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)
Sea Kitten Minmatar	Posted - 2009.02.24 19:08:00 - [181] Next time snipe the Falcon. DUH _________________________________________________ Call me a fish and I will CASTRATE you (in game).
Neo Rainhart Bandiittisektori	Posted - 2009.02.24 19:22:00 - [182] Add scripts to ECM It's so simple..then the falcon must come close to jam hard
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.02.24 19:24:00 - [183] Originally by: Neo Rainhart Add scripts to ECM It's so simple..then the falcon must come close to jam hard Or add eccm to your gang fits making ecm crap.... 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 - 2009.02.24 19:27:00 - [184] Originally by: lecrotta Originally by: Captator Or, more realistically, the falcon jams one/them all long enough for the gang to down one, and then it has more jammers to assign to the others. It predictably Jams an average of half the time against 2 BS that have a single ECCM fitted. Wrong its a 20% chance vs 2 BS with a single ECCM each and that is with 6 jammers al with a base 50% chance to jam. Originally by: Captator Or if we are not flying battleships and are instead flying cruisers/hacs/bcs/commands, then their chance to be jammed with an ECCM is roughly equivalent to the chance of a non ECCMed BS to be jammed. Rubbish, hacs, cs and BC's have almost the same sig str as BS and nowhere near half like you claim. Even the weakest HAC with a ECCM has a higher sig str than the strongest BS and BC, CS ect have much stronger base sig than the weakest hac...stop lying. You are clueless. You are arguing facts. If someone has an ECCM module then the chance to jam drops to about 25%(it is no longer 50%), which equates to about 46% per cycle with 3 jammers. That was proven in the other thread. The 20% is the chance to jam both of them per cycle. But you are still going to take each of them out of the fight 46% of the time not including relock times. There is nothing wrong with either of Captator's statements, they are both facts. You cannot argue them. The argument is whether or not that is balanced considering that those 2 battleships have given up a mid slot for protection.
Beverly Sparks	Posted - 2009.02.24 19:33:00 - [185] Originally by: Murina Originally by: Neo Rainhart Add scripts to ECM It's so simple..then the falcon must come close to jam hard Or add eccm to your gang fits making ecm crap.... Or just reduce the Falcons jamming strength in half and delete a mid slot from every ship in the game to continue at status quo. I feel bad for the Retribution.
Terianna Eri Amarr Scrutari	Posted - 2009.02.24 19:34:00 - [186] Edited by: Terianna Eri on 24/02/2009 19:33:52 Originally by: lecrotta Originally by: Terianna Eri ECM's effect is unpredictable, but it's more predictable than trying to guess what your opponents fittings and tactics will be, which is what you have to do for the other recons. Fittings on ships have been predictable for a long time now, solo pvpers rely on it totally, and only a crap/stupid pilot would get into trouble/web range. Stuff happens, no pilot is perfect :) Quote: Originally by: Terianna Eri The problem with ECCM as a counter is that some ships just don't have the slots to do it Then do not use those ships for anti-falcon duty, or just expect to get jammed more than others and accept iot....some ships have cap issues but i do not complain when i get nuted in them.. Weak sensor strength isn't really a weakness the same way poor locking time or poor cap stability is though; the latter two are relevant even when you're not getting damped / neuted, whereas strength is relevant only when you're being jammed. I think this is kind of the same point as the next one though. Quote: Originally by: Terianna Eri Plus it's the only counter module that gives you no positive benefit to your ship the way a sensor booster or tracking computer does. I have and do support eccm having a secondary and validly useful effect. Or just make it a sensor booster script tbh, but yeah. __________________________________ Originally by: CCP Whisper Boo hoo. Cry some more.
Endless Subversion The Accursed	Posted - 2009.02.24 19:36:00 - [187] Originally by: Murina Or add eccm to your gang fits making ecm crap.... Of course! That's it! The long sought falcon counter at last! Just add an ECCM, so simple, so elegant! Just have every member in your gang, no matter how big or small, drop one of their mid slots for an ECCM. Flying a zealot and hate being jammed? Just add an ECCM! Flying an inty? Just add an ECCM! Falcon jamming your retribution got you down? Just add an ECCM! Flying solo? Just add an ECC-- Whoa there, not so fast. Murina believes that anyone engaging solo should be SOL when it comes to encountering a falcon. Flying Two man or very small gang? Just EACH add an ECCM! You won't stop the jamming, but you'll reduce the number of times you're being jammed or... and get this... you'll "Help the gang by making the falcon 'waste' jammers on you". Just like when you help the gang by making my geddon waste pulse lasers on you, or when you help the gang by making their inty easte a point on you. Terianna Eri are you really going to get through to someone who believes this reflects eve at all? Really?
