Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Raven Timoshenko
Oberon Incorporated Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 04:30:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Raven Timoshenko on 26/03/2009 04:32:44 CCP your killing the complexity of EVE by dumbing things down and removing the Rock-paper-scissors approach of EVE.
Rather than nerfing ECM boost the current ECCM modules available namely:
1. Remote ECCM Projector: Increase its optimal range from 20km optimal to 50km optimal, allowing it boost the Signal Strength of ships at medium to long range.
OR
Allow the use of Signal Distortion Amps to boost its Range, and give BBs and Recons Bonuses to projected ECCM.
2. Multi-Spectrum Sensors (Mid Slots) - Remove all Race specific sensors, and use only Omni ECCM with a 80% (T1) Strength. Reduce Cap power cost to 12 per cycle.
3. Sensor Backup Arrays (low slots) : Remove all race specific and replace with Omni variants. Increase bonus to 50%, with the usual stacking penalties.
4. Target Painters: Boost range from the lousy 25km to atleast 75km. This will actually make ships like the Bellicose useful and provide additional counters to long range EW ships.
People who keep complaining about how aweful ECM is have never actually bothered using Projected ECCM. It is a VERY effective counter, but the only problem is range. I can run 6 cap stable Projected ECCMs from a drake continuously and with only 2 T1 ECCM Projectors I can boost the signal strength of a BS to that of a CARRIER.
|
Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express Burning Horizons
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 05:11:00 -
[2]
Better ECCM would be good.
A dedicated ECCM ship would be nice. (However since the Caldari have all the ECM ships, it would probably be more appropriate the ECCM ships would be Gallante)
Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts.
Your signature is too large. Please resize it to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Mitnal |
Ikathis sihtaki
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 05:22:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Ikathis sihtaki on 26/03/2009 05:24:01 TBH, the only rock paper scissors when falcons are involved, is which falcon jams which first.
You know what, Gimmie an arazu that has all its bonuses focused onto scrammers that reach at 150+km, then I might feel a little sympathy for your falcon alt.
Edit: yes this means disruptors that reach out 200km... |
Mavrk
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 05:48:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Ikathis sihtaki
You know what, Gimmie an arazu that has all its bonuses focused onto scrammers that reach at 150+km, then I might feel a little sympathy for your falcon alt.
What about me being a Falcon Main?
When you look at Caldari, you see what? SHIPS SPECD FOR SUPPORT. Were not brawlers. Were not tankers. Were here to help you out during the fight. That means we are the Best Damn EWAR pilots out there with the Best Damn EWAR there is. We are support and anti support. Long range snipers. Why wouldnt we have EWAR ships effective at long range? Why wouldn't we have the best counter to Support there is?
You know what I really think about your insecurities? Its obvious. You just cant adapt yourself. You get all upset cause you can't fly one, or because you dont have friends that can fly them, or for the fact that you dont know how to counter them. Way to show off your maturity. You must be four years old. Any one with a brain knows how to Counter a Falcon, bring your own damn eccm'd sniper to scare him off. Not hard.
CCP, I want a Comment on this from a dev. I want to know your listening to us pilots. And I dont want to hear another thing that just blows us off. You've batted everything the Caldari have into pieces aside from the falcon and now your moving on to that? this is possibly one of the darkest days of EVE. Eliminating an entire race of strategic use. Let the Genocide of Caldari Begin. God help us all.
|
Ikathis sihtaki
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 06:03:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Ikathis sihtaki on 26/03/2009 06:04:38
Originally by: Mavrk
Originally by: Ikathis sihtaki
You know what, Gimmie an arazu that has all its bonuses focused onto scrammers that reach at 150+km, then I might feel a little sympathy for your falcon alt.
Any one with a brain knows how to Counter a Falcon, bring your own damn eccm'd sniper to scare him off. Not hard.
This is what is wrong, am I right? You must bring a SPECIFIC FLEET/SHIP SETUP TO COUNTER A SINGLE SHIP (remember the nano?). Also it is the only ship with all of its bonuses focused in one area.
Oh, and your attempts at personal attacks, shows the maturity of your post.
Edit for lack of spell check..
|
TZeer
BURN EDEN
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 06:40:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Mecinia Lua Better ECCM would be good.
A dedicated ECCM ship would be nice. (However since the Caldari have all the ECM ships, it would probably be more appropriate the ECCM ships would be Gallante)
You have ECCM that gives 96% higher strength, you have projected ECCM which gives 120% higher strength, and you have the EOS which gives 38-39% boost with a mindlink in the head...
The EOS could maybe get a boost to their ganglink, but boosting ECCM more would be plain stupid. It would make ECCM to powerful.
And people saying 1 single falcon can permajam 3 ECCM fitted BS is either delusional or on crack.
