to nerf ECM.
Insert generic whine here.
Then again, I guess every other Recon has lost its use these days, eventually every T2 ship is going to be so horrible that everybody just flies T1 - slightly worse than T2 but a fraction of the cost.
|
|
Psilocin
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 00:54:00 -
[331]
This is by far the dumbest idea I've seen for a long long time.
Instead of messing up the few useful ships that Caldari have, why don't you boost the other EWAR?
Tracking disruptors have crappy range, dampeners have crappy range/strength and target painters are useless outside of PVE.
Seeing as neither target painters or ECM modules require scripts, why don't you remove this part from tracking disruptors and dampeners and increase their range.
But suggesting that the Scorpion or Falcon should become close range fighting ships is beyond ******ed. When are you going to hire some competent people? Jesus christ.
FOFOFOOOO! |
Adarr
Caldari g guild Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 00:56:00 -
[332]
Short range brawler Scorp?
You've gotta be ****ing kidding me.
Just... no, CCP.
|
darkmancer
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 00:56:00 -
[333]
Buhahahahaah
ECM is about to get royally screwed.
The bonus everyone wants an agility bonus!! 5% Missile velocity!! A damage bonus on a ship with 4 weapon slots unable to fit damage mods without gimping its own setup!!
How can these be topped?? I know give the Scorpian 5% ROF and a 5% target painter bonus. It fits inline with the Golum and they really complement each other... really.
--------------------------------- There's a simple solution to every problem. It is always invariably wrong |
chichi boom
The Maverick Navy PuPPet MasTers
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 01:03:00 -
[334]
I think that most of these changes are good, but slightly misplaced. The ability to warp cloaked is practically useless on a close in ship. Therefore, give the Falcon the poor ECM strength (I really like the falloff idea tagged to it) and let it keep most of its range. The Rook would do well with a bit of damage, speed/light tanking potential and a drone bay. It could run with the T2 cruiser groups and provide a quick lock down on the close in enemies whislt having a bit of a chance to escape when the fight gets dirty. No cruiser, however, will be able to "brawl" in battleship fleets. That leaves a role open for the Scorpion.
|
Jainia Soltella
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 01:18:00 -
[335]
Edited by: Jainia Soltella on 25/03/2009 01:25:06 While I think that the whines were a little overblown ("OMG you can sit at 250km and permajam everything!!!!!111one"... which is absolute bull if you have flown ECM for any length of time) the ECM nerf was expected. I just wish that CCP would look at the mechanic instead of relegating it to uselessness like the other forms of e-war.
How I would fix it: 1) Make all forms of ewar high-slot modules (ECM, Damps, painters, tracking disruptors, webs and points) This has the three-fold effect:
- It allows Caldari & some Minnie ships to tank effectively without sacrificing offensive ability (notice I didn't say strength, given that armor tankers have to choose between dmg mods and tank...).
- It simplifies the game for new players (if it's in a high-slot you use it against other players or the environment...)
- Focuses these ships, along with other ewar platforms like the Arazu, Pilgrim etc on their goal as a gang ewar platform, instead of trying to mix ewar and joke DPS.
Move profession mods to the highs & Cloaks and Drone Link augmentors to mid-slots if you want to stay consistent. Might require some slot juggling on certain ships to avoid over-powered shield tanks vs comparable armor tankers.*
2) Change ECM to be a 100% chance lock-breaker with a 20 second module cycle time. This allows ECM to be a pain in the ass, but reduces the chance of the mythical "permajam" that so many whine about. It also brings it in line with all other forms of ewar which have a decent effect @ 100% instead of a great effect 50-60% of the time.
OR
2) Change ECM to a different mechanic entirely (leave damps to screw with lock range/time) Say something like altering the target's high-slot cycle time. (cutting the target's DPS, ewar or remote rep capability in half or more, but still letting it fight)
While this would remove the joy I get out of knowing that I'm ****ing someone off when I jam them, it's probably more 'fun' for everyone.
Just random ideas, but something different instead of nerf nerf nerf...
*: In my dream world CCP would remove the concept of high, medium and low slots entirely in favor of hard-points(things that affect the outside environment/other players), utility slots (things that don't kill or absorb damage, tracking mods, damage mods sensor boosters, etc...) and tanking slots, with ship bonuses & player taste deciding which way to tank a ship(shield, armor, hull, speed), but that is a massive change and would have to start somewhere small...
|
Becq Starforged
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 01:18:00 -
[336]
Here are my thoughts:
First, I don't think it's a bad idea to do some rebalancing of the Recons, but I disagree that Falcons/Rooks are as game-endingly powerful as some seem to think. Instead, I think they need to be adjusted a more modest amount, while other Recons are boosted a bit, as well.
ECM RANGE: Good idea; reducing optimal and increasing falloff is a good way to reduce the effectiveness of stand-off jamming platforms while retaining usefulness at closer ranges. This change alone will cut the range of jamming ships by about half if they want to retain current effectiveness levels, or reduce effectiveness by 25% or so at current ranges.
SDAs: Good idea in principle, I never liked being 'forced' to fill low slots with them. I'd change their bonus to increased range for all EW modules (not just ECM). To balance the loss of stength, base jammer strength should go up by about a half an SDA worth, and specialty ship jamming strength should go up by 1.5 SDAs worth.
FALCON/ROOK: I disagree with the proposed role changes; you have the two ships reversed. The Falcon is far to fragile and far too lightly armed to have any place in the middle of a battle; trying to make it a 'brawler' will just kill the ship design. The Pilgrim can get away with a brawler role in small-scale skirmishes due to it's drone firepower and tracking disruptors. The Falcon has no firepower to speak of (only one spare slot after cloak and probes, and none at all if you pretend the ship has value as a cyno ship). Here is how I'd change the bonuses:
Falcon (stand off jammer) - ECM strength bonus unchanged (net strength reduction due to removal of SDAs is partially offset by base ECM strength increase) - ECM Optimal Range bonus decreased to 10% per level (net reduction to effective range, possibly offset by new SDA range bonus) - 5% per level bonus to shield resists - increased shield strength and agility
Rook Changes ('brawler') - ECM Strength Bonus increased from 20 to 30% per level (this offsets the removal of SDAs) - ECM Optimal Range Bonus removed - 5% per level bonus to shield resists - 25m3 drone bay / 25 mbit bandwidth added - increased shield strength
The modified Falcon is weaker than before, and must operate at somewhat closer ranges to avoid sacrificing further effectiveness. The Rook retains it's jamming capability, though at much lower range, and gains damage output and shield tanking potential (though realizing that potential costs ECM effectiveness).
SCORPION: I think the proposed Scorpion changes have potential.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: If you do decide to make ECM significantly weaker, I suggest tempering that with additional flexibility by applying script capability to ECM modules. Get rid of the various racial jammers (convert them into the equivalent multispectral jammer). Then create four scripts (one for each race), which grant bonuses along the lines of +50% to their specialty strength, -50% to others, +50% to range, and -30% energy.
I hope these suggestions are helpful.
-- Becq Starforged
The Flame of Freedom Burns On! |
Chssmius
Capital Support House of Mercury
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 01:21:00 -
[337]
Edited by: Chssmius on 25/03/2009 01:22:02 CCP, "Your doing it wrong."
Falcon
Rook
Scorpion
I am done with this thread.
Take The EvE Personality Test today! |
Jan Blackoak
The Edge Foundation Zenith Affinity
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 01:23:00 -
[338]
win!
tbh i would have been happy with some sort of 'stacking penalty' on ECM mods (so dropping all 6 or 7 or w/e wouldn't completely jam them that much more then having just 1)
but looks good to me, it always seemed wrong that falcons were so different when compared to the rest of the recons (in use and such) but i digress
i endorse this product
|
Trader20
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 01:26:00 -
[339]
You just nerfed 7 Caldari ships ffs....good job on giving in to the whiners again (nano nerf) CCP. Blackbird Rook Falcon Kitsune Scorp Widow Griffin And now I have no reason to fly Caldari, so I want sp relocation.
|
Terianna Eri
Amarr Scrutari
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 01:30:00 -
[340]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Summary Falcon changes - ECM Optimal Range Bonus removed (52km optimal / 81km falloff w/ 2*SDA IIs)
YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY I'm sure you'll be seeing a lot of whining / criticism / feedback / whatever you want to call it, but not from me <3 __________________________________
Originally by: CCP Whisper Boo hoo. Cry some more.
|
|
Jan Blackoak
The Edge Foundation Zenith Affinity
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 01:33:00 -
[341]
Originally by: Jainia Soltella I just wish that CCP would look at the mechanic instead of relegating it to uselessness like the other forms of e-war.
you sir are clearly useless if you think the other forms of EWAR are useless; they have plenty use... but like all caldari (with a few noted exceptions ( <3 blaster rokh), you have no conception of HOW. Hence why no one has any pity for you (oh no your BS sized weapons can hit frigs and cruisers??? cry me a river).
Now i would like to say this: this is the most balanced edition of eve yet.... and yes ccp nerfs stuff (i miss my vaga being invulnerable) but i think in the end it works out fine ish. find a new tactic and adapt (i think a scorp after this could have some solo wtf potential).
|
GrumpE
Eye of God Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 01:35:00 -
[342]
You have already nerf'd ECM once. That's why ECM is now only feasible for the 6 Caldari ships that have some ECM specialization bonus. You can't nerf it again until you've first gone through and changed all the other aspects of the game.
You are also overreacting to the segment of players who care more about simple brute force killing than about the subtle tactics that has given the Eve universe such depth. Apparently they are whining to you about ECM keeping them from getting higher on their killboards.
As others have said, you need to first understand your own game. |
Sig Sour
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 01:37:00 -
[343]
I sincerely hope that this is an April fools joke CCP is winding up for...
|
Stretchmeat Crotchquake
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 01:37:00 -
[344]
Edited by: Stretchmeat Crotchquake on 25/03/2009 01:42:19 There isn't really a problem with any ECM ship right now except the Falcon, nevermind enough to warrant an overhaul of the entire module type, and Falcons could be completely solved by just cutting their lock range down to more like 130-140km with two boosters.
The entire concept of a "short range brawler ECM ship" is terrible when ECM boats already have pathetic tanks.
|
McKinlay
KIA Corp KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 01:38:00 -
[345]
i never really got why people think the Falcon is overpowered. it's easily countered by a 200km Apoc with ECCM, usually within two volleys or less.
|
Dark Flare
Caldari Neckbeards International
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 01:43:00 -
[346]
Originally by: Xiobe CCP will only be happy when PvP is bland, boring and completely consensual, and the only variety left is in PvE content.
Originally by: CCP Chronotis As always, everything is subject to change!
CCP has never, ever changed its mind about alterations to the mechanics such as these, no matter how short-sighted or stupid such alterations may be. So please don't ****ing patronise us with statements like this.
Don't know if someone has already called you dumb for this, but you're dumb.
Carrier nerf? The Deimos change?
|
Havus Mauth
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 01:43:00 -
[347]
The rook, the ship with higher resists, is long range, and the falcon, the "close range" ship, has crappy resists...
:golfclap:
|
Htrag
The Carebear Stare
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 01:44:00 -
[348]
fail.. thumbs down.
|
Gneeznow
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 01:58:00 -
[349]
about time, nerf it into oblivion like you did with damps.
|
Letifer Deus
181st Legion W A S T E L A N D
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 01:58:00 -
[350]
Originally by: McKinlay i never really got why people think the Falcon is overpowered. it's easily countered by a 200km Apoc with ECCM, usually within two volleys or less.
not every gang includes an eccm fit sniper apoc?
This is, and will always be a stupid argument. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Brought to you by the letter ARRR!" |
|
Sky Marshal
IMpAct Corp Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 01:59:00 -
[351]
Edited by: Sky Marshal on 25/03/2009 02:03:15
CCP, the ONLY thing you have to do, is making all ECCM modules REALLY useful. You made Afterburners and Target Painters useful ? Just make all ECCM modules useful too and forget your stupid ECM nerf.
Or good, just stupidely over-nerf all ECM Caldari Ships like you stupidely over-nerf our MISSILES or our shield resists or...
You want a comment ?
No one will use Falcons after your changes with a so low ECM range. Yeah, more ECM strength and agility. This will compensate the fact that a enemy ship just need 10 seconds to reach the ship. Oh wait... So I will warp, try to jam, but warpout immediatly before be killed. So > Totaly useless. If at least Falcons would have the same tank than an Heavy Dictor...
No one will use Rooks after your changes as they can't jam efficiently. Yeah, good range... And ? If he can't really jam, he worth nothing.
No one will use Scorpion in fleet fight if they become a front line ship.
Morality : No more jam in fight. Good balance, indeed.
Add to this all precedent nerfs, like the MISSILE OVER-NERF, and Caldari will not be useful ever. 3 ****ING years of skilling to be able to do nothing.
Oh yes, I still have my Rokh, or Eagle. Greeeaaattt, two ships, good variety... When I thought how I liked my Cerb before you nerf missiles...
Do I need a Batphone or contact a BoB friend to be sure that you receive my comment ?
___________________
CCP presents...
Band Of Brothers Reloaded : The Return Of T20
The new sequel of the darwining greater alliance of all MMORPGs.
|
Sig Sour
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 02:02:00 -
[352]
Originally by: McKinlay i never really got why people think the Falcon is overpowered. it's easily countered by a 200km Apoc with ECCM, usually within two volleys or less.
An example: someone in a HAC will not fit their ships with ECCM or use FOF (for missile boats) and they see a solo cruiser or battle cruiser in a belt and think "sweet, an easy kill" - low and behold its a trap, and they are stuck there where they are limited on what they can do to fight back. Once the killmails are posted they come to this forum and create a thread about how falcons and/or ECM is overpowered. This is a few people with a loud voice getting what they want.
ECM has allowed freighters, transport ships and industrial to get into low sec. These proposed changes put a pit in my stomach. Please CCP keep the rest of the people who play Eve into consideration before you make these changes.
|
VoiceInTheDesert
Zebra Corp Circle-Of-Two
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 02:06:00 -
[353]
Maybe the answer is simpler than we're making it.
Why not just reduce the amount of time a jammer keeps you disabled? Say...10 seconds instead of 20? Or something to that effect.
|
EgoMan
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 02:07:00 -
[354]
The most that should be done is a small reduction to targeting range for the ships requireing you to run more boosters to achieve full range target lock, effectively reducing the number of ships jammable by fitting less jammers. I have never had the opportunity to jam anyone from over 150km because it takes to long to set the trap and you have to be really stupid to get cought in a camp that has ecm setting up at 200km. Even with my range at 170-200km I always end up at 100 which puts me at great risk to ceptors. Any smart gang runs ceptors anyway and scares the falcons off making them useless anyway. I myself like to take a sniper rokh in and own them....theres so many ways to render a falcon useless but people are to lazy and un willing to stop flying their uber pwn mobiles to do it. I mean someone might have to fly a ship other then a blaster thron and perform and anti ECM role in their fleet....but then they wouldnt be able to run around ganking people un checked in their one dimensional shiney blaster boat wich requires no thought in employng what so ever. NERF it till its a console game for stupid kids!
|
demonfurbie
Minmatar Covert-Nexus Dark Cadre
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 02:10:00 -
[355]
couldnt ya just script ecm like all other e-war (except paint but really) a range script or a strength script then you wouldn't have to change the ships them self's so much each person could choose how they want to script it.
like a heavy assault rook with some tackle zooming in wouldnt need rang as much as ecm strength so pick that script.
but a falcon would need range (not he lol 200+ km ) but something reasonable say 90km but to get that range it would loose ecm strength.
also that would help the scorp. it would still be useful in fleets and can be scripted for close range if thats what ya want
|
MukkBarovian
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 02:12:00 -
[356]
#1 Caldari ewar ships including the falcon didnt deserve what is about to happen to them.
#2 I like it.
#3 Can the other races have ewar battleships?
#4 You made an oopsie. The drone bay goes on the ship that will maybe be operating within 51km of its target.
#5 I would really like to see other races have ewar battleships. Torp Scorp in the meantime.
#6 Mr. Pilgrim called. He say he want beeter ewar effect than curse to be inline with the new ewar philosophy. I told him le falcon would suck after this so he can go stfu.
|
Captator
Yakuza Corp
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 02:13:00 -
[357]
Originally by: Ephemeron I read the proposed changes and 1 thing immidiately stands out:
it seems like the roles of Falcon and Rook are reversed
Rook has better resistences, much better weaponry - it seems like the best choice for short range combat. It should have stronger ECM at small range.
Falcon on other hand is less defensible, much weaker weapons, and it's ideal for sneaking about - it is most suitable for operating at long sniper ranges. It should have weaker ECM and long range.
Do you see how that makes more sense?
This, though I have an alternate method of effecting these changes:
Script ECM for +opt/falloff and -strength, or +strength -opt/falloff. Then instead of giving the ships bonuses to the module, give them bonuses to the script, such that a rook gets instead of +20% jamming strength on the script, +40% (numbers for example purposes only) along with the dronebay and damage bonuses, and a falcon gets +60% range instead of +30% (again example figures).
The idea would be that the falcon can be used as a ~100km jamming boat with low strength (where the rook is now), or could sacrifice its range for strength (and hence performing like a weaker rook). Meanwhile the rook has 2 damage bonuses, an ewar bonus, and perhaps a HP/resistance bonus, making it viable in its short-midrange role, but the scripting allows it to sacrifice its bonuses to perform as a shorter ranged falcon.
The scorpion could be bonused to both script types as its ewar bonus, while having a 10% missile velocity and +1 launcher (so it is more viable in the closer config, and can actually lob cruise missiles at sniper range).
Blackbird and griffin could both be weakly bonused on both script types, with kitsune being strength/agility/misc bonused and widow being strength and damage/resists/HP bonused like rook.
In combination with the CCP proposed changes I haven't mutilated, the result is basically the same, but all the ECM boats are more distinct from each other, all fulfilling slightly different roles.
|
EgoMan
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 02:13:00 -
[358]
Originally by: Sig Sour
Originally by: McKinlay i never really got why people think the Falcon is overpowered. it's easily countered by a 200km Apoc with ECCM, usually within two volleys or less.
An example: someone in a HAC will not fit their ships with ECCM or use FOF (for missile boats) and they see a solo cruiser or battle cruiser in a belt and think "sweet, an easy kill" - low and behold its a trap, and they are stuck there where they are limited on what they can do to fight back. Once the killmails are posted they come to this forum and create a thread about how falcons and/or ECM is overpowered. This is a few people with a loud voice getting what they want.
ECM has allowed freighters, transport ships and industrial to get into low sec. These proposed changes put a pit in my stomach. Please CCP keep the rest of the people who play Eve into consideration before you make these changes.
100% nail on the head! dont want to break from their uber build or bring a few buddies along....so whaaa whaaa! change it.
|
BIg Loader
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 02:13:00 -
[359]
Looks interesting, Falc needs a slot ajustment and a serrious grid bump, but the 25% bonus looks like its promoting the use of Multi's over ratial's. Looks like it will need recon 5 like every other recon to be good. It needs changing so that through the combination of guns and drones it can do 250DPS with all level 5 skills (so roughly 220DPS with good skills). So imo (with what i think the slots should be):
Ideal Solo Setup. Highs, 4 slots 3 launchers, 3 guns. 3 Heavy assault, Cloak. Med, 7Med, suggested fitting, Large shield extender, Point, Web, Microwarp Drive, 3xMulti Jammers. Low, 2 slots, 2 BCS Rigs, 2 rig slots, for the brave, jam strength, or launcher rigs, for the not so brave, shield rigs.
Gang setup: Highs, 4 slots 3 launchers, 3 guns. 3 Heavy launchers, Cloak. Med, 7Med, 6 Jammers, 1 LSE. Low, 2 slots, 2 SDA (for range) Rigs, 2 rig slots, 2 Jam range rigs.
52K jam range without the rigs so what another couple of K on there.
Id use it, will take some skill, espcially for getting warpins but you will have to be warping in and out of the fight. People complain about targeting delay, but serriously uncloak as your coming out of warp, and if somthing is too close, recloak and warp. With the aji boost, it should be fine, or fit an istab, or low friction nozel joint rigs for lolz.
Rigs will change on the setups depending on how the stacking works out, see if there worth it or not.
Pilgrim + falcon combo will own. Could take down 3 Battleships no problem on their own.
But to balance, Pilgrim needs either a increase to the bonus of tracking disuptors, or Cap warefare bonus, Arazu needs its damp strength bonus inceasing, Rapier should drop the target painter bonus and change to Web range and 5% to web effectivenes.
Target paining is useless on a cruiser size EW boat, they dont have issuies hitting normal frigs, and inties are dead anyway (web lol). Torp raven, hell yes, cruiser just no. Anyway after the speed nerf, warrior II's are all you need.
|
Namaraa
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 02:18:00 -
[360]
Falcon as a brawler? LOL
CCP always caters to whiners.
|
|
Lili Lu
Purveyors of Uber Research Valuables and Ships
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 02:18:00 -
[361]
TOOK YOU LONG ENOUGH CCP. I think you're balancing them wrong, but I can't help by starting with Merin Ryskin at post 162 "The ONLY defense you have against getting insta-popped is to be out of range of every single un-jammed hostile ship on the grid." TOTAL LOLZORS This is indicative of the problem. However, it is not just the range.
You see, the ability to prevent locking anything whatsoever is such a strong ew. To jam 1-4 enemy ships leaves them entirely disabled, no repping a buddy close by, no drones on the close orbitting tackler, simply welcome to thumb up ass land suckers. The incredible effect of ecm and combined with the incredible range that Caldari Recon flyers have enjoyed has given them no incentive and experience putting a tank on their ships, like every other recon must. You see Caldari recon fliers, take any other recon and put no tank on it and it too is made of paper: Exhibit 1) Do we see Curses and Pilgrims with every high slot sporting a neut and every mid slot a tracking disrupter? One can put a neut in every high, then you realize you yourself quickly cap out before the 1-4 ships you are trying to neut are all capped out and out of cap charges. No experienced Curse pilot tries to run 4 neuts. Tracking disrupters in every mid? Well then no MWD, no cap injector, for some no sensor booster and no LSE, and very quickly no Curse. You see a Curse and even less a lol Pilgrim cannot operate "OUT OF RANGE OF EVERY SINGLE UN-NEUTED HOSTILE SHIP ON GRID." And oh yeah, there are ships largely immune to neuting (passive shield tankers) and ships immune to tracking disrupters (any ship with launchers or a drone bay). However, I have yet to run accross a ship immune to ecm (ok some may say what about a disco BS, however, big range issue with that disingenuous argument )
Exhibit 2) Arazu and Lachesis with all damps? Yeah it can be done, except once again you need a mwd to get into range and oh hey look at that it's other "ew" bonus competes for the same slots. Also, why do these ships have such cap issues? So you might want a cap injector. Welp, there goes the all damp idea. Not to mention, a whopping 5% bonus on the damp strength only (no range bonus), which has been nerfed into oblivion. Oh but they work 100% of the time . . as long as you are within the short optimal . But CCP this ship must must do it's thing "OUT OF RANGE OF EVERY SINGLE UN-DAMPED HOSTILE SHIP ON GRID."
Exhibit 3) Rapier and Huginn with all webs and painters? Again, it could be done, but um yeah, painters really disable anything OMG IT"S ON GRID AND IN RANGE!111111! And, wow, range bonus on webs nice but now only 60% web strength . Also, be careful using those 2 or 3 40k webs on your single target because you have to get into 24k warp disrupter range anyway otherwise congrats on helping the enemy get into warp faster (enemy bubbled go ahead, but yeesh, don't get it wrong or you will have everyone very ****ed off at you).
So, welcome to the suck Caldari recon pilots. It's been a long time coming. Putting up with your disengenuous anti-nerf arguments has been very trying. After I've had a while to digest the proposed changes, which I will agree are not well thought out (surprise there after the nos nerf, the damp nerf, and the web nerf ) I will try to post some constructive criticism to try to save your sorry asses from the CCP 10-ton nerf bat. But, for now I will savor the horror on your up til now smug faces.
|
Namaraa
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 02:20:00 -
[362]
Falcon as a brawler? LOL
CCP always caters to whiners.
|
Liang Nuren
No Salvation Blackguard Coalition
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 02:32:00 -
[363]
Hey, I've got alot of corp mates that are ****ed about this change... and mostly they're ****ed because they just finished training up Caldari BS5/Recon5 etc and did their attribute remap to do something different. Now they need to train something that's 'going to be useful in combat'.
What do you say to having another attribute remap when this goes live?
-Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org |
EgoMan
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 02:33:00 -
[364]
Well, while the nerf bat is out.....lets talk about all those gallente and amarr ships that are over powered. I mean how many caldari ships can fit 7 to 8 highs with damage mods that rock, fill the bottom with an awsome tank that can remote rep in a spider gang and still have mid slots to spare for all the MWD and tackling anyone could hope for? HMM...cant do anything of the sort with a caldari ship so lets nerf all the ones that can. Its not fair to take away the only thing caldaari has just so a bunch of RR megas and geddons can fly around un checked. CCP needs to do something because caldari is completely screwed.
|
Mark iT
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 02:37:00 -
[365]
Originally by: Liang Nuren What do you say to having another attribute remap when this goes live?
Although I do not want this to go live, changing the rules in the middle of the game - you should allow the players to adjust their strategy.
Spider tanking BS gangs and logistics will be unbreakable. GRAWWW YARRR!!!
|
Hilda B9
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 02:42:00 -
[366]
WTS failcon pilot will trade for curse pilot until that gets nerfed then will trade for palidin on pvp server lvl 70 or what ever max on that s*** game is.
starting bid 5 bill buyout 6bill skill outlook recons 5 sig distortion 5 10 days out form battle ship 5
|
Morthis Rygal
Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 02:45:00 -
[367]
I suppose there are 2 issues to look at with ECM.
- Their effectiveness
- The ability for ECM ships to mostly stay out of harm's way (especially the falcon)
Effectiveness
In terms of ECM effectiveness, if this is an issue, I still think the easiest solution to counter it would be to make ECCM mods provide a secondary bonus, so that they're not just a wasted slot when not going up against ECM. Possibly make it scripted, so that the player can run a script for the secondary bonus when there is no ECM, or script for sensor strength when there is ECM. Also boost low ECCM's some to make them more viable for ships that need their mids.
Another option for effectiveness would be that jammed targets have their offensive systems shut down (anything that affects another ship) rather than losing lock. Currently, if you are jamming a battleship, a jammed/failed/jammed cycle is almost as good as jammed/jammed/jammed cycle simply because of lock times.
Range
As for the falcon's ability to stay out of harm's way. Well that's a tough one. Really, not getting hit is the only defense it has, as pretty much anything will quickly destroy it if it can actually engage it. There's no real easy solution here, if you force it in range, it'll just get popped, if you allow it to stay out of range, you have the current situation.
I don't think the proposed solution is much of a solution at all. In terms of PvP, there's typically only 2 ranges at which people engage, close range (meaning everybody is in disruptor/etc range, primarily the case in small scale engagements), and sniping in fleet ops. By reducing range of ECM to what is proposed, ECM is gone from fleet ops entirely.
If these changes really have to go through in a way similar to what is currently proposed, consider not reversing the optimal/falloff, and simply removing the range bonus from the falcon and rook, while leaving it on the scorpion (for the rook, give the missile speed bonus instead, not sure for falcon).
Here's my reasoning behind this.
Falcon: With the changes, it's optimal ECM range would only just be over 100km rigged. This is the range at which sniper HACs typically engage, which seems like a very good match considering they are both cruiser size ships. The falcon would also be very vulnerable to eagles, who will easily be able to hit it even at max ECM range. This also means that during close range fights, a fast ship can easily burn towards the falcon to try and catch it.
Rook: It can attack and jam at the same ~100km range. This allows it to engage targets when part of sniper HAC gangs and such (yeah I know missiles are inferior, I suppose an alternative would be gun bonuses, but they'd struggle to hit that kind of range without sacrificing valuable ECM slots).
Scorpion: Unchanged, it would have about 160km ECM optimal unrigged. With 1 rig, it would be at 192km, perfect for sniper BS gangs, still leaving 2 rig slots for trimarks, and with 4 lows it makes a decent armor tank. While it can still jam at long range, it is in sniper BS range and easily primaried. There shouldn't be as much concern for a 3xECM range rigged scorpion doing what the falcon was doing before, considering it takes way longer to align, has no cloak, etc. It simply wouldn't be able to do the kind of things the current falcon can.
With those changes, each of the 3 ships has a specialized role, and is quite killable.
|
Solid Prefekt
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 02:52:00 -
[368]
Considering that 3 of the top 6 ships with the most kills (based on eve-kill.net) are Caldari, it is high time that something is done to curb their dominance of the game. I was beginning to think that everyone in CCP were Caldari and Amarr.
The changes are a little weird, but I like how CCP always thinks outside the box.
|
5pinDizzy
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 02:59:00 -
[369]
Edited by: 5pinDizzy on 25/03/2009 03:05:32
Proposed changes in the OP sound great to me.
It is not a nerf it is a rebalance, as a caldari pilot I can see the good in the changes they are thinking of and am actually quite excited the possibilities that I can see opening.
Originally by: El Mauru I like the changes- especially the rook has become a hell of a lot more attractive with the added drone-bay.
I can see what you are trying to achieve with the falcon (quick to get-in/jam/get-out), but imho it would be served better with a sig radius reduction.
all in all a general thumbs-up
2nded, nothing like being Caldari have actually having a point in having drone skills.
if you disagree with me then you should probably post a response and stop reading my signature. |
Thercon Jair
Minmatar InQuest Ascension Skunk-Works
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 03:05:00 -
[370]
@ the people complaining about the falcon becoming a short-range brawler:
So, 54km base + 50% range from the "Long Distance Jamming"-skill @ lvl5 means you get 81km optimal. Oh my! Now you're so up close and personal, it's scary.
A Rapier has not more tank than a falcon, and the range on the webs is with 40km also only half the range of the "new" jammers. Additionally, painters have quite a short optimal range.
I'd say this is pretty much ballanced. Real men do it the hard way: fly Minmatar! |
|
Alexander Knott
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 03:06:00 -
[371]
So one thing about these changes that strikes me is that they force a complete change in play style for the affected ships. That's not necessarily fatal -- people can adjust after all -- but presumably people trained for these ships because they enjoyed the current play style offered by these hulls.
It also does seem on the face of things that these are quite sweeping changes that invalidate people's past training choices. For example, people who've been specializing in fleet Scorpions (the primary form of this ship afaik) have had their weapon of choice completely neutered. Falcons, once a hyper-specialized ECM ship, are becoming 'brawlers' with less jam strength (hull bonuses don't cover the loss of SDAs), no tank, no DPS -- still hyper-specialized I suppose, just without the benefits that usually implies.
So yeah, I'm not sure why the response here was completely change around the way these ships worked when tweaks to the strength and range bonuses probably would've gotten the job done.
when relatively minor tweaks to range and strength bonuses might do
|
Jarod Leercap
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 03:07:00 -
[372]
Originally by: Adam C But sure I wouldn't want 00's of falcons in everygang that is the only thing that could to be balanced. Increase the expense of them is the only thing I can suggest.
I think that's a distinction without a difference. If the Falcon (or ECM in general) is being used predominantly, it needs a look.
While I tend to agree that ECM is a bit too strong at the moment, I don't think e-war can be internally balanced by looking at it in isolation. That said, I do like some elements in what CCP proposed:
1) Have on recon geared for long range support and the other geared for short range support/solo ganking.
2) Make the recon with the covert ops geared for solo ganking.
That said, I think e-war needs a more general review, and I'd recommend making E-war abilities complementary. I'd start with ECM and damping.
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.
The idea would be that the Rooks would be able to break locks (with ping), but couldn't do anything to delay re-locking (for lack of drone). The Lachesis would be able to dramatically increase the lock time (by increasing signature resolution), but couldn't break the active locks (for lack of ability to affect targeting range). Hence, the best way to cut down enemy effectiveness would be to use the two together.
Ideally, similar mechanics could be established for the turret disruption and target painting, but I don't have any suggestions there at this point.
As an addendum, I'm unsure as to what should be done with the Scorpion. I rather like the idea of an e-war battleship, and I can see the it needing the range of sniping battleships to do its job. However, it seems to have unique appeal among the Tier 1 battleships as far as large fleet duty is concerned. If the Scorpion is kept in the fleet role (which appeals both in general and because it fits the faction that created it), then it will probably need some more variability in its fitting. To fit full-bore ECM, it should have to operate inside of sniper range. It should be able to operate closer to the far end of sniper range, but only by giving up some of its ECM (off the cuff I'd say 35 to 50%, but I don't really know what that equation should be).
|
Morthis Rygal
Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 03:12:00 -
[373]
Edited by: Morthis Rygal on 25/03/2009 03:12:27
Originally by: Thercon Jair @ the people complaining about the falcon becoming a short-range brawler:
So, 54km base + 50% range from the "Long Distance Jamming"-skill @ lvl5 means you get 81km optimal. Oh my! Now you're so up close and personal, it's scary.
A Rapier has not more tank than a falcon, and the range on the webs is with 40km also only half the range of the "new" jammers. Additionally, painters have quite a short optimal range.
I'd say this is pretty much ballanced.
Actually that 54km is with skills and mods.
|
Cletus Graeme
Caldari Duty.
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 03:16:00 -
[374]
Originally by: Thercon Jair
A Rapier has not more tank than a falcon, and the range on the webs is with 40km also only half the range of the "new" jammers. Additionally, painters have quite a short optimal range.I'd say this is pretty much ballanced.
The Rapier is NOTHING like the Falcon although it's tru they both getting primaried a lot - the same way that ANY Force Recon does - cos they have weak tanks but provide good e-war,
Rapier has multiple offensive capabilities: (1) Guns with a Damage bonus (2) Drones (3) E-war which is designed to increase the damage to the target
Falcon's have unbonused missiles (i.e. totally crap DPS) and ECM which is a defensive capability.
Rapiers (like most Matari ships) are designed to tackle well which requires you get in close.
ECM ships are designed to prevent damage and range is a very good way to avoid taking damage.
If CCP want to make ECM ships more effective at close range then they definitely need a significant defensive boost to compensate for giving up the safety provided by their long range advantage - especially if they intend to nerf ECM itself at the same time.
|
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar OVERLOAD. Dead Terrorists
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 03:18:00 -
[375]
Dont know if close-range brawl and ecm really does mix that well.
Its a nice idea and all, but if the ecm strength isnt low enough to allow cruiser / BC sized vessels a chance for unjammed cycles (which is making the ecm rather weak for actually being worth to bring), thats going to cause lots of grief
|
Vina
Caldari Destructive Influence Band of Brothers Reloaded
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 03:22:00 -
[376]
give widow 25% ecm strength bonus thx. -----------------------------------
|
Mara Rinn
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 03:26:00 -
[377]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis We have been looking again at ECM ships focusing on their roles and whether these ships can be improved overall to better define their roles a little more. With that in mind, we want to share some of our thoughts and gather constructive feedback and suggestions of your own.
First, you posted this 7 days early.
Second, Falcon as the "brawler", Rook as the ranged attacker? Hrm, someone has things arse-about.
The Falcon should be the featherweight specialist ECM ship, standing out at range - all you need to do is reduce optimal, increase falloff, bring the maximum possible range to inside 200km and you've solved the Falcon "problem" (where "problem" is "there's a combatant I can't shoot).
Rook should be the "brawler" - give it the drone bay and missile bonuses.
If the Scorpion is really intended to be a frontline ship, it needs more tank ie: more midslots or shield resist bonuses - it's a Caldari ship therefore should focus on shield tanking.
Then having made a few small changes (ECM max range, ECM optimal, ECM falloff, Rook dronebay, Rook resist bonuses, Scorpion shield resist bonus), see how that pans out over three months. The sledgehammer approach will just cause more stuff to break.
As for ECCM - one option is to move sensor strength to another script that can be loaded into sensor boosters. That way folks can carry scripts with them to increase sensor strength when facing jammers, and won't have to fit their ship specifically to counter one attack type. You've also read the suggestion about turning ECM from a jamming to a lock-breaking mechanic (ie: behaves more like a turret, less like a warp scrambler). Using this mechanic, you'd never be able to be permajammed as long as your lock time was low enough - meaning that we can fight jamming by using sensor boosters (resolution scripts), and do away with ECCM altogether.
Little changes, like you're putting on a golf green, not demolishing a building. And don't get your ship roles confused - Falcon is for distance jamming (a specialist role), Rook is for strong jamming at "short" range, Scorpion is a jamming platform that can tank a DD.
I agree that the ECM ships should get innate bonuses to ECM strength. Move the ECM strength to a ship bonus, allowing the low slots to be used for something else (eg: ballistic controls for the Rook and Scorpion). Perhaps morph SDAs to provide a range bonus to all non-weapon ranged offensive modules (painters, webifiers, scramblers, tracking disruptors, target dampeners, ECM) - so folks flying long-range falcons today will still be flying long-range falcons tomorrow, and in the meantime the other combat/force recon ships get some love too.
Transforming ECM to become a high-slot item could also address some issues - Caldari ships are mostly shield tankers, while the Blackbird, Rook and Falcon use the shield tanking slots for their primary weapon system.
But again, please try to focus on rebalancing the game using small changes, starting with simply reducing optimal and increasing falloff on ECM modules with the aim of reducing the Falcon effective range to 200km from its current 240-odd, and removing the possibility of "permajamming" people at these extreme ranges - since that's what every honor-tanking git on the forums is complaining about.
Before you start swinging the nerf-bat though, make sure you have some idea of what the problem is that you're trying to solve. Range, SDA, ship bonuses - these are three separate issues to be tackled in three separate patches. Then there are skill bonuses and ECM counters to look at.
|
V8i Theo
Caldari Evolution Band of Brothers Reloaded
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 03:29:00 -
[378]
I trained long and hard to fly a falcon well. Then CCP dumb it down causing said pilot to say "Oh My..now I must go train another race to fly". Then said pilot writes another couple months subscription fee to pay for the training of the "new" ship he must train in order to stay combat effective. I remain convinced that some bean counter at CCP runs a report to see who has trained long and hard to fly a particular ship well and then changes its effectiveness so all the training has to be done over in another race.
This is getting to be pretty old. I trained missiles up...they got nuked....I trained up falcons..they are about to be nuked...
And in the end..its all about the subscription fee. You guys are starting to bore me.
|
Han LaoTsu
Free Collective Sons of Tangra
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 03:34:00 -
[379]
Yes I am a Falcon pilot but I am only sort of upset by this, mostly because I was expecting it.
I don't have time to read this threadnought so sorry if these thoughts were already posted.
The primary problem with moving the falcon closer to the fight is very simple-the ship is paper thin. If there are more enemies then jammers and they can target you you are quite dead. Sure an agility bonus will help you warp a little better, but by the time you warp in and start aligning you'll hardly be able to jam anyone before you get targeted. A low slot tank isn't really practical if you need 2 slots for SDA's just to get 52km optimal. If you shield tank then you are taking away from what you are supposed to do, jam. A standard falcon fit for the mids is mwd, sb, and 5 jammers. As a side note, 5 jammers might seem like a lot but believe it or not a falcon doesn't wtfpwn permajam everything on the battlefield all the time. Now of course you can drop that sensor booster now but a one slot shield tank isn't worth much.
SUGGESTION: Make ecm a high slot module. Change the slot layouts of the falcon, say 6 high, 4 mid, and 3 low, or something like that. That allows the falcon to fit a basic tank and still do the one and only job it was designed for.
|
EgoMan
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 03:38:00 -
[380]
Edited by: EgoMan on 25/03/2009 03:39:25 alexander knott- "So one thing about these changes that strikes me is that they force a complete change in play style for the affected ships. That's not necessarily fatal -- people can adjust after all -- but presumably people trained for these ships because they enjoyed the current play style offered by these hulls." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wait...thats the whole reason they are nerfing...because people COULDNT adapt or wouldnt. Why should people have adapt to apease players that arent smart enough and dont have the initiative to try harder or apply strategy? If ecm pilots are expected to adapt then the cry babies should have adapted in the first place and there would have been no discussion on this.
|
|
Steel Rat
Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 03:43:00 -
[381]
How about you fix ewar first, like a decent counter to it, before you go swinging the nerfbat at the ships. Far as I am concerned, going back to the way ewar used to be, were ewar ships had to work together to jam a target was a far better system than the current lock and win system we have today.
|
GateScout
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 03:45:00 -
[382]
Originally by: Han LaoTsu
Make ecm a high slot module.
That's actually really interesting.... Neat idea.
If we're going to bring the falcon into the range (literally) of the other recons (which is fine), please give it a bit more speed and agility.
|
Andrea Skye
Caldari The Carebear Stare
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 03:45:00 -
[383]
And this kids, concludes todays lesson on why you should never train up FOTM ships/modules, but rather instead train what you enjoy flying. |
Ris Dnalor
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 03:46:00 -
[384]
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.
this. really. Or maybe this means you're going to give it a different bonus?
|
Ab Initio
Evolution Band of Brothers Reloaded
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 04:08:00 -
[385]
I have no intention of reiterating what more articulate people have already stated. I do however want to add my name to the list of people who think that this approach is a completely ass about way of fixing a problem that most of us agree did need fixing.
|
Diaz Kerensky
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 04:16:00 -
[386]
All this E-War being ****d makes me a sad panda. Fortunately I have some skillpoints in the tank&spank tabs, as Eve could be entirely summed up to this soon..
Farewell dear Recons, it was a honor flying with you o7
______________________________________________________________
I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes. |
Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express Burning Horizons
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 04:17:00 -
[387]
SDAs will be mandatory whether they are ranger or power. I don't know what you guys are thinking there. It is the only ecm powerup and thus will be pretty much on any ecm ship.
Scorpion doesn't really have the tank to be a close up fighter. Giving it that tank in addition to RoF and ECM bonuses will make it to powerful. It would be better as a sniper. Large Hybrid RoF bonus.
The range thing might work. I'd have to see it on test first and play with it some, the swapping out of the optimal and falloff could be all that is really needed for balance. Try not to over think the problem.
I'd have to play with the Falcon and Rook to see if this would be to much. You could fix the falcon with just the range swap you suggested. I think like the speed changes which messed up cruise missiles for stealth bombers you are overthinking this and there will be unintended consequences down the road.
Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts.
Your signature is too large. Please resize it to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Mitnal |
Khaelis
Caldari Daikoku Enterprises Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 04:25:00 -
[388]
As I falcon pilot, i'll agree that the falcon does need a nerf. Though i'm not really sure about this change..
But my words are not going to change this and there is enough whining and moaning in here. I just want to request that you switch the Rook and the Falcon around. The Rook should be up close.
|
DevilDogUSMC
Caldari V.O.F.L IRON CORE H E L I C O N
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 04:44:00 -
[389]
Hey CCP.. Been playing nearly 6 years. I love the game. Love all the types of changes out there that you have made over the years.
Just wanted to say these recon ships do a great job... Take for example. Recon ships well they recon... Collect information. they do all kinds of things to make sure people have the right information and can react and get out of the situation. BRAWLING isnt in any of the the descriptions I have seen for this word. "re⋅con⋅nais⋅sance"
Already this paper airplane of a ship like a falcon gets locked up and shot up and within a few seconds blown away already. This Idea must be looked at differently in order to be accepted by the community. You have us all these skills to boost what was already a horrible set. Then you changed the other stats on other ships.. NOW you nerf what you had to make better to begin with. After this nerf there will be another and another.
Please tell me when the nerf gun fest will stop. really. well lets increase range or put out mods to help counter. but by only changing ships nerfing mods that are already at a disadvantage just leads to more nerfing. but dont nerf this then nerf something else to balance what you ALREADY nerf'd
Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reconnaissance re⋅con⋅nais⋅sance /rɪˈkɒnəsəns, -zəns/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ri-kon-uh-suhns, -zuhns] ûnoun 1. the act of reconnoitering. 2. Military. a search made for useful military information in the field, esp. by examining the ground. 3. Surveying, Civil Engineering. a general examination or survey of a region, usually followed by a detailed survey. 4. Geology. an examination or survey of the general geological characteristics of a region.
|
glas mir
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 04:49:00 -
[390]
I personally find falcon's balanced in engagements. They add a strategic element. You must commit members of your team to fighting them. There are many ways to do this.
To all the hater's saying they destroy solo pvp. They probably do, but eve isn't a solo game. A tag team with a falcon is a very dangerous gang and its only 2 people.
If anything nerf ecm strength not range.
|
|
Solid Prefekt
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 04:53:00 -
[391]
Edited by: Solid Prefekt on 25/03/2009 04:53:45
Originally by: Andrea Skye And this kids, concludes todays lesson on why you should never train up FOTM ships/modules, but rather instead train what you enjoy flying.
QFT.
|
Vanst Keal
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 04:54:00 -
[392]
Okay. In the order they were posted, I'll do what I can to disabuse you of these crazy ideas.
- ECM Range:
- Base module range shouldn't be changed. It's in line with the other EWAR types (for whatever that's worth), and for that matter it makes sense. If you want to nerf ECM range, reduce the ship bonuses on a case-by-case basis.
- Signal Distortion Amplifiers:
- Allow me to quote you:
Quote: The SDAs are something of a conundrum. They are really only worth fitting on the ECM specialised ships and are the only EWAR enhancing module we have besides the rigs. Currently they increase your ECM strength and we were looking at swapping this to an ECM range bonus and altering either the base strength of the jammers or the ECM strength bonus of the ships so they become less required in every setup and the low slots could be used for tanking for example.
Allow me to quote the relevant portion of this paragraph: Quote: They are really only worth fitting on the ECM specialised ships and are the only EWAR enhancing module we have besides the rigs.
This can be fixed by changing SDAs so they provide bonuses to every form of EWAR, be it a strength bonus or a range bonus. I understand wanting to make them less required, but the truth of the matter is that as long as they exist to provide any sort of bonus, they're going to be used in dedicated fittings. Making SDAs give a bonus to every form of electronic warfare would make every form of EWAR more useful across the board - Something I think is desperately needed for sensor dampeners and tracking disruptors, given how hard they got hit by scripting. But that's another thread.
- Ship Changes:
- While I appreciate that the development team has an idea of where you want to go with this ECM change, I don't like it. Lots of ECM users don't like it, for that matter. Why? Let me move on to the proposed ship changes, with the understanding that I don't fly and never have flown any recon ships.
- Falcon:
- This is where your "ECM Brawler" idea falls on its face. The Falcon may as well be made out of construction paper for how much damage it can take out of the box, and can't fit any tank if the pilot wants to be anywhere near effective as an ECM platform. Why is this? Well, it's a Caldari ship, and unless something changed in the last five minutes Caldari ships shield tank if they need to withstand damage. Shield modules require the use of midslots, as do ECM modules. Since ECM is arguably more useful than withstanding damage, it wins out over personal safety. So instead the Falcon range tanks, which is where you use extreme range to keep yourself from exploding, instead of excessive speed, shield durability, or armor durability. Your concept of an ECM brawler is further compounded by the Falcon's horribly anemic DPS. Comparing it to the Pilgrim is absolute madness given the Pilgrim's drone damage bonus, ability to shut down any active tank with energy neutralizers, and the fact that the Pilgrim is rarely used currently due to its short range, high cost, and barely-there tanking ability.
- Rook:
- If you want an ECM brawler, start here. The Rook is more durable and capable of doing more damage than the Falcon. Plus it can't fit covops cloaks, so it's cheaper to lose if you get shot at too much.
- Scorpion:
- NO. BAD CCP. NO BISCUIT. If you absolutely must change the Scorpion, reduce its range bonus until its ECM optimal matches the gun optimals of T2-fit fleet battleships like the Apocalypse, Megathron, and Tempest. See all those words about the Falcon? Apply them to the Scorpion now. It has the same issues regarding shield tanking vs ECM effectiveness, if somewhat reduced by being a BS.
But I bet the goonrush in here probably means this will all go in as-is, regardless of all the screaming. Oh well.
|
Roemy Schneider
BINFORD
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 04:57:00 -
[393]
the falcon looks ok this way.
are those optimal/falloff stats taken from the multispec or the racial ones? cause racials already start at 54km plus the 5%/lvl EW-extra-skill - putting the gist back into logistics |
TZeer
BURN EDEN
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 05:00:00 -
[394]
Quote: We have been looking at all the ECM ships (Griffin, Kitsune, Blackbird, Falcon, Rook and Scorpion).
Where is the Widow in all this????
|
Samiloth Justinian
Evolution Band of Brothers Reloaded
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 05:08:00 -
[395]
Falcons are to become short ranged brawlers!? Will they brawl with 2 missile slots and use its 3 low slots for armor tank? Is that the plan?
And what is this “additional utility” you have in mind for the rook when it gets a drone bay and increased range? Have not the Caldari ship builders figured out by now that sniper ships and drones don’t go well together.
But forget about the rook, and I will not even begin commenting on the scorpion idea, let’s talk about the falcon.
The reason why falcons are high on the primary list is not because they can fight from a distance, it is because they have powerful ECM. To give them stronger ECM and short range will only ensure that they are primaried, and with the only tanking it is suitable for (range) gone, they will not be able to do much in fleet battles before dying.
That for example cruise missiles became a weapon made to be used against ships that need to be larger then a BS to have full effect was amazing enough. To make paper-thin ECM ships short ranged ships is just unbelievable. I have yet to be in a fleet fight where I am safe in a falcon. Every ship with range are out to get the falcons, making them spend more then a little of their time fleeing and returning from the fight.
Originally by: CCP Chronotis We have been looking again at ECM ships focusing on their roles and whether these ships can be improved overall to better define their roles a little more.
So you want to “define” their role by making falcons short ranged brawlers? Right now they are very specialized and it is pretty clear what a falcon should do, stepping outside the thing that makes them good (range and ECM) means that they die quickly. To make them more like other ships (short ranged brawlers O_O) is not defining their role, it is an attempt to mainstream the ship.
If you have this weird urge to bring the falcons into weapon range of every single ship that wants to kill it in a fleet fight, then you need to give it the means to survive it long enough to have a chance to escape. Great speed, resist & rep or range is the tanks of Eve. So-So speed, resist & rep or range is no tank in Eve.
Also, this should not be forgotten: A falcon can jam ships and then wait until either someone makes that ship escape/die, or the falcon can flee. It can not actually end a fight by themselves, only prolong it until someone else bails them out. Furthermore, the day other specialized ships gets specialized mods that only works well on one race, then we can start to compare ECM ships to other ships.
Right now the falcon is a nuisance in a fleet fight that everyone wants to get rid off. If you bring the falcon in close then it is not only a nuisance that everyone wants to get rid off, but everyone can actually shoot it as well.
|
Jim Raynor
Caldari Clarity of Purpose
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 05:09:00 -
[396]
if you're going to make caldari ecm useless at least boost caldari offense so there's at least some reason to fly these ships
4 launcher scorpion? no offense, even with bonuses. falcon? paper thin 2 launchers? ok..
i mean i agree that falcons were stupidly overpowered but ecm is about the only reason to fly caldari in pvp these days.
also scorpion as a short range 'brawler' will make it useless..
------ I'll make a sig later. |
demonfurbie
Minmatar Covert-Nexus Dark Cadre
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 05:10:00 -
[397]
Originally by: TZeer
Quote: We have been looking at all the ECM ships (Griffin, Kitsune, Blackbird, Falcon, Rook and Scorpion).
Where is the Widow in all this????
see thats what ccp thinks about black ops
the forgotten ship class
|
OgreMerk
Caldari Ba Da Bing
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 05:19:00 -
[398]
Edited by: OgreMerk on 25/03/2009 05:20:21 These changes don't really seem like a nerf; just a slight re-adjustment. The problem will still be there. Eve is turning into a game of who has the better jamming. As far as I knew there shouldn't be any one thing that is mandatory, the ECM module / jamming ship is though. It doesn't matter if your fighting 1v1, small gang, or big fleet. 90% of the time it just comes down to jamming strength. This also makes small scale PVP loose its appeal. As gangs add falcons and falcon killers to counter the enemy. The fleets just get bigger and bigger.
In my opinion, ECM should have the same ranges as webbers, neuts, and disruptors. A falcon is just as fragile as any other recon, so they can be right there next to us. Another problem I see is that currently, a falcon can permanently jam. The only way this should happen is when there's sensor dampening in conjunction with the jamming.
Its gonna be a tricky thing to nerf the ECM, without just completely removing it. No other module in game has the ability to render any target completely useless.
I guess some possible changes could be:
- Only 1 jamming module per ship. Jamming type changed with scripts.
Shorten the range to match other ewar. Shorten the actual time a target is jammed, but leave the module cycle time the same. Lower strength and range of ECM modules; add strength/range scripts like other EWAR Mods.
I'm sure I'll think of some other crazy ideas later
|
Havok Pierce
Gallente The Bastards
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 05:19:00 -
[399]
When are Remote Sensor Dampeners and their associated ships getting a look? Currently the Gallente EAF is basically another tacking interceptor hull with more paper and less speed. The Lachesis is a long-long point with a pathetic attempt to do damage, and the Arazu is a cloaking tackler.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler There's a Community petition category??
|
Roemy Schneider
BINFORD
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 05:22:00 -
[400]
Originally by: Havok Pierce When are Remote Sensor Dampeners and their associated ships getting a look? Currently the Gallente EAF is basically another tacking interceptor hull with more paper and less speed. The Lachesis is a long-long point with a pathetic attempt to do damage, and the Arazu is a cloaking tackler.
well, now you'll be able to damp'en falcons.. still in deep falloff but hey... but yeah, all those other EW could do with more optimal. willing to sacrifice some falloff for that - putting the gist back into logistics |
|
Matrixcvd
Caldari Rionnag Alba Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 05:24:00 -
[401]
Edited by: Matrixcvd on 25/03/2009 05:24:34 CCP Chronotis, have you ever PVPed? and more importantly have you ever FC'd? Do you understand fleet combat? Do you understand this game at all? Let us dissect your gibberish
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Generally the ECM optimal range is a little too long with massive optimal ranges possible which would place the ECM specialised ships so far out of the fight to be almost completely safe but suffer no effective hit quality decrease.
so are you going to adjust ranges on sniper BSs because 1 volley from an unjammed sniper is all that it takes to permanently remove a falcon from the field
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
To bring them closer to the fight we are looking at swapping the base optimal and falloff ranges so at the longer ranges jammers would be operating more in falloff and hence have a lower chance of 'hitting' with their jammers at the extreme ranges.
YOu mean to make them easier to kill for noobs that get caught off guard and wtfpwn'd and cried on the forum for 2 years. Thats really what we have found out. It takes 2 years of forum whining before you finally cave in.
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
We have been looking at all the ECM ships (Griffin, Kitsune, Blackbird, Falcon, Rook and Scorpion). We wanted to ensure each ship had a more focused role which was not just bigger, longer range and better than the others so only one wins outright.
Everytime you "focus" a ship into a given roll, it means you reduce its capabilities to the point where nobody wants to fly it. There already clear distinctions between ships, its called ISK and SP and finally experience. Because without the experience you will just lose isk and prolly sp cause you get podded alot. THe scorp is bigger than the falcon, so size really has nothing to do with it so this statement is just pish
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
The falcon has been changed to be similar to the pilgrim in its role as a ECM brawler at shorter ranges.
"Carriers are the Swiss Army of Eve" I never thought i would hear a better line but "ECM Brawler" has now improved upon stupid dev poasts...R U SERIOUS? what does that even mean?
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
It has a bigger ECM strength bonus whilst losing its ECM optimal range bonus. In addition its agility and base velocity and have been increased to allow it to be more manoeuvrable at shorter ranges. BONUSES: BLAH STUPID
so this just makes a cloaking ship warp faster. Changing the optimal range bonus so the ship turns better is just a cover for making the game easier for noobs and allowing people to disengage quicker, making this game more hello kitty
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. BONUSES: BLAH STUPID
so you took the force recon concept and mashed it into the combat recon role and voila we are suppose to fly your fail ships
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
We are looking at putting the scorpion into the short range brawler role. To that end we are looking at removing its ECM Optimal range bonus, increasing the ECM strength bonus a little and adding a cruise/siege launcher rate of fire bonus so it can get close and personal. BONUSES: BLAH STUPID
SO GIVE THE SHIP AN INCREASED ARMOR BUFF, AN EXTRA LOW SLOT AND MAKE IT A BETTER ARMOR TANK SO IT CAN ACTUALLY BRAWL AT CLOSE RANGE. ARE YOU COMPLETELY BLIND TO HOW THIS GAME WORKS. WHO CARES ABOUT A ROF INCREASE FOR AN EXTRA 78 DPS YOU EFT WARRIOR.
|
sylvester stallowned
Trotters Independent Trading
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 05:28:00 -
[402]
Edited by: sylvester stallowned on 25/03/2009 05:29:58
Originally by: Thercon Jair @ the people complaining about the falcon becoming a short-range brawler:
So, 54km base + 50% range from the "Long Distance Jamming"-skill @ lvl5 means you get 81km optimal. Oh my! Now you're so up close and personal, it's scary.
A Rapier has not more tank than a falcon, and the range on the webs is with 40km also only half the range of the "new" jammers. Additionally, painters have quite a short optimal range.
I'd say this is pretty much ballanced.
THIS!
80k optimal + faloff is way to much IMO, falcons should have to fight at the same ranges as all the other races recons, ie 40km or less. Make it 40k optimal with 20k Faloff pls.
Imagine a rapier / arazu / pilgrim that can web / point / neut at over 100k.. Overpowered right?
All these whines and cries about falcons having to fight up close are so funny, well they still won't have to fight as at close range as ANY other covert-recon, and will have the same EHP as a rapier.
Ever seen a rapier fitted with NO shield extenders or no Armor buffer (instead of the LSE for Armor gangs)... No, why? Because without them they are a wet paper bag without the proper fittings just like the falcon.
|
Matrixcvd
Caldari Rionnag Alba Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 05:33:00 -
[403]
those are just the blatantly ridiculous statements in your poast... after further analysis. you clearly don't FC, don't play the game and or utterly fail and need to blob to do anything.
Falcon, warps cloaked, jams at 220km with RECON V, max jam strength is 13. it does no damage.
You could just slightly lower the the optimal but you feel the need to reinvent the game under the guise of making it more fair but your real goal is to limit the effectiveness so that anyone can hop in a BB and be 90% of the way to a falcon and make all the new and low SP people feel happy. make it easier for losers to PVP and the weak to blob up and continue to just suck the life outta this game.
EWAR on a pilgrim is located in its HIGH SLOTS EWAR FOR A FALCON IS IN ITS LOW SLOTS
I could go on and tear your little thesis apart but its useless, enjoy the failure cascade that you are creating for yourselves
its not comparable, now instead of the pilgrim failing, the falcon will be useless... you people just don't get it or you do and my tinfoil hat says you think its better for everyone to be able to fly everything and do everything after 1 month and that training and specializing is not the way....
|
Kernok
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 05:34:00 -
[404]
different approach
i dont think the problem with ecm is jamming strengh but so much but the fact that your useless for 20 seconds, what if the jam time were reduced to something like 5 seconds base, and a range skill changed to instead increase this ammount of time up to maybe 10. less permajamming would = less whining i think. also bring falcon range down only to 150k so they have to deal with sentries and chalk it up to an adjustment to speed required an adjustment to ecm range
i also support the idea of making eccm add a base ammount of sensor strength instead of a % so its more viable on smaller ships.
|
sylvester stallowned
Trotters Independent Trading
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 05:38:00 -
[405]
Edited by: sylvester stallowned on 25/03/2009 05:44:03 To satisfy all the whiners please give the falcon some extra missiles slots and an ROF bonus in line with other recons.
And reduce the effectiveness of ECM in falloff ranges please.
<3 joo Chronotis
|
Kix'i
Warp Asylum.
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 05:38:00 -
[406]
About time! I still think that ecm should do something besides break lock completely, as it is very boring to be jammed. When u are damped u can fly to a closer range. Tracking disrupted; you can try and balance out transersal and get closer. Neuted; you can cap inject and balance out cap using mods.
When you are jammed (even with 2 overloaded eccm with current mechanics) you cannot do much of anything besides deagro or let drones do a very little amount of damage. There are plenty of suggestions for what ecm could do so maybe investigate these on the test server for people to toy with?
Matrixcvd is complaining about fleet combat, I'm not so sure if he is aware of the small gang aspect of ecm just now where a falcon makes a small gang go to spectator mode. This is the main problem with ecm just now, not fleet combat.
That said please make any changes asap as just now the fun of combat is nerfed by ecm.
|
Namaraa
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 05:43:00 -
[407]
CCP: Now that you're nerfing Scorpion range, what exactly are missile Caldari going to fly in fleet battles?
|
Tolarus
Clown Punchers. Clown Punchers Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 05:50:00 -
[408]
Edited by: Tolarus on 25/03/2009 05:53:57 AHAHHAHA on man you guys really know how to make some 'tweaks'. That range reduction is ridiculous.
Alot of pilots dont like any type of ECM being used agaisnt them in combat, so why not just remove ECM from the game all together, cause you know, "that pesky ECM sure does make The PvP difficult".
You guys built the ECM system, those range numbers for the falcon dont look like they were thought through very well Is it over powered now? Yeah alittle, but seriously? At that range as paper thin and fragile as they are you seriously expect them to still be practical?
Beef up the Falcons HPs for shield and armor, make the cost of building them 50% less then they are now and slap a drone bay on it like the Rook.
Been flying them for close to two years now and by no means are they an "I Win" button that some people panic about when they see one on the battlefield.
*Range is an issue, yes, lets tweak that, tweak not knee cap. With max skills, t2 fittings and rigs, its still a challenge flying them as they are now.
|
Leyline777
Surge.
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 05:53:00 -
[409]
Ok... I understand that ecm (the caldari version that is) is very powerful and possibly broken depending on situation. However many players have brought up the issue that distance is the caldari jamming platforms tank... If you want to kill its range a tiny bit or instead reduce its strength go right on ahead and do it... but if you kill its range boni... you will effectively remove it from the hands of pirates. Now; before i get flamed for being a whiny pirate; I understand adapt or die. But this change, skews the usage of these ships inordinately in the favor of anti pi, or even non blinky individuals. If you had instead buffed the other racial ewar id have applauded you. This however.. is yet another misguided change by a ccp that is out of touch with the player base.
If youd give the rook HAC type resistances, more mids and kept the range down id cheer. If you just halved the ecm bonus on the falcon and or messed with its cpu or range id be ok. But now youve effectively brought them into the gate gun range where they cannot mount a gate class tank and still do their job (same applies to scorp).
Please reconsider this unlike you did with the massive empyrean failure... --
My sig doesn't fit and the sig limit is ******ed >>. (yes this is a "jetcan".. get over it) |
Hyneid Fehlhaishyo
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 05:56:00 -
[410]
Edited by: Hyneid Fehlhaishyo on 25/03/2009 05:56:46 This is the worst thought-out and heaviest handed idea I have seen since the last time you "ballanced" most HACs and all Command ships into oblivion. Do you play your own game? A falcon as a "short range brawler"?
Fine, the Falcon is too invulnerable. Try Boosting ECCM effectiveness or eliminating some penalties for fitting one, or try Boosting damps on specialized ships (remember damps? Yeah, you nerfed those away as well) The default answer to all problems in this game is not the F*cking nerf bat.
Edit: Oops. Alt post (Exothermos)
|
|
Killde
Veto. Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 06:08:00 -
[411]
This seems like using a sledgehammer to kill a fly. I really don't think massive wide sweeping changes to a backbone line of Caldari is the best approach to this problem. ECM is certainly a problem, but part of the problem is that there is no effective counter to ECM at the moment. Forcing them into guns range with their paper tanks is not the solution, you shouldn't always have to kill something to counter it.
Instead let's look at other methods. First we see ECCM, by design it should be a counter to ECM. It does a reasonible job as counters go, at least as well as tracking computers overcome tracking disruptors and sensor boosters overcome sensor dampers. However unlike those other counter it has no fringe benefit. There is no advantage to running around with an 80 sensor strength. If you add a fringe benefit to ECCM, people might be more willing to use them, and less likely to be caught with their pants down when ECM does show up.
Other methods are disabling the ECM. ECM is always a good option but it only aggravates the 'too many ecm ships' problem. So how about other options? Damps seems like they'd be a great solution if only they didn't have such a pitiful optimal range/lack of ships with an optimal range bonus. A simple change such as increasing dampers optimal range or giving a ship, such as the arazu or lachesis, a optimal range bonus of 20% per level would make these solid counters to ECM that attempts to jam at extreme range, and yet still allow jammers to come under 80km and jam targets.
|
Unforgivin
Caldari Ichiban Boshi
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 06:11:00 -
[412]
you have boosted the roaming falcon :) i love it, warp to celestial warp back and im instantly in optimal, increased ecm strength, its beautiful :)) you have also made rooks into better falcon neutralizers/killers.
i will be first to admit perma jamming someone from 200km+ always makes me feel guilty, with these nerfs/boosts i might actually lose my first falcon
|
timulous
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 06:12:00 -
[413]
this is a stupid idea i spent 3 to 4 months training my falcon so its the best...
notice all the people that are crying are the none falcon pilots. this ship was built for range just like the manticore. instead destroying a good ship with stupid ideas people need to fly its counter ship. arazu
and there are plenty of people that can one shot a falcon i have seen it done heaps, its not a close up ship you cant out fit a shield tank onto a faclon cos of the jammers. if anything you need modulated jammers not this stupid nerf..
first you hit caldari with a missle nerf and now you want to hit its strongest fleet ship..
ccp you have it wrong
leave the falcon alone!?!?!?!?!
|
Bai Guang
Caldari Edge Of Infinity H E L I C O N
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 06:15:00 -
[414]
I for one am absolutely appalled by the majority of what CCP is proposing. I have read the majority of the comments here and it seems that their are quite a few good ideas to address the ECM "issues". The only problem is trying to filter through the massive amounts of garbage posts of people who have had their pride hurt when a lowly caldari pilot who has spent the better part of a year perfecting their ECM craft (since that's all we are good for since the missile nerf) got a jam cycle on them, preventing them from WTFPWN LAWLSTOWN the poor fella.
I am starting to have my doubts about CCP.... /me flashes back to StarWars Galaxies and the awesome new "Combat Upgrade" *shutter*
Now: Falcon = super expensive paper bag Then: Falcon = wallet draining isk cyclone of doom
Bottom Line: drop optimal range a bit, sure, but dont turn us into pinata's. Direct the nerf warfare at another race for a little while CCP.
|
Holden Thorpe
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 06:22:00 -
[415]
Edited by: Holden Thorpe on 25/03/2009 06:22:10 http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/823/brawlawlor.jpg
Says it all, really. |
Thorian Baalnorn
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 06:32:00 -
[416]
Lets just save the headache and remove caldari ships from the game. They werent exactly great at pvp to begin with. the only thing they really had going for them is ecm and the drake. The rest of caldari ships were ok. Missles got nerfed and all caldari missleboats got a big nerf. Now lets nerf ecm cause people are to lazy to figure out a way to deal with falcons, instead its much easier to cry a river to ccp.
falcons are like... a flying paperbag. As it is they get primaried and will get primaried because of ecm...Making them a short range ship with no tanking ability whatsoever is going to make them a 100 mil isk instaloss.
my favorite part is the can free up lows for tanking...i dont know if you heard but caldari are shield tanks... armor tanking one usually isnt a good idea. and 3 slots isnt going to give you any tank worth filling the slots. with running all active mods in your mids your not going to have the cap to run an armor repper etc. not that the tank matters as your going to be primaried and anything in range is going to hit you.
As it was said i think a fair " nerf" would be to only switch optimal and falloff of jammers.
the real problem is people want to be able to fly whatever ship they want with thier best pvp fit and still be able to fight a fleet with a falcon in it. So they whine so they can have their max gank fit without having to swap out for anti-ecm mods.
i have two words in regards to fighting falcons...ECCM and SNIPER...actually how about you just make eccm mods more effective?
Caldari has had enough nerfs in the past year dont you think?
|
Bazman
Caldari Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 06:35:00 -
[417]
The reply's are everything I could have hoped for
reminder: Change ECM mechanics -----
|
LordVodka
Earned In Blood
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 06:40:00 -
[418]
Looks ok but I think you could do better! I personally have a char with recon 5 to fly falcons and cal bs 5 for scorps etc.
The falcon changes are well deserved!!! The ship was borderline rediculous, and I like how you chose to shorten the range that's all that ever really needed to happen. I think it's also good that the rook now has a purpose again was stupid when the rook and falcon had equal strengths and the falcon had a covert ops cloak.
The scorpion on the other hand I think should be changed!!!!!!!!! The scorpions the best candidate for the ranged sniper ecm. It's big and slow for one so it's easier for people to get tacklers out to, and with cruise missiles it's the natural choice for a sniper. I don't see a ton of people complain about scorp in eve. They are slow enough they typically get locked down at a gate long before they ever got out to range. It's a ship that didn't need a massive change, and I hope you'll consider rethinking that one.
|
Lord WarATron
Amarr Shadow Reapers DAMAGE INC...
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 06:45:00 -
[419]
Leave ECM as it is, but remove that 20 second Jam cycle. All problems with ECm trace back to the long cycle rather than the actual act of lock breaking. --
Billion Isk Mission |
FistFul O'Dumbass
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 06:45:00 -
[420]
I still havent read one, not ONE convincing arguement as to WHY the ECM mechanics or any of the current ships need to be nerfed or changed in any way.
|
|
Lilly Tigress
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 06:47:00 -
[421]
Originally by: Holden Thorpe Edited by: Holden Thorpe on 25/03/2009 06:22:10 http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/823/brawlawlor.jpg
Says it all, really.
you owe me a keyboard, mine is full of coffee the day is already saved
|
Saaya Illirie
Caldari Core Element Blackguard Coalition
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 06:48:00 -
[422]
I like these changes. The Falcon becomes like the Pilgrim, you know. Generally useless for everything besides it's stated ewar purpose. The Curse is the ship capable of dealing damage with it's high slots, much like the Rook, and both remain able to do so from longer ranges. I'd like to see Falcon tank buffed accordingly, and everyone might seem upset but given the fact that Pilgrims are still decently respected ships it's just a reactionary phase. Too often you hear intel report "they have too much ewar, don't engage", you never hear "they have too much nos" or "too much damping! don't engage! too much webs!" Maybe this will bring ECM down from being the battle maker to the battle decider.
I also very much support the idea of adding differentiation between the ships; for too long it has seemed like the only difference between the Rook and Falcon was covops cloak and scan time bonuses. Now they'll have unique purposes. Suffer not the insufferable to live. |
FistFul O'Dumbass
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 06:52:00 -
[423]
Originally by: Lord WarATron Leave ECM as it is, but remove that 20 second Jam cycle. All problems with ECm trace back to the long cycle rather than the actual act of lock breaking.
i dunno... i think the long cycle is factored in well. Meaning, I think it would be too powerful if u can just insta-switch your ECMS. Maybe im wrong? Maybe a skill to shorten the cycle time?
|
Anabella Rella
Minmatar Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 06:53:00 -
[424]
Originally by: Alex Harumichi Extra reason I'm loving this change: the Goons seem to hate it.
That proves it's good for the game.
Hmm, think I have to take exception to this Alex. They may be Goons, but when they're right, they're right.
These wholesale changes to ECM would effectively make Caldari ships (with the possible exception of the Rokh) useless in fleets. I fly Blackbirds. My only defense is RANGE. Since my mids are used for ECM mods I have no room for shields. My offensive capabilities are next to nil. If the range is taken away my survival window is less than a minute. Period. When that happens what's the point in having a Blackbird? You live long enough to get in one jam chance and then pop? Obviously the same goes for the other Caldari ECM ships. I find it especially ludicrous to expect a Scorpion to operate at close range. A slow, lumbering BS with no defense and no offense being forced to slug it out up close and personal with its heavy hitting counterparts? Wow. That's like making Jackie Chan fight Mike Tyson while strapped to a wheelchair, blindfolded. Might be mildly amusing for a few seconds, but after that it'd just be painful to watch.
Just sorry now that I wasted the time training to use ECM and all the supporting skills. And to all the Falcon bashers out there; don't get too smug just yet; today it's ECM getting nerfed, tomorrow it may be your kid getting spanked. What you want is irrelevant. What you've chosen is at hand. |
Anton Marx
Caldari Warhamsters Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 06:54:00 -
[425]
Guys, guys... imagine this:
A key 0.0 chokepoint/jumpbridge/sov4/yougettheidea system.
Super-epic 200 vs 200 sniper battle.
Tension on comms.
Screaming FCs.
Overflooded gang chat.
Spams of fleet invitation in alliance chat.
20 fps with brackets on when zoomed out all the way.
As lazers melt through the hull of a golden-plated apocalypse
and dozens of blue explosions fill up the dark abyss of space
A group of brave falcon pilots uncloaks at 50km to turn the battle in favour of the defenders
and then there is silence...
YES, ALL THE PILOTS ON BOTH SIDES STOPPED SHOOTING EACH OTHER FOR A MOMENT OF GOOD HEALTHY LAUGH!
HAHAHAHAHAH.
HAHAHAHAHAH.
HAHAHAHAHAH.
The selfless apocalypse pilot now entering structure knew that he'd be a richer man within mere seconds.
In a last attempt to bring glory to his cause, he focuses 2 out of the 4 falcons with 3 tychoons on one and 4 on the other...
...they both died before him.
RIP falcons. DESTROYED
Against ALL Authorities ?????! (c) Ivan Wise |
LordVodka
Earned In Blood
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 07:07:00 -
[426]
Edited by: LordVodka on 25/03/2009 07:07:26 The worst 200 man man fleet ever if it takes them that long to kill a zealot ^
|
Mallikanth
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 07:10:00 -
[427]
I don't fly Falcons but I believe I understand them and this is just a terrible idea CCP.
Detailed argument is best left to people who understand the small details, like in this blog which argues in detail and with figures against it.
Please no, CCP. Don't do this.
|
FistFul O'Dumbass
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 07:13:00 -
[428]
Originally by: Mallikanth I don't fly Falcons but I believe I understand them and this is just a terrible idea CCP.
Detailed argument is best left to people who understand the small details, like in this blog which argues in detail and with figures against it.
Please no, CCP. Don't do this.
HEAR HEAR!
|
Thorian Baalnorn
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 07:16:00 -
[429]
Originally by: OgreMerk Edited by: OgreMerk on 25/03/2009 05:20:21 These changes don't really seem like a nerf; just a slight re-adjustment. The problem will still be there. Eve is turning into a game of who has the better jamming. As far as I knew there shouldn't be any one thing that is mandatory, the ECM module / jamming ship is though. It doesn't matter if your fighting 1v1, small gang, or big fleet. 90% of the time it just comes down to jamming strength. This also makes small scale PVP loose its appeal. As gangs add falcons and falcon killers to counter the enemy. The fleets just get bigger and bigger.
In my opinion, ECM should have the same ranges as webbers, neuts, and disruptors. A falcon is just as fragile as any other recon, so they can be right there next to us. Another problem I see is that currently, a falcon can permanently jam. The only way this should happen is when there's sensor dampening in conjunction with the jamming.
Its gonna be a tricky thing to nerf the ECM, without just completely removing it. No other module in game has the ability to render any target completely useless.
I guess some possible changes could be:
- Only 1 jamming module per ship. Jamming type changed with scripts.
Shorten the range to match other ewar. Shorten the actual time a target is jammed, but leave the module cycle time the same. Lower strength and range of ECM modules; add strength/range scripts like other EWAR Mods.
I'm sure I'll think of some other crazy ideas later
you said a falcon is just as fragile as any other recon this is untrue.
have you ever seen someone that used a falcon to tackle?
Lets look at the other recons compared to a falcon
falcon= 4/7/3 layout all bonuses are to ECM( giving a missle bonus is just stupid falcons are not DPS ships and your not going to kill anything with 2 launchers)
rook= 5/7/3 with 5 launcher HP. bonuses to kin damage. lost the covert cloak This ship can better defend itself at close range. has slightly better resist and slightly more shield than its covert brother... this is your dps/ecm recon combo. still squishy
curse=5/6/4 with 4 launchers. great neut/nos bonuses. cant fit a decent tank and can immobile ships quickly. droneboat+insane neut/nos bonuses+ decently tankable= iwin
pilgrim=4/5/5 w/ gun turrets. loses a high and mid but can fit a covert cloak. has a bit better tank. not as good to immobilizing a target but still not bad at tackling.
arazu=4/6/4 w/ 3 turrets. this ship screams tackle. bonus to disruptor range 6 mids allow plenty for speed/tackling gear. lows can get an ok tank. has a small dronebay for extra DPS/ewar Lachesis=no one flies these. ( i think ive only seen 4 the entire year ive played eve) after look at it this looks like the gallente version of what they want to turn a falcon into except its gets 1 more launcher. so you want to turn a falcon into a ship thats never used?
huginn-6/6/3 great bonus to webby. but you use your mid slots up with your tackling. could be speed tanked. Split weapons not a plus you could use the other 3 highs as utility slots has a small drone bay.
rapier=4/6/4 little better tank plus covert.
All other races recons can be used as in your face ships. the rook can be used to deal some dps and some jam but to do ecm it would epically fail as a tank.
the falcon would either have to fail as a ecm boat or fail as a tank. either way... tis a fail.
|
LordMordred
Body Count Inc. Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 07:17:00 -
[430]
So...
You plan to finally fix caldari ships for pvp then? Like maybe some highslot warp scrams or something? How about a revamp of the entire missile system... you know... since it's required for a Caldari pilot to bring an ECM boat to the fight to this day and age. The larger the gang, the less useful a missile ship becomes.
Missiles no longer have a PvP role in this game. There is a turret platform that can do any role they can fill better. So... how about you look at Caldari ships as a whole. And other than the Eagle(in it's class), there is a turret platform that can out do any Caldari turret platform. What role do we have in PvP again?
