EVE Search - I don't see what's so OP about Falcons

All Channels

Ships and Modules

I don't see what's so OP about Falcons

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Spaztick Canadian Imperial Armaments Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2009.02.23 08:28:00 - [91] I want my rapier to have a chance of making ships come to a complete and immediate stop, based on the mass of the ship (interceptors will always come to a complete halt, while battleships may come to a complete halt for half the time, for example). And I want the web cycle to continue even when I'm cloaked. Oh and I want to be able to do it from 150km. But we should remove the TP bonus and drone bay because that would be overpowered. To maximize the effect of the rapier, one should fit all webs + 1 MWD in the middle, making it paper thin, unless you wanted to put on a 1600 plate. On another topic, I finally removed that annoying sentence in my signature.
daisy dook	Posted - 2009.02.23 09:18:00 - [92] Originally by: UMEE Originally by: daisy dook Edited by: daisy dook on 21/02/2009 23:05:59 Originally by: Mortuus How is that different to any other ship? Vaga gets webbed or scrambled and it can go poof, and its not like it warps cloaked either. A BS gets tracking disrupted vs a cruiser or frigate and its dead. Everything has a counter other than itself. Falcons use ECM as their means of a tank. Your tank fails on another ship you go poof, no difference. It's different because ECM is a chance based mechanic, make ECM 100% effective and I might consider agreeing with you. I believe that it has been proven how effective ECCM is at countering jamming. The trouble is people don't want to fit it; I see this as proof that the Falcon threat is vastly over spoken in the forums. another falcon fanboy. i thought i dealt with you in the Arazu thread. these people are completely delusional lol. as someone said, add another 2 midslots to the falcon, and they'll still think it's balanced. And the Arazu thread was someone whining that 2 slots of ewar didn't nullify a ship with the apporpriate counter measure. Here people just don;t even want to fit the counter measure... In the interests of debate, how about CCP change the hard coded reacial jammer to a script but kept the reduced multi-spec range? This would force ECM birds closer to the fight and allow them slots to support a tank.
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.02.23 10:34:00 - [93] Originally by: Terianna Eri Your point was that other ewar works 100% of the time when in optimal - well whoo hoo, ECM works 100% of the time against a HUGE number of ships. It is not that many ships and its only few unless the falcon is fully max skilled and fitted for pure jamming str and range. But if you have a problem with getting jammed in your frig or cruiser i suggest you ask for a sig str buff for the frigs and cruisers you are talking about. Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
ry ry	Posted - 2009.02.23 10:38:00 - [94] Originally by: Murina It is not that many ships and its only few unless the falcon is fully max skilled and fitted for pure jamming str and range. as opposed to the hundreds of highly effective T1 fit DPS falcons out there?
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.02.23 10:46:00 - [95] Originally by: chrisss0r -paper thin is not true. You just don't see rapiers with 6 webs cause the need some tank cause of their range and it's not like the can stop a fleet of vagas if they have 6 webs anyways :X Webs are 100% effective multi racial units ecm is not, and a falcon cannot stop a fleet of vagas either. Originally by: chrisss0r -The difference between having the right and wrong racials looks nice in theory but makes almost no difference. It makes a massive difference you are just emo about getting jammed. Originally by: chrisss0r proof that wrong racials do almost nothing to your jamchance if you only have few targets: That thread has you using a rack of 6 jammers with a 50% chance to jam each against 2 targets not "off racial's". So that is 6 multi spec jammers vs two of the weaker sig str BS not off racial like you claim. If you read through that thread actually proves that fitting even a single eccm unit is very effective. Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.02.23 10:48:00 - [96] Edited by: Murina on 23/02/2009 10:51:16 Originally by: ry ry Originally by: Murina It is not that many ships and its only few unless the falcon is fully max skilled and fitted for pure jamming str and range. as opposed to the hundreds of highly effective T1 fit DPS falcons out there? Is that silly comment supposed to make some point????... Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
Beverly Sparks	Posted - 2009.02.23 12:05:00 - [97] Originally by: Murina Originally by: chrisss0r -paper thin is not true. You just don't see rapiers with 6 webs cause the need some tank cause of their range and it's not like the can stop a fleet of vagas if they have 6 webs anyways :X Webs are 100% effective multi racial units ecm is not, and a falcon cannot stop a fleet of vagas either. Webs are not 100% effective. The are always 60% effective, whereas before they were always 90%.
