EVE Search - The second bonus/fix for cal recons: Resistance diminshers!

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

Ships and Modules

The second bonus/fix for cal recons: Resistance diminshers!

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Topic
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.10.03 07:35:00 - [1] Well Seeing as theres three hundred falcon threads about i thought id try introduce something besides NERF X MOD or NERF X SHIP..So here goes: All the contempary recon cruisers have 2 ewar bonus's, e.g. neuts, td's (ammar) webs, tp's (minmatar) etc. All of them of course, besides the caldari recons.. For ages ppl have wanted it to have 2 bonus's to diff. ewar, problem is theres no ewar left for it to get bonus's with.. Untill now of course: enter Resistance diminishersÖ! There are 8 types in total, 4 for each type of resistance for armour and four for each type of resistance for shield (aprropriate names such as ballistic plate destabiliser) Each one reduces the shield/armour resistances on a ship for the specific type, such as ballistic on shields. They would be a highslot module with similar fittings to nos/neuts.. Range would be similar to td's.. Now imagine the fun! Falcon.. Bonus: Cruiser bonus: 10% reduction in ecm target jammer capacitor use per level and 20% bonus to ecm target jammer optimal range per level Recon bonus: 5% bonus to resistance diminisher strength per level and -96 to -100% bonus to cloaking device CPU use per level. The recon now has a similar role to the arazu, short + long range ewar. It has long range ecm, but its strength has been nerfed to make the whiners feel better, it then has short range ewar that would be loads of fun in small roaming fleets: ammar heavy gang? fit em/therm armour/shield diminishers..Alot of caldari with you? take kinetic.. Now the t1 bonus has not changed so therefore t1 ecm boats wont change, only the recons and EAS, and perhaps black-ops bs if the need arises. Now alot of ppl may dislike this sudden revamp, but i think it would completely change the falcons niche to give it a newer, more complex one..Its a big change so would probably need alot of tweaking, though i still would prefer this than a total ecm nerf.. Otherwise just leave the falcon as is! I dont mind Discuss.. Awesome EVE history
Raymond Sterns Utopian Research I.E.L. The ENTITY.	Posted - 2008.10.03 07:54:00 - [2] lol wut _
Zionysus	Posted - 2008.10.03 07:54:00 - [3] No. Thats a terrible terrible idea, and ridiculously overpowered to boot. Give it a tp bonuse But seriously, thats such a terrible idea I thought you were trolling.
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.10.03 08:01:00 - [4] Originally by: Zionysus No. Thats a terrible terrible idea, and ridiculously overpowered to boot. Give it a tp bonuse But seriously, thats such a terrible idea I thought you were trolling. Your a terible idea. Firstly explain WHY you think its a terrbile idea, as is, YOUR the troll. I fail to see how its overpowered, as I said it may need tweaking, such as a reduction in range.. Remember the falcon loses its ecm strength bonus, and must get in close to use this ewar, being incredibly flimsy it will be very dangerous to operate at such range making it very NOT overpowered. Awesome EVE history
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2008.10.03 08:04:00 - [5] Oh, FFS, how many times must I post this? The other three recons do not have two different ewar bonuses just to have two different bonuses, they have them because it's required for their role. The Rapier's job is to make everyone in your gang hit for full damage, therefore it needs to be able to counter both velocity-based and signature-based damage reduction. Therefore it gets web and TP bonuses. The Arazu's job is a hybrid of long-range tackle and ewar. To do this job, it gets a range bonus to warp scramblers, and a damp bonus to cut the target's lock range below warp scramble range, preventing the Arazu from just instantly exploding once it puts a point on the target. The Pilgrim's job, when it isn't being used in its proper role as a covert ops hauler, is solo ganking. Therefore, in addition to its racial ewar type, it gets nos/neut bonuses to allow it to break a target's tank in a reasonable amount of time. None of those ships could do their job with a single ewar type, so it's just stupid to look at the split bonuses as a disadvantage. It's an advantage, if you understand how the ships are supposed to work. As for the Falcon, you're suggesting crippling the ship's ECM in exchange for a secondary ewar that not only has absolutely no synergy with the primary ewar (in fact, ANTI-synergy, since you want it to be short-range), but will either: 1) Be weak, and completely useless (especially compared to just bringing another gank ship). OR 2) Be strong, completely overpowered, and quickly nerfed back to case #1. So no, this is not a good idea in any way.