One disgruntled old player turned to ****ed if you do this with out fixing the other crap first. Not saying this isn't a good idea... but seriously... fix your game before taking what many pilots consider their ****ty role that's been left to them away from them. As it's all we have left. -----
|
|
Ash Bringer
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 07:26:00 -
[431]
Ok if u wanna make falcon close range brawler. A.K.A new pilgrim;
Give him drone bay(50m3) and 3 turrets or 3 launchers. Unlike pilgrim falcons can not shut down tank of targets. Means they will need at least same dps (or more) of force recons. (about 250-300dps)
|
Sig Sour
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 07:28:00 -
[432]
How this will effect the way I play Eve and you will not see on the test server:
- It will be even more difficult to resupply from high sec. - It will not be worth putting 150 mil isk at such a high risk to oversee low sec mining operations. - I will have to log out when extremely outnumbered instead of trying to break though enemy lines. - The fleets I fly in love to engage when the enemy fleet has up to 4X our numbers, will have to pass up on a lot of PVP when we are so heavily outnumbered.
Cause and Effect
A remote repair battleship (or logistics) gang with ECCM fit would requires a Flacon or Pilgram to brake it, both of which would not last long enough to do the job they were built to do.
With these stats on the Rook, jamming Capital ships would be near impossible, about as worth while as target painting them. It would also make battleships, logistics and other recons with ECCM fit near impossible to jam. Bringing a ship that is already called primary in every fight, right into the middle of the fight will make it so nobody wastes their money on it.
ECM is commonly used in convoys thorough low sec. I have seen it and have used it. Fragile ECM ships are really effective at breaking up low sec gate camps. It is not a pirate tool because they can not survive under gate gun fire. This currently makes transition into low sec a little softer, making ECM less effective will make it a more harsh transition. I think it is already hard enough to get a lot of people go into low sec, why do you want to make it more difficult on them?
My suggestion to keep it simple - Give ECCM a base sensor strength boost instead of a percentage.
This would improve the chances of being able to keep a lock greatly for those willing to risk the slot for it accordingly. It would do a lot for frigs where the slots are extremely valuable, quite a bit for cruisers, decent with battle cruisers, ok with battleships and next to nothing to capitals.
See you on the test server.
|
GiantSquid
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 07:33:00 -
[433]
please more this patch on to the fast track ^^, if there is too much complaining its ok .... screams dont sound so lound in the belly of an animal with much fur.
|
Gail Sohmbadi
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 07:34:00 -
[434]
Just wanted to thank CCP for helping me make the decision to crosstrain out of Caldari completely.
I finally get to the point that I can fly Caldari Cruisers, and I find out that my missile skills are worthless in PvP. no problem, I'll fly blackbirds in fleet. I start training Battleships, because one day, I can at least fly a Scorpion, and while I know I will die quickly in every engagement, it's still a battleship. Now you render the Scorpion useless in fleet fights, so I guess it's back to blackbirds in fleets. At least I can afford to fly T2 rigged blackbirds in fleet now, at least until you come back to nerf my ratting ravens.
|
galphi
Gallente Unitary Senate Unitary Enterprises
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 07:38:00 -
[435]
The Rook changes would apear to be an improvement - could be useful as a solo killship now with drones for extra dps.
I like that Falcons won't be out at 150km solo permajamming a capital ship now
And the Scorpion will be an incredible ship up close, very big improvement there. Can uh, the model get it's second arm welded back on now? So it can hold all this extra win?
|
Theron Gyrow
Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 07:43:00 -
[436]
Originally by: Anabella Rella
They may be Goons, but when they're right, they're right.
True. But also, when they're wrong, they're wrong. As a Falcon pilot myself, IMO these changes are long overdue.
Quote: These wholesale changes to ECM would effectively make Caldari ships (with the possible exception of the Rokh) useless in fleets. I fly Blackbirds. My only defense is RANGE. Since my mids are used for ECM mods I have no room for shields. My offensive capabilities are next to nil. If the range is taken away my survival window is less than a minute. Period.
It seems to me that the BB range bonus is staying as is? At L4 skills, that means 68km optimal + 75km falloff, and since fighting at optimal + half falloff means just about 10% in efficiency, you can still comfortably fight from 105km (70km for multispecs), more if you fit SDAs / range rigs / have L5 skills. I don't think this is a major problem for BB.
And, well, if you don't fit 2*SDA, then you can use a 1600mm plate to give you some buffer, and nothing prevents you using shield modules, either - it's just that nowadays it doesn't make sense. -- Gradient forum |
Hyneid Fehlhaishyo
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 07:44:00 -
[437]
Edited by: Hyneid Fehlhaishyo on 25/03/2009 07:45:20
Originally by: Saaya Illirie I like these changes. The Falcon becomes like the Pilgrim, you know.
A ship that is completely eclipsed by other models that no one flys?
Quote: Generally useless for everything besides it's stated ewar purpose.
Right. Like they are now.
[Quote] The Curse is the ship capable of dealing damage with it's high slots, much like the Rook, and both remain able to do so from longer ranges. I'd like to see Falcon tank buffed accordingly, and everyone might seem upset but given the fact that Pilgrims are still decently respected ships it's just a reactionary phase. No, they aren't. Pilgrims are turkeys.
[Quote] Too often you hear intel report "they have too much ewar, don't engage", you never hear "they have too much nos" or "too much damping! don't engage! too much webs!" Maybe this will bring ECM down from being the battle maker to the battle decider. You don't hear that because CCP has nerfed those modules to where they are nearly useless. Why would anyone be afraid of them? Now you are supporting that be done to yet another module? Why don't we all just warp on grid, lock eachother, and throw snowballs at each other because the stupid or unprepared can't counter a simple game mechanic. Thats where endless nerfing heads.
[Quote] I also very much support the idea of adding differentiation between the ships; for too long it has seemed like the only difference between the Rook and Falcon was covops cloak and scan time bonuses. Now they'll have unique purposes.
Now, on THIS, I completely agree.
|
Samiloth Justinian
Evolution Band of Brothers Reloaded
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 07:45:00 -
[438]
Originally by: Anton Marx Edited by: Anton Marx on 25/03/2009 07:02:54
Guys, guys... imagine this:
Super-epic 200 vs 200 sniper battle.
...
As lazers melt through the hull of a golden-plated zealotand dozens of blue explosions fill up the dark abyss of space
A group of brave falcon pilots uncloaks at 50km to turn the battle in favour of the defenders
and then there is silence...
And everyone knows they are a group of CCP devs' characters, for the rest of Eve have already abandoned the ship because it is useless.
|
DeadDuck
Amarr Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 07:48:00 -
[439]
I agree with the changes.
Falcon should be the one with lower distance attack and the rook with the one high distance attack. The Falcon has a the big advantage of warp cloaked while the rook doesn't have that advantage. Like in the line with Pilgrim/Curse.
If the roles are changed what will happen is that the rook will REALLY disappear from scene. Don't even remember when was the last time I saw one anyway...
Falcon AND Rooks will still have is role granted on small gang PVP while the Scorpion will be boosted as main EW ship on fleet Battles.
________________ God is my Wingman |
Hesperius
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 07:56:00 -
[440]
Originally by: Saaya Illirie ... Too often you hear intel report "they have too much ewar, don't engage", you never hear "they have too much nos" or "too much damping! don't engage! too much webs!" Maybe this will bring ECM down from being the battle maker to the battle decider.
The problem you are facing is that NOBODY in 9-4 uses ECCM or FOF. The tools are there, none of you use them.
|
|
Butzewutze
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 07:58:00 -
[441]
Muhahaha, delicous... i am enjoying the whines. Adapt or die ******s. Thats what u said to people who were against nosnerf, against nanonerf, against dampernerf... now taste your own medicine.
|
Mirei Jun
Right to Rule FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 08:02:00 -
[442]
I am really excited to see how these changes fair out. I think the ideas are good.
This is one of the areas of game mechanics that have needed ajustments for a long time. I hope you continue working to find that balance between adjustment of implemented ideas and the addition of new ones.
|
UDmitry
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 08:05:00 -
[443]
If it will be done, the caldary will be true PVE race :), with no pvp ships
|
Sir Corsi
Infinite Improbability Inc
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 08:06:00 -
[444]
whine or not whine... falcon is like a paper to tank something und you want it to change this ship as a close range ecm? as we all know, shield tanks need their med-slots to tank... so low slots are useless.
so my suggestion: do what you want with the ecm but then you have to strength the caldari ecm ships in their tanking ability like the curse as a decent tank!
just my feedback.
|
Sanfrey Statolomy
Gallente E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 08:08:00 -
[445]
Currently, fleet formation goes something like this. "Bring a Falcon, if you can't, then fly something else". "Oh, can I bring an Arazu?" .."What for?" .. "Yeah point taken. Ok I'll bring a Falcon, how many do we have?" .. "Seven".. "Ok make that eight."
Falcons are FOTM and I think everyone who knows Eve and CCP has been just watching for a "The Falcon Nerf is Coming" post. No excuses to be surprised here. The Nanonerf did a good job of breaking up the Rapier/Ishtar monotony, and this will help a little too. I'd also like to see some improvements to ships that today are impractical. There are quite a few ships that aren't flown because the role they perform can be performed much better by another ship, thus, they are always the second choice and thus never flown.. think Lachesis. Mixed weapons, no worthwhile tank, And these days putting one or two damps on someone achieves nothing. The Deimos, once awe inspiring, still ringing from the absolute smashing it got with the nerf bat 18 months ago. The Keres, which has only one purpose, to look pretty, and is outperformed by an interceptor for tackling by about 1000%. The Arazu, which has 10 possible roles and does all of them barely acceptably. And those are just the Gallente ships I can think of off hand. Sure, tech 3 is going to add a stack of variety but I'd love to see even more of a mix of ships on the battlefield.
|
Turma Tapa
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 08:08:00 -
[446]
Good job ccp. I really like this change. No more out of sentry gun ecm spam surprise falcon squad. Low sec pvp is suffering too much this "Who bring more falcons in battle win". Scorpion new bonus also look interesting.
|
SixSloths
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 08:12:00 -
[447]
Sick ideas to be honest, caldari recons are very vulnerable to everything but have only one real defense (btw 200km range is not enough for full safety) and i don't think that it can be changed somehow, because everyone primaries them even now.
Rook needs boost to be able to do something, falcon is fine now (if you don't know how to counter it - it is your troubles and not falcon's :) ).
Don't change falcons in any way and leave rooks for semi-close combat with 25m3 drone bay and 5 launchers, plus some tanking abilities.
The scorpion changes are nice though.
|
Absalom Marathon
The Athiest Syndicate Advocated Destruction
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 08:14:00 -
[448]
This is really intresting Would be fun if our Caldari brothers gets something else than falcon to fly. For 0.0 I don't see things being v imbalanced atm but here in lowsec the falcon really needs a nerf. Doin this iow defining the roles, is a really intresting idea. I'd love to see more scorps ingame. They are extremely rare in the current lowsec scene.
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 08:17:00 -
[449]
Originally by: Anabella Rella Edited by: Anabella Rella on 25/03/2009 07:04:55
Originally by: Alex Harumichi Extra reason I'm loving this change: the Goons seem to hate it.
That proves it's good for the game.
Hmm, think I have to take exception to this Alex. They may be Goons, but when they're right, they're right.
These wholesale changes to ECM would effectively make Caldari ships (with the possible exception of the Rokh) useless in fleets.
Nonsense. Forcing (some) ECM ships to get in closer just puts then vaguely in the same ballpark as the rest. Guess what? Other races have had to deal with limited range on ewar since forever.
"Falcons don't have tank" because people don't fit tank on their Falcons. I'm forced to fit tank on my Lachesis and Arazu, same goes for out Rapier/Huginn/Curse pilots. Those ships don't have any more actual tanking ability than the Falcon does. Why should the Caldari ECM boats be the only ones being able to play in "safe mode"?
Sure, if you give Gallente 200+km range damps, Minmatar 200+km ranged webs, and Amarr 200+km range tracking disruptors, then we can talk.
Before that: welcome to the club the rest of us are in. Tank or die. The Flavor of the Month Express has left the station.
|
CobaltSixty
Caldari Dark Knights of Deneb
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 08:18:00 -
[450]
For your consideration.
Range - Swapping the optimal and falloff would be a quick fix to get ECM boats in closer, but maybe a little heavy-handed. Currently, the base racial jammer optimal and falloff is 45 and 22 respectively. An optimal of 22 and falloff of 45 sounds ridiculous. Perhaps something like 30-45km starting optimal-falloff would be acceptable?
Signal Distortion Amps - To preface my suggestion here, the problem you're trying to solve is that ECM boats presently have no incentive to get in close. Gang leaders are happy to have them sit at extreme ranges and most pilots don't mind because they don't often get blown up at range. Make it a choice and thus incur some benefit to getting in closer. How do you do that?
Scripts! Upping the base strengths of the modules will only make them more reasonable for non-specialized ships which was what we tried to get away from a few years back by slashing base module strength and giving strong bonuses to the ships that are supposed to be using the modules. Allow SDAs to be scripted to their current strength bonus (and with the range mechanics changed, I don't see this as unreasonable) OR, set for greater range. Alternatively scripts could get applied to the ECM modules themselves but I think that would open up quite the unpleasant can of worms.
Falcon - Alright, if we're going to make it more Pilgrim-like, it should be getting the Rook's drone-bay and - while we're trying to make it a "brawler" - the third missile slot its always wanted/deserved. The reason the Falcon often has a cloak, a probe launcher, a cyno gen and a remote rep up top is because it's not a reasonable damage platform right now. It should still ultimately put out less DPS than all other force recons, but if it's going in close, give it some bite.
Summary Falcon proposal -Total of 3 launcher slots. PG/CPU might need tweaking. (Turrets too maybe - just thinking out loud.) -The proposed 25m/3 dronebay and bandwidth from the Rook. -ECM Strength 25% per level as proposed. -As planned, get rid of the optimal bonus. Replace with something related to damage? (5% Kinetic or RoF?) -Don't bother with an agility bonus. Even post-changes, Falcons don't need to be nimble.
As a functional suggestion, moving the ECM strength to be modified by the Caldari cruiser level on the Falcon would give it a natural boost over the Rook as most people only run with Recon Ships IV. So your typical Falcon would fly with a 125% bonus while the Rook would be 80% or 100% if you want to put the training in. Naturally, the new damage bonus (if accepted) would be tied to your recon ships skill instead. If you're looking for precedence, the Kitsune derives its jammer strength from its hull skill.
Rook - Keep the range as you were planning, missile velocity and all. Just keep the jamming strength within 5% of whatever you decide for the Falcon. If scriptable SDAs grab you (and come into effect,) it'll either be weaker at less-than-current, but-still-long ranges (Caldari's specialty, remember?) or closer, able to deal damage and have new Scorpion-grade ECM effectiveness whilst being as vulnerable as any long-range HAC (by distance.)
Summary Rook proposal -ECM strength 5% less per level than Falcon, whatever it ends up as. -ECM optimal still in place. -You (CCP Chronotis) mentioned the Rook getting a missile velocity bonus - would that take the place of the damage bonus or the cruiser-modified capacitor use bonus? At the moment though, you haven't mentioned removing it so the Rook would have 5 bonuses. -No need for a silly dronebay on a ranged ship.
Scorpion - I love it, bang on. Looks like it'll actually be worthy of undocking again.
Griffin/Kitsune/Blackbird are fine as is regardless of the set of changes you implement. Just don't let the Rook's ECM strength bonus slip to be equal to the Blackbird's.
Thank you for your time.
|
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 08:22:00 -
[451]
Edited by: Alex Harumichi on 25/03/2009 08:22:35
Originally by: Sanfrey Statolomy Currently, fleet formation goes something like this. "Bring a Falcon, if you can't, then fly something else". "Oh, can I bring an Arazu?" .."What for?" .. "Yeah point taken. Ok I'll bring a Falcon, how many do we have?" .. "Seven".. "Ok make that eight."
Falcons are FOTM and I think everyone who knows Eve and CCP has been just watching for a "The Falcon Nerf is Coming" post. No excuses to be surprised here.
Precisely. The whiners are either amazingly ignorant of the game they are playing, have never flown any other form of ewar but ECM (and have no idea what others have to deal with), or know they are wrong but want to desperately keep their "I win" buttons. Game over, sorry no bonus.
A Falcon nerf has been a 100% certainty for a long time now. The amazing thing is that CCP is following ideas that we've also come up with, with other corpmates. That "drop the range bonus" has been our "best way to fix Falcon" for a while now.
Even our Falcon pilots have been saying that the ship is obviously overpowered, ffs.
|
Yakov Draken
Minmatar Tides Of War
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 08:24:00 -
[452]
On the whole these sound like quality changes which will up the fun factor in eve.
The age of Falcons uncloaking at 200k and jamming people out of the fight/fun needs to end.
Like the Scorpian post changes - nasty ship.
|
Princess Kiki
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 08:28:00 -
[453]
ALL HAIL TO ECM NERF!!!...thank u CCP, enough said, im out!
|
TooNu
Caldari 22nd Black Rise Defensive Unit
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 08:36:00 -
[454]
CCP is the goverment that gives in to terrorist demands.
You whiners are the same limp wristed idiots that would have all ships reduced to innefective junk.
What ship will you whine about next? Sentry drone boats perhaps? Assault frigate resistances perhaps? Who knows what it will be, a few months ago it was nano ships, this time it is ECM. Oh well, keep crippling guys keep crippling.
|
HCMan
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 08:39:00 -
[455]
Originally by: SixSloths Sick ideas to be honest, caldari recons are very vulnerable to everything but have only one real defense (btw 200km range is not enough for full safety) and i don't think that it can be changed somehow, because everyone primaries them even now.
Rook needs boost to be able to do something, falcon is fine now (if you don't know how to counter it - it is your troubles and not falcon's :) ).
Don't change falcons in any way and leave rooks for semi-close combat with 25m3 drone bay and 5 launchers, plus some tanking abilities.
The scorpion changes are nice though.
Agreed.
|
Solid Prefekt
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 08:41:00 -
[456]
Edited by: Solid Prefekt on 25/03/2009 08:43:30 The reason Falcons are primaried is because they are so crippling. So how about make it so it is not a threat so great that it must be killed first.
Since we are thinking outside the box why not change ECM completely. Instead of it being chanced based where it completely prevents a ship from shooting. Make it hit every time, but make it 60% effective (like webs) to the DPS of the ship (so you lose 60% of your dps). Then reduce the range so it is in line with Webs/Neuts. The value of the Falcons will still be nice as it can damp the DPS of 1-2 larger ships yet it won't be so crippling where it will be automatic primary.
|
Karlemgne
Tides Of War
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 08:45:00 -
[457]
Originally by: Sertan Deras The change to the Scorpion really is the biggest "what the hell are you thinking" here.
Let me think of the last time I used a BS up close.
...
Yah, I've got nothing. Nearly every BS fight I've been in, in the last year, has been at long range. Making the Scorpion close range may be great for low sec ganking and empire wars, but for the really big battles, it would be useless and unused.
If you want to fiddle with jam strength and the Rook and Falcon, that's fine, Leave the Scorpion alone. It's the only viable, and insurable, fleet EWar platform currently.
Let me think of the last time *I*, a low-sec pirate, used a battleship up close.
Oh yeah, every fracking day practically. The game does NOT revolve around you 0.0 dwelling e-peen waving douches.
K, thanks, bye.
-Karlemgne My sig don't fracking work. |
Insig
Dark Knights of Deneb Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 08:45:00 -
[458]
*Insert generic whine about removing my favorite method of risk-free killmail whoring here.*
With that out of the way,
Originally by: CobaltSixty :words:
This man, who I have never spoken with before nor have any affiliation with, might be onto something.
|
Karlemgne
Tides Of War
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 08:48:00 -
[459]
I support these changes. Falcons, and the current ECM mechanic are just as broken as nanos were.
Those *****ing and whining about *talking* about fixing the problem are the people who utilize the broken mechanic FoM.
And yeah, Falcon pilots are safe 200k away... as long as you aren't alt-tabbing between your main and your Falcon alt.
-Karlemgne My sig don't fracking work. |
Samiloth Justinian
Evolution Band of Brothers Reloaded
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 08:49:00 -
[460]
Originally by: Alex Harumichi
Nonsense. Forcing (some) ECM ships to get in closer just puts then vaguely in the same ballpark as the rest. Guess what? Other races have had to deal with limited range on ewar since forever.
Yes, but A) The other recons really need a buff, nerfing the falcon will not magically fix other ships. B) All do better damage then the falcon. Some of them are specialized in either increasing the damage on the ships they affect, or holding them in place, preventing them from escaping. Someone jammed by a falcon can always flee if necessary.
Originally by: Alex Harumichi "Falcons don't have tank" because people don't fit tank on their Falcons. I'm forced to fit tank on my Lachesis and Arazu, same goes for our Rapier/Huginn/Curse pilots. Those ships don't have any more actual tanking ability than the Falcon does. Why should the Caldari ECM boats be the only ones being able to play in "safe mode"?
But the ships you are talking about have mods that affect all races equally, no? It isn’t like you need a specific webber for each race.
Originally by: Alex Harumichi Sure, if you give Gallente 200+km range damps, Minmatar 200+km ranged webs, and Amarr 200+km range tracking disruptors, then we can talk.
Buffing the other recons is needed IMO. Just keep away from buffing warp scrambler range since that actually will cause people to die horribly with little chance of escaping. A jammer will always leave them the option to flee. You surely must understand (I hope) that making the falcon useless will in no way make your ships better, right?
Originally by: Alex Harumichi Before that: welcome to the club the rest of us are in. Tank or die. The Flavor of the Month Express has left the station.
And that is what this game is slowly turning into. DPS, tank and F-button up the primary. PvP get less and less options. Dim-witted players that can’t figure out how to deal with things that require more then ctrl-click and F-button the primary whine and whine until a nerf make more of the game into a game for simpletons.
If people can’t figure out how to deal with falcons, then they shouldn’t really involve themselves in PvP. It should be player vs player, not dps/tank vs dps/tank. Soon we will be able to play Eve in EFT, just clicking auto-resolve on make-believe battles and see who wins.
No poster in this thread is to be blamed for that sad direction, it is CCP’s fault. And the tragedy of it all is that they will sit there and scratch their heads, wondering why people only blob more and more, and be oblivious to the fact that the options how to wage war have been taken away over the years just to please players that can’t be bothered with figuring out different tactics to deal with problems on the battlefield.
|
|
Sue Cheng
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 08:49:00 -
[461]
Edited by: Sue Cheng on 25/03/2009 08:51:00 Dear CCP,
instead of trying to fix something that is not broken: ECM is working well, there are viable countertactics, plus ist is the defining role of Caldari in PvP etc. So instead of fixing that, by making ECM as useless as Sensor Dampeners/Tracking Disruptors, you should rethink and possibly fix the other parts of Ewar first. To give you a hint: Sensor Dampeners and Tracking Disruptors are useless as is (making for example the Pilgrim a useless ship) etc. and Sensor Damps are only the beginning.... you figure it out. Just look at how many people actually fly Sensor Dampening or Tracking Disruptor Ships in Fleets? (You can easily check in the Delve Region, large Fleets there...)
Thank god I am not flying Caldari, I really would think about emo-rage-quit hehe
|
Vir Hellnamin
Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 08:51:00 -
[462]
Edited by: Vir Hellnamin on 25/03/2009 08:51:46 That Pilgrim comparison fails hard, but I like the idea of a ECM-brawler (closer range ECMer) - not brawler with ECM. Word play, but still ;)
Let's see what happens.
Btw, SDA; give need stats nao! (affects all EWAR modules?) -- "Entering MH means instant death. It's worse than 0.0. Even the asteroids shoot back." - Alex Harumichi [GRD]
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 09:01:00 -
[463]
Edited by: Alex Harumichi on 25/03/2009 09:02:43
Originally by: Samiloth Justinian
But the ships you are talking about have mods that affect all races equally, no? It isnÆt like you need a specific webber for each race.
No, though the effect of ECM is vastly more powerful than the other forms or ewar, of course. Which is part of the problem; it's just such a total effect.
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.
(naturally you choose racials if you know the enemy fleet, that's a different matter)
Added: Samiloth, thanks for a reasoned reply, amidst all this shouting and screaming it's very welcome.
|
Scarlet Pimpernel
Clan Eshin
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 09:02:00 -
[464]
Since this is CCP is pretty likely you are just going ahead with this and it will be terrible and heavyhanded
That said...
I remember a dec comment regarding the last bout of ECM changes that stated that range was an ECM ship tank (specifically regarding the change to the griffins bonuses) yet here you are proposing to remove the range but strangely not adding any tank to these ship as SDA's will still be needed (otherwise ECM starts going back on everyship with a spare mid slot)
I don't have time right now for a point by point post on why these proposals are terrible but here's what immediately came to mind as I read the post.
If either recon was to become a close range brawled it should have been the Rook since it has better resists and way more damage - there's little point having that damage if your primary role (ECM) puts you way outside missile range.
You simple cannot compare the Pilgrim to either Caldari recon since it gets a decent damage bonus, can effectively avoid most turret fire in favourable engagements, can fit a tank and can shut down the opponents cap in addition to warping cloaked. Neither Caldari recon comes close because it's all traded for ECM strength and range. We're losing range but not getting anything in return.
Looks like we are heading back to the dark age of ECM again all because people refuse to fit ECCM/sensor backups which begs the question do the devs actually fly these ships?
Good job I can fly a Pilgrim as well I guess (right up until all the complaineds move on to tracking disruptors as that the only E-war yet to be nerfed)
|
Orion GUardian
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 09:06:00 -
[465]
So Now we awill be getting "boost Falcon" whines all over?
Damn close range Falcon will be dead in a second because it has to think "hmm tank or ECM or both and suck at both" They are shield tankers trying to Ewar and thats why they cant do both.
Now going for close range is suicidal if you cannot fit a proper tank.
The Problem is: They cannot do good DPS anyway, they cannot fit a proper tank [lack of low slots for armor] if they want to ECM anyway. They are primaried in EVERY fight.
Range was their only defense. While 200km seems obscene it was the way to survive. All other Recons got the ability to tank or dont have the need to fit 8 ewar mods. BUT Ecm needs it.
You got 4 racial jammers working chance based. To jam a BS you'd need an verage of 2 jammers, 3 if he had an ECCM [dont pin me on that though] So you'd need 2-3 racial jammers for one ship to accomplish something [hmm I wonder how that is overpowered really] While the other recons are fine with fitting 2-4 EW modules overall and using midslots and lowslots for something different.
|
ddemec
ZER0.
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 09:06:00 -
[466]
AWESOME!!!!!!!11111 HAIL ECM NERF!
falcons are tooooooo overpowered now. changes are OMG that good. and at least i have perfect falcon alt, i approve the idea :D
|
Lyris Nairn
Caldari Empyrean Shipping
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 09:09:00 -
[467]
Originally by: Samiloth Justinian
Originally by: Alex Harumichi
Nonsense. Forcing (some) ECM ships to get in closer just puts then vaguely in the same ballpark as the rest. Guess what? Other races have had to deal with limited range on ewar since forever.
Yes, but A) The other recons really need a buff, nerfing the falcon will not magically fix other ships. B) All do better damage then the falcon. Some of them are specialized in either increasing the damage on the ships they affect, or holding them in place, preventing them from escaping. Someone jammed by a falcon can always flee if necessary.
Originally by: Alex Harumichi "Falcons don't have tank" because people don't fit tank on their Falcons. I'm forced to fit tank on my Lachesis and Arazu, same goes for our Rapier/Huginn/Curse pilots. Those ships don't have any more actual tanking ability than the Falcon does. Why should the Caldari ECM boats be the only ones being able to play in "safe mode"?
But the ships you are talking about have mods that affect all races equally, no? It isnÆt like you need a specific webber for each race.
Originally by: Alex Harumichi Sure, if you give Gallente 200+km range damps, Minmatar 200+km ranged webs, and Amarr 200+km range tracking disruptors, then we can talk.
Buffing the other recons is needed IMO. Just keep away from buffing warp scrambler range since that actually will cause people to die horribly with little chance of escaping. A jammer will always leave them the option to flee. You surely must understand (I hope) that making the falcon useless will in no way make your ships better, right?
Originally by: Alex Harumichi Before that: welcome to the club the rest of us are in. Tank or die. The Flavor of the Month Express has left the station.
And that is what this game is slowly turning into. DPS, tank and F-button up the primary. PvP get less and less options. Dim-witted players that canÆt figure out how to deal with things that require more then ctrl-click and F-button the primary whine and whine until a nerf make more of the game into a game for simpletons.
If people canÆt figure out how to deal with falcons, then they shouldnÆt really involve themselves in PvP. It should be player vs player, not dps/tank vs dps/tank. Soon we will be able to play Eve in EFT, just clicking auto-resolve on make-believe battles and see who wins.
No poster in this thread is to be blamed for that sad direction, it is CCPÆs fault. And the tragedy of it all is that they will sit there and scratch their heads, wondering why people only blob more and more, and be oblivious to the fact that the options how to wage war have been taken away over the years just to please players that canÆt be bothered with figuring out different tactics to deal with problems on the battlefield.
With all my Love, 'Little Cinnamon' |
S'vart Tseirgn
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 09:11:00 -
[468]
Edited by: S''vart Tseirgn on 25/03/2009 09:14:24
Originally by: Sig Sour How this will effect the way I play Eve and you will not see on the test server:
- It will be even more difficult to resupply from high sec. - It will not be worth putting 150 mil isk at such a high risk to oversee low sec mining operations. - I will have to log out when extremely outnumbered instead of trying to break though enemy lines. - The fleets I fly in love to engage when the enemy fleet has up to 4X our numbers, will have to pass up on a lot of PVP when we are so heavily outnumbered.
Cause and Effect
A remote repair battleship (or logistics) gang with ECCM fit would requires a Flacon or Pilgram to brake it, both of which would not last long enough to do the job they were built to do.
With these stats on the Rook, jamming Capital ships would be near impossible, about as worth while as target painting them. It would also make battleships, logistics and other recons with ECCM fit near impossible to jam. Bringing a ship that is already called primary in every fight, right into the middle of the fight will make it so nobody wastes their money on it.
ECM is commonly used in convoys thorough low sec. I have seen it and have used it. Fragile ECM ships are really effective at breaking up low sec gate camps. It is not a pirate tool because they can not survive under gate gun fire. This currently makes transition into low sec a little softer, making ECM less effective will make it a more harsh transition. I think it is already hard enough to get a lot of people go into low sec, why do you want to make it more difficult on them?
My suggestion to keep it simple - Give ECCM a base sensor strength boost instead of a percentage.
This would improve the chances of being able to keep a lock greatly for those willing to risk the slot for it accordingly. It would do a lot for frigs where the slots are extremely valuable, quite a bit for cruisers, decent with battle cruisers, ok with battleships and next to nothing to capitals.
See you on the test server.
Seconded!
Look at fixing up the other race's ewar as well please. Instead of just nerf-nerf-nerf-nerf.... (it kinda destroys motivation to keep playing) Could we please get blackops fixed too? Currently the Sin, Redeemer, and Panther have no ewar-type role, short of a cloaked velocity bonus and fitting covert cyno/jump generators....
EDIT: Ewar should be a long-range scenario imho. After all, every ship that's capable of using it well is paper-thin...therefore must rely on range to survive. You want them to fly into the middle of blobs? One word: Smartbombs.
------------------------------------------------ Alternatively, why not just force everyone to drive n00b ships. Then you'd have combat...no worries about ewar or other silly things like balance either!
|
Shadowsword
Epsilon Lyr Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 09:13:00 -
[469]
Even with those changes, ECM is still vastly superior to other racial EW. Not only in range (no other EW boat can operate even at partial effectiveness at 150km), but also in effect. Because it affect every boat, gun or missile, without a range limitation other than optimal/falloff, and castrate a ship more completely than a tracking disruptor or sensor dampener (or target lol painter)...
It need a bigger overhaul than this, imho.
And, if you want for the Scorpion to be more close range, you should give it at least a fifth launcher. ------------------------------------------
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 09:14:00 -
[470]
Edited by: Alex Harumichi on 25/03/2009 09:16:40
Originally by: Orion GUardian
You got 4 racial jammers working chance based. To jam a BS you'd need an verage of 2 jammers, 3 if he had an ECCM [dont pin me on that though] So you'd need 2-3 racial jammers for one ship to accomplish something [hmm I wonder how that is overpowered really] While the other recons are fine with fitting 2-4 EW modules overall and using midslots and lowslots for something different.
Well, on my Arazu I need 3+ damps one one target ship to do anything useful (drop its target range below 20km or so, depends). That's all that I'll be doing, ewar-wise: somewhat hindering one target ship.
So yeah, if you need 2-3 ECM modules to reliably shut down one ship, it's sounding quite balanced to me. It's still doing better than an Arazu, especially since damps won't hurt a close-range ship at all. Use the rest of the mids and lows for something different, like we do.
Can't jam 3-4 ships *and* tank? Well, neither can anyone else. Hell, a Lachesis/Arazu is lucky to shut down even *one* ship (but they do have the scramble ability to compensate).
...but guess what? If a Lach/Arazu wants to damp *and* scramble, there go the slots that it might otherwise use for tank. It's a choice.
I don't see the problem.
|
|
ISHKUR MASTER
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 09:17:00 -
[471]
I am collecting falcons and scorps , trade to me, I will put them into a new role bonus after the changes get through, don't let them gather dust in hangars for nostaligia sake, send to me for reprocessing
|
Cpt Cosmic
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 09:21:00 -
[472]
Edited by: Cpt Cosmic on 25/03/2009 09:27:05 why does the rook gets a drone bay with an optimal bonus? O_o
1. to make rook a medium range ecm boat it needs: increase str bonus and give it a shield resist bonus & heavy missile bonus + the drone bay. increase speed and agility a bit.
2. falcon. half the optimal bonus and decrease the ecm bonus.
3. the scorpion has it uses in fleet battles & sometimes in sniper fest and many prefer it because it is insurable but to make it an "ecm brawler" it needs more tank, it is made out of paper compared to other bs (after mwd and ecm there are not many slots left for a tank). if you go this route, swap the optimal for a shield resist bonus & and increase the sensor str bonus like on the rook. it isnt heavy armed or very tanky, it has hi tech equip, I dont see why we should not give the scorpion an improved drone bay, lets say 125m¦ with 100m¦ bandwith.
|
Cash Loki
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 09:23:00 -
[473]
Edited by: Cash Loki on 25/03/2009 09:26:22 you know what, this is about as constructive as I can get, go screw yourself CCP. Put a warning at character creation, Caldari suck.
P.S. First my missles, and now ecm, give me a break CCP.
|
Samiloth Justinian
Evolution Band of Brothers Reloaded
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 09:32:00 -
[474]
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 can’t 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.
It’s good to read that my posting was taken as it was intended :)
|
Zeba
Minmatar Honourable East India Trading Company
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 09:34:00 -
[475]
Edited by: Zeba on 25/03/2009 09:34:45 Ok thread tl;dr so right to the money shot.
Overall I like the new ecm changes in general. However the ships need some tweaking.
Thus:
Quote: 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)
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.
Falcon needs a tank now so it needs to free up low and mid slots so an agility bonus is much less useful than a 25m3 drone bay for 5 light ecm.
Quote: 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
Why do you need a drone bay on a jammer sniper? Give the Rook the agility bonus so it can get away from the real threats be it a sniping bs or a charging inty or sneaky cov ops/recon trying to bump you out of alignment. If you have to wait for 5 warrior II to drive off a bumping inty then you are already dead and just waiting for the grim reaper to pop out of warp.
Quote: Summary Scorpion Changes
- removed the ECM optimal range bonus - increased the ECM strength bonus to 20% per level - added a 5% RoF bonus to cruise & siege missile launchers per level.
Hmmm. This could be the winner of the batch tbh with the right changes. How about ECM gets 15% per level rof goes to 7.5 and it gets an additional launcher. I would love to fly that Scorp.
Yay! Got meh sig back! ♥ Weatherman |
Rordan D'Kherr
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 09:34:00 -
[476]
Originally by: Princess Kiki ALL HAIL TO ECM NERF!!!...thank u CCP, enough said, im out!
See you after the nerf here whining about being jammed still
|
Sir Corsi
Infinite Improbability Inc
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 09:39:00 -
[477]
suggestion: put the ecm modules to the high slots... then it could work.
|
Spurty
Caldari Amok. Minor Threat.
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 09:41:00 -
[478]
Edited by: Spurty on 25/03/2009 09:46:06 Awkward!
<?xml version="1.0" ?> <fittings> <fitting name="ecm nerf"> <description value=""/> <shipType value="Falcon"/> <hardware slot="low slot 2" type="1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I"/> <hardware slot="med slot 6" type="ECM - White Noise Generator II"/> <hardware slot="med slot 1" type="Invulnerability Field II"/> <hardware slot="hi slot 0" type="Heavy Missile Launcher II"/> <hardware slot="hi slot 2" type="Cynosural Field Generator I"/> <hardware slot="med slot 3" type="ECM - Phase Inverter II"/> <hardware slot="med slot 4" type="ECM - Spatial Destabilizer II"/> <hardware slot="med slot 5" type="ECM - Ion Field Projector II"/> <hardware slot="low slot 0" type="Signal Distortion Amplifier II"/> <hardware slot="rig slot 0" type="Signal Disruption Amplifier I"/> <hardware slot="hi slot 1" type="Heavy Missile Launcher II"/> <hardware slot="med slot 0" type="Photon Scattering Field II"/> <hardware slot="low slot 1" type="Small Armor Repairer II"/> <hardware slot="med slot 2" type="Large Shield Extender II"/> <hardware slot="hi slot 3" type="Covert Ops Cloaking Device II"/> </fitting> </fittings>
Falcon with a hybrid tank! Something is screwy with module slot layout with this proposition.
Note: there is no MWD on this fit, have to sacrifice large chunk of tank to fit. Ugh
Originally by: Butter Dog
I think you'll find that 10 seconds > 1 month
|
Parsival
Minmatar The Avalon Foundation
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 09:47:00 -
[479]
Oh look, they are balancing ECM to be as bad as webs.
If you don't want people flying with this kit just delete it from the database, don't make it a joke.
|
FinalFlash84
Duty.
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 09:49:00 -
[480]
If you want to make the Scorp a Close Range ECM Plattform, give (additionally to the torp bonus) it a 125-175 m¦ drone bay with 125mbit drone bandwidth. This way, also Caldari Subcapital Pilots will have a ship that can field 5 heavies.
If you make my wish come true, i'll do anything you want, anything* !!!
* provided you're a lady ------------ Final Flash Rokhasm |
|
Eben Rochelle
Gallente Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers Reloaded
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 09:51:00 -
[481]
Wait so the cloaky no damage Falcon is to become the brawler and the COMBAT recon the sneaky sneaky far away ship? *facepalm* I'm normally a rabid fanboi but seriously! come on! W T F?
|
MJ Maverick
IronPig Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 09:57:00 -
[482]
Shocking ideas... What on Earth are you thinking making CALDARI SUPPORT ships close range? In any normal fleet Falcons and Rooks will now be pointless, 1 volley insta'death. Unless they can have 10 jamming slots and 5 buffer tank slots. Seriously who is coming up with these ideas out of the blue?
There are plenty of things the players WANT addressing in these forums so why don't you do those instead of running over to something that there's nothing wrong with?
For the record, I hate Falcons and Rooks. --------------------
CCP arse kissing drones are not welcome in my threads. CCP are not perfect.
Please resize your sig to a file size no greater than 24000 bytes - Mitnal |
Aganola
Amarr Ten Below Zero
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 09:58:00 -
[483]
Just one word:
LEAK!!
Remember those 4 Falcon BPOs wich were sold 'oh! so suddenly' and simultaneously 2-3 month ago?
Sounds like CCP still has some leaks...
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar M. Corp
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 10:02:00 -
[484]
Originally by: Aganola Just one word:
LEAK!!
Remember those 4 Falcon BPOs wich were sold 'oh! so suddenly' and simultaneously 2-3 month ago?
Sounds like CCP still has some leaks...
dude you must be completely blind to not see that the falcon nerf was comming. Even my parrot knew it! With every one complaining, was just a matter of time. ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
|
Shadowsword
Epsilon Lyr Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 10:02:00 -
[485]
Originally by: Aganola Just one word:
LEAK!!
Remember those 4 Falcon BPOs wich were sold 'oh! so suddenly' and simultaneously 2-3 month ago?
Sounds like CCP still has some leaks...
This is stupid. Everyone know Falcons are overpowered->A nerf was sure to come one day->some anticipated and sold while they still could get the max price for it.
You should think some more before accusing someone again... ------------------------------------------
|
Cheekything
Gallente Fallen Angel's Blade.
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 10:04:00 -
[486]
I do think that the range of ECM ships should not out range more than 175km also I think that it should be more focused role wise.
However I also think that maybe if ECM immune ships were added that could provided ECCM support it'd reduce the effectiveness of ECM in fleet fights.
Also I think CCP should rework all EWAR into racial types as even if the new ideas go into place then ECM will still be the better EWAR I mean if you reduce the jamming strength of rooks people will just bring more rooks.
Lastly rooks I think should be the brawlers as falcons have a low dps so up front in the main fight area they would be useless.
|
Nova Satar
Annihilate.
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 10:06:00 -
[487]
WHATEVER YOU DO, MAKE IT SO THAT WHEN I FINALLY DO MANAGE TO GET A LOCK, THE ****ING THING IS ALEAST IN RANGE OF ME TO SHOOT IT!
If you want to make a real fix, remvoe the ship from game.
|
Colonel Xaven
Decadence. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 10:10:00 -
[488]
Originally by: Cheekything However I also think that maybe if ECM immune ships were added that could provided ECCM support it'd reduce the effectiveness of ECM in fleet fights.
Fit a command ships with ECCM and information warfare modules.
Proud member of RZR - Decadence. |
Nova Satar
Annihilate.
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 10:15:00 -
[489]
Originally by: Thetys finally! thank you soo much CCP, keep up the good work! put some more focus on the "small group pvp" in low sec please (10-15 pilots at each side)
What? Your corp is one of the worst low-sec blob corps i know. You simply DO NOT fight until you have more numbers and atleast 2-3 falcons.
Small Low Sec gangs are not "10 or 15" people.
Focus on ONE or TWO or at a stretch THREE man gangs.
|
Nova Satar
Annihilate.
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 10:20:00 -
[490]
Originally by: Kalissa Dauntless You're going to make the falcon a brawler? You do know it's made of tin foil and falls apart when a small insect passes somewhere close to it?
Do you mean like all the other recon ships?
Look at all these falcon pilots whining. This is a ******ed change becuase it won't nearly nerf falcons enough. CCP will never truly balance them becuase of all the falcon alt accounts they'd lose.
|
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 10:20:00 -
[491]
Originally by: Samiloth Justinian
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.
...
The thing with this thread is that the posters are talking about different kind of fights.
That. I'm talking from the perspective of EM; we do a lot of lowsec warfare, where the combat ranges are usually relatively small (apart from those damn Falcons out at 150km+ ). There, multispecs work fine, since you don't need extreme range.
In 0.0 sniper fleet battles, things are naturally very different, and it's racials all that way.
|
NE14CYBER
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 10:23:00 -
[492]
Originally by: Vaedian GER Edited by: Vaedian GER on 24/03/2009 21:28:38
Quote: Falcon: - ECM Optimal Range Bonus removed
I f**king love you Chronotis!
<3
P.S.: I'm a -10.0 Low-Sec Pirate.
Agreed.
I'm a low sec pilot who can fly a falcon too.
|
Aizhen
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 10:32:00 -
[493]
leave falcons as there are BUT: boost other ew weapons
my idea : make all ew as jamers (chance based)
td : 150 optimal + have chance to "100% stop guns" for 20 sec damps : 150 optimal + have chance to "100% reduse lock range" for 20 sec painters (no idea) : 150% range and give them some usefull role ex: reduce rezists ? for 50 / 100 % for 20 sec
if not : im suporting ccp changes
|
Colonel Xaven
Decadence. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 10:33:00 -
[494]
Originally by: Nova Satar Look at all these falcon pilots whining. This is a ******ed change becuase it won't nearly nerf falcons enough.
Haha, the irony.
Proud member of RZR - Decadence. |
Jalif
Minmatar Black Sinisters
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 10:38:00 -
[495]
What about ECCM?
|Black Sinisters| |
Muad' Dib
Gallente Beyond Divinity Inc
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 10:54:00 -
[496]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis We have been looking again at ECM ships focusing on their roles and whether these ships can be improved overall to better define their roles a little more. With that in mind, we want to share some of our thoughts and gather constructive feedback and suggestions of your own.
ECM Range
Signal Distortion Amplifiers
The SDAs are something of a conundrum. They are really only worth fitting on the ECM specialised ships and are the only EWAR enhancing module we have besides the rigs. Currently they increase your ECM strength and we were looking at swapping this to an ECM range bonus and altering either the base strength of the jammers or the ECM strength bonus of the ships so they become less required in every setup and the low slots could be used for tanking for example.
Ship Changes
We have been looking at all the ECM ships (Griffin, Kitsune, Blackbird, Falcon, Rook and Scorpion). We wanted to ensure each ship had a more focused role which was not just bigger, longer range and better than the others so only one wins outright. The two main themes we were looking at was short range brawler and long range sniper. The brawler would focus on ECM strength at shorter range and the sniper would be longer range but weaker with niches in these areas for each of the ships.
Falcon & Rook
The falcon has been changed to be similar to the pilgrim in its role as a ECM brawler at shorter ranges. It has a bigger ECM strength bonus whilst losing its ECM optimal range bonus. In addition its agility and base velocity and have been increased to allow it to be more manoeuvrable at shorter ranges.
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)
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
The Scorpion
We are looking at putting the scorpion into the short range brawler role. To that end we are looking at removing its ECM Optimal range bonus, increasing the ECM strength bonus a little and adding a cruise/siege launcher rate of fire bonus so it can get close and personal.
Summary Scorpion Changes
- removed the ECM optimal range bonus - increased the ECM strength bonus to 20% per level - added a 5% RoF bonus to cruise & siege missile launchers per level.
Summary
Please provide constructive feedback on the ideas and changes. These changes are not yet on sisi and we will announce when they are. As always, everything is subject to change!
Do you ppl actually play the game, do you actually pvp, or do you make changes based on what you hear ? How does nerfing the Falcon for the pirates alone, solve the problem ? The problem of the Falcon is it's high strength of jammers, and 80-100km range is still snipe range for battleships, just like 160km is. Make ECCM actually work, and reduce the strength of the SDA's. Maybe even buff the sensor strength of every ship in the game by 10%, and you have yourself an easy fix.
How's this for constructive criticism ? --- I smack just for myself.
* Your signature file is to large. Please note: we do not allow signature files larger than 24000 bytes - Fallout |
Algey
The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 10:56:00 -
[497]
This will not fix the problem with the falcon being seen as overpowered in small gangs. Giving the falcon no damage and shorter range / less jamming strength just makes it slightly less good at its job in small gangs, and utterly useless in anything larger (sniper hacs will eat it).
The falcon given a drone bay and more agility would be at least tolerable. It could run a light tank, add dps in small gangs, jam the odd ratter or help control tacklers and would be on a par with the other recons in small gang warfare. You'd need to cap the number of ecm modules on it though, or in small gangs it is still going to jam two or three ships.
The scorp will now be useless in fleet, the rook too expensive to fly in fleet (although it is looking like a mean cerb now), so no more ew in fleet fights :(
DPS and tank, that is the way of things according to ccp.
|
Childeric Polaris
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 10:58:00 -
[498]
Quote: The two main themes we were looking at was short range brawler and long range sniper. The brawler would focus on ECM strength at shorter range and the sniper would be longer range but weaker with niches in these areas for each of the ships.
If you create some ECM disruption charges launchers (pretty much like interdictors' stuff) with a chance of disrupting each ship within a sphere of 15 km, then fine. It could even be useful against spider-tankers.
If you just put the scorpions in the middle of the battlefield so that they get stabbed when trying to disrupt 1 ship at a time, then not fine.
|
Baron Splendiferous
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 11:00:00 -
[499]
Originally by: musgrattio Edited by: musgrattio on 24/03/2009 18:22:57 The general idea is fine, DO NOT GO OVERBOARD. We still need a ECM boat that can jam around 200km, and I think we'd all agree that needs to be the Falcon. If you want to make the Rook a close range ship, fine, but recons, in general, especially cloaking recons, are generally not going to be used at very short ranges. ...
First, why do you need a jamming ship at 200km? no other ewar functions at that range.
Also, it is clear from your post you have never flown a pilgrim.
|
Muad' Dib
Gallente Beyond Divinity Inc
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 11:00:00 -
[500]
Won't even go into how this basically boosts ECM, since everyone will use Falcons still, at 60-70, with even more strength as it is now, and the others that will want to go snipe ecm, will go with a rook with projector rigs and still get the range the falcon presently has. So much for your ideeas. --- I smack just for myself.
* Your signature file is to large. Please note: we do not allow signature files larger than 24000 bytes - Fallout |
|
Johnny Sakk
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 11:01:00 -
[501]
Adapt or die
Also, look at all dem goon tears. Lawl lawl lawl.
|
Nikuno
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 11:04:00 -
[502]
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.
|
Kix'i
Warp Asylum.
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 11:04:00 -
[503]
Could you please comment on ECCM and the centurion implants please.
|
Jalif
Minmatar Black Sinisters
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 11:05:00 -
[504]
I agree with Maud here... this is not going to chance anything tbh.
|Black Sinisters| |
Ronin Reborn
Wrath of Fenris
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 11:08:00 -
[505]
Good lord the new scorp is gonna rock. Suddenly went from something my raven/falcon alt wouldn't touch to something I might consider logging him in over my main to fly.
+1 for swapping Rook/Falcon roles though.
|
The Cuckoo
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 11:08:00 -
[506]
ECM is crap anyway, this is suposed to be a fun game right? What is fun about spending an entire battle jammed, while the person who does it safely sits out of harms way? ECM should be changed so that it's weaker and instead of jamming your ability to lock, just jams a random selection of guns on the target ship, but never be able to jam all your guns at once.
|
C4pevna
Minmatar xSPECNAZx
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 11:10:00 -
[507]
Please boost Widow in comparison to Scorpion, give it some optimal bonus so it feels like a tech2 ship !!!!!!!!! X~ |
Avon
Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers Reloaded
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 11:11:00 -
[508]
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.
アニメ漫画です
|
Leopold Caine
Amarr Ordo Nigrorum Susurri Ordo Magna
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 11:12:00 -
[509]
Originally by: Alex Harumichi Edited by: Alex Harumichi on 25/03/2009 08:17:27
Originally by: Anabella Rella Edited by: Anabella Rella on 25/03/2009 07:04:55
Originally by: Alex Harumichi Extra reason I'm loving this change: the Goons seem to hate it.
That proves it's good for the game.
Hmm, think I have to take exception to this Alex. They may be Goons, but when they're right, they're right.
These wholesale changes to ECM would effectively make Caldari ships (with the possible exception of the Rokh) useless in fleets.
Nonsense. Forcing (some) ECM ships to get in closer just puts then vaguely in the same ballpark as the rest. Guess what? Other races have had to deal with limited range on ewar since forever.
"Falcons don't have tank" because people don't fit tank on their Falcons. I'm forced to fit tank on my Lachesis and Arazu, same goes for our Rapier/Huginn/Curse pilots. Those ships don't have any more actual tanking ability than the Falcon does. Why should the Caldari ECM boats be the only ones being able to play in "safe mode"?
Sure, if you give Gallente 200+km range damps, Minmatar 200+km ranged webs, and Amarr 200+km range tracking disruptors, then we can talk.
Before that: welcome to the club the rest of us are in. Tank or die. The Flavor of the Month Express has left the station.
I agree with this. I think it's not a nerf per se, but just balancing the Falcon in low sec warfare, as it is overpowered to act as an EW platform and evade gateguns. However, that's nerfing it in terms of nullsec snipe blobs, but I don't think force recons were designed for that. You don't see much Pilgrims in them, for example. Not to mention we'll see some new interesting fittings and tactics. I was expecting more folks will be discussing if a 1600mm plate would be a better investment than a 800mm, if the new Falcon will get an agility bonus? As for the dps, why would you need dps? It's a force recon ship. Let your dps ships take care of that. Of course, Pilgrims Arazus and Rapiers have some dps, but they don't rely on it as much as on their EW. And Falcon was never a solo ship anyway, so... So, no offense to anyone, but I think Falcons are just about to get fun. For both of those flying them and not flying them. Remember folks, it's just a game. More fun, less whine please. ________________________________________ Me sir? Just a simple passerby, I wouldn't know. |
Lindsay Logan
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 11:16:00 -
[510]
Originally by: Mark iT
Spider tanking BS gangs and logistics will be unbreakable. GRAWWW YARRR!!!
This is my main concern about this. The range can be compensated for by adding 1 or 2 more ECM ships to gangs, but not breaking a spider tank is the death of small gang and solo PvP. Welcome blob land.
|
|
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.
|
|
Afganec
Minmatar Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 12:43:00 -
[541]
Edited by: Afganec on 25/03/2009 12:47:16 Edited by: Afganec on 25/03/2009 12:45:31 rofl, thank u ccp for good emotions !
I know falc is overpowered. Why not to nerf falc, and maybe boost other electronic warfare ships ?
and as for changes:
Summary Scorpion Changes - removed the ECM optimal range bonus -- Close range bs w/o tank. Muhaha.
Summary Rook Changes - 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 Who needs this crappy missile + drone dps from "always a primary" ship ?
Summary Falcon changes - ECM Optimal Range Bonus removed (52km optimal ..whatever..) Thats exactly pulse apoc optimal! 2 megapulse volleys and we've got a new shiny t2 wreck. That's why u gave us t2 salvager, right ?
|
Xia Kairui
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 12:52:00 -
[542]
I think a big problem to come to any solution here is that ECM is so different to all other forms of EWAR right now. It is not scripted, but instead "racially challenged", meaning you need a specific module for every race you want to jam. All other EWAR work regardless of the target ship's producer. Due to this the ECM ships are forced or feel obliged to dedicate their entire mid-slots to ECM - no other EWAR ship has to do this. In my eyes the best solution would be to remove this - get rid of all the racial jammers and make one unified ECM module. This should pull the ECM ships more in line with the other EWAR ships and allow them to do something else besides ECM. To compensate for this the ECM strength needs to be adjusted.
Also all other EWAR have a counter module that has some sort of beneficial side effect. Sensor Boosters counter Damps AND make it easier for you to lock that pod. MWDs and ABs counter web and add mobility. The other exception is the Target Painter, and you could say that one is countered by the tank. ECCMs however are only useful if you are about to be jammed and are dead weight otherwise - and even when you need them their effect is often doubtful. I'm also a firm believer in changing the effect of ECM. As others have said before being jammed reduces the target to a spectator who can only hope for a failed cycle. Nothing he can do has any influence on when and if he will be able to do something again, and this is just plain boring.
All these changes will require a lot of rewriting however.
The proposed changes are fast to implement, but to me feel wrong. They appear to focus on the wrong problem and solve that with inadequate means. It somehow looks as if someone wants to disable nano ships by reducing the speed of all ships in game, and noone in his right mind would... oh, wait.
|
Red Thunder
tr0pa de elite Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 13:06:00 -
[543]
hahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahhahaahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah take that falcon whoring noobs :D
Eagles may soar, but weasels dont get sucked into jet engines |
Penzias
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 13:10:00 -
[544]
It is extremely unfortunate that CCP wants to completely remove EW as a tactic in the game. It is clear that CCP wants the only thing to happen in space battles is 1) warp jam ship (or warp bubble) 2) fire guns 3) repeat until someone is dead.
EW offers such tantalizing potential to add tactics to the games other than warp jamming and firing guns, that it's sad to see EW being nerfed rather than enhanced. The Falcon ECM debate is a good one, since it should force CCP to relook at ECM, Sensor Dampeners, Tracking Disrupters and Energy Neutralisers to see how to add more balance so there are other ways to win a fight rather than raw dps. Alas, CCP has take the Falcon ECM debate and did the easy thing - nerf everything to uselessness.
With that said, from GM Chronotis's post it is clear that nerfing is the order of the day, so some feedback on the nerf.
1) As many have pointed out CCP has the roles for the Falcon and Rook completely reversed. The Falcon is so paper thin it needs to be the "long range ECM ship" and the Rook has to be the "ECM brawler". Doing it any other way makes no sense. 2) Why in the world would you nerf the Scorpion? When was the last time someone started a nerf Scorpions thread? Folks rarely complain about the Scorpion because it isn't broken. The Scorpion's only Fleet role is to stay at maximum range and jam as many ships as possible. The opposing fleet will always primary a Scorpion that gets within sniping range and will send tackle after it if it's not in sniping range. The Scorpion is a paper thin BS when outfitted for ECM; it's only defense is it's range bonus. So CCP wants to remove the range and make it a "ECM brawler". By adding a 5% RoF bonus? To a ship that can only fit 4 launchers/turrets? Huh? If you really want to make the Scorpion a "ECM Brawler" the only bonus that makes sense is a 5% shield resistance per level bonus. That is the only thing that can given a Scorpion a tiny bit of survivability if it has to fight within sniping range.
|
Soldur
Helljumpers Confederation of Independent Corporations
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 13:10:00 -
[545]
hurry everyone train for caldari so u can npc while we figure out what else they are good for
|
Jallem Sims
Minmatar Quantum Industries
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 13:13:00 -
[546]
i welcome ccp's efforts into amending the falcon.
funny how both sides whine at the other... waaa waaa, they are overpowered... waaa waaa your tears are salty and tasty...
i eventually trained up my alt to fly one to counter those that have falcon alts. last night i went for a 1 v 1 while in my crusier. He was in a battle crusier. As he was loosing he decloaked his falcon. So i decloaked mine to jam him. He then decloaked another falcon >.<
When does it get silly? a fight that a BC should have won, but found he was loosing then used his falcon, it was countered so another falcon was decloaked.... the fight was about who got jams on who.... not who hada great setup, not who could fly at there optimals, or who had the right balance of dps/tank :( (it was a fun fight and the game mechanics are what they are... so be it, but i was amused with the number of falcons on the grid for a simple 1v1)
Reduction is range is good - if you can jam up to 5/6 and still sit 70k from the fight.... unless its a gang of inties your still going to be able to jam the dam and warp out.
increase in dps - there to provide your own short range defense if someone does actually manage to get to you and for some reason you can't jam them?
Tbh, just sounds like ccp are trying to make this ship fit in with the recent speed nurf.
reduced fall off will mean your eccm's are more effective. Means you can't just sit there with your falcon alt, you have to actually fly the ship now. thats the main problem.... falcon alt = sit at safe range click jam cycles....
for those that fly falcons as your main ship, why would this upset you? your going to be effective as always... just going to be more intense for you :) |
Rordan D'Kherr
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 13:22:00 -
[547]
Originally by: Penzias 2) Why in the world would you nerf the Scorpion?
I tend to say that it's going to be an ecm pwnmobile. The scorp currently has a range role and always gets primaried. So most ppl switch to Falcon (same range, only ECM, cheaper, more agile, cloak).
Now with the Scorp as a close range BS with torps and good ECM strength it's going to let Caldari actually have a good addition. But we will see how it's going...
Originally by: Red Thunder haha*10¦
Fixed it for you.
I am curious when the first "nerf ECM" threads will appear made by people like you who cannot handle the Falcon / Rook / Scorp, because you will get jammed still and will cry that you cannot own everything in your tank & gank fit.
|
Ak'athra J'ador
Amarr Can't Decide Balance of Judgment
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 13:26:00 -
[548]
hey chronotis, i am going to make my reply as useful as your post was:
**** you
if you are not smart enough to work around ecm ships that is your problem
if you want to take away the versatility of eve and make everything the same, well that is my problems as I, unlike you, love this game.
si i will repeat myself:
**** you
|
Serret Nevets
The Hull Miners Union
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 13:26:00 -
[549]
OMG the cry babies in this thread!!!!
"falcon can't fight up close cause it doesn't have a tank" Oh bologna!!! Just because you don't fit a tank doesn't mean it can't have one. Use one or two of those mids for a LSE II. Sorry... your not going to be able to fit 6-7 ECM to jam the entire enemy fleet. Wow, have to bring two of them...
The Arazu suffers from the same "ain't got no tank"... Now at least with the Falconpossibly in its range, damps *might* be viable.
Domino/Notes? Yeah, it sucks but that's why I'm employed!!! |
Virusen
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 13:28:00 -
[550]
52 km too short, any jammer will be killed by target's drones, even if target will be in jamm, need at least 80 km. 20 secs really long period of jamm, it can be cut to 10 sec, for example
|
|
Atropos Kahn
Caldari Solarflare Heavy Industries Doctrine.
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 13:29:00 -
[551]
Wow... I guess the Falcon and Rook will die just that much quicker.
Everyone seems to forget that ECM boats are always... always... always... instant primary... forcing them to become close combat ships just makes them intant dead in any engagement...
If you are going to make them close range... Look at the ECM BURST modules... perhaps give them some luv... expand the range of the burst from 6km with a fall off of 6km, to like 15km with a falloff of like 10km or so...
|
The Tzar
Malicious Intentions The Church.
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 13:34:00 -
[552]
Haha! Brilliant!
Please initiate the proposed changes, reduce the range on ECM ships and increase the ECM strength. Good falcon pilots will be EVEN MORE effective and the nub-alt plague will stop using them.
The whiners will still do what they do best until ECM is removed from game completely. __________________________________________
'Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear intelligent until they speak' __________________________________________ |
GrumpE
Eye of God Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 13:38:00 -
[553]
ECM is now balanced with long-range snipers. If you lower the ECM range, will you have to lower the sniper range?
If not, then (paraphrasing CCP Chronotis) wouldn't sniping specialised ships "be so far out of the fight to be almost completely safe"?
What's next once you upset ECM again? |
Scarlet Pimpernel
Clan Eshin
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 13:41:00 -
[554]
Originally by: Kulmid
Everyone saying the Falcon has no tank, that's because YOU fit no tank, not because it can't be done. Sacrifice some EWar and slap on a tank just like every single recon has to do.
Like those other low slot armour tanking ones you mean that can still use their miss for e-war - gotcha!
|
Funky Feeling
Ventis Secundis Aggression.
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 13:41:00 -
[555]
you idiots won't leave well enough alone.
I guess all the whinging and moaning by noobs that cannot figure out how to counter the falcon works.... how many more months before you've managed to destroy all the training that everyone has done for everything else?
There are so many freaking problems in this game, why do you insist on trashing the parts of the game that actually make it fun to play. Why not fix the lag and desynching. Make the freaking fleet battles worth fighting for a change.
So.. is there a nerf list.. what ship or mod do you plan on nerfing next? I want to make sure I don't bother training towards it anymore.
|
Serret Nevets
The Hull Miners Union
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 13:44:00 -
[556]
I don't even fly a falcon, and here's a decent fit for this change:
[Falcon, change?] Damage Control II Ballistic Control System II Power Diagnostic System II
Large Shield Extender II Large Shield Extender II ECM - Spatial Destabilizer II ECM - Phase Inverter II ECM - Ion Field Projector II ECM - White Noise Generator II Y-T8 Overcharged Hydrocarbon I Microwarpdrive
Covert Ops Cloaking Device II Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Torrent Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Torrent Assault Missile 200mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge M
Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
Domino/Notes? Yeah, it sucks but that's why I'm employed!!! |
Spurty
Caldari Amok. Minor Threat.
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 13:49:00 -
[557]
Originally by: GrumpE ECM is now balanced with long-range snipers. If you lower the ECM range, will you have to lower the sniper range?
What is with people bringing up this single 'encounter type' as a defense to 250km Ewar ?
If falcons are getting targeted, they aren't jamming and probably warped off and cloaked before any ship got within 180kms of them (nano-rebalance makes em nice and safe).
Thats just disturbing lol.
Someone else already pointed out that if you want to keep this, give all other races equal range with their Ewar to counter every 'encounter type'.
CCP does need to do something to ECM, its outrageous and has been for years, only we could get ships up to 30km/s to counter it. Now we can't cover 250kms in under 20 seconds.
20 seconds is all it takes to primary some ships if you have enough friends.
And for the 'paper thin' tank tards, put a 1600mm plate on. Nice hitpoint buffer there. Certainly not paper thin if you don't go full tard with the midslots all filled with Ewar.
No other Ewar ship can afford that, so welcome to the party!
Looking forward to this.
However this said, the Rook is clearly the brawler CCP.
Please just write a simulation and do 1000 battles automatically and see which survives longer, falcon or rook up close!
Originally by: Butter Dog
I think you'll find that 10 seconds > 1 month
|
Ak'athra J'ador
Amarr Can't Decide Balance of Judgment
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 13:49:00 -
[558]
hey chronotis, i am going to make my reply as useful as your post was:
**** you
if you are not smart enough to work around ecm ships that is your problem
if you want to take away the versatility of eve and make everything the same, well that is my problems as I, unlike you, love this game.
si i will repeat myself:
**** you
|
Mendolus
Aurelius Federation Apotheosis of Virtue
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 13:50:00 -
[559]
Looks like I'll be training Gallente Cruiser V after all. 25 days of Caldari Cruiser V, can I cash in those chips and use towards Gallente?
I don't see myself flying a 200mil paper ship at melee range, so you can have your Falcon back now
Pretty soon we'll all be flying pong boards and the only thing in space will be cubes floating around waiting for us to paddle them cuz they're oh so naughty.
Seriously though, just swap optimal and falloff, everyone can live with that, there's no reason to go all kamikaze on ECM ships. Spend all that extra energy to buff the other recons, some of them certainly need some TLC.
{...and they will respect a line drawn in the sand more than forgiveness} |
Tekki Sandan
Gallente Federation of Freedom Fighters Aggression.
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 13:51:00 -
[560]
yay, but i can see falcons just adding the new range enhancing mods in the lows to get that range up and then basically they just got a jam strenght boost, and rather than sitting at 200 they will be 150 (within sniping range il admit but still its a long way out)
just what it looks like to me - A boost for the falcon, and makes the rook less useless..
|
|
Sky Marshal
IMpAct Corp Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 13:53:00 -
[561]
Edited by: Sky Marshal on 25/03/2009 13:55:24
Originally by: Serret Nevets I don't even fly a falcon, and here's a decent fit for this change:
[Falcon, change?] [...]
Sure, you don't fly them.
Or you would know that a Falcon has too bad resists to tank same with 2 LSE and 2 rigs, and need a Sensor Booster to be able to jam a jammer before be jammed. Also, the new version should need range rigs, it would be better.
Seriously, players of other race than Caldari shouldn't comment a nerf who concern Caldari players. ___________________
CCP presents...
Band Of Brothers Reloaded : The Return Of T20
The new sequel of the darwining greater alliance of all MMORPGs.
|
Maddan69
Beyond Divinity Inc
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 13:53:00 -
[562]
I havnt thumbed through this whole thread yet but one problem I see with nerfing the falcon like this is pirates are gonna get hit hard if they cannot jam past sentry gun range (150km) on stations and gates.
Basically it makes the falcon a toy that will not be used but rather it will just collect dust in my hangar. I have flown the falcon for over 2 years now and yes it needs a change but I dont think this nerf is the best route. I will be testing out new fits on SISI when it has these changes applied to them.
|
Karezan
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 13:57:00 -
[563]
Originally by: Rordan D'Kherr
Originally by: Penzias 2) Why in the world would you nerf the Scorpion?
I tend to say that it's going to be an ecm pwnmobile. The scorp currently has a range role and always gets primaried. So most ppl switch to Falcon (same range, only ECM, cheaper, more agile, cloak).
Falcon cheaper than scorp?
Originally by: Serret Nevets OMG the cry babies in this thread!!!!
"falcon can't fight up close cause it doesn't have a tank" Oh bologna!!! Just because you don't fit a tank doesn't mean it can't have one. Use one or two of those mids for a LSE II. Sorry... your not going to be able to fit 6-7 ECM to jam the entire enemy fleet. Wow, have to bring two of them...
The Arazu suffers from the same "ain't got no tank"... Now at least with the Falconpossibly in its range, damps *might* be viable.
1 or 2 LSE? So that basically adds like 3 seconds to it's lifespan? Sweet!
The arazu can fit a better tank, having 4 lows that it can all dedicate to a tank, whereas if the falcon did the same thing for mids, it would only have 3 left, and still no MWD or point. Now before you say that the falcon can use those 3 lows for a tank, yes it can, but it's armor is complete crap compared to the arazu, and it is not designed to armor tank so it has higher CPU and lower PG (whereas armor tanks have lower CPU and higher PG).
So yes, it's tank is worse than the arazu, and guess what? When was the last time you saw people talking about the merit of an arazu in fleets? It's no secret it needs a buff, it's been ****ed every since the damp nerf, but has simply gone ignored.
Lastly, have you even been in a fleet of any size at all?
A single falcon does not jam an entire fleet, that's a dumb statement even for a hyperbole. No fleet of any size would limit themselves to only one falcon if more are available, people already bring more than 2, that's pretty much why the nerf cries happened in the first place. The new falcon wouldn't have a place in fleet ops anyway, they are typically long range. I'm sure even you can figure out what will happen to a flimsy ship when it is within 50km of the enemy while the rest of your fleet is 180km out.
|
Kriller
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 14:12:00 -
[564]
If you are going to make these changes remove the chance based functionality and make it hit every time then it might be viable to go close range. So atleast you KNOW that you will get a jam !
|
Hanns
Canadian Aerospace Defence Sector
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 14:15:00 -
[565]
Originally by: Barrey
2) Divide ECM into long-range/low strength and short-range/high strength categories, through either scripts or separate mods. This would force ECM ships to make the same range/effectiveness trade-off that DPS ships must make.
or
3) Divide ECM mods into cruiser-sized and battleship mods. Much like you can't use heavy turrets to shoot frigates, maybe you shouldn't be able to use the same ECM mods on both an interceptor and a carrier. Although this would effectively decrease the capabilities of an ECM specialized pilot, it would add to fleet diversity and allow another layer to the strategy of equipping a fleet.
I like this, i hate falcons but i think the nerf might be a little heavy handed.
Originally by: Tuxford a new retribution bonus +1 med slot per level
|
Lijhal
FrEE d00M Fighters
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 14:22:00 -
[566]
seriously, why dont you delete caldari at all and give us the option to replace our sp's into other skills ?
amarr, here i come!
|
Laechyd Eldgorn
Caldari Endemic Aggression Exalted.
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 14:24:00 -
[567]
pretty ******ed ideas
ecm ships die in a blink of eye, if ecm streght would decrease even a bit from current they'd be pretty useless piece of junk. if you change SDA's it should be made sure that scorpion/rook etc. can still have same ECM strenght even without 3 of those modules. Gawd...
if you can't jam from 200km+ ship which gets always primaried dies in less than 10 seconds you need for aligning out... under 100km ecm optimal what are you dev guys thinking huh? Yeah, sure lets put ships which are least maneuverable, slow and have tank next to nothing in point blank range. And don't forget drones which are practically immune to ewar to beging with.
Great idea.
Marvelous.
Needless to say I'm against this whole thing, and glad I'm now amarr pilot.
|
Winterreign
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 14:27:00 -
[568]
This is my good idea for ECM. Please read following CCP.
Personaly the ranges are not nessisarly the problem. The problem is the functionality of ECM in general.
ECM stands for Electronic Counter Measures, the fact that in eve what ECM means is removing a ship from combat. Two things which don't go together.
There is no way to circumvent Jamming you just have to wait out your cycle time as with sensor dampening you can attempt to close the distance to overcome the effects of being Sensor dampened.
Personaly i would call for a radical redesign of ECM in general.
Redirecting ECM to a more intuitive roll with ECM working just like it's name sake.
When you target an enemy model and utilize ECM it should lower your Signature radius VS that target by a certain amount. This should always be a Set amount reguardless if you successfuly cause them to loose lock or not.
Further more if that target has you locked on, they stand a chance of Losing lock-on of your Ship only. They will not loose lock with all ships they have targeted. Just the one utlizeing ECM.
There is no penalty, they are not jammed for 20 secconds they just loose lock-on. The lock on time, is penalty enough really.
In summery: Target ship has you locked. You target ship and use ECM against them. You have decreased sig radius vs that ship and that ship stands chance to loose lock on you.
You can stack multiple ECM's to lower your Signature radius further but like all things in Eve multiple systems gains less and less return but increase's ability to disrupt lock on.
Further More, introduce somthing called ECM-Links which function exactly like all other linking Electronics, this utlize's your ships bonus's for ECM Str, on another freindly ship and any ships-locked onto them suffer a penalty: decreasing freindly targets signature radius and the chance to loose lock on with that ship.
So now we have two different systems, ECM for personal protection and ECM-Linking for defending teammates. No longer will ECM ships be purely outfitted with just ECM jammers but instead have a mix of personal ECM and support ECM modeuls.
I would get rid of ECCM and ECCM linking unless you want to keep it for strictly sensor Str bonus, instead we have target painter that is the real counter to ECM. As it should be.
Now what we will see is a significant increase in Target painters and their ability to not only counter ECM but make as intended make Signature Radius of the target bigger.
Additionaly the change in ECM means Burst ECM can be used in high sec. Thus bringing a much maligned system back into functionality and feasability. Have it represented like a small bubble effect. Lowering freindly ships signature radius vs enemy ships in the bubble and enemy ships in the bubble suffering chance of loosing lock against freindly targets in the bubble.
Thus filling almost filling the role of previous ECM's causing an enemy to loose all targeted lock-on's. they can immedently re-target but still it hurts them. Making burst ECM a very short range but effective counter.
Signal Distortions and be used to increase ECM and ECM-linking ranges as well as a small bonus to Jammer Str. Further more you should consider making Signal Distortions a global system. Having a small increase in strength for all Electronic warfare equipment, Tracking disrupters, targeting painting, ECM, Sensor Damp as well as the optimal range bonus.
Thus ECM is not the End-All Be all of ship support but plays a very effective and tactical support role more in line with it's name sake and balencing.
Onto your actual questions
Scorp deffinatly needs a Seige/cruise missle ROF bonus or perferably a Damage Bonus. And I would go so far to lower high slots to 5 and increase launchers to 5. It is a battleship after all and it should have some means of killing more effectivly
Thoughts?
-Winter
|
Threv Echandari
Caldari K Directorate
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 14:36:00 -
[569]
W.T.F. Are you smoking over there In Iceland
First you want to Turn the SB into a single role Useless Piece of Sheeit. Now you want to swap the roles of the Falcon and The Rook (which nobody uses)?!?! And to top it off this leaves your 150KM Sniping BS untouchable. WTG CCP. Look I think the changes you are proposing are interesting, your are doing to an entire ship class what you did to Sensor Damps. Heck why not just script the ECM Modules it makes about as much sense. I fly a Falcon and I will agree that when the Falcon come on scene its pretty much game over nnd Something needs to be done since the rook is never used because the falcon is so much better.However your proposals will just reverse the situation making the Falcon damn near useless (like the Pilgrim) and the Rook the prefreed ship except the Snipers will pop them because they can't jam them at range. It the Stealth Bomber redux (Like the absurd Stealth Bomber changes) Close Range + paper tank = certain death. DO YOU EVEN PLAY YOUR OWN GAME?!?
The Scorpion I'm fine with it for the most part. Give it an better resists and faster lock time with the dmg bonus and your golden, it will fill its Brawler role nicely. (Huge bonus to ECM Burst too see bottom)
If you are going to stay true to your twisted form I suppose your going to make the Griffin a "Brawler" and the Kitsune the Sniper. I have not seen you proposal on that but judging by the Bizzaro world changes you are contemplating it would not surprise me. For the love of whatever you hold holy think this over again. These changes leave the Sniper BS the undisputed king of the battlefield with no decent counter (except more Snipers). I dont mind an ECM Strength nerf as long as the ranges are comparable to a sniping BS. (The BS will have counter with ECCM so it would be a nice balance I think).
Oh and while your at it try and show some love to the ECM Burst as it stands now its barely useful against a Shuttle if you are going to go with this "Brawler" fantasy make it so the Burst can actually break a RR BS gang (as it its now BS Sensore strength will alway be more powerful than the Burst) ---------------------------------------- Happiness is a Wet Pod
|
Vrikshaka
0ff-Peak Esoteric Cutthroats
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 14:36:00 -
[570]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis We have been looking again at ECM ships focusing on their roles and whether these ships can be improved overall to better define their roles a little more.
Awesome. Sweet Falcon alt tears, keep em coming.
|
|
Andrea Griffin
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 14:40:00 -
[571]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Please provide constructive feedback on the ideas and changes. These changes are not yet on sisi and we will announce when they are. As always, everything is subject to change!
I think this is perfectly fine, and it bring ECM more in line with what we already have with turrets: Close range, high damage guns, and long range, lower damage guns. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Myself, I'm very interested in the close range, higher strength ships (I hope the Griffin is one of them). Variety is good.
Too bad about the Falcon Whine on the forums though. Now it is "Falcons are too powerful!" Next it will be "OMG, Falcons are useless!"
|
Jallem Sims
Minmatar Quantum Industries
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 14:49:00 -
[572]
falcons are paper thin.... have you flown the rapier recently?
i am sorry you guys that are so upset feel that your safety ship is no longer an easy ride.... you will have to fly it now, put a tank on it, use some of those slots for a tank rather than all out ewar.
in my rapier i have to fit 2 LSE's and have shield rigs too... and i not even going to mention the cap! and i have to be within 40k to use my ewar bonus.... and i still melt! each force recon pilot feels the same pain too :-/ but we understand the gains and bonus we have on the fleet by being there. //i also fly a falcon, but i know they are overpowered, thats why i trained up for one//
to the snipers will hit me everytime now... how big is your sig? in the crusier class ship? try learning the art of transversal... oh, you mean you have to actually fly your ship?
please... give a better solution rather than 'you ruined our lives'... otherwise you will find it gets nerfed a lot harder because YOU couldn't think of a more reasoned way. |
Muad' Dib
Gallente Beyond Divinity Inc
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 14:54:00 -
[573]
Edited by: Muad'' Dib on 25/03/2009 14:56:48 So i missclicked on CCP's Chronotis' profile and i found this.