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.02.23 12:11:00 - [98] Edited by: Murina on 23/02/2009 12:14:26 Originally by: Beverly Sparks Originally by: Murina Originally by: chrisss0r -paper thin is not true. You just don't see rapiers with 6 webs cause the need some tank cause of their range and it's not like the can stop a fleet of vagas if they have 6 webs anyways :X Webs are 100% effective multi racial units ecm is not, and a falcon cannot stop a fleet of vagas either. Webs are not 100% effective. The are always 60% effective, whereas before they were always 90%. Their effect works 100% without fail, IE: it is not chance based like ecm. Is a deliberate misinterpretation really the best you can do?. The overdone clarification gave your troll away fyi... Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
Beverly Sparks	Posted - 2009.02.23 13:15:00 - [99] Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 23/02/2009 12:14:26 Originally by: Beverly Sparks Originally by: Murina Originally by: chrisss0r -paper thin is not true. You just don't see rapiers with 6 webs cause the need some tank cause of their range and it's not like the can stop a fleet of vagas if they have 6 webs anyways :X Webs are 100% effective multi racial units ecm is not, and a falcon cannot stop a fleet of vagas either. Webs are not 100% effective. The are always 60% effective, whereas before they were always 90%. Their effect works 100% without fail, IE: it is not chance based like ecm. Is a deliberate misinterpretation really the best you can do?. The overdone clarification gave your troll away fyi... My point is that you can't look at the chance of effect, without looking at the effect. If Webs were a 10% decrease in speed, your point would seemingly be the same. I misinterpreted nothing. "Overdone clarification" hogwash. Is 60% effectively bringing an interceptor down to speeds that a Cruiser can keep it in scramble range? If it is not then it is not effective, despite applying it's effect 100% of the time. On the other hand, does ECM break an Interceptors lock 100% of the time.... Probably. So your black and white world seems to have some shades of grey.
daisy dook	Posted - 2009.02.23 13:22:00 - [100] Originally by: Beverly Sparks My point is that you can't look at the chance of effect, without looking at the effect. If Webs were a 10% decrease in speed, your point would seemingly be the same. I misinterpreted nothing. "Overdone clarification" hogwash. Is 60% effectively bringing an interceptor down to speeds that a Cruiser can keep it in scramble range? If it is not then it is not effective, despite applying it's effect 100% of the time. On the other hand, does ECM break an Interceptors lock 100% of the time.... Probably. So your black and white world seems to have some shades of grey. Is it just me or does the above make no sense? What's next Chewbacca and ewoks?