Kunming T.H.U.G L.I.F.E White Core	Posted - 2008.10.03 08:06:00 - [6] And I demand blaster dmg is increased by 500%... A man can dream.. Quote: READ THIS NEXT PART CAREFULLY AS IT IS VERY IMPORTANT AND POSTING A REPLY WITHOUT READING IT MAY RESULT IN YOU LOOKING STUPID.
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.10.03 08:17:00 - [7] Originally by: Merin Ryskin Oh, FFS, how many times must I post this? The other three recons do not have two different ewar bonuses just to have two different bonuses, they have them because it's required for their role. How many rapiers u see with tp's? Oh and the new falcon will have 2 bonus's required for its new role Quote: The Arazu's job is a hybrid of long-range tackle and ewar. The falcons job will be a hybrid of jamming and diminishing, therefore an anti-support role. It has potential to jam targets, failing that it reduces their ehp.. Quote: The Pilgrim's job, when it isn't being used in its proper role as a covert ops hauler, is solo ganking. Therefore, in addition to its racial ewar type, it gets nos/neut bonuses to allow it to break a target's tank in a reasonable amount of time. That is not the pilgrims role at all, CCP never designed it for this. It, like all recons, is supposed to have the role of ANTI-SUPPORT (merging in with anti-bs) Quote: None of those ships could do their job with a single ewar type, so it's just stupid to look at the split bonuses as a disadvantage. It's an advantage, if you understand how the ships are supposed to work. I never said it was a disadvantage, more a way of adjusting the falcon. Oh and look at the rapier, it works quite well using webbers alone. Quote: As for the Falcon, you're suggesting crippling the ship's ECM in exchange for a secondary ewar that not only has absolutely no synergy with the primary ewar (in fact, ANTI-synergy, since you want it to be short-range), but will either: 1) Be weak, and completely useless (especially compared to just bringing another gank ship). OR 2) Be strong, completely overpowered, and quickly nerfed back to case #1. The ecm isnt being crippled, more readjusted due to the incredible amount of whining, and the second ewar added to compensate. And I dont woant it to be underpowered or overpowered, but balanced, which is why I said it would require tweaking. If you dont think its a good idea than fine, it doesnt need implementing, I like the falcon as is. However Id prefer to see something like this over a complete nerf to hell and back on ecm, like what happened to the arazu... Awesome EVE history
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2008.10.03 08:39:00 - [8] Originally by: BiggestT Originally by: Merin Ryskin Oh, FFS, how many times must I post this? The other three recons do not have two different ewar bonuses just to have two different bonuses, they have them because it's required for their role. How many rapiers u see with tp's? Oh and the new falcon will have 2 bonus's required for its new role The problem is arbitrarily naming two module types does not make a role. The other recons have excellent synergy in their bonuses, allowing them to work together extremely effectively. Your propsed Falcon just takes two random, completely unrelated modules and sticks them on one ship to satisfy your bizarre need for "two bonuses". Even worse, your proposal has massive ANTI-synergy. Long-range ECM (with a range bonus even!) and short-range secondary ewar do not work together. Unlike the other recons, if your proposed Falcon is using one bonus effectively, it's giving up the other one completely! Quote: That is not the pilgrims role at all, CCP never designed it for this. It, like all recons, is supposed to have the role of ANTI-SUPPORT (merging in with anti-bs) Err, no. Anti-support involves ships like the Cerberus or Zealot killing support, not a Pilgrim screwing around with neuting it. The Pilgrim is very obviously designed to be a cloaking ewar ship with the ability to gank targets solo, that's why it gets the highest damage output combined with neuts/nos to break active tanks. Quote: Oh and look at the rapier, it works quite well using webbers alone. Only because missile ships are less common than gunboats for dps (guns get more tracking improvement from webs than TPs), and most PvP targets will have an active MWD, making sig radius irrelevant. Put that Rapier in a gang with missile boats, or introduce the proposed AB changes, and those TPs become more effective. Also, don't forget the nano problem. Rapiers get double benefit from it, they're both a critical counter to nano abuse, and get massive benefit from fitting a nano setup themselves and using their webs to be the only fast ship around. This will change. Quote: The ecm isnt being crippled, more readjusted due to the incredible amount of whining, and the second ewar added to compensate. How the hell is a 50% strength reduction "not being crippled"? And no, a useless secondary ewar with massive anti-synergy does NOT compensate. It doesn't even come close.