To quote from his bio :
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Long term eve player who was persuaded by the Jovians to join their organization and was teleported to Polaris a long time ago. Has since that time focused on the science and industry aspect of Eve Online.
They sure picked the right fella for pvp changes, haven't they ? --- I smack just for myself.
* Your signature file is to large. Please note: we do not allow signature files larger than 24000 bytes - Fallout |
Mendolus
Aurelius Federation Apotheosis of Virtue
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 15:01:00 -
[574]
Originally by: Jallem Sims falcons are paper thin.... have you flown the rapier recently?
i am sorry you guys that are so upset feel that your safety ship is no longer an easy ride.... you will have to fly it now, put a tank on it, use some of those slots for a tank rather than all out ewar.
in my rapier i have to fit 2 LSE's and have shield rigs too... and i not even going to mention the cap! and i have to be within 40k to use my ewar bonus.... and i still melt! each force recon pilot feels the same pain too :-/ but we understand the gains and bonus we have on the fleet by being there. //i also fly a falcon, but i know they are overpowered, thats why i trained up for one//
to the snipers will hit me everytime now... how big is your sig? in the crusier class ship? try learning the art of transversal... oh, you mean you have to actually fly your ship?
please... give a better solution rather than 'you ruined our lives'... otherwise you will find it gets nerfed a lot harder because YOU couldn't think of a more reasoned way.
Yes, because Falcon has so many mids it can fit ECM, MWD, LSE, and Sensor Boost and somehow many to be useful.
Seriously, I put a MWD on my Falcon, and suddenly I am using 80% of my cap just to warp from point A to B (and yes I have the related skills at IVs and Vs). And the MWD itself is a joke, I can run it for... 20 seconds while my other mods are active?
IMO the biggest problem is that the Falcon can hit too many targets, whereas the other recons are limited to single or double targets. Falcon can lock down a small gang by itself.
Switch optimal and falloff and reduce jamming strength by only a small margin so it's better than Blackbird, worse than Rook, which necessitates stacking the ECM to jam up one or two targets down at most.
Or alternatively, consider making ECM subject to signature radius penalties and change nothing else. If a Rokh can hit me at +150km, I should be able to jam him at +150km IF AND ONLY IF I am in the ship supposedly designed to counter snipers. Meaning, that BS with a large sig, is easier for me to jam up.
{...and they will respect a line drawn in the sand more than forgiveness} |
Inspirer
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 15:05:00 -
[575]
Can drones be really usefull when you (dev team) see rook as a long range ecm boat? Maybe drones will be more usefull on close range ships? Falcon with its shield capacity, no guns and 3 low slots won't be able to tank anything. So in my opinion falcon should stay long range boat with lower ECM strength and without guns. As for rook. It can be middle or even close range ECM boat with some damage and nice ECM strength.
|
UmaThurman
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 15:14:00 -
[576]
Any ECm jammer ship is primary target. Do you really think it is good idea to place ECM ship in the middle of battle? You want to add 5% of ROF for Scorpion, it is really "great" help for role of this ship. The changes what you plan just destroy original roles.
|
Zenuo Nexus
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 15:15:00 -
[577]
Nice one..
I'm really looking forward to do 30dps in my Falcon on my opponent in close range combat not bothering this ship could not even tank a few drones for a minute. And not mentioning a Falcon is primary in every fleetfight i've been.
Oh, and theres still the Rook. Woohh.. dangerous. Fittet with 5 worthless launchers in distance combat. But who cares if u could now let some drones surround you while attacking from 150km distance.
Hell, that are changes Caldari pilots always waited for. Seeing a few million sp flushing down the drain just because some other players are not able to fit countermeasures against ecm.
Sorry for the sarcasm, but these changes cant be taken seriously.
PS: to all Pilgrim and other pilots, you dont have to fit racial types of modules let your ship become a bit effective.
|
Rordan D'Kherr
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 15:16:00 -
[578]
RR Scorp gangs! \o/
|
sih noh
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 15:17:00 -
[579]
a pilgrim cant td that 200k sniper so that it cant hit him, an arazu wont damp at that range. webbing/painting it sure as hell isnt going to help. why should your race be the only one able to disable that ship at that range? and why should said ship also be the only effective counter to itself, thats rediculous. as for the tank suck it up and fit 2 LSE like the rest of the recons have to for buffer. and then disable less ships at a time, like the other recons too. oh no some balance might be on the horizon what ever will we do.
|
6Bagheera9
Slacker Industries The Boat Violencing Initiative
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 15:19:00 -
[580]
The proposed changes to the Scorpion don't make a lot of sense to me. It is not considered to be overpowered and the removable of its optimal range bonus would negate its role in 150km fleet engagements, denigrating them into simple slug fests.
The proposed roles for the Falcon and Rook seem very confused. It would make more sense for the Rook to have less ECM optimal and more jamming strength, encouraging it to fight at the same ranges that it could use its heavy missiles. The Falcon is more naturally configured to be an ECM sniper because of its cloak and its lack of hi-slots(insufficient potential dps, even with a new bonus, for it to risk getting close.) Let it keep its optimal range bonus (perhaps nerfed, but still present), but at the cost of its jamming potential. This would also be inline with how short ranged weapons do more dps than longer range ones.
Please don't try to rewrite the entire game to fix this one issue. While the Speed nerf was on the whole good, it did make faction low-slot speed modules useless and snake implants nearly so (compared to the other pirate implants).
|
|
Shoukei
Caldari Boobs Ahoy
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 15:21:00 -
[581]
Great work guys. Could you look into ECCM as well? As it stands now, even with 3 ECCM fitted, falcon can still keep you jammed all too well.
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar M. Corp
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 15:25:00 -
[582]
Originally by: 6Bagheera9 The proposed changes to the Scorpion don't make a lot of sense to me. It is not considered to be overpowered and the removable of its optimal range bonus would negate its role in 150km fleet engagements, denigrating them into simple slug fests.
The proposed roles for the Falcon and Rook seem very confused. It would make more sense for the Rook to have less ECM optimal and more jamming strength, encouraging it to fight at the same ranges that it could use its heavy missiles. The Falcon is more naturally configured to be an ECM sniper because of its cloak and its lack of hi-slots(insufficient potential dps, even with a new bonus, for it to risk getting close.) Let it keep its optimal range bonus (perhaps nerfed, but still present), but at the cost of its jamming potential. This would also be inline with how short ranged weapons do more dps than longer range ones.
Please don't try to rewrite the entire game to fix this one issue. While the Speed nerf was on the whole good, it did make faction low-slot speed modules useless and snake implants nearly so (compared to the other pirate implants).
Have to agree on that. But since falcon can cloak and combined with range it would NEED to be quite weaker than the rook on jamming str. ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
|
Zenuo Nexus
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 15:27:00 -
[583]
Originally by: Shoukei Great work guys. Could you look into ECCM as well? As it stands now, even with 3 ECCM fitted, falcon can still keep you jammed all too well.
Well.. with luck a Falcon can jam if he throws all modules on you but he's never able to do the dmg to bring you down
|
Melina Quaid
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 15:32:00 -
[584]
Edited by: Melina Quaid on 25/03/2009 15:36:13 Edited by: Melina Quaid on 25/03/2009 15:32:29
I wouldn't mind getting a slight ECM strengh boost and have the range reduced as it gets closer to the way I'll probably fly it. I thought about a THEORICAL setup which I think would work pretty nicely to probe n' nail mission-*****s :
Quote: [Falcon, New Setup 1] Damage Control II Power Diagnostic System II Power Diagnostic System II
ECM - Spatial Destabilizer II ECM - Phase Inverter II ECM - Ion Field Projector II ECM - White Noise Generator II Caldari Navy Invulnerability Field Domination Warp Disruptor Gistii B-Type Small Shield Booster
Covert Ops Cloaking Device II Recon Probe Launcher I, Spook Scanner Probe I Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket Rocket Launcher II, Caldari Navy Thorn Rocket
Particle Dispersion Augmentor I Particle Dispersion Augmentor I
Just don't look at EFT's Recon Probe Launcher nor the Spook probe as they got changed in AP and I don't have the tiniest clue about what they got changed to.
+ 118 Defence efficiency, allowing you to tank drone fire while your rockets melt them down. + SDA's get changed, but I assume not the rigs, so go for the rigs and swap SDA's for PDU's to enhance your tank, cap, and even make this setup cap stable. + Domi Disruptor allows you to get a point on your target while staying out of range of Heavy Neuts and staying well into ECM optimal range. - The only flaw I can see in this, should I repeat, THEORICAL setup, would be the lack of a speed mod to dictate the tight range between 25-29km.
That said, I wouldn't say no to either a slight base resistances increase, or a slight base HP boost.
|
Lijhal
FrEE d00M Fighters
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 15:34:00 -
[585]
Originally by: Mendolus
Yes, because Falcon has so many mids it can fit ECM, MWD, LSE, and Sensor Boost and somehow many to be useful.
You forgot Falcons need to fit 4 racial jammers while other recons only fit 2 at least ... 3 slots left for mwd, invu, lse (wohooo, bc signature size), web, disrupter, whatever ... wow
|
UmaThurman
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 15:34:00 -
[586]
It is really not good idea to move jammers into middle of the batlle. Any jammer is primarry target. If you move them into optimal range of any weapon, they are dead ships very quickly. They cannot tank any DMG as they use in the tank slots jammers... If you cut optimal range like your plans for Scorpion, players get new gift from you, new useless ships.
|
Scarlet Pimpernel
Clan Eshin
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 15:34:00 -
[587]
Originally by: Shoukei Great work guys. Could you look into ECCM as well? As it stands now, even with 3 ECCM fitted, falcon can still keep you jammed all too well.
What you didn't see was that he probably had to use all his jammers to do it
|
Shoukei
Caldari Boobs Ahoy
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 15:36:00 -
[588]
Originally by: Zenuo Nexus Well.. with luck a Falcon can jam if he throws all modules on you but he's never able to do the dmg to bring you down
Point i tried to make is, if you sacrifice all your mid slots, making your ship more or less completely useless, at least you should know that you wont be almost perma jammed by just one falcon.
|
mPistoleroZ
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 15:38:00 -
[589]
great work guys... plz remove ALL e/w next time cuz at present only eccm works (lol dampeners, lol nos)
imagine the falcon in fleet.. it wont even load grid... close range = many can hit it
instead of boosting a little other e/w you want to remove this from pvp more and more! so yes, the bigger the better!
ps. pls nerf the already nerfed Scorpion
|
Shoukei
Caldari Boobs Ahoy
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 15:39:00 -
[590]
Originally by: Scarlet Pimpernel What you didn't see was that he probably had to use all his jammers to do it
What other ship completely invalidates any other ship, no matter what the fittings? All have their uses and counters, with any other recon there's something a smart person can do. With falcon, even fitting modules that are supposed to counter it, don't actually counter it. Falcon can also easily fit a monster armor tank. 1600mm plate plus 2 EANS.
|
|
Pallidum Treponema
Body Count Inc. Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 15:40:00 -
[591]
As a skilled falcon pilot with zero losses, I can agree that the falcon is an overpowered ship. It should be noted though that a falcon is NOT a solo-pwn-machine. The Falcon is a support ship that relies on its fleet mates in order to get the job done.
What I think needs to be done is some careful tweaking rather than a complete overhaul of ECM.
I'll address a few points in my post.
220km+ optimal range.
This is the primary reason for why falcons are overpowered at the moment. Most sniping battleships are optimized for 150-180km ranges, with locking ranges of around 200km. This puts the falcon outside of locking range for most BS, not to mention the range of the guns.
This can be countered by having sniping BS that are set up to hit falcons even at that range. Rokhs and Apocs in particular can reach and kill and/or drive off hostile falcons. Eagles can also perform this role. Smaller support ships can also be used successfully to drive off and/or tackle hostile falcons.
Tweak: The optimal range can be tweaked. The Falcon could be brought down to standard sniping ranges. Around 150-180km would ensure that the falcon is within range of a hostile sniping BS fleet. Additionally, as has been mentioned, the falcon and other long range ECM ships could be tweaked so that they'll have to choose between going close range or fighting in their falloffs.
Force Multiplier.
Currently, the Falcon can be a significant force multiplier. A force with a large percentage of falcons can ensure that a hostile fleet has their firepower significantly reduced as well as having their targetting coordination disrupted.
This is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, this game could use some MORE force multipliers, otherwise it'll degenerate even more into a game of who can bring the most battleships. If other Ewar ships could be used in this way, there would be more variety on the battlefield, and more importance would be put on having a good support fleet to counter the ewar - this would also open up more roles for new players other than being just tacklers.
Tweak: Enable other recons to perform a force multiplier role as well. EW on the other recons could use a boost. Minmatar recons got a huge nerf with the web changes. Allow them a web strength bonus to make them more useful, as well as giving them a range bonus to target painters, for instance. Similarily, giving Amarr recons a bonus to tracking disruptor range would allow them to perform this role in fleets.
Falcons vs Rooks.
It's obvious to anyone that the Rook is the close range brawler of the two. Even if the slot layouts weren't obvious (the rook has far more highslots), the name of the roles should be a huge hint. The COMBAT recon is the one that's supposed to be, you know, fighting, whereas the FORCE recon is the one that's supposed to be sneaky sneak.
That much said, it's obvious that the rook is far underpowered right now. There is almost no reason for anyone to bring a rook over a falcon, other than the little bit of extra DPS.
Tweak: Make the Rook a better option for close range fighting. Reduce the Falcon's strength slightly, and give the Rokh slightly more strength for a huge reduction in optimal range. Oh, and give it a resists bonus instead of damage. That'd make even me fly one. ;)
Scorpions.
Don't for the love of God nerf Scorps! It is currently the only EW battleship with the ability to work in a sniping fleet. I'd much rather see the other tier 1 battleships given an EW role as well, which would allow them to work in the force multiplier role as well.
Another option would be to introduce a new group of tier 1 EW battleships, of which the scorp could be the lead ship, with a new battleship taking the Scorp's place.
Yes, Falcons are overpowered, but the answer is to TWEAK them, not to change the entire concept. |
Taedrin
Gallente Golden Mechanization Protectorate
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 15:43:00 -
[592]
The main issue with falcons and rooks, as far as I can see, is that they are the only ship in all of EVE to receive THREE bonuses to the same thing. All other recons only get one or two bonuses to individual ewar systems.
Rapier: damage bonus target painter bonus web range bonus cloak bonus
Huginn: damage bonus target painter bonus web range bonus damage bonus
Arazu: Damage bonus remote sensor damp bonus Warp scram range bonus cloak bonus
Lachesis: Damage bonus remote sensor damp bonus warp scram range bonus damage bonus
Pilgrim: Tracking disrupter bonus drone damage bonus NOS/Neut strength bonus Cloaking bonus
Curse: tracking disrupter bonus drone damage bonus NOS/Neut strength bonus NOS/Neut range bonus
Falcon: ECM cap use bonus ECM range bonus ECM strength bonus cloak bonus
Rook: ECM cap use bonus ECM range bonus ECM strength bonus damage bonus
-----
See anything wrong here? The issue is that all other recons have to split their bonuses between two ewar systems. Caldari are able to focus 3 of their bonuses on ECM. The end result is that these ships are able to focus on ECM so much that they become overpowered in this regard. I would suggest that you take away one of the ECM bonuses, and replace it with a damage bonus or something. If they lose the cap bonus, then they have their overpowered ECM, but can't use it indefinitely. If they lose the strength bonus, they have long range ECM, but it's not overpowered. If they lose their range bonus, then they have overpowered ECM, but have to risk their ship by getting close(r) to the fight.
|
Raketefrau
Caldari Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 15:45:00 -
[593]
Edited by: Raketefrau on 25/03/2009 15:46:26 While you're balancing these ships (which I find highly unnecessary to begin with), PLEASE give the Rook back its highslot.
I still don't understand the reasoning for that at all. It was like, "What's not broken? Oh, let's **** with it."
Making the Falcon a close-in ship would require serious adjustments to its DPS, which is currently 0. The rook is a far better candidate for this, if it's your plan.
Why would you make the rook, which actually has some offense, the long range ship, while making the falcon, which can't hurt a frig, a short-range ship?
|
Raquel Trotter
Trotters Independent Trading
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 15:48:00 -
[594]
Edited by: Raquel Trotter on 25/03/2009 15:51:22
Originally by: Serret Nevets I don't even fly a falcon, and here's a decent fit for this change:
[Falcon, change?] Damage Control II Ballistic Control System II Power Diagnostic System II
Large Shield Extender II Large Shield Extender II ECM - Spatial Destabilizer II ECM - Phase Inverter II ECM - Ion Field Projector II ECM - White Noise Generator II Y-T8 Overcharged Hydrocarbon I Microwarpdrive
Covert Ops Cloaking Device II Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Torrent Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Torrent Assault Missile 200mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge M
Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
THIS! Funny how this fit looks just like the standard fit for every other races covert-recon.... All these whines and the falcon will still be more powerful than a rapier / arazu / pilgrim
The range needs nerfing more, and give us ECCM rigs and hardwires please.
|
Monticore D'Muertos
Caldari Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 15:51:00 -
[595]
Edited by: Monticore D''Muertos on 25/03/2009 15:55:00 just delete the rook and falcon from game and give us something else.
or give more ecm burst bonus and let it not jam friendlies
4x extender 3x ecm burts warp in at 0
|
PirateGorex
Amarr Battlestars GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 15:52:00 -
[596]
Those of you advocating the death of 7 Caldari ECM ships and cheering these game-changing 'improvements', just remember, Amarr nerfs are next |
Devron Nexus
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 15:54:00 -
[597]
Originally by: Pallidum Treponema As a skilled falcon pilot with zero losses, I can agree that the falcon is an overpowered ship. It should be noted though that a falcon is NOT a solo-pwn-machine. The Falcon is a support ship that relies on its fleet mates in order to get the job done.
What I think needs to be done is some careful tweaking rather than a complete overhaul of ECM.
etc...
This are some suggestions making sense. Agree with that.
|
Pallidum Treponema
Body Count Inc. Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 15:57:00 -
[598]
Adding another thought.
Signal Distortion Amplifiers
Falcon pilots currently use at least two and optionally three of these in their three low slots. I myself has always used three and never lost a single falcon. However, by reducing the optimal range of the falcons to 150-180km you instantly bring them into range of an entire hostile sniping fleet. This ensures that the falcon WILL take more hits from hostile snipers, which in turn requires a falcon pilot to use more slots for tanking.
A falcon pilot could still use three SDAs for instance, but would instead drop two jammers for LSE IIs. This reduces the effectiveness of the falcon, as its jamming strength is automatically reduced. It also increases their mortality rate, as they will now have to fight within the range of their targets.
The low slots could also be used for tanking, allowing the falcon to engage more targets, but at a weaker jamming strength against each individual target. This opens up for more options for the falcon pilots rather than the cookie cutter setups we have today.
By tweaking the optimal range of the falcon, you could still allow the falcon to operate in the "untouchable" 200-220km bracket, but they would then need to fight in their falloff ranges, which makes them less powerful in a battle.
This is a very simple TWEAK that doesn't require the ship to be completely nerfed/overhauled. It also instantly makes the scorpion a more viable ship as it has more survivability than a falcon, and would now have more range (unless that one is range nerfed as well). The Rook still needs a boost, but that's another matter.
Once again, my point here is that a simple tweak of reducing the range of the falcon to the 150-180km bracket instantly transforms an overpowered ship to one that is still powerful but far easier to kill, or to counter. It also boosts the scorpion as its usefulness goes up as the falcon becomes less overpowered.
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 15:58:00 -
[599]
Thanks for the constructive feedback so far!
In the first pass on sisi, we will look at the falcon and rook with their suggested roles switched as many of you suggested so the rook will be the "brawler" (short range ECM strength bonii) and falcon will be the weaker but longer range "sniper" varient.
The skill bonuses and other changes to the caldari recons will then look like this:
Rook: Caldari Cruiser Skill Bonus: 5% Bonus to Light & Heavy Missile Velocity per level 10% reduction in ECM Target Jammer capacitor use per Level
Recon Ships Skill Bonus: 25% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per level 5% bonus to heavy and light missile kinetic damage per level
Attribute Changes: +25m3 drone bay +25mbit drone bandwidth
Falcon: Caldari Cruiser Skill Bonus: 20% Bonus to ECM Target Jammer Optimal Range per level 5% Bonus to Medium Hybrid Optimal Range per level
Recon Ships Skill Bonus: 20% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per level -96% to -100% reduction in Cloaking Device CPU use per level
Attribute Changes: +1 turret hardpoint / -1 launcher hardpoint
Scorpion
The scorpion remains unchanged from the original suggestion for now. Whilst this change would make them less usual at long range jamming, they can still jam out to ~140km using their falloff (setup for ECM range) so whilst their role in the long range scenario is reduced, their new short range scenario is much better.
The Widow
Forgot to mention it would be getting an increase in ECM strength bonus same as the scorpion. Will make a seperate post on black ops themselves.
I will update the original post with these changes in a minute. There is no ETA on when these changes will be on sisi for testing as we are currently testing for Apocrypha 1.02. Some time after that is deployed to TQ, then we will move sisi to a version where you can start to playtest these changes and we will continue to monitor feedback and make more tweaks as needed.
|
|
Vina
Caldari Destructive Influence Band of Brothers Reloaded
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 15:59:00 -
[600]
Alright, as probably the most senior ECM user still playing this game, this is what should be done:
First, ECM base strengths need to be changed so that with lvl 5 ship skills the ECM effectivness with ship bonus is slightly more than a same ship class amount. so IE; griffin with caldari frigate lvl 5 (75% bonus to ecm strength + 25% from sig disp) should yield an ECM strength of 10. that keeps ECM low base strength. (base ecm strength should be 4.5 on t2)
Griffin: 10% ecm cap usage 15% ecm effectiveness
Kitsune: 10% ecm cap usage 15% ecm effectiveness 5% missile rof 5% missile velocity
Rook: 5% missile rof 5% missile velocity 30% ecm jammer strength 5% shield HP
Falcon: 25% ecm effectiveness 10% ecm optimal range 10% hybrid optimal covert cloak bonus
Blackbird: 10% ecm optimal 25% ecm effectiveness
Scorp: 50% effectiveness bonus 20% optimal range
(this will make it the only ECM ship viable in a fleet fight... as it should be)
Widow: 50% ecm effectiveness
so with a base ECM strength of 4.5 we have:
Griffin/kitsune: 9.84 on racial Blackbird/falcon: 12.6 rook: 14 Scorp/Widow: 19.68
This more closely matches sensor strengths of the ships these ships are matched with. it also matches the rook up with the widow in being kick-your-ass at close range ships (which should be reserved for t2 ships only, no t1 ecm brawlers.. lol what a stupid idea.)
As people ahve said before, the whole problem with ECM is the range/effectiveness is not balanced on a SHIP CLASS basis. that's waht needs to be fixed. Battleships should be the best, not falcon. -----------------------------------
|
|
Mendolus
Aurelius Federation Apotheosis of Virtue
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 16:02:00 -
[601]
Originally by: Raquel Trotter Edited by: Raquel Trotter on 25/03/2009 15:51:22
Originally by: Serret Nevets I don't even fly a falcon, and here's a decent fit for this change:
[Falcon, change?] Damage Control II Ballistic Control System II Power Diagnostic System II
Large Shield Extender II Large Shield Extender II ECM - Spatial Destabilizer II ECM - Phase Inverter II ECM - Ion Field Projector II ECM - White Noise Generator II Y-T8 Overcharged Hydrocarbon I Microwarpdrive
Covert Ops Cloaking Device II Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Torrent Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Torrent Assault Missile 200mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge M
Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I Anti-EM Screen Reinforcer I
THIS! Funny how this fit looks just like the standard fit for every other races covert-recon.... All these whines and the falcon will still be more powerful than a rapier / arazu / pilgrim
The range needs nerfing more, and give us ECCM rigs and hardwires please.
With all Vs, that BCU adds 18DPS to an already failed 110DPS with no drone bay.
And at an effective health of 27k, you can fart in it's general direction and it explodes.
Now granted, the game mechanic changes could alter this slightly, but still, 128DPS? Seriously? Since when does a FORCE RECON become a COMBAT RECON with meaningless DPS?
Wow. I am really gonna throw 200mil into that, you bet.
{...and they will respect a line drawn in the sand more than forgiveness} |
PirateGorex
Amarr Battlestars GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 16:06:00 -
[602]
Originally by: Pallidum Treponema Adding another thought.
Signal Distortion Amplifiers
Falcon pilots currently use at least two and optionally three of these in their three low slots. I myself has always used three and never lost a single falcon. However, by reducing the optimal range of the falcons to 150-180km you instantly bring them into range of an entire hostile sniping fleet. This ensures that the falcon WILL take more hits from hostile snipers, which in turn requires a falcon pilot to use more slots for tanking.
A falcon pilot could still use three SDAs for instance, but would instead drop two jammers for LSE IIs. This reduces the effectiveness of the falcon, as its jamming strength is automatically reduced. It also increases their mortality rate, as they will now have to fight within the range of their targets.
The low slots could also be used for tanking, allowing the falcon to engage more targets, but at a weaker jamming strength against each individual target. This opens up for more options for the falcon pilots rather than the cookie cutter setups we have today.
By tweaking the optimal range of the falcon, you could still allow the falcon to operate in the "untouchable" 200-220km bracket, but they would then need to fight in their falloff ranges, which makes them less powerful in a battle.
This is a very simple TWEAK that doesn't require the ship to be completely nerfed/overhauled. It also instantly makes the scorpion a more viable ship as it has more survivability than a falcon, and would now have more range (unless that one is range nerfed as well). The Rook still needs a boost, but that's another matter.
Once again, my point here is that a simple tweak of reducing the range of the falcon to the 150-180km bracket instantly transforms an overpowered ship to one that is still powerful but far easier to kill, or to counter. It also boosts the scorpion as its usefulness goes up as the falcon becomes less overpowered.
No, its clear that dev's want to bring the Falcon into pulse laser range of Apocs and Zealots. Three volly's, maybe two. This is all a masterful plan to destroy Caldari completely as a pvp race. First missiles, now this. In 6 short months, CCP will have killed Caldari pvp completely if these changes are implemented.
The scary part about these changes is I know Amarr are next. |
Morikai Acler
Caldari Demon Theory Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 16:09:00 -
[603]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
ECM Range
Generally the ECM optimal range is a little too long with massive optimal ranges possible which would place the ECM specialised ships so far out of the fight to be almost completely safe but suffer no effective hit quality decrease. To bring them closer to the fight we are looking at swapping the base optimal and falloff ranges so at the longer ranges jammers would be operating more in falloff and hence have a lower chance of 'hitting' with their jammers at the extreme ranges.
Signal Distortion Amplifiers
The SDAs are something of a conundrum. They are really only worth fitting on the ECM specialised ships and are the only EWAR enhancing module we have besides the rigs. Currently they increase your ECM strength and we were looking at swapping this to an ECM range bonus and altering either the base strength of the jammers or the ECM strength bonus of the ships so they become less required in every setup and the low slots could be used for tanking for example.
My personal opinion is that if you raise the scan strength of the ecm mods back up, lower the bonus on the SDA's and add another mod/rig that gives a range bonus Optimal or falloff.
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Falcon & Rook
The falcon has been changed to be similar to the pilgrim in its role as a ECM brawler at shorter ranges. It has a bigger ECM strength bonus whilst losing its ECM optimal range bonus. In addition its agility and base velocity and have been increased to allow it to be more manoeuvrable at shorter ranges.
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)
The falcon should stay the long range sniper version of the recon, it could never handle close range brawling, so possibly switch the proposed bonus's on the falcon and rook. Don't see much point in the drone bay though.
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
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
The Rook should be made the close range brawler, then you could possibly justify a drone bay on it. Along with maybe missile dmg bonus instead of velocity. I'm all for making the Rook more usable.
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
The Scorpion
We are looking at putting the scorpion into the short range brawler role. To that end we are looking at removing its ECM Optimal range bonus, increasing the ECM strength bonus a little and adding a cruise/siege launcher rate of fire bonus so it can get close and personal.
Summary Scorpion Changes
- removed the ECM optimal range bonus - increased the ECM strength bonus to 20% per level - added a 5% RoF bonus to cruise & siege missile launchers per level.
If you put the Scorpion into a short range brawler role I suggest changing it back a little to what it use to be before it had the ecm boat role pinned on it. Keep the 20% scan strength per level. Don't bother with ROF bonus, instead use the old 10% shield hp per level. And possibly make the hardpoint layout 5/5 or 6/6.
Another note, the scan strength bonus on the brawlers should also effect ECM bursts. As of right now, those are almost useless. That kind of change could make them an invaluable too for busting close range RR bs fleets.
|
Nathrezim
Gallente Euphoria Released Force Of Evil
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 16:09:00 -
[604]
Originally by: Khefron on the other hand these changes will make the falcon just as useless as the arazu, and pilgrim, leaving the rapier the only recon worth a damn, so I guess this change is appropriate.
if you think the arazu is useless, especially after the scramble/mwd changes, then you should log in more often.
18km(non-overloaded) mwd killer...mmmmm useless... mmmmm
/troll
On topic : I for one am i falcon abuser last couple months or so and i welcome these changes. Maybe play around abit with the resists/hitpoints and you'll get somethin decent out of it. Go on CCP. Do more nice stuff to this game! (make the scorp bonus a 10% one, the RoF that is)
|
Yotsuna
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 16:12:00 -
[605]
DON'T FIX IT IF IT AINT BROKE.
I don't see many whine threads anymore, EW is a key part of PVP.
Falcon has one job and one job only, unlike most other ships, so making it lose its effectiveness or its main role and giving it a poor turret range bonus is just terrible.
Leave ECM alone, it's absolutely fine.
|
Ix Forres
Caldari Vanguard Frontiers Sc0rched Earth
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 16:12:00 -
[606]
Edited by: Ix Forres on 25/03/2009 16:13:18 I've done a fairly chunky writeup of these changes and proposed a solution in a blog post. Won't repost here to avoid wall of text, but here's a link.
tl;dr fix ECCM, give RECCM an area of effect module like HICtors so they don't have to lock that boosts strength of all ships within the bubble, and ECM will be much better balanced. It's a crucial part of PvP and should not be removed, and the current abilities of ships is appropriate. The lack of a counter is the issue, not the mechanic itself. -- Ix Forres EVE Application Developer ISKsense | EVE Metrics (NEW) | I Tweet |
Akiba Penrose
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 16:14:00 -
[607]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Thanks for the constructive feedback so far!
In the first pass on sisi, we will look at the falcon and rook with their suggested roles switched as many of you suggested so the rook will be the "brawler" (short range ECM strength bonii) and falcon will be the weaker but longer range "sniper" varient.
*snip*
It is the Falcon range that is most important. Right now 80% is flying Falcons, and 15% is flying BBs,, if you let the Falcon keep its extreme ECM-range, nothing will change.
|
Raketefrau
Caldari Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 16:14:00 -
[608]
Seriously though, *please* give the rook back its high slot.
|
Jalif
Minmatar Black Sinisters
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 16:15:00 -
[609]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Thanks for the constructive feedback so far!
In the first pass on sisi, we will look at the falcon and rook with their suggested roles switched as many of you suggested so the rook will be the "brawler" (short range ECM strength bonii) and falcon will be the weaker but longer range "sniper" varient.
The skill bonuses and other changes to the caldari recons will then look like this:
Rook: Caldari Cruiser Skill Bonus: 5% Bonus to Light & Heavy Missile Velocity per level 10% reduction in ECM Target Jammer capacitor use per Level
Recon Ships Skill Bonus: 25% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per level 5% bonus to heavy and light missile kinetic damage per level
Attribute Changes: +25m3 drone bay +25mbit drone bandwidth
Falcon: Caldari Cruiser Skill Bonus: 20% Bonus to ECM Target Jammer Optimal Range per level 5% Bonus to Medium Hybrid Optimal Range per level
Recon Ships Skill Bonus: 20% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per level -96% to -100% reduction in Cloaking Device CPU use per level
Attribute Changes: +1 turret hardpoint / -1 launcher hardpoint
Scorpion
The scorpion remains unchanged from the original suggestion for now. Whilst this change would make them less usual at long range jamming, they can still jam out to ~140km using their falloff (setup for ECM range) so whilst their role in the long range scenario is reduced, their new short range scenario is much better.
The Widow
Forgot to mention it would be getting an increase in ECM strength bonus same as the scorpion. Will make a seperate post on black ops themselves.
I will update the original post with these changes in a minute. There is no ETA on when these changes will be on sisi for testing as we are currently testing for Apocrypha 1.02. Some time after that is deployed to TQ, then we will move sisi to a version where you can start to playtest these changes and we will continue to monitor feedback and make more tweaks as needed.
Lol wtf?
This is even buffing the caldari recons to absolute inasnity. Rook will basicly be the perfect solo ship (just jam the **** out of it with extra strenght and enough DPS) Falcon will be the same & have a better sniping capablity.
Really, this is just STUPID!
Ever toughed about changing the whole ECM mechanic? It takes now for a gallente recon atleast 3 midslots to damp a target down to high effectiveness It takes for a pilgrim 2 highslot & 2 midslot (aprox) to keep a target down and disrupted and nueted It takes for a minmatar recon atleast 3 midslots to keep a target in position But it only takes for a Caldari recon 1 midslot to jam a person the **** out of him?
Goddamnit, you making the game only worse
|Black Sinisters| |
Rordan D'Kherr
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 16:17:00 -
[610]
Originally by: Mendolus I am a Falcon pilot, btw
Yeah sure, everyone is these days...
|
|
Anastii
Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 16:21:00 -
[611]
The second set of proposed changes seems better to me.
Please bear in mind that if you can jam a small gang with a Falcon, you will die almost instantly if you miss a cycle as to jam that small gang you have no tank. That seems to me to be as intended.
I also agree with the multitude of people recommending fixing the counters to ECM. Please look at what is supposed to help prevent being jammed, and make sure that works rather than wielding the Nerf Bat as the solution.
|
erimon
Amarr Breed of Malakka
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 16:24:00 -
[612]
Originally by: Nova Satar
Originally by: Thetys finally! thank you soo much CCP, keep up the good work! put some more focus on the "small group pvp" in low sec please (10-15 pilots at each side)
What? Your corp is one of the worst low-sec blob corps i know. You simply DO NOT fight until you have more numbers and atleast 2-3 falcons.
Mhhh, your tears are sweet. As for blobbing etc. if you have a grudge with us why don't you take it ingame, mate? Because you can't? Well sucks to be you then. Anything else is probably more appropriate for caod or w/e.
|
Pallidum Treponema
Body Count Inc. Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 16:25:00 -
[613]
Edited by: Pallidum Treponema on 25/03/2009 16:27:24
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Falcon: Caldari Cruiser Skill Bonus: 20% Bonus to ECM Target Jammer Optimal Range per level 5% Bonus to Medium Hybrid Optimal Range per level
Recon Ships Skill Bonus: 20% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per level -96% to -100% reduction in Cloaking Device CPU use per level
Attribute Changes: +1 turret hardpoint / -1 launcher hardpoint
I don't think this is a change in the right direction. You still have the same range of the falcon as before, which is why it was so overpowered in the first place. I repeat, the Falcon is overpowered because it can sit at 220km range without getting hit.
My recommendation to tweaks is as follows instead:
Falcon: Caldari Cruiser Skill Bonus: 10% Bonus to ECM Target Jammer Optimal Range and Falloff per level 10% Bonus to ECM Target Jammer capacitor use per Level
Recon Ships Skill Bonus: 15% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per level -96% to -100% reduction in Cloaking Device CPU use per level
This tweak makes a maxed sniping falcon get an optimal range of about 170km, while having a longer falloff of around 60km to play with. If it wants to retain its full jamming power, it NEEDS to drop into range of hostile battleships, who will then make short work of it if it isn't careful. The extra falloff range allows it to still operate at 220km range, but with about half the effectiveness due to falloff.
I've dropped your hybrid bonus and the hardpoint tweak, as the hybrid bonus was pointless - it would be a largely unused bonus, and having two hardpoints of each type allows Caldari pilots to still field weapons regardless of whether they've skilled for railguns or missiles.
The capacitor bonus is brought back, as that's never what made the ship overpowered. In fact, by reducing the range of the ship, falcon pilots will need the extra capacitor more than ever, as they'll run MWD and other mods far more often.
I've also changed the ECM strength bonus to 15% to reflect that this is a ship that sacrifices strength over range, and to make it on par with the scorpion. Even so, that bonus can still be kept at 20% as the strength was never why the falcon was overpowered in the first place.
Essentially, the only thing I think needs to be changed is the range of the Falcon. By bringing it closer to the action, you change it from an overpowered ship to one that is still highly useful, but requires far more pilot skill as well as being easier to counter.
|
Htrag
The Carebear Stare
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 16:25:00 -
[614]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Thanks for the constructive feedback so far! Falcon: Caldari Cruiser Skill Bonus: 20% Bonus to ECM Target Jammer Optimal Range per level 5% Bonus to Medium Hybrid Optimal Range per level
Recon Ships Skill Bonus: 20% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per level -96% to -100% reduction in Cloaking Device CPU use per level
Attribute Changes: +1 turret hardpoint / -1 launcher hardpoint
Thanks for taking another shot at the 'rebalancing', the second version seems more logical.
I'm assuming the hybrid bonus is a typo?
|
Gaogan
Gallente Solar Storm Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 16:25:00 -
[615]
Originally by: Ix Forres Edited by: Ix Forres on 25/03/2009 16:13:18 I've done a fairly chunky writeup of these changes and proposed a solution in a blog post. Won't repost here to avoid wall of text, but here's a link.
tl;dr fix ECCM, give RECCM an area of effect module like HICtors so they don't have to lock that boosts strength of all ships within the bubble, and ECM will be much better balanced. It's a crucial part of PvP and should not be removed, and the current abilities of ships is appropriate. The lack of a counter is the issue, not the mechanic itself.
Agreed. Counters are what is needed. I have long said that damps need more range so they can effectively be used to counter falcons at range. Maybe a script that boosts their range rather than strength, or just a good range bonus on the damp ships.
And as others have said, it should be the Rook, not the Falcon that is the close range brawler. It IS the COMBAT recon after all.
And why take the bonus to 25%? 20% should be quite sufficient for the Rook, not sure if the Scorp really needs more. The Falcon should go back to the 15% like it used to be but keep the long range. Maybe operate more in falloff past 150 km.
If getting rid of the distortion amps ( or changing them to range bonus ) makes ecm a bit too weak, then just buff the base str to make up for it. After the big ecm nerf, I remember I fit a gallente racial ecm on my domi to fight another domi, and during the whole, long fight, not ONE jam landed. Yes, an ecm on a non ecm ship should not be an I win button like it was before those changes, but it should be a semi viable option that SOMETIMES lands, so that would be a nice side effect of slightly buffing the base str.
|
Scarlet Pimpernel
Clan Eshin
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 16:26:00 -
[616]
Originally by: Shoukei
Originally by: Scarlet Pimpernel What you didn't see was that he probably had to use all his jammers to do it
What other ship completely invalidates any other ship, no matter what the fittings? All have their uses and counters, with any other recon there's something a smart person can do. With falcon, even fitting modules that are supposed to counter it, don't actually counter it. Falcon can also easily fit a monster armor tank. 1600mm plate plus 2 EANS.
What other recon is a 1 trick pony?
With only bonuses for racial e-war it has to be that good because that's all it does!
What good is your 'monster' tank when your primary and so close everyone can hit you and insult to injury you are never guaranteed a 100% jam?
most people agreeing with the nerf have clearly never flown falcons or other ECM ships
|
Mashie Saldana
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 16:30:00 -
[617]
Will there be a second look at ECM drones and how the chance dice is rolled for them?
|
Raketefrau
Caldari Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 16:31:00 -
[618]
Edited by: Raketefrau on 25/03/2009 16:32:23
Originally by: Jalif Ever toughed about changing the whole ECM mechanic? It takes now for a gallente recon atleast 3 midslots to damp a target down to high effectiveness It takes for a pilgrim 2 highslot & 2 midslot (aprox) to keep a target down and disrupted and nueted It takes for a minmatar recon atleast 3 midslots to keep a target in position But it only takes for a Caldari recon 1 midslot to jam a person the **** out of him?
You've never fit an ewar ship, I guess.
Just about every midslot is a jammer, with one reserved for a sensor booster. If you look at a Falcon, every single mid and low slot, and often rig slot as well, is full of ECM stuff.
And remember, mid slots are where Caldari tanks. You don't fit a single tanking mod.
IMHO, rather than seeing this ewar nerfed, I'd rather see all the other ewar boosted. Tactics over muscle anyday.
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 16:36:00 -
[619]
Originally by: Htrag
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Thanks for the constructive feedback so far! Falcon: Caldari Cruiser Skill Bonus: 20% Bonus to ECM Target Jammer Optimal Range per level 5% Bonus to Medium Hybrid Optimal Range per level
Recon Ships Skill Bonus: 20% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per level -96% to -100% reduction in Cloaking Device CPU use per level
Attribute Changes: +1 turret hardpoint / -1 launcher hardpoint
Thanks for taking another shot at the 'rebalancing', the second version seems more logical.
I'm assuming the hybrid bonus is a typo?
actually it isn't, we wanted to try it with using 3 hybrids eg 3 250mm rails. The range with spike is about 90km on the setups we have been playing with which is not quite as far as the ECM optimal range (max range 195, optimal 124 or so depending on the setup and skills, (this was a maxed out ECM range setup)) but we think it will be more useful than the ECM cap use bonus.
|
|
Sky Marshal
IMpAct Corp Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 16:42:00 -
[620]
Originally by: Melina Quaid I wouldn't mind getting a slight ECM strengh boost and have the range reduced as it gets closer to the way I'll probably fly it. I thought about a THEORICAL setup which I think would work pretty nicely to probe n' nail mission-*****s :
Quote: [Falcon, New Setup 1] [...] Caldari Navy Invulnerability Field Domination Warp Disruptor [...]
- The only flaw I can see in this, should I repeat, THEORICAL setup, would be the lack of a speed mod to dictate the tight range between 25-29km.
Ouf, hopefully you tell us that it is a THEORICAL setup...
...As the Caldari Navy Invulnerability Field cost between 280 and 350M per unit...
...As the Domination Warp Disruptor cost between 80 and 150M per unit.
Same if it is for probing "missions *****", it is relatively risky to fit so expensive modules on a small ship like Recon. One error and your wallet is dead. ___________________
CCP presents...
Band Of Brothers Reloaded : The Return Of T20
The new sequel of the darwining greater alliance of all MMORPGs.
|
|
PirateGorex
Amarr Battlestars GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 16:44:00 -
[621]
Spike tracks horribly. Stop trying to make the falcon a DPS boat. It's not designed for DPS. With maxed skills, all lvl 5, that's 191 DPS on EFT. The Falcon already can't use MWD and jam at the same time without cap issues, now you add cap-sucking hybrids? There is no reaason to fit them. Fit an LSE II and 4 racial jammers and MWD. |
Tarminic
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 16:45:00 -
[622]
Why the 5% Optimal and Velocity bonuses? Aren't the standard bonuses 10%? ---------------- Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.83 (Updated 7/3) |
Haniblecter Teg
F.R.E.E. Explorer Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 16:47:00 -
[623]
That scrop will become the solo pwnmobile.
Soloing will be up, but it'll fall to a small gang. Maybe reduce its shield recharge? ----------------- Friends Forever |
T'ara
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 16:47:00 -
[624]
Ok, so you plan is to remove the only advantage the Caldari Race have left?? YouÆve nerfed missiles and now youÆre going to kill yet another ship?
So your plan is to make a short ranged jamming boat, ok fair enough, one tiny problem, that ship has NO tank, it will be insta popped. Why do you think no-one flies one now?
Any ECM ship requires range as its tank. Mainly due to all the ships that have the range bonuses are Caldari, and how do Caldari tank? Oooo yea, they use there mid slots for shield tanking. Trouble is, those mid slots are already taken up with jammers.
Hence any ECM boat that wants a chance at surviving it going to want to sit out at range.
And for all the damn whiners here that what the falcon nerfed this badly, how about u fit some ECCM on a sniper, a few ships in a fleet, this doesnÆt really compromise DPS, the falcon is not likely to be able to get a jam on you, and guess what? YouÆll be able to kill it. This tactic DOES work, tried and tested.
Ok, after saying that I do believe the flacon needs to be nerfed, thatÆs no big secret, and I do agree with it operating more in its falloff, thatÆll encourage a falcon pilot to come in closer, yet if you then cut that optimal and fallout down, your just encouraging people to leave them in their hangars and got back to same old: ôWho can get the most shipsö ItÆs called blob warfare, itÆs boring, crap and lag infested and gives the smaller groups now chance against the superpowers, even if those superpowers are all ret@rds that fly t1 frigs and cruisers
Come-on CCP, let us keep a little variety in combat situations, there are plenty of good suggestions made even on the first page of this thread.
and to top that all off, your gonna put TORPEDOES on a STEALTHER BOMBER??????? Are you really serious? "Stealth" Does not mean omgwtf in your face damage, it means sneaking around and finding a good target and taking them out at range or planting a bomb. Although IÆd love my stealth bomber to have that kind of firepower I seriously suggest you work on Bombs, you know, the things a SB are supposed to deploy?
|
Sertan Deras
Gallente Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 16:48:00 -
[625]
Why are you guys so dead set and destroying the only good fleet EWar (the Scorpion)?
Look, here's a hint: Most people aren't going to use the very expensive, uninsurable, Rook in fleet fights. They just aren't. Too easy to lose in high lag situations where ship agility is basically meaningless.
Is your intention to just get rid of EWar in long range fleet engagements? Because that seems to be the case. 140km range is not going to cut it in a fleet fight. That will put the Scoprion closer to the enemy snipers than your friendly snipers will be. What do you think is going to happen to the Scorpion in that situation? I can tell you, it's going to get vaporized.
Sorry, the Scorpion changes are just a really bad idea. I am not sure who's pet idea it is, but it's bad.
|
TZeer
BURN EDEN
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 16:49:00 -
[626]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Widow
the widow will gain a similar ECM strength increase as the scorpion has gotten
Summary
Since the Widow right now have 20% bonus per lvl, I assume you mean it will get a boost to that, wich will take it to 25% per lvl.
|
Dracul Darkside
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 16:50:00 -
[627]
This has got to be the worst of nerfs yet. Thanks guys yet another hit to the Caldari who are already bottom in the line of pvp ships. To many more slaps in the face for Caldari you might as well remove the race from the game.
|
Quesa
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 16:53:00 -
[628]
If we are going to think of Falcons and close range brawlers, then we should take a look at how to increase the abilities of close range modules.
I'm thinking of stuff like:
-Ditching the overall strength bonus for ECM and swapping it for a Multi-spec bonus. This might allow Falcons to drop their full rack of ECM in favor of a few Multi's + tank/tackle.
-Give the Falcon/Rook a signature radius bonus to offset the need for shield extenders. If you want us to fly closer ranges, we need to tank/buffer up a bit. We are already 100% primary, we don't need to take full damage from a Citidel Torpedo.
-If you are going to put us close range, and compare us to Pilgrims, we need DPS. We'll never be close to other Force Recon DPS until we are allowed either more high slots, or a sizable drone bay. Since we are Caldari, maybe we could have some decent damage bonuses to either Missiles, Hybrids or even Heavy Assault Missiles. --ROF for missiles or damage bonus for Hybrids.
Each recon has the DPS (coupled with their multiple offensive systems) to down a ship of a decent size. Falcon's don't, and even arguably terrible DPS from the Rook.
|
Solid Prefekt
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 16:53:00 -
[629]
The reason Falcons are primaried is because they are so crippling. So how about make it so it is not a threat so great that it must be killed first.
Since we are thinking outside the box why not change ECM completely. Instead of it being chanced based where it completely prevents a ship from shooting. Make it hit every time, but make it 60% effective (like webs) to the DPS of the ship (so you lose 60% of your dps). Then reduce the range so it is in line with Webs/Neuts. The value of the Falcons will still be nice as it can damp the DPS of 1-2 larger ships yet it won't be so crippling where it will be automatic primary.
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 16:55:00 -
[630]
Originally by: Tarminic Why the 5% Optimal and Velocity bonuses? Aren't the standard bonuses 10%?
I ninja updated the original posts to correct this
|
|
|
Sig Sour
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 16:55:00 -
[631]
Edited by: Sig Sour on 25/03/2009 16:56:14
Originally by: CCP Chronotis actually it isn't, we wanted to try it with using 3 hybrids eg 3 250mm rails. The range with spike is about 90km on the setups we have been playing with which is not quite as far as the ECM optimal range (max range 195, optimal 124 or so depending on the setup and skills, (this was a maxed out ECM range setup)) but we think it will be more useful than the ECM cap use bonus.
You seem to be confused when looking for a second bonus. MWD bonus would be better... Please look into ECCM and sensor dampeners before you dumb the game down.
I am really confused why you are doing this? Is it because a few dozen people with a loud voice are crying about being ganked and there was a Falcon in the fleet? What are your plans with ECCM? You seem to be ignoring it like all the people who complain about the Falcon being over powered.
|
Kerdrak
3B Legio IX Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 16:56:00 -
[632]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
actually it isn't, we wanted to try it with using 3 hybrids eg 3 250mm rails. The range with spike is about 90km on the setups we have been playing with which is not quite as far as the ECM optimal range (max range 195, optimal 124 or so depending on the setup and skills, (this was a maxed out ECM range setup)) but we think it will be more useful than the ECM cap use bonus.
90km is still a bit far compared to other force recons, but it's an improvement. ________________________________________ [img]http://www.atlas-alliance.com/killboard-new/sig.php/4652/alliancerank/signature.jpg[/img |
Al Smosher
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 16:57:00 -
[633]
Any point in playing caldari anymore ? speed ? no drones ? no shield tanking ? not for pvp dps using missiles / torp ? not anymore ecm ? in a near futur, no also
so what left ?
|
Bronson Hughes
ADVANCED Combat and Engineering
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 16:57:00 -
[634]
Some thoughts:
1. People complaining about the Falcon being overpowered due to its range forget that currently it can jam very well at those ranges. If things go as CCP is proposing, their jam strength will be getting reduced so they'll still maintain range as their saftey net, but they'll be less effective overall.
2. If the Rook is meant to be a close in ship, why give it a missile range bonus? Every other combat recon gets at least two weapon damage bonuses (assuming that you count neuts as a weapon on a Curse). Swap that range bonus to RoF keeping in mind that it will likely have to lose a launcher hardpoint to compensate for it being the only recon without split weapon bonuses.
3. The only places I see Scorpions commonly used are in remote rep battleship gangs, which means you're likely to be fighting at short ranges. Couple that with the fact that it's the only ship in the game that gets a bonus to the strength of ECM bursts (which are short range by nature), and I'd say it's an ideal short-range ECM ship. (No, I'm not suggesting that you use an ECM burst on an RR BS fit Scorpion)
4. I support these changes in general because afterwards, Caldari Recons will only have two EWar bonuses like pretty much every other Recon Ship in the game. -------------------- "I am hard pressed on my right; my centre is giving way; situation excellent; I am attacking." - Ferdinand Foch at the Battle of the Marne |
Raquel Trotter
Trotters Independent Trading
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 16:57:00 -
[635]
CCP Chronotis,
So how exactly will the falcon be different from now? The falcon will still be able to get into position cloaked at range and jam even 3-5 ships with ECCM fitted.
THIS IS NO CHANGE! No other covert-recons can operate at such extreme ranges, which combined with ECM range rigs and implants make them the practically invulnerable.
With your update this is a boost to the falcon making them even more powerful.
Remove the falcons range bonus please! And give us ECCM rigs and implants.
|
Morikai Acler
Caldari Demon Theory Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 16:58:00 -
[636]
To add to my previous post. Am I the only one here that see's the folly of only wanting to engage in sniper fleets at 150+ km range? Lose one ship at that range, and all the other fleet has to do is warp to that wreck and you're pretty well screwed. Especially if they have any good missile boat pilots waiting to warp to you. My god, EVE's being turned into one of those nerd fights where you see two guys at extreme arms length trying to smack at each other while holding their face away.
As far as missiles having no place in pvp..... Ah yes they aren't instant dmg.... But they are high dmg and consistent. Gee that also explains why the cerb is one of the high dmg hacs in the game. Not to mention most long range missile boats are more or less ECM proof due to FOF. How many other ships other than the raven can fire out to 220km and still do max dmg?
My god people, think outside of the pinewood box
|
Vajrabhairava
Caldari Seppuku Warriors
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 16:59:00 -
[637]
Edited by: Vajrabhairava on 25/03/2009 17:00:18 Well, as a Falcon Pilot I admit they were overpowered ... against idiots. But peruse the Scrapheap Board and you find lots of ways to beat a Falcon besides bringing one of your own. ( Which was also just fine, given the surplus of Caldari pilots in the game with nothing much else to fly! )
I just wish CCP could be less drastic with their nerfs - they always seem to be poorly thought out, with a lot of unintended side effects.
But most of all, I wish they would quit nerfing all ships to uniformity. * Speed tanks are gone, and with it an entire style of play * ECM will be gone or greatly diminished, and with it an entire aspect of the game I am sure there are examples from before my time to - the NOS nerf, the repeated missile nerfs, etc. The idea seems to be that CCP has only one play style in mind, and any ship that departs from it gets nerfed back into oblivion, so it is unplayable or is just like the others. Apparently we should ALL fly RR Amarr battleships, soon to be the ONLY viable thing.
--
But perhaps one more thing will be viable now - snipers rejoice. Now nobody can jam you out of the battle from range - they can only warp in on a friendly cloaker nearby, or counter-snipe.
|
Mr Ignitious
R.E.C.O.N. Dara Cothrom
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 17:02:00 -
[638]
Ignitious likes =)
Scorp would be pretty sweet then =)
You might actually see rooks on roams too =)
Do want CCP, Do Want.
Originally by: CCP Zulupark
WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU?
|
Pallidum Treponema
Body Count Inc. Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 17:06:00 -
[639]
Originally by: Sertan Deras Why are you guys so dead set and destroying the only good fleet EWar (the Scorpion)?
Look, here's a hint: Most people aren't going to use the very expensive, uninsurable, Rook in fleet fights. They just aren't. Too easy to lose in high lag situations where ship agility is basically meaningless.
Is your intention to just get rid of EWar in long range fleet engagements? Because that seems to be the case. 140km range is not going to cut it in a fleet fight. That will put the Scoprion closer to the enemy snipers than your friendly snipers will be. What do you think is going to happen to the Scorpion in that situation? I can tell you, it's going to get vaporized.
Sorry, the Scorpion changes are just a really bad idea. I am not sure who's pet idea it is, but it's bad.
I agree with my goon enemy here. Nerfing the scorp would eliminate the ewar possibility for a lot of players.
I'm saying this as a falcon pilot, from an alliance (AAA) that is heavily favoring the falcon and is fighting an alliance (Goons) who are commonly flying scorpions and blackbirds.
Removing ewar from the scorpion is a bad idea. The scorp already needs to fly with the rest of the fleet and is often a primary target. It doesn't have the agility to be able to operate solo at longer ranges like the falcon, nor the cloak to be able to position itself at such a range. Thus it is a ship that is fairly easily countered already.
If anything, the other races battleships need a boost in terms of EWar. I'd love to see battleships that target paint the primaries, or tracking disrupt them to reduce their firepower. Heck, dampeners could be quite useful in a fleet fight as well, if they had the range - and quite possibly was affected by sensor strength as well.
|
Morikai Acler
Caldari Demon Theory Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 17:07:00 -
[640]
Originally by: Mr Ignitious Ignitious likes =)
Scorp would be pretty sweet then =)
You might actually see rooks on roams too =)
Do want CCP, Do Want.
*makes personal note* Make sure Kaark Hardblow flying rook next time we go on a roam in that direction.
|
|
Sig Sour
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 17:08:00 -
[641]
Originally by: Kerdrak 90km is still a bit far compared to other force recons, but it's an improvement.
94 max dps max skill. However comparing recons and saying they all should be identical is narrow minded. Ships have roles they need to fill that balance out the game. We have come up with a logistics ECCM setup that will be unstoppable with the new ECM strength.
|
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 17:08:00 -
[642]
Originally by: Pallidum Treponema
I agree with my goon enemy here. Nerfing the scorp would eliminate the ewar possibility for a lot of players.
You are only supposed to fly dps ships. Dont you know anything. And yea this is my sig. |
Sertan Deras
Gallente Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 17:11:00 -
[643]
Edited by: Sertan Deras on 25/03/2009 17:11:36 The one thing in this thread I will disagree with is Caldari PvP uselessness. Even if this goes through, Caldari still has arguably the best sniper in the game (the Rokh), and one of the best small gang/solo DPS HAC's in the game (the Cerberus).
That said, I do wonder sometimes if CCP hasn't realized yet that large scape PVP happens at extreme ranges, not up close and personal.
|
luckyccs
Gallente Total Mayhem.
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 17:16:00 -
[644]
I like the idea, Falcon range & Streng need to be adjusted and should have a counter part. I am a Gallente pure pilot, and the 120-130km max range on the dampers should be slighly adjusted to become the ECM counter part. All race's recons should have a sniper & close range version. Would be nice if Force recons could get some tanks holes slighly closed, you know explosive and EM resist acordly to races...they are just so weak, and most of them cant tank & role same time.
GL HF
|
TZeer
BURN EDEN
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 17:19:00 -
[645]
Read a few of your replies and I`m not sure what you are saying....
Quote: I ninja replied in my update post in the main feedback thread. It currently gets the same strength bonus as the scorpion will do so have a look at that as well when sisi is updated after 1.02 is out.
Quote: the widow will gain a similar ECM strength increase as the scorpion has gotten
First quote I read it as it will get the same bonus as the scorp, 20%.
The other can be read as the widow will be getting a boost in it`s strength as the scorpion will get. Wich means it will get the same strength as the Rook. 25% per lvl.
Which one is it?
|
Sir Hades
Caldari Stimulus
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 17:20:00 -
[646]
ZOMG! Here is my post in the huge Falcon nerf thread that not a single soul will read :3
The problem here is not that the Falcon is super overpowered (it is a bit overpowered and I say this as a Falcon pilot), it is that all other EW sucks. If you make other EW an option again, the Falcon problem will sort itself out.
The Falcon should be balanced to where it's jamming optimal range is 100KM. If you want to jam further, you go into falloff. Make all the other race's EW (TDs, SDs, TPs) have a similar optimal range with their recons. Also, make the TP DO something. It should hurt to get TPed. Your sig res should be fraking huge. Finally, change the SDAs to work with all EW.
The Kitsune needs to have a much better lock range. As it stands, it can jam out to 122KM. In order to LOCK that far you need the following: Max skills, leadership 5 booster, 2 T1 lock range rigs, and a sensor booster II with range script. Something isn't quite right there.
The Widow needs a complete overhaul. The fact that it was not even mentioned is proof of just how bad it is. Not even CCP wants to touch it and they gave birth to this abomination of science D:
The Scorp needs to stay the way it is. The Scorp should be able to jam out to the ranges the Falcon used to be able to. Why? It is a battleship. It is big, slow, and can not warp cloaked. Those are some massive negatives to it. Also it fits as the other Caldari battleships can get their weapons to fire at those ranges too. It has no place going to the front lines. Caldari ships do not fight at close range if they don't have to.
|
Quesa
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 17:22:00 -
[647]
Originally by: Quesa If we are going to think of Falcons and close range brawlers, then we should take a look at how to increase the abilities of close range modules.
I'm thinking of stuff like:
-Ditching the overall strength bonus for ECM and swapping it for a Multi-spec bonus. This might allow Falcons to drop their full rack of ECM in favor of a few Multi's + tank/tackle.
-Give the Falcon/Rook a signature radius bonus to offset the need for shield extenders. If you want us to fly closer ranges, we need to tank/buffer up a bit. We are already 100% primary, we don't need to take full damage from a Citidel Torpedo.
-If you are going to put us close range, and compare us to Pilgrims, we need DPS. We'll never be close to other Force Recon DPS until we are allowed either more high slots, or a sizable drone bay. Since we are Caldari, maybe we could have some decent damage bonuses to either Missiles, Hybrids or even Heavy Assault Missiles. --ROF for missiles or damage bonus for Hybrids.
Each recon has the DPS (coupled with their multiple offensive systems) to down a ship of a decent size. Falcon's don't, and even arguably terrible DPS from the Rook.
Take a setup like: [Falcon, Theory] Power Diagnostic System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II
ECM - Multispectral Jammer II ECM - Multispectral Jammer II Large Shield Extender II Magnetic Scattering Amplifier II Invulnerability Field II Invulnerability Field II 10MN MicroWarpdrive II
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Guristas Torrent Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Guristas Torrent Assault Missile Covert Ops Cloaking Device II [empty high slot]
[empty rig slot] [empty rig slot]
The Jamming STR of those Multi's under your new STR mod would be about 13.5.
The DPS of this setup is still below 100 at max skills. The Range of the Multi's would be near 50km (more in line with your thought process?). The range of the HAM's is a little lacking, currently at about 20km.
If we were able to modify the slots so they are like:
[Falcon, Theory] Power Diagnostic System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II
ECM - Multispectral Jammer II ECM - Multispectral Jammer II Large Shield Extender II Magnetic Scattering Amplifier II Invulnerability Field II Invulnerability Field II 10MN MicroWarpdrive II
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Guristas Torrent Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Guristas Torrent Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Guristas Torrent Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Guristas Torrent Assault Missile Covert Ops Cloaking Device II
[empty rig slot] [empty rig slot]
The Falcon would gain 1 high slot and convert the 2 turret hard points to missile hard points.
We would need a missile speed bonus attached to the Caldari Cruiser bonus instead of the optimal range bonus to ECM. If we were to add a +25% flight speed bonus to HAM's, we'd start nearing 50-60km HAM range, which is comparable to the ECM optimal. Since we doubled the launcher hardpoints, we'd double the DPS putting it at about 200dps with max skills. I'm thinking we could also attach a 5% bonus to missile damage to the Recon Ships skill.
One other small change I would suggest, is a slightly more robust capacitor. I'd like to see an increased total capacity and a slightly better recharge rate.
This type of change would increase it's survivability many times over, along with giving it a small bite. By requiring the Falcon to come in close, they'll have to chose to become either a paper thin ECM boat within 50km, or a buffer tanked Recon such as the Pilgrim (by limiting their ECM for tank).
Not sure if I'm moving in the right direction here.
|
plastastic
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 17:23:00 -
[648]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Rook: Caldari Cruiser Skill Bonus: 5% Bonus to Light & Heavy Missile Velocity per level 10% reduction in ECM Target Jammer capacitor use per Level
Recon Ships Skill Bonus: 25% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per level 5% bonus to heavy and light missile kinetic damage per level Attribute Changes: +25m3 drone bay +25mbit drone bandwidth
is it also possible to get this viable to use HAM and to give it more high slots because 3 launchers+ drones wont make this thing do much damage
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Falcon: Caldari Cruiser Skill Bonus: 20% Bonus to ECM Target Jammer Optimal Range per level 5% Bonus to Medium Hybrid Optimal Range per level
Recon Ships Skill Bonus: 20% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per level -96% to -100% reduction in Cloaking Device CPU use per level
Attribute Changes: +1 turret hardpoint / -1 launcher hardpoint
don't mind this brings the falcon in from crazy ranges
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Scorpion
The scorpion remains unchanged from the original suggestion for now. Whilst this change would make them less usual at long range jamming, they can still jam out to ~140km using their falloff (setup for ECM range) so whilst their role in the long range scenario is reduced, their new short range scenario is much better.
id vote for giving the scorp a boost to it ECM opt range/jam strengh so it is the only ECM ship that can get out to sniper ranges with the jam strengh of brawler ECM ships. because it make it viable for fleet fights(like it is now) and give it something over other E-war ships. -give it 20%-25% jam strength(so it has something over the recon ships) -whatever ECM range boost to make this ship keep its current ranges
this ship isit broke and don't "fix" it
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
The Widow
Forgot to mention it would be getting an increase in ECM strength bonus same as the scorpion. Will make a seperate post on black ops themselves.
be interesting to make this ship a close in E-war ship basically a raven/scorp hybrid and be cool to give this ship a biger dronebay/more launcher slots
but it still suffers from all the problems with black ops but that is a different topic
|
Ol' Delsai
Caldari Kernel of War Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 17:25:00 -
[649]
You should also have a little entry about the Tengu
Will ECM bonus on electronic and offensive subsystems be changed or will they stay the same ? I would vote for a little ECM strength boost given SDA modification
|
Spindeln
Duty.
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 17:25:00 -
[650]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis falcon will be the weaker but longer range "sniper" varient
NOOOOOOOOOOO!
The whole mess with every small to medium sized gang flying tons of falcons is because they lock down so many ships with almost no risk, and no possibility to scout or scan or probe them. They can NEVER be balanced if they can both manoeuvre hidden and safe and still knock out 3-4 BS. If you drop the strength bonus completely then possibly, but otherwise this will not change anything. I mean seriously, to drop ECM strength from 180% to 160% at level 4 is such a small change it will make no difference. And dropping the cap bonus is not what brings it in line with the Arazu or Pilgrim... Maybe with the changed lowslot mod bonus but I don't have to high hopes.
The opposite was a very good idea that might have worked, this will change nothing. Those ships needs to be balanced (read nerfed), not improved along with the wishes of those flying them.
It's really telling enough that so many PvP outfits today fit a module that is utterly useless unless you meet an ECM ship (yes, the ECCM). It's useful only because everyone is fielding Falcons. And trust me, that's not because the Falcon is the most fun ship to fly.
|
|
Dee Carson
Caldari Seppuku Warriors
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 17:26:00 -
[651]
- With the revised Falcon changes - With the flip of base optimal and falloff ranges - With no change in either SDA, PDA or PDP stats - With fit of 3 SDA + 2 PDP (so max jammer) - With max related skills
Yields: Optimal 46% reduction from 227 to 122. Optimal + Falloff 25 % reduction from 267 to 202 No change in jamming strength which remains at 14.4
The results:
- No change in the probabilities of a jam. If you were on the wrong end of the jam strength vs sensor strength math before, you still are. Repeat, you still are.
- Increased danger related to a missed jam because you are inside engagement range of more OPFOR.
Easy Predictions:
- More Falcons on the field to cover the missed jams. - Snipers will be the next nerf target, because with engagement ranges > any other ship on the field, the whines will start all over again.
Sorry CCP, but these changes won't obtain the result you seem to be after.
DC
http://deecarson.blogspot.com/ |
Sertan Deras
Gallente Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 17:28:00 -
[652]
Just to re-iterate again what someone said a couple of posts back:
The Scorpion isn't broken, don't "fix" it. The problem is, and continues to be, the Falcon. Fix that ship, don't destroy the whole idea of EWar.
|
TZeer
BURN EDEN
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 17:29:00 -
[653]
Originally by: Raquel Trotter CCP Chronotis,
So how exactly will the falcon be different from now? The falcon will still be able to get into position cloaked at range and jam even 3-5 ships with ECCM fitted.
THIS IS NO CHANGE! No other covert-recons can operate at such extreme ranges, which combined with ECM range rigs and implants make them the practically invulnerable.
With your update this is a boost to the falcon making them even more powerful.
Remove the falcons range bonus please! And give us ECCM rigs and implants.
LOL, 3-5 ECCM fitted ships. Give me a falcon who can do that now.
Anyway. Now it`s optimal with max skills are 162km. With this change you are looking at below 100km optimal. Thats over 60km reduction.
When it comes to it jamming strength bonus I`m a little unsure if CCP mixed up, cause the long range rook proposal had 15% bonus to it`s strength. And the falcon has 20%.
On top of that they are looking at making SDA giving bonus to optimal instead of strength maybe.
So if the falcon gets close to it`s 160km optimal with SDA, it wont go to it`s old 220 cause of the stacking penalty with rigs.
|
Karlemgne
Tides Of War
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 17:30:00 -
[654]
Edited by: Karlemgne on 25/03/2009 17:30:22
Quote: Falcon's are over powered, but only against idiots!!1!
Give me a ****ing break. Falcons are overpowered--period. In order to counter a Falcon, and SINGLE Falcon mind you, a battleship has to carry two ECCMs. This means that a battleship, to avoid being perma jammed, needs to completely nerf its ability to tackle, or god forbid its a shield tank, its tank.
In small gang PvP this means that almost everyone has to fit this way. Try tackling a gang on a low-sec gate while being fitted with dual ECCM. You're lucky if you catch a single ship.
Of course you could always fit a single ECCM--and get jammed multiple times by a single Falcon during a combat. Then again, if your opponent brings more than one Falcon to the fight, which happens all the time, you'll be perma jammed with your single ECCM.
So what's your alternative? Anti-Falcon Falcons. Ships fit specifically to drive Falcons off, which sometimes works, sometimes doesn't.
Currently Falcons are nanos all over again.
Quote: without the Falcon Caldari sucks for pvp!!!11!1!
Bull****. The Drake is one of the best solo ships currently in the game. Its also just a ****ing good ship for pvp in general. The Rokh is an excellent blaster platform, and one of the best sniper ships in the game. The Raven... do I *really* need to explain to you the value and versatility of the Raven?
In sum, stop whining that your favorite broken game mechanic is going to be fixed. Having ECM not dominate the ENTIRE game does not make Caldari useless as a race just like nerfing nanos did not make Minmatar useless as a race.
I have 0 sympathy.
My sig don't fracking work. |
GateScout
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 17:41:00 -
[655]
Originally by: Karlemgne In order to counter a Falcon, and SINGLE Falcon mind you, a battleship has to carry two ECCMs. This means that a battleship, to avoid being perma jammed...
lol.
Currently, mids for a falcon: MWD, sensor booster and 5 jammers (more or less). There are 4 races you need to fit for...
ECM is racially limited and chance based.
You either suck at mathematics, don't understand jamming probability or you only go up against falcon pilots that KNOW what race ship you're flying and only fit 1 racial ECM type.
Come back when you have a clue.
|
Radcjk
Caldari Failed Diplomacy
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 17:42:00 -
[656]
Edited by: Radcjk on 25/03/2009 17:43:13
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Signal Distortion Amplifiers
and the low slots could be used for tanking for example.
Seriously ? a 2 to 3 slot tank, lows, on caldari boats ? A 1600 plate isnt a tank, even combined with a DC. Its a buffer that eats agility better served by warping / evading.
Please re think this.
Also: 3 rails on a Falcon fails. Please consider giving it a drone bay as well, or can it remain the only recon to still not have one after/if the rook gets one ?
|
Sig Sour
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 17:43:00 -
[657]
Originally by: Karlemgne
I have 0 sympathy.
But Tides of War is a red flashy battleship corp. ECM and battleship gangs bigger than yours are the only thing stopping you from stomping all over everything you run into.
|
Thorian Baalnorn
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 17:44:00 -
[658]
Quote:
"Falcons don't have tank" because people don't fit tank on their Falcons. I'm forced to fit tank on my Lachesis and Arazu, same goes for our Rapier/Huginn/Curse pilots. Those ships don't have any more actual tanking ability than the Falcon does. Why should the Caldari ECM boats be the only ones being able to play in "safe mode"?
If you would read an earlier post of mine on this thread it states the differences between all the recons. the lach is just a sad ship tis why no one flys it. the rook is a close second.
second, you epically fail at shipbuilding 101. Here is why:
1)ewar is a midslot hog. SO IS SHIELD TANKING. see number 2 2) all other recons have their tank slots open so can fit a 1/2 decent tank. 3)The other ewar types work against all targets( except disruptors which still work against 90% of targets) where ecm works occassionally against all targets or if you go racial very good against most targets. see number 4
4) IN ORDER FOR ECM TO BE AS EFFECTIVE AS IT IS ON A FALCON A FALCON MUST DEDICATE HIS ENTIRE SHIP TO ECM whereas on the other ewar types their are severe stacking penalties. so fitting more than 4 ewar mods is not that practical( 2 targets with 2 each) and since stacking penalities apply the ship being ewared with say dampeners having any more than 3 mods on that ship at any one time is a waste. see 5 5) armor tanking a caldari ship is stupid. for 1 unless that pilot happened to cross train to another race he isnt going to have armor tanking skills( though most will have trained) and for 2 their armor is weak and they dont have enough tanking slots to tank anything. see 6 6) ECM is greatly feared in battle. falcon- always primaried. so unless your going to make it tank like an armor tanked BS. its lifespan after decloaking is going to be about 20 seconds.
and finally....
7) stop nerfing ships and nerf people that cant play a game that requires a bit of problem solving. you know those mods that rats occassionally drop called ECCM that you consider junk... guess what they are for? ECM DEFENSE!
...."OH NOES! if i have to fit a module to my ship to protect me against ecm then it will just totally mess up my pwnallmobile!CCP NERF FALCONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
|
Glen Morange
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 17:46:00 -
[659]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
ECM Range
Generally the ECM optimal range is a little too long with massive optimal ranges possible which would place the ECM specialised ships so far out of the fight to be almost completely safe but suffer no effective hit quality decrease. To bring them closer to the fight we are looking at swapping the base optimal and falloff ranges so at the longer ranges jammers would be operating more in falloff and hence have a lower chance of 'hitting' with their jammers at the extreme ranges.
My comment would be that I would not take the easy way out and add more RNG to ECM. People will still whine about "I WAS PERMAJAMMED, NERF ECM!" every time a the ecm pilot is lucky and gets two jams in a row. The problem with a falcon is range, but swapping them so that they are required to be even more RNG dependent isn't the solution (you could have just altered the base sensor strength of ships to the same end). You might alter the bonus for range to bring the falcon into line with sniper ships (~175km optimal or highly effective) at level 4 ECM skills. Forcing ECM into the dead zone (40-150km) or increasing the randomness isn't the solution to range issues.
One solution to slightly more general permajam complaints is to remove the amount of RNG, or make the effect of getting jammed less of a pain. A solution that has a constant (with falloff) effect would be preferred, as then you have something that can be easily tuned, whereas a highly debilitating random event like jamming cannot be tuned from the player perspective.
One example might be to have a (potentially) random and/or sig radius based chance to unlock, and give them a scan-resolution decreasing effect. For example, a BS locking a frigate would have a higher chance to be unlocked than when locking a BS.
|
Jas Dor
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 17:50:00 -
[660]
If you're nerfing ECM can the EOS / info warfare links get some love? Names, Dates, Times, Engagements, Losses, Op-Tempo or STFU! |
|
rip off
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 17:51:00 -
[661]
So if a ship is to be balanced it would mean that it has an equal chance of killing or being killed so for a failcon 120m isk vs a domi 100m isk (with fit) domi runs 2xeccm and has a chance to lock failcon cant keep point so failcon runs or failcon jams domi and can not get near enough to point or do enough dps to kill so domi warps off.
seems to be balcanced to me.
curse vs domi curse orbits domi at 25-35km cap disrupting for a bit and killing drones once the drones are gone and cap is droped enough on domi the curse goes in for the kill (this needs a fation point to hold them there or a dumb domi pilot) so with this you should nerf the curse it is over powered.
|
Marrano Cardosa
Revenent Defence Corperation Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 17:54:00 -
[662]
Well, I like the most recent proposal better than what was here yesterday. I think if the ecm module strengths are up to 4.6 to 5, then its a workable design. Also currently the 50% reduction for fall off is 81km (before skill bonuses and such), but I think that a straight swap of optimal for falloff is to big a change. With that range profile, you are useless unless you have recon 5. I do agree that the range currently is over powered, but I think a better option for an adjustment would put the optimal at 40km and the falloff at 40km as well. As for the Falcon's proposed bonus to turret optimal range, meh. I think a small drone bay would be better. I am perfectly happy with ecm snipers have poor dps, and the drones would be usable for defensive purposes.
That said, I don't think ECM is really very overpowered (but then it probably doesn't take much to make it overbalanced either). I do think that other racial EWAR is underpowered. But I also think that it is entirely fair that if you jump into my carefully laid out ambush, you get owned. People need to think how to counter Falcons, its entirely doable, and in fact, I have lost Falcons to people who did a little thinking (and saved another mostly because the other guy had a very slow locking time).
|
Arkady Sadik
Minmatar Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 17:55:00 -
[663]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis the ECM optimal range (max range 195, optimal 124 or so depending on the setup and skills, (this was a maxed out ECM range setup)) but we think it will be more useful than the ECM cap use bonus.
Hm. For empire (low-sec/high-sec), Falcon at 50ish km would have been good. Falcon at 100km is not much of a change to now, really. Not sure how to fix this (I like the Falcon=sniper, rook=brawler roles), but it's not "ok" this way. Maybe really boost ECCM? A fixed bonus (+30 or so) would be nice.
|
Marrano Cardosa
Revenent Defence Corperation Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 17:57:00 -
[664]
Originally by: Raquel Trotter CCP Chronotis,
So how exactly will the falcon be different from now? The falcon will still be able to get into position cloaked at range and jam even 3-5 ships with ECCM fitted.
THIS IS NO CHANGE! No other covert-recons can operate at such extreme ranges, which combined with ECM range rigs and implants make them the practically invulnerable.
With your update this is a boost to the falcon making them even more powerful.
Remove the falcons range bonus please! And give us ECCM rigs and implants.
But this IS a change to CONFIGURED Falcon. Please read ALL of the changes.
|
Quesa
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 17:59:00 -
[665]
Another topic:
You still will have a problem with being able to counter the ECM effects. If you wish to leave the sensor STR of the current ships where they are and leave the proposed ECM STR where it is then we need to further discuss ECCM modules. Every other form of EWAR, save target painters, that will counter nearly all effects from a bonused ECM module. Sensor boosters with range script will counter a damp, tracking computers/enhancers counter turret disruptors (not as effectively I will admit). ECCM really only makes a difference when equiping them to battleships and carriers.
