EVE Search - ECM Ships - Looking at better defined roles

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 [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 38 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 7 post(s)
Psilocin GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.03.25 00:54:00 - [331] This is by far the dumbest idea I've seen for a long long time. Instead of messing up the few useful ships that Caldari have, why don't you boost the other EWAR? Tracking disruptors have crappy range, dampeners have crappy range/strength and target painters are useless outside of PVE. Seeing as neither target painters or ECM modules require scripts, why don't you remove this part from tracking disruptors and dampeners and increase their range. But suggesting that the Scorpion or Falcon should become close range fighting ships is beyond ****ed. When are you going to hire some competent people? Jesus christ. FOFOFOOOO!**
Adarr Caldari g guild Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2009.03.25 00:56:00 - [332] Short range brawler Scorp? You've gotta be ****ing kidding me. Just... no, CCP.
darkmancer	Posted - 2009.03.25 00:56:00 - [333] Buhahahahaah ECM is about to get royally screwed. The bonus everyone wants an agility bonus!! 5% Missile velocity!! A damage bonus on a ship with 4 weapon slots unable to fit damage mods without gimping its own setup!! How can these be topped?? I know give the Scorpian 5% ROF and a 5% target painter bonus. It fits inline with the Golum and they really complement each other... really. --------------------------------- There's a simple solution to every problem. It is always invariably wrong
chichi boom The Maverick Navy PuPPet MasTers	Posted - 2009.03.25 01:03:00 - [334] I think that most of these changes are good, but slightly misplaced. The ability to warp cloaked is practically useless on a close in ship. Therefore, give the Falcon the poor ECM strength (I really like the falloff idea tagged to it) and let it keep most of its range. The Rook would do well with a bit of damage, speed/light tanking potential and a drone bay. It could run with the T2 cruiser groups and provide a quick lock down on the close in enemies whislt having a bit of a chance to escape when the fight gets dirty. No cruiser, however, will be able to "brawl" in battleship fleets. That leaves a role open for the Scorpion.
Jainia Soltella	Posted - 2009.03.25 01:18:00 - [335] Edited by: Jainia Soltella on 25/03/2009 01:25:06 While I think that the whines were a little overblown ("OMG you can sit at 250km and permajam everything!!!!!111one"... which is absolute bull if you have flown ECM for any length of time) the ECM nerf was expected. I just wish that CCP would look at the mechanic instead of relegating it to uselessness like the other forms of e-war. How I would fix it: 1) Make all forms of ewar high-slot modules (ECM, Damps, painters, tracking disruptors, webs and points) This has the three-fold effect: It allows Caldari & some Minnie ships to tank effectively without sacrificing offensive ability (notice I didn't say strength, given that armor tankers have to choose between dmg mods and tank...). It simplifies the game for new players (if it's in a high-slot you use it against other players or the environment...) Focuses these ships, along with other ewar platforms like the Arazu, Pilgrim etc on their goal as a gang ewar platform, instead of trying to mix ewar and joke DPS. Move profession mods to the highs & Cloaks and Drone Link augmentors to mid-slots if you want to stay consistent. Might require some slot juggling on certain ships to avoid over-powered shield tanks vs comparable armor tankers.* 2) Change ECM to be a 100% chance lock-breaker with a 20 second module cycle time. This allows ECM to be a pain in the ass, but reduces the chance of the mythical "permajam" that so many whine about. It also brings it in line with all other forms of ewar which have a decent effect @ 100% instead of a great effect 50-60% of the time. OR 2) Change ECM to a different mechanic entirely (leave damps to screw with lock range/time) Say something like altering the target's high-slot cycle time. (cutting the target's DPS, ewar or remote rep capability in half or more, but still letting it fight) While this would remove the joy I get out of knowing that I'm ***ing someone off when I jam them, it's probably more 'fun' for everyone. Just random ideas, but something different instead of nerf nerf nerf... : In my dream world CCP would remove the concept of high, medium and low slots entirely in favor of hard-points(things that affect the outside environment/other players), utility slots (things that don't kill or absorb damage, tracking mods, damage mods sensor boosters, etc...) and tanking slots, with ship bonuses & player taste deciding which way to tank a ship(shield, armor, hull, speed), but that is a massive change and would have to start somewhere small...