Abrazzar	Posted - 2008.10.03 08:48:00 - [9] Oh look what I found here. This idea isn't new. -------- Ideas for: Mining
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.10.03 09:23:00 - [10] Originally by: Merin Ryskin The problem is arbitrarily naming two module types does not make a role. The other recons have excellent synergy in their bonuses, allowing them to work together extremely effectively. Your propsed Falcon just takes two random, completely unrelated modules and sticks them on one ship to satisfy your bizarre need for "two bonuses". Even worse, your proposal has massive ANTI-synergy. Long-range ECM (with a range bonus even!) and short-range secondary ewar do not work together. Unlike the other recons, if your proposed Falcon is using one bonus effectively, it's giving up the other one completely! The Arazu has a long range ewar (damps) and a short range ewar (disruptors). They have absolutely no synergy when looking at them individually. The only reason it stays "in sysnergy" is due to the disruptor range bonus, which still isnt enough to take advantage of sensor damps range. If you really want synergy, simply swap the diminishers stregth bonus for a range bonus. Done. Quote: Err, no. Anti-support involves ships like the Cerberus or Zealot killing support, not a Pilgrim screwing around with neuting it. The Pilgrim is very obviously designed to be a cloaking ewar ship with the ability to gank targets solo, that's why it gets the highest damage output combined with neuts/nos to break active tanks. Technically recons role is their own (ewar), however i termed them anti-support as they are utilized to highest effectiveness against support (cruisers, bc's etc). They can be utilised to some effectiveness agaisnt BS, however to not as much an effect comparared to support. Oh and I would term cerb's, etc as support, not anti-support...(Hence why most hac pilots x up in chat channels with x support). Quote: Only because missile ships are less common than gunboats for dps (guns get more tracking improvement from webs than TPs), and most PvP targets will have an active MWD, making sig radius irrelevant. Put that Rapier in a gang with missile boats, or introduce the proposed AB changes, and those TPs become more effective. Also, don't forget the nano problem. Rapiers get double benefit from it, they're both a critical counter to nano abuse, and get massive benefit from fitting a nano setup themselves and using their webs to be the only fast ship around. This will change. That is more a shib balance issue than role issue. The rapier is proof that a recon can succesfully fulfill its role with one type of ewar, which you were arguing against. Quote: How the hell is a 50% strength reduction "not being crippled"? And no, a useless secondary ewar with massive anti-synergy does NOT compensate. It doesn't even come close. The recons ecm effectiveness there is getting nerfed yes, but will still be quite effective agaisnt support (like the backbird), while getting the additional bonus to diminishers. I dont think diminishers will be useless at all, for example: imagine going against a hostile fleet heavy in shield buffered cal ships/hacs, while you have an ammarr armour repping heavy fleet. having a method of reducing the hostiles ehp effectively would be incredibly powerful, augmenting your fleets power. However, the falcon/rook is flimsy and will be called primary so it isnt overpowered (will rely heavily on rr etc). Of course, such changes may require fitting revamps, attribute revamps etc, so i doubt it will happen. Its just id much prepare a total ship revamp over a total nerf to uselessness which seems the direction the falcon is headed from all this whining.. Awesome EVE history

BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.10.03 09:24:00 - [11] Originally by: Abrazzar Oh look what I found here. This idea isn't new. LOl, i had no idea that you'd proposed this..Ill remove the tm then :P Awesome EVE history
Strill	Posted - 2008.10.03 09:48:00 - [12] Originally by: BiggestT Untill now of course: enter Resistance diminishers! Sorry. CCP beat you to it. http://www.battleclinic.com/eve_online/item/i11281-EM-Shield-Disruptor-I-details.html