-Decrease the time in which someone will be jammed per single jammer cycle while maintaining the ECM modules natural cycle time. The current timer is 20 seconds without the ability to target with the ECM module cycle time of 20 seconds. Reduce the time of being jammed to 10 seconds and reduce the cycle time to 15 seconds.
-If you don't increase the sensor STR of all ships. Give ECCM modules a static +sensor str of 20-30. This will drastically reduce the chance of someone jamming you and will also give all ships that have the pg/cpu to fit one the ability to defend against ECM. This would have to come with a reduction of the fitting requirements of ECCM modules to that of sensor boosters.
|
Sky Marshal
IMpAct Corp Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 18:06:00 -
[666]
Edited by: Sky Marshal on 25/03/2009 18:07:40
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
[...Some NEW reajustements...]
This is a really better compromise.
The removal of the capacitor reduction usage of ECM modules on the Falcon will permit to avoid a permajam. Well we can still do it, but with compromises to keep the capacitor at maximum, so less targets jammed or less jam strength. Also, as you reduce only a few the strength, it should permit to the ennemy to respond a few more, without make ECM useless.
The Rook is also really better. It is also more logical that a "brawler" would have the drone bay, at contrary of your first post.
Definitively a good move.
I will have to make my excuses for my first whine posts if you keep this choice.
|
Gadriel
Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 18:08:00 -
[667]
Edited by: musgrattio on 24/03/2009 18:22:57 The general idea is fine, DO NOT GO OVERBOARD. We still need a ECM boat that can jam around 200km, and I think we'd all agree that needs to be the Falcon. If you want to make the Rook a close range ship, fine, but recons, in general, especially cloaking recons, are generally not going to be used at very short ranges. Keep the Falcon's range as it is, lower its strength, give the Rook more missile damage, change sig amps to where the Rook would be an excellent mid range damage dealer and ECM boat. Scorp changes are great, the Kitsune is really fine tbh.
edit: I'll explain. The Falcon is the ship you use for probing/cynos, so you generally don't fit weapons on it, and even if you do, they're useless. So you're completely changing the ship here, you're forcing it to go short range, with basically no defenses. Don't do that. Keep cloaking recons long range. Simply forcing the Falcon to jam in its falloff would be a welcome change. Something like 80km optimal/80km falloff with lvl 4 jamming skills would be perfect for the Falcon, especially if Sig Distortion Amps have a 5% effect to optimal/falloff, and you keep ECM strength rigs. Falcons will still be able to jam at long ranges, but they'll have to fit specifically for it, and since it's falloff, it's not a sure jam every time.
Change ECM optimal to a base of 50km, base falloff of 50km.
A Rook with these bonuses would be optimal
20% bonus to ECM strength per level 5% bonus to shield capacity per level 5% bonus to Heavy/Heavy Assault Missile Velocity per level 5% bonus to Heavy/Heavy Assault ROF per level
Falcon:
10% bonus to ECM optimal per level 10% bonus to ECM strength per level 96% to 100% Cloak bonus 10% bonus to ECM falloff per level
There you go, you have 2 ships that while nerfed, are still very, very useful.
This is a good idea IF you have to nerf ECM once again. Just something u said about Falcon close range Brawler. WHY ON EARTH!!. U put a cloak on it then ya lock time is affected which is not ideal in close range cos u be dead before u get to jam anyone. Unless u take away that hit on the falcon like the Black Ops have or just use ya head and assign the rook to this role. The Falcon is still the Caldari cyno maker so that bonus will stay. and if u want a sniper wouldnt rails be better than missiles cos they are useless at range. and atm be lucky to get 80km outer most medium rails. so maybe a rail bonus say 10%
The scorpion should be looked at as a fleet jamming BS TBH. ie. flies with the main fleet with jamming capabilties just maybe a better tank. would have to be armor cos the mid slots are for jammers.
|
Kamen
SRBI Circle-Of-Two
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 18:10:00 -
[668]
Rook has a problem with POWERGRID, and that would need to be fixed before you do anything to make it a close-range ship. If rook is to be dealing any damage, it has to fit at least heavy launchers. Once it fits heavy lauchers and a MWD, it has no grid to fit any reasonable buffer tank -- not even one single LSE. MWD IS required for all PvP ships and HML is a minimum required launcher for any reasonable DPS.
Compared to other recons in its class, they all can fit appropriate weapons, mwd and 2x LSE, or equivalent for armor. ------------------------------------------------ (Recruiting ad) SRBI regrutuju! Dodjite na nas javni SRBI kanal. Kontakt Soder/Me West |
Carniflex
Caldari Fallout Research Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 18:14:00 -
[669]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Scorpion
The scorpion remains unchanged from the original suggestion for now. Whilst this change would make them less usual at long range jamming, they can still jam out to ~140km using their falloff (setup for ECM range) so whilst their role in the long range scenario is reduced, their new short range scenario is much better.
In my opinion short range Scorpion will suck, as if one would go for short range anyway one would better off in E-War Raven. It's no tweak you are planning in there - it's complete redefining of Scorpion role. And 140 km is not enough to operate in sniper fleet currently.
Fleet warfare has always been the playground of battleships. Forcing Scorpion out of it and crowning Falcon as king of it is wrong.
|
Coriander Rinne
Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 18:14:00 -
[670]
I preface this by acknowledging that my points have probably been stated somewhere in the 20+ pages of this topic. I'm weighing in just in case.
I feel like the proposed changes will accomplish nothing. I've discussed this over with a couple of people and the following points were raised.
1. Recons by design will be more effective in small-scale situations. I feel like most of the falcon whines come from people who are receiving high priority from the falcons, either because of the threat they pose or because the scale of the fight is small enough that EW can be focused on them.
2. Caldari recons are a bit of an anomaly in that they don't have their bonuses split between two EW mechanics. While this is justifiable given the versatility of ECM over the other types, the double bonus on top of it kind of feels like built-in minmaxing.
3. At the end of that day, people just don't like being on the receiving end of EW. Even people who understand its purpose can be frustrated at sitting helpless at the worst time. I'm not saying something should be done about this, only raising the point that even a balanced mechanic can be frustrating at times.
Really, none of these are easy to address, but I don't think the proposed changes will do anything towards addressing any of these points.
I'm willing to at least see the results of the proposed falcon/rook changes, but I want to go on record as saying that the proposed changes to the scorpion completely break it.
Keep in mind that it's a fleet platform, dependent on the longer engagement ranges to stay with the rest of the fleet and receive logistic support. Also take into consideration that the Scorpion could not possibly draw more fire even if its pilot hung out banners proclaiming the sexual prowess of the mothers of the opposing pilots. The thing screams "SHOOT ME". Putting it at midrange is basically removes what little staying power the ship has.
In regards for possible fixes, I honestly don't believe anything needs to be done, but if we must brainstorm, consider removing an ECM bonus from the falcon/rook and adding a target painter bonus? It's been brought up to me that each of the other races has a bonus that assists in tackle, but I dunno what can be added in that regard to the Caldari ships. In addition, target painters just seem to fit, given the whole missile thing.
As a more radical suggestion, maybe addressing the recon's scalability in fleet fights, as well as its ability to fit tank, perhaps allow recons to project an "EW bubble" onto a target, providing the EW effect to everything inside the bubble (including friendlies). This opens up a whole new can of worms in terms of balancing (FALCON BUBBLE JAMMED 200 BATTLESHIPS WTF) but eh, maybe that's easier to address than the current situation? ---
|
|
Thorian Baalnorn
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 18:24:00 -
[671]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Thanks for the constructive feedback so far!
In the first pass on sisi, we will look at the falcon and rook with their suggested roles switched as many of you suggested so the rook will be the "brawler" (short range ECM strength bonii) and falcon will be the weaker but longer range "sniper" varient. Then we can also add duplicates with the original suggestions (falcon close range and rook sniper) as a comparison whilst playtesting.
The skill bonuses and other changes to the caldari recons will then look like this:
Rook: Caldari Cruiser Skill Bonus: 10% Bonus to Light & Heavy Missile Velocity per level 10% reduction in ECM Target Jammer capacitor use per Level
Recon Ships Skill Bonus: 20% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per level 5% bonus to heavy and light missile kinetic damage per level
Attribute Changes: +25m3 drone bay +25mbit drone bandwidth
Falcon: Caldari Cruiser Skill Bonus: 20% Bonus to ECM Target Jammer Optimal Range per level 10% Bonus to Medium Hybrid Optimal Range per level
Recon Ships Skill Bonus: 15% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per level -96% to -100% reduction in Cloaking Device CPU use per level
Attribute Changes: +1 turret hardpoint / -1 launcher hardpoint
Scorpion
The scorpion remains unchanged from the original suggestion for now. Whilst this change would make them less usual at long range jamming, they can still jam out to ~140km using their falloff (setup for ECM range) so whilst their role in the long range scenario is reduced, their new short range scenario is much better.
The Widow
Forgot to mention it would be getting an increase in ECM strength bonus same as the scorpion. Will make a seperate post on black ops themselves.
I will update the original post with these changes in a minute. There is no ETA on when these changes will be on sisi for testing as we are currently testing for Apocrypha 1.02. Some time after that is deployed to TQ, then we will move sisi to a version where you can start to playtest these changes and we will continue to monitor feedback and make more tweaks as needed.
These changes are better still i think the problems lie in the mods ( ECM and ECCM) and not in the ships themselves. I do like that the rook is getting a more defined role. it should get a tanking upgrade though since its brawler. maybe give it a midslot and take away a low so it can get decent ecm and some shield tanking. or a flat 10% to all shield resist( NOT per level)
|
Uzume Ame
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 18:28:00 -
[672]
Are you nuts? Add scripts: 1) Reduce base range/ecm strength 2) Add scripts for 'jamming strength' and 'jamming optima' 3) ... 4) Profit!
|
Tarminic
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 18:29:00 -
[673]
Also, what do you plan to do regarding ECM Bursts? Have these been completely forgotten as anything other than near-useless modules? ---------------- Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.83 (Updated 7/3) |
The Djego
Minmatar merovinger inc
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 18:31:00 -
[674]
Edited by: The Djego on 25/03/2009 18:34:30
Originally by: Arkady Sadik
Originally by: CCP Chronotis the ECM optimal range (max range 195, optimal 124 or so depending on the setup and skills, (this was a maxed out ECM range setup)) but we think it will be more useful than the ECM cap use bonus.
Hm. For empire (low-sec/high-sec), Falcon at 50ish km would have been good. Falcon at 100km is not much of a change to now, really. Not sure how to fix this (I like the Falcon=sniper, rook=brawler roles), but it's not "ok" this way. Maybe really boost ECCM? A fixed bonus (+30 or so) would be nice.
This exactly, the problem of the Falcon is Range(what make it hard to counter for small Gangs) and Cov Ops Cloak. In short you still don¦t fix it where it is far to powerfull(vs. small Gang/Solo Ships).
Also this still don¦t change anything at the boring ECM mechanic in actual gameplay and it¦s to weak counters that are compleetly useless beside reducing your chance to get jammed.
---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
Ja'Moor
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 18:40:00 -
[675]
i think the falcon should be left alone, or just give it a very low tank, paper thin. falcon pilots can try to out jam another, which is fun, and inty's can approach a falcon easy and other fleet members can warp to that inty. so uts all down to skills, fleet organisation, and experiance. why would a fleet go out without adequate ecm protection? the moan cause they lose ships, but its their own fault for not fitting adequate eccm mods and having an orgainised balance fleet, plus probably a poor fc.
keep watering down ships to even the playing field is not the answer. good f/c, organised balanced fleet, corectly fitted ships and experianced pitots is the answer
|
Arkady Sadik
Minmatar Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 18:40:00 -
[676]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Falcon: Caldari Cruiser Skill Bonus: 20% Bonus to ECM Target Jammer Optimal Range per level 10% Bonus to Medium Hybrid Optimal Range per level
Recon Ships Skill Bonus: 20% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per level -96% to -100% reduction in Cloaking Device CPU use per level
This is the original post. The update on p20 said 15% instead of 20%. I assume the original post is a typo?
|
Karlemgne
Tides Of War
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 18:44:00 -
[677]
Edited by: Karlemgne on 25/03/2009 18:45:44
Quote: Currently, mids for a falcon: MWD, sensor booster and 5 jammers (more or less). There are 4 races you need to fit for...
And that setup will currently keep 4 ships without ECCM perma jammed, if not 5.
Quote: ECM is racially limited and chance based.
Do you think I'm an idiot? Yes you need racial jammers, and yes its *chance based.* Its actually a set percentage *chance* that takes into account your ECM strength and your opponents sensor strength. That's how ECCM modules work you know, they boost your racial sensor strength.
Bottom line, if you have two Falcons with the appropriate racial jammers you can keep 5 battleships with one ECCM a piece permanently jammed.
Quote: Come back when you have a clue.
I fight people with Falcons almost every day. One ECCM *works* against one Falcon at the cost of dropping tackle and/or tank in as much as you won't be PERMA JAMMED. You can expect to get jammed at least once during any real combat.
Against two, three or 4 Falcons (yes this happens quite a bit) one ECCM just won't cut it.
I'd also like to point out that unless you move around a lot, you end up fighting the same people quite a bit. So yes, more often than not your opponent DOES know what ship types you fly, and fits accordingly.
Then of course, there is always the matter of where one lives in the eve-verse. If you live in Gallente space, you see a lot of Gallente ships... so Falcons tend to have your number if you fly Gallente in Gallente space.
And apparently CCP agrees with me. So maybe YOU should come back when YOU have a clue.
My sig don't fracking work. |
Karlemgne
Tides Of War
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 18:49:00 -
[678]
Originally by: Sig Sour
Originally by: Karlemgne
I have 0 sympathy.
But Tides of War is a red flashy battleship corp. ECM and battleship gangs bigger than yours are the only thing stopping you from stomping all over everything you run into.
Only when those two things come together. Otherwise we still pretty much stomp everything we run into.
Cheers,
-Karlemgne My sig don't fracking work. |
Van Dartea
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 18:54:00 -
[679]
Edited by: Van Dartea on 25/03/2009 18:56:53 At first, the proposed ideas bewildered me. I laughed out loud at the suggestion that a Caldari ECM recon should be a 'close range brawler'. But as I was typing a scalding criticism of such a suggestion, I was persuaded:
(DonÆt just read this paragraph) If the rooks effective jamming range is reduced further (perhaps to 30km without mods) so that they are within striking distance of the damage dealers of a opposing gang making missing that jam so much more life threatening to the rook pilot. Also, it makes ECCM more powerful; if the rook pilot is faced with a ECCM equipped gang (or even a single such fitted dps pilot) he/she must accommodate them at the expense of jamming others which with the proposed changes is much more dangerous to the falcon who are within the threat ranges of damage dealing ships.
On the flipside you have rooks that are powerful jamming machines (perhaps even stronger jamming for the rook and ECM could get cycles reduced to 10-15 seconds for increased flexibility) but that require their gang to control the movement and ranges of the enemy gang or risk having their EWAR being reduced to scrap in a quick and efficient manner.
Also, if you so wish, the option is there to take the less powerful, but safer falcon; if your gang lacks the co-ordination or tools to keep the rooks safe.
As to increasing the base jamming of ECM and making SDAs range modifiers, I say, letÆs not get ahead of ourselves. We do not want to be stuck with rooks and Scorpions that have the best tank and can still put out the damage that can solo anything that is not overloaded with ECCM. It is good as is; pilots must make the choice with putting all its eggs in one basket (even more jamming strength) or having a back up (a buffer) or damage (BCUs, should it wish to try and solo something). I think the PG issue with the Rook is a good thing. It can't have everything afterall.
It also alleviates the problem of a falcon uncloaking at obscene ranges and ruining the fight; falcons having less jamming strength. However, you seem to have forgotten that your opponents have more (and not forgetting superior) equipment, more man-power and are obviously better prepared. I bet none of you even equipped ECCM... Shame on you...
In retrospect, I am looking forward to this intensely. Caldari need capable solo ships, and rooks, and to a lesser extent scorpions will be able to do just that. Long range ECM takes a nerf and people are forced to close in for pre-'fix' jamming strength (and better), making them easier to counter.
This is just my humble opinion. Make of it what you will.
Oh! Almost forgot... buff griffins please :)
EDIT: All the other racial EWAR needs to be improved. But mass nerfing to bring ECM down to their levels should not be the idea. Can people leave the 'its not fair ECM is better than other EWAR' attitude behind and focus on how it can be balanced in relation to overall gameplay, and not the other sub-par EWAR.
|
VLAD DRACU
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 18:56:00 -
[680]
Originally by: WildcardTrek Ok so the only ewar ship that is remotely useful your going to smack over the head with the nerfbat, with the improvement of the humongus gates, nerf to missiles, initial nerf to ECM, nerf to Caldari in general on every whim, I am glad now that I can fly every Caldari ship that it totally useless, glad I trained the other races so I am not totally useless after years in eve and milions of wasted Caldari SP.
Why not just take Caldari out of the game all together, I mean they are pretty much useless now as it is. Make it a story line thing like the Sleepers ate them or something.
qft
Originally by: WildcardTrek
Make it a story line thing like the Sleepers ate them or something.
double qft because no one will notice tbh
maybe ccp think its a way they can make people stay ingame longer as what they trained for is getting useless and have to start it over. and for the addicted herd yes it works, they start over.
the ccp radical nerfstyle is fundamentally fubar, some of the above posts sum that pretty well...
"we are looking at swapping the base optimal and falloff ranges" - thats an excellent sample of how the devs do the math for the nerf (i.e. based on extremely complex algorithms that lead to extremely simple solutions - just swap some numbers); why not swap the falloff with the meta level and the optimal with the activation timer - i feel thats more legit
fail
|
|
TheLibrarian
Tides Of War
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 19:01:00 -
[681]
Edited by: TheLibrarian on 25/03/2009 19:01:28 FALCON GETS A BUFF WITH THE NEW UPDATE!
CCP Chronotis:
The falcon is the "sniper" of the two ECM roles having less ECM strength and more ECM range.
Falcon: Caldari Cruiser Skill Bonus: 20% Bonus to ECM Target Jammer Optimal Range per level 10% Bonus to Medium Hybrid Optimal Range per level
Recon Ships Skill Bonus: 20% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per level -96% to -100% reduction in Cloaking Device CPU use per level
Attribute Changes: +1 turret hardpoint / -1 launcher hardpoint
------------------------- If this is the only change that is hitting the falcon you might as not make any changes. It remains exactly the same except boosted. Now it can do some sort of DPS from 100K if they want. While still having the same jam power as always. I fail to see how this addresses the problem of falcons being overpowered. It seems to have been a boost if nothing else.
A real fix would be to scale all jamming on long range ships down to 10-15% bonus to jamming strength per level. While doing the idea that you originally posted about making the high jamming strength ships be up close and in danger. Since that makes the most sense.
Things that have high impact in a combat should be up close, things that have smaller impact should be allowed to be farther away. This balances the power scale.
I am a falcon pilot I will be happy when they make my job more interesting. From a game fun perspective the falcon is one of the most boring ships in the game yet is the most powerful to fly. Because your never in danger of dying, and you are able to perma jam pretty much anything you want unless it has 2 ECCM fit. Which 90% of ships cant afford 2 ECCM modules, and you can still jam them with 2 ECCM modules 10-20% of the time.
Please do what ever you can to make flying them more enjoyable. If 50K optimal is the max range on a falcon like you had planned in the beginning, people with falcons will just have to decloak and align ASAP. They might get 1 jamming cycle off and have to warp out and back in. Sounds pretty intense and fun to me. Maybe people just want to be lazy and always win. But some of us play for fun. Flying a falcon in the current state of the game is no fun, and fighting a falcon in the current state is no fun. Both make the combat and the game stale.
|
Raquel Trotter
Trotters Independent Trading
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 19:08:00 -
[682]
Originally by: TheLibrarian Edited by: TheLibrarian on 25/03/2009 19:01:28 FALCON GETS A BUFF WITH THE NEW UPDATE!
CCP Chronotis:
The falcon is the "sniper" of the two ECM roles having less ECM strength and more ECM range.
Falcon: Caldari Cruiser Skill Bonus: 20% Bonus to ECM Target Jammer Optimal Range per level 10% Bonus to Medium Hybrid Optimal Range per level
Recon Ships Skill Bonus: 20% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per level -96% to -100% reduction in Cloaking Device CPU use per level
Attribute Changes: +1 turret hardpoint / -1 launcher hardpoint
------------------------- If this is the only change that is hitting the falcon you might as not make any changes. It remains exactly the same except boosted. Now it can do some sort of DPS from 100K if they want. While still having the same jam power as always. I fail to see how this addresses the problem of falcons being overpowered. It seems to have been a boost if nothing else.
A real fix would be to scale all jamming on long range ships down to 10-15% bonus to jamming strength per level. While doing the idea that you originally posted about making the high jamming strength ships be up close and in danger. Since that makes the most sense.
Things that have high impact in a combat should be up close, things that have smaller impact should be allowed to be farther away. This balances the power scale.
I am a falcon pilot I will be happy when they make my job more interesting. From a game fun perspective the falcon is one of the most boring ships in the game yet is the most powerful to fly. Because your never in danger of dying, and you are able to perma jam pretty much anything you want unless it has 2 ECCM fit. Which 90% of ships cant afford 2 ECCM modules, and you can still jam them with 2 ECCM modules 10-20% of the time.
Please do what ever you can to make flying them more enjoyable. If 50K optimal is the max range on a falcon like you had planned in the beginning, people with falcons will just have to decloak and align ASAP. They might get 1 jamming cycle off and have to warp out and back in. Sounds pretty intense and fun to me. Maybe people just want to be lazy and always win. But some of us play for fun. Flying a falcon in the current state of the game is no fun, and fighting a falcon in the current state is no fun. Both make the combat and the game stale.
Agree 100% Balance ECM, please do not boost it due to a handful of people whining because they want an easy button in eve.
|
5pinDizzy
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 19:19:00 -
[683]
[sarcasm] FALCON HAS TO HAVE ITS 200KM RANGE, IF NOT SOMEONE MIGHT BRING A MAXED OUT SNIPER BATTLESHIP THAT JUST GETS OUT OF ITS RANGE WHENEVER ON THE SAME GRID DOING ITS CRAPPY SNIPER DAMAGE.
UNACCEPTABLE! FALCON MUST COUNTER ALL [/sarcasm]
if you disagree with me then you should probably post a response and stop reading my signature. |
Jalif
Minmatar Black Sinisters
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 19:20:00 -
[684]
Originally by: TheLibrarian Edited by: TheLibrarian on 25/03/2009 19:01:28 FALCON GETS A BUFF WITH THE NEW UPDATE!
CCP Chronotis:
The falcon is the "sniper" of the two ECM roles having less ECM strength and more ECM range.
Falcon: Caldari Cruiser Skill Bonus: 20% Bonus to ECM Target Jammer Optimal Range per level 10% Bonus to Medium Hybrid Optimal Range per level
Recon Ships Skill Bonus: 20% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per level -96% to -100% reduction in Cloaking Device CPU use per level
Attribute Changes: +1 turret hardpoint / -1 launcher hardpoint
------------------------- If this is the only change that is hitting the falcon you might as not make any changes. It remains exactly the same except boosted. Now it can do some sort of DPS from 100K if they want. While still having the same jam power as always. I fail to see how this addresses the problem of falcons being overpowered. It seems to have been a boost if nothing else.
A real fix would be to scale all jamming on long range ships down to 10-15% bonus to jamming strength per level. While doing the idea that you originally posted about making the high jamming strength ships be up close and in danger. Since that makes the most sense.
Things that have high impact in a combat should be up close, things that have smaller impact should be allowed to be farther away. This balances the power scale.
I am a falcon pilot I will be happy when they make my job more interesting. From a game fun perspective the falcon is one of the most boring ships in the game yet is the most powerful to fly. Because your never in danger of dying, and you are able to perma jam pretty much anything you want unless it has 2 ECCM fit. Which 90% of ships cant afford 2 ECCM modules, and you can still jam them with 2 ECCM modules 10-20% of the time.
Please do what ever you can to make flying them more enjoyable. If 50K optimal is the max range on a falcon like you had planned in the beginning, people with falcons will just have to decloak and align ASAP. They might get 1 jamming cycle off and have to warp out and back in. Sounds pretty intense and fun to me. Maybe people just want to be lazy and always win. But some of us play for fun. Flying a falcon in the current state of the game is no fun, and fighting a falcon in the current state is no fun. Both make the combat and the game stale.
qft
|Black Sinisters| |
maralt
Minmatar The seers of truth
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 19:27:00 -
[685]
Originally by: TheLibrarian
A real fix would be to scale all jamming on long range ships down to 10-15% bonus to jamming strength per level. While doing the idea that you originally posted about making the high jamming strength ships be up close and in danger. Since that makes the most sense.
Things that have high impact in a combat should be up close, things that have smaller impact should be allowed to be farther away. This balances the power scale.
While that sounds good when you say it out loud in actual fact it will put the ships in question on the scrap heap.
Nobody uses the other recons in gang combat that consists of more than a few ships already because of their range and they have 100% gaurenteed effects in optimal, so why would anybody even think of using a chance based system at those ranges...
A 50km optimal or even close to it will make them useless in gang combat just like the other recons.
|
AZN Steve
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 19:33:00 -
[686]
these changes make no sense at all stop smoking home made crack and get a clue
" The rook operates at shorter ranges, able to launch a stronger ECM attack and whilst having shorter ECM range 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 "
2 lines down .... :
" Rook: Caldari Cruiser Skill Bonus: 10% Bonus to Light & Heavy Missile Velocity per level 10% reduction in ECM Target Jammer capacitor use per Level
Recon Ships Skill Bonus: 25% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per level 5% bonus to heavy and light missile kinetic damage per level "
Falcon : woot 3 turret hard points for 0.5 dps which can't hit since you're still too far off . maybe giv back less cap use for ecm , kk ?
rook : short range ecm brawler . nobody else sees a problem here ? rooks used to be primaries before but with this change they have zero survivabilty , but I guess that 150 dps is going to make up for it .
Well , I can stop training recons now . now they're all useless
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 19:36:00 -
[687]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Rook: Caldari Cruiser Skill Bonus: 10% Bonus to Light & Heavy Missile Velocity per level 10% reduction in ECM Target Jammer capacitor use per Level
Recon Ships Skill Bonus: 20% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per level 5% bonus to heavy and light missile kinetic damage per level
Attribute Changes: +25m3 drone bay +25mbit drone bandwidth
If you want the Rook to be close up in-your-face jamming, isn't a missile velocity bonus, which is effectively a range bonus (since the speednerf, you can't routinely outrun missiles so that's no longer a factor) somewhat out of place? It doesn't need to be throwing scourges out to 100km+ if its primary role is jamming at around 50.
Swap that to something else please (rate of fire would be nice!)
Quote: Falcon: Caldari Cruiser Skill Bonus: 20% Bonus to ECM Target Jammer Optimal Range per level 10% Bonus to Medium Hybrid Optimal Range per level
Recon Ships Skill Bonus: 15% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per level -96% to -100% reduction in Cloaking Device CPU use per level
Attribute Changes: +1 turret hardpoint / -1 launcher hardpoint
The hybrid optimal bonus, or indeed any weapon bonus seems pointless here - a Falcon has 4 highslots, and on any sensible recon fitting three of those slots will be filled with the force recon trinity of covops cloak/probe launcher/cyno gen. I guess for highsec only or non-capfleet alliances the cyno could be dropped but I'm not sure what meaningful difference it'll make to be able to snipe at 80-90km with just 2 railguns? Plus, falcons are generally a real tight fit on CPU even at Recon IV, having told us we can drop the SDAs to fit a mighty 3-slot armour tank are you now suggesting we use one of our tank slots for a co-processor, or be forced to train Recon V?
|
darkmancer
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 19:44:00 -
[688]
Rook
Want to make the rook a close range brawler?? Then please please please give it enough powergrid to fit a MWD and a 800mm plate/LSE. Also a minor increase in speed and agility (or just decrease the mass down to falcon level).
You want people to use it? Give it a chance to survive without gimping it by using up lowslows to get enough grid.
Scorpian A short range brawler? Fine but it would require some dps, only 4 Launchers + all the drawbacks with Torpedos, and cruise missiles are just awful.
Either 5 Launchers with a 5% Kenetic Bonus, Or 6 launchers with a Shield resist/hit point bonus.
Kitsune
No mentions been made of this although i suppose it gains it's low slots back, i'd like to see the optimal range bonus changed to something more useful.
--------------------------------- There's a simple solution to every problem. It is always invariably wrong |
Lightway
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 19:46:00 -
[689]
Edited by: Lightway on 25/03/2009 19:46:45 ccp, please keep doing a good job, just keep nerfing everything, until we either leave eve or will fight in noob ships. congratz for another greath job
|
Vigaz
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 19:49:00 -
[690]
I'm a caldari pilot, I like the changes, they are in the right way.
I think that something should be checked/adjusted:
Rook Caldari Cruiser Skill Bonus: 10% Bonus to Light & Heavy Missile Velocity per level
This is not for short range operations, with that bonus a max skilled Rook pilot can hit from more than 120km (max actual range is 88km + 50% of the new bonus), while the drone bay is able to add DSP only at 60km or less. HAMs and MWD are almost impossible to fit due to the low PG of the Rook, so in my mind this bonus should be changed to a 10% AB velocity per level or 5% resists per level (a bonus that can improve a bit the survival of this ship).
Scorpion Widow and Scorpion are now in the right progression, but you should consider to add a launcher point to the Scorpion. Domi and sin are almost the same ship, so I guess that Scorpion should be much closer to its T2 variant (Widow has 5 launcher slots design without an optimal ECM range bonus).
|
|
BoB's Dream
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 19:54:00 -
[691]
Script range/strength for ECM is a good idea.
|
Olivor
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 19:56:00 -
[692]
Hmm...
Well, I don't quite get the Scorp changes, if it's now got to be 'close' range and isn't going to get any sort of improved tank it's going to get toasted.
Regarding the Rook again I don't get why it doesn't get some sort of tank, plus, if it has to be close range... a missile velocity bonus?! Okay, maybe getting to the edge of your extended Heavy Assault missile range will be good but why not put in something more... useful?
|
AZN Steve
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 19:56:00 -
[693]
oh and nerf caldari much ?
|
supr3m3justic3
Caldari GANK STARZ
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 19:58:00 -
[694]
"the low slots could be used for tanking for example."
I'm sure this has already been said. But if this is your overall plan, i hope you plan on adding another low slot to the falcon and rook. Or i would like a suggested "low slot tank set up" with 3 low slots. But other than that i like the idea. Cause i'll still fly a vaga :)
____
New Sig Under Construction!! |
Jack Gilligan
Dragon's Rage Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 20:01:00 -
[695]
Gee, thanks Devs for listening to all the whiners and nerfing to uselessness the last Caldari ships that are of any use in PVP, since you made missiles EVEN WORSE than they were prior to the nano nerf. Glad I trained for Gallente HACs/recons.
I'm going to make sure my Falcons die before this mega nerf.
--- My opinions are my own and do not necessarily represent those of my corp or alliance. |
Yakov Draken
Minmatar Tides Of War
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 20:03:00 -
[696]
Edited by: Yakov Draken on 25/03/2009 20:03:55
Originally by: TheLibrarian Edited by: TheLibrarian on 25/03/2009 19:01:28 FALCON GETS A BUFF WITH THE NEW UPDATE!
CCP Chronotis:
The falcon is the "sniper" of the two ECM roles having less ECM strength and more ECM range.
Falcon: Caldari Cruiser Skill Bonus: 20% Bonus to ECM Target Jammer Optimal Range per level 10% Bonus to Medium Hybrid Optimal Range per level
Recon Ships Skill Bonus: 20% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per level -96% to -100% reduction in Cloaking Device CPU use per level
Attribute Changes: +1 turret hardpoint / -1 launcher hardpoint
I don't think you got the bonus's right there Lib. Isn't the latest proposal for the Falcon +15% jamming strength (down from 20%) plus no boost from SDA's meaning a total bonus of up to +75% jamming strength instead of +100% plus SDA's for up to around +50% more. Combine this with s***ping falloff and optimal (is this still happening?) meaning more misses on jams and I'm still fairly optimistic.
Can someone confirm wether or not the SDA changes (jam strength to jam range) and optimal falloff s*** are still going through.
Bottomline is that Falcons need to be nerfed. They have been overpowered for a long time now and they kill the fun. They might work ok in 0.0 (dunno) but in low sec they are often present in large enough numbers to mean that no-one on your side can get a lock even with ECCM. Since this means fight over and time to de-aggro it is simply a combat killer.
Won't it be nice to run around in small cruiser gangs without the knowledge that just one Falcon and your gang can't lock anything? Falcons have driven small ships with low sensor strengths out of the competition.
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 20:03:00 -
[697]
Chronitis, please keep in mind that the main issue invulnerability due to range/cloak (without targeting delay).
Only the big fat blobs of sniper ships in 0.0 have a reliable counter, the beauty of making the non-cloaker (Rook) be long range is that you impose a targeting delay if it choses to use cloak and that it can be probed out (ie. warped to). Outside of the 0.0 blob environ ECM ranges above 100-150km become game breaking as there are no sniper fleets and no more 10k/s ships.
Also think hard about how many ships the individual ECM boat should be able to "remove" from a fight and include that in the balancing. No other eWar platforms can impact so many ships at once.
The other Recons can't even operate at >50km, much less 150-200km. And believe it or not they die just as easily as the Caldari ships when targeted .. difference is they have been used to buffering since forever to have half a chance at performing their function.
Gallente, Amarr and Matar have been making hard choices when fitting their Recons, often on an individual engagement basis, isn't it about time that the Caldari get the same pleasure ?
In Summation: Let them retain (some of) their range if they are willing to sacrifice efficiency and survivability for it, but open the door for balls-to-the-wall jamming with short-range/high-strength buffer tanks.
PS: Give ECCM a 50-100% boost while you are at it. It is a completely pointless module on anything sub-BS currently due to relatively low sensor strength on smaller vessels.
|
DiseL
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Associates
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 20:11:00 -
[698]
First of all the comparisons to other recons should stop. Just because they are all in the recon group does not mean they should all be the same. Why do people keep using the phrase "solo Falcon"? When has anyone ever seen a Falcon solo anything in Eve that wasn't a complete fluke? ECM is chance based and every other recon's ewar is 100% effective when applied to a target ship. In a small fleet engagement with all four races of recons present what will the primary be? Falcon/Rook of course. A Falcon will never be able to hold down a target and apply enough dps to kill it ever. Any of the other three recons can do this albeit with limitations. Whoever the guy was that stated the Falcon could fit a massive armor tank with a 1600mm plate and 2x EANM must be smoking something. Since when is 23k EHP with a low resist of 43% explosive a massive tank? The Arazu and Pilgrim can doulbe that EHP while completely locking down a target ship. The Rapier has a weak tank but 1000m/s more speed as a counter. Regardless of what all the whiners say a Falcon/Rook never permajams everything. You bring them in close and they become absolutely suicidal in any situation other than very small gang warfare. If you don't have enough ECM to permajam everything in the hostile fleet you can plan on losing all your ECM boats every engagement.
As for the Raven and Cerb still being great long range snipers because they do max damage at max ranges, well your right if your hitting a stationary target. Once they start moving damage goes down significantly. Correct, the Rokh is still the best uber-long range sniper but with minimal dps. So Caldari now is relegated to the sniper race. If this was really the case why are fleet engagements severely lacking in Caldari ships?
Every single nerf/buff has been overboard and then leads to another for balancing. Stop screwing with the game and making major changes for god's sake!
|
Yakov Draken
Minmatar Tides Of War
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 20:22:00 -
[699]
Originally by: DiseL As for the Raven and Cerb still being great long range snipers because they do max damage at max ranges, well your right if your hitting a stationary target. Once they start moving damage goes down significantly. Correct, the Rokh is still the best uber-long range sniper but with minimal dps. So Caldari now is relegated to the sniper race. If this was really the case why are fleet engagements severely lacking in Caldari ships?
This is simply not true. Fit up a Torp Raven and go melt face. HAM Drakes are a solid BC's and the best 1v1 BC in the game. Plus the Scorpian looks really nice to me after the changes and the BB will remain a damn fine low sp ship.
|
Jalif
Minmatar Black Sinisters
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 20:32:00 -
[700]
Originally by: Yakov Draken
Originally by: DiseL As for the Raven and Cerb still being great long range snipers because they do max damage at max ranges, well your right if your hitting a stationary target. Once they start moving damage goes down significantly. Correct, the Rokh is still the best uber-long range sniper but with minimal dps. So Caldari now is relegated to the sniper race. If this was really the case why are fleet engagements severely lacking in Caldari ships?
This is simply not true. Fit up a Torp Raven and go melt face. HAM Drakes are a solid BC's and the best 1v1 BC in the game. Plus the Scorpian looks really nice to me after the changes and the BB will remain a damn fine low sp ship.
Not to forget the harpy, crow, which are able to solo pvp very effective. Caldari people should stop whining and start thinking tbfh.
|Black Sinisters| |
|
Hun Jakuza
24th Imperial Guard
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 20:34:00 -
[701]
Need more optimal nerf. We dont wanna ship which can jamming out sentry range with full str. Well done CCP.
|
Pimparella
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 20:47:00 -
[702]
@topic your ideas suck. for real. start increasing the effectnes of th dampers, target painters and turret destabelizers, or stfu. first the speed nerf and now this. if you want everyone in battleships, just delete the other ships and let the game die.
|
Liang Nuren
No Salvation Blackguard Coalition
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 20:47:00 -
[703]
Chronitis,
Right now, the maximum jamming strength of a Falcon/Rook with 3 SDA's is about 14-15 (14.7 IIRC). With the changes specified in the OP, the maximum attainable jamming strength is going down really rather significantly.
I think we'll see 10.125 as the maximum jamming strength from a brawler ship (such as the Scorpion/Rook). This is not really high enough to justify bringing the ship (IMO).
3.6 Racial ECM II Base * (1 + .05 * 5) (Sig Dispersion 5) * (1 + .25 * 5) (Recon Ships 5) = 10.125
In order to maintain current strength of jamming on brawler ships (which I think is reasonable), you need a 45% strength bonus per level.
>>> ((14.7 / (3.6*1.25)) - 1) / 5.0 0.45333333333333331 >>> 3.6 * (1 + .05 * 5) * (1 + .45 * 5) 14.625
I know in the OP you said that you guys want to make sig distortion amps affect range instead of strength, but you want to move the strength into the ships or mod - but what is your *target* jamming strength for a max skilled pilot flying a "brawler"?
Without this vital piece of information, everyone's really just ****ing in the wind.
-Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org |
Vukk Yu
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 21:00:00 -
[704]
Originally by: Pimparella @topic your ideas suck. for real. start increasing the effectnes of th dampers, target painters and turret destabelizers, or stfu. first the speed nerf and now this. if you want everyone in battleships, just delete the other ships and let the game die.
and how does this relate to the topic of balancing ecm? why dont you take your own advice. the stfu part.
|
MYSTERY ALT
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 21:01:00 -
[705]
I'd love to see the rook become a useful caldari gang/solo PVP, close up "brawler" kinda boat instead of the scorp (its a fleet boat, come on).
I really couldn't care about the falcon (but i agree it needs to be nerfed in some reasonable way, its just way overpowered, also its a force recon, not a combat recon, whatÆs the deal with trying to give it some sort of buffed pvp capability when it's simply not its role).
Give the rook some DPS (preferably with something caldari related like missiles, not drones), a fitting buff (room for tackle or something? I don't know) and a little more survivability, then completely kill its long range capability (missile velocity bonus? longer range stuff should be left to the falcon, cerb, scorp and rokh).
Im pretty tired off the whole long range "one with the flock" caldari speciality thing, the rook would be a perfect boat to make caldari a fun race to fly again.
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 21:05:00 -
[706]
Keep the good feedback coming. It is good to see such a varied range of opinions as ECM and ECM specialised ships and how the proposed changes affect their roles in different scenarios and more importantly the balance between preventing and encouraging fights which is equally loved or hated.
Currently we have two sets of different Caldari recon changes which either significantly change their roles (as we originally proposed changing the falcon to close range to account for the power of its covert ops role and rook to longer range to increase its usefulness) or reduce their ranged ECM effectiveness overall in lieu of other bonuses to give them a better more balanced role than just "jam to the max". Thus shifting them to behave less like ultra niche ships and more like recons were better intended whilst still allowing for the lack of secondary EWAR system bonus to caldari recons.
An additional change to my previous posts we are looking at playtesting soon, we have split the ECM optimal bonuses on the Falcon and Blackbird to be optimal and falloff. With the Falcon currently gaining 12.5% ECM optimal and falloff range per level and the Blackbird 10% per level.
In addition we are looking at the difference between the "brawling" (must find a better term for this :p) ECM strengths and ranges and the longer range sniper ships. It is quite likely we will be making further changes in this area in addition to considering more if the power of the covert ops cloak ability is really adequately balanced between the falcon and rook where we just reduce their current ECM effectiveness as opposed to switching the falcon to short range.
Hope that leaves you with some more insight into where we are currently at with internal playtesting and balancing.
As always, I will sign off with reminding you that these changes are not set in stone and will continue to change
|
|
Karlemgne
Tides Of War
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 21:11:00 -
[707]
Originally by: Pimparella @topic your ideas suck. for real. start increasing the effectnes of th dampers, target painters and turret destabelizers, or stfu. first the speed nerf and now this. if you want everyone in battleships, just delete the other ships and let the game die.
Here is the problem in low-sec. Because of the prevalence of Falcon alts and Falcon pilots, flying anything OTHER than a Battleship or Recon is very difficult. Why? Because you need high sensor strength ships, with dual ECCMs just to counter a couple Falcons.
Fact is, Falcons are doing the work of putting more people into bigger ships. Tbh, and we should be honest with ourselves, Falcons currently nerf smaller ships.
And I'm sorry if you've spent the time to train an alt just for a Falcon. This is an MMO, things need to be balanced and rebalanced constantly. While I agree the OTHER recons and ewar mods need to be looked at for a boost, Falcons have needed a nerf for awhile.
-Karlemgne My sig don't fracking work. |
Yunaka Vicc
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 21:15:00 -
[708]
Edited by: Yunaka Vicc on 25/03/2009 21:15:16
Quote: Falcon: 20% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per level Rook: 25% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per level
ECM strength becomes too low even with 2 rigs.
Any change can help: - add 5% to per level strength bonuses for both ship. - remove overload stacking.
|
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 21:16:00 -
[709]
Edited by: Esmenet on 25/03/2009 21:17:04
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Currently we have two sets of different Caldari recon changes which either significantly change their roles (as we originally proposed changing the falcon to close range to account for the power of its covert ops role and rook to longer range to increase its usefulness) or reduce their ranged ECM effectiveness overall in lieu of other bonuses to give them a better more balanced role than just "jam to the max". Thus shifting them to behave less like ultra niche ships and more like recons were better intended whilst still allowing for the lack of secondary EWAR system bonus to caldari recons.
There is no "balanced" role for a specialised ewar ship like falcons. If its ecm is effective its going to get primaried nomatter what, and if it dont have range its just an expensive explosion. Go with a blackbird instead as it will explode anyway, and the blackbird is close to zero cost.
If its not effective the falcon is just a waste of space that could be taken by a dps ship (HAC or BS depending on the gang).
Look at the other recons and see how (little) they are used and try to figure out why. And yea this is my sig. |
Sebea
Bottomfeeders Science and Research
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 21:20:00 -
[710]
Whatever you do to them, you need to bring their range in.
It wouldn't matter so much if they weren't always so damn far away from the fight.
In low sec pirate Falcons engage without fear of sentry fire.
In 0.0 the falcon hovers near 220-240 range jamming happily away from anything that could ever touch it.
We lost a whole class of ship (Nano Cruisers) because they were considered unbalanced and unfair, giving too much of an advantage to those wanting to disengage.
When does the falcon start to fall into that category??
I know its not a "nano" boat per se, but it allows its user virutal immunity to any form of attack because of its jams, and its long range ability.
I know, I know, they have crappy tanks, well, tbh, if you let a player cross the 200km to your falcon, you should probably stop sucking in a falcon.
|
|
maralt
Minmatar The seers of truth
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 21:21:00 -
[711]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
In addition we are looking at the difference between the "brawling" (must find a better term for this :p) ECM strengths and ranges and the longer range sniper ships. It is quite likely we will be making further changes in this area in addition to considering more if the power of the covert ops cloak ability is really adequately balanced between the falcon and rook where we just reduce their current ECM effectiveness as opposed to switching the falcon to short range.
The problem is that no matter how you define the term there are no such things as "brawling" recons.
They are just not worth using at close ranges.
I mean its not like the scorpoin and rook have not been around for the last few years or not been available. These ships were here and easily fittable but were never used because at close range damage and tank rule without oposition and that was with ECM at the STR it is now on TQ. That is why the other recons are not used in gang combat and why the only recon that was used was the falcon because its all about range and usefulness.
A recon that gets primaried and dies or primaried and has to warp off is of 0 use and that is why those that work at close range are NEVER used in gang combat. Remove the falcons range ect and nobody will fly it as its better to have a extra monster tanked damage dealer along instead, especially considering you no longer need to worry about getting jammed anymore...
|
Mistress Frome
SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 21:31:00 -
[712]
Edited by: Mistress Frome on 25/03/2009 21:35:23 The newer rook looks hilariously awesome.
should give it 2 more lows so I could fit a third bcs and a dcu imo >_> ---
|
Childstar
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 21:31:00 -
[713]
Originally by: Sebea Whatever you do to them, you need to bring their range in.
It wouldn't matter so much if they weren't always so damn far away from the fight.
In low sec pirate Falcons engage without fear of sentry fire.
In 0.0 the falcon hovers near 220-240 range jamming happily away from anything that could ever touch it.
We lost a whole class of ship (Nano Cruisers) because they were considered unbalanced and unfair, giving too much of an advantage to those wanting to disengage.
When does the falcon start to fall into that category??
I know its not a "nano" boat per se, but it allows its user virutal immunity to any form of attack because of its jams, and its long range ability.
I know, I know, they have crappy tanks, well, tbh, if you let a player cross the 200km to your falcon, you should probably stop sucking in a falcon.
Every ship with the ability to snipe has the immunity you are talking about and like the sniper it a has no use without close range support not only to tackle the target ship like the snipers need but also to actually do damage and kill it...
Its a gang ship and needing a gang to operate is its flaw.
|
FraXy
0utbreak KrautbreaK
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 21:32:00 -
[714]
You spend all this time thinking about how to reduce the Falcon's range so it can be shot, have lower efficiency while balancing all the other ECM ships to perform their role better.
You plan to update Sisi to test the changes, read player feedback on how they perceive ECM to be and make adjustments.
Yet you put yourself in this situation in the past by nerfing Remote Sensor Dampeners effectiveness on ships including Gallente Recons.
During the same patch and do pardon me if i am mistaken. You boosted ECM effectiveness overall.
Please call me if i am wrong on that last one.
You spend all this effort trying to balance the mechanic, but fail to see that the mechanic is the core of the problem.
Players have said time and time again. A single module that shuts down a ship for 20 seconds is too strong. During those 20 seconds what can you do? Being jammed doesn't reduce your tactical options, it gives you only one.
Pray.
Last time i did a test i had a ship with 184 sensor strength vs 13.56 jamming strength (13.57% chance of success). I managed to get 60% hit rate over 20 tests before i scrapped the idea of sensor strength overload to counter ECM.
Target Painters increase signature by a fixed % (can be estimated by ship opponent along with specialization skill).
Tracking Disruptors reduce Optimal/Falloff or Tracking by a fixed % (can be estimated by ship opponent along with specialization skill).
Remote Sensor Dampeners reduce Targeting Range or Scan Resolution by a fixed % (can be estimated by ship opponent along with specialization skill).
Electronic Counter Measure shuts down a ship entirely based on ECM strength vs Sensor Strength probability math (commonly known as dice-rolling).
Description of ECM - Ion Field Projector II:
Projects a low intensity field of ionized particles to disrupt the effectivenes of enemy sensors. Very effective against Magnetometric-based sensors.
There are means to counter every other form of Electronic Warfare module. By using Sensor Boosters, Signal Amplifiers, Tracking Computers, Tracking Enhancers, not using Shield Extenders, Shield rigs, Microwarpdrive...
Only way to "counter" ECM is to fit an ECCM or Backup Array and pray to whichever god you belive in that this time. This time i'm the lucky one.
Guess again..
When will you realise ECM as a mechanic is utterly broken?
We have heard promises of subsystem targeting, Black Ops fixes, Tech 3 which will further enhance tactical decisions, but it's all a hoax.
I've realised i was having faith in vain over the years.
Mark my words and the ones before me:
ECM always have and will always be broken if it continues to be based if "this is your day".
With kind regards,
FraXy
One man's junk is FraXy's choice of weapon to kill you with. |
GTC seller72
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 21:41:00 -
[715]
Edited by: GTC seller72 on 25/03/2009 21:46:14
Originally by: FraXy .
Last time i did a test i had a ship with 184 sensor strength vs 13.56 jamming strength (13.57% chance of success). I managed to get 60% hit rate over 20 tests before i scrapped the idea of sensor strength overload to counter ECM.
With 184 sensor str a ecm ship 18.4 jam str would be a 10% chance to jam (and they cannot get 18.4 jam str), so your figures are wrong for a start as it = 7.36% chance to jam with 13.56 jam str vs 184 sig str.
Oh and id like to see the fraps of those jams and 20 cycles as i do not believe you in the least that you got a 60% hit rate as that is 12 jams out of 20 when the odds are you would get less than 2 out of 20..
|
Vaedian GER
Excidium.
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 21:45:00 -
[716]
Stop making the Falcon the Sniper. That part is the source of the entire problem. If you can warp cloaked to a safe spot outside normal agression range and jam somewhat well you will never ever use the Rook or Scorpion!
12.5% Optimal & Falloff Bonus won't change the current situation at all.
|
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 21:45:00 -
[717]
Originally by: FraXy
There are means to counter every other form of Electronic Warfare module. By using Sensor Boosters, Signal Amplifiers, Tracking Computers, Tracking Enhancers, not using Shield Extenders, Shield rigs, Microwarpdrive...
Oh how often do you fit a sensor booster thinking you really need one incase you run into an arazu(if it even bothers to fit damps)? Its not really counters, just modules you use to optimize your ship for your given role. If you want a sniper ship you fit a sensor booster with range script or you cant snipe. So if you would get dampened at that range the sensor booster would not counter ****, the damp would stop your ship 100% from performing its sniper role. Too bad the specialised damp ships have not been adjusted to the nerfed damps and often dont even fit damps anymore. And yea this is my sig. |
Vaedian GER
Excidium.
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 21:47:00 -
[718]
P.S.: The Agility Bonus was cute and funny already - but who invented the Medium Hybrid Optimal Bonus? That guy should get an Emmy for creativity and a kick in the arse for the entire idea haha.
|
ISHKUR MASTER
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 21:59:00 -
[719]
Just a point for a moment. To look at things from a RP perspective. (no I don't RP yet)
You (Devs) try to manipulate a ship that was released for a race that gave such race a potential advantage over the opposition factions at war, since when should a nation (eg such as some mid east or anywhere else for that matter) be able to whine incessantly to the USofA for instance to reduce the firepower and R&D of their defensive and offensive firepower? (eg unless they are in some sort of alliance and think such weapons are inhumane and lobby such).
We are way beyond that with DD etc in this game.
You give us FW and yet run the game like it's a battle arena and all entrants must have equal opportunity and strengths on the battlefield.
DOn't nerf a races ship, because the enemys/opposistion thinks it is too powerfull. Come up with a new release ship or strength to already existing ships in the other races to provide a superior counter or strength in another way in battle.
Then FW may become exactly that, a race related war where someone actually turns the tables and a race becomes a dominating leader for some time, until another race gets something to give it the strike potential to turn the tables as such, then we get a rolling RP changing and evolving game.
|
Icutty Lotz
The-Kissaki
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 22:03:00 -
[720]
1.dont kill my fleet scorp 2.give rook more missile slots rook needs as much dammage as curse/lach/huggin even with the Bonus you have it will still deal only about 100 damage
scorp needs to keep its sniper range and no one complaned about its jam strengh in the past with your changes the falcon is still on par in jam strength and can do it at longer ranges and no HAC is better then the BS built to do the same job(istar-domi zealot-armageddon) same should be for the ewar BS to its recon
scorp was made for fleet fights make the bonus so it stays the exact same as it is now, jam strength of 11-13/ and a range of 150km-200km its balanced by being the best jammier with the longest range but being to big for small gang roaming opps as it stands it will still be outclassed by the rook for better jamming and the falcon on range and have no place in eve except for its 8 midslots
Originally by: CCP Eris Discordia What about me with red eyes and leather?
|
|
The Djego
Minmatar merovinger inc
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 22:04:00 -
[721]
Edited by: The Djego on 25/03/2009 22:05:18 Bring the Falcon down to 50km Optimal(before Rigs/Mods) with this it have to deal exactly with the same things other Recons have to deal.
Ballace around 4 ECM(50-55 Jam power with racials -> 12-14 each) would be resonalbe. It still can jam one ECCM fitted BS out of the fight, or 2 without ECCM most of the time. You could fit more Racials in expense of Mods and you still can increase the range with Mods/Rigs. Now People have to fit a Buffer(like any other Recon), a MWD and you will have the same probems other Recons have to deal with. Add 1 High, give it 4 Missle Lunchers(plus ROF Bonus) and 25m¦ Drones, add 150 Powergrid and 50 CPU.
-> Cloaked Recon, can add some DPS, can fit a Tank, add EW to smaller gangs and is like all other Recons in the range of Drones and some Short Range Turrets/Missles
The problem is Cov Ops Cloak + long Range + beeing able to use all Slots for EW in the end what makes it unballanced, fix the range and you fix the Falcon.
---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
FraXy
0utbreak KrautbreaK
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 22:06:00 -
[722]
Originally by: GTC seller72 Edited by: GTC seller72 on 25/03/2009 21:46:14
Originally by: FraXy .
Last time i did a test i had a ship with 184 sensor strength vs 13.56 jamming strength (13.57% chance of success). I managed to get 60% hit rate over 20 tests before i scrapped the idea of sensor strength overload to counter ECM.
With 184 sensor str a ecm ship 18.4 jam str would be a 10% chance to jam (and they cannot get 18.4 jam str), so your figures are wrong for a start as it = 7.36% chance to jam with 13.56 jam str vs 184 sig str.
Oh and id like to see the fraps of those jams and 20 cycles as i do not believe you in the least that you got a 60% hit rate as that is 12 jams out of 20 when the odds are you would get less than 2 out of 20..
My bad on the probability math at the start. I really do suck at probability math in general, but i do know how to count 60% of a given number.
Oh yeah, as a part of my Anti-Falcon counter i decided to fraps all the different tactics/strategies i wanted to test. Just give me some time to upload it...
Originally by: Esmenet
Oh how often do you fit a sensor booster thinking you really need one incase you run into an arazu(if it even bothers to fit damps)? Its not really counters, just modules you use to optimize your ship for your given role.
Not as much thinking one runs into an Arazu as much as Sensor Booster give a positive effect alongside providing counter for Dampeners.
ECCM is useless unless there is an ECM ship on the field, and even then the added benefit is marginal at best.
One man's junk is FraXy's choice of weapon to kill you with. |
daisy dook
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 22:22:00 -
[723]
Originally by: FraXy You spend all this time thinking about how to reduce the Falcon's range so it can be shot, have lower efficiency while balancing all the other ECM ships to perform their role better.
You plan to update Sisi to test the changes, read player feedback on how they perceive ECM to be and make adjustments.
Yet you put yourself in this situation in the past by nerfing Remote Sensor Dampeners effectiveness on ships including Gallente Recons.
During the same patch and do pardon me if i am mistaken. You boosted ECM effectiveness overall.
Please call me if i am wrong on that last one.
You spend all this effort trying to balance the mechanic, but fail to see that the mechanic is the core of the problem.
Players have said time and time again. A single module that shuts down a ship for 20 seconds is too strong. During those 20 seconds what can you do? Being jammed doesn't reduce your tactical options, it gives you only one.
Pray.
Last time i did a test i had a ship with 184 sensor strength vs 13.56 jamming strength (13.57% chance of success). I managed to get 60% hit rate over 20 tests before i scrapped the idea of sensor strength overload to counter ECM.
Target Painters increase signature by a fixed % (can be estimated by ship opponent along with specialization skill).
Tracking Disruptors reduce Optimal/Falloff or Tracking by a fixed % (can be estimated by ship opponent along with specialization skill).
Remote Sensor Dampeners reduce Targeting Range or Scan Resolution by a fixed % (can be estimated by ship opponent along with specialization skill).
Electronic Counter Measure shuts down a ship entirely based on ECM strength vs Sensor Strength probability math (commonly known as dice-rolling).
Description of ECM - Ion Field Projector II:
Projects a low intensity field of ionized particles to disrupt the effectivenes of enemy sensors. Very effective against Magnetometric-based sensors.
There are means to counter every other form of Electronic Warfare module. By using Sensor Boosters, Signal Amplifiers, Tracking Computers, Tracking Enhancers, not using Shield Extenders, Shield rigs, Microwarpdrive...
Only way to "counter" ECM is to fit an ECCM or Backup Array and pray to whichever god you belive in that this time. This time i'm the lucky one.
Guess again..
When will you realise ECM as a mechanic is utterly broken?
We have heard promises of subsystem targeting, Black Ops fixes, Tech 3 which will further enhance tactical decisions, but it's all a hoax.
I've realised i was having faith in vain over the years.
Mark my words and the ones before me:
ECM always have and will always be broken if it continues to be based if "this is your day".
With kind regards,
FraXy
I think this sums it up...
What ever you do to balance ECM, in its current form somebody will always whine perma-jam.
From an ECM users perspective, a ship with ECCM will soak a lot of jammers and in doing so will protect the rest of his gang. However the person on the receiving end of the jamming doesn't see it in that light, they just see that they have been 'perma-jammed'.
Best of luck CCP with the ECM rebalancing
|
Hiroprotago
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 22:24:00 -
[724]
Edited by: Hiroprotago on 25/03/2009 22:28:56 Edited by: Hiroprotago on 25/03/2009 22:28:02 So, I want to put you attention to a recently added W-Space. Indeed, the without a local in this space, there are great chance play force recons as solo-stalkers. This is a good. But, look at the force recons: Arazu - good tank, almost invulnerable due to its EWAR, and formidable DPS (have drones) Piligrim - good tank, perfect EWAR against turret based ships, and formidable DPS (have drones) Rapier - good tank (speed tank + web), and formidable DPS (have drones). Every of this ship can easily fit covert cloack+extended probe launcher for W-space voyages, without losing they usability. And they can be fitted as long range EWAR gang support with dampers, tracking disruptors and target painters.
But look at new falcon. No bonus to damage, no drones. Yes, if I want a close range solo-falcon, I can fit it with tank (DCU for example), and damagemods in low slot. But if want to travel into W-space, I have to fit a probe launcher in hi slot. So, giving a falcon a +1 turret slot are usseles in this case, I still have only two hi slots for a weapon. Even with two damage mods in low slots, DPS are crap. So, fitting Falcon as close range solo 1x1 fighter are fail. Now, lets talk about hybrid optimal bonus. I can fit Falcon with SDA in low, returning to it prvous role - long range gang support. And I can use three medium hybrid railguns (to bring to sense optimal range bonus), and with T2 Spike ammo to match my EWAR range. Three med hybrid rails with spikes and unbonused damage? DPS are useless! There are still no sense in it - I'll keep fitting falcon with smartbombs - little chance against enemy drones. You have done right about Rook - I think it will be formidable middle-range gang combat ship.
But I think that Falcon have to be compared with other force recons. Give drones to Falcon too, and damage, not range bonus for a weapon. Besides, every other recon ship have two EWAR bonuses and one damage bonus. Falcon have one EWAR, and no damage bonus, and no drones.
In good faith, Hiroprotago.
PS: EVE are cool, anyway! :-) Peace!
|
Sig Sour
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 22:38:00 -
[725]
Pretty sure someone already said it, but why not make the Signal Distort amp work the same, but have it so it buffs Traget Painters, Sensor Damps and Tracking Disruptors?
|
The Djego
Minmatar merovinger inc
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 22:50:00 -
[726]
Originally by: FraXy You spend all this time thinking about how to reduce the Falcon's range so it can be shot, have lower efficiency while balancing all the other ECM ships to perform their role better.
You plan to update Sisi to test the changes, read player feedback on how they perceive ECM to be and make adjustments.
Yet you put yourself in this situation in the past by nerfing Remote Sensor Dampeners effectiveness on ships including Gallente Recons.
During the same patch and do pardon me if i am mistaken. You boosted ECM effectiveness overall.
Please call me if i am wrong on that last one.
You spend all this effort trying to balance the mechanic, but fail to see that the mechanic is the core of the problem.
Players have said time and time again. A single module that shuts down a ship for 20 seconds is too strong. During those 20 seconds what can you do? Being jammed doesn't reduce your tactical options, it gives you only one.
Pray.
Last time i did a test i had a ship with 184 sensor strength vs 13.56 jamming strength (13.57% chance of success). I managed to get 60% hit rate over 20 tests before i scrapped the idea of sensor strength overload to counter ECM.
Target Painters increase signature by a fixed % (can be estimated by ship opponent along with specialization skill).
Tracking Disruptors reduce Optimal/Falloff or Tracking by a fixed % (can be estimated by ship opponent along with specialization skill).
Remote Sensor Dampeners reduce Targeting Range or Scan Resolution by a fixed % (can be estimated by ship opponent along with specialization skill).
Electronic Counter Measure shuts down a ship entirely based on ECM strength vs Sensor Strength probability math (commonly known as dice-rolling).
Description of ECM - Ion Field Projector II:
Projects a low intensity field of ionized particles to disrupt the effectivenes of enemy sensors. Very effective against Magnetometric-based sensors.
There are means to counter every other form of Electronic Warfare module. By using Sensor Boosters, Signal Amplifiers, Tracking Computers, Tracking Enhancers, not using Shield Extenders, Shield rigs, Microwarpdrive...
Only way to "counter" ECM is to fit an ECCM or Backup Array and pray to whichever god you belive in that this time. This time i'm the lucky one.
Guess again..
When will you realise ECM as a mechanic is utterly broken?
We have heard promises of subsystem targeting, Black Ops fixes, Tech 3 which will further enhance tactical decisions, but it's all a hoax.
I've realised i was having faith in vain over the years.
Mark my words and the ones before me:
ECM always have and will always be broken if it continues to be based if "this is your day".
With kind regards,
FraXy
Exelent post, sums up my beef with ECM to. ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 22:54:00 -
[727]
Originally by: Sig Sour Pretty sure someone already said it, but why not make the Signal Distort amp work the same, but have it so it buffs Traget Painters, Sensor Damps and Tracking Disruptors?
It wouldn't really fix the problems with target painters, but its an option.
Hell, for that matter, it could affect webs and warp scramblers too.
|
Silence Duegood
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 23:25:00 -
[728]
Edited by: Silence Duegood on 25/03/2009 23:26:31
Originally by: PirateGorex
No, its clear that dev's want to bring the Falcon into pulse laser range of Apocs and Zealots. Three volly's, maybe two. This is all a masterful plan to destroy Caldari completely as a pvp race. First missiles, now this. In 6 short months, CCP will have killed Caldari pvp completely if these changes are implemented.
The scary part about these changes is I know Amarr are next.
Bingo.
Missiles are still completely out of whack. Cruise missiles? Who uses them now? Rockets. It's like bringing a party favor to a fight. Missiles have been disadvantaged for ages due to flight time, with the recent changes missiles in PVP are essentially useless. The Falcon was one of the last very useful Caldari ships for PVP. Did it need to be tweaked? Sure. Does it need it's entire focus changed? No.
However, the one possible upside to this is that CCP moves so motherfrapping slowly on balance changes that with this change likely taking them about 2 years to brainstorm, and then approximately another 4 years for them to chat around the water fountain about missiles we're looking at a possible eta of about 2015 till Caldari might be somewhat balanced.
|
Trespasser
Caldari Isotope Incorporated Dead Mans Hand
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 23:25:00 -
[729]
Wow, Guys lets go back to how jammers were in like 04-05
Each ship has sensor strength(like now) and each jammer has a lower jammer strength then it does now.. and you have to put as many jammers on the target to equal the targets sensor strength
So for example if you have an apoc with 20 sensor strength and multispec jammers have a strength of 5, you would need to put 4 jammers on that target to jam him. you need to get him to 0 or a negative number.
What this did back in the day.. It focused more on cycle jamming and forced you to sacrifice a ship to jam a ship.. not 1 ship to jam up to 7 or 8 at a time.
i have played this game for a long time and its the only way i can see ECM not being overpowered and still useable and it also makes ECCM's useful again. But you would need to re-balance sensor, ECCM and jammers strength again.
|
Rikkus
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 23:28:00 -
[730]
I think the only thing that should occur with ECM is reduce it's range bonuses. The mechanics are fine as they are. The ECM ships are paper thin and easy to pop if you don't have to scoot 200kms from the fight to engage the ship. So just draw them a little closer to the fight so they're actually in the fight if you know what I mean.
People have their stories about their encounters and tests with ECM. I've been a Falcon pilot for a while now and have had both good and bad experiences. The other day I put 6 x multispecs on an Abaddon that had 1 x ECCM and couldn't get a jam cycle to save my life. I did some sparring with corpmates where they had 2 x ECCM's and I was able to get a jam every other cycle. It's a roll of the dice.
I've never heard of other recon ships being chance based. "yeah, he had an anti-heavy neut module on and I could only drain 150 capacitor instead of the normal 1000."
I know that last sentence was stupid, but I hope you see what I'm getting at. My point is all forms of ewar have a counter to it, but ECM is the only one that's chance based. If the mechanics were changed to where you are guaranteed a jam cycle if your ECM strength being projected on the target is greater than the sensor strength of the ship, I probably wouldn't have an argument.
|
|
Sebea
Bottomfeeders Science and Research
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 23:28:00 -
[731]
Edited by: Sebea on 25/03/2009 23:30:23
Originally by: Childstar
Originally by: Sebea Whatever you do to them, you need to bring their range in.
It wouldn't matter so much if they weren't always so damn far away from the fight.
In low sec pirate Falcons engage without fear of sentry fire.
In 0.0 the falcon hovers near 220-240 range jamming happily away from anything that could ever touch it.
We lost a whole class of ship (Nano Cruisers) because they were considered unbalanced and unfair, giving too much of an advantage to those wanting to disengage.
When does the falcon start to fall into that category??
I know its not a "nano" boat per se, but it allows its user virutal immunity to any form of attack because of its jams, and its long range ability.
I know, I know, they have crappy tanks, well, tbh, if you let a player cross the 200km to your falcon, you should probably stop sucking in a falcon.
Every ship with the ability to snipe has the immunity you are talking about and like the sniper it a has no use without close range support not only to tackle the target ship like the snipers need but also to actually do damage and kill it...
Its a gang ship and needing a gang to operate is its flaw.
Yes kind sir, but the falcon and rook are the only RECONS that can do it. ALL the rest of the recons have to get relatively close.
|
Sebea
Bottomfeeders Science and Research
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 23:35:00 -
[732]
Originally by: Hiroprotago Edited by: Hiroprotago on 25/03/2009 22:28:56 Edited by: Hiroprotago on 25/03/2009 22:28:02 So, I want to put you attention to a recently added W-Space. Indeed, the without a local in this space, there are great chance play force recons as solo-stalkers. This is a good. But, look at the force recons: Arazu - good tank, almost invulnerable due to its EWAR, and formidable DPS (have drones) Piligrim - good tank, perfect EWAR against turret based ships, and formidable DPS (have drones) Rapier - good tank (speed tank + web), and formidable DPS (have drones). Every of this ship can easily fit covert cloack+extended probe launcher for W-space voyages, without losing they usability. And they can be fitted as long range EWAR gang support with dampers, tracking disruptors and target painters.
Also, I'd like to take issue with this statement.
The Pilgrim CAN NOT "easily" do what you claim. It has 4 high slots. FOUR. One for the cloak, 1 for your probe launcher (that incidentally cripples the rest of the fit due to CPU constraints) and then 2 empty's, for neuts i suppose, but god knows, cause you've made the ship useless by wedging a frickin expanded launcher on it, destroying any chance it had of a decent tank, or offensive neutralizing capabilities (its primary weapons system has ALWAYS been turning off the other ships tank through neuts/nos).
So, if your expecting any sympathy for anything that happens to ANY other recon, you should look ANY other place than to pilgrim pilots.
That poor ship has been the bastard recon since the NOS nerf thanks.
|
Pellit1
Caldari Bushwhackers Rough Necks
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 23:40:00 -
[733]
Edited by: Pellit1 on 25/03/2009 23:43:42
Originally by: Karlemgne Edited by: Karlemgne on 25/03/2009 17:30:22
Quote: Falcon's are over powered, but only against idiots!!1!
Give me a ****ing break. Falcons are overpowered--period. In order to counter a Falcon, and SINGLE Falcon mind you, a battleship has to carry two ECCMs. This means that a battleship, to avoid being perma jammed, needs to completely nerf its ability to tackle, or god forbid its a shield tank, its tank.
Which is why an easy way to fix this problem with MUCH less hullabaloo is to buff ECCM modules.
A Megathron for example, common pvp ship. At the moment, you can fit a mwd, point AND web AND a cap injector. Why not make it so that either the point or web have to be dropped?
Edit: Also just an idea - remote ECCm?
|
area51
Gallente Pilipino Corp
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 23:46:00 -
[734]
about time!. falcons should be able to jam at most 2 ships, not 3-5 as it is now.
|
Zamolxiss
Amarr ROMANIA Renegades Legiunea ROmana
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 23:47:00 -
[735]
@ Chronotis
You're moving away from the inital intended changes in the wrong direction.. let me explain..
Force Recon Ship Effects and Bonuses: 1. Pilgrim - 2 EWAR effects, each one single bonused and a Damage Bonus + Cov Ops 2. Arazu - 2 EWAR effects, each one single bonused and a Damage Bonus + Cov Ops 3. Rapier - 2 EWAR effects, each one single bonused and a Damage Bonus + Cov Oop 4. Falcon - 1 EWAR effect, tripple bonused + Cov Ops
EWAR Effets Range(listing only the longest): 1. Pilgrim - Tracking Dsruptors 70+30km (optimal + falloff) 2. Arazu - Remote Sensor Dampers 45+90km (optimal + falloff) 3. Rapier - Target Painters 45+90km (optimal + falloff) 4. Falcon - Racial ECM 160+40 (optimal + falloff)
ECM also has available Range & Strenght rigs and modules, while the others don't.. Being chance based justifies a double bonus.. even a tripple one wouldn't hurt this much if the combination of Range+CovOps Cloak wasn't so overpowered..
Keeping the Falcon outside the 100km range being it by ECM module specs or threw bonuses, will not change a thing.. fits will continue to consist of 6-7 Racials and they will continues to own without an issue, all of the other Force Recons fit Speed Mod/Tackle/Buffer.. resulting in 2 maybe 3 Ewar Mods at most. Should the falcon be able to 'punish' 1-2 targets using the same amount of Ewar mods!? YES!! Should it be able to do it from 100+ km away, outside of any actual danger!? NO
Arguements like 'survivability' for example make this thread epic.. this 4 ships have similar rols, should have close to similar effectivness and ranges.. Those who want to stay outside of any danger should do it without the blessing of a CovOps Cloak.. Rook should be made for that purpose.. the same way Lachesis should have Single Damage Bonus and Weapon Sistems(not the split useless one), and a Range Bonus(but that's a diferent story).
Keep ECM at 30km optimal, give it a big falloff, remove the capacitor use bonus from the Falcon, give it an ECM Strenght Bonus of atleast 20% and an Optimal Range Bonuse of 10% at most, give it a Med Hybrid Turret Bonus(as all Ishukone designs should have) and a third Turret Hardpoint, reduce the Targeting Range and increes it's Scan Resolution.. Make sure it has enough powergrid to fit dual shield extender buffer + MWD and 3 Rails/Blasters.. and finaly the 25m Drone Bay and Bandwidth..
A more interesting approach toward ECM in particular and EWAR in genearal, would be, far more powerfull individual modules with extreme Stacking Penalities.. we wouldn't have such broken ships and Ewar sistems if that would be the case.. This is the case for Webs/ECM/Dampers in particular but also for the rest of them to a lesser extent.. i shouldn't need 3-4 modules for a single target, infact 2 should be more than enough to obtain the full effect of my chosen ewar.. and that effect should not be overpowered.. i never actualy understood the point of Racial jammers, and the ideea of cramming 6-7 Ewar mods on a single ship to obtain a 'full fit'.. and this is due to design.. nvm, this is allready turning to long..
The idea of a close range Scorp is tbh just awesome, but a simple ROF bonus to Cruises/Torps will not help it that much.. i will much rather prefer Hybrid Turret Damage Bonus and an additional hardpoint with the powergrid to compliment it..
ps. All this should have been done to all the Recon Ships/EWAR Modules at once, with a beter picture about actual roles, desired effectivness and individual approaches.. and it's not to late tbh.. Good luck Chronotis
|
Jade Na'gilsvul
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 00:13:00 -
[736]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Keep the good feedback coming. It is good to see such a varied range of opinions as ECM and ECM specialised ships and how the proposed changes affect their roles in different scenarios and more importantly the balance between preventing and encouraging fights which is equally loved or hated.
Currently we have two sets of different Caldari recon changes and will be testing each one which either significantly change their roles (as we originally proposed changing the falcon to close range to account for the power of its covert ops role and rook to longer range to increase its usefulness) or reduce their ranged ECM effectiveness overall in lieu of other bonuses to give them a better more balanced role than just "jam to the max". Thus shifting them to behave less like ultra niche ships and more like recons were better intended whilst still allowing for the lack of secondary EWAR system bonus to caldari recons.
An additional change to my previous posts on the second possible changes (slightly reduce the effectiveness but keep their general roles the same) we have split the ECM optimal bonuses on the Falcon and Blackbird to be optimal and falloff. With the Falcon currently gaining 12.5% ECM optimal and falloff range per level and the Blackbird 10% per level.
In addition we are looking at the difference between the "brawling" (must find a better term for this :p) ECM strengths and ranges and the longer range sniper ships. It is quite likely we will be making further changes in this area in addition to considering more if the power of the covert ops cloak ability is really adequately balanced between the falcon and rook and will have public testing of the original proposed changes as well.
Hope that leaves you with some more insight into where we are currently at with internal playtesting and balancing.
As always, I will sign off with reminding you that these changes are not set in stone and will continue to change
CCP Chronotis,
It is nice to see your reply after a day or so of the community posting.
I am glad that the dev team is trying to vary the uses of the ECM ships. If anything it is nice to see some variance between ships even though they are all similar bonused. For example your idea of "brawler recon, scorpion, and widow" are fantastic. It provides a useful role for these ships outside of 0.0 and massive fleet engagements.
The ability for a small gang to utilize something as strong as a scorpion with a real damage potential is very nice change. Currently there is nothing like it, and creating more variables in combat is always an excellent thing. If everyone flew the same exact fit the game would be in a much worse state.
Even though people are saying the falcon should remain the long range ship. I dont quite understand the logic behind it. Why should a ship that can cloak gain the benefit of being long range + cloak, when you could have the ship that can't cloak and enemies would be aware of stay the long ranged ship.
Even the +25% bonus to jam str in the end will still not be as viable as decloaking a falcon a long way off.
Keep up the good work.
|
Killian Pirx
The Accursed
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 00:26:00 -
[737]
although im pretty sure i dont fully understand the changes, the fact that something is being done has just made my day
|
Asika Kazama
Warp Asylum.
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 00:30:00 -
[738]
MEAK ECM HEAT RAYS THAT BURN MODS
|
LordVodka
Earned In Blood
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 00:31:00 -
[739]
Originally by: Asika Kazama MEAK ECM HEAT RAYS THAT BURN MODS
Close range ewar that causes involuntary overheating ftw.
|
Kixu
Earned In Blood
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 00:31:00 -
[740]
Edited by: Kixu on 26/03/2009 00:33:39 Heat rays seem like the logical solution.
*EDIT : At least if your repairing a mod you are DOING something. **** THE SPECTATOR MODE
|
|
Yonker
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 00:36:00 -
[741]
Just change ECM to not have a target lockout by default. Then ECM ships get bonuses to the lockout time based on their ship level (5 with Cruiser V, 10 with battleship V, 10 with Recon V). Then make ECCM cut the lockout time in half.
|
Enraged Stoat
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 00:38:00 -
[742]
These changes would be fine if you remove the dice roll randomness of whether ECM hits or not. That would even the balance of forcing a randomly-effective-at-optimal ewar ship to be within range of damage dealing weapons which have guaranteed hits at their optimal.
Range is the only defence ECM ships have. They're almost always primaried in any battle unless they're at range. Other weapons (damage dealing weapons) are guaranteed to hit within their optimal (assuming you're not speed tanking/out tracking which is itself only possible on a few ships and a 'specialty' much like ewar itself). With ECM it's a dice roll every time.
Swap a chance of escape (range) for certain death (no range)? No thanks. This will be the end of EWAR. What a shame to remove a major source of tactical fun in favour of mindless apelike mine-is-bigger-than-yours weapon spamming.
People who cry about ewar go back to playing quake or something - or fit a sensor backup array, ewar is just another thing to tank for along with all the damage types.
