|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
TheLibrarian
Tides Of War
|
Posted - 2009.03.25 19:01:00 -
[1]
Edited by: TheLibrarian on 25/03/2009 19:01:28 FALCON GETS A BUFF WITH THE NEW UPDATE!
CCP Chronotis:
The falcon is the "sniper" of the two ECM roles having less ECM strength and more ECM range.
Falcon: Caldari Cruiser Skill Bonus: 20% Bonus to ECM Target Jammer Optimal Range per level 10% Bonus to Medium Hybrid Optimal Range per level
Recon Ships Skill Bonus: 20% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per level -96% to -100% reduction in Cloaking Device CPU use per level
Attribute Changes: +1 turret hardpoint / -1 launcher hardpoint
------------------------- If this is the only change that is hitting the falcon you might as not make any changes. It remains exactly the same except boosted. Now it can do some sort of DPS from 100K if they want. While still having the same jam power as always. I fail to see how this addresses the problem of falcons being overpowered. It seems to have been a boost if nothing else.
A real fix would be to scale all jamming on long range ships down to 10-15% bonus to jamming strength per level. While doing the idea that you originally posted about making the high jamming strength ships be up close and in danger. Since that makes the most sense.
Things that have high impact in a combat should be up close, things that have smaller impact should be allowed to be farther away. This balances the power scale.
I am a falcon pilot I will be happy when they make my job more interesting. From a game fun perspective the falcon is one of the most boring ships in the game yet is the most powerful to fly. Because your never in danger of dying, and you are able to perma jam pretty much anything you want unless it has 2 ECCM fit. Which 90% of ships cant afford 2 ECCM modules, and you can still jam them with 2 ECCM modules 10-20% of the time.
Please do what ever you can to make flying them more enjoyable. If 50K optimal is the max range on a falcon like you had planned in the beginning, people with falcons will just have to decloak and align ASAP. They might get 1 jamming cycle off and have to warp out and back in. Sounds pretty intense and fun to me. Maybe people just want to be lazy and always win. But some of us play for fun. Flying a falcon in the current state of the game is no fun, and fighting a falcon in the current state is no fun. Both make the combat and the game stale.
|
TheLibrarian
Tides Of War
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 16:30:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Cletus Graeme Edited by: Cletus Graeme on 26/03/2009 16:03:03
Originally by: CCP Chronotis We are looking at putting the scorpion into the short range brawler role. To that end we are looking at removing its ECM Optimal range bonus, increasing the ECM strength bonus a little and adding a cruise/siege launcher rate of fire bonus so it can get close and personal.
Summary Scorpion Changes
- removed the ECM optimal range bonus - increased the ECM strength bonus to 20% per level - added a 5% RoF bonus to cruise & siege missile launchers per level
These changes are a bad idea.
(1) The Caldari already have a short range brawler - the Raven. A Scorp with 4 launchers and a damage/ROF bonus is not comparable in either tank or gank to a Raven and shouldn't be anyway. These are Caldari ships and as such they should be specialised for specific roles with little (if any) overlap. As an ECM ship the scorp's role is to provides e-war support.
(2) This is the only e-war battleship in the game and is also an ECM ship which will make it the primary in pretty much any fight it is used. Consequently, this ship needs defenses much more than than it needs offenses. A shield resist bonues would be better than any kind of damage bonus.
(3) As the only e-war battleship it should be able to provide ECM support at BOTH long and short ranges. It should be useful in long range sniping fleets (i.e. able to jam at 150-200km) and close range RR gangs (i.e. able to tank and remote repair at close range) but it should be worse than the Falcon and the Rook at each of these roles so that they have a niche role at which they excel.
I therefore suggest the following initial changes to the Scorpion (subject to testing):
- leave the ECM strength bonus 15% per level - leave the ECM range bonus at 20% per level
Optionally:
- add a 5% shield resist bonus per level OR - adjust the current slot layout and/or grid/cpu to allow the ship to be effectively armor tanked
Cletus,
Maybe you havn't read the changes.
1. "A Scorp with 4 launchers and a damage/ROF bonus is not comparable in either tank or gank to a Raven and shouldn't be anyway."
Have you actually done the math on a scorp with 4 siedge launchers, max drone skills and a target painter. Your looking at 600-650 dps depending on the torps and your implants. With no gank mods. Add the armor tank to it and trimarks and some good implants and your looking at 140-150K EHP on a scorpion with 3-4 jammers and good dps. How is this not a nice gank/tank ship considering the logistics that it provides as well as remote reps and damage.
2. "This is the only e-war battleship in the game and is also an ECM ship which will make it the primary in pretty much any fight it is used."
So? Just because your primary every time doesn't mean you instantly need a resist bonus. Thats insane. Give my tempest a resist bonus while your at it, cause I am primary every time. Instead of worrying about being primary you should be looking at how wonderful of a ship your are flying and what your bringing to your gang. Use some logistics and save your scorpion instead of depending on your own solo tank.
3. "As the only e-war battleship it should be able to provide ECM support at BOTH long and short ranges."
Why? Why? Why? That doesn't even make sense why it should be required to be good at everything. No sense at all. Lets make the game more sandbox by making everything good at everything. Excellent plan.
