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)
Caelum Dominus Invicta.	Posted - 2009.02.24 12:30:00 - [121] Originally by: daisy dook 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. People can lock battleships at 180km. People can not lock Falcons at 180km. There's your difference, and I should not need to point it out.
daisy dook	Posted - 2009.02.24 12:39:00 - [122] Originally by: Caelum Dominus Originally by: daisy dook 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. People can lock battleships at 180km. People can not lock Falcons at 180km. There's your difference, and I should not need to point it out. What, frigates, destroyers, cruisers and battle cruisers can lock to 180km? No they can't, its not fair on someone not able to fly a battleship; snipers are OP and should be nerfed.
lecrotta Minmatar lecrotta Corp	Posted - 2009.02.24 12:41:00 - [123] Edited by: lecrotta on 24/02/2009 12:45:41 Originally by: Suitonia 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.) Recons and hacs have almost the same or on some cases higher sg str than BS. Originally by: Suitonia 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). So from a 100% guaranteed perma jam that can NEVER be broken to a 80% chance....that is rather large bud. Originally by: Suitonia 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. Small ships have less dps, less tank, less lock range ect ect why should they have more or similar sig str?. Fit out a apoc or a rokh for anti falcon duty and watch the results.
Beverly Sparks	Posted - 2009.02.24 13:12:00 - [124] Originally by: lecrotta 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. Is perma jam the only thing that effects the battle. It still remains that 3 jammers with a 50% chance will jam you 90 percent of the time without ECCM, and with ECCM you are only inactive 46% of the time. Not being able to lock for half the battle is still a great effect. When factoring in lag and relock times, you are still very much less effective. How many other forms of EWAR remove 100% of your abilities 50% percent of the time, when you are fit to counter that type of EWAR. Plus unlike Cap boosters, tracking computers, speed mods, etc etc ECCM is a dead slot when not doing its thing so it is also gimping your fit 100% of the time. Furthermore all other forms of EWAR are situational, Neut has serious range disadvantages, tracking disrupters don't work on missiles, and are largely ineffective on small ships attacking large ones. Damps have a hard time affecting close range ships. They all have weaknesses, what weakness does ECM have. Permajams small ships with a single jammer, and is largely effective versus battleships, even when they are fit with the counter, and they can do this out to ridiculous ranges. Then throw a cloak on it for icing. Despite the numbers being drastically different, ECM still sucks. I think the Target painter idea is the best. Allow ships with target painters on them to be targeted by ships under the effect of ECM. That provides a real life counter to ECM, and provides a larger role for target painters in the game. Plus TP's help you when there are no falcons, like all the other counters to EW. This adds another level on top of ECM, so the game is not all Tank, gank, and jamming, sound familiar?
kyrv	Posted - 2009.02.24 13:13:00 - [125] What is OP supposed to be about??
daisy dook	Posted - 2009.02.24 13:25:00 - [126] Originally by: kyrv What is OP supposed to be about?? Who knows I'm just trolling a nerf Falcons thread.
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.02.24 13:31:00 - [127] Edited by: Murina on 24/02/2009 13:36:02 Originally by: Beverly Sparks Is perma jam the only thing that effects the battle. It still remains that 3 jammers with a 50% chance will jam you 90 percent of the time without ECCM, and with ECCM you are only inactive 46% of the time. Not being able to lock for half the battle is still a great effect. Wrong you are playing with numbers and using a separate individual ship effect to make jams look more powerful than they are. We are discussing a falcon vs multiple ships not a falcon gang ganking a solo ship with 0 backup. Needing 3 jams to effect that single ship makes the rest of his buddies very dangerous to the falcon for a start, not only that but just 2 ships with a eccm fitted each reduce the chance of multiple jams to 20% for the first cycle, then to almost insignificance after that.... Originally by: Beverly Sparks When factoring in lag and relock times... A cloaking warping falcon needs to relock more than any other ship on the field and as such would be effected by lag a lot more than any other ship, in fact a lag spike would get it popped. Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
lecrotta Minmatar lecrotta Corp	Posted - 2009.02.24 13:50:00 - [128] Originally by: Beverly Sparks Is perma jam the only thing that effects the battle. It still remains that 3 jammers with a 50% chance will jam you 90 percent of the time without ECCM, and with ECCM you are only inactive 46% of the time. Not being able to lock for half the battle is still a great effect. Using single/solo stats and effects to try and make falcon look OP is fail, especially considering it is useless solo and would be trying to jam multiple ships in a gang vs gang scenario.