Please please don't nerf ECM like everything else that's been nerfed over the last few years. The balance is just right at the moment. Yes you can get good optimals with it, but that is totally balanced by its effectiveness being a dice roll and the ships being paper thin compared to others in the same class.
|
InSession
Rionnag Alba Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 00:41:00 -
[743]
Sounds like some well needed changes.
|
KingDiomedes
Caldari SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 00:47:00 -
[744]
ffs you clowns all that needs to be done is to boost eccm thats all that it needed, and for gods sake stop whinging about the falcons range, sniper bs can hit up to 250km, it also doesnt take long for a ceptor to cover 250km so whats the problem, from what i can see the people who are crying about falcons needing nerifng are dumb stupid noobs who want mummy and daddy from ccp to spoon feed them pvp. if you dont like using your brains foff to wow and stop ruining our game.
simple answer = boost eccm
|
2Bad4Ux2
Dark Star Cartel Molotov Coalition
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 00:48:00 -
[745]
Thanks CCP \m/\m/
good ideas tbh, coming from an owner of a very very OP'd cloaking recon formerly known as the falcon. I have an account that's never really left the falcon, for the OverPowered reasons, if he was any other race, he wouldn't always be in a recon, because they are somewhat more in balance. No more beating 7 man gangs by myself (which is good thing) cheers, chronotis.
ECCM should have been looked at also imo. ------- UTS!(New) WB2A! OOF! W2A!
|
daisy dook
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 00:55:00 -
[746]
Originally by: Zamolxiss
Keep ECM at 30km optimal, give it a big falloff,
30km optimal? I do hope you forgot to say it should be 100% effective within its optimal (like all other ewar variants).
|
KingDiomedes
Caldari SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 00:55:00 -
[747]
Originally by: 2Bad4Ux2 Thanks CCP \m/\m/
good ideas tbh, coming from an owner of a very very OP'd cloaking recon formerly known as the falcon. I have an account that's never really left the falcon, for the OverPowered reasons, if he was any other race, he wouldn't always be in a recon, because they are somewhat more in balance. No more beating 7 man gangs by myself (which is good thing) cheers, chronotis.
ECCM should have been looked at also imo.
since when can a falcon defeat a 7 man gang and also i bet ur main doesnt pvp in caldari ships does it otherwise ud need 1 for tackle and 2 for dps since missiles suck oh and ur magic falcon that can perma jam 7 ships with 5 racial jammers
|
MMak
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 01:05:00 -
[748]
I missed something: where's bonus to agility?! April the first is coming: 10% Bonus to Medium Hybrid Optimal Range per level. CCP, fire the Cronos, please!
|
Vidron Starcycle
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 01:24:00 -
[749]
I am a falcon alt. Trained specifically for the falcon when I rolled this character and have branched out into other recons and ships.
I would gladly bio-mass this character if it would mean falcons go the way of the nano.
They are a horribly imba ship that doesnt add a damn thing to combat. All it does is stop combat.
1 module that can in the blink of an eye stop you from using guns,neuts,remote reps,remote cap transfer,web,points,tracking disruptors. Its the be all end all of ewar ffs. Falcons get longer range for their specialty and it affects every single module in the game that requires you to have a target lock on something.
Tracking disruptors make you not able to hit anything with your guns, you can still neut,remote rep,keep a target webbed, scrambled, target paint it, and you can still watch your guns shoot even if they arent as effective. Bah even range scripted bonused tracking disruptors arent as bad as falcons and jamming. And 2 named scripted tracking disruptors on a curse can take an abbadon with t2 pulses and SCORCH down to around 7k optimal with a minescule falloff. But once again that only affects 1 freakin module type on your ship.
Nerf falcons. /delete falcon alts. Burn them at the stake. They are the devil.
|
2Bad4Ux2
Dark Star Cartel Molotov Coalition
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 01:34:00 -
[750]
Originally by: KingDiomedes
Originally by: 2Bad4Ux2 Thanks CCP \m/\m/
good ideas tbh, coming from an owner of a very very OP'd cloaking recon formerly known as the falcon. I have an account that's never really left the falcon, for the OverPowered reasons, if he was any other race, he wouldn't always be in a recon, because they are somewhat more in balance. No more beating 7 man gangs by myself (which is good thing) cheers, chronotis.
since when can a falcon defeat a 7 man gang and also i bet ur main doesnt pvp in caldari ships does it otherwise ud need 1 for tackle and 2 for dps since missiles suck oh and ur magic falcon that can perma jam 7 ships with 5 racial jammers
I've dual pc'd versus 7 man gangs numerous times, gotten kills and escaped nearly all the time, with or without sentries aiding. yeah in my last vid, drake and falcon, or any other vid a bs and a falcon, or bc/falcon. AND i have 7 RACIALs on my falcon alt and it is too effective at doing what it does, 2x caldari, 2x gallente, 2x amarr, 1x minmatar, with 180km locking range, and optimal not counting the falloff to which i can't lock anyways, with 13 strength on each. I love pyramid posting/quoting when the person quoting you doesn't know what I (originally) or himself is posting. You count cookie cutter falcon setup apparently, and I'd say that one sucks, which is why you apparently can't dual account and beat 7 man gangs in variable situations.
------- UTS!(New) WB2A! OOF! W2A!
|
|
Cali Serrano
Baptism oF Fire Sons of Tangra
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 01:46:00 -
[751]
The falcon, as it is, is an overpowered ship. However doing a drastic rework of its range, jamming strength, and roles leaves a very big chance in creating it's exact opposite, a completely worthless ship ( See Pilgrim >.< sorry amarr dudes ). To prevent this I believe any nerfing should be done in nerf-taps not smashes like what generally happens. Say several small changes spaced over a couple of months so the changes can be reviewed and assessed to see if they do what was expected and any unexpected consequences. Takes longer yes, but it is less likely to create a hanger dust magnet. I think the scorpion is fine as is, don't really see a problem except maybe it being underused so nerfing would be redundant and the Kitsune also seems okay (fitting requirements for a good fit and slots do a decent job of keeping it in check). The Widow actually could probably go with a boost, but not a big one. I'm not very familiar with the Rook but what you're proposing sounds interesting and viable.
That being said, the changes I'd like to propose are a range reduction, a strength reduction, and a scaling factor for their use against the different ship classes.
Right now a 200+ Falcon is a bit much, sure the new scan mechanics make it easier to drop on them but in smaller fleets that's not a very viable option and for larger fleets well lag still sucks. I'd say work it out such that the jammers themselves have a max range, with great skills and at the outside edge of their falloff, somewhere along 170 to 180km. This means a range of 150 - 160 is still possible with good skills but it puts the falcons at the edge of their falloff with a slight loss in strength.
Along with the range reduction, a small, say 5% reduction to their bonus, drop in jam strength would reduce their overpowering aspect by still lowering their chance to jam with out lowering them to only jamming one ship ( in which case it'd probably be better to bring a BS ). Let them have a good chance to jam 2 ships, and a low end of ok chance to get 3. Sure still a mean thing to do to a small fleet, but it beats 5 or 6 and doesn't leave them complete sitting ducks.
The biggest part of my proposal though is the scaling factor, hence why I simply said ships instead of picking a ship size or class. Right now I believe one of the biggest concerns is not their effeciveness in larger fleets, but on small gang and small ships.
*For the below I'm figuring a Falcon with my above changes jamming at it's optimal on a ship with no eccm*
Cruisers are basically a 1 jammer per ship for falcons ( especially you minmatar folks .. wait that's what I fly ) and frigates are just hosed. My suggestion is the use of the signature radius of the target ship versus the signature resolution of the jammers themselves ( would need to be added, but it's there on all the guns so I don't think it'd be a big change ) be used to reduce the effectiveness of the jammers as well. Ideally this would make it so the falcon cannot jam out 6 or 7 frigates or cruisers at max range but bring it back down to the 2 or 3 I mentioned above.
The biggest trouble with this is that most T2 frigates have as good as or better sensors than the cruisers, and I'm not quite sure how to make this work with existing stats on the ships. The T1 frigates should still be essentially hosed, but T1 cruisers should have a slim chance to slip out of a single jammer and T2 cruisers ( HAC's ) maybe a slightly worse than even ( say 35 or 40% ) chance of not being jammed with one jammer, and interceptors and assault ships being slightly better than T1 cruisers but worse than T2 cruisers at avoiding jamming. Stealth bombers and electronic attack frigates should be as hard to jam or maybe even a touch harder than T2 cruisers ( SB's even or a touch under and EAF even or a touch above ). For battlecruisers and battleships, they should recieve the full effect of the jammer ( they're big targets ) but as I mentioned I think the big problem is a falcon's ability to lock out smaller fleets. This would probably necessitate a reworking of the T2 frigate sensor strengths but it would allow a degree of scaling that the current system lacks.
Under further consideration, I wouldn't mind a cycle time reduction down to 10 or 15 seconds, still puts them out of the fight for time but it's not as long and there are more chances for them to slip the jam. Also for got to mention, with the sliding scale both active ECCM and passive modules would become more effective for all ship classes (depending on how effective it is per ship class, class specific modules or an adjustment to the slide I've proposed might be necassary).
|
Liang Nuren
No Salvation Blackguard Coalition
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 01:53:00 -
[752]
Quoting myself from here.
First things first, let me first state that I believe they are attempting to nerf the *RANGE* of the Falcon (and ECM in general). They simply don't want them sitting so far out of anyone else's range and jamming quite so effectively.
I think that ultimately they're looking for jamming strengths to remain about what they are now, with the 'close range' ships jamming even more powerfully than they currently do, and the long range ships jamming less powerfully than they do currently. I've asked for clarification on this in the feedback thread - we'll see what they say.
Let's first look at the way jamming strengths work right now:
3.6 Base strength * (1 + .05 * 5) (Sig Dispersion) * (1 + .20 * 5) (BS5/Recon5) * (1 + .57 * 1) (3x SDA II)
>>> 3.6 * (1 + .05 * 5) * (1 + .20 * 5) * (1 + .57 * 1) 14.129999999999999
For the newly adjusted Falcon (they now want the falcon to be ranged, 7.5% optimal+falloff/level, 10% hybrid optimal, 15% bonus), we might see something like this (this keeps SDAs because I think the goal is for jamming strengths to remain roughly the same): >>> 3.6 * (1 + .05 * 5) * (1 + .15 * 5) * (1 + .57 * 1) 12.36375
For the newly adjusted Scorpion/Rook (brawlers), we'll see something like this: >>> 3.6 * (1 + .05 * 5) * (1 + .25 * 5) * (1 + .57 * 1) 15.896249999999998
Remember, I think they're going for the overall jamming strength itself to remain roughly the same... and there's plenty of evidence in the OP that shows this (such as them saying they want to boost either the module or the ship bonuses to make up for the lack of SDAs). I think they're telling us '15% bonus' and '20% bonus' for better/clearer communication.
BUT, even without SDAs, it looks like we're looking at this for strength (before they make any adjustments or move anything around):
3.6 Base strength * (1 + .05 * 5) (Sig Dispersion) * (1 + .25 * 5) (BS5/Recon5) * (1 + .195) (2x rigs) [Optional]
>>> 3.6 * (1 + .05 * 5) * (1 + .25 * 5) 10.125
Rigged: >>> 3.6 * (1 + .05 * 5) * (1 + .25 * 5) * (1 + .195) 12.099375
12 is the bare break even point for me being willing to fly the ship, and it just barely exceeds this. If they don't do anything to the ship or module strengths.... I might fly a Scorp. Maybe. :|
CCP, can you confirm/deny your intention here?
-Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org |
ISHKUR MASTER
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 01:56:00 -
[753]
what about passive targeting too as a counter, they work, at least for your first launch. Falcon doesn't know he's locked until the first shots are off, and he/she has been busing concentrating on other specifics in the enemy fleet, with one or two in a fleet specifically set to use this as a counter, the Falcons got to warp off(since after launch he is locked/no cloaking) solving the lock breaking problem or take the damage and change to jamming the guys that got the first volleys off on him if his shields hold.
What I hear is there is no counter to Falcons, but played right there is counters, people just don't have the organisational skills (some people) to strategise against them.
|
Kailiao
Tides Of War
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 02:13:00 -
[754]
Edited by: Kailiao on 26/03/2009 02:14:29
Originally by: Thorian Baalnorn Edited by: Thorian Baalnorn on 25/03/2009 17:54:14
Quote:
"Falcons don't have tank" because people don't fit tank on their Falcons. I'm forced to fit tank on my Lachesis and Arazu, same goes for our Rapier/Huginn/Curse pilots. Those ships don't have any more actual tanking ability than the Falcon does. Why should the Caldari ECM boats be the only ones being able to play in "safe mode"?
If you would read an earlier post of mine on this thread it states the differences between all the recons. the lach is just a sad ship tis why no one flys it. the rook is a close second.
second, you epically fail at shipbuilding 101. Here is why:
1)ewar is a midslot hog. SO IS SHIELD TANKING. see number 2 2) all other recons have their tank slots open so can fit a 1/2 decent tank. 3)The other ewar types work against all targets( except disruptors which still work against 90% of targets) where ecm works occassionally against all targets or if you go racial very good against most targets. see number 4
4) IN ORDER FOR ECM TO BE AS EFFECTIVE AS IT IS ON A FALCON A FALCON MUST DEDICATE HIS ENTIRE SHIP TO ECM whereas on the other ewar types their are severe stacking penalties. so fitting more than 4 ewar mods is not that practical( 2 targets with 2 each) and since stacking penalities apply the ship being ewared with say dampeners having any more than 3 mods on that ship at any one time is a waste. see 5 5) armor tanking a caldari ship is stupid. for 1 unless that pilot happened to cross train to another race he isnt going to have armor tanking skills( though most will have trained) and for 2 their armor is weak and they dont have enough tanking slots to tank anything. see 6 6) ECM is greatly feared in battle. falcon- always primaried. so unless your going to make it tank like an armor tanked BS. its lifespan after decloaking is going to be about 20 seconds.
and finally....
7) stop nerfing ships and nerf people that cant play a game that requires a bit of problem solving. you know those mods that rats occassionally drop called ECCM that you consider junk... guess what they are for? ECM DEFENSE!
...."OH NOES! if i have to fit a module to my ship to protect me against ecm then it will just totally mess up my pwnallmobile!CCP NERF FALCONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
EDIT to add: i have seen on the KBs where many falcons have been killed. these setups are typically based around shieldtanking with very little ecm and on occassion tackle. a good falcon pilot knows that range is his only tank and that it dont matter whats fitted on it, as soon as someone sees a falcon on the field it instantly becomes the focus of the battle. In which case the only tank that will ever work on a falcon is the current range tank. If you would like to make falcons less effective their were some good suggestions in this thread without making them instapop.
1)lower the cycle time of ECM. or put a 20 sec cycle with a 10 sec jam time. this would require 2 jammers to get the same effect as 1 jammer with the current setup.
2) increase the strength of ECCM.
Falcon Alt?
Lol i find it funny that every combat ship in the game needs to fit at least 1 eccm, to to be able to function in combat anymore, but yet you still say that ecm in not overpowered.
It is the ONLY mod in the game that takes you from combat and makes you useless.
I don't know about you but i didn't train for 4 years, to undock and sit there.
Learn to ****in pvp, and stop useing a crutch to kill someone.
Don't worry you can still blob, and run like pussies to high-sec, when a pirate comes into system.
Like all you pro ecm peeps have said in the past ADAPT OR DIE.
|
Kailiao
Tides Of War
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 02:13:00 -
[755]
Edited by: Kailiao on 26/03/2009 02:14:12
|
Windryder
Caldari BlackScope Black Scope Project
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 02:19:00 -
[756]
"Better defined roles for ECM ships"
THEY ARE ECM SHIPS - what more do you want; to tell us HOW we are to fly and fit them too? What happened to the SANDBOX?
THREE YEARS I have been playing Caldari. - Missile Nerf bullsh!t - Capital Weapon bullsh!t: the only race NOT to get a long range AND short range dreadnought weapons - Invention Tech bullsh!t: Tech II ECMs are GALLENTE technology FFS? Missiles are SHARED tech by damage type but Drones are not??? - Marauder Bullsh!t: the ONLY Marauder NOT to retain its Tech I damage bonus (that went on the Widow FFS) - Black Ops Bullsh!t: came pre-nerfed and never got un-nerfed - Not forgetting the ORIGINAL ECM NERF that saw you introduce SDAs to trade off low-slot damage buffs against ewar buffs
Caldari don't have a wealth of good PVP ships - especially not tanks and DPS boats. But now the only area worth a damn for Caldari in PVP is getting nerfed AGAIN.
Except its not a nerf its a "better defined role" for ships. A role where your ultra-specialised un-tanked Scorpion is not only primaried but forced into the front line.
I thought "BLOBS" were bad? I thought you wanted tactics and manouvre in fleet combat? Instead you want everyone to warp to zero.
Also bear in mind that NO OTHER RACE has to sacrifice TANK to mount their racial EWAR.
And what is this bullsh!t about Caldari ewar ships mounting an armour tank? How??? Have you even played EvE before? We are SHIELD tankers! Are you going to retrospectively add armour tanking skills to all our characters?
If you really need the game to be ewar-light, armour-tanked and using only turrets; just delete the Caldari now and save us the long slow death.
Gah. Waste of breath.
|
Kailiao
Tides Of War
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 02:20:00 -
[757]
Originally by: Mr Adebisi I agree ecm needs a hefty nerf, but saying a falcon will act similar to a pilgrim is a bit scary, as pilgrims are completely worthless and no one with half a brain flies them.
I get kills everyday in my pilgrim.
Your alliance and every outher big alliance can't solo /small gang pvp for ****, and get your asses handed to you in low-sec.
So yea i agree with you that a pilgrim is crap for a 300 man fleet
|
plastastic
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 02:34:00 -
[758]
Originally by: Liang Nuren Quoting myself from here.
First things first, let me first state that I believe they are attempting to nerf the *RANGE* of the Falcon (and ECM in general). They simply don't want them sitting so far out of anyone else's range and jamming quite so effectively.
I think that ultimately they're looking for jamming strengths to remain about what they are now, with the 'close range' ships jamming even more powerfully than they currently do, and the long range ships jamming less powerfully than they do currently. I've asked for clarification on this in the feedback thread - we'll see what they say.
Let's first look at the way jamming strengths work right now:
(MATH) Remember, I think they're going for the overall jamming strength itself to remain roughly the same... and there's plenty of evidence in the OP that shows this (such as them saying they want to boost either the module or the ship bonuses to make up for the lack of SDAs). I think they're telling us '15% bonus' and '20% bonus' for better/clearer communication.
BUT, even without SDAs, it looks like we're looking at this for strength (before they make any adjustments or move anything around):
3.6 Base strength * (1 + .05 * 5) (Sig Dispersion) * (1 + .25 * 5) (BS5/Recon5) * (1 + .195) (2x rigs) [Optional]
>>> 3.6 * (1 + .05 * 5) * (1 + .25 * 5) 10.125
Rigged: >>> 3.6 * (1 + .05 * 5) * (1 + .25 * 5) * (1 + .195) 12.099375
12 is the bare break even point for me being willing to fly the ship, and it just barely exceeds this. If they don't do anything to the ship or module strengths.... I might fly a Scorp. Maybe. :|
CCP, can you confirm/deny your intention here?
Signal Distortion Amplifiers
The SDAs are something of a conundrum. They are really only worth fitting on the ECM specialised ships and are the only EWAR enhancing module we have besides the rigs. Currently they increase your ECM strength and we were looking at swapping this to an ECM range bonus and altering either the base strength of the jammers or the ECM strength bonus of the ships so they become less required in every setup and the low slots could be used for tanking for example
i think your right in what there looking for but we will have to wait for the new numbers to come out anyway the math is kida useless if there messing with the base ECM
|
spinarax
Method of Destruction Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 03:19:00 -
[759]
yay for CPP \0/.
One ship, disabling 5 hostiles, from 200km, with a cov ops cloak is kinda silly tbh. This bring Falcons inline with other Force Recons, they actually have to fit a tank and not require a specialized 190km triple ECCM sniping Eagles to kill.
Give it less range and more strength bonus. Scorpions need more dps bonus though, if it really wants to be a "brawler".
|
Kovid
Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 03:25:00 -
[760]
I'd say focus more on changing the modules optimal and falloff stats.
As an alternative could you adjust the ECM modules, basically by flipping the the optimal and falloff stats? That way the close range ships with strength bonuses are powerful at the expense of being in the fight. Long range snipers have the security of range (and possibly the cloak with the Falcon to magnify things) but measure their effectiveness vs safety by dealing with falloff before the jam chance even is calculated.
With the ability to permajam and most pilots knowing what each class has for sensor strength, they know if in optimal that they can permajam excluding ECCM which on some setups just is very unlikely due to the premium of slots to make certain setups feasible. So if they have a short optimal base like say 50-75km and 100 falloff, they still can operate a distance and how safe they want to be directly decreases the chances of a jam. And yet when a fast ship comes at them they will be in optimal anyways, most likely a smaller hull so they will permajam it anyways.
-/--/-
Another problem is that ECM ships who snipe don't bother with damage, tanks, or tackle because their ability to remove many times more ships from the equation until friends can get around to blowing them up. The ability is so powerful that even when things go bad they can use their ability to get out if they manage their jams, are previously aligned out, and react quickly enough. Compare this to the role of a sniper ship which also uses range as their "tank " of sorts, but they don't have the ability to protect themselves.
You give them all these mid slots but no one bothers to fit them with anything but a MWD if that. Rest is filled with jammers that make them shut down ships at a conservative ratio of what 6 modules to 3-4 permajammed ships? Or 5 ships jammed most of the time. If they were forced to fit shield mods in the mediums the force multiplier wouldn't be so outragous. Compare how many sensor damps it takes to neutralize a target like a ECM jammer does? Or how many target painters it takes to neutralize a target. Oh wait ....
So the closer you bring them to the fight the more they'll be forced to put tanks on them like other recons
-/--/-
I don't see anyone caring much about railguns on their Falcon. While they can do direct damage, the cost of doing so little damage for the mag stabs over SDAs and and sensor boosters over more jammers will make it easy choices for Falcon pilots.
So now without detailing what you are doing to SDAs you revisit your changes, ninja edit your post, and instead of of a cap bonus you give them a hybrid optimal. I can't say it is much of a change in the ship.
|
|
Manchulord
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 03:46:00 -
[761]
Of course they will make Falcon Piolts mad, cause being at 200 km seems great cause they can sit back then Snipers are Jammed. HP for the Falcon, well if you are doing job right then you dont need more HP. The ships that need more HP is the Stealh Bombers. I would understand the Scorpins and Widows haveing a 200 km Jamming range but a little ship, that is crazy. Makeing it more sinceable seems right. Oh course the People are not in the middle of the fight want more armour and more what ever. |
Manchulord
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 03:57:00 -
[762]
I also got to agree with Windryder. Short time I've been playing missles have gone hill. Now messing with shields for Armour tanking? That means all the shields skills I trained , months of training, flushed down the drain. Seems like just like other games I've played, you nerf too many things in the game you will lose alot of your old timers . Caldri are missles race, and now cause the nerf you are takeing launchers off and giving bonus for turrets? Falcon and Rook Attribute Changes: +1 turret hardpoint / -1 launcher hardpoint
|
Sebea
Bottomfeeders Science and Research
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 04:08:00 -
[763]
Originally by: Thorian Baalnorn
...."OH NOES! if i have to fit a module to my ship to protect me against
You can hold that one right about there.
Every Nano pilot in game is laughing at you, because this fairy tale argument didn't work there, and it won't work here.
People don't give a damn if they can counter something by fitting one module, the nano nerf showed that.
Falcon alts being prolific beyond belief, and the general noise coming from the EVE playerbase says that Falcons are getting nerfed
|
Hurs Sokira
Celestial Janissaries Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 04:17:00 -
[764]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Quote: I'm assuming the hybrid bonus is a typo?
actually it isn't, we wanted to try it with using 3 hybrids eg 3 250mm rails. The range with spike is about 90km on the setups we have been playing with which is not quite as far as the ECM optimal range (max range 195, optimal 124 or so depending on the setup and skills, (this was a maxed out ECM range setup)) but we think it will be more useful than the ECM cap use bonus.
Any decent Falcon pilot will fit 1. a CovOps cloak and 2. Scan Probe Launcher. That leaves two hardpoints, which are typically used in smll gangs for offlined remote hull or armor repper or salvager. High-slots weapons are never used on Falcon, it is not its role.
On the other hand, in long engagements, Falcons can run out of cap running all the jammers (especially Multispecs). Therefore, cap bonus will be MUCH more useful than hybrid bonus which will never, ever be utilized.
Second revision seems much more sane, range tweaks as well as Rook as close-range 20% and Falcon long-range 15% look OK. However, it is rather pointless to have range (i.e. missile velocity) bonus on a Rook that is supposed to be a "brawler". Change it to ROF bonus instead for more firepower and you may drop the dronebay. Otherwise people will carry ECM drones, which will make Rook's ECM a little too powerful and drones do not fit Caldari doctrine anyway and contribute to lag.
I assume Signal Distortion Amplifiers will not be changed from their current state on TQ, because that was the biggest problem in the original proposal.
|
Raven Timoshenko
Oberon Incorporated Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 04:37:00 -
[765]
Apologies for the Hijack but please read and discuss:
DO NOT NERF ECM, BOOST ECCM.
|
galphi
Gallente Unitary Senate Unitary Enterprises
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 05:06:00 -
[766]
Falcon getting rails + ranged ecm bonus is an excellent combo. And the rook works better as a close range combat ship, so yes liking these changes!
It always struck me as odd that most recons would get a combat bonus as well as an ewar bonus, except the falcon, which was all ewar. This change fixes that (and my friend who loves rails and recons will rejoice!).
|
King Rothgar
Death of Virtue
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 06:05:00 -
[767]
Ultimately I think the problem is range, not strength. As others have stated, the falcon can fit all it's mid slots or close to it with jammers. A pilgrim on the other hand has to actually fit a tank and get close to it's target to do much. Yes, tracking disruptors can be used from 100km away or more but the pilgrim's main weapon is energy neuts, not the disruptors.
The falcon needs to be brought into the actual fight, not sniping from 150km+. Give ECM a base range of 10-20km, remove all rigs that enhance that. Change those rigs to strength and cap usage (much akin to energy neuts). Ditto for ship bonus, give the rook the range bonus but even then it needs to be limited to under 60km once fully fitted and skilled.
This solution makes falcons more vulnerable. That's the point. They will have to choose between fitting a tank with the jamming power to shut down 1-2 BS's or they will basically be paper tanks relying on insane jam strength to survive. They have 7 midslots and enough grid/cpu as is to fit a fairly respectable recon tank and still have plenty of jammers.
Under this setup a "standard" falcon setup would feature maybe 3-4 jammers and the other mids full of shield extenders and a hardener. The ship could block most of the target's incoming damage via jamming it, all it would have to worry about are drones. But the same can be said for the other recons.
|
El Liptonez
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 06:36:00 -
[768]
Edited by: El Liptonez on 26/03/2009 06:36:34 Hell yeah, boost the ECCM as well... I want to have 30 Scorpions to jam 5 logistics, that's very nice. Scorpions into close range? Wow, we already got enough Caldari PVP ships anyway. The Rokh and.
The whiners won the battle.
|
UDmitry
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 06:43:00 -
[769]
Originally by: Windryder
Caldari don't have a wealth of good PVP ships - especially not tanks and DPS boats. But now the only area worth a damn for Caldari in PVP is getting nerfed AGAIN.
And what is this bullsh!t about Caldari ewar ships mounting an armour tank? How??? Have you even played EvE before? We are SHIELD tankers! Are you going to retrospectively add armour tanking skills to all our characters?
If you really need the game to be ewar-light, armour-tanked and using only turrets; just delete the Caldari now and save us the long slow death.
+1 Caldari already dead but dont know it yet :) Falcon was one pvp caldari ship, after nerf it will be lost:( missiles nerf killed caldari as pve race now it complitly kill of race The only way its train gelente ships its faster train them from caldari race, and they now normal in pvp and pve. Or boost caldary or just delete the Caldari now and remap skills to another races. And delete from description of caldari race that it have best technology, its not so. Dont make noobs waist there time on train of caldari race.
|
CobaltSixty
Caldari Dark Knights of Deneb
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 06:47:00 -
[770]
Originally by: Pellit1 Edit: Also just an idea - remote ECCM?
Already exists (and a lot of people don't know about it.) Projected ECCM These are still in-game and work even better than onboard ECCM. Now you just have to convince a friend flying a ship with an abundance of midslots to follow you around and cast this ECM-safety upon you. Battle Badger, anyone?
Back to the issue at hand, it's time for an agonizing re-appraisal of what the Caldari race is about.
[Rant] - Flight of ideas assured.
Caldari = RANGE. Their battle doctrine is to engage targets from a distance that cannot be easily responded to. They don't deal as much damage as the other race's equivalent shiptypes in exchange for this distance/safety. They either mount impressive shield tanks to absorb damage or use ECM to prevent taking damage themselves - with the chance-based mechanic, it's not as if it prevents all damage from a target.
Given that they are distanced fighters, they aren't meant for tackling at a cruiser-or-above level. Because Caldari defences rely on mid-slot modules, pilots need to understand that they are reducing their survivability by fitting speed or tackling modules. To all the pirates/soloers who chose Caldari I'm sorry, but you chose a disadvantaged race for this type of combat. Some of the State's ships can be set up to accomplish this, and power to you - EVE is supposed to be a sandbox after all. But they're never supposed to be as effective as the other races in a close-combat role. EVER. Your trade is that the other races should never be as effective in a distance-combat role.
Caldari ships always have the best range (both targetting and weapon optimal) in their class, and the least damage. They have the least powergrid and the most CPU - the most mids and the least lows. Caldari ships emphasize fitting and using them for their intended purpose and not what your friends can do with theirs.
Each race has exception to their general rule (Minmatar T2 has pretty good shield-tanks, some Amarr T2 use short-range missiles to great effect, some Gallente ships fair better with rails than blasters.) The non-Caldari races have the benefit of not needing mid-slots in the same way, and so can tackle and can boost their resistance to Caldari EWAR via ECCM. Can't boost your resistance to warp disruption without severely hampering your ship's combat ability. Can't boost your "resistance" to being webbed - just hope you're fast to begin with. Can't boost your resistance to nosf/neut, or target painting, and it's a silly waste to try and pre-compensate for turret disruption.
Regarding dampeners... A lot of ships fit sensor boosters these days because of our obsession with extreme range, so dampeners are harder to use. Keep this in mind - dampeners are Gallente EWAR, and if used properly they either force the long-rangFd Caldari ships to get closer, or to disengage. You are all flying your race's respective Navy-commissioned vessels that follow a design doctrine. Fly whichever one has the doctrine you like the most. If you don't like what you chose, cross-train or start a new character. If you bothered to read the backgrounds on your chosen race (and CCP is fair to demand some level of player competence in this regard) then you knew what you were signing up for.
Lastly, elite ship classes are where each race's doctrine should shine through, not be equalized to the others. Caldari recons should not be like the other race's recons - they should be like their base hull; the Blackbird. A ranged, damage-challenged EWAR cruiser. No dronebay on a Blackbird - given that the Rook has 2 extra missile mounts/high-slots and even more mids, think about where the ROOM for this dronebay and controlling electronics would come from. It doesn't make sense.
[/Rant]
Enhance the differences - don't marginalize them.
|
|
Real Poison
Minmatar Stormlord Battleforce Vanguard.
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 06:58:00 -
[771]
just adding my 2 cents:
ECM is a fun stopper. it adds nothing but frustration to the gameplay.
what about making passive targetters useful? when you're jammed you're down to 1 max target. from passive targetters description they work with a different mechanic than normal target locks. so make passive targetters overcome jamming completely.
like an AB helps to negate the effect of a webbing rapier. or like sensor boosters /w range scripts help against dampeners from an arazu. and whatever the amarr have on their recon there surely is a mod to negate that too.
just the ecm cannot be negated (since ECCM doesnt really work).
|
Yunaka Vicc
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 07:04:00 -
[772]
Another nice idea: - add strength and distanse jammer scripts, so pilots will be able to choose between today strength or today distance. Jammer should be boosted to current strength without SDA.
|
Real Poison
Minmatar Stormlord Battleforce Vanguard.
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 07:53:00 -
[773]
Edited by: Real Poison on 26/03/2009 07:53:30 just adding my 2 cents:
ECM is a fun stopper. it adds nothing but frustration to the gameplay.
what about making passive targetters useful? when you're jammed you're down to 0 max target. from passive targetters description they work with a different mechanic than normal target locks. so make passive targetters overcome jamming completely.
like an AB helps to negate the effect of a webbing rapier. or like sensor boosters /w range scripts help against dampeners from an arazu. and whatever the amarr have on their recon there surely is a mod to negate that too.
just the ecm cannot be negated (since ECCM doesnt really work).
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 07:54:00 -
[774]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
The skill bonuses and other changes to the caldari recons will then look like this:
Rook: Caldari Cruiser Skill Bonus: 10% Bonus to Light & Heavy, Heavy assualt Missile Velocity per level 10% reduction in ECM Target Jammer capacitor use per Level
Recon Ships Skill Bonus: 20% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per level 5% bonus to heavy, heavy assault and light missile kinetic damage per level
Attribute Changes: +25m3 drone bay +25mbit drone bandwidth
Falcon: Caldari Cruiser Skill Bonus: 12.5% Bonus to ECM Target Jammer Optimal and falloff Range per level 10% Bonus to Medium Hybrid Optimal Range per level
Recon Ships Skill Bonus: 15% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per level -96% to -100% reduction in Cloaking Device CPU use per level
Attribute Changes: +1 turret hardpoint / -1 launcher hardpoint
Ugh, no. With this, you're right back at where you started: Falcons Online.
Who would fly a Rook in that scenario, instead of a Falcon? Nobody.
The whole point is that the Falcon combines two excellent qualities: covops cloak and ranged ecm. As long as you keep those in, it will remain a problem ship.
The original suggestion was the right thing to do.
|
FlameGlow
Legio Octae Rebellion Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 07:57:00 -
[775]
Quote: The rook operates at shorter ranges, able to launch a stronger ECM attack and whilst having shorter ECM range 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. Rook: Caldari Cruiser Skill Bonus: 10% Bonus to Light & Heavy, Heavy assault Missile Velocity per level 10% reduction in ECM Target Jammer capacitor use per Level
Recon Ships Skill Bonus: 25% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per level 5% bonus to heavy, heavy assualt and light missile kinetic damage per level
Attribute Changes: +25m3 drone bay +25mbit drone bandwidth
Rook still looks underpowered for a short-range brawler 25% ECM strength is not enough if jammer base strength remains the same and SDA's boost range instead. 3* SDA II give 55% strength increase on top of 20% recon bonus, 25% recon bonus is still significantly less.
Proposal: Give it a greater bonus of say 30%-40% but only to multispectral jammers, then it can go into short range, and won't be held by necessity to fit 4 racials, allowing for some shieldtank/tackle gear. And missile velocity bonus, how is that short range? Trade it for RoF bonus, then you're talking.
Quote: We are looking at putting the scorpion into the short range brawler role. To that end we are looking at removing its ECM Optimal range bonus, increasing the ECM strength bonus a little and adding a cruise/siege launcher rate of fire bonus so it can get close and personal.
Summary Scorpion Changes
- removed the ECM optimal range bonus - increased the ECM strength bonus to 20% per level - added a 5% RoF bonus to cruise & siege missile launchers per level.
Again, looks underpowered: 5% RoF won't do much good for a ship with 4 launchers, it's still outdamaged by any BS. Jamming is supposed to even the ground but will it allow keeping enemy BS jammed at least 50-70% of the time? Why 50-70% - you'll have only 2/3 of raven's DPS(and 1/2 or less of pulse geddon's) and spend tanking slots on ECM, so it's supposed to be this effective to fight equally. _____________ I don't care what is nerfed, as long as it's not my "undock" button. |
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 07:58:00 -
[776]
Originally by: Raquel Trotter CCP Chronotis,
So how exactly will the falcon be different from now? The falcon will still be able to get into position cloaked at range and jam even 3-5 ships with ECCM fitted.
THIS IS NO CHANGE! No other covert-recons can operate at such extreme ranges, which combined with ECM range rigs and implants make them the practically invulnerable.
With your update this is a boost to the falcon making them even more powerful.
Remove the falcons range bonus please! And give us ECCM rigs and implants.
This.
The latest change does nothing to fix the Falcon problem, since it's cause by combo of range and covops cloak.
Either rethink this once again, or give the other recons competitive ranges also. For example, the Lachesis / Arazu get no range bonuses -- on a form of ewar designed to combat ranged weapons and ewar. It doesn't make any sense.
|
Yunaka Vicc
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 07:58:00 -
[777]
Edited by: Yunaka Vicc on 26/03/2009 08:00:08
Originally by: Alex Harumichi
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
The whole point is that the Falcon combines two excellent qualities: covops cloak and ranged ecm. As long as you keep those in, it will remain a problem ship.
Arazu with dampers and pilgrim with TD work same, don't they?
|
Yunaka Vicc
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 08:05:00 -
[778]
Edited by: Yunaka Vicc on 26/03/2009 08:05:17
Originally by: Alex Harumichi
Originally by: Raquel Trotter CCP Chronotis, Either rethink this once again, or give the other recons competitive ranges also. For example, the Lachesis / Arazu get no range bonuses -- on a form of ewar designed to combat ranged weapons and ewar.
Arazu has 130+ range with falloff. With 50% non reducible chance of success on falloff.
And new falcon will have 1/4-1/3 jam probability for BS/recons, halved on falloff, then halved by ECCM.
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 08:10:00 -
[779]
Edited by: Alex Harumichi on 26/03/2009 08:10:27
Originally by: Yunaka Vicc
Originally by: Alex Harumichi
The whole point is that the Falcon combines two excellent qualities: covops cloak and ranged ecm. As long as you keep those in, it will remain a problem ship.
Arazu with dampers and pilgrim with TD work same, don't they?
Nope. Arazu and Pilgrim (or Lachesis and Curse) get no range bonuses whatsoever to their ewar (TD/damps). They are forced to fight at close(ish) range, or suffer heavily from falloff.
The 150km+ ranges that Falcons get is a wet dream for the other Recon pilots. Even 100km is far, far into falloff.
As stated before, the main problem with the Falcon is the combo of covops cloak and extreme ewar range. Either remove that range, or at least give the other forms of ewar equivalent ewar range options.
I'd suggest the removal of Falcon range, myself. The fact that it can sit in absolute safety at long range and run ewar at full effect is the problem, that's why everyone is flying them. Sure, everyone loves a low-risk I-Win button -- but that's bad for the game.
Force the Falcon significantly closer, and pilots need to make a real choice. Also, other forms of ewar, especially damps, become a much more viable counter. Let the Falcon keep the range, and nothing will change.
And that's bad.
|
Yunaka Vicc
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 08:14:00 -
[780]
Originally by: Alex Harumichi Edited by: Alex Harumichi on 26/03/2009 08:10:27 Force the Falcon significantly closer, and pilots need to make a real choice. Also, other forms of ewar, especially damps, become a much more viable counter. Let the Falcon keep the range, and nothing will change.
No choice for Falcon with proposed jamm strength, switching to Arazu is better.
|
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 08:14:00 -
[781]
Originally by: Yunaka Vicc Edited by: Yunaka Vicc on 26/03/2009 08:05:17
Originally by: Alex Harumichi
Either rethink this once again, or give the other recons competitive ranges also. For example, the Lachesis / Arazu get no range bonuses -- on a form of ewar designed to combat ranged weapons and ewar.
Arazu has 130+ range with falloff. With 50% non reducible chance of success on falloff.
And new falcon will have 1/4-1/3 jam probability for BS/recons, halved on falloff, then halved by ECCM.
You're comparing apples and oranges. If you want to compare range+falloff, do the same for Falcon too. What's falcon's ECM range+falloff, eh?
Damps, as an effect, are vastly weaker than ECM, that's why ecm has a failure possibility. It's a balance factor. Damps don't shut you down totally, they don't even slow your target speed anymore. They only hurt ranged ships. ECM shuts down everything. You should know this.
The *actual* Arazu comparable ewar range is about 60km. Drop the Falcon's optimal to about that, and things are more or less balanced.
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 08:17:00 -
[782]
Originally by: Yunaka Vicc
Originally by: Alex Harumichi Edited by: Alex Harumichi on 26/03/2009 08:10:27 Force the Falcon significantly closer, and pilots need to make a real choice. Also, other forms of ewar, especially damps, become a much more viable counter. Let the Falcon keep the range, and nothing will change.
No choice for Falcon with proposed jamm strength, switching to Arazu is better.
I have to ask... have you flown an Arazu, after the big damp nerf? Do you have any idea of how weak damps are now? The *best* you can do, with max skill and rigs, is drop a battleship a bit under 20km lock range... and that needs four damps, all hitting the target.
Compare to what ECM does with just one module, and you get the reason why for every Arazu you see, there are 15-20 Falcons. And no, that's not hyperbole.
The power difference between ECM and the other forms of ewar is just ridiculous. And that's part of the problem; it's very hard to balance.
|
Yunaka Vicc
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 08:23:00 -
[783]
Edited by: Yunaka Vicc on 26/03/2009 08:26:17 Edited by: Yunaka Vicc on 26/03/2009 08:25:38
Originally by: Alex Harumichi The *best* you can do, with max skill and rigs, is drop a battleship a bit under 20km lock range... and that needs four damps, all hitting the target.
With 10 sec cycle you don't need to damp BS all the time. This also helps with damp failure on falloff and allows faster target switching.
It gives twice more time to lock and shoot somebody if 20 sec jamm fails.
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 08:28:00 -
[784]
I think the end goal of all this tweaking should be this:
1) There should be equal tactical reasons to fly a Falcon, Rook and a Scorp. Each should have their optimal non-cornercase use case.
2) There should be equal valid tactical reasons to fly a Falcon, an Arazu, a Pilgrim or a Rapier. Now, some of these ships are more specialized than others (Pilgrim especially), but they all should be valid choices. Same goes for the non-cloaking variants, of course.
Currently, as we all know, if you join a fleet and say (for example) "I have an Arazu", what you'll get back is "could you bring a Falcon, instead?". Because Falcon does the job simply better, 95% of the time. This needs to change.
My gut feel at the moment:
- Falcon: stupidly overpowered, due to combo of extreme ewar range and covops cloak. - Rook: mostly ok, due to lack of covops cloaking - Rapier: mostly ok - Huginn: ok-ish, but maybe could use some love (Rapier is better almost always) ¡- Arazu: same as Lachesis, except worse tackle (slower to lock) - Lachesis: weakish; good tackle but horribly weak ewar - Curse: fine - Pilgrim: fine, due to the new scramblers. An exception to the others, being a solo boat. That's fine, in my book.
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 08:30:00 -
[785]
Originally by: Yunaka Vicc Edited by: Yunaka Vicc on 26/03/2009 08:26:17 Edited by: Yunaka Vicc on 26/03/2009 08:25:38
Originally by: Alex Harumichi The *best* you can do, with max skill and rigs, is drop a battleship a bit under 20km lock range... and that needs four damps, all hitting the target.
With 10 sec cycle you don't need to damp BS all the time. This also helps with damp failure on falloff and allows faster target switching.
It gives twice more time to lock and shoot somebody if 20 sec jamm fails.
Yes, but you still have:
a) you need to put all of your ewar on one target in order to have any useful effect. An Arazu will hurt only one ship at a time, as a rule. Compare to Falcon.
b) the damp effect does nothing to close-ranged ships, which means pretty much all ships (except Falcons) on lowsec warfare. On the other hand, damps lack the range to really work as anti-sniper or anti-ranged-Falcon ewar, since at 200km they are so far into falloff that the chance of their working is slim indeed.
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 08:34:00 -
[786]
As an aside: posting with your main gives you a bit more credibility, generally. The number of vocal alts here is quite something...
Maybe they don't want to show what alliance they belong to. Wonder why...
|
Yunaka Vicc
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 08:35:00 -
[787]
I agree with Falcon 200+ range problem.
But reducing both range and strength will make this ship useless in gangs except second window help for solo damager.
|
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 08:36:00 -
[788]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis W Falcon: Caldari Cruiser Skill Bonus: 12.5% Bonus to ECM Target Jammer Optimal & Falloff Range per level 10% Bonus to Medium Hybrid Optimal Range per level
Recon Ships Skill Bonus: 20% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per level -96% to -100% reduction in Cloaking Device CPU use per level
Attribute Changes: +1 turret hardpoint / -1 launcher hardpoint
Wtf is this? A falcon boost? With those skills you are getting the same range as before so how is that nerfing falcon range? Killing the capacitor bonus is fine ever since you made ecm modules super easy on cap a few patches back.
What have you done to my lovely falcon re-balance? Seriously, grab your balls and put in the balance changes that you want instead of caving to fotm whiners.
Give the ship the optimal bonus OR the strength bonus, that way you can pick what you want instead of one ship being the best at everything. ffs it is not that hard of a concept to grasp is it?
Originally by: CCP Whisper So you're going to have to do some actual thinking with regards to hull components and their capabilities instead of copying some cookie-cutter setup. Cry some more.
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 08:39:00 -
[789]
Edited by: Alex Harumichi on 26/03/2009 08:40:03
Originally by: Yunaka Vicc I agree with Falcon 200+ range problem.
But reducing both range and strength will make this ship useless in gangs except second window help for solo damager.
I don't think so. It just means you have to fit a tank, like all the other recons. You don't need SDAs anymore due to increased ecm str (in the original proposal), so use your lowslots to armor tank. It's what the Arazu and Lachesis need to do, too (and no, they don't have better tank ability than the Falcon/Rook pair).
All the closer range means is that now you actually run some risk. I know this is a shocking idea to some Falcon pilots, but there it is.
|
Yunaka Vicc
Fremen Sietch White Noise.
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 08:44:00 -
[790]
Originally by: Alex Harumichi I don't think so. It just means you have to fit a tank, like all the other recons. You don't need SDAs anymore due to increased ecm str (in the original proposal), so use your lowslots to armor tank. It's what the Arazu and Lachesis need to do, too (and no, they don't have better tank ability than the Falcon/Rook pair).
I see only strength reduction with currently proposed bonuses and no strength in SDAs.
New rook with rigs <=> current with one SDA. New falcon with rigs <=> current without SDAs at all.
Originally by: Alex Harumichi All the closer range means is that now you actually run some risk. I know this is a shocking idea to some Falcon pilots, but there it is.
No problem with risk, 60-100 km is fine range.
|
|
Rumpelstilski
Caldari Divine Retribution Sons of Tangra
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 08:46:00 -
[791]
LOVE THE NEW ROOK!
Suggestion for Scorp: don't remove his ecm optimal bonus completely so he can still be used in sniping ranges with 2-3 SDAs fitted (which kill his tank, but that is the idea).
Also, if the scorp is to be used as a short range brawler, he would need another low so he can fit a 5-slot tank (dc II, 2x eanm II, 2x 1600mm plate)
Suggestion for kitsune: remove it's ecm range bonus which is useless and give it a speed or mwding signature radius bonus (small zooming jamming thingie )
Falcon the blaster boat is an interesting idea, the rook as being the combat recon among them would be my first guess for a switch to hybrid, but this is good too, moar diversity in fittings moar diversity on overview ftw
Btw, will overloading jammers now give proper bonuses? (ecm overloading bonuses used to stack with sdas and pda rigs)
|
Yunaka Vicc
Fremen Sietch White Noise.
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 08:48:00 -
[792]
Originally by: Rumpelstilski LOVE THE NEW ROOK! Btw, will overloading jammers now give proper bonuses? (ecm overloading bonuses used to stack with sdas and pda rigs)
+1 to overloading fix It also will balance new jammer strength.
|
Terianna Eri
Amarr Scrutari
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 08:56:00 -
[793]
You just made me *want* to train for the Rook
__________________________________
Originally by: CCP Whisper Boo hoo. Cry some more.
|
TZeer
BURN EDEN
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 09:09:00 -
[794]
A few things:
- If you change the SDA so it gives bonus on range instead of strength, be careful with boosting the actual ECM modules to compensate. Compensate with the bonus on ships instead. If not we will end up with ECM module being the new damp.
If my memory is correct, CCP nerfed the actual strength on the ECM modules and implemented SDA while boosting the ships bonuses, cause everyone was using multispecs in their mids.
Armor tank raven with multis, NOS Domi with multis etc.
People complaining about range, remember this:
In CCP`s proposal they are changing the optimal and falloff range on the ECM modules...
By just that little change the falcon`s optimal goes from 162km til under 100km even with 20% range bonus per lvl.
Quote: Wtf is this? A falcon boost? With those skills you are getting the same range as before so how is that nerfing falcon range? Killing the capacitor bonus is fine ever since you made ecm modules super easy on cap a few patches back.
What have you done to my lovely falcon re-balance? Seriously, grab your balls and put in the balance changes that you want instead of caving to fotm whiners.
Give the ship the optimal bonus OR the strength bonus, that way you can pick what you want instead of one ship being the best at everything. ffs it is not that hard of a concept to grasp is it?
With those stats the Falcon optimal with max skills would be 66km....
|
TZeer
BURN EDEN
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 09:19:00 -
[795]
Edited by: TZeer on 26/03/2009 09:21:28 Could you also please fix the overheat bug?
No point in overheating as it stacks with SDA, rigs and ganglinks.
Another thing, are SDA and rig`s supposed to stack with ganglinks on commandships?
Seem to remember that the ganglinks for speed, agility etc dont have a stacking penalty towards mods and rigs on your ship.
|
Rumpelstilski
Caldari Divine Retribution Sons of Tangra
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 09:23:00 -
[796]
Originally by: TZeer Edited by: TZeer on 26/03/2009 09:21:28 Could you also please fix the overheat bug?
No point in overheating as it stacks with SDA, rigs and ganglinks.
Another thing, are SDA and rig`s supposed to stack with ganglinks on commandships?
Seem to remember that the ganglinks for speed, agility etc dont have a stacking penalty towards mods and rigs on your ship.
Afaik, overheating, modules, implants/hardwirings, boosters and gang bonuses don't stack with each other
|
AntonioBanderas
Amok. Minor Threat.
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 09:33:00 -
[797]
**** you whiners and go to hell, pussies ohmoez my falcon is losing it's i-win button!!!1!!!eleven! morons if amar and (toa degree) minmatar can have cloaking brawler, why wouldn't caldari? and don't give me 'tank' ****, try to 'tank' rapier __________________________________________________ I can say ASS!!! And ****!!!! \o/
|
Rumpelstilski
Caldari Divine Retribution Sons of Tangra
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 09:37:00 -
[798]
Originally by: AntonioBanderas **** you whiners and go to hell, pussies ohmoez my falcon is losing it's i-win button!!!1!!!eleven! morons if amar and (toa degree) minmatar can have cloaking brawler, why wouldn't caldari? and don't give me 'tank' ****, try to 'tank' rapier
Let me de-internetize this:
Originally by: AntonioBanderas It seems unreasonable to complain about Falcon's loss of the range bonus because other recons don't have a range bonus, you will just have to fit a lse tank to go with it.
Sure, it sounds like a great idea, especially if falcon got drones too and it's dps and scanres in line with the rapier or pilgrim so it can be used as a solo roaming ship.
|
TZeer
BURN EDEN
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 09:51:00 -
[799]
Originally by: Rumpelstilski
Originally by: TZeer Edited by: TZeer on 26/03/2009 09:21:28 Could you also please fix the overheat bug?
No point in overheating as it stacks with SDA, rigs and ganglinks.
Another thing, are SDA and rig`s supposed to stack with ganglinks on commandships?
Seem to remember that the ganglinks for speed, agility etc dont have a stacking penalty towards mods and rigs on your ship.
Afaik, overheating, modules, implants/hardwirings, boosters and gang bonuses don't stack with each other
Guess it`s bugged then
|
Amy Wang
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 10:04:00 -
[800]
Originally by: Vaal Erit
Wtf is this? A falcon boost? With those skills you are getting the same range as before so how is that nerfing falcon range?
Well for those of us who didn't drop out of math class in pre-school 85km optimal is not the same as 230km. Also fighting in falloff actually reduces your ECM strength - learn game mechanics, then post maybe?
|
|
Haramir Haleths
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 10:07:00 -
[801]
Now Caldari is completly gimped in PvP. The last Caldari PvP ship is now gimped to hell. This really sucks .... im ****ed, you can have my stuff
|
Childstar
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 10:12:00 -
[802]
Originally by: Sebea Edited by: Sebea on 25/03/2009 23:30:23
Originally by: Childstar
Originally by: Sebea Whatever you do to them, you need to bring their range in.
It wouldn't matter so much if they weren't always so damn far away from the fight.
In low sec pirate Falcons engage without fear of sentry fire.
In 0.0 the falcon hovers near 220-240 range jamming happily away from anything that could ever touch it.
We lost a whole class of ship (Nano Cruisers) because they were considered unbalanced and unfair, giving too much of an advantage to those wanting to disengage.
When does the falcon start to fall into that category??
I know its not a "nano" boat per se, but it allows its user virutal immunity to any form of attack because of its jams, and its long range ability.
I know, I know, they have crappy tanks, well, tbh, if you let a player cross the 200km to your falcon, you should probably stop sucking in a falcon.
Every ship with the ability to snipe has the immunity you are talking about and like the sniper it a has no use without close range support not only to tackle the target ship like the snipers need but also to actually do damage and kill it...
Its a gang ship and needing a gang to operate is its flaw.
Yes kind sir, but the falcon and rook are the only RECONS that can do it. ALL the rest of the recons have to get relatively close.
And that is why all the other recons are never used in gang vs gang combat.
This is not "fixing" anything its screwing up yet another ship for gang combat and tyaking another great step towards tank/gank only ships in anything resembling gang fighting.
But then thats what the nerf hounds want anyway, god forbid they need to be mobile or adjust a couple of fittings ect from a couple of their ships in gang....
|
Dibsi Dei
Salamyhkaisten kilta
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 10:27:00 -
[803]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Falcon: Caldari Cruiser Skill Bonus: 12.5% Bonus to ECM Target Jammer Optimal & Falloff Range per level 10% Bonus to Medium Hybrid Optimal Range per level
Recon Ships Skill Bonus: 20% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per level -96% to -100% reduction in Cloaking Device CPU use per level
Attribute Changes: +1 turret hardpoint / -1 launcher hardpoint
What is the matter with you? You were supposed to NERF the falcon, the range of the falcon was the problem. After those changes you get pretty much the same optimal with a massive falloff boost.
|
Jalif
Minmatar Black Sinisters
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 10:43:00 -
[804]
Originally by: Haramir Haleths Now Caldari is completly gimped in PvP. The last Caldari PvP ship is now gimped to hell. This really sucks .... im ****ed, you can have my stuff
Please give it to me. And please quit with the game. It is clear you don't know how to pvp with caldari.
Whats the diffrence between 230km and 80km? There is notting that can shoot that far before it gets jammed. + that bloody thing can shoot now! - Beside that, my corpmember who flies a falcon ones in a while fits a 1600mm plate. THis is going to be a buff to a falcon if you just know to fly one.
|Black Sinisters| |
Kim Telkin
Caldari Kingfisher Industries
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 10:45:00 -
[805]
While mentioning changes to ECM ships, I will slide my own random idea in. What if ECM was rolled against each lock the ship had instead of all of them?
So if you have an ECM strength of 10 and the ship you are targeting has a sensor strength of 20, on average you'll remove 1/2 of their locks.
An example to make my point. Your ship can target a max of 8 ships, you are currently targeting 5 ships and in the process of locking 1 more.
I jam you, so I roll against each target. Out of your 5 locks, 2 break, and the target you are int he process of locking breaks as well. Then you roll against your 2 other potential targets and one of them 'breaks' as well.
So I broke 2 real locks, kept you from locking a third, and lowered your max locked targets by another one. So for the next 20 seconds you can only lock a max of 4 targets.
Seems to be more in line with how the other EWAR systems work.
|
Rumpelstilski
Caldari Divine Retribution Sons of Tangra
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 10:45:00 -
[806]
Edited by: Rumpelstilski on 26/03/2009 10:46:27
Originally by: Sebea Yes kind sir, but the falcon and rook are the only RECONS that can do it. ALL the rest of the recons have to get relatively close
All other recons have the ability to do some dps, all have drone bays for soloing and tackler killing, all are nanoable (except pilgrim possibly) and get to choose between secondary ewar (tps, damps, tds) or a lse tank without gimping them to perform their primary role.
Originally by: Jalif Whats the diffrence between 230km and 80km? There is notting that can shoot that far before it gets jammed. + that bloody thing can shoot now! - Beside that, my corpmember who flies a falcon ones in a while fits a 1600mm plate. THis is going to be a buff to a falcon if you just know to fly one.
You're right sir, it's not like sniper hacs are abundant these days
|
Dibsi Dei
Salamyhkaisten kilta
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 10:47:00 -
[807]
Edited by: Dibsi Dei on 26/03/2009 11:19:59
|
Z800XV
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 10:47:00 -
[808]
Dear CCP plz create some RIGS that increase a SENSOR STRENGTH. it may bee (just example) +10 to sensor strength or +80%, as you wish but just make them alive.
|
Dibsi Dei
Salamyhkaisten kilta
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 10:51:00 -
[809]
Originally by: Z800XV Dear CCP plz create some RIGS that increase a SENSOR STRENGTH. it may bee (just example) +10 to sensor strength or +80%, as you wish but just make them alive.
This tbh.
|
GTC seller72
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 10:55:00 -
[810]
Originally by: Jalif
Originally by: Haramir Haleths Now Caldari is completly gimped in PvP. The last Caldari PvP ship is now gimped to hell. This really sucks .... im ****ed, you can have my stuff
Please give it to me. And please quit with the game. It is clear you don't know how to pvp with caldari.
Whats the diffrence between 230km and 80km? There is notting that can shoot that far before it gets jammed. + that bloody thing can shoot now! - Beside that, my corpmember who flies a falcon ones in a while fits a 1600mm plate. THis is going to be a buff to a falcon if you just know to fly one.
He fits a plate AND has range, that gives you a clue how flimsy these ships are and how often they fail a jam cycle.
Losing the range = dead falcon if it misses a jam or their are more than just a couple of ships. That is why the other recons are not flown in gang fighting and why the falcon will not be flown if its range is removed.
|
|
Lindsay Logan
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 10:57:00 -
[811]
One importent thing with todays changes. If you plan on making the Rook a close range ship, please add some more grid to it.
You want to be able to fit a full rack of HAM's now with the 10% velocity bonus, but also a MWD+LSE since you are up close you need some kind of defences otherwise it would goo poof regardless since it will be primary.
|
Tijaa
Caldari ANZAC ALLIANCE Southern Cross Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 10:57:00 -
[812]
Why not change the modules
Remove the ability to fit more than one of each type of racial jammer. Remove the ability for a racial jammer to jam the wrong races ship. Make the strength bonuses only apply to multispec jammers.
Thoughts?
|
Delichon
The First Foundation SOLAR FLEET
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 11:01:00 -
[813]
Edited by: Delichon on 26/03/2009 11:03:48 I'd second the "Rook needs grid opinion" Extra 120MW grid allows you to fit 5x HAM T2 + LSE T2 + MWD T1 + all the lesser gridhungry mods with AWU 4 and Shield Upgrades 4.
Try doing that - you would see the Rook shine as a nice close-combat ship.
The fit I'd be orienting towards would be
[Rook, Rook HAM] Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Damage Control II
10MN MicroWarpdrive I Photon Scattering Field II Invulnerability Field II Large Shield Extender II ECM - Multispectral Jammer II ECM - Multispectral Jammer II Warp Disruptor II
Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Terror Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Terror Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Terror Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Terror Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Terror Assault Missile
Core Defence Field Extender I Core Defence Field Extender I
+ 5 Warriors T2 and we are looking at 320 (missile) + 50-60 (drone) DPS, 30k Effective hit points buffer and 2 jammers on top of that. A decent soloboat with some drawbacks (no web/weak capacitor) and some strong points.
------------------------------------------ "Russian is an unusual language if you're not used to it. It is like speaking to angry aliens from the planet of Murder or something" Nick Breckon |
TZeer
BURN EDEN
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 11:02:00 -
[814]
Originally by: Dibsi Dei
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Falcon: Caldari Cruiser Skill Bonus: 12.5% Bonus to ECM Target Jammer Optimal & Falloff Range per level 10% Bonus to Medium Hybrid Optimal Range per level
Recon Ships Skill Bonus: 20% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per level -96% to -100% reduction in Cloaking Device CPU use per level
Attribute Changes: +1 turret hardpoint / -1 launcher hardpoint
What is the matter with you? You were supposed to NERF the falcon, the range of the falcon was the problem. After those changes you get pretty much the same optimal with a massive falloff boost.
What stats are you looking at?
If you bother to read the whole thread you see CCP is looking at swapping the base optimal and base falloff.
That would mean T2 racial will have 41km optimal with maxskills before you apply the recon bonus. Add that and you get a whopping 66km optimal
The falloff would then be roughly 87km.
Add those two and you get 154km. And then you are deep in falloff and cut your jammingpower by 50%.
If you compare that to today Falcon which have 162km optimal, I would say thats a pretty big reduction in it`s efficiency.
|
Avoras
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 11:03:00 -
[815]
Edited by: Avoras on 26/03/2009 11:17:39
Originally by: Tijaa Why not change the modules
Remove the ability to fit more than one of each type of racial jammer. Remove the ability for a racial jammer to jam the wrong races ship. Make the strength bonuses only apply to multispec jammers.
Thoughts?
Will a someone new to ecm and using a Blackbird, me, be able to make a successful cycle half the time anymore? Or is ecm being pushed further into max or high level skills only area to be usable ? Eh at least a noob like me can still provide dps and go with the flow of the blob. Like I said I'm new to ecm so don't shoot me down to hard >_<.
Edit: Um..I posted in the wrong alt sorry. Maroxus is my main.
|
Dibsi Dei
Salamyhkaisten kilta
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 11:19:00 -
[816]
Originally by: TZeer What stats are you looking at?
If you bother to read the whole thread you see CCP is looking at swapping the base optimal and base falloff.
That would mean T2 racial will have 41km optimal with maxskills before you apply the recon bonus. Add that and you get a whopping 66km optimal
The falloff would then be roughly 87km.
Add those two and you get 154km. And then you are deep in falloff and cut your jammingpower by 50%.
If you compare that to today Falcon which have 162km optimal, I would say thats a pretty big reduction in it`s efficiency.
Oh ok, thanks.
|
Xarax Sparow
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 11:22:00 -
[817]
Think about to boost the EW of the other races before nerfing the caldari.
|
TZeer
BURN EDEN
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 11:28:00 -
[818]
Originally by: Tijaa Why not change the modules
Remove the ability to fit more than one of each type of racial jammer. Remove the ability for a racial jammer to jam the wrong races ship. Make the strength bonuses only apply to multispec jammers.
Thoughts?
Remove the ability to fit more than one hardener. Remove the ability for racial drones be fitted to other races ships. Make the strength... I think you know where I`m going with this.
No
|
maralt
Minmatar The seers of truth
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 11:31:00 -
[819]
Boost ECCM instead, give it a secondary effect and make SDA modules effect damps, TD's, TP's ect and give the recons that use those other modules range modifyers.
At the very least that will add new dimentions of detail'd and complicated tactical gang pvp, instead of putting another recon ship on the scrap heap and pushing the combat in game even more towards total gank/tank fits instead.
|
Research Rachel
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 11:35:00 -
[820]
seriously, why don't you just remove all ships and have people only fight in noob ships!
This is stupid, just like dampener scripts were stupid but way to go whiners, you win again
Carebear Online is almost here *sighs*
|
|
Elurilmar
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 11:46:00 -
[821]
Edited by: Elurilmar on 26/03/2009 11:48:21 I've been reading a ton of posts about how much Tracking disruption sucks and target painting sucks. They don't suck. Learn how to freakin use them before you complain about them. I've been in too many fights with a TD or target painter fitted where it totally changed the tide of battle, whether it kept a primary in my fleet from dying or it meant that extra bit of dps to bring a ship down. tracking disrupters are one of the most useful modules you can fit on a ship fleet or solo (if you have a slot for it) so before you complain about them, shut up and learn how to use them first.
Edit: On a side note, sensor dampeners really do suck and need a boost or something.
|
Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 11:54:00 -
[822]
Originally by: Merin Ryskin You know what's really hilarious, in a sad way? Everyone is complaining about the Falcon in solo and small-gang fights, the fleet pilots just insta-pop them with sniper battleships/HACs. And guess what these changes are going to do in a solo or small-gang fight: absolutely nothing. Falcon alts with the new Falcon will still perma-jam one or two targets just fine and ruin every "1v1" they get into, and people will still fill the forums with whine threads about it.
well at first I though this is spot on.
but then I remembered that lowsec falcon use will be almost 100% removed because he will now operate under sentry range.
good move CCP. instead of fixing all the othe recons, you nerfed the only usable ones. I mean it is still easier to nerf then to buff/fix, so that's not entirely unexpected.
oh and please PLEASe for the Scorpion: add 125m3 drone bay if you change range to missile ROF --- SIG --- CSM: your support is needed ! |
KAMIKAZE TRON
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 11:55:00 -
[823]
What makes me laugh is there is already measures and mods to use to counter ecm that nubs just never seem tot use. Just put one or two sensor strength mods on your med or low slots and your un jammable....Yeah your tank suffers a tiny bit but you can't be jammed...
Rather than improve this aspect of ecm protection that noone bothers to use coz they dont want to hurt there precious tanks or use up slots for it, they would rather nerf an entire line of ecm ships.....
I love the way ccp thinks
|
maralt
Minmatar The seers of truth
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 11:57:00 -
[824]
Originally by: Elurilmar I've been reading a ton of posts about how much Tracking disruption sucks and target painting sucks. They don't suck. Learn how to freakin use them before you complain about them. I've been in too many fights with a TD or target painter fitted where it totally changed the tide of battle, whether it kept a primary in my fleet from dying or it meant that extra bit of dps to bring a ship down. tracking disrupters are one of the most useful modules you can fit on a ship fleet or solo (if you have a slot for it) so before you complain about them, shut up and learn how to use them first.
The same can be said about damps bud and i totally agree with you, but in a gang fight those modules are much more used on multiple non-bonused ships and dispersed around the oposing gang to what i agree with you is great effect. I think you will agree though that the recons that get bonuses to those effects are not used in that sort of gang fighting due to their lack of tank and gank relative to the effectivness of the module.
And while the other recons are reasonably effective when used in 2-3 man gangs for ganking perposes the ecm effect being chance based is not only useless on non-bonused ships in gang v gang fighting but also a poor choice to use at close range in 2-3 man gank squads due to its unrelyable effect.
So in nerfing ECM we are left with the recon being as useless in gang combat as the others, and also useless in solo or 2-3 man teams because its still chance based. While the ecm module itself also being useless on unbonused ships unlike the other because it again does not have a gaurenteed/relyable effect that tactics can be developed around...
So in other words a dead ship and module.
|
Diana Arseti
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 12:06:00 -
[825]
Originally by: maralt Edited by: maralt on 26/03/2009 11:59:39
Originally by: Elurilmar I've been reading a ton of posts about how much Tracking disruption sucks and target painting sucks. They don't suck. Learn how to freakin use them before you complain about them. I've been in too many fights with a TD or target painter fitted where it totally changed the tide of battle, whether it kept a primary in my fleet from dying or it meant that extra bit of dps to bring a ship down. tracking disrupters are one of the most useful modules you can fit on a ship fleet or solo (if you have a slot for it) so before you complain about them, shut up and learn how to use them first.
The same can be said about damps bud and i totally agree with you, but in a gang fight those modules are much more used on multiple non-bonused ships and dispersed around the oposing gang to what i agree with you is great effect. I think you will agree though that the recons that get bonuses to those effects are not used in that sort of gang fighting due to their lack of tank and gank relative to the effectivness of the module.
And while the other recons are reasonably effective when used in 2-3 man gangs for ganking perposes the ecm effect being chance based is not only useless on non-bonused ships in gang v gang fighting but also a poor choice to use at close range in 2-3 man gank squads on its bonused recon due to its unrelyable effect.
So in nerfing ECM we are left with the recon being as useless in gang combat as the others, and also useless in solo or 2-3 man teams because its still chance based. While the ecm module itself also being useless on unbonused ships unlike the other because it again does not have a gaurenteed/relyable effect that tactics can be developed around...
So in other words a dead ship and module.
+1
Falcons will be dying like flies. Even with current state of things in fleets (med size 10-20 ppl) during 5-10 minutes engagements u have to warp out 3-4 times minimum (if your enemy have sniper BSes or HACs and they usually do). Yet another manticorish paperthin boat for all these flying Caldari ships.
|
Veto Nalloc
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 12:37:00 -
[826]
I do no like the idea that the scorp has no range bonus, it makes it completely worthless as a fleet ship now without that, may aswell fly a blackbird and save my iskies....
|
Sam Demann
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 12:45:00 -
[827]
Ok, so you nerf missiles for Caldari, and then you "rebalance" the EWAR for Caldari.
Come on, you've already forced 'dari pilots to re-evaluate their characters once already, and now you're about to do it to them all over again? New missile bonuses for the scorp? How kind, didn't the Cruise get hit with the nerf bat so what exactly are you giving here?
What's next? Deciding that 'dari pilots have too much shield and "rebalancing" their tanks?
Rebalancing is fine, but try to keep things in perspective please as a lot of pilots out there have only just come to terms with one big change in their game and now you're proposing another hard on it's heels.
|
d'hofren
Queens of the Stone Age Rote Kapelle
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 12:51:00 -
[828]
Originally by: KAMIKAZE TRON What makes me laugh is there is already measures and mods to use to counter ecm that nubs just never seem tot use. Just put one or two sensor strength mods on your med or low slots and your un jammable....Yeah your tank suffers a tiny bit but you can't be jammed...
Rather than improve this aspect of ecm protection that noone bothers to use coz they dont want to hurt there precious tanks or use up slots for it, they would rather nerf an entire line of ecm ships.....
I love the way ccp thinks
That would be a good point if it was even half true. Even two mid slot ECCM will not give you impunity from Jam.
|
Atina Palada
Bulgarian Mafia Squad Sons of Tangra
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 13:01:00 -
[829]
Plz CCP just remove Caldari from the game. -Missile nerf 1, nighthawk nerf, Missile nerf 2= all misile skills unusable (15mln SP on this char in trash) -Caldari Ewar nerf (5mln EW in trash)
-Whats next? In the moment when 100 Rokh fleet start to shoot enemy fleets from 230-240km spots(it's easy to reach 249km optimal range on Rokh) you will say lets nerf it - so lets just remove all Caldari, or let them transfer all this unusable SP somewhere else. For me and for a lot other high SP character that i know, that is not a big problem (80+ mln SP so 20 in trash :) ) but i can imgagine what this means for all low SP caldari characters. A lot of them will just stop playing. OSS BULGARIAN MAFIA SQUAD |
Childstar
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 13:01:00 -
[830]
Originally by: d'hofren
Originally by: KAMIKAZE TRON What makes me laugh is there is already measures and mods to use to counter ecm that nubs just never seem tot use. Just put one or two sensor strength mods on your med or low slots and your un jammable....Yeah your tank suffers a tiny bit but you can't be jammed...
Rather than improve this aspect of ecm protection that noone bothers to use coz they dont want to hurt there precious tanks or use up slots for it, they would rather nerf an entire line of ecm ships.....
I love the way ccp thinks
That would be a good point if it was even half true. Even two mid slot ECCM will not give you impunity from Jam.
2 mid slot SB' or TC's do not give you immunity from damps or TD's they only resist the effects while 2 eccm will entirely block the effect of ecm for many cycles compared to flying without them and getting jammed.
|
|
Nathan Harrow
Caldari Duty.
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 13:02:00 -
[831]
Not that im a big fan of ECM, but why isnt CCP looking at boosting the countering modules and ammo that is currently in place rather than nerfing what the ships can do?
ECCM should give you a bonus as well as upping your sensor strength like allowing you to target an additional target per module fitted (something kind of between a sensor booster and sensor array)
FoF's - are rubbish, rubbish damage, unpredictable - why arent these fixed to offer some counter to EWAR? More damage (same as the size catagory for instance) and slightly less randomness (being able to adjust a setting so they will target the closest or furthest target)
What about a turret equivolent? Smart ammo for your turrets which do the same job?
FoFs are there to counter jamming but are never used because they are useless, these should be taken into account when considering any boost or nerf to ECM.
Duty. |
Rumpelstilski
Caldari Divine Retribution Sons of Tangra
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 13:03:00 -
[832]
BALANCING vs RR GANGS and LOGIS
One other thing to have in mind is keeping the rr gangs in check. Up to now the only viable defense against a short range bs heavy rr gang is another short range bs heavy rr gang or a sniper blob capable of near-alpha of triple plated triple trimarked, gang bonused battleships.
Ecm worked as the only viable force multiplier (thus reducing the need of overwhelming alphablobbing) against such gangs because it had limited success in jamming multi-eccmed bses and remote eccmed logistics.
Any reduction of ecm strength across the board at over sniper-hac ranges will make an impact on fighting those gangs that are pretty fotm as it is and don't need any more buffs in terms of nerfing their only real paper-scissor-rock counter.
Therefore I propose changing eccm bonuses and/or sensor strengths to favor tacklers and recons over battleships and logistics. One possibility is to exchange large and small ship sensor strengths, the other is to make eccm modules give fixed increases in sensor strength instead of relative ones (and possibly introduce a cheap rig of +5 or +10 bonus to sensor strength for use on tacklers)
|
Olivor
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 13:07:00 -
[833]
Really, really liked the idea some guy posted about making EWar ship bonuses increase the time a ship remains locked out.
Maybe lets say... keep 20 second recharge, make ECM jam for somewhere between 5 - 7.5 second. All ECM ships gain a +10-20% jam time per level
Your larger ships aren't going to be able to get a lock before another jam cycle comes up whereas small ships can do something in between ECM cycles, chuck in a scripted sensor booster for locking time and ECM isn't some horrible permajam to all ships. It becomes slightly more balanced as although BS's are less likely to get locked out in the first place, they'll be slower at re-acquiring a target whereas small ships that may get locked out more can re-obtain a lock before being locked out again.
Yes you may only have a lock for <1 second but that's still enough to give orders to drones, get off one cycle of rep, neut, nos or one weapon volley. On mods with a 10 second recharge, you're still being able to use them 50% of the available time.
|
Marius Nervosu
Caldari The Fallen Angels Unit Legiunea ROmana
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 13:12:00 -
[834]
WoW very good new bonus to falcon...3x medium hibrid turret and 10% optimal...5% from the caldari use medium hibrid turret and ships with guns. CCP please leave the falcon alone (unless you want to kill the last good caldari ship for pvp) and do whatever you wish with the other ecm ships from caldari because nobody use them anyway.
|
Aya Vandenovich
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 13:14:00 -
[835]
Edited by: Aya Vandenovich on 26/03/2009 13:14:54 Probably been suggested a million times before, but could we perhaps get ECCM that also functions like an unscripted sensor booster, similar to a mid-slot sig amp? That way you don't gimp yourself as much if you want more sensor strength, but if you want the full power of a scripted SB for sniping/lock time, whatever, then you either have to sacrifice the ECCM, or use up another mid for the SB. Somewhere In England |
BetaZ
Insidious Existence RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 13:19:00 -
[836]
I can't understand why CCP would want to "balance" the game (or each races or ships). What's the point? Isn't the point of this game about variety and creativity?
Why are we complaining about these issues? Can't we just be mature and train for an uber ship? (These ships aren't "uber" in my book. They lack both defense and offense. They are easily dispatched, if done properly.) This is my take on things--if there is truly an advantageous situation, I'd do my best to take advantage of it. Currently, all these "ECM unbalanced" situations aren't even being exploited. The complaint has been from lazy or uncoordinated individuals raising their voices that became a collective crescendo, but in reality, the game play isn't ruined. (Do we really want a game like other MMOs that lack variety and creativity? Getting jammed from 200km? No problem, get another buddy or an alt to remmedy the situation.)
I'm very disappointed at CCP for always having knee-jerk responses, instead of standing their ground. I just hope CCP comes to their senses.
Finally, I hope we become more mature while playing the game instead of just complaining to get our way.
If something is really good, use it. If this advantage becomes hegemonic then, sure, balance it, but do it only if it is warranted.
|
Antic
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 13:19:00 -
[837]
Whats needed here is to think outside the box.
Completely change the way Ewar works. Make it fun again. It should make sense. It should promote cooperation.
- Keep the single target modules but weaken them in effect and duration significaly.
- Introduce new modules and mechanics for Ewar wich has a targeted Area of effect.
- Change the specialized ewar ships to be able to fit these modules and only them.
- Make ECM more like the ECM burst but with a small duration. Lower duration on the others, add a chance based effect on the others too.
- watch and be amazed at all the new tactical oportunities being available to PVP small gangs and fleets alike.
A targeted AOE effect means an Arazu could project a dampening field at a target in an enemy group and the target plus every ship inside a certain distance from the target has a _chance_ of being dampened for X seconds. Then add a Falcon wich projects an ECM field on the same group and they have the _chance_ of loosing their locks for a couple of seconds and thus have to relock, now feeling the full effect of the dampening.
Cooperation. Tactics and bbq hotdogs. Problem solved and it makes EWAR interesting and it makes sense again.
|
Triest
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 13:26:00 -
[838]
Originally by: Vina Alright, as probably the most senior ECM user still playing this game, this is what should be done:
First, ECM base strengths need to be changed so that with lvl 5 ship skills the ECM effectivness with ship bonus is slightly more than a same ship class amount. so IE; griffin with caldari frigate lvl 5 (75% bonus to ecm strength + 25% from sig disp) should yield an ECM strength of 10. that keeps ECM low base strength. (base ecm strength should be 4.5 on t2)
Griffin: 10% ecm cap usage 15% ecm effectiveness
Kitsune: 10% ecm cap usage 15% ecm effectiveness 5% missile rof 5% missile velocity
Rook: 5% missile rof 5% missile velocity 30% ecm jammer strength 5% shield HP
Falcon: 25% ecm effectiveness 10% ecm optimal range 10% hybrid optimal covert cloak bonus
Blackbird: 10% ecm optimal 25% ecm effectiveness
Scorp: 50% effectiveness bonus 20% optimal range
(this will make it the only ECM ship viable in a fleet fight... as it should be)
Widow: 50% ecm effectiveness
so with a base ECM strength of 4.5 we have:
Griffin/kitsune: 9.84 on racial Blackbird/falcon: 12.6 rook: 14 Scorp/Widow: 19.68
This more closely matches sensor strengths of the ships these ships are matched with. it also matches the rook up with the widow in being kick-your-ass at close range ships (which should be reserved for t2 ships only, no t1 ecm brawlers.. lol what a stupid idea.)