Captator Empire Assault Corp	Posted - 2009.02.24 19:39:00 - [188] Edited by: Captator on 24/02/2009 19:39:47 Originally by: lecrotta Originally by: Captator Or if we are not flying battleships and are instead flying cruisers/hacs/bcs/commands, then their chance to be jammed with an ECCM is roughly equivalent to the chance of a non ECCMed BS to be jammed. Rubbish, hacs, cs and BC's have almost the same sig str as BS and nowhere near half like you claim. Even the weakest HAC with a ECCM has a higher sig str than the strongest BS and BC, CS ect have much stronger base sig than the weakest hac...stop lying. The numbers: HAC sensor strengths without/with ECCM Zealot: 13 / 25.5 Sacrilege: 15 / 29.4 Cerberus: 16 / 31.4 Eagle: 18 / 35.3 Ishtar: 16 / 31.4 Deimos: 15 / 29.4 Vagabond: 14 / 27.4 Muninn: 13 / 25.5 BC sensor strengths without/with ECCM Prophecy: 16 / 31.4 Harbinger: 16 / 31.4 Ferox: 19 / 37.2 Drake: 19 / 37.2 Brutix: 18 / 35.3 Myrmidon: 18 / 35.3 Cyclone: 16 / 31.4 Hurricane: 16 / 31.4 CS sensor strengths without/with ECCM Absolution: 16 / 31.4 Damnation: 16 / 31.4 Nighthawk: 19 / 37.2 Vulture: 19 / 37.2 Astarte: 18 / 35.3 Eos: 18 / 35.3 Sleipnir: 16 / 31.4 Claymore: 16 / 31.4 Strongest BS base sensor strength = 24 (Rokh/Scorpion jointly) You are correct in absolute terms, but I said roughly equivalent. Take the Zealot and Muninn, the HACs with the lowest sensor strengths. Comparing them to the Rokh, they have a 6% stronger sensor strength, which I would say is 'roughly equivalent'. The average sensor strength for BS is 21.25, if I then ignore the freakishly low Armageddon (17) and Typhoon (18), the average is 22. As this is spread fairly evenly across the races, it can be taken roughly as is. The average sensor strength across the command ships most commonly used in small gangs (both minmatar, absolution, astarte) is 16.5, or 75% of the average of the battleships. The average sensor strength across the HACs used most commonly in small gangs (ishtar, zealot, sacrilege, vagabond) is 14.5, or 66% of the average of the battleships. Both of those figures are closer to half (in the case of command ships equidistant) the average BS sensor strength. This is somewhat beside the point, I said 'roughly half' and I am correct, as I didn't claim them to be absolutely half. They are 'roughly' half, more accurately than they are 'roughly the same'. You are guilty of using false dichotomy, stop doing so as it is irritating in the extreme. Don't tell me what I just said, I know what I just said, because oddly enough, I said it edit: spag
Captator Empire Assault Corp	Posted - 2009.02.24 19:44:00 - [189] Originally by: Beverly Sparks You are clueless. You are arguing facts. If someone has an ECCM module then the chance to jam drops to about 25%(it is no longer 50%), which equates to about 46% per cycle with 3 jammers. That was proven in the other thread. The 20% is the chance to jam both of them per cycle. But you are still going to take each of them out of the fight 46% of the time not including relock times. There is nothing wrong with either of Captator's statements, they are both facts. You cannot argue them. The argument is whether or not that is balanced considering that those 2 battleships have given up a mid slot for protection. There is also the argument as to whether it is balanced for sub BS damage ships, and I would argue it isn't.
Beverly Sparks	Posted - 2009.02.24 19:46:00 - [190] Originally by: Captator You are guilty of using false dichotomy, stop doing so as it is irritating in the extreme. Don't tell me what I just said, I know what I just said, because oddly enough, I said it edit: spag You stole that from the last page of the thread didn't you, admit it. In any case the second time that word has come up with reference to Murina and Lecrotta. Just know this you two, the longer you two argue these points, the longer this thread gets and the longer it stays at the top of the page, where it belongs.