Becq Starforged Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.03.25 01:18:00 - [336] Here are my thoughts: First, I don't think it's a bad idea to do some rebalancing of the Recons, but I disagree that Falcons/Rooks are as game-endingly powerful as some seem to think. Instead, I think they need to be adjusted a more modest amount, while other Recons are boosted a bit, as well. ECM RANGE: Good idea; reducing optimal and increasing falloff is a good way to reduce the effectiveness of stand-off jamming platforms while retaining usefulness at closer ranges. This change alone will cut the range of jamming ships by about half if they want to retain current effectiveness levels, or reduce effectiveness by 25% or so at current ranges. SDAs: Good idea in principle, I never liked being 'forced' to fill low slots with them. I'd change their bonus to increased range for all EW modules (not just ECM). To balance the loss of stength, base jammer strength should go up by about a half an SDA worth, and specialty ship jamming strength should go up by 1.5 SDAs worth. FALCON/ROOK: I disagree with the proposed role changes; you have the two ships reversed. The Falcon is far to fragile and far too lightly armed to have any place in the middle of a battle; trying to make it a 'brawler' will just kill the ship design. The Pilgrim can get away with a brawler role in small-scale skirmishes due to it's drone firepower and tracking disruptors. The Falcon has no firepower to speak of (only one spare slot after cloak and probes, and none at all if you pretend the ship has value as a cyno ship). Here is how I'd change the bonuses: Falcon (stand off jammer) - ECM strength bonus unchanged (net strength reduction due to removal of SDAs is partially offset by base ECM strength increase) - ECM Optimal Range bonus decreased to 10% per level (net reduction to effective range, possibly offset by new SDA range bonus) - 5% per level bonus to shield resists - increased shield strength and agility Rook Changes ('brawler') - ECM Strength Bonus increased from 20 to 30% per level (this offsets the removal of SDAs) - ECM Optimal Range Bonus removed - 5% per level bonus to shield resists - 25m3 drone bay / 25 mbit bandwidth added - increased shield strength The modified Falcon is weaker than before, and must operate at somewhat closer ranges to avoid sacrificing further effectiveness. The Rook retains it's jamming capability, though at much lower range, and gains damage output and shield tanking potential (though realizing that potential costs ECM effectiveness). SCORPION: I think the proposed Scorpion changes have potential. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: If you do decide to make ECM significantly weaker, I suggest tempering that with additional flexibility by applying script capability to ECM modules. Get rid of the various racial jammers (convert them into the equivalent multispectral jammer). Then create four scripts (one for each race), which grant bonuses along the lines of +50% to their specialty strength, -50% to others, +50% to range, and -30% energy. I hope these suggestions are helpful. -- Becq Starforged The Flame of Freedom Burns On!
Chssmius Capital Support House of Mercury	Posted - 2009.03.25 01:21:00 - [337] Edited by: Chssmius on 25/03/2009 01:22:02 CCP, "Your doing it wrong." Falcon Rook Scorpion I am done with this thread. Take The EvE Personality Test today!
Jan Blackoak The Edge Foundation Zenith Affinity	Posted - 2009.03.25 01:23:00 - [338] win! tbh i would have been happy with some sort of 'stacking penalty' on ECM mods (so dropping all 6 or 7 or w/e wouldn't completely jam them that much more then having just 1) but looks good to me, it always seemed wrong that falcons were so different when compared to the rest of the recons (in use and such) but i digress i endorse this product
Trader20	Posted - 2009.03.25 01:26:00 - [339] You just nerfed 7 Caldari ships ffs....good job on giving in to the whiners again (nano nerf) CCP. Blackbird Rook Falcon Kitsune Scorp Widow Griffin And now I have no reason to fly Caldari, so I want sp relocation.
Terianna Eri Amarr Scrutari	Posted - 2009.03.25 01:30:00 - [340] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Summary Falcon changes - ECM Optimal Range Bonus removed (52km optimal / 81km falloff w/ 2SDA IIs) YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY I'm sure you'll be seeing a lot of whining / criticism / feedback / whatever you want to call it, but not from me <3 __________________________________ Originally by:* CCP Whisper Boo hoo. Cry some more.