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.02.23 13:22:00 - [101] Originally by: Beverly Sparks Is 60% effectively bringing an interceptor down to speeds that a Cruiser can keep it in scramble range? Maybe and maybe not it depends on the cruiser and inty, but then a cruiser does not need to "perma" web a inty it only needs to web/slow it long enough to put a volley or so on it and pop it. But can a falcon pop a jammed inty???... Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
chrisss0r	Posted - 2009.02.23 13:51:00 - [102] Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 23/02/2009 11:39:16 Webs are 100% effective multi racial units ecm is not, and a falcon cannot stop a fleet of vagas either. It makes a massive difference you are just emo about getting jammed. That thread has you using a rack of 6 jammers with a 50% chance to jam each against 2 targets not "off racial's". If you read through that thread actually proves that fitting even a single eccm unit is very effective. I know that fitting eccm is very effective, and if you switched on your brain u'd find out that i myself gave the proof for it. I'm not talking about my starting calculation that kicked the topic of correct jamchance calculation for it is a very basic example to show an effect but about liliths jam-calculation programm. The malus for not having the absolutely right jammers fitted is very very small and that's something that needs looking into in my oppinion. Well your just a troll anyways
Cambarus The Baros Syndicate	Posted - 2009.02.23 13:55:00 - [103] Originally by: Murina Originally by: Beverly Sparks Is 60% effectively bringing an interceptor down to speeds that a Cruiser can keep it in scramble range? Maybe and maybe not it depends on the cruiser and inty, but then a cruiser does not need to "perma" web a inty it only needs to web/slow it long enough to put a volley or so on it and pop it. But can a falcon pop a jammed inty???... On the subject of chance based EWAR: I think both sides should stop arguing that point, because an X% chance to stop someone from using 100% of their guns really isn't that much better/worse then a 100% chance to remove someone's effectiveness by X% On the subject of falcons: Get rid of their range bonus, or get rid of their strength bonus. The fact that the rook and scorpion are almost never used, even though they themselves are good pvp ships, should be proof enough that the falcons need some looking at, ignoring the fact that they work at ridiculous ranges and can warp cloaked while doing so. Force recons are supposed to be LESS effective then their combat counterparts, not MORE effective. Buffing caldari recons: I'd like to see their range dropped, but I'd by lying if I said this wouldn't hurt the paper-thin recons a bit too much. I propose that they lose a midslot, and get maybe 2 lowslots in exchange, to fit a 1600mm plate+DCU/EANM. All recons are paper thin, but the other ones have enough lowslots to fit some sort of buffer, so too should the caldari.
Beverly Sparks	Posted - 2009.02.23 13:56:00 - [104] Originally by: Murina Originally by: Beverly Sparks Is 60% effectively bringing an interceptor down to speeds that a Cruiser can keep it in scramble range? Maybe and maybe not it depends on the cruiser and inty, but then a cruiser does not need to "perma" web a inty it only needs to web/slow it long enough to put a volley or so on it and pop it. But can a falcon pop a jammed inty???... If the falcon was fit to kill inties, then yes it could. Although it would struggle to tackle the inty, just like nearly every other ship in the game. But that argument leads no where, unless you are saying that the Rapier performs it's function to the same level as the falcon, relatively.
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.02.23 14:06:00 - [105] Originally by: chrisss0r I'm not talking about my starting calculation that kicked the topic of correct jamchance calculation for it is a very basic example to show an effect but about liliths jam-calculation programm. The malus for not having the absolutely right jammers fitted is very very small and that's something that needs looking into in my opinion. Then redo the calculation for 1 racial (60-70% chance) and 4 off race jammers (20-25% chance) VS the same 2 ships with and without eccm fitted. Originally by: chrisss0r Well your just a troll anyways I never troll show the figures for the above scenario or stfu. Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.02.23 14:10:00 - [106] Originally by: Beverly Sparks But that argument leads no where, unless you are saying that the Rapier performs it's function to the same level as the falcon, relatively. The rapier is great at certain jobs, while the falcon is great at others. In a 2 ship roaming hunt id rather have any other recon than the falcon...so boost the falcon?.....nerf the other recons cos they are far far better at that sort of pvp???... Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