Captator Empire Assault Corp	Posted - 2009.02.24 19:48:00 - [191] Originally by: Beverly Sparks Originally by: Captator You are guilty of using false dichotomy, stop doing so as it is irritating in the extreme. Don't tell me what I just said, I know what I just said, because oddly enough, I said it edit: spag You stole that from the last page of the thread didn't you, admit it. In any case the second time that word has come up with reference to Murina and Lecrotta. Just know this you two, the longer you two argue these points, the longer this thread gets and the longer it stays at the top of the page, where it belongs. Actually I had to look it up again
lecrotta Minmatar lecrotta Corp	Posted - 2009.02.24 19:48:00 - [192] Originally by: Terianna Eri Stuff happens, no pilot is perfect :) Apart from falcon pilots aparantly, who are born with at least 3-5 x 200km BM's of every warpable object in eve, are always perfectly aligned and ready to warp ect ect....
lecrotta Minmatar lecrotta Corp	Posted - 2009.02.24 19:52:00 - [193] Edited by: lecrotta on 24/02/2009 19:54:32 Originally by: Beverly Sparks The 20% is the chance to jam both of them per cycle. And in the scenario the one not jammed melts your buddies. Originally by: Captator You are correct in absolute terms, but I said roughly equivalent. Yea in absolute terms like "the truth" that just happens to be one of those absolutes....
Captator Empire Assault Corp	Posted - 2009.02.24 19:56:00 - [194] Originally by: lecrotta Yea in absolute terms like "the truth" that just happens to be one of those absolutes.... I didn't lie, they are roughly the same. I didn't try to say that they were equal, in which case I would have been lying. If you can only see binary possibilities you are a very limited individual and I pity you.
lecrotta Minmatar lecrotta Corp	Posted - 2009.02.24 20:00:00 - [195] Originally by: Captator Originally by: lecrotta Yea in absolute terms like "the truth" that just happens to be one of those absolutes.... I didn't lie, they are roughly the same. I didn't try to say that they were equal, in which case I would have been lying. If you can only see binary possibilities you are a very limited individual and I pity you. Not even close............ Strongest BS = 24 (Rokh/Scorpion jointly) Strongest HAC = Eagle: 18 / 35.3 Strongest BC Drake: 19 / 37.2 Strongest CS = Vulture: 19 / 37.2 You made claims without checking the facts or thinking that others would not bother...
chrisss0r	Posted - 2009.02.24 20:01:00 - [196] Edited by: chrisss0r on 24/02/2009 20:02:41 Originally by: Beverly Sparks You are clueless. You are arguing facts. If someone has an ECCM module then the chance to jam drops to about 25%(it is no longer 50%), which equates to about 46% per cycle with 3 jammers. That was proven in the other thread. The 20% is the chance to jam both of them per cycle. But you are still going to take each of them out of the fight 46% of the time not including relock times. There is nothing wrong with either of Captator's statements, they are both facts. You cannot argue them. The argument is whether or not that is balanced considering that those 2 battleships have given up a mid slot for protection. In fact one can argue them for your jamchance calculation is not correct. supprisingly it's a tad more complicated than that. the possible scenarios for 2 cycles are: Both ships jammed 2 cycles 1 ship jammed for 1 cycle 1 ship jammed for 2 cycles both ships unjammed for 2 cycles Since the covariance of the first 3 szenario is a function of what happened to what ship in specific stages of the game i really do not feel to calculate it. If someone want's to, have fun I suggest sticking to the numbers you have, thread gave enough of them to debate. University holiday starts soon so if a good coder or that eft guy wants to code something i could spend some time for the maths input for some dynamic jamsimulations. If liliths is interested we could updates his program quite easily i think.
Terianna Eri Amarr Scrutari	Posted - 2009.02.24 20:13:00 - [197] Originally by: Endless Subversion Terianna Eri are you really going to get through to someone who believes this reflects eve at all? Really? You never know :P Originally by: lecrotta Originally by: Terianna Eri Stuff happens, no pilot is perfect :) Apart from falcon pilots aparantly, who are born with at least 3-5 x 200km BM's of every warpable object in eve, are always perfectly aligned and ready to warp ect ect.... Touche (though i didn't claim they've all got bookmarks and really it's not that hard to be aligned when you have a lot of range to play with and your effectiveness isn't a strong function of range and not a function of your velocity >_>) __________________________________ Originally by: CCP Whisper Boo hoo. Cry some more.