Beverly Sparks	Posted - 2009.02.24 14:03:00 - [129] Originally by: daisy dook 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? That's a false economy. Why aren't tracking computer, speed mods, cap boosters, etc etc necessary to be effective on every fit. Why not give warp scramblers and webs a 200km range. Oh, wait that would be OP. So in other words lets make all EWAR so effective that you have to fit 4-5 modules on every ship to be able to operate against EWAR, thus eliminating any choices. Mids are always full of counter EWAR, and the ships that don't have enough mid slots are gimp. That is where this leads you know. ECM needs something done to it.
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.02.24 14:09:00 - [130] Originally by: Beverly Sparks Why aren't tracking computer, speed mods, cap boosters, etc etc necessary to be effective on every fit. Because some ships are heavy tankers (so speed mods are a waste) while some have good range/tracking so no TC's are needed, and some are cap stable so no boosters are needed..... The only ships in your gang that need eccm buffing are the anti-falcon ships. Originally by: Beverly Sparks So in other words lets make...................rant.... OMG go away dude. Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
Terianna Eri Amarr Scrutari	Posted - 2009.02.24 14:10:00 - [131] Originally by: Beverly Sparks That's a false economy. The word you seek is "dichotomy." Originally by: lecrotta Small ships have less dps, less tank, less lock range ect ect why should they have more or similar sig str?. Fit out a apoc or a rokh for anti falcon duty and watch the results. You end up with a battleship that's absolutely worthless for every other role, and ensure that you will spend the fight completely jammed as the falcon throws everything he has at you, and if he gets lucky can still jam your gang mates? Sounds awesome. __________________________________ Originally by: CCP Whisper Boo hoo. Cry some more.
lecrotta Minmatar lecrotta Corp	Posted - 2009.02.24 14:12:00 - [132] Beverly Sparks if ECM and falcons are so prevalent and effective then fitting ECCM and having ships to counter them will let you kick the crap out of the gangs that rely on them. The problem is not ECM the problem is that you do not wanna fit your gangs for anything but gank/tank.
lecrotta Minmatar lecrotta Corp	Posted - 2009.02.24 14:14:00 - [133] Edited by: lecrotta on 24/02/2009 14:16:38 Originally by: Terianna Eri Originally by: lecrotta Small ships have less dps, less tank, less lock range ect ect why should they have more or similar sig str?. Fit out a apoc or a rokh for anti falcon duty and watch the results. You end up with a battleship that's absolutely worthless for every other role, and ensure that you will spend the fight completely jammed as the falcon throws everything he has at you, and if he gets lucky can still jam your gang mates? Sounds awesome. I can see why you think ECM is so powerful.....you obviously spend all your time sitting in a station thinking of ways that you will lose against it instead of fitting and flying against it. Oh and a BS is a heavily tanked dmg platform used either at range or in close and is hardly ever worthless at it....
Beverly Sparks	Posted - 2009.02.24 14:40:00 - [134] Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 24/02/2009 14:00:14 Wrong you are playing with numbers and using a separate individual ship effect to make jams look more powerful than they are. We are discussing jams vs multiple ships in a gang vs gang combat situation not a falcon gang ganking a solo ship. I thought the case was a falcon versus 2 battleships. In which case, with ECCM fitted there would be a 46% chance for each battleship to be jammed per cycle of ECM. On top of that you do need to add relock time. So we will just say that you are going to have one BS or the other removed at all times. Although the probability to perma jam either one of them for any extended period of time is very low. Originally by: Murina Needing 3 jams to effect that single ship makes the rest of his buddies very dangerous to the falcon for a start, not only that but just 2 ships with a eccm fitted each reduce the chance of multiple jams down to 20% for the first cycle, then to almost insignificance (under 1%)........AND THAT IS JUST WITH 2 SHIPS IN YOUR GANG FITTED WITH A SINGLE ECCM EACH. So you are saying that because you can't jam everyone, Falcons are dangerous ships to fly. How is that different from any of the other recons? Originally by: Murina Anyway a cloaking warping falcon needs to relock more than any other ship on the field and as such would be effected by lag a lot more than any other ship, in fact a lag spike would get it popped I think the ships affected by ECM are probably relocking more then the falcon. Not to mention, relocking from 200k has it's advantages too. Few ships are going to get to you from 200k in 1 or 2 seconds of lag. All I am saying is that when the ECM ears off, it is not like the BS automatically starts firing on someone. They have to select target, wait for lock, and activate their modules. That is far from instantaneous. SO being jammed 46% of the time is functionally probably more like being functional 25% of the time, depending on the targets relative size. You like to call people trolls. I am having a debate with you, I am not trolling. Perhaps using the word troll is your way of trolling. Because if I was to troll, I would stop explaining myself, and stick to wild unsupported remarks, and tell you that you are being manipulative with the numbers and use caps and stuff.