ry ry	Posted - 2009.02.23 14:15:00 - [107] Originally by: ry ry Originally by: Murina It is not that many ships and its only few unless the falcon is fully max skilled and fitted for pure jamming str and range. as opposed to the hundreds of highly effective T1 fit DPS falcons out there? yes. pre-speed nerf not all vagas were unstoppable speed monsters, some were. the problem wasn't with sub-optimal armour repping laz0r vagas, it was with the ones who were unstoppable speed monsters and that's why speed was nerfed. now you've got the same thing with falcons. only you don't need to spend billions on faction mods and implants, you just need to spend a couple of months training, then buy the usual t2 tat. "OMFG LOLK AT THESE FALCON KILLMAILS ! U LOSE LOLOLOLOLO" yes, lots of falcons die. lots of vagabonds used to die. but piloted well they generally won't and will completely dominate any small gang that cannot hit at that sort of range or haven't fit their whole gang specifically to counter that one shiptype. you 6-man gang meets another 6 man gang. a curse can neut the living crap out of a couple of ships, a falcon can easily keep half your gang from doing anything. and yes, i'm a big fan of the ever popular "lol u must be teh suk at pvp if u cant kill teh falconz" and variations on that theme. "ROFL NOOB BRING A SNIPING RHOK LOL" no. because lugging a sniping rohk around you simply isn't viable in most small gangs. a sniping zealot or muninn will not have the range to kill a falcon at long range. most falcons i've seen recently have been supporting short-range ganky gangs anyway, but that's beside the point. "YAH LOL BUT THERE NO DPS ON DA FALCON INNIT" so? even if they did have any damage to speak of they'd still be at range. sitting 150k off the fight isn't a symptom of being generally ***, it's because there isn't much need to come closer. "FIT EECCMM LLLOOLL"* i. even with ECCM ships are not unjammable. ib. ECCM is virtually useless on the ships that would benefit most from it like interceptors. ii. an ECCM ship is a gimp ship. iii. my sniping rohk ECCM gang will get rolled by the first small cruiser gang that looks at it. "PFFFT U LEOS AT LIFE N.E.WAY. WAT U SAY WE DO DEN?" nothing. i've bought myself a falcon alt. Vive la imbalance!
daisy dook	Posted - 2009.02.23 14:16:00 - [108] Originally by: chrisss0r Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 23/02/2009 11:39:16 Webs are 100% effective multi racial units ecm is not, and a falcon cannot stop a fleet of vagas either. It makes a massive difference you are just emo about getting jammed. That thread has you using a rack of 6 jammers with a 50% chance to jam each against 2 targets not "off racial's". If you read through that thread actually proves that fitting even a single eccm unit is very effective. I know that fitting eccm is very effective, and if you switched on your brain u'd find out that i myself gave the proof for it. I'm not talking about my starting calculation that kicked the topic of correct jamchance calculation for it is a very basic example to show an effect but about liliths jam-calculation programm. The malus for not having the absolutely right jammers fitted is very very small and that's something that needs looking into in my oppinion. Well your just a troll anyways IIRC, those calculations assume you start with one correct racial jammer with the rest being off racial and the comparison was against multispectral jammers (ie 1 on racial plus 1 off racial has a similar jamming chance to 2 multispectrals). Originally by: Cambarus Originally by: Murina Originally by: Beverly Sparks Is 60% effectively bringing an interceptor down to speeds that a Cruiser can keep it in scramble range? Maybe and maybe not it depends on the cruiser and inty, but then a cruiser does not need to "perma" web a inty it only needs to web/slow it long enough to put a volley or so on it and pop it. But can a falcon pop a jammed inty???... On the subject of chance based EWAR: I think both sides should stop arguing that point, because an X% chance to stop someone from using 100% of their guns really isn't that much better/worse then a 100% chance to remove someone's effectiveness by X% On the subject of falcons: Get rid of their range bonus, or get rid of their strength bonus. The fact that the rook and scorpion are almost never used, even though they themselves are good pvp ships, should be proof enough that the falcons need some looking at, ignoring the fact that they work at ridiculous ranges and can warp cloaked while doing so. Force recons are supposed to be LESS effective then their combat counterparts, not MORE effective. Buffing caldari recons: I'd like to see their range dropped, but I'd by lying if I said this wouldn't hurt the paper-thin recons a bit too much. I propose that they lose a midslot, and get maybe 2 lowslots in exchange, to fit a 1600mm plate+DCU/EANM. All recons are paper thin, but the other ones have enough lowslots to fit some sort of buffer, so too should the caldari. There is nothing wrong with the Rook, I am more than happy to sit home defense in a Rook with 7 jammers and a single range rig making it both cheaper and more effective than the Falcon. But your right, if I'm roaming then it's a Falcon for that cloaky goodness.