Beverly Sparks	Posted - 2009.02.24 20:13:00 - [198] Edited by: Beverly Sparks on 24/02/2009 20:15:42 Originally by: chrisss0r Edited by: chrisss0r on 24/02/2009 20:02:41 Originally by: Beverly Sparks You are clueless. You are arguing facts. If someone has an ECCM module then the chance to jam drops to about 25%(it is no longer 50%), which equates to about 46% per cycle with 3 jammers. That was proven in the other thread. The 20% is the chance to jam both of them per cycle. But you are still going to take each of them out of the fight 46% of the time not including relock times. There is nothing wrong with either of Captator's statements, they are both facts. You cannot argue them. The argument is whether or not that is balanced considering that those 2 battleships have given up a mid slot for protection. In fact one can argue them for your jamchance calculation is not correct. supprisingly it's a tad more complicated than that. the possible scenarios for 2 cycles are: Both ships jammed 2 cycles 1 ship jammed for 1 cycle 1 ship jammed for 2 cycles both ships unjammed for 2 cycles Since the covariance of the first 3 szenario is a function of what happened to what ship in specific stages of the game i really do not feel to calculate it. If someone want's to, have fun I suggest sticking to the numbers you have, thread gave enough of them to debate. University holiday starts soon so if a good coder or that eft guy wants to code something i could spend some time for the maths input for some dynamic jamsimulations. If liliths is interested we could updates his program quite easily i think. I was not talking about 2 cycles, just one. The chance to jam 2 ships in one cycle should be equal to the chance to jam 1 ship for 2 cycles. That is where the 20% came from. Let me check that thread again, I just quoted the 20% from lecrotta, I did not check the other thread, but I thought permajam for 40 seconds was 20%. In both cases it is 2 successful jams in a row....
ry ry	Posted - 2009.02.24 20:19:00 - [199] Originally by: Psydney Why didn't the Ferox shoot the Falcon? to get to the other side!
chrisss0r	Posted - 2009.02.24 20:27:00 - [200] Originally by: Beverly Sparks I was not talking about 2 cycles, just one. The chance to jam 2 ships in one cycle should be equal to the chance to jam 1 ship for 2 cycles. Nah Quote: That is where the 20% came from. Let me check that thread again, I just quoted the 20% from lecrotta, I did not check the other thread, but I thought permajam for 40 seconds was 20%. In both cases it is 2 successful jams in a row.... no as i said it's more complicated than that. If you want' it for a single cycle that a lot easyer to calculate: 46% to have them both jammed, 36% to have one of them jammed 18% to have none jammed. rounded numbers
Beverly Sparks	Posted - 2009.02.24 20:55:00 - [201] [/quote=criss0r]i've tried to run it with a 25% chance of jamming. still 2 targets and 6 jammers each 10000 runs returns: 47,25% 46,97% 46,24% 46,61% 46,69% 46,72% 46,14% 46,98% 46,79% will base my calcs on 46% While the simple calc chance would be 33.42% Resulting in both targets permajammed 2 cycles (40 secs) mean: 0.1116 bayes: 0.2116 3 cycles (60 secs) mean: 0.0373 bayes: 0.097336 6 cycles (120 secs) mean: 0.0001 bayes: 0.0009 eccm works kinda good: So all probabilities are for simultaneously jamming both ships? That is much much higher then I thought. So it is not a 46% chance to jam one ship per cycle, it is a 46% chance to jam both ships. Assuredly it is a much higher number to jam only one. So you are probably looking somewhere in the neighbourhood of jamming one BS with one ECCM about 70% of the time. Since .7 x .7 = ~0.5 which is near enough to 46% for me. Add in Relock times, and you are probably pushing 85% inactive. Dismissing perma jam. One Falcon and 2 BS's with ECCM, the BS pilots can expect to be able to be firing their weapons 15% of the time, as a conservative estimate. So you gain maybe 15% activity for a mid slot. Doesn't seem like ECCM is that great to me. The only thing all this proves to me is that without ECCM, ECM is very nearly approaching not being chance based at all. Since you are getting respectable numbers for something to happen 6 times in a row, it has to have a very high probability to happen once.
chrisss0r	Posted - 2009.02.24 21:02:00 - [202] as i said: stop trying to make up numbers of your own. if you want a specific one ask for it and i or someone else with math skills may answer it.
lecrotta Minmatar lecrotta Corp	Posted - 2009.02.24 21:09:00 - [203] Edited by: lecrotta on 24/02/2009 21:13:51 Originally by: Beverly Sparks So all probabilities are for simultaneously jamming both ships? That is much much higher then I thought. So it is not a 46% chance to jam one ship per cycle, it is a 46% chance to jam both ships. Assuredly it is a much higher number to jam only one. So you are probably looking somewhere in the neighbourhood of jamming one BS with one ECCM about 70% of the time. Since .7 x .7 = ~0.5 which is near enough to 46% for me. Add in Relock times, and you are probably pushing 85% inactive. Dismissing perma jam. One Falcon and 2 BS's with ECCM, the BS pilots can expect to be able to be firing their weapons 15% of the time, as a conservative estimate. So you gain maybe 15% activity for a mid slot. Gotta love how your deluded brain works 1. take the simple math for jamming two ships over time both targets permajammed 2 cycles (40 secs) 2 cycles 20% 3 cycles 1% 6 cycles .001% 2. apply part of it to one ship with 0 cycle time involved 3. apply the single math against two ships (as it gives a better result that the original two ship accurate math). 4. Claim that both BS have gone from a 20% chance for being both jammed in the first 2 cycles and 1% for the first 4 cycle ect ect, to being jammed 85% of the time for the entire fight.... YOU ARE A JOKE.