Terianna Eri Amarr Scrutari	Posted - 2009.02.24 14:41:00 - [135] Originally by: lecrotta I can see why you think ECM is so powerful.....you obviously spend all your time sitting in a station thinking of ways that you will lose against it instead of fitting and flying against it. Oh and a BS is a heavily tanked dmg platform used either at range or in close and is hardly ever worthless at it.... I don't come into threads and attack your ability as a pilot; I would encourage you not to do the same. Surely you can manage that modi**of maturity? Incidentally, I fly most zealots, because I enjoy flying them. You can quite cheerfully off <3 I've got amarr BS V and good gunnery skills and I've tried to come up with an apoc setup that doesn't utterly fail at all other jobs. Here's the problem I have with it: A) It's a battleship; I very rarely fly in gangs with battleships, so if I bring one I slow down the entire gang. B) Do you have any idea how hard it is to get a battleship to hit, and lock, out to 200km? I wasn't kidding when I said that fitting the battleship makes you nearly worthless for everything else. Quote: [Apocalypse, anti-falcon pvp] Tracking Enhancer II Heat Sink II Heat Sink II Reactor Control Unit II 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Damage Control II Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Prototype ECCM I Radar Sensor Cluster Quad LiF Fueled I Booster Rockets Mega Beam Laser II, Aurora L Mega Beam Laser II, Aurora L Mega Beam Laser II, Aurora L Mega Beam Laser II, Aurora L Mega Beam Laser II, Aurora L Mega Beam Laser II, Aurora L Mega Beam Laser II, Aurora L Mega Beam Laser II, Aurora L Energy Locus Coordinator I [empty rig slot] [empty rig slot] Hammerhead II x5 It's worse up-close than a battlecruiser. Less HP, less damage, less tracking, no tackle. You literally sacrifice everything else to be able to hit that far. But you can't seem to get this through your head, so I'll restate my point. ECM is a crappy, borring, arbitrary, terrible mechanic and it's not even remotely fun. You could nerf it into the ground and it would still be awful. ECM ships like the falcon are overspecialized. It's like giving the curse 7x TDs and then giving them the range such that even those things that it couldn't TD can't shoot out to them anyway. ECM scales poorly. It's well-balanced in large fights. It completely destroys small gang combat when there's a falcon on the field. 4 v 8 isn't so bad if you're confident about your own ships and abilities. 4 v 7 + falcon means "oh well, i guess we might as well go home." __________________________________ Originally by:** CCP Whisper Boo hoo. Cry some more.
chrisss0r	Posted - 2009.02.24 14:44:00 - [136] Originally by: lecrotta 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. While this is true I more than ever think off-race jamchance needs to go to balance the falcon in small scale gangfights :X
Beverly Sparks	Posted - 2009.02.24 14:47:00 - [137] Originally by: Terianna Eri Originally by: Beverly Sparks That's a false economy. The word you seek is "dichotomy." Thanks.
Grarr Dexx Amarr Ministry of War	Posted - 2009.02.24 14:48:00 - [138] 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. Quoting this so people don't overlook it.
Beverly Sparks	Posted - 2009.02.24 14:51:00 - [139] Originally by: Murina Originally by: Beverly Sparks Why aren't tracking computer, speed mods, cap boosters, etc etc necessary to be effective on every fit. Because some ships are heavy tankers (so speed mods are a waste) while some have good range/tracking so no TC's are needed, and some are cap stable so no boosters are needed..... So you are saying that the other forms of EWAR hardly even affect some types of ships with certain fits. Interesting, that is what I just said. Originally by: Murina The only ships in your gang that need eccm buffing are the anti-falcon ships. How do you fit your anti-pilgrim ships?