chrisss0r	Posted - 2009.02.23 14:25:00 - [109] Originally by: daisy dook IIRC, those calculations assume you start with one correct racial jammer with the rest being off racial and the comparison was against multispectral jammers (ie 1 on racial plus 1 off racial has a similar jamming chance to 2 multispectrals). Yes, unfortunately the download for liliths programm won't work anymore. It's not exactly the same, and there is a small trade off for racial jammers. problem is that tradeoff almost vanishes if you apply the jammers staged. Something i'm almost certain is not intended. I eg see what ccp is trying to do with the other races sensors you can fit on t3 ships but it won't work as intended if off-race jamchance is still there.
daisy dook	Posted - 2009.02.23 14:40:00 - [110] Originally by: chrisss0r Originally by: daisy dook IIRC, those calculations assume you start with one correct racial jammer with the rest being off racial and the comparison was against multispectral jammers (ie 1 on racial plus 1 off racial has a similar jamming chance to 2 multispectrals). Yes, unfortunately the download for liliths programm won't work anymore. It's not exactly the same, and there is a small trade off for racial jammers. problem is that tradeoff almost vanishes if you apply the jammers staged. Something i'm almost certain is not intended. I eg see what ccp is trying to do with the other races sensors you can fit on t3 ships but it won't work as intended if off-race jamchance is still there. Very useful thread, just a shame that people don't/won't accept just how effective ECCM is. The other thing it shows is that having a gang of the same racial sensor type will seriously affect a Falcons effectiveness (back to the first assumption of having a correct racial jammer being available). I think the main area of contention is the anti-Falcon league are looking at a Falcons affect on their single ship whilst the pro-Falcon league are looking at the effect on a balanced gang. It appears that never the twain will meet.
Identity Hidden Amarr Advanced Logistics	Posted - 2009.02.23 14:40:00 - [111] I have a Falcon pilot with every ECM related skill to V. I do believe Falcon is perhaps a little bit overpowered, why? ECCM does not give a big enough boost. ECCM'd BS/HAC/Recons getting jammed more than half the time is ridiculous. I think ECCM should TRIPLE your sensor strength, not just double it. The range bonus should be looked at. No other Recon is as useful at 200km than the Falcon (and I fly all four races) I would still use my Falcon if it could only jam up to 100-120km Interceptors get jammed EVERY TIME As does pretty much any ship that can make the speed to catch them. No other Recon can sit at range and do it's thing and escape so easily because it let a inty get on top of it.
lecrotta Minmatar lecrotta Corp	Posted - 2009.02.23 14:50:00 - [112] Originally by: Identity Hidden ECCM does not give a big enough boost. ECCM'd BS/HAC/Recons getting jammed more than half the time is ridiculous. Wrong ECCM makes a great difference. http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=974928 Originally by: Identity Hidden Interceptors get jammed EVERY TIME Then use em to make warpins for a dictor or more useful ship, ceptors also get insta melted by certain cruisers, hacs, BC ect ect but nobody is asking for them to be nerfed...
prefectro Minmatar Amok. Minor Threat.	Posted - 2009.02.23 14:56:00 - [113] Originally by: MukkBarovian The tournament as a whole demonstrated that in a fair battle ecm is pretty balanced. Ecm ships died for the most part and the heavy ecm teams tended to suck. Tracking disruptors and sensor damps were the ewar of choice for the last two days of the tourney. In the tournament you are not allowed to cloak or warp off during an engagement. I guess we should take both of those abilities away from a Falcon pilot then so they will be pretty balanced beyond a controlled tournament.