As people ahve said before, the whole problem with ECM is the range/effectiveness is not balanced on a SHIP CLASS basis. that's waht needs to be fixed. Battleships should be the best, not falcon.
Dude's pretty spot on with ship bonuses. It's incredibly silly that the Falcon, being far more agile and able to warp cloaked (which is an astonishingly good ability for an electronic warfare ship) exceeds the Scorpion in performance with the proposed bonuses. I mean, I'm one of the biggest proponents of T2 ships, and it's still silly. The Scorpion is big, slow, and a dedicated battleship sized electronic warfare platform. It should have the greatest range and jamming strength of any of these vessels, and the proportional decrease going down in hull size is completely logical.
|
d'hofren
Queens of the Stone Age Rote Kapelle
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 13:44:00 -
[839]
Originally by: Childstar
Originally by: d'hofren
Originally by: KAMIKAZE TRON What makes me laugh is there is already measures and mods to use to counter ecm that nubs just never seem tot use. Just put one or two sensor strength mods on your med or low slots and your un jammable....Yeah your tank suffers a tiny bit but you can't be jammed...
Rather than improve this aspect of ecm protection that noone bothers to use coz they dont want to hurt there precious tanks or use up slots for it, they would rather nerf an entire line of ecm ships.....
I love the way ccp thinks
That would be a good point if it was even half true. Even two mid slot ECCM will not give you impunity from Jam.
2 mid slot SB' or TC's do not give you immunity from damps or TD's they only resist the effects while 2 eccm will entirely block the effect of ecm for many cycles compared to flying without them and getting jammed.
Then again, Damps and TD's don't completely shut down the offensive capabilities of a ship from over 200km away do they?
(and yes I have a max skilled falcon alt as well)...
|
Yonker
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 13:50:00 -
[840]
Originally by: Olivor Really, really liked the idea some guy posted about making EWar ship bonuses increase the time a ship remains locked out.
Maybe lets say... keep 20 second recharge, make ECM jam for somewhere between 5 - 7.5 second. All ECM ships gain a +10-20% jam time per level
Your larger ships aren't going to be able to get a lock before another jam cycle comes up whereas small ships can do something in between ECM cycles, chuck in a scripted sensor booster for locking time and ECM isn't some horrible permajam to all ships. It becomes slightly more balanced as although BS's are less likely to get locked out in the first place, they'll be slower at re-acquiring a target whereas small ships that may get locked out more can re-obtain a lock before being locked out again.
Yes you may only have a lock for <1 second but that's still enough to give orders to drones, get off one cycle of rep, neut, nos or one weapon volley. On mods with a 10 second recharge, you're still being able to use them 50% of the available time.
Exactly my point. The problem from an ECM standpoint is that it is too strong vs sub-BS ships and not strong enough vs BSs.
Leave the Jam strength alone, smaller ships will be easier to jam and Battleships+ harder. The overall effect will be the same.
Alternatively, instead of breaking all target locks on a ship have ECM just remove 1-4 targets at a time (+/- depending on skills). That way it doesn't completely cripple ships, there are very easy ways to counter it outside of modules(Targeting V, Multitasking V) and it still has an effect on the battle.
|
|
JarkaRuus
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 13:57:00 -
[841]
I think there are basically two camps regarding Falcon that can be distilled into
'Scrap the overpowered permajamming $ú"$ing thing' and 'I love my Falcon, leave it alone'
From what I can tell, a Falcon that has to get within 50k to be useful is useless - no tank or dps worth anything, and will die very quickly, even with the proposed changes/buffs.
The underlying issue seems to be that a long range permajammer is percieved to be unfair and game spoiling.
Why not just introduce scripts similar to those in Sensor boosters that give the choice of 'long range/low strength' or 'short range/high strength', or unscripted use which is a mid range/mid strength situation. It then becomes a tactical decision which adds depth to the gameplay.
The same could be done for other EWAR modules to bring everything in line.
Adding to the game seems more favourable than nerfing stuff to me
|
Carniflex
Caldari Fallout Research Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 13:58:00 -
[842]
We can always go back to initial deterministic model. Put more ECM on target than his sensor strenght is and it's jammed until those modules sit there.
If you force ECM boats into same range as other e-war ships they need the same reliability.
|
Childstar
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 14:06:00 -
[843]
Originally by: d'hofren
Originally by: Childstar
Originally by: d'hofren
Originally by: KAMIKAZE TRON What makes me laugh is there is already measures and mods to use to counter ecm that nubs just never seem tot use. Just put one or two sensor strength mods on your med or low slots and your un jammable....Yeah your tank suffers a tiny bit but you can't be jammed...
Rather than improve this aspect of ecm protection that noone bothers to use coz they dont want to hurt there precious tanks or use up slots for it, they would rather nerf an entire line of ecm ships.....
I love the way ccp thinks
That would be a good point if it was even half true. Even two mid slot ECCM will not give you impunity from Jam.
2 mid slot SB' or TC's do not give you immunity from damps or TD's they only resist the effects while 2 eccm will entirely block the effect of ecm for many cycles compared to flying without them and getting jammed.
Then again, Damps and TD's don't completely shut down the offensive capabilities of a ship from over 200km away do they?
(and yes I have a max skilled falcon alt as well)...
No they do not and that is why nobody flies them in gang vs gang combat.....that should give you a idea on what should be buffed to fix and balance things instead of what should be nerfed and thrown on the "useless for gang vs gang combat" scrap heap along with them...
Also ECM is not gaurenteed to do that against a eccm fitted ship at ANY range even optimal (and FYI drones + fof still continue to work if you are jammed), unlike the other systems that are gaurenteed to take effect in optimal (although they also do not help against drones or fof).
|
GTC seller72
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 14:10:00 -
[844]
Originally by: maralt Edited by: maralt on 26/03/2009 12:03:31
Originally by: Elurilmar I've been reading a ton of posts about how much Tracking disruption sucks and target painting sucks. They don't suck. Learn how to freakin use them before you complain about them. I've been in too many fights with a TD or target painter fitted where it totally changed the tide of battle, whether it kept a primary in my fleet from dying or it meant that extra bit of dps to bring a ship down. tracking disrupters are one of the most useful modules you can fit on a ship fleet or solo (if you have a slot for it) so before you complain about them, shut up and learn how to use them first.
The same can be said about damps bud and i totally agree with you, but in a gang fight those modules are much more used on multiple non-bonused ships and dispersed around the oposing gang to what i agree with you is great effect. I think you will agree though that the recons that get bonuses to those effects are not used in that sort of gang fighting due to their lack of tank and gank relative to the effectivness of the module.
And while the other recons are reasonably effective when used in 2-3 man gangs for ganking perposes the ecm effect being chance based is not only useless on non-bonused ships in gang v gang fighting but also a poor choice to use at close range in 2-3 man gank squads on its bonused recon due to its unrelyable effect.
So in nerfing ECM we are left with the recon being as useless in gang combat as the others, and also useless in solo or 2-3 man teams because its still chance based. While the ecm module itself also being useless on unbonused ships unlike the other systems because it again does not have a gaurenteed/relyable effect that tactics can be developed around...
So in other words a dead ship and module.
This.
Boost ECCM and give it a secondary useful effect and also boost the range on some of the other recons effects as well as giving SDA's the ability to effect some of the other ewar systems.
|
Nikuno
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 14:19:00 -
[845]
Edited by: Nikuno on 26/03/2009 14:20:25 It's been said a couple of times, but I'd like to repeat the suggestion in the hope that it doesn't get lost in all the noise.
Make SDA's affect all of the EW modules in-game.
This will go a long way to balancing ew generally. Falcon pilots are using the argument that they use ALL of their slots to get the the falcon to work as it does, and with the changes are complaining about not being able to tank because of this. But the choice to do this doesn't exist for other types of ew. Given the option of a shoddy armour tank or the extra range to tracking disruptors, sensor damps, or target painters from the SDA's would be an interesting twist.
Combined with a reduction in ecm strength for the ranged falcon, and suddenly all ew would on a much more level playing field.
|
Research Rachel
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 14:23:00 -
[846]
Originally by: JarkaRuus
Why not just introduce scripts similar to those in Sensor boosters that give the choice of 'long range/low strength' or 'short range/high strength', or unscripted use which is a mid range/mid strength situation. It then becomes a tactical decision which adds depth to the gameplay.
and this worked well for sensor dampeners, didn't it?
the only tank a falcon has is distance and as a falcon pilot i'm never 200km from a target, 150km maybe, but that doesn't make me invincible!
every change to ew has been a bad nerf purely because some kids whine they never got to omgpwn someone. With the proposed changes the only use for a falcon now will be as a very expensive cyno ship, although at least it can fit some overdrives now to get through bubble camps
ccp really needs to get the balls to start telling people to adapt!
|
Childstar
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 14:25:00 -
[847]
Originally by: Nikuno
It's been said a couple of times, but I'd like to repeat the suggestion in the hope that it doesn't get lost in all the noise.
Make SDA's affect all of the EW modules in-game.
This will go a long way to balancing ew generally. Falcon pilots are using the argument that they use ALL of their slots to get the the falcon to work as it does, and with the changes are complaining about not being able to tank because of this. But the choice to do this doesn't exist for other types of ew. Given the option of a shoddy armour tank or the extra range to tracking disruptors, sensor damps, or target painters from the SDA's would be an interesting twist.
Give the other recons a boost to the range of some of their effects, like damps, TD's and TP's and leave SDA's giving boost to str but change them so they effect damps, TD's and TP's as well.
Originally by: Nikuno Combined with a reduction in ecm strength for the ranged falcon, and suddenly all ew would on a much more level playing field.
ECM str does not need a reduction at range as it is already chance based and if the other systems are boosted in range (with either the ship or SDA bonus ideas) the fact that they are gaurenteed effects in optiomal would balance things nicely.
|
Commissar Kate
Revenent Defence Corperation Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 14:29:00 -
[848]
Fix the other recon ships befor you mess with the Falcon
|
Kalintos Tyl
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 14:32:00 -
[849]
they got already "fixed"
60D GTC - shattared link |
Hun Jakuza
24th Imperial Guard
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 15:04:00 -
[850]
Need better ECCM too or Jammer script. (+ 2xStr - 1/2 optimal) or (+ 2xOptimal - 1/2 str) And pls dont give to Falcon better then 150km optimal+falloff range without script and maybe that is the good solution when just Racial ecm working on the same racial ship but others not.
|
|
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 15:27:00 -
[851]
Originally by: Nikuno Edited by: Nikuno on 26/03/2009 14:20:25 It's been said a couple of times, but I'd like to repeat the suggestion in the hope that it doesn't get lost in all the noise.
Make SDA's affect all of the EW modules in-game.
This will go a long way to balancing ew generally. Falcon pilots are using the argument that they use ALL of their slots to get the the falcon to work as it does, and with the changes are complaining about not being able to tank because of this. But the choice to do this doesn't exist for other types of ew. Given the option of a shoddy armour tank or the extra range to tracking disruptors, sensor damps, or target painters from the SDA's would be an interesting twist.
Combined with a reduction in ecm strength for the ranged falcon, and suddenly all ew would on a much more level playing field.
People have been asking for fixes to the other ewar for ages, not that anything has happened. Instead of focusing on making the other specialised ewar ships more useful, ccp has decided to toss the specialised ecm ships on the same scrapheap of ships not good enough to justify taking it over a normal dps ship. And yea this is my sig. |
Angelina Joliee
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 15:37:00 -
[852]
Falcon stays a jamming-sniper with decent skills, rook becomes a really really nice ship for small hac-gangs and 1vs1, scorpion can be fittet additional tank without loosing too much jam-strength making it useful for spider-tank-gangs. Where we had 3 ships fullfilling the same role we have now 3 ships fullfilling 3 different roles - I like that very much. Very good changes CCP!
|
Cletus Graeme
Caldari Duty.
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 15:47:00 -
[853]
Edited by: Cletus Graeme on 26/03/2009 15:58:18 Edited by: Cletus Graeme on 26/03/2009 15:52:27
Originally by: CCP Chronotis We are looking at putting the scorpion into the short range brawler role. To that end we are looking at removing its ECM Optimal range bonus, increasing the ECM strength bonus a little and adding a cruise/siege launcher rate of fire bonus so it can get close and personal.
Summary Scorpion Changes
- removed the ECM optimal range bonus - increased the ECM strength bonus to 20% per level - added a 5% RoF bonus to cruise & siege missile launchers per level
These changes are a bad idea.
(1) The Caldari already have a short range brawler - the Raven. A Scorp with 4 launchers and a damage/ROF bonus is not comparable in either tank or gank to a Raven and shouldn't be anyway. These are Caldari ships and as such they should be specialised for specific roles with little (if any) overlap. As an ECM ship the scorp's role is to provides e-war support.
(2) This is the only e-war battleship in the game and is also an ECM ship which will make it the primary in pretty much any fight it is used. Consequently, this ship needs defenses much more than than it needs offenses. A shield resist bonues would be better than any kind of damage bonus.
(3) As the only e-war battleship it should be able to provide ECM support at BOTH long and short ranges. It should be useful in long range sniping fleets (i.e. able to jam at 150-200km) and close range RR gangs (i.e. able to tank and remote repair at close range) but it should be worse than the Falcon and the Rook at each of these roles so that they have a niche role at which they excel.
I therefore suggest the following initial changes to the Scorpion (subject to testing):
- decrease the ECM strength bonus to 5% per level (or remove it completely) - leave the ECM range bonus at 20% per level
Optionally:
- add a 5% shield resist bonus per level OR - adjust the current slot layout and/or grid/cpu to allow the ship to be effectively armor tanked
|
Batnaso
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 15:56:00 -
[854]
Congratulation GM!
Year by year and day by day you continuing to f....d Caldarian race. first with the missiles, now with falcon, before with nighthawk. At the end this race will can make only mission and rat!! And in this point of view - can you transfer all my SP from missiles to gunnery? or can I reborn (with the same skill points of course) in some other race which is much better for PVP? thank you for losing one year of my life and maybe more to somebody else
|
Moonlight Express
Amarr Moonlight Express Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 15:59:00 -
[855]
Another change that does not need changing. Do you people even play the game at all? Recons are paper-thin. Moving them closer to action will mean they will just die as soon as they are locked. They are primary already in every fleet fight by sniping ships that have greater range then the recons themselves. Why not give some love to Black OPs instead? ECM was already nurfed to ****. Why don't you stop messing with things that don't need changing and make changes that people have been asking for years, like Titan DD range and POS and SOV warfare ffs? Another bunch of crap from people that just don't understand how the fleet game is played. Are you also going to ignore all the people in this thread telling you this is a bad idea too?
|
Hesperius
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 16:02:00 -
[856]
CCP Check this out
I would have liked to seen the ECM nerfed via buffing the Arazu so It can dampen a jammer. If a Falcon is added to ships that cant do their job the only way win a fight is to blob, tank and gank.
I would like to see these changes: Bring the Falcon in a little closer - 140k maxed out Pulling its max jamming strength down from 15 down to say 13 Give ECCM a fixed strength. Signal distortion amps modified to effect all ewar
|
Glen Morange
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 16:18:00 -
[857]
Originally by: Kim Telkin While mentioning changes to ECM ships, I will slide my own random idea in. What if ECM was rolled against each lock the ship had instead of all of them?
So if you have an ECM strength of 10 and the ship you are targeting has a sensor strength of 20, on average you'll remove 1/2 of their locks.
An example to make my point. Your ship can target a max of 8 ships, you are currently targeting 5 ships and in the process of locking 1 more.
I jam you, so I roll against each target. Out of your 5 locks, 2 break, and the target you are int he process of locking breaks as well. Then you roll against your 2 other potential targets and one of them 'breaks' as well.
So I broke 2 real locks, kept you from locking a third, and lowered your max locked targets by another one. So for the next 20 seconds you can only lock a max of 4 targets.
Seems to be more in line with how the other EWAR systems work.
I would agree, this is a far more rational solution. It would make multitasking a useful skill, shut up the !!!!!1111eleven111 permajam whiners, and would properly address the crazy ECM mechanic (20 seconds of sitting around doing nothing is the problem CCP).
In the past I ran a blackbird where I had to sit outside of a RR sniper blob. I died in almost every engagement due to being a paper thin ship sitting without support. Given that the falcon is 10x the price this isn't going to be acceptable, and I just can't see CCP giving the falcon the armor resists and low slots to actually fit the tank that would be needed in this 100km "sniper".
The problem that CCP needs to address is the mechanic, not the range, not the ships, not the mods. Look at the mechanic. Redesign is needed, not rebalance.
|
Rumpelstilski
Caldari Divine Retribution Sons of Tangra
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 16:18:00 -
[858]
Originally by: Batnaso thank you for losing one year of my life and maybe more to somebody else
WOW hold your horses matey, repeat after me:
"I am not my main in RL, I am not my main in RL, I am not my..."
|
Rumpelstilski
Caldari Divine Retribution Sons of Tangra
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 16:23:00 -
[859]
Originally by: Hesperius I would like to see these changes: Bring the Falcon in a little closer - 140k maxed out Pulling its max jamming strength down from 15 down to say 13 Give ECCM a fixed strength. Signal distortion amps modified to effect all ewar
Something like this?
http://scrapheap-challenge.com/viewtopic.php?t=24063
|
TheLibrarian
Tides Of War
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 16:30:00 -
[860]
Originally by: Cletus Graeme Edited by: Cletus Graeme on 26/03/2009 16:03:03
Originally by: CCP Chronotis We are looking at putting the scorpion into the short range brawler role. To that end we are looking at removing its ECM Optimal range bonus, increasing the ECM strength bonus a little and adding a cruise/siege launcher rate of fire bonus so it can get close and personal.
Summary Scorpion Changes
- removed the ECM optimal range bonus - increased the ECM strength bonus to 20% per level - added a 5% RoF bonus to cruise & siege missile launchers per level
These changes are a bad idea.
(1) The Caldari already have a short range brawler - the Raven. A Scorp with 4 launchers and a damage/ROF bonus is not comparable in either tank or gank to a Raven and shouldn't be anyway. These are Caldari ships and as such they should be specialised for specific roles with little (if any) overlap. As an ECM ship the scorp's role is to provides e-war support.
(2) This is the only e-war battleship in the game and is also an ECM ship which will make it the primary in pretty much any fight it is used. Consequently, this ship needs defenses much more than than it needs offenses. A shield resist bonues would be better than any kind of damage bonus.
(3) As the only e-war battleship it should be able to provide ECM support at BOTH long and short ranges. It should be useful in long range sniping fleets (i.e. able to jam at 150-200km) and close range RR gangs (i.e. able to tank and remote repair at close range) but it should be worse than the Falcon and the Rook at each of these roles so that they have a niche role at which they excel.
I therefore suggest the following initial changes to the Scorpion (subject to testing):
- leave the ECM strength bonus 15% per level - leave the ECM range bonus at 20% per level
Optionally:
- add a 5% shield resist bonus per level OR - adjust the current slot layout and/or grid/cpu to allow the ship to be effectively armor tanked
Cletus,
Maybe you havn't read the changes.
1. "A Scorp with 4 launchers and a damage/ROF bonus is not comparable in either tank or gank to a Raven and shouldn't be anyway."
Have you actually done the math on a scorp with 4 siedge launchers, max drone skills and a target painter. Your looking at 600-650 dps depending on the torps and your implants. With no gank mods. Add the armor tank to it and trimarks and some good implants and your looking at 140-150K EHP on a scorpion with 3-4 jammers and good dps. How is this not a nice gank/tank ship considering the logistics that it provides as well as remote reps and damage.
2. "This is the only e-war battleship in the game and is also an ECM ship which will make it the primary in pretty much any fight it is used."
So? Just because your primary every time doesn't mean you instantly need a resist bonus. Thats insane. Give my tempest a resist bonus while your at it, cause I am primary every time. Instead of worrying about being primary you should be looking at how wonderful of a ship your are flying and what your bringing to your gang. Use some logistics and save your scorpion instead of depending on your own solo tank.
3. "As the only e-war battleship it should be able to provide ECM support at BOTH long and short ranges."
Why? Why? Why? That doesn't even make sense why it should be required to be good at everything. No sense at all. Lets make the game more sandbox by making everything good at everything. Excellent plan.
"I therefore suggest the following initial changes to the Scorpion (subject to testing):
- leave the ECM strength bonus 15% per level - leave the ECM range bonus at 20% per level"
So your suggestions are to leave the ship the same as it is? Fabulous. Thats probably the worst advice I have read yet on these boards.
|
|
TigerStripes2112
Caldari hirr Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 16:59:00 -
[861]
I am concerned as to those of us that have expended substantial resources in training and outfitting our EWAR ships to a specific role will suffer losses when these NERFS are implemented. Many players including myself are concerned what role our already rigged ships could fill (if any) once these proposed changes are implemented. If currently rigged ships require re-fitting (by destroying installed rigs) then how fair to the EWAR operators is this? If the role is NERFED to the degree where it is no longer playable with respect to reasonable survivability, then where is the fairness or compensation to all of the players who have invested the training for skills related to this role? Try this experiment: Give a lollipop to a 4 year old child then take it away and replace it with just the stick.....
|
Mr Asgard
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 17:03:00 -
[862]
first you killing missels/ next you killing nano and kill solo PvP ... How many piples live EVE? And you finishing caldari race killing falcon. LOL go next and you loss all you players in caldari.
|
Dee Carson
Caldari Seppuku Warriors
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 17:16:00 -
[863]
No matter how loudly the checker players whine about Falcons sitting out at 200km 'permajamming' and how emphatically they support the currently proposed changes, their real beef is with jam strength.
And the proposed changes do not affect that at all. Falcons are still going to jam an interceptor with one module everytime and have a 94% probability of jamming a cruiser sized hull with 2 modules.
I suggest the following changes that address the real issues, but neither require scrapping the entire mechanic nor assigning another Caldari role to the scrap heap.
1. Decrease base jammer strength 20% across the board (reduced probability of jam). 2. New ECCM module that adds flat 15 points to sensor strength (more anti-jam, particularly for small ships) 3. SDA bonus applies to all EWAR modules (including ECCM, TD, TP & damps) 4. Falcon base optimal/falloff of 45/45 (brings Falcon in closer) 5. Split Cruiser skill bonus to 10/10 for Optimal and Falloff (brings Falcon in closer)
The results from a Falcon pilot's view? I can fit for:
- 17% reduction in jamming strength and 55% reduction in optimal (max jam fit)
or
- 26% reduction in jamming strength and 34% reduction in optimal (max optimal fit)
Falcons won't be as powerful, but they will continue to have a role in fleet and small gang work.
DC
http://deecarson.blogspot.com/ |
darkmancer
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 17:17:00 -
[864]
Just a thought instead of the changes why not add the following to ECCM mods:
-30 ECM optimal range per failed jam.
Imagine how evil it would be to fit 2 of those suckers on a bs. --------------------------------- There's a simple solution to every problem. It is always invariably wrong |
Clay101
Caldari M. Corp Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 17:20:00 -
[865]
OK! So add a gun slot and remove a missile slot to an already cap-unstable recon?! Not smart. And before someone starts whining to me about skills ... I fly Amarr and have for the past 5 years, I trained all of the related Cap skills to 5 years ago.
CCP, you're missing something I do believe. There are already items in-game to counter ECM ... it's called ECCM - Why not just give those a slight boost? Sure your tank on your ship will be a bit weaker, but that's the luxury of being 95% sure you won't be jammed ... right? (Seems like an obvious solution as you've done the same for warp scrambling ... see warp core stab)
Clay101 The NEW M.Corp Data Hub - Check it out! |
Zumbala
ICE is Coming to EVE Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 17:23:00 -
[866]
Originally by: Vera Faulk Have any of you ever actually flown any of these ships in real pvp?
The falcon, which is a great ship for small gang (50 or less per side) is only safe at the range it is currently able to fight at.
In real PVP, you are not supposed to be safe, whatever you're doing.
|
maralt
Minmatar The seers of truth
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 17:32:00 -
[867]
Edited by: maralt on 26/03/2009 17:34:23
Originally by: Dee Carson
1. Decrease base jammer strength 20% across the board (reduced probability of jam).
Why?, the max jammers can get now is only 14 and even T1 frigs can get way over that with 1 eccm.
Originally by: Dee Carson 2. New ECCM module that adds flat 15 points to sensor strength (more anti-jam, particularly for small ships)
You are close but it needs more, a ECCM unit needs a secondary effect AND a base str boost along with its % boost.
So a frig would get the 15 but a carrier or BS that already has high STR gets the % boost and it should be set to give witch ever is the greater benifit.
Originally by: Dee Carson 3. SDA bonus applies to all EWAR modules (including ECCM, TD, TP & damps)
The SDA bonus should give STR to ALL those systems and the recons using TD, TP and damps should get a range bonus.
Originally by: Dee Carson 4. Falcon base optimal/falloff of 45/45 (brings Falcon in closer) 5. Split Cruiser skill bonus to 10/10 for Optimal and Falloff (brings Falcon in closer)
Bad ideas, its the fact they operate at close range that makes the other recons worthless in gang combat and never used, adding the falcon to the scrap heap is not a fix.
|
Lord Eremet
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 17:34:00 -
[868]
Loving these changes to the Rook & Falcon, go ahead CCP and introduce them, don't let these falcon flying emo-raging people stop you. It is overpowered and they know it(They just forgot what ADAPTING really means).
I am Caldari and this gets my (and +2 alternative mains) stamp of approval
/Erem
P.S. Not so sure about Scorpion change, it still have a role in fleets albeit small one. Maybe give it 10% shield per level? Or just give it a small ECM boost and leave the optimal bonus alone.
P.S. Again. You forgot the Kitsune.
|
Teclador
Caldari Stardust Heavy Industries Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 17:35:00 -
[869]
Originally by: Scatim Helicon Edited by: Scatim Helicon on 24/03/2009 19:26:58 I see that the 'better defined role' you have in mind for them is that of gathering dust in a hangar and never undocking.
/Totally Agreed
Originally by: Cindare I hope CCP intends to take a real look at community feedback on this, though frankly I have my doubts. If it's truly the goal of CCP to fix ECM in fleet fights, then they'd only have to do one simple thing. Reduce the range bonus on the Falcon to, say 15% - this would put it within range of enemy snipers...
@Cindare, What you're calling Sniper Ships? I guess every BS but not the Raven, correct? So i tell you, the Raven is the perfect Ship to Snipe a Falcon.
In total i hope CCP move this ideas in the trashcan, if not PVP becomes what mining is, TOTALLY boring. And we get more useless ships. Solong Teclador |
GTC seller72
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 17:36:00 -
[870]
Edited by: GTC seller72 on 26/03/2009 17:36:42
Originally by: Lord Eremet Loving these changes to the Rook & Falcon, go ahead CCP and introduce them, don't let these falcon flying emo-raging people stop you. It is overpowered and they know it(They just forgot what ADAPTING really means).
If you knew what adapting means you would be killing falcons not crying about them.
|
|
Johan Sabbat
R.E.C.O.N. Dara Cothrom
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 17:38:00 -
[871]
Originally by: Clay101 OK! So add a gun slot and remove a missile slot to an already cap-unstable recon?! Not smart. And before someone starts whining to me about skills ... I fly Amarr and have for the past 5 years, I trained all of the related Cap skills to 5 years ago.
CCP, you're missing something I do believe. There are already items in-game to counter ECM ... it's called ECCM - Why not just give those a slight boost? Sure your tank on your ship will be a bit weaker, but that's the luxury of being 95% sure you won't be jammed ... right? (Seems like an obvious solution as you've done the same for warp scrambling ... see warp core stab)
Clay101
I think the problem with ECCM is in its description, it should read something along the lines of ECCM - Taking one for your mates.
If a Falcon wants to jam you, then the pilot can devote his whole ECM suite to that end. The chances are that some of that jam will stick but your mates will be free to continue with the gank/tank fest because you have nullified the Falcon.
|
Dee Carson
Caldari Seppuku Warriors
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 17:39:00 -
[872]
Originally by: GTC seller72 If you knew what adapting means you would be killing falcons not crying about them.
+1
DC
http://deecarson.blogspot.com/ |
Ellatan Deruimte
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 17:54:00 -
[873]
Edited by: Ellatan Deruimte on 26/03/2009 18:05:32 Great changes in my opinion. Falcons are overused at the moment both in gangs and in fleet combat. When the speed was nerfed and ecm range stayed the same, they got much safer because it took that much longer for an inty\vaga provide a warp in spot on top of them. Falcons that are fitted long range can operate at 200+ km, outside of optimals of most fleet battleships. Every single gang has falcons and they are the only effective ecm ship in the game. Arazu\Lachesis is barely used in 0.0 combat, Huginns with the web nerf got much less effective. Curse\Pilgrim are used primarily for their neuts, not TD, which pales in comparison to jammers. You need several TDs directed at one ship to just decrease it's effectiveness, while falcon can completely turn off several ships from much longer range.
Rooks are also practically not used in 0.0, because they are so much worse off then falcons without a cloak. It's nice to see a boost to rooks, making it a viable option again for smaller close range gangs.
Let me remind you that all other force recons are short range ships, and their ecm optimals are not even close to what Falcon's would be after the patch, so I don't understand your complaints.
|
GTC seller72
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 18:06:00 -
[874]
Edited by: GTC seller72 on 26/03/2009 18:11:34
Originally by: Ellatan Deruimte
Every single gang has falcons and they are the only effective ecm ship in the game. Arazu\Lachesis is barely used in 0.0 combat, Huginns with the web nerf got much less effective. Curse\Pilgrim are used primarily for their neuts, not TD, which pales in comparison to jammers. You need several TDs directed at one ship to just decrease it's effectiveness, while falcon can completely turn off several ships from much longer range.
Let me remind you that all other force recons are short range ships, and their ecm optimals are not even close to what Falcon's would be after the patch, so I don't understand your complaints.
Prenerf.
A list of the least used ships in gang v gang combat and all because of the range they operate in.
Arazu\Lachesis\Curse\Pilgrim\rapier\huggin.
Postnerf.
A list of the least used ships in gang v gang combat and all because of the range they operate in.
Arazu\Lachesis\Curse\Pilgrim\rapier\huggin\FALCON..
How can this be considered a "FIX".
Boost the other recons range for damps, TD'd, TC's and give SDA's the ability to effect them all instead of just ECM, but do not throw another recon on the scrap pile along with those already on it.
|
FS Bernulf
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 18:18:00 -
[875]
in my opinion Eve should work like real life.
- that means that a Company wouldn't make a ship worse. they would improve it. So if you make a short range jammer out of the rook you have to give it an incredible tank. and you have to be sure that the previous role of the rook can be done by the Falcon or the Scorpion.
- it means too that if there is something better avaiable a company would improve a product till it is worth something again. So the other races should improve their Recons instead of nerfing the Caldary.
all in all would i introduce a new balancing method instead of the nerfs. i would start to improve every month or so one or two ships and / or Items. that means that you give the ships better bonis (according to the points above) or the SDA gives boni on all E-War Items. This system could be expanded to the introduction of new Ships or Items. whereas there haven't to be the same number of ships for each race cause there can be introduced an new ship for the other races a month later.
if you would do that then you had the posibility to balance the Game more natural. and to make the Game more interesting cause the ships woulden't be the same for ever. And the best ist that you can introduce the changes with an story.
|
Ellatan Deruimte
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 18:20:00 -
[876]
Originally by: GTC seller72
Prenerf.
A list of the least used ships in gang v gang combat and all because of the range they operate in.
Arazu\Lachesis\Curse\Pilgrim\rapier\huggin.
Postnerf.
A list of the least used ships in gang v gang combat and all because of the range they operate in.
Arazu\Lachesis\Curse\Pilgrim\rapier\huggin\FALCON..
How can this be considered a "FIX".
Boost the other recons range for damps, TD'd, TC's and give SDA's the ability to effect them all instead of just ECM, but do not throw another recon on the scrap pile along with those already on it.
All it translates too is shorter range - you need a better tank on a falcon, means you lose some med slots and have to chose between jammers used and coordinate with other falcons on target distribution for ecm. The option of fitting 4 race jammers + multi as a backup will be gone. You would still operate outside of optimals of most ships and jammers will still be the most effective ecm module. The problem with other forms of ECM is not just their range, but effectiveness. You can damp a close range ship all you want, you can TD a missile or drone boat all you want, but in the end you are vulnerable to those ships nevertheless. Falcon shuts off all ships independent from their range and form of attack, it can always escape. Falcon is extremely hard to tackle and can easily overcome eccm modules on most ships short of other recons and capitals.
|
Lord Eremet
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 18:23:00 -
[877]
Originally by: GTC seller72 Edited by: GTC seller72 on 26/03/2009 17:36:42
Originally by: Lord Eremet Loving these changes to the Rook & Falcon, go ahead CCP and introduce them, don't let these falcon flying emo-raging people stop you. It is overpowered and they know it(They just forgot what ADAPTING really means).
If you knew what adapting means you would be killing falcons not crying about them.
Oh I'm sure am killing them with the character I'm doing 0.0 skirmishing with. We are countering hostile falcons with our own falcons, then we pop them. Unless they get away because of their insane range bonus not letting us tackle/bubble them before they warp.
When not having a visual/scan of all enemies in a hostile group we always assume they are in a falcon and eight times of ten that has so far been true. I see very little of other races recons. That should tell you something. I know they are somewhat broken and need to be fixed, but the falcon is to good.
Even when not expecting hostile falcons we usually have 1-3 of our own following us around anywhere we go just in case. But they make fights into ganks. I know that is ok for some people who wants pvp with "no" risk and its a easy way to inflate the killboard/ego with no risk kills. But I'm tired of it.
So what you 'said' about crying?
CCP: I think you not going far enough with the falcon changes, nerf it more pls. No 15% falloff to ECM range and lower the strength to only 15%. Then when all falcon alts stopped crying and stopped flying it you can after 6-9 months "boost" it again to 20%, if thats really needed.
|
GTC seller72
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 18:44:00 -
[878]
Originally by: Ellatan Deruimte
The problem with other forms of ECM is not just their range, but effectiveness.
Rubbish, most of the modules like damps, TD's and TP's are regularly used on NON-bonused ships in gang v gang fighting becasue their gaurenteed effect works great on a ship with great tank and gank. How often do you see ECM on a non bonused gang ship?...
While the bonused ships for those systems are never used in gang v gang combat because the effect even bonused is not worth the lack of tank and gank the recons have.
Originally by: Ellatan Deruimte You can damp a close range ship all you want
Your right and it works great as long as your not a idiot and decide to approach it...
Originally by: Ellatan Deruimte you can TD a missile or drone boat all you want
So TD aint good against missiles big whoop, drones auto aggro if your ecm'd btw and fof are missiles as well.
|
Mavrk
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 18:44:00 -
[879]
In this part of the thread, no one see's your ideas. Welcome to the club.
Falcon gets a gun bonus. Thats FRIGGIN USELESS! If I want to snioper I'll take out an Eagle. But dont sully my Falcon witha GUN BONUS!! put on another ECM bonus. Its an EWAR SNIPER! Not a gun sniper! all changes aside its not bad but thats a waste of a bonus slot. Congrats you've made the falcon less effective at what its SUPPOSED TO DO in exchange for 20 dps at 100 km.
This bonus has been awarded Mavrk's Seal of Failproval
|
Sebea
Bottomfeeders Science and Research
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 18:54:00 -
[880]
Originally by: Mavrk In this part of the thread, no one see's your ideas. Welcome to the club.
Falcon gets a gun bonus. Thats FRIGGIN USELESS! If I want to snioper I'll take out an Eagle. But dont sully my Falcon witha GUN BONUS!! put on another ECM bonus. Its an EWAR SNIPER! Not a gun sniper! all changes aside its not bad but thats a waste of a bonus slot. Congrats you've made the falcon less effective at what its SUPPOSED TO DO in exchange for 20 dps at 100 km.
This bonus has been awarded Mavrk's Seal of Failproval
You do understand the point of this thread is they are trying to CHANGE the basics of the ship right, so what it IS doesn't matter, what matters here is what it will BE.
If they change it to have a gun bonus, maybe, JUST MAYBE, people might put guns on it, I know, its a long shot, people fitting mods that their ship is bonused for, but stranger things have happened.
|
|
Tomin Highborn
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 18:56:00 -
[881]
I am really liking the idea of making the sdas help all recons 20% bonus would be good although it would be needed to have a script and maybe change the bonus to around 10% but if you think about it it could help a lot. The staking peneltys would help with it being over powered but this makes sense.
Tracking disruptors being able to stop from hitting targets easy would be countered by the rapier holding the ship there better and blowing the sig way up (amarr vs mini) Jamming counterd by reducing the targeting so they are not in the fight (caldari vs gallent)this all fits the game world.
sdas +10% to range and effectiveness of all ewar (may need a name change) can use range or effectiveness scrips making 15%-20% increase (would need to test)
that said if you give the ewar the same base range across the broad would be a good Idea with that I think you would see a lot more people bring the other recons out to gang and fleet warfare.
Now that said the 200+km range is just crazy on the falcon most pvp that the falcon is really good for is done at less then 150 if your getting over 150 all you can do with it is jam and at that point you may as well get in to the scorp. So dropping the range so the optimal is around 80-100km and fall off around 50-70km is grate maybe slightly shorter with the sdas adding range to it. It would be nice to have the falcon being able to get out side of gate gun range but not as big of a deal because if your going to gate camp a scorp can tank the guns with a remote rep gang and you can help with repping and dps with it. If your just ganking its a simple matter of dps and aline to warp when gate guns target you or cloak after you jam your target. So a max range of 150 is just fine but the damps/tps/tds should all hit that range too and its not like it would make a huge deal to have it that way it would just make people more likely to fly all the recons. On top of that you would see people fitting sdas to ships out side of ewar ships to help with ewar.
|
Ephemeron
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 18:58:00 -
[882]
Edited by: Ephemeron on 26/03/2009 19:05:18 I just re-read the OP and it looks like Rook IS the shorter range version, Falcon is the longer range version. Was that a stealth change or am I just confused? Anyway, it's a good thing
There's another thing that worries me - the inability of CCP game design team to work small. Surely not every balance issue requires a complete redesign of major parts of the game. Nanoships didn't need it, ECM doesn't need it either. Of course there are cases where major redesign is called for - such as POS system, local chat. But there are many more cases where we need just slight tweaks in the game to fine tune balance.
Why does CCP insist on using nerf sledgehammer for every problem?
it's a pet peeve of mine
|
Carina Maloom
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 18:59:00 -
[883]
Originally by: Tomin Highborn I am really liking the idea of making the sdas help all recons 20% bonus would be good although it would be needed to have a script and maybe change the bonus to around 10% but if you think about it it could help a lot. The staking peneltys would help with it being over powered but this makes sense.
Tracking disruptors being able to stop from hitting targets easy would be countered by the rapier holding the ship there better and blowing the sig way up (amarr vs mini) Jamming counterd by reducing the targeting so they are not in the fight (caldari vs gallent)this all fits the game world.
sdas +10% to range and effectiveness of all ewar (may need a name change) can use range or effectiveness scrips making 15%-20% increase (would need to test)
that said if you give the ewar the same base range across the broad would be a good Idea with that I think you would see a lot more people bring the other recons out to gang and fleet warfare.
Now that said the 200+km range is just crazy on the falcon most pvp that the falcon is really good for is done at less then 150 if your getting over 150 all you can do with it is jam and at that point you may as well get in to the scorp. So dropping the range so the optimal is around 80-100km and fall off around 50-70km is grate maybe slightly shorter with the sdas adding range to it. It would be nice to have the falcon being able to get out side of gate gun range but not as big of a deal because if your going to gate camp a scorp can tank the guns with a remote rep gang and you can help with repping and dps with it. If your just ganking its a simple matter of dps and aline to warp when gate guns target you or cloak after you jam your target. So a max range of 150 is just fine but the damps/tps/tds should all hit that range too and its not like it would make a huge deal to have it that way it would just make people more likely to fly all the recons. On top of that you would see people fitting sdas to ships out side of ewar ships to help with ewar.
agreed |
Mr Frog
Asshats and Alcoholics Turbo.
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 19:05:00 -
[884]
Changes sound good, now please double the effect of eccm mods and we're making some progress. |
dibblebill
Band of Rebels Overtime Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 19:05:00 -
[885]
Seriously, I trained ECM for a reason. Now that's nearly useless. Can I get my training back? No. My Blackbird will gather dust. At least I'm saving time on my Recon ship training, since its now as useless as an armor-tanked Drake. I see most of the whiners are those that had an enemy properly equipped with a Falcon/Blackbird pilot, and that's just stupid. It doesn't take much to be ECM proficient. As for the Scorpion...
I've never flown one. Why fly that when I could do the same thing with a harder-to-hit, faster, and better lock-time Blackbird? I might fly a Scorp now, but I'd rather see some type of long-range bonus, as Caldari suck at close-range PvP. There's a reason I fly Gallente. What next, Sensor Damper nerfs? Making the stealth bombers useless? "Oh god, I can't hit him out at 150km! I need a nerfbat so I can instapop them!" ---Signature--- I have turned my back upon the State and their sins. If you enroach upon my freedom, prepare to fight for your life. |
Karl Luckner
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 19:37:00 -
[886]
Well, I like the original idea of making the Falcon a shorter ranged ship. Cov Ops cloak and super long range is definately overpowered.
What I don't like, is the change of the Scorpion. It is a slow lumbering beast. Turning it into a closerange ship, doesn't do it any good. I would say the Scorpion should be that super longrange ship for gatecamps and fleets. It is a battleship. If you really want to turn it into a closerange ship, give it the usual shield resist bonus of Caldari ships, and a healthy bonus to multispec jammers. 3 multispecs + 4-5 slot shield tank seems to be fine for me.
|
KAMIKAZE TRON
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 19:37:00 -
[887]
Edited by: KAMIKAZE TRON on 26/03/2009 19:40:52 I see nothing wrong with ECM. They always get primaried and taken down quickly. There screwed against interceptors or fast hacs in fleet battles, there are measures and mods to counter them successfully already. They have crap or no tanks.
The fact that people don't bother or choose not to use the things given to them already to counter ECM ships is not a good enough reason for a whole line fo ships to be changed.
If you know your enemy is going to have heavy ECM or a possibility of it just have all your BS's use one low or one medium for a sensor strength module to boost there points. Long range BS's primary ECM ships that are unable to jam...bye bye ECM. Or just send interceptors after the ECM ships....if they don't stop jamming ur main fleet and jam the interceptors there dead. Crippling there ECM.
There are like a zillion ways to make them think " im never flying ECM again " I always get killed. A zillion ways to counter ECM.
One thing that makes eve "EVE" is that you never know what your opponent has up there sleeves, 10 tanked scorpions with no ecm......all BS's setup for ECM and no tank......and a million other combernations that could be happening at any one time....Now you purpose you change a whole line of ships just because people can not be bothered to find a counter to something?
Isn't that the whole point of pvp in eve? To figure out a way to counter an enemy? To get one up on them when they think they have one up on you? Or shall we just balance everything like vanilla ships and be like every other game?
There is not reason to change a whole line of ships just because players don't use there brains and the tools given to them and cry nerf ecm nerf ecm.....
I think gallente have too good a tanks and crazy drone damage bonuses and until I can fly a domi im guna hate it......but you know what im guna do about it...im guna counter there stupid drones and then im guna learn to fly one too and kick ass in it like them so I can stop crying about it.
I don't expect the whole gallente line to be changed....
Im starting to think CCP just nerfs anything and everything that the players can't be arsed to counter the hard way.....let's just nerf it.
|
Centura
Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 19:40:00 -
[888]
Great work CCP been drinking the yellow snow again??
Leave the bloody Falcon alone. Anyone that contemplates making the Falcon a short to medium range "brawler" is seriously demented?
Tweak its strength or do something construtive. Don't just take one of the few worthwhile ships in the game to fly and beat it to death with the biggest nerfbat you can find until its as crippled as the other ships you have "fixed".
Why is it that when ever a ship does something well you have to so totally screw it over that its not even worth reprocessing (Anyone still got an EOS?)
IDIOTS
PS Fix the bloody sound already will you!!
|
Eraggan Sadarr
Phoenix Tribe
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 19:40:00 -
[889]
Edited by: Eraggan Sadarr on 26/03/2009 19:42:09
Changes are nice. Don't know if they really will work out but there is a simpler solution, imo:
Make ECCM double strength, so you can actually counter anything other than EC-300 drones. Then maybe give both the falcon/rook a dronebay as suggested. to make them a bit more versatile.
btw: falcon is still paper thin. So it will be a very short "brawl"..
Eve Market Scanner - Marketlog comparisons |
Rumpelstilski
Caldari Divine Retribution Sons of Tangra
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 19:42:00 -
[890]
Edited by: Rumpelstilski on 26/03/2009 19:45:24
Originally by: Lord Eremet When not having a visual/scan of all enemies in a hostile group we always assume they are in a falcon and eight times of ten that has so far been true. I see very little of other races recons. That should tell you something. I know they are somewhat broken and need to be fixed, but the falcon is to good.
Falcons fit a very special role in gangs, like rapier before the nano nerf and rapier and arazu now. Just because every gang has an inty doesn't mean inties are broken, same is applied to ecm boats.
You can tell where ecm boats in general are broken when you look at the fact that all other ecm boats are ****. Kitsune is a short range paper tanked slow frig, rook is a dps+jammer platform that does no dps and does that almost in scorch L range that can't fit a t2 fit, scorp is wannabe rr option but just not good enough for it and really not such clear an option to bring over a blackbird for sniper fleets, never mind the falcon.
CCP is addressing that, I say hooray
New fotm, everybody please start training immediately:
Predicting all falcon alts now training for basilisk and guardian now that they are practically unjammable.
Any change to ecm strength across the board should be followed by a reduction of sensor strength on battleships, carriers and logistics ships.
|
|
Yakov Draken
Minmatar Tides Of War
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 19:56:00 -
[891]
Originally by: Childstar Give the other recons a boost to the range of some of their effects, like damps, TD's and TP's and leave SDA's giving boost to str but change them so they effect damps, TD's and TP's str as well.
Yay - recon online!
"I was damped by this Arazu at 200k but then one of our Falcons got close enough and jammed him and I got to shoot for 6 seconds before I capped out to the curse neuting me from 90k. Then I got jammed by some ECM drones and before I could get my lock back the Arazu got damps on me again, our Falcon was jammed, and I never got another lock - it rocked!"
Seriously Childstar you have the worst idea's.
Eve is a pvp game - please let us shoot stuff. I know some people can't handle the risk involved in pvp and recons are the answer for them as they mean very little risk of losing a ship. I just don't think these people matter for **** when it comes to game balence. Balence the game for those of us who want to fight!
Nerfing ECM opens up one of the fundamental divides in Eve - on one side the "safe" combat brigade and on the the other those willing to actually dive in to a good fight. The two sides will never come to agreement or be able to discuss reasonably.
|
Van Nuys
Khaos Heavy Industries Unity Thru Aggression.
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 20:12:00 -
[892]
Why not Improve ships to balance things out rather than nerfs?
This game is getting to messed up to play, cut it down to 1 race a few ships and then nobody can complain anymore and there isnt any reason to nerf. Oh and noob friendly if thats the goal.
T2 ships have been and are now cost an arm and a leg if you want to pew pew in them on your own dime with the 5mil insurance payouts.
Slap everyone in Hulks and Haulers, get walking in stations up and keep making thoese roids lookin like exotic dancers with a camp fire in the middle, while waiting for the sleeper Smartbombing BS's to suicide everyone.
|
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 20:17:00 -
[893]
Originally by: Yakov Draken
Eve is a pvp game - please let us shoot stuff. I know some people can't handle the risk involved in pvp and recons are the answer for them as they mean very little risk of losing a ship.
Indeed. How dare they do something other than press f1 and wait. And yea this is my sig. |
Yakov Draken
Minmatar Tides Of War
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 20:30:00 -
[894]
Originally by: Esmenet
Originally by: Yakov Draken
Eve is a pvp game - please let us shoot stuff. I know some people can't handle the risk involved in pvp and recons are the answer for them as they mean very little risk of losing a ship.
Indeed. How dare they do something other than press f1 and wait.
Sorry - pvp in Eve is about activating guns and that is it? Do you pvp? I presume not.
|
VB Sarge
Asshats and Alcoholics Turbo.
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 20:44:00 -
[895]
There is so much fail in this thread that it hurts to realize that the people posting are the same species as me...
First, learn to play before you learn to rage post about how your ship is being broken. How much did Rapier/Huginn pilots cry when the speed nerf hit and webs got weakened? I'm pretty comfortable with the changes of that.
Now whoever is spreading the propaganda that missiles suck in pvp, has quite obviously, never flown a missile boat in pvp. Yes, they don't snipe at 150km very well. I've seen countless people in here saying how missiles suck and a torp scorp will be suck... I'm pretty sure you're ******ed, because even after the missile FIX that happened recently, torps are still own in pvp. Yes, you can't hit smaller torps without target painters, but show me another battleship that you can get a solid 800 dps from 0-30km range vs bs's and caps other than the Raven with T2 torps? The scorp will take this role, add an insane tank, and still give you the ability to jam a few targets while pounding the crap out of everything nearby.
Not everyone who flies a falcon flies in a 200 man gang. Most warfare I get myself into is 5-10 man fleets, most often without similar numbers on both sides. One or two falcons as they are currently completely take out a small gang. Sure, you might not permajam 1 or 2 of the ships, but the other 2-3 are out of the fight and COMPLETELY unable to do anything. Yes, drones would auto agress if you weren't already fighting something, or if the falcon wasn't 200km away, same issue with FOF's... Plus, FoF's wouldn't primary a falcon, they primary the closes agressor, if they primary anything for that matter. Saying "oh well you can just snipe them" well sure, but that isn't realistic either. In order to do that, you're putting a ship that's made of glass in the middle of the actual fight, to try and hit something that's barely going to be in range of any sniping battleship (that can hit worth a darn) so guess who gets primaried and is exploded before the falcon dies?
For those who say "falcons have no tank" shut up, and learn how to fit your ships. Maybe all other recon pilots should start crying "we have no tank!" as well. But then we'll get told to shut up and put 2x LSE's on our ship. Hmm maybe Caldari Recon pilots should adopt that thinking instead of trying to be the only race with an invincible recon ship?
Please, let the Falcon be the "snipe" jamming ship, but keep them at least in line with all other recons as far as range goes. 60k is still a virtually untouchable range. Very few ships can hit effectively at that range, and it's right on the cusp of Drone control range with max skills.
Maybe modify the module itself to have a 30k optimal and 30k falloff, and only give the Falcon a falloff bonus, while giving the Rook a strength bonus? This will mean the Rook would fight at around 30k and the Falcon at 60, very similar to curse/pilgrim and put them in line with the Rapier/Huginn and Lachesis/Arazu. They will still be able to work further than their counterparts from other races, keeping with their "long range" mentality, but not to a ridiculous level.
Why is Caldari still the only race that has a double bonus to a single Ewar type? Give Caldari a second ewar type, just like every other race? Maybe remote sensor booster strength or range?
All in all, reason will not win the day here. What will win the day is the amount of people who will cry because their precious ship will be changed, or they will actually be forced to learn how to play to keep using the ships they trained for. Unless CCP grows some balls and stops listening to everyone crying with crap for backup to their statements, these "nerfs" to ECM will result in Falcon pilots only fighting 5km closer and no changes to everything else.
Please, you can fix this, or you can listen to everyone cry and sympathize with them. FIX WHAT IS BROKEN before cajoling those who don't know how to play. Thanks
|
Khaos Wildfire
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 20:44:00 -
[896]
Originally by: Rumpelstilski
Predicting all falcon alts now training for basilisk and guardian now that rr bs fleets are practically unjammable and not counterable without a nearly alpha-strike capable blob or another rr bs fleet.
Any change to ecm strength across the board should be followed by a reduction of sensor strength on battleships, carriers and logistics ships having in mind the effects of eccm and remote eccm.
I can't agree more. I'll just park my Falcon next to my already useless Torp Raven and take out either a Scorp or Domi I have trained and RR with my fleets and LOL at anyone who isn't.
There are already many counters to Falcons, etc, such as F.O.F missiles, Sentry drones, ECCM Mods (which work extremely well, especially on a cruiser raven meant to Alpha the Falcon.) Ironically, falcon's became more powerful thanks to CCPs last speed nerf, in which many ships could close on a falcon quickly enough before.
Soon I'll find it more fun mining with an alt. But how long until miners are overpowered? After all, based on the logic to nerf the Signal Distortion Amps, why not nerf the Mining Laser Uprades? They too are only found on 1 kind of ship, miners. That's not fair to any other ship type I guess.
And lastly, why call a ship a RECON ship if it can't do its job and get on and off the battlefield without engaging multiple battleships? |
Gut Punch
Shade. Penumbra Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 20:48:00 -
[897]
Edited by: Gut Punch on 26/03/2009 20:50:19 BURN THE WITCHES! Yeah its about time CCP nerfed ECM to hell and put it on the same level has Sensor Damps, Webs, and other EW. TBH, this has been long due - especially now after the nerf. Heck I created my own falcon alt due to the overpowered ability to shut off the enemy while having almost no threat. So to all you caldari whiners who really liked the nano nerf and the two point scrambler thing, enjoy the ECM nerf. All of your whining and complaining isn't going to change CCP's point of view to what you want. Don't even bother asking for your rigs or skills back cause CCP didn't givethe implants or training to us "nano***s".
Unfortunately this is just CCP continuing down the path of making the game nothing but DPS vs Tank at point blank ranges.
|
Arganato
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 21:04:00 -
[898]
Originally by: Ellatan Deruimte Edited by: Ellatan Deruimte on 26/03/2009 18:05:32 Great changes in my opinion. Falcons are overused at the moment both in gangs and in fleet combat.
And solo/duo/falcon-alt. (Its annoying as hell beeing ganked by a noob t1 cruiser bait with a falcon as backup in lowsec)
I have been flying falcons a lot myself, and they needed the nerf. The new changes can make ECm-ships much more interresting again :)
|
Perry
Amarr The X-Trading Company RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 21:05:00 -
[899]
good
|
Turma Tapa
Napapiirin Telakka ja Louhinta Oy
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 21:33:00 -
[900]
So if you want to that falcon can keep long ecm range please reduce more its ECM jammer strength! Somehow like this:
Falcon: Caldari Cruiser Skill Bonus: 12.5% Bonus to ECM Target Jammer Optimal and falloff Range per level 10% Bonus to Medium Hybrid Optimal Range per level
Recon Ships Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per level -96% to -100% reduction in Cloaking Device CPU use per level
|
|
Johan Sabbat
R.E.C.O.N. Dara Cothrom
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 21:50:00 -
[901]
Edited by: Johan Sabbat on 26/03/2009 21:50:25
Originally by: VB Sarge
Please, let the Falcon be the "snipe" jamming ship, but keep them at least in line with all other recons as far as range goes. 60k is still a virtually untouchable range. Very few ships can hit effectively at that range, and it's right on the cusp of Drone control range with max skills.
You know, I'm not sure we are even playing the same game here...
60km is only long distance if you only look at the maximum gank you can get out of a ship.
|
Ellatan Deruimte
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 21:53:00 -
[902]
Originally by: GTC seller72
Rubbish, most of the modules like damps, TD's and TP's are regularly used on NON-bonused ships in gang v gang fighting becasue their gaurenteed effect works great on a ship with great tank and gank. How often do you see ECM on a non bonused gang ship?...
While the bonused recon ships for those systems are never used in gang v gang combat because the effect even bonused is not worth the lack of tank and gank recons have compared to the nonbonused ships. But if the other recons had longer range for those effects you can bet you would see them in gang fights.
Your right and it works great as long as your not a idiot and decide to approach it...
So TD aint good against missiles big whoop, drones auto aggro if your ecm'd btw and fof are missiles as well.
We are not playing the same game then. I play a game called Eve online in 0.0 security systems. From my experience damps and tds are not used on non-bonused ship at all, because it's a wasted midslot for a tiny benefit. You seem to be stuck somewhere 2 years ago in the past, when everybody was using dampeners until they were nerfed. They are sometimes used on recons, however they are not effective against mutliple enemies and certain ship types on the contrary to jammers. I hope I bring my point across well.
My point was, damp ship can be tackled by a close range ship with no escape, TD ship can be damaged and tackled my missile ships and drone boats. They also operate at a much closer range then falcons. Even then Falcons can easily break a tackle and warp out, unlike other ecm ships.
|
Pian Shu
SPORADIC MOVEMENT Cruor-Salax Legion
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 22:01:00 -
[903]
Originally by: Gut Punch
Unfortunately this is just CCP continuing down the path of making the game nothing but DPS vs Tank at point blank ranges.
This. If -- by tank -- you mean keeping a small signature radius, going fast, fitting ECM, fitting sensor dampers, fitting tracking disruptors, and enhancing your armor and shields. And, if -- by DPS -- you mean countering those protective measures with target painters, webs, ECCM, sensor boosters, tracking enhancers, guns and missiles.
There are a variety of means at your disposal, unless you're in a 0.0 alliance where everyone is ordered to fly one of two acceptable battleship configurations (remote rep or sniper), an interdictor or a Falcon. Oh noes! Now they'll have to let their members think creatively!
|
Research Rachel
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 22:08:00 -
[904]
people only fly azuru for the web disrupter range and ccp had to introduce the web scrams because people hardly used them. Whats the point of damps when the only ships you can damp enough is ceptors?
Falcon only has ecm bonus, they don't have a secondary function like the others and given no tank, reduced jam strength, then there really is no point flying one unless you want a cyno!
Guess as mentioned already, the only useful thing left for caldari is the basilick.
|
Yourdoom
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 22:16:00 -
[905]
yes wonderfull. instead of giving eccm a boost you are f*in up the falcon.
i'll go past the fact that it was maybe one of the only awsome caldari ships out there ( 1vs1 ,same type any other race will pwn caldari)
you choose to f*** up the ship and give no reasons at all to fly it. what should have been done would be to give means to counter it ... eccm is too low. a boost would have it fixed. expecting jammer fit 1 long range ship with eccm ...there fixed it. instead just throw away a ship ( a line of ships in fact ).
If you do this plsx .... make the vagabond fly at max 1.5k/sec make the domi only being able to fit 1 nos or 1 neut apoc and all other snipers should only hit from 100k max. make ishtar not able to use sentries
and why not just remove all other weapons except blasters... then all battles will be two blobs sitting in front of eachother hitting untill one is finished.
Been in null space for some time now. I only remember flacon being used in 1/3 of either gangs. but 2/3 of gangs had taranis, 2/3 of gangs had ishtar , 80% of them had a vagabond.
Problem is ecm boat's only defence is range. it'd ONLY defence. a cycle missed on a ship with enough range = death. and most figts happen @ 150 km, it's the only way to enshure you are in optimalsince enemy will not allways be a blob that will stay fixed.
But i guess to mucg wines came from ppl that are too lazy to fit eccm ... oh wait eccm kind of ****s up the tank ? oh noes ecm ships have no tank at all ....
Falcon was ok as it was. It was just too much whine about it.
now it's just another line of useless ships. hell let's just all be amarr. delete other races compleetly.
|
Trebor Notlimah
Lone Star EVE Group Veni Vidi Vici
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 22:16:00 -
[906]
I'm glad you pulled your head out CCP. Just two months ago:
"We don't see any problems with current ECM implementations and we have no plans to change it in the near future"
|
Col Callahan
Caldari Oberon Incorporated Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 22:33:00 -
[907]
Fail falcon nerf is fail
|
Aoa Lux
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 22:46:00 -
[908]
Are covert recons snipers... or are they brawlers? Why is the falcon a sniper while the pilgrim is a brawler?
Consistency plz.
|
Myra2007
Shafrak Industries
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 23:11:00 -
[909]
While i liked the first iteration of changes the second seems to not make any sense. For me the neither the falcon nor ecm in general need to be changed but if you have to do it - do it right.
The second iteration does not change anything for small gang combat. The falcon would still be in sniper range and its jam strength would still be considerable to say the least. Basically it only prohibits the use of falcons if you have to deal with sentries or are into fleet combat. Everyone else will just continue like now.
The problem (or the percieved one) stems from the combination of long range, best ewar and covert ops cloak. Realize how no one ever whined about a rook or scorpion?
Either reduce the strength of ecm in general, increase the effectiveness of eccm. If you really have to fiddle with range then be consistent: make people choose between higher strength or higher range. Either by introducing scripts and leaving ships/bonuses unchanged or by using your "brawler" approach: falcon looses range bonus (think 50-60km with multispec)/gets higher jam strength, a bit more hp/speed/agility/dronebay/launcher to be inline with arazus/rapiers etc. Every other recon has to deal with this too and they have less powerful ewar (even considering they have 2 kinds of it).
However your changes are only going to unbalance the use of falcons between outlaws and non-outlaws in lowsec and also screw fleet people. --
Originally by: Jasper Dark
I agree! Lets go back into caves and lick rocks!
|
Marco Ragnos
eXceed Inc. Minor Threat.
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 23:13:00 -
[910]
Edited by: Marco Ragnos on 26/03/2009 23:15:54 This is how you "Fix" the falcon.
1) operate more in falloff which means that your jam isnt always 100%, and you risk more the farther you go.
2) boost Eccm (what you dont want to fit one? sorry, tough luck, take off one of your precious sensor boosters, you killmail W h O r E)
What you guys are doing is very ...silly to say the least.
NO matter what bonus you give the falcon, its going to get smoked anywhere near 100km off targets. In 0.0 space, most entities fly sniper hacs... Zealot, muninn, cerb will own the falcon at those ranges. Id say if you have to mess up the falcon that bad, at least make it able to jam at a distance that would put it out of reach of snipe hacs. I guess in BS fleets, the falcon wont be able to do much except keep support away from your battleships...i guess we'll have to use the scorp for...oh wait...the scorp is a "brawler" too now.
While im on the topic of failed ideas...SB? TORPS? no please, just no
also while im here, fix the pilgrim, and the arazu
|
|
Johan Sabbat
R.E.C.O.N. Dara Cothrom
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 23:18:00 -
[911]
Originally by: Marco Ragnos Edited by: Marco Ragnos on 26/03/2009 23:15:54 This is how you "Fix" the falcon.
1) operate more in falloff which means that your jam isnt always 100%, and you risk more the farther you go.
2) boost Eccm (what you dont want to fit one? sorry, tough luck, take off one of your precious sensor boosters, you killmail W h O r E)
What you guys are doing is very ...silly to say the least.
NO matter what bonus you give the falcon, its going to get smoked anywhere near 100km off targets. In 0.0 space, most entities fly sniper hacs... Zealot, muninn, cerb will own the falcon at those ranges. Id say if you have to mess up the falcon that bad, at least make it able to jam at a distance that would put it out of reach of snipe hacs. I guess in BS fleets, the falcon wont be able to do much except keep support away from your battleships...i guess we'll have to use the scorp for...oh wait...the scorp is a "brawler" too now.
While im on the topic of failed ideas...SB? TORPS? no please, just no
also while im here, fix the pilgrim, and the arazu
WTB Falcon that jams 100% in optimal.
|
GTC seller72
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 23:29:00 -
[912]
Edited by: GTC seller72 on 26/03/2009 23:31:48
Originally by: Ellatan Deruimte
We are not playing the same game then. I play a game called Eve online in 0.0 security systems. From my experience damps and tds are not used on non-bonused ship at all, because it's a wasted midslot for a tiny benefit. You seem to be stuck somewhere 2 years ago in the past, when everybody was using dampeners until they were nerfed. They are sometimes used on recons, however they are not effective against mutliple enemies and certain ship types on the contrary to jammers. I hope I bring my point across well.
Im not talking about 2 yrs ago im talking about now, they may be used less but damps and TD's are still very effective at reducing a gangs over all dps, TP's are regular fits on phoons ect.
Originally by: Ellatan Deruimte So what I hope for is that Falcons will have to spend more midslots on their tank, compensating for a shorter range. 2 LSE + Invul for instance or just 2 LSE like on any other shield tanked recon. there will be less jammers available and they will have to make tougher decisions in terms of tactics and piloting, which in turn will result in more pew pew for the rest of us.
For somebody who makes comments on playing eve in 0.0 systems you either think like a clueless noob or you are so wishful for this nerf you are trying to pitch a line that you hope the stupid or naive will buy...
It will mean nobody will fly a falcon in gang vs gang combat just like nobody flies the other recons in it. The differance will be that the other recons can be used solo or in 2-3 ship gank squads becasue their effects can be planned around, while the falcon with its gimped mids used for tank and its chance based effect will be worthless.
2 x lse, 1 x invul..oh do not forget the mwd...oh and maybe a slot or two for a chance based jammer....i guess its just a shame there are 4 races and jammers are racial?...
What game are you playing?...
|
wide
SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 23:34:00 -
[913]
How about fixing sensor damps instead? An increase on SD optimal to match that of ECM would be a good counter to falcons.
SD's have been pactically useless for the last 2 years compared to ECM. For some reason they also receive far fewer bonus than the ECM modules. For example:
- overheating (ECM: +20% strength, SD: not an option)
- gang modules (ECM: 25% strength, SD: 15% strength)
- range (ECM: 228km SD: 80km)
- module bonus (ECM: SDA's 20%, SD: no equivalent)
- Ship bonus (Falcon: 100% to ECM strength and range, Arazu: 25% to SD strength)
Here's an idea; keep sensor damps as they are, however add the ability to damp ECM at the same rate at which they damp scan resolution and maximum targetting range. |
DNSBLACK
Gallente Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Associates
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 23:34:00 -
[914]
I have isues with making these changes and testing on sisi
Honestly the sisi test server is a joke for making
changes that effect the diverse pvp game of eve. What I have
enjoyed about eve the most has been the human element and our
creative abilities to effectivly create gangs and fight with
the ship platforms in the game. Honestly any leader worth a
darn who is trying to fight and win in EVE knows his best
asset are finding people who are willing to take on a role for
his fleet, Ewar, Logistics, and so on. These leaders recruit
and build fleets with this in mind. Honestly it is sad to
see ship platforms people have work hard at getting into
nerfed or adjusted. I have seen the arazu rapier, ceptors,
mrym and many more just get there ships nerfed to hell
now the falcon is up for round 2. If you are any good at
this game you have already found away to beat falcons. We
have found close to a dozen plus. Not because the DEV
balanced this, but because we are humans and we
can think and over come. EVE is not an easy game that is why
we play. To all the new people and faction warfare empire
people who just signed on please stop trying to wreck
the platforms of ships that thousands of us have trained for
all you are doing is wrecking the game for others. To the
DEVS please stop making the years of training we have put in
mean nothing. You and I both know the newer players will
never catch up so why hurt the older players by making our
training and skill points mean nothing in the end. Honestly
you will never balance this game or any other so let us enjoy
the game you have created and let the human nature be the
best tool you could ever have to create balance. We will do
just fine. Honestly havnt you icelanders learned from your
banking colapse about GOV and Foriegn involment in your way
of doing business. Well CCP you are the GOV and the newer
player are the foriegners who really dont get it yet but they
will once they have put the time in and can see it from this
side of the fence. If they never make it to this side so be
it and thank them for there 45 dollars and testing eve out
but dont listen to them and change the game we all love.
Conclusion: In the end vets know how to beat Falcons and the
DEVS know that a boost to ECCM and educating noobs about the
modual would solve this issue. I am willing to say that most
player complaining about the Falcon and ecm are newer and
dont even know ECCM an dhavnt trained to use it yet. So
the solutin is so easy ECCM learn how to use it and DEV give
it a buff please and leave all the platforms alone.
Black
|
Chris Fierce
Caldari NoD Imperium
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 23:34:00 -
[915]
Edited by: Chris Fierce on 26/03/2009 23:35:48 Give the Scorp the rate of fire bonus for Hybrids and maybe the launchers please. The recommended certs have hybrids so it would make sense.. no? Also the ability to fit and use 5 heavy drones would make it a real brawler.
The first Scorpion-class battleship was launched only a couple of years ago, and those that have been built are considered to be prototypes. Little is known of its capabilities, but what has been garnered suggests that the Scorpion is crammed to the brink with sophisticated hi-tech equipment that few can match.
---------------------------
I gashmoygadied her gaflavity with my googus and won a Hookbill. |
Ephemeron
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 00:02:00 -
[916]
If we step back from the ECM redesign idea and just look at what needs to be tweaked in order to shift ECM balance in the right direction, then all we need to do are these 3 simple things:
1) reduce falcon ECM strength bonus by 5% (Rook would still be as powerful) 2) add range penalty of SDA - between 15-20% 3) increase ECCM strength by 20%
that's it. No major game changes, just surgical precision adjustments. Simple, elegant, balanced
|
Quesa
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 00:09:00 -
[917]
Originally by: Trebor Notlimah I'm glad you pulled your head out CCP. Just two months ago:
"We don't see any problems with current ECM implementations and we have no plans to change it in the near future"
Because it was never a problem with ECM as it is, but with the modules in game to protect against ECM. That and the rediculous nerfs they handed out to the other forms of ECM.
Think before you cut and paste.
|
Retsil Evad
Caldari The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 01:08:00 -
[918]
If the ECM range is being reduced then find a way to give the ECM boats better tanks. A tech II cruiser that lasts about as long as a frigate in a fight sucks.
How about moving the ECM modules to the high slots, so that a decent tank can be fitted.
============== Office use ONLY ==============
BRING BACK EVE TV!!!!!!! |
Ellatan Deruimte
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 01:35:00 -
[919]
Originally by: GTC seller72 Edited by: GTC seller72 on 26/03/2009 23:31:48
Originally by: Ellatan Deruimte
We are not playing the same game then. I play a game called Eve online in 0.0 security systems. From my experience damps and tds are not used on non-bonused ship at all, because it's a wasted midslot for a tiny benefit. You seem to be stuck somewhere 2 years ago in the past, when everybody was using dampeners until they were nerfed. They are sometimes used on recons, however they are not effective against mutliple enemies and certain ship types on the contrary to jammers. I hope I bring my point across well.
Im not talking about 2 yrs ago im talking about now, they may be used less but damps and TD's are still very effective at reducing a gangs over all dps, TP's are regular fits on phoons ect.
Yes, TP are sometimes used in pvp setups. I never said anything about tp. However I've never seen damps and tds used on a non profile ships, except for some TD interceptors and stealth bomber damps with poor results, they never made a difference.
Quote:
Originally by: Ellatan Deruimte So what I hope for is that Falcons will have to spend more midslots on their tank, compensating for a shorter range. 2 LSE + Invul for instance or just 2 LSE like on any other shield tanked recon. There will be less jammers available and they will have to make tougher decisions in terms of tactics and piloting, which in turn will result in more pew pew for the rest of us.
For somebody who makes comments on playing eve in 0.0 systems you either think like a clueless noob or you are so wishful for this nerf you are trying to pitch a line that you hope the stupid or naive will buy...
It will mean nobody will fly a falcon in gang vs gang combat just like nobody flies the other recons in it. The differance will be that the other recons can be used solo or in 2-3 ship gank squads becasue their effects can be planned around, while the falcon with its gimped mids used for tank and its chance based effect will be worthless.
2 x lse, 1 x invul..oh do not forget the mwd...oh and maybe a slot or two for a chance based jammer....i guess its just a shame there are 4 races and jammers are racial?...
What game are you playing?...
Oh yes, I'm a total noob, unlike you dear anonymous alt, you are a very experienced pilot. Recons are still flown in gangs, rapiers, curses and arazu are still useful in their niche roles. However a lot of them are fitted without TD, TPs and dampeners, because of their low effectiveness. Instead they primarily use neut, web and disruptor\scrambler bonus. As for your "other recons can fly solo" comment. Rook should be able to fill that role, not falcon, he is a brawler. Also flying solo with minmatar and gallente recons is not easy and you won't be able to kill much solo, they are gang ships, just like a falcon.
Why do you always talk in absolutes? Nobody will fly a falcon! I'm quitting the game if this happens, etc. Childish. A falcon will still stay a very effective recon, but it will have to adapt and maybe change some setups to compensate for shortcomings. Just like everybody declared nano vagas and ishtars dead after the speed nerf, yet although no longer fully nano, they are still very alive and doing quite well. I'm sure that falcons will turn out the same way, because nobody will be there to fill that role.
Yes imagine that, 3 jammers and 4 races. What to do, what to do?! Maybe it will be time to start thinking and start cooperating with another falcon with 3 different jammers. Or maybe it's time to risk it and decrease your tank to fit 4 jammers. Those are the choices, the same choices that every other recon pilot has to make.
|
Quynn
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 01:49:00 -
[920]
I am strongly against turning the Falcon into a gun boat... please keep it missiles. It doesn't need a missile bonus (though it would be nice), just keep it the way it is as far as missiles go, don't remove a missile slot. I didn't pick Caldari to shoot guns, I picked it to shoot missiles. |
|
Solid Prefekt
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 02:33:00 -
[921]
With the current suggested changes the Falcon will still have a 150km range, but at 50% effectiveness. So instead of jamming 4 ships you will jam 2 ships. The Falcon won't be as popular as before, but they will definitely still be used. This really puts it more in line to the pre speed nerf days where a standard Vaga went 6km/s. After the speed nerf the distance to reach the Falcon was effectively doubled. It still takes as long to reach, but they are not only half as strong (from 150km).
IMHO, I think the changes are more then fair and the Falcon will still be used more then any other Recon. I do find the second option of a close range Falcon and long range Rook to be pretty interesting, but I know the Falcon pilots hate that idea.
|
spinarax
Method of Destruction Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 03:04:00 -
[922]
to all that complain that falcon doesn't have a tank. lets compare it to the rapier
Rapier: 3 e-war mods, 2 LSE, DCU, shield rigs = 28k EHP with 60dps passive tank.
Falcon: 3 e-war mods, 2 LSE, 1 Invul, DCU, shield rigs = 36.7k EHP with 80dps passive tank.
With 2 speed mods, and MWD, the Rapier(2km/s) does goes faster then the Falcon(1.6km/s), but speed is a Minnie thing, so no biggie.
So just like the Rapier, the Falcon going to be useful as forward scout and support, not a PVP Zeus who sit cloaked at 200km and chose who dies next.
For fleet fights, u have the Rook to jam from range and since it cant cloak, it have just as much chance to die as other sniping ships.
A hybrid turret range bonus for Rook and missile ROF bonus for the Falcon seems more fitting though, and give the Rook 3-4 turrets while the Falcon 3-4 Missile hardpoints.
|
Mara Rinn
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 03:48:00 -
[923]
Edited by: Mara Rinn on 27/03/2009 03:51:49
Originally by: spinarax
to all that complain that falcon doesn't have a tank. lets compare it to the rapier
Rapier: 3 e-war mods, 2 LSE, DCU, shield rigs = 28k EHP with 60dps passive tank.
Falcon: 3 e-war mods, 2 LSE, 1 Invul, DCU, shield rigs = 36.7k EHP with 80dps passive tank.
The Rapier with 3 e-war mods is 100% effective against 3 targets. The Falcon with 3 ECM mods is still not 100% effective against 1 target.
Quote: So just like the Rapier, the Falcon going to be useful as forward scout and support, not a PVP Zeus who sit cloaked at 200km and chose who dies next.
The Falcon only decides who can't target stuff next. The Falcon's target can choose to leave the field (in order to break the Falcon's target lock), or have their snipers shoot the Falcon to force it off the field.
Quote: EDIT: just notice the stealth edit in the OP. Falcon as a ranged ship doesn't really change much from the current situation, switch it back to Rook:sniper, Falcon:brawler pls.
Significantly reduced range on the Falcon is a nerf, regardless of your own personal feelings on the matter. In addition the change from long optimal with short falloff, to short optimal with long falloff, should severely "rebalance" (ie: nerf) Falcons from being the super-long-range ship that they are today. They'll still get primaried, it's just that these days there will be more people that can actually hit them.
Balance needs to be achieved through small changes, not by whacking the game table with a sledgehammer.
|
Solid Prefekt
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 04:32:00 -
[924]
Originally by: Mara Rinn The Rapier with 3 e-war mods is 100% effective against 3 targets. The Falcon with 3 ECM mods is still not 100% effective against 1 target.
The Rapier is 100 effective in reducing speed by 60%. A Falcon has a 98% in 100% stopping someone from targeting. If you want to be fair lets make the Falcon work 100% of the time but be only 60% effective. So you will only take 40% damage when you jam a ship. And lets drop your range to under 40km also. Now we are fair.
Or better yet, lets switch it. I will take webs that work 95% of the time from a distance of 170km and have it reduce a ships speed to ZERO. I can then web up to 4 ships to 0 speed. You then can have your ECM hit 100% of the time, at a 40km max range, and have it be only 60% effective (so the ship still does 40% dps). You want to trade? I am sure the ENTIRE Matar race would switch with you.
|
Research Rachel
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 05:54:00 -
[925]
Originally by: Solid Prefekt
Originally by: Mara Rinn The Rapier with 3 e-war mods is 100% effective against 3 targets. The Falcon with 3 ECM mods is still not 100% effective against 1 target.
The Rapier is 100 effective in reducing speed by 60%. A Falcon has a 98% in 100% stopping someone from targeting. If you want to be fair lets make the Falcon work 100% of the time but be only 60% effective. So you will only take 40% damage when you jam a ship. And lets drop your range to under 40km also. Now we are fair.
if your a cepter/cruiser then yes, maybe a falcon can jam you 100% of the time, but seriously... anything bigger than a cruiser, hacs, bc's, bs's, recons, even in a max skilled falcon they have a hard time jamming.