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.02.24 14:57:00 - [140] Originally by: Beverly Sparks How do you fit your anti-pilgrim ships? Drones, projectile guns, injectors.... Originally by: 7shining7one7 Lasers get reduced dmg inside optimal if you are approaching with 0 transversal cos lasers fragment when you approach them
lecrotta Minmatar lecrotta Corp	Posted - 2009.02.24 14:57:00 - [141] Here is the apoc fit of choice for anti falcon work and the person who posted it. Originally by: Endless Subversion I used to use this for small gang anti-falcon work. The idea was to: a)Provide effective small gang anti-ECM, specifically falcon, support b) sill be able to provide decent small gang support dps against close range BS
Terianna Eri Amarr Scrutari	Posted - 2009.02.24 14:59:00 - [142] Edited by: Terianna Eri on 24/02/2009 15:02:27 Originally by: lecrotta Here is the apoc fit of choice for anti falcon work and the person who posted it. Originally by: Endless Subversion I used to use this for small gang anti-falcon work. The idea was to: a)Provide effective small gang anti-ECM, specifically falcon, support b) sill be able to provide decent small gang support dps against close range BS Yeah bringing untanked battleships into small gangs is an awesome idea i guess EDIT: Okay it'll work but it's... give me a few minutes, i have an idea __________________________________ Originally by: CCP Whisper Boo hoo. Cry some more.
lecrotta Minmatar lecrotta Corp	Posted - 2009.02.24 15:02:00 - [143] Originally by: Terianna Eri Originally by: lecrotta Here is the apoc fit of choice for anti falcon work and the person who posted it. Originally by: Endless Subversion I used to use this for small gang anti-falcon work. The idea was to: a)Provide effective small gang anti-ECM, specifically falcon, support b) sill be able to provide decent small gang support dps against close range BS Yeah bringing untanked battleships into small gangs is an awesome idea i guess A small gang BS has more ehp than the cruiser hulls his buddies are flying around in.. Still finding excuses before you even undock....
Terianna Eri Amarr Scrutari	Posted - 2009.02.24 15:04:00 - [144] Originally by: lecrotta Originally by: Terianna Eri Originally by: lecrotta Here is the apoc fit of choice for anti falcon work and the person who posted it. Originally by: Endless Subversion I used to use this for small gang anti-falcon work. The idea was to: a)Provide effective small gang anti-ECM, specifically falcon, support b) sill be able to provide decent small gang support dps against close range BS Yeah bringing untanked battleships into small gangs is an awesome idea i guess A small gang BS has more ehp than the cruiser hulls his buddies are flying around in.. Still finding excuses before you even undock.... I didn't say it wouldn't work, I said that I didn't like it. I've been perfectly civil to you even though I disagree with you and I think I deserve the same treatment, don't you? __________________________________ Originally by: CCP Whisper Boo hoo. Cry some more.
lecrotta Minmatar lecrotta Corp	Posted - 2009.02.24 15:12:00 - [145] Originally by: Terianna Eri I didn't say it wouldn't work, I said that I didn't like it. I've been perfectly civil to you even though I disagree with you and I think I deserve the same treatment, don't you? If you consider making sarcastic and negative replies to be "perfectly civil" without even having tried out the fits, when others have and found them to be quite effective then maybe you should stick to posting on caod.
Terianna Eri Amarr Scrutari	Posted - 2009.02.24 15:15:00 - [146] Edited by: Terianna Eri on 24/02/2009 15:16:16 Originally by: lecrotta Originally by: Terianna Eri I didn't say it wouldn't work, I said that I didn't like it. I've been perfectly civil to you even though I disagree with you and I think I deserve the same treatment, don't you? If you consider making sarcastic and negative replies to be "perfectly civil" without even having tried out the fits, when others have and found them to be quite effective then maybe you should stick to posting on caod. All people do :) I'm not wealthy enough to fit a 200 mil BS every time I want to experiment. Because of that I try to find fits that I like on paper before I try them in EVE. I've found many fits that work on paper and not in space, but no fits for which the reverse is true. p.s. ecm is still a terrible mechanic and if you dont agree you haven't thought very hard about it (look mah i can troll too) __________________________________ Originally by: CCP Whisper Boo hoo. Cry some more.
lecrotta Minmatar lecrotta Corp	Posted - 2009.02.24 15:22:00 - [147] Edited by: lecrotta on 24/02/2009 15:23:23 Originally by: Terianna Eri I'm not wealthy enough to fit a 200 mil BS every time I want to experiment. That is not the issue, the fact is that you are disagreeing with ppl who have spent the isk and flown/tested them in combat and found them effective. If it was a suggested idea then your paper tiger comments may be worthy debate material but these are valid, well used and tested fits that were found to be quite effective and as such your comments become ignorant trolling of proven facts instead of insightful opinions on a theoretical debate.