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2008.10.03 09:49:00 - [13] Edited by: Merin Ryskin on 03/10/2008 09:52:53 Originally by: BiggestT The Arazu has a long range ewar (damps) and a short range ewar (disruptors). They have absolutely no synergy when looking at them individually. The only reason it stays "in sysnergy" is due to the disruptor range bonus, which still isnt enough to take advantage of sensor damps range. Oh FFS, can you even read? What is the biggest disadvantage to a cruiser-size 48km tackler? The fact that anything with 48km range will pop it quickly. How do you fix that disadvantage? Reduce the target's lock range below 48km. Damps do this 100% without the failure chance of ECM. And of course it's synergy because of the disruptor range bonus. That's my whole point, the two bonuses work perfectly together! Quote: If you really want synergy, simply swap the diminishers stregth bonus for a range bonus. Done. That removes the ANTI-synergy to some degree, but how exactly does that add synergy? Synergy does not just mean "has the same range". ECM does absolutely nothing to help your new ewar, and your new ewar does absolutely nothing to help ECM. The only connection is the fact that you've arbitrarily put them on the same ship. Quote: Technically recons role is their own (ewar), however i termed them anti-support as they are utilized to highest effectiveness against support (cruisers, bc's etc). They can be utilised to some effectiveness agaisnt BS, however to not as much an effect comparared to support. Oh and I would term cerb's, etc as support, not anti-support...(Hence why most hac pilots x up in chat channels with x support). All four recons are perfectly effective against battleships. The Rapier still makes all of your own battleships hit perfectly, the Arazu can still lock down a solo battleship (it's meant for ganking solo targets, period), and the Pilgrim's tracking disruptors are most effective against battleships (cruiser-size weapons will hit a Pilgrim just fine, even with TDs on them). Oh, and the Falcon's most common target choices? Caldari racials for counterjamming, other racials on battleships. It's why you fit racials, after all. And what the hell else would a Cerberus be, besides anti-support? Just look at the **ing definition, "anti-support" means "kills support". That's about as perfect a definition of what the Cerberus does as you could ever ask for. Quote:** That is more a shib balance issue than role issue. The rapier is proof that a recon can succesfully fulfill its role with one type of ewar, which you were arguing against. You're right about it being a ship balance issue, but you're completely wrong about your conclusion. Whether or not currently popular Rapier fits use both TPs and webs is not the issue, the point is the basic idea of the two ewar types involves heavy synergy between them. Argue for an increase in TP effectiveness if you want, but that has nothing to do with my point. Quote: The recons ecm effectiveness there is getting nerfed yes, but will still be quite effective agaisnt support (like the backbird), while getting the additional bonus to diminishers. Allow me to translate: "we crippled your fleet ewar ship in the role it's awesome at, but hey, we gave you this shiny new bonus to civilian railgun damage!" Quote: I dont think diminishers will be useless at all, for example: imagine going against a hostile fleet heavy in shield buffered cal ships/hacs, while you have an ammarr armour repping heavy fleet. having a method of reducing the hostiles ehp effectively would be incredibly powerful, augmenting your fleets power. However, the falcon/rook is flimsy and will be called primary so it isnt overpowered (will rely heavily on rr etc). In small gangs, your diminisher (assuming it isn't stupidly overpowered) will have less effect than simply bringing another gank ship. In large fleets, it will do essentially nothing, since ships in large fleets have minimal tank, and there's no significant difference between damage types.