I know, i fly a maxed skilled Falcon and i know what sort of jams i get. If people fit ECCM, i'd have serious problems getting a jam.
You do realise you have to relock a target after the cycle?
|
Parsival
Minmatar The Avalon Foundation
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 05:57:00 -
[926]
Originally by: Mara Rinn The Rapier with 3 e-war mods is 100% effective against 3 targets. The Falcon with 3 ECM mods is still not 100% effective against 1 target.
This is wrong, 3 webs are barely effective against one target any more. In fact I would suggest not bothering and just go with a 'zu or Curse.
Oh and +1 turret and Hybrid optimal bonus for the Falcon? Nice to see confirmation that the devs don't actually fly the ships they ruin.
|
Warden Nightstar
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 06:45:00 -
[927]
Here is my idea instead:
Repurpose backup sensor arrays. Currently these are almost never used and pretty much useless. You also have to use the same type as your ship's sensors.
My idea is to allow you to use a different type other than your ship's sensors, effectively giving your ship an extra set of eyes. That way, if your primary sensors are jammed, your secondary (albeit weaker) sensors may not be. This will then require a second ECM module directed at your ship to effectively jam you.
Turning the Scorpion into a short-range brawler is a poor idea. You may as well not have a battleship at that point, as one of the main strengths of any battleship design is increased range. Effectively, you will be sacrificing all the range advantages that come with a battleship's weapons. Don't do this.
|
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar OVERLOAD. Dead Terrorists
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 07:23:00 -
[928]
Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 27/03/2009 07:26:21 The fun thing is, this nerf not only completely ignores the core issue at hand (ships smaller than BS being jammed 100% of the time, and thus ruining small gang combat), but even makes it worse.
So what is the 'intended role' for the new falcon if I may ask? Soloing a group of cruisers while making it as boring as possible for the targets?
Even with the current ecm strength I have no chance whatsoever to get a lock in a sub-BS ship, why the hell does it need even more?
New falcon just looks like Arazu-2.0 for me (pre RSD-nerf, remember how that sucked?).
Edit: also, what are 'utility' drones on the long-ranged ecm ships meant to do? Are these gonna be decoys for sentry guns so that pirates can still use ecm?
|
Kateryne
Minmatar Nisaba Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 07:33:00 -
[929]
I fully endorse the ECM changes, just so long as ECCM pretty much negates a non-bonused ECM module, but has little effect against ECM bonused modules.
|
Perry
Amarr The X-Trading Company RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 09:17:00 -
[930]
Some comments from a 6+ years 0.0 pvper that according to newest forum intel is no real pvper:
Scorpion -Caldari Ships are usually long range ships. The Scorpion has thus a tradition of beeing used in long range Fleet Warfare as ECM support. Taking that role away and turning it into a short range ship makes about zero sense. The more logical chang would focus the Scorps role to long Range Fleet Warfare by giving it 6 Turret Slots and an optimal range bonus to hybrids and ECM systems:
Scorpion - Fleet Warfare - 10% Bonus in optimal range of Hybrid Turrets per level - 20% Bonus in optimal range of ECM Jammers per level +2 Turrets + Grid
Falcon The T2 Cruisers of Caldari are all very long ranged. The Eagle has about 80% more maximum range then the Zealot or Muninn. The Cerberus reaches 250km with heavy missiles, which fly at very fast speeds. The logical conclusion is, that Caldari Recons should also have longer ranges then other recons. Thus i agree with the latest changes to make the Falcon the long range mediocre strenght ECM Sniper with optimal range bonus to ecm and hybrids. It shoud get a bit more grid though! Its very difficult to fit 200mm Rails to it right now while maintaing a decent buffer or mwd.
Rook To step out of the Falcons Shadow, the Rook should be overall stronger then the Falcon. It needs Dps, it needs staying power. The recent changes turning it into a closer range "brawler" are fine with me, it will rival the curse now for the best solo pvp recon but adding to this it will propably be the best roaming T2 Cruiser next to Sniper Hacs, overshadowing its Combat Recon Brothers. A minor Grid boost of +25MW is needed to fit a decent set of items, though. Right now its impossible to fit 5x HML MWD and a Shield extender at the same time. This holds true for the other Recons, ofc. So i guess its balanced fitting wise ^^
|
|
maralt
Minmatar The seers of truth
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 09:32:00 -
[931]
Originally by: Ellatan Deruimte Recons are still flown in gangs, rapiers, curses and arazu are still useful in their niche roles.
The other recons are flown solo or in small gangs of recons that gank solo or 2 - 3 targets depending on type class ect, i have never seen them flown in med sized gangs as ewar support.
I have seen and do fly a lot of my hac, BC and even BS gang ships with a damp or TD fitted because as your buddy said they can and do a lot reduce the dps of the gangs you may face.
Originally by: Ellatan Deruimte Yes imagine that, 3 jammers and 4 races. What to do, what to do?! Maybe it will be time to start thinking and start cooperating with another falcon with 3 different jammers. Or maybe it's time to risk it and decrease your tank to fit 4 jammers. Those are the choices, the same choices that every other recon pilot has to make.
Really how many of the other recons are shield tankers and how many of their ewar effects are limited to 1 race per module, and how many of them are chance based even within optimal?...
Wave your kills around as much as you like but if you actually believe what you are saying then my bet is that you either dislike falcons so much you will say anything to support the nerf or you are on a bought account.
|
Rumpelstilski
Caldari Divine Retribution Sons of Tangra
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 09:35:00 -
[932]
TO ALL PEEPS COMPARING FALCON WITH OTHER RECONS
When falcon will have the agility, speed, drone bay, two bonused ewars and some dps to speak of + the ability to do well in different roles in solo roaming, small gangs, mid gangs and huge fleets, then we can start comparing falcon to other recons.
Until then, any comparison between falcon and rapier, pilgrim + arazu is misplaced.
All other recons are flexible pwn machines with good agility, speed, drone bays, two ewars and some dps, falcon is a highly specialized beast that can only do one thing under specific conditions and shines/overpowers in small to mid sized gangs.
Frankly, I don't think any of other races' pilots want to trade flexibility of their recons with falcon's specialization.
Basically, ccp is going in that direction. They are giving caldari recons more maneuverability, dps and tank thus reducing a bit of diversity in the recon class but making caldari recons easier to balance against other recon types.
The only thing troubling me now is all those falcon alts starting training logistics V now that there is no effective counter to logi/rr gangs other then another logi/rr gang or an overwhelming sniping alpha-strike blob
|
Childstar
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 09:39:00 -
[933]
Originally by: Research Rachel
Originally by: Solid Prefekt
Originally by: Mara Rinn The Rapier with 3 e-war mods is 100% effective against 3 targets. The Falcon with 3 ECM mods is still not 100% effective against 1 target.
The Rapier is 100 effective in reducing speed by 60%. A Falcon has a 98% in 100% stopping someone from targeting. If you want to be fair lets make the Falcon work 100% of the time but be only 60% effective. So you will only take 40% damage when you jam a ship. And lets drop your range to under 40km also. Now we are fair.
if your a cepter/cruiser then yes, maybe a falcon can jam you 100% of the time, but seriously... anything bigger than a cruiser, hacs, bc's, bs's, recons, even in a max skilled falcon they have a hard time jamming.
I know, i fly a maxed skilled Falcon and i know what sort of jams i get. If people fit ECCM, i'd have serious problems getting a jam.
You do realise you have to relock a target after the cycle?
PPL only remember the times they were jammed not the time the jams failed.
Its understandable but its also misleading, my main has falcon and jamming at max and i have eveb used faction jammers in the past and i know how often jams fail and how many jammers i need to apply on just a single priority ship to jam it. That is another thing ppl forget, just how many jammers you need to alocate to a target to jam it...
|
AnzacPaul
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 09:49:00 -
[934]
im not trawling through 32 pages, the first was enough. CCP, you want to nerf the falcon, cause lets face it, thats what this thread is really about, the other classes just have to follow suit, Take a good look at the caldari race and think about making it a viable pvp race that doesnt rely on having 5 mates with you to lock down your target and make sure you dont die before the opposition outtanks and outdps your ship. problem with caldari has always been the same, you cant tank if you want to fit a mwd/point/web and maybe a cap booster, and god forbid a drone bay. You want to nerf the falcon fine, but give us something back, not a 10% hybrid bonus range on the falcon, jeez.
|
Hun Jakuza
24th Imperial Guard
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 10:49:00 -
[935]
Edited by: Hun Jakuza on 27/03/2009 10:51:18
Originally by: Research Rachel
Originally by: Solid Prefekt
Originally by: Mara Rinn The Rapier with 3 e-war mods is 100% effective against 3 targets. The Falcon with 3 ECM mods is still not 100% effective against 1 target.
The Rapier is 100 effective in reducing speed by 60%. A Falcon has a 98% in 100% stopping someone from targeting. If you want to be fair lets make the Falcon work 100% of the time but be only 60% effective. So you will only take 40% damage when you jam a ship. And lets drop your range to under 40km also. Now we are fair.
if your a cepter/cruiser then yes, maybe a falcon can jam you 100% of the time, but seriously... anything bigger than a cruiser, hacs, bc's, bs's, recons, even in a max skilled falcon they have a hard time jamming.
I know, i fly a maxed skilled Falcon and i know what sort of jams i get. If people fit ECCM, i'd have serious problems getting a jam.
You do realise you have to relock a target after the cycle?
We try it. My friend used ECCM on Moros, and i just fitted 6 gallente jammer on my Falcon. I permajammed the Moros with overheat ECCM 8 minutes along. So you fail. That was not a cruiser not a ceptor, just a little capital with almost 100 sensor str, without overheated ECCM over 86 sensor str. So this ECCM is crap if a 15 jammer strenght Falcon can jamming against them, when he use racial jammers.
An ECCM Solution:
+100% sensor str and when someone who use an ECCM and the jamming is fail him, make a counter effect and the jammer lost their targeted ships for 20 sec.
|
labtecwar
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 10:49:00 -
[936]
when will the hate end ccp or why dont you just erase caldari an have done with it
|
Yunaka Vicc
Fremen Sietch White Noise.
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 10:51:00 -
[937]
Edited by: Yunaka Vicc on 27/03/2009 10:50:52 Another simple solution for long and strong jamm problem: - add optimal penalty to current SDAs.
Nothing else need to be changed.
|
RavenPaine
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 11:19:00 -
[938]
Over my time playing , it seems like every thing i train gets nerfed .I have been in missions where 3 drones and 6 cruise missile launchers cant kill a frigate .So it feels like cruise 5 , all the drones 5's . and now Recon 5 have been a huge waste of time .Your "Improvements" havent really done anything positive for me at all .
Caldari ships are for the most part ,slower and weaker . but here and there they have a jewel of a ship to fly .Falcon is one of them and if you make it more killable then you all need to "Improve" the insurance system (It needs done anyway , regardless).Scorpion is an awsome recon type ship , but as a BS its paper thin and just not a close range ship . If it is forced to be at close range then it will probably become obsolete .
If you must nerf them , consider reducing the midslots . so they can fit less jammers . or just "limit" ecm hardpoints . Remember , in any fight , both parties can fly the Falcon . Its not really un-balanced at all when both sides have the same options
|
Tzar'rim
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 12:52:00 -
[939]
Uhm, it might be me (not at all having read the whole thread) but how is this a nerf?
Self-proclaimed idiot
|
Sylar McIntyr
Caldari Konstrukteure der Zukunft AAA Citizens
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 13:15:00 -
[940]
Edited by: Sylar McIntyr on 27/03/2009 13:15:32
Originally by: Tzar'rim Uhm, it might be me (not at all having read the whole thread) but how is this a nerf?
Falcon with less range .. well might be okay. Falcon with Hybrid Guns - lolfitting and loads of funny Lossmails. CCP face ist, few ppl do fit anything offensive in the Falcons highs anyway its like a little carrier.
Rook changes seem to be okay.
Close-range Scorpion ... a cloe-range BS in a race that is used to fight at distance ?!? -> Scorpions will be good baits but dead fish in the water A Sniper bonus might be a nice option to keep it viable otherwise my Char will be nothing more than a off battlefield support ... hauling ammo to my mates or using a overpriced ship to give cynos
And im looking forward to this years fall loots of new MMO`s storming the market some even dark and cold as EVE
edit: spelling ________________________________________________
Making space dangerous again ! |
|
Tzar'rim
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 13:19:00 -
[941]
In a 0.0/fleet environment you might be correct but for small gangs or solo work it doesn't really make a difference. In fact if you look at recon wolfpacks you lose absolutely nothing and gain some dps, it's not like falcons actually had any good use for their high slots other than hull/armor RR.
Self-proclaimed idiot
|
Sylar McIntyr
Caldari Konstrukteure der Zukunft AAA Citizens
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 13:29:00 -
[942]
And thats exactly the point - 0.0 warfare is okay with ECM as it is now. Lowsec dewllers are the ones whining about Falcons and being 'perma'jammed. To make a great difference you have to birng lots of Falcons in 0.0 in Low sec 1 is enoagh and i guess by now ever pirate has ate least 1 alt in range at anytime not to mention his corpmates in the next system.
The times i was piloting a Flacon i usually died or barely managed to jam the HAC chewing on me for 3 cycles and just yesterday i nearly fried my medium rack whil trying to jamm a Meag with 3 gallente jammers on him - but no chance his ECCM work the whole engagment (no whining here he had at least 1 if not 2 slots dedicated to counter me so its fine and fair here). i geus it would be an easier solution to give sentrys in lowsec a larger optmal say 250kms + 50 km falloff to keep those pesty Falcons away ________________________________________________
Making space dangerous again ! |
GTC seller72
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 13:29:00 -
[943]
Originally by: Hun Jakuza
We try it. My friend used ECCM on Moros, and i just fitted 6 gallente jammer on my Falcon. I permajammed the Moros with overheat ECCM 8 minutes along. So you fail. That was not a cruiser not a ceptor, just a little capital with almost 100 sensor str, without overheated ECCM over 86 sensor str. So this ECCM is crap if a 15 jammer strenght Falcon can jamming against them, when he use racial jammers.
Fraps proving what you say pls OR YOU ARE LYING.
8 MINS of constantly being jammed even with a rack of racials against you is highly unlikly, what happened is you proly got a cycle now and again and exhagerated it in a 8 min perma jam just for the forums.
|
Aen Sidhe
Caldari The Deliberate Forces
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 13:33:00 -
[944]
I'm very sorry, but I'm too lazy to read all this 30+ page thread. If someone got this idea before me, it's good.
Disclaimer: all numbers below were taken by random.
Maybe CCP make scripts for SDA? Do you want a 300 km optimal? Get the script, but use 9 jam str on racial. Do you want 30+ jam str? Get another scripts, but fly with 50 km optimal. Something like sensor booster.
|
Rumpelstilski
Caldari Divine Retribution Sons of Tangra
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 13:46:00 -
[945]
Edited by: Rumpelstilski on 27/03/2009 13:56:47
|
0blivion rage
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 14:20:00 -
[946]
:( finishing recon 4 in 3 hours. thats not even funny... last time i had just gotten into a ceptor :( ccp hate me. I'm just goona train for mini now, they seen nurf free atm and i don't trust enough to start flying amarr. Do you HAVE to do this? :( it's like the only decent pvp ship for caldari.
|
Earl Brooks
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 14:26:00 -
[947]
ECM is fine and works as intended now.
|
Childstar
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 15:31:00 -
[948]
Edited by: Childstar on 27/03/2009 15:34:15
Originally by: Earl Brooks ECM is fine and works as intended now.
You mean that they are now as bad in gang v gang combat as the rest of the recons and will never be used in it just like the others are not?...correct.
They are also the worst ewar to use in solo pvp because by the time you have fitted a mwd, point, web, just 1 extender and a invul or even 2 extenders you have enough room for maybe 1 or 2 ECM units that are race specific (and as you know their are 4 races) but also are chance based so if you do find a ship of the right race they can and will fail (unless caldari recons are going to be religated to "perma" jamming noob frigs) so your screwed any way.....
At least with nano their was a plan, this is just butchery and the removal of a ship because of whines with no thought to what it will do afterwards.
WORST THOUGHT OUT NERF EVER.
|
Research Rachel
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 16:03:00 -
[949]
Originally by: Hun Jakuza
We try it. My friend used ECCM on Moros, and i just fitted 6 gallente jammer on my Falcon. I permajammed the Moros with overheat ECCM 8 minutes along. So you fail. That was not a cruiser not a ceptor, just a little capital with almost 100 sensor str, without overheated ECCM over 86 sensor str. So this ECCM is crap if a 15 jammer strenght Falcon can jamming against them, when he use racial jammers.
and the moros was in siege too, wasn't it?
no Falcon pilot fits 6 jammers of the same race anyway so your argument is pointless!
i know from experience that a carrier with 76 point is extremely hard to jam with a max falcon pilot, and for the record you can't get 15 point on a falcon, 14.6 is the highest if you use rigs but then there isn't much use using rigs since 2 rigs barely gives you 0.5 point bonus.
|
charlie ZA
The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 16:13:00 -
[950]
Originally by: Earl Brooks ECM is fine and works as intended now.
./signed |
|
Waxau
Mortis Angelus The Church.
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 16:21:00 -
[951]
Im curious about the Widow tbh...close range brawler? Lol...
So now not only do i have no range, no tank, and no dps, but now im also going to have to be ULTRA close range, with no range, no tank, and no dps. Oh...and crap lock speed.
Bring on Amrr bs 5 |
Yonker
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 16:22:00 -
[952]
The best solution is to change the base jam time to like 5 seconds (and increase it based on ECM ship bonuses up to say... 10sec (maybe 15 with perfect skills).
Then make ECCM useful outside of purely ECM countering... like make it give you +1 max targets or +2 for T2... that way people don't feel its a waste to fit.
Then, change it so that jamming isn't % based but strength based. I.e. if you have 14 jam strength you can't jam a BS with 20 sensor strength you'd need to apply a second jam module (This would serve to make Multi-spec jammers actually useful).
Or instead of having a static strength make it so that it fires a type of projectile which eventually jams a target when it gets to the target's sensor strength. Example: Tech I jammers reduce the target's sensor strength by 5 with a 2 second recycle. It takes 10 seconds of firing your jammer module to jam a Battlship with a 25 sensor strength. If the ship is using ECCM they have a sensor strength of 40 so it would take 16 seconds to jam the ship.
There... its less annoying to people because it doesn't last as long. ECCM is a useful module on its own, on top of making it harder to jam... and it removes the random factor |
Lorz0r
You're Doing It Wrong
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 17:20:00 -
[953]
Originally by: Earl Brooks ECM is fine and works as intended now.
No it's not. It's killing off small gang warfare entirely. It's so hard to counteract in a small gang that it's just not worth going and roaming at all.
|
Myra2007
Shafrak Industries
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 17:35:00 -
[954]
Originally by: Lorz0r
Originally by: Earl Brooks ECM is fine and works as intended now.
No it's not. It's killing off small gang warfare entirely. It's so hard to counteract in a small gang that it's just not worth going and roaming at all.
I somewhat agree but the current proposal doesn't help small gangs all that much. Its hard to make exact guesses at this point but probably falcon will retain most of its glory but at 100-140km (maybe more with an eos and centurion). Not really a big help for the small gang situation (think 5 people or less) in my book.
Of course outlaws will need twice the amount of falcons because they need to stay at 151km+ and as such be in falloff considerably. Yeah, good times. --
Originally by: Jasper Dark
I agree! Lets go back into caves and lick rocks!
|
DMF KingBob
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 17:58:00 -
[955]
ecm is not a part of complexity it is an simple one way win tactic and the falcon spam atm is pure suckage
ecm beats turrerts better then an tracking disruptor ecm turns turret disruptors off ecm turns 50% of the drone control off ecm turns remote support off ecm turns webber scambler and target painter off ecm turns neutralizer and nos off ecm turns missilelaunchers off and wors better then defender-missiles ecm can be turned off by neutralizer but wich neutralizer works at over 100km perfectly ? ecm = RSD at some situations and this all in an ship wich can use an covert-op cloaking device
its very easy to see that ecm works on the false part of game mechanics and it should be changed to an remote breaker
then ecm is atm an Rock-Scissor-Paper-Chrusher
|
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 19:55:00 -
[956]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 27/03/2009 19:55:57 TBFH I'm 100% behind these changes if they move 2-3 SDA's worth of power into the ship bonuses and give me the SDA slots back for brawling. It's still a pretty heavy nerf to remove its range, but... I'll get over it. I've asked it many times, but... here goes again:
CCP, what is the target jamming strength (in points, 9, 12, 14, 20, 200) of an unrigged Scorpion (20% bonus), and a Falcon (15% bonus) and a Widow (25% bonus).
-Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org |
Sekundar Burnes
Woopatang Primary.
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 20:32:00 -
[957]
I think a different approach is called for.
The problem isn't necessarily with the ships and their setup, it is the way jamming results are applied. Right now everything is binary - you either jam or you don't, and the duration is either 20 seconds or nothing.
Make the results scalable and you end up with a more satisfying result. I envision a table of results where you break anywhere from 100% to 10% of all locked targets, or 30 seconds to 5 seconds duration, based on the level of success. I'm sure that once people start thinking along these lines they can come up with even better results.
Doing this would push jamming more in line with the results seen with other weapons systems. It would also make defenses worth considering - that ECCM module might change the jam duration from 20 seconds to 10, allowing me to target that Rook and get drones on him.
The same sort of approach could eventually be applied to all other types of ECM, including drones.
--- Apologies if someone else already suggested this. I didn't want to wade through 32 pages of "Falcons suck!" vs. "Devs hate Caldari!!'
|
Karlemgne
Tides Of War
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 20:35:00 -
[958]
Originally by: Earl Brooks ECM is fine and works as intended now.
Isn't the ultimate arbiter of whether or not something is working "as intended" the people who designed that thing?
In this case, CCP, who in implying there needs to be a change, is admitting that ECM is not working as intended?
-Karlemgne |
Karlemgne
Tides Of War
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 20:54:00 -
[959]
Edited by: Karlemgne on 27/03/2009 20:55:39
Originally by: Lorz0r
Originally by: Earl Brooks ECM is fine and works as intended now.
No it's not. It's killing off small gang warfare entirely. It's so hard to counteract in a small gang that it's just not worth going and roaming at all.
Amen.
ECM kills low-sec pvp. More and more we're forced to take out gangs of big ships, and big ships only.
Why? Because Battleships are the only ship class (besides the other mostly worthless recons) where ECCM can make a difference. And even then, as I've stated before, taking 1 ECCM means that you won't be perma jammed by a single Falcon, but will be by multiple Falcons (see Falcon spamage on tq). This means you've got to fit 2 ECCM, and thus forgo the ability to tackle! Yippie!
The results? Small cruiser and battlecruiser gangs are nearly impossible. The current number of Falcon "pilots" (aka alts) means that 70% of the time entire cruiser gangs are permajammed. You have similar results with most Battlecruiser gangs.
So YIPPIE! Battleship gangs in low-sec. Battleship gangs that, more often than not, require you to forgo tackle (and tank in the case of shield tankers) in favor of ECCM. That's right, everyone's fitting to counter ONE ship (no nothing is broken here).
And with those two ECCM fits good luck holding ships. Lots of stuff gets away, meaning a lot less fighting. Alternatively you'll see gangs with 4 Falcons... this means time to deagress and jump/dock. Again, combat avoided.
Currently, Falcons are just as bad as nanos were in low-sec:
1. You need to specifically fit your ships, ALL of them, to counter the Falcon. 2. The Falcon's EWAR, unlike the EWAR of the other recons, can be done at extreme range. And it turns EVERYTHING off on the target ship. It just doesn't hamper lock time/range like the dampener, it makes it impossible for the target to lock anything. It doesn't disrupt the tracking of turrets, it turns turrets off. It doesn't slowly kill your ability to use your mods by nerfing your cap, it turns ALL of your projection mods off--completely. 3. Falcons, like nanos, allow people to dictate when and where they fight, almost always. Have enough Falcon pilots you can get everyone away from a combat that's going south. 4. Falcons pilots themselves can get away fairly easily (as long as they aren't alt tabbing alts). "Look here comes the interceptors I'll just warp away." 5. As someone else pointed out, all of this on a ship that can fit a covert ops cloak. My sig don't fracking work. |
Johan Sabbat
R.E.C.O.N. Dara Cothrom
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 21:30:00 -
[960]
Edited by: Johan Sabbat on 27/03/2009 21:32:50
Originally by: Karlemgne
Stuff and nonsense
So you're bitter because ECM affects your chosen play style?
ECCM does work, pop it on a Cerberus and snipe those Falcons. You'll soon scare them away.
I look forward to your new world of low-sec pvp; RR BS ftw...
|
|
Ellatan Deruimte
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 22:06:00 -
[961]
Originally by: Johan Sabbat Edited by: Johan Sabbat on 27/03/2009 21:32:50
Originally by: Karlemgne
Stuff and nonsense
So you're bitter because ECM affects your chosen play style?
ECCM does work, pop it on a Cerberus and snipe those Falcons. You'll soon scare them away.
I look forward to your new world of low-sec pvp; RR BS ftw...
A Hac with eccm can be easily jammed, again not saying permajammed, but 2 out 3 cycles at best. Tested on an ishtar with eccm, not reliable at all.
|
Johan Sabbat
R.E.C.O.N. Dara Cothrom
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 22:29:00 -
[962]
Originally by: Ellatan Deruimte
Originally by: Johan Sabbat Edited by: Johan Sabbat on 27/03/2009 21:32:50
Originally by: Karlemgne
Stuff and nonsense
So you're bitter because ECM affects your chosen play style?
ECCM does work, pop it on a Cerberus and snipe those Falcons. You'll soon scare them away.
I look forward to your new world of low-sec pvp; RR BS ftw...
A Hac with eccm can be easily jammed, again not saying permajammed, but 2 out 3 cycles at best. Tested on an ishtar with eccm, not reliable at all.
And how many volloys would it take from the Cerberus to send the Falcon from the field?
|
Starship Enterprizes
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 22:35:00 -
[963]
Ok
I have been away for a week and got bk playing to find out that you or going to nerf Ecm what i have spent the last 6-7 months training for im not happy about this being a falcon pilot range is there only defence can i just ask if the future of pvp is going to be done on the forums
Noob gets himself killed Noob Conplains he got killed by group with a ewar ship CCp nerf ships that killed him noob goes bk kills them in a noob ship first cruise missile nerf then more nerfs now this
All i can say is roll on Jumpgate Evolution the new eve were codemasters dont lisen to noobs
|
Canaloney Soup
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 22:48:00 -
[964]
Plez CCP can you make eve into gank & tank, oops my bad you already r .
Eve = SWG FTW
|
TheLibrarian
Tides Of War
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 22:58:00 -
[965]
Edited by: TheLibrarian on 27/03/2009 23:02:26 Edited by: TheLibrarian on 27/03/2009 23:00:04 Edited by: TheLibrarian on 27/03/2009 22:59:29
Originally by: Johan Sabbat
Originally by: Ellatan Deruimte
Originally by: Johan Sabbat Edited by: Johan Sabbat on 27/03/2009 21:32:50
Originally by: Karlemgne
Stuff and nonsense
So you're bitter because ECM affects your chosen play style?
ECCM does work, pop it on a Cerberus and snipe those Falcons. You'll soon scare them away.
I look forward to your new world of low-sec pvp; RR BS ftw...
A Hac with eccm can be easily jammed, again not saying permajammed, but 2 out 3 cycles at best. Tested on an ishtar with eccm, not reliable at all.
And how many volloys would it take from the Cerberus to send the Falcon from the field?
I think the real question is how do you keep your cerberus alive vs the other entire gang that is primarying it because your shooting at their falcon. Oh thats right about 5-10 seconds.
You can theory craft all you want. I fly falcons. In low sec you cannot die in a falcon unless the gang knows all 3-4 of your jamming spots that you have made on nearly every gate/station you fight on.
Dont be foolish, nearly everyone has trained for a falcon for this very reason. I am fine if ccp nerfs my 3-4 months of training for the only ship I fly that I hate flying. The only reason I even use a falcon is to fit 2 ECCM and 4 caldari jammers to jam other falcons.
|
Seldinger
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Sc0rched Earth
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 23:06:00 -
[966]
Sure, you can nerf ECM. Just give me back the millions of skill points I put into it and we'll call it even. In fact, since you have pretty much nerfed Caldari into oblivion, how about you let me transfer all those skill points to a race that actually can fight in fleet battles, like Amarr.
|
bubble booty
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 23:13:00 -
[967]
NERF IT!!!! Then Nerf all the amarr and caldari crap because its way over powered...tank for days, fit all the dps you want and still tackle....BS its always whiners
|
Johan Sabbat
R.E.C.O.N. Dara Cothrom
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 23:13:00 -
[968]
Originally by: TheLibrarian
I think the real question is how do you keep your cerberus alive vs the other entire gang that is primarying it because your shooting at their falcon. Oh thats right about 5-10 seconds.
You can theory craft all you want. I fly falcons. In low sec you cannot die in a falcon unless the gang knows all 3-4 of your jamming spots that you have made on nearly every gate/station you fight on.
Dont be foolish, nearly everyone has trained for a falcon for this very reason. I am fine if ccp nerfs my 3-4 months of training for the only ship I fly that I hate flying. The only reason I even use a falcon is to fit 2 ECCM and 4 caldari jammers to jam other falcons.
Have you not tried using gate spots with the Cerberus?
You know how they keep Falcons 'safe' well you do the same with the Cerberus, after all your not trying to kill the Falcon just send it from the field than apply your dps to the fight.
Call it theory craft if you like, but I would recommend trying it.
|
True Ace
Gallente Fat Bastards MACHI MISCHIEF
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 23:17:00 -
[969]
ccp is nerfing the falcon if u call it a nerf because its the only ecm ship besides the scorpion people fly. abuse things like passive shield tanking damps and nos and it gets nerfed simple as that. falcon wasnt inline with the ships in its class so it needs to be brought back.
no recons have a tank period. some hacs (deimos anybody) have the same measly tank get over it. if u got a problem just quit then. no one is forcing you to pay that monthly fee.
|
Plague Black
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 00:14:00 -
[970]
CCP shows no spine again. If one whines strong enough they will react. Like with certain alliance names. Then another group whines a bit more and they back down again flexing their spine like a rubber band. Same with ECM.
I'll put 100m isk on titans feeling the nerf bat next. Any takers?
|
|
Zakru Anul
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 00:25:00 -
[971]
How about not nerf bating ECM and fix ECCM, i would suggest a duel bonus on the units. give them a small booster too the sensor strength and say 15% range/lock speed add on.
that makes them more useful then a Anti jamming mod alone. and might get people too use them instead of whining about ECM and getting it nerfed.
caldri are on the low end of PVP usefulness already don't make them the PvE class only.
|
DMF KingBob
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 00:37:00 -
[972]
"ECM ruins Lowsec-PvP" thats 100% right then one falcon per 2 man gang is standard
i think many guys are ****ed off by the falcon suckage but simply nerfing will be not effectiv enough it is not effectivity of ecm wich sucks it is that i disrupts at the lock-system wich is very basic and everyone(e-war at self) needs...
thats my simple mind: so it needs changed to an remote breaker
we are not at low sec-pvp since a long time falcon has ruined our friday night fights too often....
|
Karlemgne
Tides Of War
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 01:23:00 -
[973]
Originally by: Johan Sabbat
Originally by: TheLibrarian
I think the real question is how do you keep your cerberus alive vs the other entire gang that is primarying it because your shooting at their falcon. Oh thats right about 5-10 seconds.
You can theory craft all you want. I fly falcons. In low sec you cannot die in a falcon unless the gang knows all 3-4 of your jamming spots that you have made on nearly every gate/station you fight on.
Dont be foolish, nearly everyone has trained for a falcon for this very reason. I am fine if ccp nerfs my 3-4 months of training for the only ship I fly that I hate flying. The only reason I even use a falcon is to fit 2 ECCM and 4 caldari jammers to jam other falcons.
Have you not tried using gate spots with the Cerberus?
You know how they keep Falcons 'safe' well you do the same with the Cerberus, after all your not trying to kill the Falcon just send it from the field than apply your dps to the fight.
Call it theory craft if you like, but I would recommend trying it.
Great, so we're now back to the "nanos are fine! Just fit up a Hugin or a Rapier and be sure you have 15 of them. I don't see the problem?"
My sig don't fracking work. |
Davik Rendar
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 01:35:00 -
[974]
This happened with the speed nerf too.
People whined and complained because they put millions of skill points and billions of isk into training for the FOTM nano ships, they were nerfed, people moved on, and the good nano pilots still fly nano ships. This will be just the same.
Personally I think it was about time, and the planned changes look pretty good to me.
Eve Online Ship Chart - Quantum Rise Edition |
MaxXx Gunn
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 02:02:00 -
[975]
Originally by: Johan Sabbat
Originally by: TheLibrarian
I think the real question is how do you keep your cerberus alive vs the other entire gang that is primarying it because your shooting at their falcon. Oh thats right about 5-10 seconds.
You can theory craft all you want. I fly falcons. In low sec you cannot die in a falcon unless the gang knows all 3-4 of your jamming spots that you have made on nearly every gate/station you fight on.
Dont be foolish, nearly everyone has trained for a falcon for this very reason. I am fine if ccp nerfs my 3-4 months of training for the only ship I fly that I hate flying. The only reason I even use a falcon is to fit 2 ECCM and 4 caldari jammers to jam other falcons.
Have you not tried using gate spots with the Cerberus?
You know how they keep Falcons 'safe' well you do the same with the Cerberus, after all your not trying to kill the Falcon just send it from the field than apply your dps to the fight.
Call it theory craft if you like, but I would recommend trying it.
Obviously not otherwise we wouldnt be posting in this thread that is all about people who are not smart enough or too lazy to use strategy to stay alive. Instead were posting in a thread where people cried because they didnt want to have to modify their game play and give up their uber pwn mobile fittings to counter ECM. Their epic fail is now everyones problem.
|
AA10
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 02:16:00 -
[976]
Edited by: AA10 on 28/03/2009 02:18:55 Stupidity of some CCP's developers is the main problem. They are presenting crude ideas (falcon is brawler with agility bonus - ha-ha) and loosing prestige... It's better to leave it as it is...
|
Phidell
Chaos Reborn
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 03:12:00 -
[977]
Alright, I was training for a falcon, and in fact I could've flown it for the past three or four months, but I refuse to fly one. Finally decide to train for it and bam nerf. Fine, falcon was overpowered. I demand a boost to some caldari ships though!!! Falcon was the one really great caldari ship for PvP.
Torp Raven is ok v Bs gang's but eagle, or cerb? Missiles with delayed damage suck for any decent sized gang. BS? Scorpion's gonna be primary and you know it. Sry if I don't feel like flying a slow, large ship with a huge sig radius, and using my midslots for ECM.
Also, brawler rook is fail. What Recon brawls and succeeds? Curse stays at range and neuts from far away compared even to BS neuts. Pilgrim w/o range bonus is mainly used to gank because the lack of a range bonus hurts it greatly. Lachesis is ****, you can tell by the price. Oh and huginn. Web nerf made them pretty useless. Huginn's split weapons system isn't versatile. It still sucks.
^^#1 none of the other combat recon's brawl. Recon's don't brawl! it's a ****ing ******ed idea.
|
Cord Cutter
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 03:45:00 -
[978]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis reserved
Please Think about this carefully, it's starting to remind me of what you have done to scanning by re-aranging the strengh's.. let ecm have a role or it won't even be used and it will die completly, who needs ecm the most ? people that want to avoid pvp, or protect investments thru gatecamps? I am not claiming to know the answer just asking that you think it thru all possible perspective
|
Spurty
Caldari Amok. Minor Threat.
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 03:59:00 -
[979]
Originally by: Cord Cutter
Please Think about this carefully, it's starting to remind me of what you have done to scanning by re-aranging the strengh's.. let ecm have a role or it won't even be used and it will die completly, who needs ecm the most ? people that want to avoid pvp, or protect investments thru gatecamps? I am not claiming to know the answer just asking that you think it thru all possible perspective
Quite possibly the most insane comment ever read. Assuming you are trying to troll and I'm too tired to find the humor.
Falcons are in practically every P V P gang larger than 5 people.
I can't recall who said it, but someone rather comically / wisely said "Who tries solo pvp without a falcon alt these days?". Just a sign of the times.
All cruisers need their targeting range capped at around 120kms max.
Frigs 20-80 cruisers 40-120 battlecruisers I think are lower than sniper hacs and recons battleships 60-250
Having cruisers effective at x2 to x4 further than the average RR BS is iffy.
As for the "Doing this nerf breaks the rock/paper/scissors of eve pvp", you do know that the most effective counter to a Falcon is Another Falcon right?
So thats rock/paper/scissors out the window (Look out below!)
Originally by: Butter Dog
I think you'll find that 10 seconds > 1 month
|
EgoMan
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 04:20:00 -
[980]
plain and simple the only people who are pushing for a falcon nerf are FAILURES.....anyone worth a crap at pvp doesnt cry about dieing and definately doesnt cry about ecm. Just accapt your fail and go sit in the corner because you suck.
|
|
Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express Burning Horizons
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 05:01:00 -
[981]
Why not just have scripts for ECM like all the other EW.
I mean you could have a power script and a range script. If you don't use a script it has less effect on both.
Seems that would be the much more appropriate response based on how you did that to most of the rest of EW.
Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts.
Your signature is too large. Please resize it to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Mitnal |
DAX ZAIR
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 08:00:00 -
[982]
leave it alone ecm ships are powerfull in ew terms but also extremely weak have a ship or 2 in your fleet fit to deal with them
Keep nerfing my ships and ill come to ccp headquarters and nerf the lot of ya
|
Karlemgne
Tides Of War
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 08:25:00 -
[983]
Originally by: DAX ZAIR leave it alone ecm ships are powerfull in ew terms but also extremely weak have a ship or 2 in your fleet fit to deal with them
Keep nerfing my ships and ill come to ccp headquarters and nerf the lot of ya
QFT
I don't exactly think this response is in anyway appropriate. Maybe its just me. My sig don't fracking work. |
Karlemgne
Tides Of War
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 08:32:00 -
[984]
Originally by: MaxXx Gunn
Originally by: Johan Sabbat
Originally by: TheLibrarian
I think the real question is how do you keep your cerberus alive vs the other entire gang that is primarying it because your shooting at their falcon. Oh thats right about 5-10 seconds.
You can theory craft all you want. I fly falcons. In low sec you cannot die in a falcon unless the gang knows all 3-4 of your jamming spots that you have made on nearly every gate/station you fight on.
Dont be foolish, nearly everyone has trained for a falcon for this very reason. I am fine if ccp nerfs my 3-4 months of training for the only ship I fly that I hate flying. The only reason I even use a falcon is to fit 2 ECCM and 4 caldari jammers to jam other falcons.
Have you not tried using gate spots with the Cerberus?
You know how they keep Falcons 'safe' well you do the same with the Cerberus, after all your not trying to kill the Falcon just send it from the field than apply your dps to the fight.
Call it theory craft if you like, but I would recommend trying it.
Obviously not otherwise we wouldnt be posting in this thread that is all about people who are not smart enough or too lazy to use strategy to stay alive. Instead were posting in a thread where people cried because they didnt want to have to modify their game play and give up their uber pwn mobile fittings to counter ECM. Their epic fail is now everyones problem.
Yeah, my epic pownagemobiles get nerfed by fitting 2 ECCMs in the following way: I cannot tackle anyone.
The state of low-sec pvp is great right now with ECM the way it is. Fewer fights, bigger ships (because bigger ships are the only ships with sensor strengths big enough to counter a Falcon with ECCM), fewer losses and kills in fights, etc.
Yep. Yeah ECM.
-Karlemgne My sig don't fracking work. |
Karlemgne
Tides Of War
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 08:40:00 -
[985]
Originally by: EgoMan plain and simple the only people who are pushing for a falcon nerf are FAILURES.....anyone worth a crap at pvp doesnt cry about dieing and definately doesnt cry about ecm. Just accapt your fail and go sit in the corner because you suck.
I, we, certainly don't fail. In fact, there are many a dedicated Falcon pilot in this thread who have said: "Yep. Its broken. Fix it."
The real issue here is people who don't want to lose their Falcon alts. They don't want to lose their FoTM. This is, I think demonstrably with the tq Falcon spamage, the same thing that we had with the nanos. Falcons are easy, Falcons are the current *I win most of the time* ships, and people are a bit ****ed they trained an alt specifically for the Falcon.
So what. I am Minmatar and Gallente pilot. I am a nanopilot (who was in favor of the nerf), I am a Myrmidon Pilot and an EOS pilot. They were nerfed, I understand why, and I moved on.
-Karlemgne My sig don't fracking work. |
SniperWo1f
Omega Enterprises Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 08:53:00 -
[986]
Originally by: Sky Marshal
Do I need a Batphone or contact a BoB friend to be sure that you receive my comment ?
no only if you need an a alliance name change..
"In Rust We Trust"
|
SniperWo1f
Omega Enterprises Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 09:00:00 -
[987]
Originally by: Mecinia Lua Why not just have scripts for ECM like all the other EW.
I mean you could have a power script and a range script. If you don't use a script it has less effect on both.
Seems that would be the much more appropriate response based on how you did that to most of the rest of EW.
your idea shows clarity and logic with a strong fundemental argument
unfortunatly ... ccp .
"In Rust We Trust"
|
Johan Sabbat
R.E.C.O.N. Dara Cothrom
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 11:12:00 -
[988]
Edited by: Johan Sabbat on 28/03/2009 11:13:21
Originally by: Karlemgne
Yeah, my epic pownagemobiles get nerfed by fitting 2 ECCMs in the following way: I cannot tackle anyone.
The state of low-sec pvp is great right now with ECM the way it is. Fewer fights, bigger ships (because bigger ships are the only ships with sensor strengths big enough to counter a Falcon with ECCM), fewer losses and kills in fights, etc.
Yep. Yeah ECM.
-Karlemgne
Well if you sniping falcons in a HAC then you want to be out of point range yourself (as you say your tank won't be anything to write home about), so there is no need to fit a point.
It sounds like you have a favourite short ranged SpanknTank mobile that you don't want to change for ECM.
Here's a second tip for you, get some mates with projected ECCM, you can keep your SpanknTank mobile unchanged.
One final point, you complaint that Falcons mean people resort to bigger ships (for the sensor strength) then you should take advantage of that fact. I am personally of the opinion that if we lose useable ECM then we will see a surge in RR BS gangs with logistics.
I would like to see your counter arguement to that last point.
--edit--
btw, I am in favour of making the Rook a brawler platform in the vein of the Curse.
|
Marrano Cardosa
Revenent Defence Corperation Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 11:23:00 -
[989]
The falcon is only slightly overpowered. Its a force multiplier, why do people always whine about that and then CCP nerf it. All this change will do is break ECM, the real solution is to make the other forms of EWAR actually WORK.
As for a counter to a Falcon, sure another Falcon is a good counter. BUT its not all that good a use of a Falcon. An Arazu can easily counter a Falcon, if the pilot does a little planning.
|
yani dumyat
Minmatar purple pot hogs Doctrine.
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 11:25:00 -
[990]
Rook with 25m3 dronebay, and a falloff bonus for using miltispecs solo. Sweet
|
|
J Valkor
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 11:42:00 -
[991]
Edited by: J Valkor on 28/03/2009 11:44:36 Doesn't matter. Game always changes.
|
Marrano Cardosa
Revenent Defence Corperation Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 11:45:00 -
[992]
Originally by: Karlemgne
Originally by: EgoMan plain and simple the only people who are pushing for a falcon nerf are FAILURES.....anyone worth a crap at pvp doesnt cry about dieing and definately doesnt cry about ecm. Just accapt your fail and go sit in the corner because you suck.
I, we, certainly don't fail. In fact, there are many a dedicated Falcon pilot in this thread who have said: "Yep. Its broken. Fix it."
The real issue here is people who don't want to lose their Falcon alts. They don't want to lose their FoTM. This is, I think demonstrably with the tq Falcon spamage, the same thing that we had with the nanos. Falcons are easy, Falcons are the current *I win most of the time* ships, and people are a bit ****ed they trained an alt specifically for the Falcon.
So what. I am Minmatar and Gallente pilot. I am a nanopilot (who was in favor of the nerf), I am a Myrmidon Pilot and an EOS pilot. They were nerfed, I understand why, and I moved on.
-Karlemgne
Falcon's are NOT easy. Yes, when done right, especially against people who don't plan or expect a Falcon they are very effective, but you are still just whining. I don't run a Falcon alt, my main pilots a falcon. And not all the time either. I also use an Arazu and a Curse in PvP (the Arazu more than the Curse because I haven't spent enough time figuring out how to position a Curse in a fight yet). All 3 are effective ship, although none is a "brawler". Yes, the Falcon has more of a force multiplier effect than the others, but at most it is only slightly over-powered. I would say that its the other EWAR ships that are underpowered.
|
Merdaneth
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 11:51:00 -
[993]
Edited by: Merdaneth on 28/03/2009 11:54:10 ECM modules were good, not super-overpoweringly good, but better than average. People that 'play to win' started training for and using nosferatu's. Best available counter against a ECM module was another ECM module. Result: nearly everybody started training for and using ECM, one was crammed into every available midslot. Result: ECM nerfed.
Nosferatu's were good, not super-overpoweringly good, but better than average. People that 'play to win' started training for and using nosferatu's. Best available counter against a nosferatu was a nosferatu. Result: nearly everybody started training for and using nosferatu's. Result: more and more nosferatu setups. Nosferatu's nerfed.
Nano's were good, not super-overpoweringly good, but better than average. People that 'play to win' started training for and using nano's. Best available counter against a nano was a nano. Result: nearly everybody started training for and flying nano's. Result: more and more nano's. Nano's get nerfed.
Falcons are good, not super-overpoweringly good, but better than average. People that 'play to win' started training for and using Falcons. Best available counter against a Falcon was a Falcon of your own. Result: nearly everybody started training for and using Falcons. Result: more and more Falcon heavy fleets. Nerf coming? Of course.....
If a module/ship is better than average AND its best counter is a module/ship of the same flavor, it will (and must) eventually spin out of control and will be nerfed. Either accept the nerfs, or submit to ECM-online, Nano-online, Falcon-online or whatever one-dimensional EVE flavor. ____
The Illusion of Freedom | The Truth about Slavery |
Marrano Cardosa
Revenent Defence Corperation Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 11:51:00 -
[994]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
...
ECM Range
Generally the ECM optimal range is a little too long with massive optimal ranges possible which would place the ECM specialised ships so far out of the fight to be almost completely safe but suffer no effective hit quality decrease. To bring them closer to the fight we are looking at swapping the base optimal and falloff ranges so at the longer ranges jammers would be operating more in falloff and hence have a lower chance of 'hitting' with their jammers at the extreme ranges.
Ship Changes
Falcon: Caldari Cruiser Skill Bonus: 12.5% Bonus to ECM Target Jammer Optimal & Falloff Range per level 10% Bonus to Medium Hybrid Optimal Range per level
Recon Ships Skill Bonus: 20% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per level -96% to -100% reduction in Cloaking Device CPU use per level
Attribute Changes: +1 turret hardpoint / -1 launcher hardpoint
Too much of a nerf to the optimal range. At recon IV, a falcon needs to be effective at 100km, and at recon V it needs to be effective at 150km.
|
Kerdrak
3B Legio IX Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 11:54:00 -
[995]
Edited by: Kerdrak on 28/03/2009 11:55:11 There is a fact that CCP is missing here about ECM: ECM is not fun: being disabled 20 seconds + having to lock again is not fun for anyone. You have nothing to do in that time but watching how others kill you.
When you get neuted, dampened, tracking disrupted, webbed, painted, etc... you have time and options to react against. Jammed, you are simply not playing by 20 seconds. ________________________________________ [img]http://www.atlas-alliance.com/killboard-new/sig.php/4652/alliancerank/signature.jpg[/img |
Jack Dant
Minmatar The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 11:57:00 -
[996]
Originally by: Marrano Cardosa Too much of a nerf to the optimal range. At recon IV, a falcon needs to be effective at 100km, and at recon V it needs to be effective at 150km.
I've been doing numbers, and will try to get a summary (biggest unknown being the SDA changes), but at 150km the new falcon will have 70% of the strength of the current one (given a 65km optimal and 130km falloff). By itself, it does not look like a huge nerf, really.
|
Marrano Cardosa
Revenent Defence Corperation Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 12:00:00 -
[997]
Here is what I think will work better for a change.
Rather than swapping optimal and falloff ranges for the ECM modules, instead put both ranges at 40km. Then having the range bonus apply to both will make more sense and leave things workable. You need to shoot for having ECM be effective for pilots with Recon IV at more than 100KM, and keep pilots with Recon V from having effective ranges much beyond 200km.
What I see as the biggest remaining problem, is that during a cycle of a jammer, if it does achieve a jam, the jammed pilots have to wait till the next cycle to even start a lock attempt. This means that ships with a long lock time may never get a chance lock even when the jammer fails. Change this instead so that one can always attempt to lock, but jammer will break the lock immediately if it is achieved, rather than having the lock attempt fail immediately. That way, I can start to get a lock when still jammed, but if my lock attempt brings me into a new jammer cycle where the jammer fails, that lock atempt gets me a lock.
|
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 12:02:00 -
[998]
Umm... Looking at this whole "Falcon Sniper" thing, it still seems that the ranges are going to be pretty extreme. Sure it swaps falloff for optimal, so 27km base optimal. And reduces the ship range bonus from 20% to 12.5%. But what would the optimal be for a max skilled pilot with rigs? Looks about 92km. Which is still fairly invulnerable to most weapons and tackles. And that's just optimal. Falloff extends another 75km or so. Oh and hey, SDAs might boost the range up even more. Joy.
And since the ship's ECM strength bonus doesn't change (still 20%), the Falcon still jams just as well as it did before.
So basically, not a damn thing will change. Still has range. Still has same jam strength.
That's... great.
Taxman VII: Kingdom of Vlad
|
Marrano Cardosa
Revenent Defence Corperation Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 12:02:00 -
[999]
Originally by: Kerdrak Edited by: Kerdrak on 28/03/2009 11:55:11 There is a fact that CCP is missing here about ECM: ECM is not fun: being disabled 20 seconds + having to lock again is not fun for anyone. You have nothing to do in that time but watching how others kill you.
When you get neuted, dampened, tracking disrupted, webbed, painted, etc... you have time and options to react against. Jammed, you are simply not playing by 20 seconds.
And that's why you fail against Falcons, you can win if you surrender at the very start of the fight. You have plenty of options in those 20 seconds. Just because they aren't identical to the options you have against other EWAR doesn't mean you don't have options.
|
Marrano Cardosa
Revenent Defence Corperation Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 12:05:00 -
[1000]
Originally by: Vladimir Norkoff Umm... Looking at this whole "Falcon Sniper" thing, it still seems that the ranges are going to be pretty extreme. Sure it swaps falloff for optimal, so 27km base optimal. And reduces the ship range bonus from 20% to 12.5%. But what would the optimal be for a max skilled pilot with rigs? Looks about 92km. Which is still fairly invulnerable to most weapons and tackles. And that's just optimal. Falloff extends another 75km or so. Oh and hey, SDAs might boost the range up even more. Joy.
And since the ship's ECM strength bonus doesn't change (still 20%), the Falcon still jams just as well as it did before.
So basically, not a damn thing will change. Still has range. Still has same jam strength.
That's... great.
What don't you understand about PAPERTHIN TANK? Would you be happy if someone proposed cutting your ships effective hitpoints by nearly a third? Because that is essentially what you are claiming is not enough of a nerf for the Falcon.
|
|
Kalintos Tyl
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 12:06:00 -
[1001]
Buff also eccm: -eccm dont prevent lock loss - *new effect* prevents jamming timer
this way batleships wont shoot like now becouse very long relock time, and small ships will be finaly able to do any job.
60D GTC - shattared link |
Marrano Cardosa
Revenent Defence Corperation Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 12:08:00 -
[1002]
Originally by: Jack Dant
Originally by: Marrano Cardosa Too much of a nerf to the optimal range. At recon IV, a falcon needs to be effective at 100km, and at recon V it needs to be effective at 150km.
I've been doing numbers, and will try to get a summary (biggest unknown being the SDA changes), but at 150km the new falcon will have 70% of the strength of the current one (given a 65km optimal and 130km falloff). By itself, it does not look like a huge nerf, really.
But that does effectively mean that you won't be able to pilot a Falcon without Recon V. And it likely means that even then, a single Falcon will not be flyable.
|
Jack Dant
Minmatar The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 12:22:00 -
[1003]
Originally by: Vladimir Norkoff Umm... Looking at this whole "Falcon Sniper" thing, it still seems that the ranges are going to be pretty extreme. Sure it swaps falloff for optimal, so 27km base optimal. And reduces the ship range bonus from 20% to 12.5%. But what would the optimal be for a max skilled pilot with rigs? Looks about 92km. Which is still fairly invulnerable to most weapons and tackles. And that's just optimal. Falloff extends another 75km or so. Oh and hey, SDAs might boost the range up even more. Joy.
27km base optimal, 40km after skills, 65km with ship bonuses. Falloff extends 131km at max skills, too. Without taking SDAs or rigs into account, the new falcon will be nearly as effective at 100km, 68% at 150, and actually better past 200km.
The killer is that, since SDAs will no longer give strength bonuses, actual falcon fits will only have about half the strength at 150. Which is fine with me, tbh.
|
Ellatan Deruimte
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 12:35:00 -
[1004]
I also think, that the optimal range is too great, doesn't really change much. The range bonus needs to be tweaked slightly more, to make a falcon successfully operate in 80km range with SDAs fitted. Otherwise this patch will not lead to any significant changes in game.
|
Rumpelstilski
Caldari Divine Retribution Sons of Tangra
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 12:51:00 -
[1005]
My concern is that all small gang pvp will eventually turn into previous years alliance tournament matches look-a-likes. Ecm at 100-150km that can't cloak effectively gets blown out of the sky fast (or is useless against multi eccmed ships) and dual logistic setups on each side try to fool each other into repping the wrong target for 15 minutes.
I like flying rr bs gangs and what everyone defending them says about their fun factor is absolutely true. Every one needs to be on the ball and the feeling of looking your armor going up and down like a yoyo is awesome.
But if there is no cruiser-sized ranged counter (on average 40% ecm strength reduction currently proposed, not worth it against multi eccmed logis, rr bses and carriers) and if outsmarted / outgunned rr gangs can just disappear due to lousy aggro mechanics fitting only them really, never mind the insurance payouts, there will be little other gangs around and that is not good for my eve because I like my hacs too.
The least painful way for rr to settle that imbalance is to buff the counters, namely ecm and damps or (much better!) make rr ships more susceptible to the effects of those. The alternative is nerfing rr itself which will not make me happy and will make all of us VERY unhappy if ccp doesn't remember to nerf poses and cyno jammers too while they're at it.
Logistic setups are next in the nerfline
|
Robert Caldera
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 14:05:00 -
[1006]
Edited by: Robert Caldera on 28/03/2009 14:05:35 mhhhhh am I skilling for several moths for getting a worthless ship in near future???
I think making a ship of a cruiser class with no tank ability and which is getting primary for sure to brawlers and misses completely its role purpose.
Dont cripple falcons to death, dont nerf them into unusability like other races recons. Or is this your approach to balance things? Just nerfing them to death so nobuddy like to use them anymore.
Ships like falcon must not operate in the engage range of other bigger ships which all want to pop it.
The Falcon is one of the few ships those are worth being used in PvP. You should rename the Caldari rase to Caredari then, since there are almost no ships left for PvP if the Falcon gets practically removed from the battlefield.
|
Ankor Gamoodi
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 14:25:00 -
[1007]
Heres my dilemma , I too have been spending a lot of training time toward something that is going to be rendered useless. We already have to devote a low slot to warp stabilizing so why don't we force a passive anti-ecm mid slot to counter potential jamming or would that be too easy.nerfing is not the answer a counter is but its too inconvienant for those who don't want to devote another slot to thier survivability outside shield and armor. Lets face it this nerf is for the whining gate campers who get caught w/ their pants down. And for a change leave some way for the 'care bears' to defend themselves, not all of us want to pvp all the time!
|
Johan Sabbat
R.E.C.O.N. Dara Cothrom
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 14:33:00 -
[1008]
Edited by: Johan Sabbat on 28/03/2009 14:33:25
Originally by: Ankor Gamoodi Heres my dilemma , I too have been spending a lot of training time toward something that is going to be rendered useless. We already have to devote a low slot to warp stabilizing so why don't we force a passive anti-ecm mid slot to counter potential jamming or would that be too easy.nerfing is not the answer a counter is but its too inconvienant for those who don't want to devote another slot to thier survivability outside shield and armor. Lets face it this nerf is for the whining gate campers who get caught w/ their pants down. And for a change leave some way for the 'care bears' to defend themselves, not all of us want to pvp all the time!
You have a passive ECCM low slot item, an active ECCM mid-slot item and projected (high slot) ECCM if you want it...
It's not like there are no counters to ECM.
|
Ankor Gamoodi
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 14:41:00 -
[1009]
Originally by: Johan Sabbat Edited by: Johan Sabbat on 28/03/2009 14:33:25
Originally by: Ankor Gamoodi Heres my dilemma , I too have been spending a lot of training time toward something that is going to be rendered useless. We already have to devote a low slot to warp stabilizing so why don't we force a passive anti-ecm mid slot to counter potential jamming or would that be too easy.nerfing is not the answer a counter is but its too inconvienant for those who don't want to devote another slot to thier survivability outside shield and armor. Lets face it this nerf is for the whining gate campers who get caught w/ their pants down. And for a change leave some way for the 'care bears' to defend themselves, not all of us want to pvp all the time!
You have a passive ECCM low slot item, an active ECCM mid-slot item and projected (high slot) ECCM if you want it...
It's not like there are no counters to ECM.
My point exactly, the whiners don't want to dedicate a slot or train to counter, so they squeek till they get some grease.
|
Destructor1792
Minmatar Priory Of The Lemon Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 15:31:00 -
[1010]
Currently, there are 3 problems with ECM:
No.1 : Get ECM'd, out the frame for 20secs - NO other module has this effect & no-one like just sitting there twiddling their thumbs whilst getting their butts handed to em!!
No.2 : ECCM - Pretty much useless - enough posts on the forums about this so won't bother with details.
No.3 : Falcons - Their ability to sit in relative safety 200km from the fight jamming god knows who!! NO other recon has this range ability so wtf is that about!!??
To fix, a simple a solution:
ECM to be scripted. 2 Scripts, 1 for range, 1 for strength. EXAMPLES (note here, only examples)
Script 1: 50% strength increase / 50% decrease in optimal range
Script 2: 50% optimal range increase / 50% strength decrease
ECM modules to be tweaked (or should i say nerfed!) for unscripted and go from there.
ECCM modules to be tweaked so they do what they're supposed to.
Now others are gonna use the "Yeah but the Falcon is wafer thin" argument.. Hellooo, all recons are!! It's just the others have to get in close to do their job which requires sacrificing some mids (or lows) for a small buffer tank.
Those of you who have played for many a year will probably remember how feared the Scorps were if u came across those in a fight! would be nice to see more of them on the front lines again.
And for the love of god, do one change at a time & view the results.. If it doesn't work, try something else, rinse & repeat.
**edited bit** Maybe even change how ECM operates - instead of completely knocking out a ship for 20secs, each mod reduces the number of max locks on the locked target so:
EXAMPLE (yep, only an example)
T1 ECM: - minus 2 locks per target ship (still racial dependant) T2 ECM: - minus 3 locks per target ship (still racial dependant)
or something like that..
Right, that's my 2 cents worth... coffee, smoke & food time Flame / b*tch / Applaud / Moan away
______________________________________
Bringing The Fun Back
[gold]I Have No Fear, That's your Problem[/go |
|
Johan Sabbat
R.E.C.O.N. Dara Cothrom
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 15:40:00 -
[1011]
Originally by: Destructor1792
No.2 : ECCM - Pretty much useless - enough posts on the forums about this so won't bother with details.
I totally disagree with point 2.
IF you fit the correct racial ECCM, turn it on and still get 'perma-jammed' then it means the jamming ship is devoting a large proportion of its jamming capacity against you.
This leaves your mates to go about ganking his gang.
|
Arakkis Melanogaster
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 15:42:00 -
[1012]
Shortening the range of ECM some is fine, but as has been already stated here, ECM goes in the midslots, same place as the Caldari tank. This makes the Scorpion anything but a brawler. Increase the effectiveness of ECCM if you want to have a lasting impact on ewar. Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me. |
Destructor1792
Minmatar Priory Of The Lemon Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 15:54:00 -
[1013]
Originally by: Johan Sabbat
Originally by: Destructor1792
No.2 : ECCM - Pretty much useless - enough posts on the forums about this so won't bother with details.
I totally disagree with point 2.
IF you fit the correct racial ECCM, turn it on and still get 'perma-jammed' then it means the jamming ship is devoting a large proportion of its jamming capacity against you.
This leaves your mates to go about ganking his gang.
And herein lies the problem.. The Mythical Perma Jam which apparently doesn't happen but we all know does. In theory, by overloading said ECCM should counter this, but doesn't! No other module ingame has this ability to stop your victim (soz, target) from fighting back once a successfull hit has been achieved.
FOF;s could be a choice but are highly unpredictable and are only good if you have launchers fitted (which rules out about 90% of PVP ships) & also have the issue of lack of range. iir, they also go for the nearest hostile near you (which in itself can cause alot of problems )
Drones are the same & are only good if the jammer is in your drone control range & you've got them about before he gets a jam on you. Also, they've a habit of doing their own stuff which can cause you even more problems
This leads to one of 2 conclusions, either ECCM is underpowered or ECM is overpowered!! ______________________________________
Bringing The Fun Back
[gold]I Have No Fear, That's your Problem[/go |
Johan Sabbat
R.E.C.O.N. Dara Cothrom
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 16:26:00 -
[1014]
Originally by: Destructor1792 Edited by: Destructor1792 on 28/03/2009 16:03:45
Originally by: Johan Sabbat
Originally by: Destructor1792
No.2 : ECCM - Pretty much useless - enough posts on the forums about this so won't bother with details.
I totally disagree with point 2.
IF you fit the correct racial ECCM, turn it on and still get 'perma-jammed' then it means the jamming ship is devoting a large proportion of its jamming capacity against you.
This leaves your mates to go about ganking his gang.
And herein lies the problem.. The Mythical Perma Jam which apparently doesn't happen but we all know does. In theory, by overloading said ECCM should counter this, but doesn't! No other module ingame has this ability to stop your victim (soz, target) from fighting back once a successfull hit has been achieved.
FOF;s could be a choice but are highly unpredictable and are only good if you have launchers fitted (which rules out about 90% of PVP ships) & also have the issue of lack of range. iir, they also go for the nearest hostile near you (which in itself can cause alot of problems )
Drones are the same & are only good if the jammer is in your drone control range & you've got them about before he gets a jam on you. Also, they've a habit of doing their own stuff which can cause you even more problems
This leads to one of 2 conclusions, either ECCM is underpowered or ECM is overpowered!!
**edited bit**
Arakkis, this is a problem all ships have when dealing with EWAR ship bonuses that rely heavily on mid slot fits. Take the rapier for example, It has to sacrifice a few mids to fit a few buffers for the shield. Could go armour, but have u seen its stats??!!
If people choose to fit all mid slots for Ewar instead of sacrificing the odd slot, that's down to their own choice. Not much we can do about that
I think you miss my point, if you soak up all the jammers with your overheated ECCM the your frieds are free to gank - at which point the other gang would have been better off fielding another gank ship.
As an aside, how many overheated active hardners do you think should be needed to give you a 100% damage type resist?
|
Childstar
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 16:36:00 -
[1015]
Originally by: Destructor1792 Currently, there are 3 problems with ECM:
No.1 : Get ECM'd, out the frame for 20secs - NO other module has this effect & no-one like just sitting there twiddling their thumbs whilst getting their butts handed to em!!
Then do not just sit their, its a jammer not a webber, point, nuet...ect ect.
Originally by: Destructor1792 No.2 : ECCM - Pretty much useless - enough posts on the forums about this so won't bother with details.
ECCM works fine, that has been PROVEN many times with usage and math.
Originally by: Destructor1792 No.3 : Falcons - Their ability to sit in relative safety 200km from the fight jamming god knows who!! NO other recon has this range ability so wtf is that about!!??
The other recons are not used in gang combat because of the range they operate at, that means they need a boost in range not that the falcon needs a nerf to make it usless as well.
Originally by: Destructor1792
Maybe even change how ECM operates - instead of completely knocking out a ship for 20secs, each mod reduces the number of max locks on the locked target so:
So make it useless in other words?, most of the time you jam ships because of the effect they may have like a webber or dmg dealer ect ect. So the effect would be worthless as long as the effected ships could lock a single target.
|
Childstar
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 16:46:00 -
[1016]
Originally by: Destructor1792
And herein lies the problem.. The Mythical Perma Jam which apparently doesn't happen but we all know does. In theory, by overloading said ECCM should counter this, but doesn't! No other module ingame has this ability to stop your victim (soz, target) from fighting back once a successfull hit has been achieved.
It depends on the ship you are in as well as how many racial and non racial jammers the falcon has on you.
Originally by: Destructor1792 Drones are the same & are only good if the jammer is in your drone control range & you've got them about before he gets a jam on you. Also, they've a habit of doing their own stuff which can cause you even more problems
Drones may not reach the falcon but they will continue to attack a target they are assigned to and they will auto aggro other ships that are within range.
Originally by: Destructor1792 Arakkis, this is a problem all ships have when dealing with EWAR ship bonuses that rely heavily on mid slot fits. Take the rapier for example, It has to sacrifice a few mids to fit a few buffers for the shield. Could go armour, but have u seen its stats??!!
The webs and TP on the rapier are not racial nor are they chance based that is why the rapier is a effective solo and 2-3 man gank squad ship and why the falcon sucks at it.
|
Ilija Veliki
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 17:04:00 -
[1017]
After 2 F****** years of training caldari ships I have only one PVP ship and that is Falcon. Caldari is greatly nerfed with Scorpion and now you will nerf scorpion too??? soon they will no be caldari ships in pvp.
|
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 17:20:00 -
[1018]
Originally by: Marrano Cardosa What don't you understand about PAPERTHIN TANK? Would you be happy if someone proposed cutting your ships effective hitpoints by nearly a third? Because that is essentially what you are claiming is not enough of a nerf for the Falcon.
Lrn2read... Idiot.
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Signal Distortion Amplifiers
The SDAs are something of a conundrum. They are really only worth fitting on the ECM specialised ships and are the only EWAR enhancing module we have besides the rigs. Currently they increase your ECM strength and we were looking at swapping this to an ECM range bonus and altering either the base strength of the jammers or the ECM strength bonus of the ships so they become less required in every setup and the low slots could be used for tanking for example.
Taxman VII: Kingdom of Vlad
|
Kassasis Dakkstromri
Caldari Fallen Angel's
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 17:55:00 -
[1019]
The fact that CCP is considering a modification to ECM and ECM ships indicates there is an issue that has been noticed... point conceded.
ECM is always primary... so without serious revision and consideration in light of this 'fact', changes similar to what have been floated would eliminate the range ECM ships need to ensure survivability --- and while ECM is the tank of such ships, there is no ECM boat that can Jam a gang to avoid being focus fired into his pod... (not even making changes to allow for a tank - because there is no such thing as an individual ship tank in a Fleet battle)
Such a dramatic change to ECM after all this time and the long time familiarty with how to run these ships, necessitates an imperative re-evaluation of bringing back a "VIABLE" ECM Burst module that can act as a 'last ditch' (but not I win button) attempt to break locks and cloak up inorder to regroup and fight another day... If my knowledge of EVE history is accurate - the ECM Burst Scorp from days past caused the nerf of the Burst, as we know it now, to nothing better than a "Junk Module" now best for the Market Buy Orders of Market Traders.
I would caution CCP not to make such 'wonderful' changes so readily - you have a working system... and In my opinion any perceived problems solution lies is in the Cloak mechanic --- as crazy as it may sound... if traditional 'Cloakable' ships were allowed to cloak up during the window between initial targeting lock, and a confirmed lock (when you can fire); but unable to cloak if under fire, then you could make these changes because the nature of such ships would be preserved regardless of range --- In short - any changes need to be done in a way that preserves the 'viability' of these ships, as they are primaried in all non-solo engagements.
CCP must take into consideration how these ships are flown and what tactics players on Tranquility are using before adjusting things only 'by the numbers'... And whatever you come up with in the end I hope that it still allows the ship to be flown as a viable option (i.e. How many pilots actually fly ECM Scorpions [besides just a proud few :P])
|
hyesp24
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 18:28:00 -
[1020]
give the rook and falcon drone space. Give rook missile damage and velocity bonus and leave things as they are. Stop nerfing caldari damnit. I consider ecm to be my tank whenever i fly one but i do admit those ships are paper thin.
|
|
Lijhal
FrEE d00M Fighters
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 19:53:00 -
[1021]
seriously, there are some good feedback here ... but of course a lot of sh*** talk and mimimi
fact is, ecm is and will stay a valid form of electronic warfare .. caldari are the "long range" race ... yes, a falcon can cloak .... but most of you here forget, that the falcon is the only ew ship, which needs to fit 4! racial ew modules to be effective instead one td or one webber against all other ships ....
deal with it ... i for one dont understand some people telling here on the boards, they cant fight falcons without falcons .... you fail all the day long ... really ... iam so sorry for you
to be ontopic: remove racial jammers, buff multi's and stay the old falcon/rook/kitsune bonuses ... end of game
|
True Ace
Gallente Fat Bastards MACHI MISCHIEF
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 20:56:00 -
[1022]
Originally by: Lijhal seriously, there are some good feedback here ... but of course a lot of sh*** talk and mimimi
fact is, ecm is and will stay a valid form of electronic warfare .. caldari are the "long range" race ... yes, a falcon can cloak .... but most of you here forget, that the falcon is the only ew ship, which needs to fit 4! racial ew modules to be effective instead one td or one webber against all other ships ....
deal with it ... i for one dont understand some people telling here on the boards, they cant fight falcons without falcons .... you fail all the day long ... really ... iam so sorry for you
to be ontopic: remove racial jammers, buff multi's and stay the old falcon/rook/kitsune bonuses ... end of game
falcon doesnt need 4 racials btw.
why is the falcon the only cloak recon with a range bonus. lose its range bonus and give it to the rook. that way u have a reason to use the other recon.
|
Kazuo Nori
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 21:12:00 -
[1023]
I can see the need for ECM changes, but these changes make no sense whatsoeveràI mean what the heck is an ECM æbrawler.Æ I thought the whole idea of the last round of ECM changes was to force ECM onto dedicated ECM support ships. The problem then was that there were indeed close range brawlers that could effectively use ECM (e.g. the Tempest and Domi).
Look at only a few of the contradictions.
Falcon: Caldari turret ships are long range rail ships, but you add a turret hard point to the æclose range bawler.Æ Give the ship an agility boost, then æfree upÆ low slots to armor tank. Give the ship and agility boost, then give it a tracking dependant turret hardpoint while removing a launch hardpoint. Label the quintessential finesse based support ship a æclose range bawler,Æ in the first place.
Seriously, unless the Falcon(s) can perma-jam the entire opposing gang, they are going to get melted. If they can perma-jam the entire opposing gang, you have a bigger problem on your hands.
Rook, Make the rook long range but give it a drone bay??? Is this for a sentry drone?? This makes as much sense as the Muninn having a drone bay and 2 utility high slots.
Scorpion, The ship is perfectly fine in its role as fleet range support ship. I guess you want to make it better at RR BS gang support? I just donÆt get what is broken about the Scorpion as it is.
IÆm not sure what to do about ECM, but I think IÆd start by changing racial jammers so they only affect the target race. That makes the æloneÆ ECM ship much less of an overpowering factor in a fight. While a squad of ECM ships can still make a big impact.
|
Cpt Cosmic
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 21:13:00 -
[1024]
I dont see why you remove the range bonus on the scorpion and give it a weapon bonus to make it a brawler but no resis bonus for a paper thin bs?
|
Spartan dax
|
Posted - 2009.03.28 21:34:00 -
[1025]
Yes, remove the racial jammers. Remove the SDA's. Both these items shoehornes ECM ships into packing as many jammers onto their ships as they can get away with simply because of fitting efficiency.
Not maximizing the amount of jammers would be aching to a 3 mag stab Domi only fitting two guns and the rest neuts. It's insane, no one would do that! And ECM ship fitting strategy doesn't work any different.
Get rid of them alltogether. Intruduce a long and shortrange scripts and you're done. The long range ECM boats will stock up on jammers and woe is them if something ever gets close to them and ECM boats meant for closer adventures will pack few jammers with highstrength scripts loaded.
People will always try and fit their ships as efficiently as possible and if they're dedicating 50% or more of their lows you can bet they're going to cram as many jammers in as they dare.
(Also make ECCM's make your sig 10% smaller. I use ECCM's on my ships anyway and won't mind an extra bonus.)
|
Avuton
|
Posted - 2009.03.29 00:07:00 -
[1026]
In my opinion you can never balance ECM mods in their current form. The problem I have with them that they are absolute. Nothing should be absolute because absolutes are hard to balance.
My suggestion is to rethink the locking mechanism. It should be gradual. lvl 1 lock = instant, can only use the lock to order drones lvl 2 lock = 33% effectiveness of targeted modules lvl 3 lock = 66% effectiveness of targeted modules lvl 4 lock = 100% effectiveness of targeted modules
Every x amount of time (around the time it takes to archieve lvl 3 lock unbonused on a ship of similar size) you essentially have to relock. You wouldnt actually start from lvl 1 but if you cant get to the same locking lvl you are in when you get to the relock time again, you drop a level. This would be balanced so that you would get just barely to lvl 3 lock on similar sized ships without any modules affecting your locks.
Now you would tie sensor damps, ECM, target painters, signal boosters and signal amps to this system. ECCM would either be removed or be used to grant resistance to all forms of EW.
No module grants bonuses to ships outside the fleet or penalties to ships in it. So if you ECM your own ship to reduce incoming damage, your own remote assistance people can still get a good lock for remote repping.
ECM would make the target be harder to lock simply by making it take longer to archieve a level and therefore lowering the maximum lock level and making even that make longer to archieve. Useful for protecting primaried vessels and making hostile remote assistance less powerful.
Damps would work the way they do now - make locking time longer and(/or depending on scripts) lowering maximum locking range. However due to having to "refresh" your lock, they now lower the effectiveness of hostile boats no matter how close they are.
Target painters would be the opposite of ECM - they lower the time it takes to lock the target and therefore enable you to archieve better locks and therefore better effectiveness. Notice that they wouldnt aid you in hitting smaller targets for more damage if you already have the lvl 4 lock.
Signal amps would be the opposite of damps - they make locking time faster (enabling you to get better locks) and(/or with scripts) locking range longer.
All EW and signal amps/boosters should take more cap to use to increase vulnerability to cap warfare.
All EW should be HEAVILY stacking nerfed so that it takes 1 ECM on target to reduce lock by 1 level but 10 or something to drop it by 2 levels.
This would make it harder to just vaporise support vessels such as recons since it is harder to primary things and your big damage dealers have harder time getting a good lock on them (in particular if you have some ECM or damps in your group), it would make smaller vessels better for smaller groups since big ships get crappy locks and therefore reduced effectiveness without friendly EW. It would also at the very least reduce the "pray" aspect since it would be very hard to completely lock someone out. And even then you could freely order drones around and use fofs (that you could shoot at a specific target for lower damage compared to normal missiles with just a lvl 1 lock).
The system could also be just a continuous curve, but it was easier to explain with having 4 levels. Also the idea with the numbers was that both ends of the curve would be very hard to attain. As in you could easily have a frig have the best target against a BS, perhaps even without any mods used. However BS against BS you would need several signal amps/boosters or signal amp and a target painter.
I also think that you could get the cloak into the system by having very hard to lock targets vanish from overview and have cloak just make you very very hard to lock, but visible. Naturally getting close would still uncloak. |
Ilija Veliki
|
Posted - 2009.03.29 00:13:00 -
[1027]
caldari as race is nerfed with scorpion. scorpion is the most stupid battleship in game. it is battleship with no tank and with no dps. it suppose to be support ship but why would someone fly a battleship as support ship???? battleship need to have tank and dps. falcon is the best caldari ship and the only one pvp ship in caldari. if you nerf falcon fleets will be out of caldari ships. only isk farmers will flay caldari
CCP hate caldari
|
Avuton
|
Posted - 2009.03.29 00:22:00 -
[1028]
Ran out of space.. should prolly take that as a hint, but I want to comment on the suggested changes too.
I don't like the suggested changes because they dont address the current lockout problem.
Now since I doubt you are going to follow my above suggestion, I instead suggest an easier to implement alternative: Make ECM heavily stacking penalised or just plain prevent more the one ECM module to be used against a ship at a time. It would encourage you to spread around the ECM love and lessen the likelyhood of anyone getting permajammed. It would also suddenly make the falcon rather pointless to bring to a small fight since if there are only 3 enemies, you can only use 3 jammers. You are still breaking the locks, but it is much more chancebased.
Or if you are REALLY set on not doing anything to the actual ECM mechanics, just make the modules have stupid fitting reqs so that you can only realistically put 4 into a falcon and then give the ECM boats heavy tanking bonuses so that you can get an ok out of the 4 "extra" slots you now cant fill with ECM. Then you can make the mods short range since it is possible that the ships actually survive a moment.
|
Cletus Graeme
Caldari Duty.
|
Posted - 2009.03.29 01:26:00 -
[1029]
Edited by: Cletus Graeme on 29/03/2009 01:33:57
Originally by: TheLibrarian Have you actually done the math on a scorp with 4 siedge launchers, max drone skills and a target painter. Your looking at 600-650 dps depending on the torps and your implants. With no gank mods. Add the armor tank to it and trimarks and some good implants and your looking at 140-150K EHP on a scorpion with 3-4 jammers and good dps.