Jan Blackoak The Edge Foundation Zenith Affinity	Posted - 2009.03.25 01:33:00 - [341] Originally by: Jainia Soltella I just wish that CCP would look at the mechanic instead of relegating it to uselessness like the other forms of e-war. you sir are clearly useless if you think the other forms of EWAR are useless; they have plenty use... but like all caldari (with a few noted exceptions ( <3 blaster rokh), you have no conception of HOW. Hence why no one has any pity for you (oh no your BS sized weapons can hit frigs and cruisers??? cry me a river). Now i would like to say this: this is the most balanced edition of eve yet.... and yes ccp nerfs stuff (i miss my vaga being invulnerable) but i think in the end it works out fine ish. find a new tactic and adapt (i think a scorp after this could have some solo wtf potential).
GrumpE Eye of God Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2009.03.25 01:35:00 - [342] You have already nerf'd ECM once. That's why ECM is now only feasible for the 6 Caldari ships that have some ECM specialization bonus. You can't nerf it again until you've first gone through and changed all the other aspects of the game. You are also overreacting to the segment of players who care more about simple brute force killing than about the subtle tactics that has given the Eve universe such depth. Apparently they are whining to you about ECM keeping them from getting higher on their killboards. As others have said, you need to first understand your own game.
Sig Sour	Posted - 2009.03.25 01:37:00 - [343] I sincerely hope that this is an April fools joke CCP is winding up for...
Stretchmeat Crotchquake GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.03.25 01:37:00 - [344] Edited by: Stretchmeat Crotchquake on 25/03/2009 01:42:19 There isn't really a problem with any ECM ship right now except the Falcon, nevermind enough to warrant an overhaul of the entire module type, and Falcons could be completely solved by just cutting their lock range down to more like 130-140km with two boosters. The entire concept of a "short range brawler ECM ship" is terrible when ECM boats already have pathetic tanks.
McKinlay KIA Corp KIA Alliance	Posted - 2009.03.25 01:38:00 - [345] i never really got why people think the Falcon is overpowered. it's easily countered by a 200km Apoc with ECCM, usually within two volleys or less.
Dark Flare Caldari Neckbeards International	Posted - 2009.03.25 01:43:00 - [346] Originally by: Xiobe CCP will only be happy when PvP is bland, boring and completely consensual, and the only variety left is in PvE content. Originally by: CCP Chronotis As always, everything is subject to change! CCP has never, ever changed its mind about alterations to the mechanics such as these, no matter how short-sighted or stupid such alterations may be. So please don't ****ing patronise us with statements like this. Don't know if someone has already called you dumb for this, but you're dumb. Carrier nerf? The Deimos change?
Havus Mauth Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.03.25 01:43:00 - [347] The rook, the ship with higher resists, is long range, and the falcon, the "close range" ship, has crappy resists... :golfclap:
Htrag The Carebear Stare	Posted - 2009.03.25 01:44:00 - [348] fail.. thumbs down.
Gneeznow North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.03.25 01:58:00 - [349] about time, nerf it into oblivion like you did with damps.
Letifer Deus 181st Legion W A S T E L A N D	Posted - 2009.03.25 01:58:00 - [350] Originally by: McKinlay i never really got why people think the Falcon is overpowered. it's easily countered by a 200km Apoc with ECCM, usually within two volleys or less. not every gang includes an eccm fit sniper apoc? This is, and will always be a stupid argument. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Brought to you by the letter ARRR!"
Sky Marshal IMpAct Corp Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2009.03.25 01:59:00 - [351] Edited by: Sky Marshal on 25/03/2009 02:03:15 CCP, the ONLY thing you have to do, is making all ECCM modules REALLY useful. You made Afterburners and Target Painters useful ? Just make all ECCM modules useful too and forget your stupid ECM nerf. Or good, just stupidely over-nerf all ECM Caldari Ships like you stupidely over-nerf our MISSILES or our shield resists or... You want a comment ? No one will use Falcons after your changes with a so low ECM range. Yeah, more ECM strength and agility. This will compensate the fact that a enemy ship just need 10 seconds to reach the ship. Oh wait... So I will warp, try to jam, but warpout immediatly before be killed. So > Totaly useless. If at least Falcons would have the same tank than an Heavy Dictor... No one will use Rooks after your changes as they can't jam efficiently. Yeah, good range... And ? If he can't really jam, he worth nothing. No one will use Scorpion in fleet fight if they become a front line ship. Morality : No more jam in fight. Good balance, indeed. Add to this all precedent nerfs, like the MISSILE OVER-NERF, and Caldari will not be useful ever. 3 ****ING years of skilling to be able to do nothing. Oh yes, I still have my Rokh, or Eagle. Greeeaaattt, two ships, good variety... When I thought how I liked my Cerb before you nerf missiles... Do I need a Batphone or contact a BoB friend to be sure that you receive my comment ? ___________________ CCP presents... Band Of Brothers Reloaded : The Return Of T20 The new sequel of the darwining greater alliance of all MMORPGs.