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2008.10.03 10:04:00 - [14] Edited by: Merin Ryskin on 03/10/2008 10:06:01 Edited by: Merin Ryskin on 03/10/2008 10:04:13 Allow me to make this nice and clear: Damps help long range warp disruptors by making the relatively slow and paper-thin Arazu invulnerable while tackling at long range. Long range warp disruptors help damps by moving all ships in the gang outside of the target's reduced lock range (normally tacklers would have to operate inside that range, letting the target continue to fight). The result is an Arazu paired with a long/mid-range dps ship can gank a single target without any risk of taking fire in return, and easily disengage when backup shows up. Target painters help webs by preventing slower, non-MWD ships from dodging fire by low sig radius. Webs help target painters by preventing high-sig MWDing ships from dodging damage by speed. The result is no way to avoid damage, forcing the target to tank 100% of your fleet's theoretical max damage output. Tracking disruptors help neuts by allowing your relatively fragile neut/drone boat to dodge fire long enough to score the kill. Neuts/nos help tracking disruptors by breaking the target's tank faster, as usually TDs will only reduce incoming dps, not remove it completely. The result is a solo gank ship that (in theory, at least, but the Pilgrim's issues are not from its choice of TDs and capwar) can ambush a target, cripple its return fire, and take it out before its own tank fails. In other words, an ideal solo piracy ship (which it was, pre-nos-nerf). That is synergy. Notice the two-way benefit, each bonused ewar type improves the other, working together nicely to accomplish a single goal. Your proposed Falcon change simply sticks two random ewar types on the same ship, with absolutely no connection between them. Your proposed "role" is pure nonsense, and nothing more than a justification for your absurd nerf idea.
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.10.03 10:46:00 - [15] Originally by: Merin Ryskin Oh FFS, can you even read? What is the biggest disadvantage to a cruiser-size 48km tackler? The fact that anything with 48km range will pop it quickly. How do you fix that disadvantage? Reduce the target's lock range below 48km. Damps do this 100% without the failure chance of ECM. And of course it's synergy because of the disruptor range bonus. That's my whole point, the two bonuses work perfectly together! Ok, lets apply said argument to the new falcon.. What is the biggest disadvantage to a cruiser that can massively reduce ehp? Primary calling of course, hence the ecm, it may only be chance based but its still very appropriate. There, synergy. Oh and calm down, im not getting aggro at you :P Quote: All four recons are perfectly effective against battleships. The Rapier still makes all of your own battleships hit perfectly, the Arazu can still lock down a solo battleship (it's meant for ganking solo targets, period), and the Pilgrim's tracking disruptors are most effective against battleships (cruiser-size weapons will hit a Pilgrim just fine, even with TDs on them). Oh, and the Falcon's most common target choices? Caldari racials for counterjamming, other racials on battleships. It's why you fit racials, after all. Ahh, in comparison however, looking at the ships your versing, recons are more effective vs. support than BS. E.g ECM will work better agaisnt a cruiser than a BS, webber will work better agaisnt a cruiser than a bs (why? The bs is already slow, but a fast cruiser relies on speed, webbing a cruiser will gimp it more than oyu will gimp a bs via webbing). Neuts will have a greater affect on smaller ships with smaller caps than bigger ships with bigger caps. The only exception od course, is td's. Im not saying their not effective against BS, but in comparson their better at anti-support.. Quote: And what the hell else would a Cerberus be, besides anti-support? Just look at the **ing definition, "anti-support" means "kills support". That's about as perfect a definition of what the Cerberus does as you could ever ask for. The Cerb is support by definition, as it SUPPORTS the main fleet by killing other supoort. Hence its anti-support support! :D Quote:** You're right about it being a ship balance issue, but you're completely wrong about your conclusion. Whether