| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Nemtar Nataal
Demonic Retribution
Minor Threat.
   |
Posted - 2009.03.24 23:05:00 -
[1]
You know some one a while back suggested that you canged the optimal range bonus to fall off....this was a really good idear as it would force the ECM pilote to chose between effectiveness and safety!
You should really have taken a look at that option as it would have worked a lot bether with Ewar ships not making the paper thin hauls completely uselless in combat...remember a falcon or rook will get instant poped in any fleet battle so your current system is right back to the trenches where everyone just brings max DPS...
I know you want to give the ships diffrent roles an everything but you should really rething this change. Changing optimal range to falloff would also help a lot for making damps the primory counter for ECM again...which currently is very useless dure to the limited range of damps and the awesome range of ECM.
Check it out im sure you can do somethign good with it...i hope...dont let this changes be final cause frankly i think they will just make people hate ECM even more...both the people who fly the ECM ships and the people who meat them in combat....
|
Nemtar Nataal
Demonic Retribution
Minor Threat.
|
Posted - 2009.03.24 23:52:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Nemtar Nataal on 24/03/2009 23:56:14
 Originally by: Ephemeron
I read the proposed changes and 1 thing immidiately stands out:
it seems like the roles of Falcon and Rook are reversed
Rook has better resistences, much better weaponry - it seems like the best choice for short range combat. It should have stronger ECM at small range.
Falcon on other hand is less defensible, much weaker weapons, and it's ideal for sneaking about - it is most suitable for operating at long sniper ranges. It should have weaker ECM and long range.
Do you see how that makes more sense?
You are so right...and you know what the best thing about it is...if CCP does make that change it will mean that ECM ships are pritty much right back where they were 3 years ago :)
I still like changing ECM optimal range to ECM fall off.
Then for the Rook you give it the 25% bonus to ECM jamming strength and less fall off but a 5% bonus to optimal range but give it less fall of like 5% or 10%.
Then "leave" the agility bonus for the falcon as its really usefull for somthing that basically made from tinfoyl...
|
Nemtar Nataal
Demonic Retribution
Minor Threat.
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 00:06:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Bobby Atlas
The sensor damps are absolutely useless, how about actually focusing on sensor damps for a change. Take stock of the statistical data that CCP retains to generate base lines on the reality of how insignificant sensor damps have become; a marginalized ewar asset where by even the specialized gallente recons make no effective use of the damps.
I do support changes in range to ECM ships, especially the recon class caldari ECM boats as there upper limit on range can put them so far out that they are near invincible. We long tolerated over powered Sensor Damps then/now tolerate over powered ECM in the face of gimped Sensor Damps. It is time CCP realize that the Sensor Damps and ECM can serve as counter-balances for each other if you actually looked at them both in the same context at the same time, instead of every year picking only one of them apart , nerfing the other and leaving a perpetual imbalance.
Here Here...well sayed m8
|
Nemtar Nataal
Demonic Retribution
Minor Threat.
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 00:08:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Kalissa Dauntless
You're going to make the falcon a brawler? 
You do know it's made of tin foil and falls apart when a small insect passes somewhere close to it?
Instead of all this jiggery pokery nonsense which will throw things into the total unknown, why not simply do this: Reduce the ECM strength of the ship, giving targets more of a chance to resist jamming.
Bellum's thread on it
Cause it will only make ECM viable in small scale engagements as large fleets have massive numbers of ships with way to high sensor strenght.
|
| |
|