Sig Sour	Posted - 2009.03.25 02:02:00 - [352] Originally by: McKinlay i never really got why people think the Falcon is overpowered. it's easily countered by a 200km Apoc with ECCM, usually within two volleys or less. An example: someone in a HAC will not fit their ships with ECCM or use FOF (for missile boats) and they see a solo cruiser or battle cruiser in a belt and think "sweet, an easy kill" - low and behold its a trap, and they are stuck there where they are limited on what they can do to fight back. Once the killmails are posted they come to this forum and create a thread about how falcons and/or ECM is overpowered. This is a few people with a loud voice getting what they want. ECM has allowed freighters, transport ships and industrial to get into low sec. These proposed changes put a pit in my stomach. Please CCP keep the rest of the people who play Eve into consideration before you make these changes.
VoiceInTheDesert Zebra Corp Circle-Of-Two	Posted - 2009.03.25 02:06:00 - [353] Maybe the answer is simpler than we're making it. Why not just reduce the amount of time a jammer keeps you disabled? Say...10 seconds instead of 20? Or something to that effect.
EgoMan	Posted - 2009.03.25 02:07:00 - [354] The most that should be done is a small reduction to targeting range for the ships requireing you to run more boosters to achieve full range target lock, effectively reducing the number of ships jammable by fitting less jammers. I have never had the opportunity to jam anyone from over 150km because it takes to long to set the trap and you have to be really stupid to get cought in a camp that has ecm setting up at 200km. Even with my range at 170-200km I always end up at 100 which puts me at great risk to ceptors. Any smart gang runs ceptors anyway and scares the falcons off making them useless anyway. I myself like to take a sniper rokh in and own them....theres so many ways to render a falcon useless but people are to lazy and un willing to stop flying their uber pwn mobiles to do it. I mean someone might have to fly a ship other then a blaster thron and perform and anti ECM role in their fleet....but then they wouldnt be able to run around ganking people un checked in their one dimensional shiney blaster boat wich requires no thought in employng what so ever. NERF it till its a console game for stupid kids!
demonfurbie Minmatar Covert-Nexus Dark Cadre	Posted - 2009.03.25 02:10:00 - [355] couldnt ya just script ecm like all other e-war (except paint but really) a range script or a strength script then you wouldn't have to change the ships them self's so much each person could choose how they want to script it. like a heavy assault rook with some tackle zooming in wouldnt need rang as much as ecm strength so pick that script. but a falcon would need range (not he lol 200+ km ) but something reasonable say 90km but to get that range it would loose ecm strength. also that would help the scorp. it would still be useful in fleets and can be scripted for close range if thats what ya want
MukkBarovian	Posted - 2009.03.25 02:12:00 - [356] #1 Caldari ewar ships including the falcon didnt deserve what is about to happen to them. #2 I like it. #3 Can the other races have ewar battleships? #4 You made an oopsie. The drone bay goes on the ship that will maybe be operating within 51km of its target. #5 I would really like to see other races have ewar battleships. Torp Scorp in the meantime. #6 Mr. Pilgrim called. He say he want beeter ewar effect than curse to be inline with the new ewar philosophy. I told him le falcon would suck after this so he can go stfu.