The ECCM is working, but I have seen utterly fail fittings when it comes to ECCM, they fit the wrong racial type, and I know people forget to turn on their ECCM.
|
Arikanaiz
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 07:31:00 -
[7]
I agree, for too long has CCP wielded the nerf bat to anything and everything in eve. stop makin stuff weaker and start boosting counters........ A boost to ECCM would be great, even if I am an ECM pilot myself.
And btw kids, if no ones EVER though of it before, use and arazu or lachesis to go in after enemy falcons are engaged, and completely limit thier ability to jam anything buy taking them out of the picture all together, ECM can miss, but sensor damps... well they don't miss :-D. I know I know, the optimal on sensor damps COULD be boosted to better counter ECM, and MAYBE CCP should look into THAT instead of nerfing another thing in this game.
|
Colonel Xaven
Decadence. RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 08:06:00 -
[8]
Well, let's see how the changes really effect the caldari e-war. ECM won't be touched in its mechanic with these changes of ships. Afaik CCP is looking at ECCM (I think I have read it in any Dev thread), but you know that they communicate only ongoing changes, not the brainstorming before it.
The rook and the Scorp will be pushed back in the field, which is good.
Proud member of RZR - Decadence. |
Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express Burning Horizons
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 08:41:00 -
[9]
Originally by: TZeer
Originally by: Mecinia Lua Better ECCM would be good.
A dedicated ECCM ship would be nice. (However since the Caldari have all the ECM ships, it would probably be more appropriate the ECCM ships would be Gallante)
You have ECCM that gives 96% higher strength, you have projected ECCM which gives 120% higher strength, and you have the EOS which gives 38-39% boost with a mindlink in the head...
The EOS could maybe get a boost to their ganglink, but boosting ECCM more would be plain stupid. It would make ECCM to powerful.
And people saying 1 single falcon can permajam 3 ECCM fitted BS is either delusional or on crack.
The ECCM is working, but I have seen utterly fail fittings when it comes to ECCM, they fit the wrong racial type, and I know people forget to turn on their ECCM.
Oh I'm sure your right, folks forget to turn modules on all the time.
At 200km you could pick a Falcon off with a sniping Amarr Battleship and destroy it in short order.
However we don't really have a dedicated ECCM ship and that might be the actual problem, not the ECM ships.
We've gone down the nerf route before with ECM, and many other things, as you nerf one you then turn to nerf another. Sometimes they overthink the problems without considering the consequences and I think they are doing that with the ECM proposals.
A dedicated ECCM ship might could solve the problem with no real change to current game mechanics. Basically make it another logistics cruiser. Bonus to projected ECCM range (kinda how the current ones boost armor, shield, cap). Lower cap to use them as well. A strength boost probably not needed as you say.
(Other logistics might boost remote sensor boosting (Minnie), boost drones....range, speed, damage? (Gallante) as ideas....can't think of Amarr one but I'm sure someone can)
Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts.
Your signature is too large. Please resize it to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Mitnal |
Tippia
Raddick Explorations BlackWater.
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 09:11:00 -
[10]
Buffing ECCM wouldn't give the Rook the purpose and role that it desperately needs. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in =v=… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 09:19:00 -
[11]
Cutting the strength of all ECM in half would boost ECCM quite a bit. Do that.
Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Death of Virtue is Recruiting
|
Deviana Sevidon
Gallente Panta-Rhei Guardian Federation
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 10:22:00 -
[12]
Jammers are boosted by Player Skills, but what about ECCM?
There would be some interesting option if CCP would include Player ECCM Skills that work together with Modules.
The most simple Solution would be to create a Skill that simply boost Sensor Strength, but there would also be other options.
Examples: Sensor Finetuning: Grants a 10% per Level resistance against non-specialised Jammers. That means at Level 5. A Multispec or a racial Jammer of the wrong type has a an additional 50% chance of failing a jam cycles. Racial Jammers that match your ships sensors, are not affected.
Counter Measures Adjustment: Skill at configuring the ECCM Arrays. Each Level of Skill increases the chance of creating a critical backlash on a hostile Jammer by 2%, effectivly causing it to jam itself. At Level 5 there is a 10% chance that the ECM critically fails and jams itself for a cycle. Requires an active ECCM to work.
Quote: Disclaimer: All mentioned above contains my opinion and is therefore an absolute truth (for me anyway, my universe, muhahaha.....ok, done
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 10:39:00 -
[13]
Changing one and not the other won't work, you are still left with a "must have" module/ship which is what we want to avoid.
The ECM/ECCM disparity lies in the benefits they offer. An ECCM module does not counter an ECM module currently, partially due to the chance based nature but also due to the relatively low sensor bonus on ECCM modules. ECCM will remain a craptastic module until the die-roll is removed or the strength bonus receives a massive bump.