Tefkros The Dead Pod Society Chain of Chaos	Posted - 2009.02.24 07:49:00 - [114] Edited by: Tefkros on 24/02/2009 07:55:35 Edited by: Tefkros on 24/02/2009 07:53:47 Originally by: Caelum Mortuos Edited by: Caelum Mortuos on 21/02/2009 19:06:43 Originally by: Hobbledehoy (1) Don't flame me for the original odds of what started a 1v1; I know brutix v jaguar 1v1 isn't exactly fair, but i'm not passing up what seems like an easy kill due to "sporting challenge" lol The challenge on my end was catching it and I had that covered with my specialized knowledge of the bubbles. So let me get this straight, you're basically upset because your "easy kill" wasn't interested in the "sporting challenge" just like you? ok..... Actually you both fail. An unpepared Brutix vs. Jaguar is not only fair, its a Darwin award. A Brutix without Warrior IIs will die to a proper Jaguar pilot everytime. Hammerhead IIs and med guns vs AFs? Give me a break. You should have died, and you would if the Jaguar pilot wasnt a ****** and apparently keeping 0 transversal to your electrons, even without the Falcon. Actually its the Falcon that would have helped you escape, by making you call the Ferox and eventually jam the Jaguar. If you had faced a proper AF pilot, youd be asking for an AF nerf instead of Falcon. I hate Falcons and will enjoy every nerf that comes on them, but until people learn what their own ships can do, should stop commenting on such matters. And jamming 2 BCs is not spectacular enough to warrant a "Falcons suck" thread, either.
ry ry	Posted - 2009.02.24 09:21:00 - [115] Edited by: ry ry on 24/02/2009 09:22:59 Originally by: lecrotta Originally by: Identity Hidden Interceptors get jammed EVERY TIME Then use em to make warpins for a dictor or more useful ship, ceptors also get insta melted by certain cruisers, hacs, BC ect ect but nobody is asking for them to be nerfed... the difference there is that not many cruisers, hacs, BC ect can melt an interceptor regardless of transversal or speed at extreme range. but yes, assuming the dictor isn't primaried or tackled, it is entirely possible for an interceptor to burn 150k off the fight and have the dictor warp to it. then again the beauty of a v.long-range jamming force recon is that you can warp off or cloak. or both. changing position on the gate doesn't rely on having BMs all around it either since you can warp cloaked to a celestial and come back to the gate at 100 from an entirely different angle, or use the revolutionary concept of having an interceptor to burn 150k off the fight in some random direction and have the falcon warp to it. but we've already done this argument to death, and the ccp servers are groaning under the weight of points and counter-points to the suggestion that falcons are a bit overpowered. i think they are, you think they're fine. either way everybody is reaping the benefits these days given how prolific falcons are, so it's not a case of somehow being jealous of the falcon's performance. just that it's a bit off. not much else to be said about it.
Identity Hidden Amarr Advanced Logistics	Posted - 2009.02.24 09:52:00 - [116] Originally by: lecrotta Edited by: lecrotta on 23/02/2009 14:57:03 Originally by: Identity Hidden ECCM does not give a big enough boost. ECCM'd BS/HAC/Recons getting jammed more than half the time is ridiculous. Wrong ECCM makes a great difference. http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=974928 What am I wrong about, ECCM not giving enough boost? Did you even read that thread you linked? Originally by: lecrotta Originally by: Identity Hidden The range bonus should be looked at. Range means it stands a chance to survive when it misses a jam, a thing that happens more than the nerf hounds like to admit. You have to admit that sitting at 200km and swapping between a few of these bookmarks when anything gets near you is pure laziness and none of the other recons have such easy methods. I know, I fly them all - remember? Originally by: lecrotta Originally by: Identity Hidden Interceptors get jammed EVERY TIME Then use em to make warpins for a dictor or more useful ship, ceptors also get insta melted by certain cruisers, hacs, BC ect ect but nobody is asking for them to be nerfed... What's the point.. an on the ball Falcon will see something not >50km from it and warp to another bookmark. I think the only sure strategy to counter a Falcon I have seen is dictor with probe launcher :D
Caelum Dominus Invicta.	Posted - 2009.02.24 10:36:00 - [117] It's unreasonable to demand that people should commit an important mid-slot in order to be even remotely resistant to ECM. Other kinds of electronic warfare (ie. energy neutralization, tracking disruption and rendering something immobile) is not nearly as crippling as being unable to lock for the duration of a battle. This affects both defensive and offensive capabilities, whereas other forms of electronic warfare can happen to be completely ineffective - ships may not use turrets, may not need to move and may not depend upon capacitor. Everyone needs to lock. Not only is ECM certainly the most powerful kind of electronic warfare - it's also the only kind that can be accomplished at a safe range. The Rapier and the Curse, for instance, both require to be within 40km to exhibit their respective forms of electronic warfare, while the Falcon outperforms them both at a range where nothing can harm it or stop it. It's unreasonable that the most powerful kind of electronic warfare can be performed at such a ridiculous range - there needs to be a risk involved. The range should be limited, or at the very least the jamming strength should be severely reduced at 100km.
