EVE Search - ECM Ships - Looking at better defined roles

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

ECM Ships - Looking at better defined roles

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 7 post(s)
Yunaka Vicc	Posted - 2009.03.24 18:52:00 - [1] Will Centurion set be changed to affect falloff?
Yunaka Vicc	Posted - 2009.03.24 19:03:00 - [2] Any changes planned for EW Links?
Yunaka Vicc	Posted - 2009.03.24 19:28:00 - [3] This change makes Falcon ECM effectiveness comparable to Arazu but without drones, damage bonus, secondary EW bonus.
Yunaka Vicc	Posted - 2009.03.24 20:15:00 - [4] Originally by: sylvester stallowned it makes it impossible to chase down a falcon with fast support that is sat at 150-200k away jamming. It seems that you've missed Apocryph scan changes.
Yunaka Vicc	Posted - 2009.03.25 21:15:00 - [5] Edited by: Yunaka Vicc on 25/03/2009 21:15:16 Quote: Falcon: 20% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per level Rook: 25% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per level ECM strength becomes too low even with 2 rigs. Any change can help: - add 5% to per level strength bonuses for both ship. - remove overload stacking.
Yunaka Vicc	Posted - 2009.03.26 07:04:00 - [6] Another nice idea: - add strength and distanse jammer scripts, so pilots will be able to choose between today strength or today distance. Jammer should be boosted to current strength without SDA.
Yunaka Vicc	Posted - 2009.03.26 07:58:00 - [7] Edited by: Yunaka Vicc on 26/03/2009 08:00:08 Originally by: Alex Harumichi Originally by: CCP Chronotis The whole point is that the Falcon combines two excellent qualities: covops cloak and ranged ecm. As long as you keep those in, it will remain a problem ship. Arazu with dampers and pilgrim with TD work same, don't they?
Yunaka Vicc	Posted - 2009.03.26 08:05:00 - [8] Edited by: Yunaka Vicc on 26/03/2009 08:05:17 Originally by: Alex Harumichi Originally by: Raquel Trotter CCP Chronotis, Either rethink this once again, or give the other recons competitive ranges also. For example, the Lachesis / Arazu get no range bonuses -- on a form of ewar designed to combat ranged weapons and ewar. Arazu has 130+ range with falloff. With 50% non reducible chance of success on falloff. And new falcon will have 1/4-1/3 jam probability for BS/recons, halved on falloff, then halved by ECCM.
Yunaka Vicc	Posted - 2009.03.26 08:14:00 - [9] Originally by: Alex Harumichi Edited by: Alex Harumichi on 26/03/2009 08:10:27 Force the Falcon significantly closer, and pilots need to make a real choice. Also, other forms of ewar, especially damps, become a much more viable counter. Let the Falcon keep the range, and nothing will change. No choice for Falcon with proposed jamm strength, switching to Arazu is better.
Yunaka Vicc	Posted - 2009.03.26 08:23:00 - [10] Edited by: Yunaka Vicc on 26/03/2009 08:26:17 Edited by: Yunaka Vicc on 26/03/2009 08:25:38 Originally by: Alex Harumichi The best you can do, with max skill and rigs, is drop a battleship a bit under 20km lock range... and that needs four damps, all hitting the target. With 10 sec cycle you don't need to damp BS all the time. This also helps with damp failure on falloff and allows faster target switching. It gives twice more time to lock and shoot somebody if 20 sec jamm fails.

Yunaka Vicc	Posted - 2009.03.26 08:35:00 - [11] I agree with Falcon 200+ range problem. But reducing both range and strength will make this ship useless in gangs except second window help for solo damager.
Yunaka Vicc Fremen Sietch White Noise.	Posted - 2009.03.26 08:44:00 - [12] Originally by: Alex Harumichi I don't think so. It just means you have to fit a tank, like all the other recons. You don't need SDAs anymore due to increased ecm str (in the original proposal), so use your lowslots to armor tank. It's what the Arazu and Lachesis need to do, too (and no, they don't have better tank ability than the Falcon/Rook pair). I see only strength reduction with currently proposed bonuses and no strength in SDAs. New rook with rigs <=> current with one SDA. New falcon with rigs <=> current without SDAs at all. Originally by: Alex Harumichi All the closer range means is that now you actually run some risk. I know this is a shocking idea to some Falcon pilots, but there it is. No problem with risk, 60-100 km is fine range.
Yunaka Vicc Fremen Sietch White Noise.	Posted - 2009.03.26 08:48:00 - [13] Originally by: Rumpelstilski LOVE THE NEW ROOK! Btw, will overloading jammers now give proper bonuses? (ecm overloading bonuses used to stack with sdas and pda rigs) +1 to overloading fix It also will balance new jammer strength.
Yunaka Vicc Fremen Sietch White Noise.	Posted - 2009.03.27 10:51:00 - [14] Edited by: Yunaka Vicc on 27/03/2009 10:50:52 Another simple solution for long and strong jamm problem: - add optimal penalty to current SDAs. Nothing else need to be changed.

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.