A T2 torp Raven puts out about 1000 DPS although I admit the Scorp can fit a meaner tank. However, you're correct that the changes do make it a very nice all-rounder. The problem is that providing it with decent DPS puts it directly into competition with the Raven, which is bad.
The Raven is already worse than it used to be with the changes to torps as it needs to use a TP (or TP drones). It also armor tanks badly. If the Scorp becomes a viable RR armor tanker with decent damage using torps in addition to being able to jam with ECM then why on earth would you ever fly a Raven?
The proposed changes boost the Scorp at the expense of the Raven. I think this is a bad idea.
Originally by: TheLibrarian So? Just because your primary every time doesn't mean you instantly need a resist bonus.
My point was that if you're going to give the Scorp a new bonus then a resist bonus is better than a damage bonus because it helps the ship fulfil it's role as e-war support.
A resist bonus helps the Scorp survive longer in a long range fleet fight. It also helps it survive longer in a close range gang fight. In both cases it's likely to be primaried and will struggle to survive. In the former it can at least try to warp out but in the latter it will probably be warp scrambled and the best it can hope for is to be able to station-dock/gate-jump. Anything that helps it's ability to tank is obviously useful.
Originally by: TheLibrarian Why? Why? Why? That doesn't even make sense why it should be required to be good at everything.
It's not good at everything now and it wouldn't be even after my suggested changes. It would do crap damage and still have to sacrifice tank to fit ECM,. The only thing it needs to do well is provide e-war support.
The Scorp is currently only seen in large fleet fights as it provides a cheap, albeit vulnerable, ECM platform which can jam at sniper BS ranges. However, the Falcon does this better and can cloak so sadly, you don't see Scorpions a lot, even in the role they're designed for.
By modifying the Scorpion so it can also be used in close range RR BS gangs you make it versatile enough to be worth flying over a Falcon/Rook.
The Recons are intended to be super-specialised but Battleships should be more versatile. I see nothing wrong with tweaking the Scorpion (it only needs a few small changes) to make it more versatile if this would mean that it was flown more often because it provided something uniquely different from the other ECM ships.
Originally by: TheLibrarian So your suggestions are to leave the ship the same as it is?
If it's not broken, don't fix it. Rather than making drastic changes the idea is to examine the ship's intended role and see what needs tweaking. The ECM strength and range bonuses make it a viable long range jammer so why remove them?
Any changes to the ship need to be seen in the context of the broader changes to ECM overall. E.g. If SDAs are removed and/or ECM jammer strengths are nerfed then there is no need to change these bonuses as the chance to jam a target will be reduced for all ECM ships anyway.
Anyhow, my suggested changes are less important than the reasoning behind them. The ship bonuses can't be finalised until they've been thoroughly tested and only CCP is in a position to use the feedback of that testing to decide what they should be.
It's more important for players to point CCP in the right direction by suggesting how they'd like to use the ship rather than proposing untested ship bonuses.
|
Trent Angelus
Southern Cross Incorporated
|
Posted - 2009.03.29 02:27:00 -
[1030]
Edited by: Trent Angelus on 29/03/2009 02:27:32 I'm a caldari falcon pilot, and I can't bring myself to get worked up over another of my ships getting nerfed. I can see the funny side of it now. Let's take a look:
PVP Ships I can remember training for / flying:
- Passive Drake
- Neut-torp Rokh
- Vagabond
- Falcon
hey, what do they have in common? Anyone want to guess which is going to be the next one on that list? /Trent |
|
TheLibrarian
Tides Of War
|
Posted - 2009.03.29 02:27:00 -
[1031]
Originally by: Cletus Graeme stuff about my post and his post in the above post!
While I agree that a scorpion with the proposed changes will challenge a raven pilot. I dont think that it will eliminate the raven as you stated.
A decent logistics scorpion will require a gang of remote repping armor tanking battleships to keep it alive. Unless it uses all its mids for a tank in which case I still think the raven out preforms it because it has 2 more launcher slots and isn't wasting bonuses.
While I do understand the scorpion provides a cheap insurable battleship to fit into the sniper battleship role. I think a falcon/rook do these jobs in a much better way, although more expensive. Arguing that the scorpion fills that niche is false imo. It only fills that niche because the player hasn't trained or cannot afford to use a better option. If the proposed changes go through, the scorpion will fill a lot more roles in the game than doing something less effective than 2 other ships. Which will be nice, because I have only seen 5-7 scorpions in 2 years of playing eve. Compared to multiple hundreds of falcons in the last 2 months.
About the resist bonus. It would be neat to give it some resist to keep it alive, but I think the damage gives it more of a role. Just depend on your gang to keep you alive, and if you dont have that benefit, get your gang setups going better.
All in all good reply thanks for keeping it friendly and expertise. I agree on some of your points but I think changes are better than the current stale meta of the scorpion and overuse of falcons.
|
EgoMan
|
Posted - 2009.03.29 02:32:00 -
[1032]
This has to be the dumbest discussion to date. There is no conclusion to draw accept that people are complaining because of their inability or unwillingness to adapt. The game is challenging and thats why we all play it. You have to apply your self and devise new strategies to overcome. The people who complain are the people who want a simple "HALO" style console game that they can roam around and solo kill everything. Theres no skill in that theres no challenge...Theres more solutions to ECM/falcon in this thread then there are cons and yet the cry babies are still in full force. Still trying to make this a dumbed down gank and tank game.
A ship with projected ECCM is the most under used idea YET! Ive had it done to my corp because we rolled with ecm and a corp that we were at war with didnt...so they adapted and were very successfull. Self eccm, projected eccm and ships with roles dedicated to Counter ECM are actually better then altering and ultimately ruining a game mechanic. It adds realism to the game and substance, unless your looking for the ultimate in cheesy console game fun? Enter the SWG NGE! here to nerf another game into ******ation.....
|
TheLibrarian
Tides Of War
|
Posted - 2009.03.29 02:46:00 -
[1033]
Originally by: EgoMan This has to be the dumbest discussion to date. There is no conclusion to draw accept that people are complaining because of their inability or unwillingness to adapt. The game is challenging and thats why we all play it. You have to apply your self and devise new strategies to overcome. The people who complain are the people who want a simple "HALO" style console game that they can roam around and solo kill everything. Theres no skill in that theres no challenge...Theres more solutions to ECM/falcon in this thread then there are cons and yet the cry babies are still in full force. Still trying to make this a dumbed down gank and tank game.
A ship with projected ECCM is the most under used idea YET! Ive had it done to my corp because we rolled with ecm and a corp that we were at war with didnt...so they adapted and were very successfull. Self eccm, projected eccm and ships with roles dedicated to Counter ECM are actually better then altering and ultimately ruining a game mechanic. It adds realism to the game and substance, unless your looking for the ultimate in cheesy console game fun? Enter the SWG NGE! here to nerf another game into ******ation.....
If you havn't noticed the people complaining about falcons being overpowered and overused are the people who are claiming they do use ECCM and projected ECCM. I havn't undocked a battleship without dual ECCM in months. My hurricane, rupture, ishtar, fit eccm. I was even fitting the low-slot eccm modules on my sleipnirs. We have logistic ships that fit 3 ECCM modules on them. We prevail against most ECM gangs and beat them. However I think its a bit ridiculous that we have to fit 3 ECCM modules to counter 1 single ship in this game. The fact that you do not understand that is beyond me. People have adapted and people do beat falcons. Just like people beat nano by fielding multiple huggins and rapiers. Just because there is a way to beat it does not mean it is balanced.
|
EgoMan
|
Posted - 2009.03.29 03:02:00 -
[1034]
Originally by: TheLibrarian
Originally by: EgoMan This has to be the dumbest discussion to date. There is no conclusion to draw accept that people are complaining because of their inability or unwillingness to adapt. The game is challenging and thats why we all play it. You have to apply your self and devise new strategies to overcome. The people who complain are the people who want a simple "HALO" style console game that they can roam around and solo kill everything. Theres no skill in that theres no challenge...Theres more solutions to ECM/falcon in this thread then there are cons and yet the cry babies are still in full force. Still trying to make this a dumbed down gank and tank game.
A ship with projected ECCM is the most under used idea YET! Ive had it done to my corp because we rolled with ecm and a corp that we were at war with didnt...so they adapted and were very successfull. Self eccm, projected eccm and ships with roles dedicated to Counter ECM are actually better then altering and ultimately ruining a game mechanic. It adds realism to the game and substance, unless your looking for the ultimate in cheesy console game fun? Enter the SWG NGE! here to nerf another game into ******ation.....
If you havn't noticed the people complaining about falcons being overpowered and overused are the people who are claiming they do use ECCM and projected ECCM. I havn't undocked a battleship without dual ECCM in months. My hurricane, rupture, ishtar, fit eccm. I was even fitting the low-slot eccm modules on my sleipnirs. We have logistic ships that fit 3 ECCM modules on them. We prevail against most ECM gangs and beat them. However I think its a bit ridiculous that we have to fit 3 ECCM modules to counter 1 single ship in this game. The fact that you do not understand that is beyond me. People have adapted and people do beat falcons. Just like people beat nano by fielding multiple huggins and rapiers. Just because there is a way to beat it does not mean it is balanced.
Kinda like how all armor tanking is overpowered? The point is not to avoid being jammed at all its to reduce the frequency of being jammed. Its chance based so there is no way to totally avoid being jammed so if your fitting 3 eccm's thats your fault for wasteing slots. I had a 0.0 encounter where my 12 BS fleet was taking on a fleet of over 25 ships and they had 3 falcons. Noone was fitting 3 eccm's and you did get jammed but they couldnt keep everyone locked down by any means. The holes in their ECM provided us with the opportunity to maintain RR and pick off targets one by one. It happens every day and just because you feel the need to fit 3 eccm's does not mean its unbalanced it just means you assume that the ECCM should be the save all to ECM. Ive also seen a black bird pilot use projected ECCM with hge success. These factors provide a dynamic playing environment as opposed to the one dimensional gameplay that everyone is suggesting. At the very least the suggested ideas are ultimate failure and are completely dumb.
Further more people are blowing the falcon in fleet battles thing way out of proportion because at best in a roam in 0.0 1 out of 3 gangs will have a falcon, even less in low sec.
|
Karlemgne
Tides Of War
|
Posted - 2009.03.29 07:58:00 -
[1035]
Edited by: Karlemgne on 29/03/2009 07:58:22
Originally by: Ilija Veliki caldari as race is nerfed with scorpion. scorpion is the most stupid battleship in game. it is battleship with no tank and with no dps. it suppose to be support ship but why would someone fly a battleship as support ship???? battleship need to have tank and dps. falcon is the best caldari ship and the only one pvp ship in caldari. if you nerf falcon fleets will be out of caldari ships. only isk farmers will flay caldari
CCP hate caldari
The Falcon is the only Caldari pvp ship?
Let me think here...
Crow = best interceptor in the game Drake = best solo BC in the game. Perhaps the best BC period. Raven = An incredibly versatile Battleship capable of filling many rolls, including incredible pownage if torp fit. Incidentally the best tech 1 PVE ship in the game. Falcon = The best ship in the game at the moment. Incredibly powerful ship that can warp cloaked, and turn off ALL the mods on a number of ships, all by itself--AT 200K. Chimera = Not the best carrier but certainly not the worst Phoenix = We could argue about this ship, but its up there with the Revelation for ranged work on PoSes. Wyvren = Do I need to say anything here?
Then there are a lot of other decent Caldari pvp ships. The only area Caldari is actually lacking, imo, is in the Command Ship classes.
So spare me the BS. What you are really saying is that the Falcon is the only pvp ship you are willing to dual box on your alt with.
-Karlemgne My sig don't fracking work. |
Karlemgne
Tides Of War
|
Posted - 2009.03.29 08:13:00 -
[1036]
Originally by: EgoMan
Kinda like how all armor tanking is overpowered? The point is not to avoid being jammed at all its to reduce the frequency of being jammed. Its chance based so there is no way to totally avoid being jammed so if your fitting 3 eccm's thats your fault for wasteing slots. I had a 0.0 encounter where my 12 BS fleet was taking on a fleet of over 25 ships and they had 3 falcons. Noone was fitting 3 eccm's and you did get jammed but they couldnt keep everyone locked down by any means. The holes in their ECM provided us with the opportunity to maintain RR and pick off targets one by one. It happens every day and just because you feel the need to fit 3 eccm's does not mean its unbalanced it just means you assume that the ECCM should be the save all to ECM. Ive also seen a black bird pilot use projected ECCM with hge success. These factors provide a dynamic playing environment as opposed to the one dimensional gameplay that everyone is suggesting. At the very least the suggested ideas are ultimate failure and are completely dumb.
Further more people are blowing the falcon in fleet battles thing way out of proportion because at best in a roam in 0.0 1 out of 3 gangs will have a falcon, even less in low sec.
That's your problem. You're coming for a perspective that is irrelevant to a lot of us who play the game.
When you take out a gang of 4 Battleships and run into gangs with 2, 3 and 4 Falcons in low-sec you can't just ignore the Falcons. They will have you perma jammed with out fitting 2 ECCMs.
Smaller gangs are almost impossible. One ECCM on a Rupture isn't very effective.
And you are totally out of touch with your made up statistics about low-sec. Nearly EVERY opponent we run into has at LEAST 1 Falcon. More often than not there are two or more. Ffs nearly every 2 man pirate gang has a Falcon alt in low-sec these days. The sheer spamage of Falcon alts is a testimony to this.
The very fact that more than just a few people are complaining, loud enough for CCP to listen, is a testimony to this. From my perspective, and we have a plethora of our OWN Falcon alts btw, Falcons have become a serious problem. Now that the number of Falcon alts has skyrocketed, this is just as big of a deal as nanos, which most people agree these days was a problem (and the changes have made the game and combat much more dynamic).
So for me the real question is will YOU adapt, not will we. We have adapted, doesn't mean Falcons are balanced. The Falcon alt club posting here are the ones who seem incapable of adaptation.
So just go sit in the sandbox and sob some more because now that mommy has taken away your toy steam shovel you refuse to play with any of your other toys.
-Karlemgne My sig don't fracking work. |
Karlemgne
Tides Of War
|
Posted - 2009.03.29 08:20:00 -
[1037]
Originally by: Merdaneth Edited by: Merdaneth on 28/03/2009 11:54:10 ECM modules were good, not super-overpoweringly good, but better than average. People that 'play to win' started training for and using nosferatu's. Best available counter against a ECM module was another ECM module. Result: nearly everybody started training for and using ECM, one was crammed into every available midslot. Result: ECM nerfed.
Nosferatu's were good, not super-overpoweringly good, but better than average. People that 'play to win' started training for and using nosferatu's. Best available counter against a nosferatu was a nosferatu. Result: nearly everybody started training for and using nosferatu's. Result: more and more nosferatu setups. Nosferatu's nerfed.
Nano's were good, not super-overpoweringly good, but better than average. People that 'play to win' started training for and using nano's. Best available counter against a nano was a nano. Result: nearly everybody started training for and flying nano's. Result: more and more nano's. Nano's get nerfed.
Falcons are good, not super-overpoweringly good, but better than average. People that 'play to win' started training for and using Falcons. Best available counter against a Falcon was a Falcon of your own. Result: nearly everybody started training for and using Falcons. Result: more and more Falcon heavy fleets. Nerf coming? Of course.....
If a module/ship is better than average AND its best counter is a module/ship of the same flavor, it will (and must) eventually spin out of control and will be nerfed. Either accept the nerfs, or submit to ECM-online, Nano-online, Falcon-online or whatever one-dimensional EVE flavor.
This was beautifully put, Sir. My sig don't fracking work. |
Gairrek
|
Posted - 2009.03.29 08:44:00 -
[1038]
Unfortunately, it seems like the good ol' folks at CCP have got the wrong idea. Yes, the falcon is powerful, but only as powerful as it and the other recon ships should be. Like many MMO developers, such as Sony Online regarding SWG, they have gone down the trail of nerfing powerful ships and items in order to keep those who want an advantage happy. Trying to keep your customers happy, and thus keep them as customers, is only the natural thing for a company to do. There is a fundamental problem with this type of strategy, though. Eventually, those players who find that they've been playing this game for a couple of years, only to be thrust backward into waiting once again to be useful in combat, will eventually get fed up and quit. Personally, I'm almost exclusively a caldari pilot. As a caldari, I've seen my share of nerfs. The honest to God only ships I find very useful to me in pvp these days are the raven and blackbird/falcon. Even though I mention it, the raven is, regardless of it's DPS and decent range with torpedoes, a shadow of its former self and inferior to many other battleships in pvp. With the falcon out of the picture, I can honestly say that I probably wouldn't want to continue to pour money into a game that, potentially, will always leave me with a significantly inferior character due to the only good ships available to me being downgraded. In my opinion, examining many of the other support ships and coming up with ways to improve their effectiveness (and of other ships in general) is a better alternative to another nerf. Otherwise, as many people have stated, CCP runs the risk of alienating veteran players and turning the game into one based almost solely on damage and tanking; defeating the point of even having support ships in the first place. At the very least, if you are settled on nerfing or changing the falcon (and ecm in general), then give something back to the caldari. The widow isn't very useful, a raven can't tank well and maintain DPS in PVP at the same time, the scorpion is not effective as an ECM platform because of its size and weak defenses, the rohk has trouble competing with other BS DPS... The list goes on. The caldari shouldn't be so limited as to make them only preferable for pve, and neither should any of the races be so limited.
|
Hun Jakuza
24th Imperial Guard
|
Posted - 2009.03.29 09:01:00 -
[1039]
Originally by: Destructor1792 Edited by: Destructor1792 on 28/03/2009 16:03:45
Originally by: Johan Sabbat
Originally by: Destructor1792
No.2 : ECCM - Pretty much useless - enough posts on the forums about this so won't bother with details.
I totally disagree with point 2.
IF you fit the correct racial ECCM, turn it on and still get 'perma-jammed' then it means the jamming ship is devoting a large proportion of its jamming capacity against you.
This leaves your mates to go about ganking his gang.
And herein lies the problem.. The Mythical Perma Jam which apparently doesn't happen but we all know does. In theory, by overloading said ECCM should counter this, but doesn't! No other module ingame has this ability to stop your victim (soz, target) from fighting back once a successfull hit has been achieved.
FOF;s could be a choice but are highly unpredictable and are only good if you have launchers fitted (which rules out about 90% of PVP ships) & also have the issue of lack of range. iir, they also go for the nearest hostile near you (which in itself can cause alot of problems )
Drones are the same & are only good if the jammer is in your drone control range & you've got them about before he gets a jam on you. Also, they've a habit of doing their own stuff which can cause you even more problems
This leads to one of 2 conclusions, either ECCM is underpowered or ECM is overpowered!!
**edited bit**
Arakkis, this is a problem all ships have when dealing with EWAR ship bonuses that rely heavily on mid slot fits. Take the rapier for example, It has to sacrifice a few mids to fit a few buffers for the shield. Could go armour, but have u seen its stats??!!
If people choose to fit all mid slots for Ewar instead of sacrificing the odd slot, that's down to their own choice. Not much we can do about that
Agreed:
This leads to one of 2 conclusions, either ECCM is underpowered or ECM is overpowered!!
|
Ashteron'n'KA
Minmatar Federation of Freedom Fighters Aggression.
|
Posted - 2009.03.29 09:13:00 -
[1040]
First its additive - then it goes to probability - trash the torps - now put the naked ships in the middle of the grid and call it a "brawler" - why not skip all the preliminaries and call this Gallente online. PANIC KILLS MORE PILOTS THAN LAG. |
|
McEivalley
Fallen Angel's Blade.
|
Posted - 2009.03.29 09:39:00 -
[1041]
No no no... everybody knows caldari can't solo. What you are suggesting here still doesn't bring falcons/rooks in par with other recons/force recons.
Plus, you did not thought it out when it comes down to mass fleet fights. This means jamming power becomes quite meaningless in large fleet fights. You can't nerf your opponent's dps when it sits at a comfy 150-200kms. Falcons and rooks are going to get their own OV setting for fleets and they WILL disappear ASAP from the grid (and I don't mean by cloaking). Scorpions will lose any use in fleets. They aren't of much use besides jamming there.
All in all this is a caldari nerf, and no drone bay on a rook will cover up for it. Caldari ships cannot solo - and caldari pilots come to terms realizing it. But everyone knows caldari have great ships for fleet work and ewar. Now you're gimping it down?! Why not scratch the caldari faction off the game, as obviously their main strength post this nerf will be suiciding their ships. Spare us the trouble.
The only thing you might consider to "nerf" jamming power is give eccm mods a bigger bonus, if you wish to reduce the falcon's effectiveness. Never allow for jam proofing, but multi-slot ships should be able to raise an effective jam resistance. To all the whiners asking for ceptors to eb jam proof - learn to fly ships, for crying out loud... Do - don't die trying. |
AnzacPaul
|
Posted - 2009.03.29 10:14:00 -
[1042]
Originally by: Karlemgne
The Falcon is the only Caldari pvp ship?
Let me think here...
Crow = best interceptor in the game Drake = best solo BC in the game. Perhaps the best BC period. Raven = An incredibly versatile Battleship capable of filling many rolls, including incredible pownage if torp fit. Incidentally the best tech 1 PVE ship in the game. Falcon = The best ship in the game at the moment. Incredibly powerful ship that can warp cloaked, and turn off ALL the mods on a number of ships, all by itself--AT 200K. Chimera = Not the best carrier but certainly not the worst Phoenix = We could argue about this ship, but its up there with the Revelation for ranged work on PoSes. Wyvren = Do I need to say anything here?
Then there are a lot of other decent Caldari pvp ships. The only area Caldari is actually lacking, imo, is in the Command Ship classes.
So spare me the BS. What you are really saying is that the Falcon is the only pvp ship you are willing to dual box on your alt with.
-Karlemgne
quoted for lols because quite honestly, you dont have a clue, and your also minmitar, so i imagine you have not and do not fly these ships in pvp.
Raven and drake are pve warriors, you put the drake up against any other bc 1v1 and see what happens, u need all your mid slots and most of your lows to even tank the drake,
example the myrmidon, gets all its lows for a nice healthy tank, with the added bonus of 5 mid slots to fit well lets say point, web, mwd, cap booster, sensor booster. try doing that to a drake and see what happens when u bring them up against each other. 1v1 a crow against any other inty, see what happens. Raven, same deal. A dominix is a tier 1 bs and would eat a raven alive 1v1.
Im sick and tired of non caldari pilots spamming in here because they are scared that we might actually get a chance to pvp effictevely in groups of less than 5.
Falcon, yes its a fantastic ship, BUT, try jumping into a fight in a falcon, or having to warp to 100 on a gate, you cant warp to 200 in a battle, you have to be setup there and ready to go. any ceptor can travel 100km in less than 20 seconds, and the falcon pilot either warps off, or wastes his jammers trying to protect himself on the ceptor.
cap ships should not even enter the argument as they are an entirely different kettle of fish
make shield go in the low slots, and give caldari free mids to fit whatever they like. then watch all the non caldari fanbois start whinging because caldari can actually match it with the other races.
|
Tatianna
|
Posted - 2009.03.29 10:23:00 -
[1043]
Excellent changes CCP!
We are so tired of fleets with 25 sniper BS and 40 Falcons.
|
Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express Burning Horizons
|
Posted - 2009.03.29 10:44:00 -
[1044]
I still think Scripts is the way to go :)
(PS: Those saying non caldari cause we don't use caldari ships feel free to look me up on Battleclinic or something :) )
A base Module Remove Racial Modules
Rather than the normal 2 scripts use 6 scripts that the pilot can choose from.
Base Mod (Maybe 1 strength in all, 30km range optimal 15km falloff).
Multi Power Script (+100% Strength all four sensor jammer strength) LADAR Script (+300% Srength for LADAR sensor jamming, -100% all three others, +50% range) RADAR Script (+300% Strength for RADAR sensor jamming, -100% to all three others, +50% range). Gravimetric Script(+300% Strength for Gravimetric sensor Jamming, -100% to all three others, +50% range). Magnometric Script (+300% Strength for Magnometric sensor jammoing, -100% to all three others, +50% range). Multi Range Script ( No power boost, +100% range).
Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts.
Your signature is too large. Please resize it to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Mitnal |
Jack Dant
Minmatar The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
|
Posted - 2009.03.29 11:16:00 -
[1045]
Originally by: AnzacPaul Raven and drake are pve warriors, you put the drake up against any other bc 1v1 and see what happens, u need all your mid slots and most of your lows to even tank the drake,
Eh, no. PVP fits != PVE fits. You do not need to fill your lows with passive crap for a PVP fit drake. Even after mwd, web and scram, you have the room for a massive buffer tank (or active, if you want to go that way). You can easily get BS level EHP and good damage.
|
Lijhal
FrEE d00M Fighters
|
Posted - 2009.03.29 11:44:00 -
[1046]
what would happend if ccp swaps 2-3 med slots from every caldari ship to low slots and make shield modules for low slot?
|
Overbrain
|
Posted - 2009.03.29 13:03:00 -
[1047]
I can easily summarize this thread.
1-)After the changes , ecm ships will die a lot more than they used to , so that market will spin more.
2-)Blackops/widow will never be your dream ship , it was originally designed to serve as a skill/time trap.
3-)No matter how much you argue with each other or enforce your ideas, the changes are already made and they will be implemented after 2 months. If you want proof , back track the patch and discussion history of ccp so far.
|
Lindsay Logan
|
Posted - 2009.03.29 13:22:00 -
[1048]
ECM is a strong point of the Caldari. We got 7 ships dedicated to it, even a BS!
So be careful of hurting ECM too much.
With recent missile changes, and with too much ECM damage, Caldari will start to be a subpar race, with only a select few ships viable for PvP.
Cutting down ECM range is ok enough, but let it have the same strenght. Thats importent.
|
Cailais
Amarr Diablo Advocatus Vanguard.
|
Posted - 2009.03.29 14:47:00 -
[1049]
Im just thinking that the solution to the on going whoes of ECM is to change the way ECCM works.
Think of it this way. ECM is a targeted effect that stops you from locking other ships. Fine so far.
What if ECCM broke target locks on your ship. i.e its entirely defensive.
Now you'd actually have to tone down the current ECCM stats but in essence it could act as a generic 'counter' and if you were jammed, you could 'break' the jamming lock as a result.
Returning to the Caldari EW ships we could now assign them bonuses to ECM and / or ECCM depending on role.
C.
Originally by: Capa So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.
|
Olivor
|
Posted - 2009.03.29 15:03:00 -
[1050]
Having another look at the changes I may not mind the Scorpion changes IF... IF ECM Bursts got changed in some way. You look at ECM bursts at the moment and see they only exist for the Scorpion and Widow, then you look some more and see they pretty much suck.
More ECM Strength on Scorp brings Meta 4 / Tech II ECM burst strength to 18 which sounds great until you realise it doesn't work in the same way as normal ECM's.
If ECM burst were to mean any ship in range of the burst lost all locks AND any ship that was outside the burst but had a ship locked inside the burst lost its lock on that ship then that sounds pretty interesting. If the burst was also made into a % rather than only affecting those with lower strength then this could be useful in seeing more of the thing. If Racial ECM bursts were also introduced, possibly with the limit of one of each Racial / Multispec per ship with total limit on all types of 3.
Okay, basically I just had my first look at ECM bursts today and see why no one uses the buggers but think they do show some promise!
|
|
Eftim S'Jet
|
Posted - 2009.03.29 15:03:00 -
[1051]
Edited by: Eftim S''Jet on 29/03/2009 15:05:44 "We have been listening to all the forum whining.
In the days ahead, we will put some changes on sisi to see how they pan out and continue to change or tweak as we please."
blablablabla only thing I agree with here is that SDA's are an ECM only module. Either make them affect any type of EW or jsut scrap them. Also, lowslots for tanking on ECM ships, yeah, we all love to use 1600mm on our Caldari ships. It's by design, right?
Falcon & Rook
"The falcon is the "sniper" of the two ECM roles having less ECM strength and more ECM range." Keeping the Falcon a "stay the hell away from the enemy and jam" kind of ship is ok. Giving it railgun range bonuses is downright ******ED. If you need to ask why then you've either never flown Caldari or never did PVP. Or both.
"The rook operates at shorter ranges, able to launch a stronger ECM attack and whilst having shorter ECM range 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." Although calling the Rook a brawler is kinda silly in itself, the proposed bonuses actually seem ok to me (except the only 5% per level bonus to strength compared to the Falcon), it may be able to pull off some solo fighting with one or two jammers fitted, if you increase it's powergrid enough to be able to fit all the launchers, an MWD, maybe a shield extender and the EW mods... Drone bay would also be a bonus, since the Rook has **** damage.
The Scorpion
"We are looking at putting the scorpion into the short range brawler role. To that end we are looking at removing its ECM Optimal range bonus, increasing the ECM strength bonus a little and adding a cruise/siege launcher rate of fire bonus so it can get close and personal." 25% RoF for four launchers is useless. Also, you're saying short range brawler but the Falcon has the same strength bonus. How come?
PLEASE think these changes through and run them by some people that actualyl fly the ships. Caldari are bad enough in PVP as it is, last thing they need is to be worse.
edit: Oh and nearly forgot: why the hell are you screwing the blackbird? It hardly works as it is, now you wanna put it well enough in everyone else's optimal?
|
Ilija Veliki
|
Posted - 2009.03.29 15:30:00 -
[1052]
WTB: One slightly used female Minmatar slave to SCRAMBLE WEB and PAINT targets for me!!!
Raven pilot
|
Ilija Veliki
|
Posted - 2009.03.29 15:47:00 -
[1053]
delete Caldari and you will have no problems with jemmers and isk farmers
after 2 years of training Caldari skills I will not have PVP ship. I will have ships only for farming. Am I isk farmer?? No i am not but soon I will be!!
who want to buy isk from me???
Pls delete my race
|
Ilija Veliki
|
Posted - 2009.03.29 15:54:00 -
[1054]
stop nerfing caldari
you nerfed missile now you want to nerf jemmers
Caldari pilots now need to fit target painters if they want to do some damage
fit mwd point and web on raven and you will have les hit point than a battlecruiser
WTB: One slightly used female Minmatar slave to SCRAMBLE WEB and PAINT targets for me!!!
Raven pilot
|
Sky runner
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.03.29 16:24:00 -
[1055]
As a race CCP have failed Caldari
there is no balance and the race is dead as a pvp option.
Its genocide!!!!! |
Irida Mershkov
Gallente Shadowsun Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.03.29 16:28:00 -
[1056]
Originally by: Ilija Veliki stop nerfing caldari
you nerfed missile now you want to nerf jemmers
Caldari pilots now need to fit target painters if they want to do some damage
fit mwd point and web on raven and you will have les hit point than a battlecruiser
WTB: One slightly used female Minmatar slave to SCRAMBLE WEB and PAINT targets for me!!!
Raven pilot
Completely ignoring the viable Caldari ships that is, the Cerb is still a damn beast on the field. You're doing it wrong.
|
Perry
Amarr The X-Trading Company RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.29 16:38:00 -
[1057]
This Topic somehow got derailed into a whine about caldari ships beeing worthless, which is not what this Topic is about. Please try to give ideas of how to keep ecm ships viable instead. This would make the Topic much smaller and much more constructive.
My Idea is still: Scorpion +2 Turrets + Range Bonus for ECM and Hybrids. There it is, "Support Fleet Sniper with ECM".
|
Cletus Graeme
Caldari Duty.
|
Posted - 2009.03.29 17:04:00 -
[1058]
Originally by: Lord Eremet
CCP: I think you not going far enough with the falcon changes, nerf it more pls. No 15% falloff to ECM range and lower the strength to only 15%. Then when all falcon alts stopped crying and stopped flying it you can after 6-9 months "boost" it again to 20%, if thats really needed.
Dumbest. Idea. Ever.
Yeah, let's nerf it so much that nobody uses it anymore so that we have to boost it again later on!
All this does is create the see-saw effect that we already see when ships/modules are over-nerfed. This isn't balancing the ships at all, it's further imbalancing them!
Carefully considered changes which modify the ships role without killing it are required. If anything, under-nerfing it is better than over-nerfing it since this is still an improvement over the current situation.
|
Hun Jakuza
24th Imperial Guard
|
Posted - 2009.03.29 17:20:00 -
[1059]
Edited by: Hun Jakuza on 29/03/2009 17:19:58
Originally by: Ilija Veliki after 2 years of training Caldari skills I will not have PVP ship..........
You training 2 years ago and cant fly with a single PvP ship? That is your fault, is not fault of CCP.
|
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
|
Posted - 2009.03.29 17:34:00 -
[1060]
Originally by: Cletus Graeme Dumbest. Idea. Ever.
Yeah, let's nerf it so much that nobody uses it anymore so that we have to boost it again later on!
Cletus, you are an idiot. Not surprising as you are also a complete Falcon w***e.
These proposed changes do NOTHING to limit the strength of the Falcon. It will still have an optimal of 100km when skilled and rigged. And with a 20% bonus it's jam strength is completely unchanged. It will be even funnier when they increase the base ECM strength and turn SDAs into range bonus.
This is the most non-nerf nerf ever.
Range bonus should be changed to 10%/level and keep the 20% ECM. Or give 15% range and 15% ECM.
Taxman VII: Kingdom of Vlad
|
|
Cletus Graeme
Caldari Duty.
|
Posted - 2009.03.29 17:44:00 -
[1061]
Originally by: Vladimir Norkoff Cletus, you are an idiot. Not surprising as you are also a complete Falcon w***e.
Learn to argue your point without resorting to personal attacks.
You fail at discussions.
Originally by: Vladimir Norkoff These proposed changes do NOTHING to limit the strength of the Falcon. [...] This is the most non-nerf nerf ever. Range bonus should be changed to 10%/level and keep the 20% ECM. Or give 15% range and 15% ECM.
Yet another person who proposes numbers that they claim (with 100% certainty) will solve the problem without bothering to explain why.
Infact, you're so sure of your proposed bonuses that you felt the need to provide alternative bonuses (also without any explanation)!
You fail at making a case.
|
EgoMan
|
Posted - 2009.03.29 18:27:00 -
[1062]
Originally by: AnzacPaul
Originally by: Karlemgne
The Falcon is the only Caldari pvp ship?
Let me think here...
Crow = best interceptor in the game Drake = best solo BC in the game. Perhaps the best BC period. Raven = An incredibly versatile Battleship capable of filling many rolls, including incredible pownage if torp fit. Incidentally the best tech 1 PVE ship in the game. Falcon = The best ship in the game at the moment. Incredibly powerful ship that can warp cloaked, and turn off ALL the mods on a number of ships, all by itself--AT 200K. Chimera = Not the best carrier but certainly not the worst Phoenix = We could argue about this ship, but its up there with the Revelation for ranged work on PoSes. Wyvren = Do I need to say anything here?
Then there are a lot of other decent Caldari pvp ships. The only area Caldari is actually lacking, imo, is in the Command Ship classes.
So spare me the BS. What you are really saying is that the Falcon is the only pvp ship you are willing to dual box on your alt with.
-Karlemgne
quoted for lols because quite honestly, you dont have a clue, and your also minmitar, so i imagine you have not and do not fly these ships in pvp.
Raven and drake are pve warriors, you put the drake up against any other bc 1v1 and see what happens, u need all your mid slots and most of your lows to even tank the drake,
example the myrmidon, gets all its lows for a nice healthy tank, with the added bonus of 5 mid slots to fit well lets say point, web, mwd, cap booster, sensor booster. try doing that to a drake and see what happens when u bring them up against each other. 1v1 a crow against any other inty, see what happens. Raven, same deal. A dominix is a tier 1 bs and would eat a raven alive 1v1.
Im sick and tired of non caldari pilots spamming in here because they are scared that we might actually get a chance to pvp effictevely in groups of less than 5.
Falcon, yes its a fantastic ship, BUT, try jumping into a fight in a falcon, or having to warp to 100 on a gate, you cant warp to 200 in a battle, you have to be setup there and ready to go. any ceptor can travel 100km in less than 20 seconds, and the falcon pilot either warps off, or wastes his jammers trying to protect himself on the ceptor.
cap ships should not even enter the argument as they are an entirely different kettle of fish
make shield go in the low slots, and give caldari free mids to fit whatever they like. then watch all the non caldari fanbois start whinging because caldari can actually match it with the other races.
Well put and exactly correct. You dont solo anything with caldari at all. The terranus is the best ceptor hands down. I run a torpedo raven in PVP when I am trying to contribute DPS I only get about 700 dps out of it which is good but then you have to fit a MWD plus hardners with a buffer tank and it equals a massively gimped ship. Sure I get large amounts of damage on the kill mails but I have to roll with a fleet I would be stupid to think that setup could ever solo. One curse and its over for caldari ships..... So why should Caldari have to cross train to amarr or gallente if they want to PVP...? because there is no other roles for them to play since ecm is dead.
|
TheLibrarian
Tides Of War
|
Posted - 2009.03.29 19:13:00 -
[1063]
Edited by: TheLibrarian on 29/03/2009 19:13:27 This is my last post in this thread because its completely derailed. I have to say this though to all you caldari pilots.
Just because you have 7 mid slots doesn't mean all of them have to be used to tank. Lots of armor tankers sacrifice tank for gank mods. Just because my tempest has 6 low slots doesn't mean I fill it up with: Plate, Plate, Plate, EANM, EANM, DCUII. Oh and BTW, armor tankers these days are sacrificing tackle just like you are, except we are doing it for ECCM. = (
In the end I think CCP will do the right thing with balancing falcons. If not, oh well. The game will continue to move forward with a lot of upset people. But I know that 5 people in our corp trained for falcons in the last 2 months, and none of them are the least bit upset about the balancing ECM post.
|
Confessor
ANZAC ALLIANCE Southern Cross Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.29 19:38:00 -
[1064]
If you think CCP will do the right thing, you are a NEW player, or have smoked some bad weed. CCP do what they want, or they follow the mob mentality to the enth degree. You can bet caldari ewar will be nerfed, and some rediculous change will be made to make them obsolete. The pilgrim was nerfed over a year ago, and after 100 pages of complaints, and sincere input on how to un-nerf the pilgrim, ccp didnt answer ONE SINGLE question.. folks im talking about 100 pages, and not one single question.
|
Cletus Graeme
Caldari Duty.
|
Posted - 2009.03.29 19:59:00 -
[1065]
Edited by: Cletus Graeme on 29/03/2009 20:01:17
I think what's clear from these discussions is that there are multiple factors at play when it comes to ECM.
- ECCM strengths and bonuses - ECM jammer strengths - incl. racials vs multispec - ECM ship bonuses - Signal Distortion Amps - ECM rigs (and the possibility of ECCM rigs) - FoF missiles
All these factors contribute to the effectiveness of ECM in combat so if you make isolated changes to one of them while ignoring the rest you're likely to just perpetuate any imbalances.
Some interesting ideas have been put forward:
- Combining the ECCM bonus with a bonus to scan res / lock range, possibly using scripts to choose between them
- Completely removing SDAs to reduce the effective jam strength of ALL ECM ships while freeing up lowslots (or alternatively changing their bonuses so that they affect ALL forms of e-war equally - this is hard!)
- Modifying the actual ship bonuses to reduce the effective range of ECM; possibly by swapping to a falloff bonus
- Modifying ECM jammers so that they have to choose between range or strength; possibly via scripts
- Fixing FoFs so that they're a useful counter to being jammed (as this only affects missiles it's a relatively low priority issue)
All the above suggestions are effectively 'tweaks' to the existing system that don't require major changes to how ECM actually works. As such I think they're all worthy of further investigation and testing.
More radical proposals, such as introducing a stacking penalty to jammers or only allowing partial jamming, fundamentally change how ECM itself works. Such changes could imbalance things further (either way) so they'd need to be considered very carefully and cautiously indeed.
|
Karlemgne
Tides Of War
|
Posted - 2009.03.29 20:53:00 -
[1066]
Originally by: TheLibrarian But I know that 5 people in our corp trained for falcons in the last 2 months, and none of them are the least bit upset about the balancing ECM post.
This says it all right here. I'm sure we aren't the only ones, and this is the best demonstration of the current Falcon/ECM imbalance in the game.
Enough said.
-Karlemgne My sig don't fracking work. |
Childstar
|
Posted - 2009.03.29 21:03:00 -
[1067]
Originally by: Karlemgne
Originally by: TheLibrarian But I know that 5 people in our corp trained for falcons in the last 2 months, and none of them are the least bit upset about the balancing ECM post.
This says it all right here. I'm sure we aren't the only ones, and this is the best demonstration of the current Falcon/ECM imbalance in the game.
Enough said.
-Karlemgne
I prefer the ones that claim they had a carrier or dread ect ect all fitted out with ECCM and that it had like 500+ or so sig str but was "perma" jammed for 5-10 mins by a single falcon with 14-15 jam str......
But the posts that go.... "i fly falcons all the time and so do all my buddies but we really reeeeeeally really want them nerfed the crap out of".... are also quite amusing in their own way...
|
Overbrain
|
Posted - 2009.03.29 21:03:00 -
[1068]
Edited by: Overbrain on 29/03/2009 21:05:39
Originally by: Karlemgne
Originally by: TheLibrarian But I know that 5 people in our corp trained for falcons in the last 2 months, and none of them are the least bit upset about the balancing ECM post.
This says it all right here. I'm sure we aren't the only ones, and this is the best demonstration of the current Falcon/ECM imbalance in the game.
Enough said.
-Karlemgne
Maybe because ; since missile nerf, there wasn't anything else worth flying in caldari race ? And now with the ecm nerf, i worry about them lol and me and every other caldari pilot.
|
Zeba
Minmatar Honourable East India Trading Company
|
Posted - 2009.03.29 21:38:00 -
[1069]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis We are looking at putting the scorpion into the short range brawler role. To that end we are looking at removing its ECM Optimal range bonus, increasing the ECM strength bonus a little and adding a cruise/siege launcher rate of fire bonus so it can get close and personal.
Summary Scorpion Changes
- removed the ECM optimal range bonus - increased the ECM strength bonus to 20% per level - added a 5% RoF bonus to cruise & siege missile launchers per level.
I hope the Scorp gets a boost to cpu and grid or its not going to be able to mount the mods it needs to be a close range gang brawler like heavy neuts an xl shield booster along with a heavy cap booster without using up its four low slots with fitting mods. +1 to launchers and high slots would be nice for smaller gang or solo work for those with the skills to persue it.
Originally by: Achar Losa i might be just a 6 year old stupid boy, but he's a CCP dev writing in the forums!
|
Gastronaut
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 00:09:00 -
[1070]
Here's a random thought for Scorpion...
Tank/ECM choosing problems? Low survivability as a close range brawler?
+4% to all shield resists per mounted ECM module.
Theoretical +32% resists to all shield resistances - in practise atleast one is likely to be a shield booster or some non-ECM module (+28%), but even if not, having that much resists more to otherwise non tanked shield isn't much of a nberness.
Doubt anyone even notices this tho
|
|
EgoMan
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 00:17:00 -
[1071]
Originally by: TheLibrarian Edited by: TheLibrarian on 29/03/2009 19:13:27 This is my last post in this thread because its completely derailed. I have to say this though to all you caldari pilots.
Just because you have 7 mid slots doesn't mean all of them have to be used to tank. Lots of armor tankers sacrifice tank for gank mods. Just because my tempest has 6 low slots doesn't mean I fill it up with: Plate, Plate, Plate, EANM, EANM, DCUII. Oh and BTW, armor tankers these days are sacrificing tackle just like you are, except we are doing it for ECCM. = (
In the end I think CCP will do the right thing with balancing falcons. If not, oh well. The game will continue to move forward with a lot of upset people. But I know that 5 people in our corp trained for falcons in the last 2 months, and none of them are the least bit upset about the balancing ECM post.
Um no your right we don't....but in an already inferior ship you have to atleast have a mwd in the mids at a minimum and if you want to tackle theres another. Add invul field and some LSEx2's and your done then you load up the lows with gank and dcux2 and most likely DCU's or RCU's because you will never have enough power grid to fit what you need with shields. Get it all fit and you will have no where near what an armor tanked ship has. You can fit an armageddon with plentry of gank and still have over 120k effective armor points with plenty of tackling and eccm in the mids. Now tell me what caldari ship can do that? My raven boasts a modest 95k Effective shields and 700 dps and it cant 1v1 any amarr or gallente ship in its category especially if you fit tackl in the mids on top of it.
So in retrospect, fit for full gank and tank no shield tank ship can compare to a armor tanked ship and when both ships types sacrifice tank for some tackle and eccm the shield tanker is still inferior. On top of all that even if the Caldari pilot fit for maximum tank and the amarr/gallente sacrificed for tankle it would still blow the caldari ship away!
|
Karlemgne
Tides Of War
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 05:08:00 -
[1072]
Originally by: Irida Mershkov
Originally by: Ilija Veliki stop nerfing caldari
you nerfed missile now you want to nerf jemmers
Caldari pilots now need to fit target painters if they want to do some damage
fit mwd point and web on raven and you will have les hit point than a battlecruiser
WTB: One slightly used female Minmatar slave to SCRAMBLE WEB and PAINT targets for me!!!
Raven pilot
Completely ignoring the viable Caldari ships that is, the Cerb is still a damn beast on the field. You're doing it wrong.
Not to mention (again) the crow, the Drake, the Raven, the Rokh and the Caldari capitals. My sig don't fracking work. |
Carniflex
Caldari Fallout Research Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 09:17:00 -
[1073]
Originally by: Karlemgne
Not to mention (again) the crow, the Drake, the Raven, the Rokh and the Caldari capitals.
We are not complaining actually (in most cases) about caldary pvp viability in general (it's ok in gangs plus few okish solo ships). Main complain points are
(1) Scorpion - a fleet battleship - getting completly different role that has already another caldari battleship (Raven) in it. That is short to medium range brawler in small to medium sized engagement.
(2) Leaving Falcon as viable long range ECM platform does nothing to current situation.
|
Lugganath
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 10:06:00 -
[1074]
Edited by: Lugganath on 30/03/2009 10:08:10 Scorp: instead of giving it a useless rof bonus, why not give it a tank bonus? atleast this way if you dont go ecm, you can actually still play up your mids. or perhapse something else useful? a bigger drone bay maybe? the scorp isnt a shooty boat, and the mix-master bonuses suck. make the cal ewar bs a worthy ewar ship, and not a silly hybrid with one good bonus, and one that's basicly useless.
a fun idea would be tweeking this ship so that its good with ecm bursts as currently only it and the widow can use the bloody thing effectively (instead of rof give bonus range to ecm burst while nurfing the cycle time of the burst so that it cant be spammed)
Falcon: why is the cloaker the extreme range ship? falcon should be for small fleets that generally have to deal with being close, it also makes the falcon less cheesey - hunting down a cloaking jammer 200km away is stupid.
Rook: should be the fleet ecm ship with the ecm long range. it needs the range and tank to be effective. throwing it in close with out really buffing it will just get it dead or make it brutal.
BB: should simply be a T1 rook, medium range bonus, decent ecm strength.
Widow: should be medium-long ecm range, good strength. god knows you pay for it.
|
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 10:45:00 -
[1075]
Originally by: Cletus Graeme
Originally by: Vladimir Norkoff These proposed changes do NOTHING to limit the strength of the Falcon. [...] This is the most non-nerf nerf ever. Range bonus should be changed to 10%/level and keep the 20% ECM. Or give 15% range and 15% ECM.
What were in those ellipses Cletus? Oh that's right! The facts of what the proposed changes would do. Good job completely ignoring them. (Which, by the way, is one of the reasons you are an idiot.) Maybe you should try addressing those facts? Just an idea. I'll restate them again for your benefit.
Proposed changes gives optimal of 100km with max skills and rigs. Proposed changes keep Falcon ECM strength exactly the same. There is no real change to the Falcon. Ergo, these changes are not a nerf and the Falcon will remain OP'd.
Taxman VII: Kingdom of Vlad
|
Cletus Graeme
Caldari Duty.
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 11:18:00 -
[1076]
Originally by: Vladimir Norkoff What were in those ellipses Cletus? Oh that's right! The facts of what the proposed changes would do. Good job completely ignoring them.
I'm well aware that you included CCP's proposed changes in your original post. What you didn't bother to include was an explanation of why you thought they were wrong.
Originally by: Vladimir Norkoff Proposed changes gives optimal of 100km with max skills and rigs. Proposed changes keep Falcon ECM strength exactly the same. There is no real change to the Falcon. Ergo, these changes are not a nerf and the Falcon will remain OP'd.
Here you've finally at least attempted an explanation of why the proposed changes are wrong but you've still failed to explain why your own suggested changes would better balance the ship.
I think it's pretty clear who is the idiot here
|
Ilija Veliki
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 11:48:00 -
[1077]
After 2 years of playing eve and 34 mil. SP one single Assault ship can solo kill my heavy assault ship Cerberus. After missile nerf missiles are uselessly for pvp Caldari is uselessly for pvp. Caldari in only god in farming. Soon CCP will know that isk farmers are Cladari pilots because there will be no Caldari ships in pvp. Falcon is the only Caldari ship which worth to fly in pvp.
Delete Caldari and you will not have problem with missiles jammers and isk farmers.
WTB: One slightly used female Minmatar slave to SCRAMBLE WEB and PAINT targets for me!!!
Raven pilot
|
SER 100LE
Caldari Kumovi
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 12:00:00 -
[1078]
i completely agree with ilija veliki....
Caldari DONT HAVE ANY 1 VS. 1 pvp ship.... Yes plz do nerf our ships, coz we r the greatest race in eve.... plz give us bs- that is more useless than scorpion, and give us ship that is worst than raven.... plz do give us 10 mid slots, that we can jamm and tank and kill something.... plz take away our torps and missiles and give us snowlaunchers that can do more damage than our missile boat's.. and plz do nerf the only ship that worth something, plz nerf falcon...... .... i mean..... u guys destroyed our dps of missiles, and u wanna destroy only (the ONLY)caldary ship that can do something in the fleet..... PLZ CCP DO THAT FOR ME COZ I DONT WANT TO BE PVP PLAYER; I WANNA FARM ISK |
Omu Negru
Caldari Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 12:16:00 -
[1079]
ANOTHER THREAD ABOUT THE FALCON
I wont make any theory to demonstrate anyone ecm are not overpowered.
For those who realy do pvp in this game, look at the killboards.
You will see how many falcons come in fleets. they are not the biggest number ship in gangs. Not all the players want to fly a falcon. If this ship would be so powerful we would see big numbers of falcons in fleets, but this is not the case.
You will see how many die in war, and how easy they die. the 200km range is usless in 99% of sitations. Not to mention you will be always be primary in falcon.
You will realyze there are many recons more powerful then Falcon as Curse, Rapier and they realy make the difference in battle, not just the falcon.
Look on killboard. You will see the truth.
|
Og LePimp
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 13:01:00 -
[1080]
since u want do caldari nerf (again).. then plz give us some jamming CARRIER.... there is the thought---- make chimera jamming carrier,,, and then nerf it......... |
|
Komiliya Jenius
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 13:03:00 -
[1081]
Fit an ECCM Module you whiners. ECM is chance based and good as it is. And the only time people whine is when Falcons shoot from 200km, which means set your gate camp at a Different location where they don't have BM's.
|
Ilija Veliki
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 13:18:00 -
[1082]
It something worth to fly people will fly that. If something is not worth to fly people will afid to fly that and they will train for something forth it.
Caldari is the biggest race in eve
http://bulg.otel.net/kb/?a=kill_related&kll_id=64934
Rokh is the best snipe battleship.
question: how may Rokh`s you can see on this killboard
answer: less then Apocalypse, les then Megathron`s
Raven is the powerhouse of Caldari navy. and Scorpion is the best support battleship.
question: how many raven`s and scorpions together you can see on this killboard?
answer: les then Apocalypse
Falcon is owerpowered
question: how many Falcons you can see on this killboard
answer: same number as Ravens les then Scorpions
and you call this game Falcon-online????
Nerf caldari delete Caldari. Soon there will be no Caldari ships on battlefields only in missions and belts
WTB: One slightly used female Minmatar slave to SCRAMBLE WEB and PAINT targets for me!!!
Raven pilot
|
musgrattio
H A V O C Minor Threat.
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 13:55:00 -
[1083]
Edited by: musgrattio on 30/03/2009 13:57:48 People will argue about this forever. I think the more reasonable people that don't fly Falcons will tell you that it's simply overpowered. And the more reasonable people that do fly Falcons, will tell you not to nerf it into oblivion. So please, once again, give us a compromise. Keep the Falcon's role as it is, but don't allow it to shut down ships from over 200km time and time again. Seriously, if you'll make base ECM optimal 50km, and base falloff 50km, a Falcon will have to jame into its 2x Falloff to be able to jam at 200km. Do you know what that means? Aside from ECM being chance based, the Falcon's ECM won't even take effect at all half the time. But at more reasonable ranges like 100km, the Falcon needs to keep its strength. Most good pvp gangs have ways to deal with Falcons at 100km, even if the Falcons are really good and get alot of jams. That isn't the case with a Falcon at 220km. Nerf the Falcon's ability to jam uncontested by anything other than a full sniper fleet or another Falcon.
As far as the Rook goes, give it a drake's tank in the form of raw shield HP, and give it a bit more oomph with its missiles, along with keeping it a midrange ship. Having ECM brawlers is ******ed, it's like telling me that you intended for the Arazu to fit blasters. It just isn't viable at very close ranges.
Falcon: 10% bonus to optimal 10% bonus to ECM strength
96% to 100% bonus to Cloak 10% bonus to falloff
Rook: 10% bonus to ECM strength 10% bonus to Kinetic Heavy/Heavy Assault Missile Damage
10% bonus to Shield Capacity 10% bonus to Velocity for Heavy/Heavy Assault Missiles
There you go. Instead of nerfing the Falcon and leaving the Rook a worthless pile of crap, you're nerfing but also giving us a brand new, useable ship. People WILL fly a Rook with these bonuses, believe me. And it won't be overpowered.
|
Hlidskjalf
Novus Aevum Transport and Industries Novus Aevum
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 14:04:00 -
[1084]
Originally by: Merdaneth ECM modules were good, not super-overpoweringly good, but better than average. People that 'play to win' started training for and using nosferatu's. Best available counter against a ECM module was another ECM module. Result: nearly everybody started training for and using ECM, one was crammed into every available midslot. Result: ECM nerfed.
Nosferatu's were good, not super-overpoweringly good, but better than average. People that 'play to win' started training for and using nosferatu's. Best available counter against a nosferatu was a nosferatu. Result: nearly everybody started training for and using nosferatu's. Result: more and more nosferatu setups. Nosferatu's nerfed.
Nano's were good, not super-overpoweringly good, but better than average. People that 'play to win' started training for and using nano's. Best available counter against a nano was a nano. Result: nearly everybody started training for and flying nano's. Result: more and more nano's. Nano's get nerfed.
Falcons are good, not super-overpoweringly good, but better than average. People that 'play to win' started training for and using Falcons. Best available counter against a Falcon was a Falcon of your own. Result: nearly everybody started training for and using Falcons. Result: more and more Falcon heavy fleets. Nerf coming? Of course.....
If a module/ship is better than average AND its best counter is a module/ship of the same flavor, it will (and must) eventually spin out of control and will be nerfed. Either accept the nerfs, or submit to ECM-online, Nano-online, Falcon-online or whatever one-dimensional EVE flavor.
Just delete all discussion against the nerf and bow before this statement. This post, on page 34, won the thread. - - - - - - - - - What could possibly make me walk into your gate camp to get to low sec, unless my Retriever has a doomsday device on it...
|
Drunken Wolf
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 14:14:00 -
[1085]
After missile nerf all missiles are uselessly for PvP. All Caldary ships now are uselessly for PvP - one-week Amarr or Minmatar pilot will destroy any Caldary 2-year pilot, it is good. Falcon was the last Caldari ship which worth to fly in PvP.
Scorpion needs better shield resists. Falcon needs more shield and armor hp. Widow needs better sensor strength and one more low slot.
|
Ilija Veliki
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 14:43:00 -
[1086]
Nerf Caldari delete caldari!!!
WTB: One slightly used female Minmatar slave to SCRAMBLE WEB and PAINT targets for me!!!
Raven pilot
|
Ilija Veliki
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 14:46:00 -
[1087]
Slaves start orbit me.... slaves SCRAMBLE that target for me... slaves WEB that target for me.... slaves PAINT that target for me... hear come my Raven
WTB: One slightly used female Minmatar slave to SCRAMBLE WEB and PAINT targets for me!!!
Raven pilot
|
Young Team
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 15:12:00 -
[1088]
Viable Caldari sniper fleet ships :
Rokh - Sniper Scorpion - ECM Falcon - ECM Flycatcher/Crow - Dictor/Inty if you like dying
Viable Caldari sniper fleet ships after nerf :
Rokh - Sniper Flycatcher/Crow - Dictor/Inty if you like dying
|
Yuki Li
Caldari Omerta Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 15:24:00 -
[1089]
Um, what part of the Falcon getting range bonuses makes you people think it needs more HP, or won't be viable in a sniper fleet?
The Rook & Scorpion will be short range high strength ECM, and the Falcon & Widow will be long range lower strength. Makes perfect sense to me.
Website Recruiting
|
Robert Caldera
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 15:39:00 -
[1090]
Edited by: Robert Caldera on 30/03/2009 15:39:56
Originally by: Hlidskjalf
Just delete all discussion against the nerf and bow before this statement. This post, on page 34, won the thread.
why? Concerning the fact CCP initiated the discussion about the changes the comment was merely an attempt to choke a wanted discussion and is hence almost useless.
|
|
Ilija Veliki
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 15:44:00 -
[1091]
Mission runner song (raven battalion)
Under this sun no shadows will fall Piercing our eyes as we charge An Raven battalion on course to the gate Closing the end of it's warp
This time we're here to finish a job Started a down time ago Driving the NPC out of their holes To bury them 6 feet below Raven fleet of mass destruction Killers in the east Rats who dares to stand before us Feel our torpedos go live
Death in the shape of a Raven battalion NPC of terror don't run face your fate like a Man cannot outrun our Raven battalion
Thousands of tons of torpedos and drons Making it's way through the space Our Raven battalion is back for revenge
First strike is ours no mercy is shown There's rivers of blood in our track Breaking their lines of defence with our Ravens Minmatar painting are targets
Blow their sentrys clear for drone strike Ready for the storm Minefields swept there's no surrender Feel our Inferono torpedo burn
nerf Caldari delete Caldari
WTB: One slightly used female Minmatar slave to SCRAMBLE WEB and PAINT targets for me!!!
Raven pilot
|
Sugledvach
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 16:07:00 -
[1092]
"nerf Caldari delete Caldari
WTB: One slightly used female Minmatar slave to SCRAMBLE WEB and PAINT targets for me!!!
Raven pilot." and "kill" Caldari.CCP i want back my money or SP spend to missile and Caldari ships. CCP what is next? deleting my charakter?
|
Wannabehero
Absolutely No Retreat
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 16:20:00 -
[1093]
Personal opinion here
Rook needs RoF bonus instead of kinetic damage bonus resistance bonus instead of flight-time bonus
Otherwise it has both underwhelming DPS and tank, even considering the powerful ECM capabilities.
As for the scorpion... a damage bonus for four weapons? Pretty blah, please give it two bonuses focused on ECM, and not a capacitor use bonus, or perhaps a tanking bonus. The range bonus is nice as it is currently what allows a scorpion to be useful in a fleet. --
Don't harsh my mellow |
Citizen AQ670E14
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 16:34:00 -
[1094]
My god, now even CCP is making "NERF FALCON!!!" threads
|
Childstar
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 17:57:00 -
[1095]
Originally by: Hlidskjalf
Originally by: Merdaneth ECM modules were good, not super-overpoweringly good, but better than average. People that 'play to win' started training for and using nosferatu's. Best available counter against a ECM module was another ECM module. Result: nearly everybody started training for and using ECM, one was crammed into every available midslot. Result: ECM nerfed.
Nosferatu's were good, not super-overpoweringly good, but better than average. People that 'play to win' started training for and using nosferatu's. Best available counter against a nosferatu was a nosferatu. Result: nearly everybody started training for and using nosferatu's. Result: more and more nosferatu setups. Nosferatu's nerfed.
Nano's were good, not super-overpoweringly good, but better than average. People that 'play to win' started training for and using nano's. Best available counter against a nano was a nano. Result: nearly everybody started training for and flying nano's. Result: more and more nano's. Nano's get nerfed.
Falcons are good, not super-overpoweringly good, but better than average. People that 'play to win' started training for and using Falcons. Best available counter against a Falcon was a Falcon of your own. Result: nearly everybody started training for and using Falcons. Result: more and more Falcon heavy fleets. Nerf coming? Of course.....
If a module/ship is better than average AND its best counter is a module/ship of the same flavor, it will (and must) eventually spin out of control and will be nerfed. Either accept the nerfs, or submit to ECM-online, Nano-online, Falcon-online or whatever one-dimensional EVE flavor.
Just delete all discussion against the nerf and bow before this statement. This post, on page 34, won the thread.
You are kidding right?.
That post and everything it stands for is a disgrace, CCP should be looking to add or buff instead of just butchering every popular aspect that the game produces.
A increase and adddition to ECCM would solve the problem and it would not throw yet another ship on the scrap heap.
|
Sun Clausewitz
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 17:57:00 -
[1096]
Did I miss the warning on characte creation???
Warning, Caldri are missle sooting, shield tanking, ECM warriors. Please note we are nefing Missles, ECM, and shield tanking is useless in PvP. Are you sure you want toroll Caldari?
|
Ephemeron
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 18:32:00 -
[1097]
Originally by: Sun Clausewitz Did I miss the warning on characte creation???
Warning, Caldri are missle sooting, shield tanking, ECM warriors. Please note we are nefing Missles, ECM, and shield tanking is useless in PvP. Are you sure you want toroll Caldari?
It would be more appropriate to have another warning:
"If you want to be a carebear, we suggest Caldari as they are by far superior at everything related to PvE. But if you are more interested in PvP activity, then we suggest to choose between the other 3 factions."
Don't forget that majority of EVE playerbase are carebears, and the majority of those fly Ravens and drakes
|
Vina
Caldari Destructive Influence KenZoku
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 18:50:00 -
[1098]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Keep the good feedback coming. It is good to see such a varied range of opinions as ECM and ECM specialised ships and how the proposed changes affect their roles in different scenarios and more importantly the balance between preventing and encouraging fights which is equally loved or hated.
Currently we have two sets of different Caldari recon changes and will be testing each one which either significantly change their roles (as we originally proposed changing the falcon to close range to account for the power of its covert ops role and rook to longer range to increase its usefulness) or reduce their ranged ECM effectiveness overall in lieu of other bonuses to give them a better more balanced role than just "jam to the max". Thus shifting them to behave less like ultra niche ships and more like recons were better intended whilst still allowing for the lack of secondary EWAR system bonus to caldari recons.
An additional change to my previous posts on the second possible changes (slightly reduce the effectiveness but keep their general roles the same) we have split the ECM optimal bonuses on the Falcon and Blackbird to be optimal and falloff. With the Falcon currently gaining 12.5% ECM optimal and falloff range per level and the Blackbird 10% per level.
In addition we are looking at the difference between the "brawling" (must find a better term for this :p) ECM strengths and ranges and the longer range sniper ships. It is quite likely we will be making further changes in this area in addition to considering more if the power of the covert ops cloak ability is really adequately balanced between the falcon and rook and will have public testing of the original proposed changes as well.
Hope that leaves you with some more insight into where we are currently at with internal playtesting and balancing.
As always, I will sign off with reminding you that these changes are not set in stone and will continue to change
you know, tbh I'm not even sure if you should even bother keeping a long range jamming ship at all. ECM does not change the outcome of fleet fights anymore at all due to two things; Fleets are ****ing huge now, and scorp jam strength sucks **** and doesn't jam anything. You either have to bring a falcon which is expensive and gets one volleyed by any battleship that targets it, or a scorp because it's cheap and has the aura of usefulness (even though it really isn't) so I'm actually kind of liking a lot of these changes to increased ECM strength + more dps with less ecm range.
Still these changes mean that there DEFINATELY will be no fleet ECM platform anymore, if you guys really want to do that.
tbh I'd rather see more use of AOE modules since this game pretty much compeltely lacks anything really tactical besides what you can do directly to another ship. Something like AoE ECCMs, aoe ECCM bursts, things like that, to counter long range ecm. I'd like to see the scorp remain the fleet ECM platform, but you can add more tactical counters to fleet wide ECM use (like aoe eccm bursts.) Perhaps a new type of cruiser should be made for AoE buffing fleets (compeltely different from gang mods which are really overpowered and utterly untactical.)
go level a character to 80 in l2 and get your lvl 80 fusion aoe and see how much fun/useful AoEs really are. like this :> -----------------------------------
|
Overbrain
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 19:22:00 -
[1099]
Originally by: Sugledvach "nerf Caldari delete Caldari
WTB: One slightly used female Minmatar slave to SCRAMBLE WEB and PAINT targets for me!!!
Raven pilot." and "kill" Caldari.CCP i want back my money or SP spend to missile and Caldari ships. CCP what is next? deleting my charakter?
This is it , i got an idea . Give everyone one time only ability to redistribute trained skillpoints and then we will see how much overpowered caldari is. Im guessing out of 10 people in eve , 4 will be amarr , 3 will be gallente , 2 will be minmatar, 1 will be caldari.
|
Phidell
Chaos Reborn Rote Kapelle
|
Posted - 2009.03.30 19:37:00 -
[1100]
Caldari is for farmers and mission *****s. amirite?
|
|
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 01:15:00 -
[1101]
Originally by: Cletus Graeme Stuff
Umm, thanks for rephrasing my post yet again. Pity you couldn't actually, y'know, refute or address the points in any meaningful way. "You fail at discussions."
Furthermore, not sure where you are getting your information about ECM base strength being reduced. From the SDA paragraph, first page - "Currently they increase your ECM strength and we were looking at swapping this to an ECM range bonus and altering either the base strength of the jammers or the ECM strength bonus of the ships so they become less required in every setup and the low slots could be used for tanking for example."
Oh, and you're still an idiot.
Taxman VII: Kingdom of Vlad
|
McEivalley
Fallen Angel's Blade.
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 01:27:00 -
[1102]
Ok, the muse has amused itself by throwing an idea on me...
1) Why don't you add a skill to enhance a ship's eccms? I.e. a skill to strengthen the effectiveness of your ships ability to maintain a lock provided you fit an eccm module.
For example, the skill would increase the module's effectiveness by 5%-7.5% per level. That way, a highly skilled ECCMed pilot could risk fitting only one module and not gimp his entire fit, while an unwary pilot would still be effectively jammed as ever.
2) Each ship has a specialized locking strength with some type of sensor, but it also has minimal strength with other kinds of sensors. Just to remind people what I'm talking about, caldari ships use gravitational sensory mainly, but they also have a trength of (just) 1 in LADAR, RADAR and what-was-that-other-one? You get the drift though... Why not bring that already existing information into play? Keep the statistical system as it is, but change the effect. Make jamming behave like dampening, in the sense that the ship's sensor strength provides its ability to maintain a coherent lock up to its maximum distance, while the jammer is a divider to that distance. Its also more realistic that way. There can be several ways as to how to handle this, but I'm sure some math wiz can solve that out.
3) Instead of gimping the jamming power, why don't you penalize using it in other ways. For example, a miss jam will penalize the next cycle's ability to jam, as the target ships sensors are now expecting that sort of jamming. The penalty stacks with consequitive misses to the same target ship. Or you could penalize the ship's signature radius due to using a powerful emitter such as a jammer on-board when it is activated. Even more, increase the locking range vs such a ship, for ships attempting to lock it.
That way, even if a falcon gets to jam some ships, others can lock him faster and prevent it from cloaking, forcing him to decide if to stay and get nuked or warp away. So basically the tactic of staying at range remains as the ships valid defense, but it does give the chance for slaggers/intys/whatevers to make the falcon pilot less annoying to confront. It doesn't gimp the jamming itself - it does make the battle more fun and dangerous for everyone, including the falcons, but also scorpions etc...
To keep the kitsune alive and not completely obsolete (as it cannot cloak) have it get a role bonus that abolishes and reduces that penalty. The rook should probably enjoy that boni as well, since they are not sniping ewar platforms. Do - don't die trying. |
Lindsay Logan
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 01:40:00 -
[1103]
Originally by: Vina
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Keep the good feedback coming. It is good to see such a varied range of opinions as ECM and ECM specialised ships and how the proposed changes affect their roles in different scenarios and more importantly the balance between preventing and encouraging fights which is equally loved or hated.
Currently we have two sets of different Caldari recon changes and will be testing each one which either significantly change their roles (as we originally proposed changing the falcon to close range to account for the power of its covert ops role and rook to longer range to increase its usefulness) or reduce their ranged ECM effectiveness overall in lieu of other bonuses to give them a better more balanced role than just "jam to the max". Thus shifting them to behave less like ultra niche ships and more like recons were better intended whilst still allowing for the lack of secondary EWAR system bonus to caldari recons.
An additional change to my previous posts on the second possible changes (slightly reduce the effectiveness but keep their general roles the same) we have split the ECM optimal bonuses on the Falcon and Blackbird to be optimal and falloff. With the Falcon currently gaining 12.5% ECM optimal and falloff range per level and the Blackbird 10% per level.
In addition we are looking at the difference between the "brawling" (must find a better term for this :p) ECM strengths and ranges and the longer range sniper ships. It is quite likely we will be making further changes in this area in addition to considering more if the power of the covert ops cloak ability is really adequately balanced between the falcon and rook and will have public testing of the original proposed changes as well.
Hope that leaves you with some more insight into where we are currently at with internal playtesting and balancing.
As always, I will sign off with reminding you that these changes are not set in stone and will continue to change
you know, tbh I'm not even sure if you should even bother keeping a long range jamming ship at all. ECM does not change the outcome of fleet fights anymore at all due to two things; Fleets are ****ing huge now, and scorp jam strength sucks **** and doesn't jam anything. You either have to bring a falcon which is expensive and gets one volleyed by any battleship that targets it, or a scorp because it's cheap and has the aura of usefulness (even though it really isn't) so I'm actually kind of liking a lot of these changes to increased ECM strength + more dps with less ecm range.
Still these changes mean that there DEFINATELY will be no fleet ECM platform anymore, if you guys really want to do that.
tbh I'd rather see more use of AOE modules since this game pretty much compeltely lacks anything really tactical besides what you can do directly to another ship. Something like AoE ECCMs, aoe ECCM bursts, things like that, to counter long range ecm. I'd like to see the scorp remain the fleet ECM platform, but you can add more tactical counters to fleet wide ECM use (like aoe eccm bursts.) Perhaps a new type of cruiser should be made for AoE buffing fleets (compeltely different from gang mods which are really overpowered and utterly untactical.)
go level a character to 80 in l2 and get your lvl 80 fusion aoe and see how much fun/useful AoEs really are. like this :>
Except that maginc AOE boosts make no sense (even the current gang mods make little sense). Damage AOE makes sense tho. ECM AOE makes sense.
|
something somethingdark
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 02:35:00 -
[1104]
here are a couple of ideas nobody will read or care about and are most likely rather strange and like all the others in this thread its defnetly not gona be read by ccp
make the rook a notch better than the falcon currently is
cut the falcon down to size
give the poor mini recons an aditional webby power bonus
when the huggin has been sufficiently boosted take the rapier down a notch
lach/arazu get a little increase to scram range
finaly fix the bloddy pilgrim... curse is fine i guess .. some more cap wouldnt hurt ...
then wrap this all up and call it the recon adjustment patch
hell if you want to make combat recons fotm again give em all -100% targeting delay for regular cloaks
|
AngryMax
Gallente Executable Inc
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 04:58:00 -
[1105]
Dear CCP,
Disbalance = FUN
Stop ruining my favorite game.
p.s. I don't fly falcons.
|
Helgur
The State
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 05:00:00 -
[1106]
This is why my missile skills is < 1M SP and gun skills are > 6M SP and why I never bothered to train for a Falcon. Because CCP loves to nerf caldari. I saw this one coming a long time ago. I've flown scorps on numerous occasions and trained max skills for range since i knew that was the only way to stay in a fight longer than 30 seconds. Everytime I am in my scorp and get jumped on by a fleet or the FC warps the whole fleet at 0 I know its useless to put up a fight, i just select a planet and mash the warp button so I can atleast get my pod out in one piece.
Now offcourse, if i'm going to fly the scorp I *have* to stay close which means I'll die first and very very fast. In other words, the scorp is parked permanently. Its redundant.
Well I see whats next on the nerf list now. BS gangs being remote repped by guardians is going to be even harder to counter because of the ECM nerf. So you got a little heads up from me there CCP.
|
AngryMax
Gallente Executable Inc
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 05:28:00 -
[1107]
Originally by: Helgur This is why my missile skills is < 1M SP and gun skills are > 6M SP and why I never bothered to train for a Falcon. Because CCP loves to nerf caldari. I saw this one coming a long time ago. I've flown scorps on numerous occasions and trained max skills for range since i knew that was the only way to stay in a fight longer than 30 seconds. Everytime I am in my scorp and get jumped on by a fleet or the FC warps the whole fleet at 0 I know its useless to put up a fight, i just select a planet and mash the warp button so I can atleast get my pod out in one piece.
Now offcourse, if i'm going to fly the scorp I *have* to stay close which means I'll die first and very very fast. In other words, the scorp is parked permanently. Its redundant.
Well I see whats next on the nerf list now. BS gangs being remote repped by guardians is going to be even harder to counter because of the ECM nerf. So you got a little heads up from me there CCP.
Its not only Caldari, Gallente have been hit pretty well too. Arazu is a laughing stock of recons now. Bring your arazu to a battlefield and take one BS out long enough to run away from some ceptor (or frig) that is burning towards you. I heard similar stories from curse pilots.
I don't know if anyone else feels this way... but it seems CCP has been bent on cramming teamwork down everyone's throat for some time now with all these nerfs. I keep training for solo/small gang ships that get nerfed one after another. CCP, you guys do realize that solo/duo is fun and a lot of people like it right?
|
Helgur
The State
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 06:06:00 -
[1108]
Originally by: AngryMax
Its not only Caldari, Gallente have been hit pretty well too. Arazu is a laughing stock of recons now. Bring your arazu to a battlefield and take one BS out long enough to run away from some ceptor (or frig) that is burning towards you. I heard similar stories from curse pilots.
I don't know if anyone else feels this way... but it seems CCP has been bent on cramming teamwork down everyone's throat for some time now with all these nerfs. I keep training for solo/small gang ships that get nerfed one after another. CCP, you guys do realize that solo/duo is fun and a lot of people like it right?
Yup I agree with you. It kind of puzzled me why the Falcon was the only recon ship that was prominently dominant in fleet warfare. I know that some of my corpmates flew the ship (Arazu) in smaller gangs with bigger success. What CCP should do is not nerf the strength of any ships but increase the strength of other ships to counter them. That way they don't become redundant and SP won't be wasted. But thats too much to ask i guess.
|
Karlemgne
Tides Of War
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 08:06:00 -
[1109]
Edited by: Karlemgne on 31/03/2009 08:06:37
Originally by: Helgur
Originally by: AngryMax
Its not only Caldari, Gallente have been hit pretty well too. Arazu is a laughing stock of recons now. Bring your arazu to a battlefield and take one BS out long enough to run away from some ceptor (or frig) that is burning towards you. I heard similar stories from curse pilots.
I don't know if anyone else feels this way... but it seems CCP has been bent on cramming teamwork down everyone's throat for some time now with all these nerfs. I keep training for solo/small gang ships that get nerfed one after another. CCP, you guys do realize that solo/duo is fun and a lot of people like it right?
Yup I agree with you. It kind of puzzled me why the Falcon was the only recon ship that was prominently dominant in fleet warfare. I know that some of my corpmates flew the ship (Arazu) in smaller gangs with bigger success. What CCP should do is not nerf the strength of any ships but increase the strength of other ships to counter them. That way they don't become redundant and SP won't be wasted. But thats too much to ask i guess.
Why? If CCP "boosts" the other ships so the Falcon is countered to such an extent that's its effectiveness isn't any worse or better than any other recon, the same people who spent all that time skilling up their Falcon alts will still cry. That's the whole point. All these people have spent a lot of time and money skilling up to fly a ship that is much BETTER than all the other recons. If you make Falcons easily counterable, the effect is the same as a nerf.
-Karlemgne My sig don't fracking work. |
Impi yaShaka
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 08:11:00 -
[1110]
Back to missioning then... wait... where's that cerberus?
|
|
Vigaz
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 08:51:00 -
[1111]
Rook: Caldari Cruiser Skill Bonus: 10% Bonus to Light & Heavy, Heavy assault Missile Velocity per level
This bonus must be changed!!!!! It's for long range!!! Change it to 5% resists or 5% RoF or 5% ECM strength or anything useful for short range.
MAX full range for the new Rook is 50-60km, don't give it a lol missile range bonus (who cares if u can shoot missiles @ 100km or more).
The Scorpion - removed the ECM optimal range bonus - increased the ECM strength bonus to 20% per level - added a 5% RoF bonus to cruise & siege missile launchers per level
Please ADD another launcher to this ship. My widow has 5 launchers, it was added 1 launcher and RoF because the DPS was by far the worst among BOs. So CCP corrected the issue giving the Scorpion t2 (aka Widow) the ability to fit 5 launcher with RoF bonus (no ECM range/optimal bonus on the BO). For the same reason it's the time for Scorpion to be inline with others tier1 BS (short range and more DPS, with the ability to choose tank or ewar or mix them).
BOs gain just a cloaking bonus over their t1 variants. NO DPS added to any non Caldari BO. This means that Tier1 Scorpion will be broken without 5 launchers.
|
Mohenna
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 10:27:00 -
[1112]
Originally by: Vigaz 5% resists
|
|
|
|
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] |