LadyLubU2 Caldari	Posted - 2009.02.24 21:10:00 - [204] Seriously guys stop talking about falcons in larger fleets because thats where they are pretty balanced. Stop talking about all the different numbers, because like a wise man said its not about the numbers but about the actual **ing combat (like that stuff you do ingame when your too bored playing around with EFT/calculators). The main problem people have with those bastards is that they completely break small gang warfare, especially when you start realizing that ever small gang you encounter nowadays consists of enough falcons to ruin your gangs day....UNLESS you start brining loads of falcons as well wich is, just like the whole Nano thing before the nerf, fighting fire with fire, wich is just stupidly **ing rediculous. /thread. ---
chrisss0r	Posted - 2009.02.24 21:15:00 - [205] hey lecrotta i sent you an evemail but you did not answer it :(
Captator Empire Assault Corp	Posted - 2009.02.24 22:46:00 - [206] Originally by: lecrotta Strongest BS = 24 (Rokh/Scorpion jointly) Strongest HAC = Eagle: 18 / 35.3 Strongest BC Drake/ferox: 19 / 37.2 Strongest CS = Vulture/nighthawk: 19 / 37.2 Weakest BS Armageddon (17) Weakest CS Claymore/absolution/damnation/sleipnir: 16 / 31.4 Weakest BC Prophecy/harbinger/cyclone/hurricane: 16 / 31.4 Weakest HAC Zealot/muninn: 13 / 25.5 You made claims without checking the facts or thinking that others would not bother... Grats, you just copied numbers from my post, then accuse me of not checking facts or hoping others wouldn't check them. Read my post, I mention all of that, and I give my reasons for the numbers I used. If you want to change the ships used in the calculation to, in your opinion, more accurately reflect tq pvp, then go ahead.
nakKEDK Gallente tr0pa de elite Triumvirate.	Posted - 2009.02.24 22:52:00 - [207] falcons are only overpowered in small gangs. very overpowered :P k
lecrotta Minmatar lecrotta Corp	Posted - 2009.02.24 22:53:00 - [208] Edited by: lecrotta on 24/02/2009 22:54:17 Originally by: Captator Grats, you just copied numbers from my post, then accuse me of not checking facts or hoping others wouldn't check them. My figures are correct and i made no false/misleading statements about them. Originally by: Captator Read my post, I mention all of that, and I give my reasons for the numbers I used. The numbers you used were gathered added up and the divided up into a average making the results non existent in actual eve combat. Wanna bring a anti falcon ship?, then do not pick the ones with low base sig str and hardly any mid slots ffs......use those ships for other things...
Captator Empire Assault Corp	Posted - 2009.02.24 23:07:00 - [209] Originally by: lecrotta Edited by: lecrotta on 24/02/2009 22:54:17 Originally by: Captator Grats, you just copied numbers from my post, then accuse me of not checking facts or hoping others wouldn't check them. My figures are correct and i made no false/misleading statements about them. Nor did I, I presented an average based on the prevalence of the ships in small gang combat. Originally by: lecrotta Originally by: Captator Read my post, I mention all of that, and I give my reasons for the numbers I used. The numbers you used were gathered added up and the divided up into a average making the results non existent in actual eve combat. Wanna bring a anti falcon ship?, then do not pick the ones with low base sig str and hardly any mid slots ffs......use those ships for other things... This isn't about an antifalcon ship, if you don't understand my point still, I cannot be bothered trying to explain further
lecrotta Minmatar lecrotta Corp	Posted - 2009.02.24 23:18:00 - [210] Originally by: Captator Nor did I, I presented an average based on the prevalence of the ships in small gang combat. The average is a non-existent number as some have more and some have less and as such it cannot be applied to real time combat. Originally by: Captator This isn't about an antifalcon ship, if you don't understand my point still, I cannot be bothered trying to explain further You had no point you just tried to play with numbers to cover erroneous statements.

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.