Captator Yakuza Corp	Posted - 2009.03.25 02:13:00 - [357] 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? This, though I have an alternate method of effecting these changes: Script ECM for +opt/falloff and -strength, or +strength -opt/falloff. Then instead of giving the ships bonuses to the module, give them bonuses to the script, such that a rook gets instead of +20% jamming strength on the script, +40% (numbers for example purposes only) along with the dronebay and damage bonuses, and a falcon gets +60% range instead of +30% (again example figures). The idea would be that the falcon can be used as a ~100km jamming boat with low strength (where the rook is now), or could sacrifice its range for strength (and hence performing like a weaker rook). Meanwhile the rook has 2 damage bonuses, an ewar bonus, and perhaps a HP/resistance bonus, making it viable in its short-midrange role, but the scripting allows it to sacrifice its bonuses to perform as a shorter ranged falcon. The scorpion could be bonused to both script types as its ewar bonus, while having a 10% missile velocity and +1 launcher (so it is more viable in the closer config, and can actually lob cruise missiles at sniper range). Blackbird and griffin could both be weakly bonused on both script types, with kitsune being strength/agility/misc bonused and widow being strength and damage/resists/HP bonused like rook. In combination with the CCP proposed changes I haven't mutilated, the result is basically the same, but all the ECM boats are more distinct from each other, all fulfilling slightly different roles.
EgoMan	Posted - 2009.03.25 02:13:00 - [358] Originally by: Sig Sour Originally by: McKinlay i never really got why people think the Falcon is overpowered. it's easily countered by a 200km Apoc with ECCM, usually within two volleys or less. An example: someone in a HAC will not fit their ships with ECCM or use FOF (for missile boats) and they see a solo cruiser or battle cruiser in a belt and think "sweet, an easy kill" - low and behold its a trap, and they are stuck there where they are limited on what they can do to fight back. Once the killmails are posted they come to this forum and create a thread about how falcons and/or ECM is overpowered. This is a few people with a loud voice getting what they want. ECM has allowed freighters, transport ships and industrial to get into low sec. These proposed changes put a pit in my stomach. Please CCP keep the rest of the people who play Eve into consideration before you make these changes. 100% nail on the head! dont want to break from their uber build or bring a few buddies along....so whaaa whaaa! change it.
BIg Loader	Posted - 2009.03.25 02:13:00 - [359] Looks interesting, Falc needs a slot ajustment and a serrious grid bump, but the 25% bonus looks like its promoting the use of Multi's over ratial's. Looks like it will need recon 5 like every other recon to be good. It needs changing so that through the combination of guns and drones it can do 250DPS with all level 5 skills (so roughly 220DPS with good skills). So imo (with what i think the slots should be): Ideal Solo Setup. Highs, 4 slots 3 launchers, 3 guns. 3 Heavy assault, Cloak. Med, 7Med, suggested fitting, Large shield extender, Point, Web, Microwarp Drive, 3xMulti Jammers. Low, 2 slots, 2 BCS Rigs, 2 rig slots, for the brave, jam strength, or launcher rigs, for the not so brave, shield rigs. Gang setup: Highs, 4 slots 3 launchers, 3 guns. 3 Heavy launchers, Cloak. Med, 7Med, 6 Jammers, 1 LSE. Low, 2 slots, 2 SDA (for range) Rigs, 2 rig slots, 2 Jam range rigs. 52K jam range without the rigs so what another couple of K on there. Id use it, will take some skill, espcially for getting warpins but you will have to be warping in and out of the fight. People complain about targeting delay, but serriously uncloak as your coming out of warp, and if somthing is too close, recloak and warp. With the aji boost, it should be fine, or fit an istab, or low friction nozel joint rigs for lolz. Rigs will change on the setups depending on how the stacking works out, see if there worth it or not. Pilgrim + falcon combo will own. Could take down 3 Battleships no problem on their own. But to balance, Pilgrim needs either a increase to the bonus of tracking disuptors, or Cap warefare bonus, Arazu needs its damp strength bonus inceasing, Rapier should drop the target painter bonus and change to Web range and 5% to web effectivenes. Target paining is useless on a cruiser size EW boat, they dont have issuies hitting normal frigs, and inties are dead anyway (web lol). Torp raven, hell yes, cruiser just no. Anyway after the speed nerf, warrior II's are all you need.
Namaraa	Posted - 2009.03.25 02:18:00 - [360] Falcon as a brawler? LOL CCP always caters to whiners.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 38 :: 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.