"I therefore suggest the following initial changes to the Scorpion (subject to testing):
- leave the ECM strength bonus 15% per level - leave the ECM range bonus at 20% per level"
So your suggestions are to leave the ship the same as it is? Fabulous. Thats probably the worst advice I have read yet on these boards.
|
TheLibrarian
Tides Of War
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 22:58:00 -
[3]
Edited by: TheLibrarian on 27/03/2009 23:02:26 Edited by: TheLibrarian on 27/03/2009 23:00:04 Edited by: TheLibrarian on 27/03/2009 22:59:29
Originally by: Johan Sabbat
Originally by: Ellatan Deruimte
Originally by: Johan Sabbat Edited by: Johan Sabbat on 27/03/2009 21:32:50
Originally by: Karlemgne
Stuff and nonsense
So you're bitter because ECM affects your chosen play style?
ECCM does work, pop it on a Cerberus and snipe those Falcons. You'll soon scare them away.
I look forward to your new world of low-sec pvp; RR BS ftw...
A Hac with eccm can be easily jammed, again not saying permajammed, but 2 out 3 cycles at best. Tested on an ishtar with eccm, not reliable at all.
And how many volloys would it take from the Cerberus to send the Falcon from the field?
I think the real question is how do you keep your cerberus alive vs the other entire gang that is primarying it because your shooting at their falcon. Oh thats right about 5-10 seconds.
You can theory craft all you want. I fly falcons. In low sec you cannot die in a falcon unless the gang knows all 3-4 of your jamming spots that you have made on nearly every gate/station you fight on.
Dont be foolish, nearly everyone has trained for a falcon for this very reason. I am fine if ccp nerfs my 3-4 months of training for the only ship I fly that I hate flying. The only reason I even use a falcon is to fit 2 ECCM and 4 caldari jammers to jam other falcons.
|
TheLibrarian
Tides Of War
|
Posted - 2009.03.29 02:27:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Cletus Graeme stuff about my post and his post in the above post!
While I agree that a scorpion with the proposed changes will challenge a raven pilot. I dont think that it will eliminate the raven as you stated.
A decent logistics scorpion will require a gang of remote repping armor tanking battleships to keep it alive. Unless it uses all its mids for a tank in which case I still think the raven out preforms it because it has 2 more launcher slots and isn't wasting bonuses.
While I do understand the scorpion provides a cheap insurable battleship to fit into the sniper battleship role. I think a falcon/rook do these jobs in a much better way, although more expensive. Arguing that the scorpion fills that niche is false imo. It only fills that niche because the player hasn't trained or cannot afford to use a better option. If the proposed changes go through, the scorpion will fill a lot more roles in the game than doing something less effective than 2 other ships. Which will be nice, because I have only seen 5-7 scorpions in 2 years of playing eve. Compared to multiple hundreds of falcons in the last 2 months.
About the resist bonus. It would be neat to give it some resist to keep it alive, but I think the damage gives it more of a role. Just depend on your gang to keep you alive, and if you dont have that benefit, get your gang setups going better.
All in all good reply thanks for keeping it friendly and expertise. I agree on some of your points but I think changes are better than the current stale meta of the scorpion and overuse of falcons.
|
TheLibrarian
Tides Of War
|
Posted - 2009.03.29 02:46:00 -
[5]
Originally by: EgoMan This has to be the dumbest discussion to date. There is no conclusion to draw accept that people are complaining because of their inability or unwillingness to adapt. The game is challenging and thats why we all play it. You have to apply your self and devise new strategies to overcome. The people who complain are the people who want a simple "HALO" style console game that they can roam around and solo kill everything. Theres no skill in that theres no challenge...Theres more solutions to ECM/falcon in this thread then there are cons and yet the cry babies are still in full force. Still trying to make this a dumbed down gank and tank game.
A ship with projected ECCM is the most under used idea YET! Ive had it done to my corp because we rolled with ecm and a corp that we were at war with didnt...so they adapted and were very successfull. Self eccm, projected eccm and ships with roles dedicated to Counter ECM are actually better then altering and ultimately ruining a game mechanic. It adds realism to the game and substance, unless your looking for the ultimate in cheesy console game fun? Enter the SWG NGE! here to nerf another game into ******ation.....
If you havn't noticed the people complaining about falcons being overpowered and overused are the people who are claiming they do use ECCM and projected ECCM. I havn't undocked a battleship without dual ECCM in months. My hurricane, rupture, ishtar, fit eccm. I was even fitting the low-slot eccm modules on my sleipnirs. We have logistic ships that fit 3 ECCM modules on them. We prevail against most ECM gangs and beat them. However I think its a bit ridiculous that we have to fit 3 ECCM modules to counter 1 single ship in this game. The fact that you do not understand that is beyond me. People have adapted and people do beat falcons. Just like people beat nano by fielding multiple huggins and rapiers. Just because there is a way to beat it does not mean it is balanced.
|
TheLibrarian
Tides Of War
|
Posted - 2009.03.29 19:13:00 -
[6]
Edited by: TheLibrarian on 29/03/2009 19:13:27 This is my last post in this thread because its completely derailed. I have to say this though to all you caldari pilots.
Just because you have 7 mid slots doesn't mean all of them have to be used to tank. Lots of armor tankers sacrifice tank for gank mods. Just because my tempest has 6 low slots doesn't mean I fill it up with: Plate, Plate, Plate, EANM, EANM, DCUII. Oh and BTW, armor tankers these days are sacrificing tackle just like you are, except we are doing it for ECCM. = (
In the end I think CCP will do the right thing with balancing falcons. If not, oh well. The game will continue to move forward with a lot of upset people. But I know that 5 people in our corp trained for falcons in the last 2 months, and none of them are the least bit upset about the balancing ECM post.
|
|
|
|