or not currently popular Rapier fits use both TPs and webs is not the issue, the point is the basic idea of the two ewar types involves heavy synergy between them. Argue for an increase in TP effectiveness if you want, but that has nothing to do with my point. Ok, so TP's have synergy, as I stated above, so now, do diminishers. Quote: Allow me to translate: "we crippled your fleet ewar ship in the role it's awesome at, but hey, we gave you this shiny new bonus to civilian railgun damage!" In small gangs, your diminisher (assuming it isn't stupidly overpowered) will have less effect than simply bringing another gank ship. In large fleets, it will do essentially nothing, , since ships in large fleets have minimal tank, and there's no significant difference between damage types. I think theyd be very effective, the falcon wld target the tanked ships in the hostile fleet (e.g. hics, cs, tier 2 bc), and reduce their ehp. A fleet fitted ship is going to go down when primaried anyway, so swapping the ecm for the diminisher in this case will change nothing. And it cld be balanced to such an extent that is IS useful, as there will be a line to cross to become overpowered, so reducing it just a tiny bit less than overpowered and it will be ok. (Unless your saying that it can only be useful if overpowered..Which kind of means its not overpowered? lol). In small gangs a falcon is overpowered (so the whiners say) so this would be a way of reducing such effectiveness, while it stays effective in medium fleets, and VERY effective in large Awesome EVE history
Merdaneth Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2008.10.03 11:13:00 - [16] Edited by: Merdaneth on 03/10/2008 11:14:53 Edited by: Merdaneth on 03/10/2008 11:13:32 Your problem: three recons have bonuses to different type of E-war, the Falcon has bonuses to the same type. All recon's should have the same type of bonus. Your solution: invent a new module and give the Falcon a bonus to it. I contend that your problem is not a real problem. Perhaps a problem of aesthetics at best. Many ships in EVE have this supposed 'problem', not all ships and ship classes across the four races are exactly symmetrical where it concerns bonus type. You might just as well give a Vexor an E-war bonus, or strip the TD bonus from the Arbi for a gun bonus to make both ships match up in bonus types. There is simply no need for each ship class across races to be exactly symmetrical in terms of bonus types, hence your problem is trivial, and your solution not needed. or to put it simple: it is a solution in search of a problem ____ The Illusion of Freedom \| The Truth about Slavery
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.10.03 11:42:00 - [17] Originally by: Merdaneth Edited by: Merdaneth on 03/10/2008 11:14:53 Edited by: Merdaneth on 03/10/2008 11:13:32 Your problem: three recons have bonuses to different type of E-war, the Falcon has bonuses to the same type. All recon's should have the same type of bonus. Your solution: invent a new module and give the Falcon a bonus to it. I contend that your problem is not a real problem. Perhaps a problem of aesthetics at best. Many ships in EVE have this supposed 'problem', not all ships and ship classes across the four races are exactly symmetrical where it concerns bonus type. You might just as well give a Vexor an E-war bonus, or strip the TD bonus from the Arbi for a gun bonus to make both ships match up in bonus types. There is simply no need for each ship class across races to be exactly symmetrical in terms of bonus types, hence your problem is trivial, and your solution not needed. or to put it simple: it is a solution in search of a problem Lol, good post, especially the last bit. I agree that its a little, "forcing the question to fit the answer" style concept. Thats why I cldnt careless if it doesnt happen. HOWEVER, Id like the above implemented over the redicoulous nerfs that some ppl have been suggesting like limit to 100km etc. Awesome EVE history
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.10.03 12:09:00 - [18] The only solution I've seen that I liked was to give the rook/falcon a bonus to EW/Combat Utility drones - making them the long-awaited Caldari Drone Boats... without making them tread on the toes of the DPS-dealing Amarr recons.
Asuka SoryuLangley	Posted - 2008.10.03 12:53:00 - [19] fail.