Stronger ECCM would not decrease the amount of ECM ships used in 0.0-1.0 which means that you would have to fit those new ECCM modules .. This is exactly the same as the Nos, Speed, Damp etc. discussions, they too were required modules if you wanted half a chance in PvP combat.
I am hoping that the coming changes, whatever they turn out to be, are only a stop-gap measure until CCP figures out what to do with ECM in general. Having a module that essentially forces the opponent to watch a cinematic of events makes for really poor game play.
|
maralt
Minmatar The seers of truth
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 10:44:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Ikathis sihtaki Edited by: Ikathis sihtaki on 26/03/2009 06:04:38
Originally by: Mavrk
Originally by: Ikathis sihtaki
You know what, Gimmie an arazu that has all its bonuses focused onto scrammers that reach at 150+km, then I might feel a little sympathy for your falcon alt.
Any one with a brain knows how to Counter a Falcon, bring your own damn eccm'd sniper to scare him off. Not hard.
This is what is wrong, am I right? You must bring a SPECIFIC FLEET/SHIP SETUP TO COUNTER A SINGLE SHIP (remember the nano?). Also it is the only ship with all of its bonuses focused in one area.
So its not falcons you object to its ships that opertate at sniper ranges..
So nerf every BS, eagle, vulture ect ect ect...
Stop connecting dots that do not exist.
|
Childstar
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 10:46:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Tippia Buffing ECCM wouldn't give the Rook the purpose and role that it desperately needs.
Nor will gimping the range as it will end up not being flown in gang pvp just like all the other recons.
|
Roemy Schneider
BINFORD
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 11:28:00 -
[16]
i wouldn't mind less heat damage on eccm but i'd really favor a 50% boost to low-slot-eccm: +60..72%
and/or lift the stacking penalty, but i see where this could screw with the already f'ed up combat probing _maths_ - putting the gist back into logistics |
Karezan
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 11:55:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Hirana Yoshida Changing one and not the other won't work, you are still left with a "must have" module/ship which is what we want to avoid.
The ECM/ECCM disparity lies in the benefits they offer. An ECCM module does not counter an ECM module currently, partially due to the chance based nature but also due to the relatively low sensor bonus on ECCM modules. ECCM will remain a craptastic module until the die-roll is removed or the strength bonus receives a massive bump.
Stronger ECCM would not decrease the amount of ECM ships used in 0.0-1.0 which means that you would have to fit those new ECCM modules .. This is exactly the same as the Nos, Speed, Damp etc. discussions, they too were required modules if you wanted half a chance in PvP combat.
I am hoping that the coming changes, whatever they turn out to be, are only a stop-gap measure until CCP figures out what to do with ECM in general. Having a module that essentially forces the opponent to watch a cinematic of events makes for really poor game play.
In a fight where the falcon only has 1 jammer on you (typical for fights where you're not outnumbered) a single ECCM module halves the chance of that single jammer working.
The problem is, when someone still gets jammed with that module on, they get ****ed because the module failed them. Heck it's even possible to get perma jammed with crappy luck on the dice rolls (actual perma jammed, not forum perma jammed where a falcon jammed me once = one falcon on the field and 200 BS were jammed for 20 minutes straight).
The big problem is in the way ECM works, no matter what, even if the chance is dropped to 1%, getting jammed would be a frustrating experience for that 1%.
|
Raven Timoshenko
Oberon Incorporated Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 16:11:00 -
[18]
I dont see why just because there is a % based chance of jamming that ECM should be nerfed to hell. ECCM does WORK. The Problem is people dont want to invest in the slot or dont want to act as support using remote ECCM projectors.
ECM adds a layer of complexity to combat which otherwise would turn into more of GANK FEST than it is now.
Yes ECCM is somewhat on the poor side, and my suggestions to boost ECCM means that there is a level playing field.
MORE COUNTERS not less options.
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 16:42:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 26/03/2009 16:44:15
Originally by: Mecinia Lua At 200km you could pick a Falcon off with a sniping Amarr Battleship and destroy it in short order.
Honestly asking here...
How many sniping battleships do you need to reliably run off a Falcon?
Seems to me if the Falcon sees an Apoc on the field it will get the full force of the Falcon's jams and ECCM or no the Falcon will probably succeed. In the meantime the Apoc, pimped as it is for sniping at extreme ranges and ECCM has crapall for a tank. Falcon's buddies will pummel it into dust ASAP to get their Falcon safe and on to other targets.
So, do you need two battleships fit explicitly for long range to run off one Falcon? Three battleships? What about all the other ECCM support ships mentioned earlier to render the Falcon useless? Now you need 3-4 (or more ships) to reliably fend off a single Falcon? What happens when the enemy gang has more than one Falcon? Seems with relatively few Falcon pilots they can easily make it impractical for any small/med gang to counter (e.g. for every Falcon their opponents need to field 2-3 ships minimum).