daisy dook	Posted - 2009.02.24 11:08:00 - [118] Originally by: Caelum Dominus It's unreasonable to demand that people should commit an important mid-slot in order to be even remotely resistant to ECM. Other kinds of electronic warfare (ie. energy neutralization, tracking disruption and rendering something immobile) is not nearly as crippling as being unable to lock for the duration of a battle. This affects both defensive and offensive capabilities, whereas other forms of electronic warfare can happen to be completely ineffective - ships may not use turrets, may not need to move and may not depend upon capacitor. Everyone needs to lock. Not only is ECM certainly the most powerful kind of electronic warfare - it's also the only kind that can be accomplished at a safe range. The Rapier and the Curse, for instance, both require to be within 40km to exhibit their respective forms of electronic warfare, while the Falcon outperforms them both at a range where nothing can harm it or stop it. It's unreasonable that the most powerful kind of electronic warfare can be performed at such a ridiculous range - there needs to be a risk involved. The range should be limited, or at the very least the jamming strength should be severely reduced at 100km. From this I can only assume that you think it is unreasonable to fit a resistance mod against damage... Why should I have to fit a shield hardner to be remotely resistant to EM damage? Oh and somebody shooting at me should accept some risk, no more 180km sniper fits.
lecrotta Minmatar lecrotta Corp	Posted - 2009.02.24 12:07:00 - [119] Edited by: lecrotta on 24/02/2009 12:10:34 Originally by: Identity Hidden Originally by: lecrotta Wrong ECCM makes a great difference. http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=974928 What am I wrong about, ECCM not giving enough boost? Did you even read that thread you linked? Did you?...even the OP of the thread who clearly points out he started it as another whine thread says he was shocked at how effective eccm was. WITHOUT ECCM:- jamchance: 50% per jammer Targets: 2 jammers: 6 Using the real probability estimation (estimated by a few million runs..) During the first 40 seconds: 0.7744 during the first 60 seconds: 0.681472 During the first 120 seconds: 0.4644 SAME 6 JAMMERS VS THE SAME 2 TARGETS FITTED WITH A SINGLE ECCM EACH:- Using the real probability estimation (estimated by a few million runs..) During the first 40 seconds: 0.2116 during the first 60 seconds: 0.097336 During the first 120 seconds: 0.0009 ECCM KICKS ASS.
Suitonia Gallente interimo End of The Line.	Posted - 2009.02.24 12:27:00 - [120] ECCM is fine on battleships, and possibly battlecruisers, but it's absolutely terrible on ships smaller than that. (Also, smaller ship classes tend to have less slots as it is, and usually are more relient on speed mods and tackling as a role so not only have less mid slots avaliable, they also need the midslots more.) A taranis before eccm = 100% jam, a Taranis with an eccm = 80.2% jam (with a single racial from a 14 strength jammer, recon 5, ECM spec skill 4). ECCM needs to be better on smaller ships, because the smaller ships are the ships that should be the counter to the Falcon, move quickly to compromise it's spot, and cover it's range advantage the fastest.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: 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.