LadyLubU2 Caldari	Posted - 2009.02.24 15:49:00 - [148] How about we stop trying to argue to the falconfanbois, because no matter how gamebreaking ecm is atm, they wont lissen to proper arguments anyway. All we can do at this point is keep spamming anti falcon threads untill either the mods get sick of it and forumban you, or until something will be fixed about either falcons or eccm. ---
Terianna Eri Amarr Scrutari	Posted - 2009.02.24 15:50:00 - [149] Originally by: lecrotta Edited by: lecrotta on 24/02/2009 15:23:23 Originally by: Terianna Eri I'm not wealthy enough to fit a 200 mil BS every time I want to experiment. That is not the issue, the fact is that you are disagreeing with ppl who have spent the isk and flown/tested them in combat and found them effective. If it was a suggested idea then your paper tiger comments may be worthy debate material but these are valid, well used and tested fits that were found to be quite effective and as such your comments become ignorant trolling of proven facts instead of insightful opinions on a theoretical debate. I didn't say I didn't think they were effective, I said I didn't like them. But hey, whatever. You want to maybe go find the bit where I was "ignorant[ly] trolling proven facts" ? How do you troll a fact anyway? You haven't even really addressed any of the points I made, you've just been basically saying "you're not trying hard enough / don't know what you're talking about / don't undock from station," whatever, whatever. Here's what I'll say that's my argument for why I don't think falcons are balanced. ECM is the strongest form of EWAR. A successful jam cycle is more damaging than a cycle of any other EWAR system. Painters hardly hinder you, webs just restrict your movement, damps let you lock things closer to you, TDs still let you hit stuff closer / moving more slowly. (You could make the claim that getting neuted to 0 cap is as or more damaging as getting jammed and you may have a point, but that often requires pretty heavy neutage) Unlike other recons, ECM has the range such that the vast majority of ships aren't likely to get there anytime soon - and while they're burning out to that range they're (probably) not contributing that much to the fight - certainly not doing much in the way of RR or pointing and probably not doing much damage either. What this means is that the falcon is free to range tank - this was my "200km reinforced rolled tungsten plate" that i referred to earlier that you didn't quite grasp - which means it gets to devote all of its slots to ECM, while having an extraordinarly good chance of being able to jam anything that burns out to it, cloak, and warp off. In my opinion, when you put these factors together, you get ~~captain planet~~ a ship that is overspecalized to the point that it's unbalancing. I feel that the proliferation of falcon alts supports this claim. This is to say nothing of the fact that ECM is boring and fitting to counter it is boring, that it strips players of control and their sense of control in a way no game mechanic I've ever seen does, that it encourages boring gameplay decisions in space (I'm jammed and I'm not fast enough to burn out to the falcon. I could try to leave the fight and come back, but that would actually be detrimental to my gang, so the smarter play is to sit here and wait and hope the next cycle fails.) More specifically to the falcon, that it ruins fights that would otherwise be enjoyable, whether you're on the side with the falcons or against them. Perhaps I will start flying ECCM'd interceptors; then at least my gang members can warp to me. Your turn. __________________________________ Originally by: CCP Whisper Boo hoo. Cry some more.
lecrotta Minmatar lecrotta Corp	Posted - 2009.02.24 16:10:00 - [150] Edited by: lecrotta on 24/02/2009 16:13:41 Originally by: Terianna Eri ECM is the strongest form of EWAR. Wrong its the worst cos it is unreliable. In a 2-3 man hunting gang a falcons ecm could fail and cause you to lose a valuable ship, while the other ewar systems can be predicted and planned around. Now it may be better than the other systems in specific situations but then it sucks in others that the other systems are brilliant in so.... Originally by: Terianna Eri A successful jam cycle is more damaging than a cycle of any other EWAR system. Not against a drone boat but: While a unsuccessful jam cycle is of 0 use at all and as pointed out the other systems effects never fail and can be full relied upon. Originally by: Terianna Eri Unlike other recons, ECM has the range such that the vast majority of ships aren't likely to get there anytime soon. The falcon is not gonna get to its max range for a while either unless it has bookmarks and anybody can have those.... Originally by: Terianna Eri Perhaps I will start flying ECCM'd interceptors; then at least my gang members can warp to me. No need to fit eccm if your just gonna be used for warpins..

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.