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.10.03 13:06:00 - [20] Originally by: Asuka SoryuLangley fail. U fail at reading Awesome EVE history

Stuart Price Caldari The Black Rabbits The Gurlstas Associates	Posted - 2008.10.03 13:38:00 - [21] 1. ECCM as a Sensor Booster script. 2. Jams ending instantly if the jammer leaves the field/cloaks. 3. People accepting that they never actually see Falcon's permajamming '6 or 7 battleships' for an entire fight. That said, maybe they DON'T need to do 1, given that people are FAR to fond of cramming a million SB's on their ships to get on killmails. Well guess what? My Abaddon with 2 ECCM's gets on plenty of kills as he hardly ever gets jammed! "I got soul but I'm not a soldier"
Spartan dax eXceed Inc. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.10.03 13:44:00 - [22] Spartan Dax makes mental note to put a TD on Stuart Price in the future. (Bastard)
Wannabehero Caldari Absolutely No Retreat	Posted - 2008.10.03 13:50:00 - [23] Interesting idea for a new module and ships type, horrendously powerful against Capitals. I don't think it is a good idea for the Falcon though. And, wrong forum. This thread belongs in Features and Ideas Section. -- Don't harsh my mellow
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.10.03 13:59:00 - [24] Originally by: Stuart Price 1. ECCM as a Sensor Booster script. 2. Jams ending instantly if the jammer leaves the field/cloaks. 3. People accepting that they never actually see Falcon's permajamming '6 or 7 battleships' for an entire fight. That said, maybe they DON'T need to do 1, given that people are FAR to fond of cramming a million SB's on their ships to get on killmails. Well guess what? My Abaddon with 2 ECCM's gets on plenty of kills as he hardly ever gets jammed! Side note: It's funny how the people that claim they they always get their 2xECCM battleships permajammed can never point to a KM with 2 ECCMs on it...
Warrio Southern Cross Incorporated Southern Cross Alliance	Posted - 2008.10.03 16:37:00 - [25] Originally by: BiggestT Blah blah blah OP post Nice idea, sounds tactical and exciting. sXe
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated	Posted - 2008.10.03 17:01:00 - [26] Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 03/10/2008 17:02:32 Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 03/10/2008 17:01:50 nm, i misread something. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.10.03 17:23:00 - [27] Hmmm, not much support for this idea so i guesse its a tad pointless. Plz leave the falcon as is kthxbai! (prays falcons dont get nerfed in some other horrible way) Awesome EVE history
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.10.03 18:21:00 - [28] Originally by: BiggestT Hmmm, not much support for this idea so i guesse its a tad pointless. Plz leave the falcon as is kthxbai! (prays falcons dont get nerfed in some other horrible way) hey at least you're trying to think up some ideas other than "all falcon pilots should be burned alive".
Naiary	Posted - 2008.10.03 19:44:00 - [29] ok let me get this straight you want to buff a ship that has allready the ability to make 1-3 ships totaly useless. to a ship that can make 1-3 ships totaly useless and makes they easier to kill as well. let me see with recond amarr=no cap wich can be pretty anoing but can be worked around to still do damge amarr= tracking disruptors ok these **** turret ships hard. mimi= slow target to a 1m/s so you can hit them sucks but the ship can still operate. mimi= make ship even iesier to hit but it can still operate. gal= make sips sensor systems cry but givin right conditions it can still operate. gal= easier to prfent ships from warping off but they can still operarte cal= taking a ship totaly out of the fight beeing able do to nothing more than tank if it can tank int he firs place. most populair recon form gang nowdays= falcon least populair= gal (speed nerf will change this to mim) so you want to buff a ship that is allready very powerfull and hugely populair? and yes spelling grammar sucks hard atm i got a headache and i am tirred so flame me for that if you want i just give a care emote.
Trevor Warps	Posted - 2008.10.03 19:54:00 - [30] Originally by: BiggestT Originally by: Zionysus No. Thats a terrible terrible idea, and ridiculously overpowered to boot. Give it a tp bonuse But seriously, thats such a terrible idea I thought you were trolling. Your a terible idea. No, he was right. Sad but true.

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.