The problem with Falcons is that they seem to be the "must have" ship for most roaming gangs these days. You just do not leave home without them if you can at all manage it. When any ship (or setup such as nanoes once were) becomes a default in EVE something is messed up. When the best counter for a Falcon is another Falcon (or nanoships another nanoship) something is amiss in the balance of EVE.
I am not saying what adjustments are best here but arguing that is certainly looks like some adjustment is necessary.
-------------------------------------------------- "Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"
|
darkmancer
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 17:32:00 -
[20]
Just a thought instead of the changes why not add the following to ECCM mods:
-30 ECM optimal range per failed jam.
It turns a purely defensive specialised mod into a offensive module.
Imagine how evil it would be to fit 2 of those suckers on a bs. --------------------------------- There's a simple solution to every problem. It is always invariably wrong |
|
Vayn Baxtor
Oberon Incorporated
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 17:40:00 -
[21]
OP got my blessing Vayn Honor the Gerbils :D!
Q'PLA! |
Pellit1
Caldari Bushwhackers Rough Necks
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 17:47:00 -
[22]
/signed. Remote ECCM would be a cool idea.
The nerfbat is not always the answer CCP!
|
Mavrk
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 17:50:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 26/03/2009 16:44:15
Originally by: Mecinia Lua At 200km you could pick a Falcon off with a sniping Amarr Battleship and destroy it in short order.
Honestly asking here...
How many sniping battleships do you need to reliably run off a Falcon?
Seems to me if the Falcon sees an Apoc on the field it will get the full force of the Falcon's jams and ECCM or no the Falcon will probably succeed. In the meantime the Apoc, pimped as it is for sniping at extreme ranges and ECCM has crapall for a tank. Falcon's buddies will pummel it into dust ASAP to get their Falcon safe and on to other targets.
So, do you need two battleships fit explicitly for long range to run off one Falcon? Three battleships? What about all the other ECCM support ships mentioned earlier to render the Falcon useless? Now you need 3-4 (or more ships) to reliably fend off a single Falcon? What happens when the enemy gang has more than one Falcon? Seems with relatively few Falcon pilots they can easily make it impractical for any small/med gang to counter (e.g. for every Falcon their opponents need to field 2-3 ships minimum).
The problem with Falcons is that they seem to be the "must have" ship for most roaming gangs these days. You just do not leave home without them if you can at all manage it. When any ship (or setup such as nanoes once were) becomes a default in EVE something is messed up. When the best counter for a Falcon is another Falcon (or nanoships another nanoship) something is amiss in the balance of EVE.
I am not saying what adjustments are best here but arguing that is certainly looks like some adjustment is necessary.
Dude, I've flown a t1 fit caracal and I've sniped falcons off of my team mates. AAnd its hilarious because by the time the realize that they havn't jammed you with their jammers yet and you get a volley off that alphas their shields they bug out. Even then if they DO jam you with all their might, that means less of your buddies are getting jammed. Honestly any one with a brain knows how to take care of a falcon, bring a well rounded fleet, and not just gank like most cavemen.
|
Pellit1
Caldari Bushwhackers Rough Necks
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 17:54:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 26/03/2009 16:44:15
Originally by: Mecinia Lua At 200km you could pick a Falcon off with a sniping Amarr Battleship and destroy it in short order.
Honestly asking here... How many sniping battleships do you need to reliably run off a Falcon?
I have a dedicated anti-falcon Tempest setup that can hit up to 196km without any implants and pop a Falcon in two volleys, which are ~9.5 seconds apart.
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 18:34:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Mavrk Dude, I've flown a t1 fit caracal and I've sniped falcons off of my team mates. AAnd its hilarious because by the time the realize that they havn't jammed you with their jammers yet and you get a volley off that alphas their shields they bug out. Even then if they DO jam you with all their might, that means less of your buddies are getting jammed. Honestly any one with a brain knows how to take care of a falcon, bring a well rounded fleet, and not just gank like most cavemen.
Not saying you do not do this but I am finding the overall notion of Falcons being so easy to run off a T1 Caracal wtfpwns them disingenuous.
If Falcons were so easily run off/killed when so much a a cheap T1 ship gets on grid with it no one would dare fly them and that is provably not the case.
More likely you have come across more than your fair share of very dumb Falcon pilots.
-------------------------------------------------- "Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"
|
Marco Ragnos
eXceed Inc. Minor Threat.
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 23:25:00 -
[26]
God, wtf would you ask people to use ECCM to counter a falcons jams......
do you actually think they will take off their kb wh oring sensor boosters?
|
Botty Spanka
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 07:45:00 -
[27]
FFS CCP. Just sack everyone except those who keep the servers running.
http://www.ezy-english.com/ |
Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express Burning Horizons
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 07:59:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Deviana Sevidon Jammers are boosted by Player Skills, but what about ECCM?
There would be some interesting option if CCP would include Player ECCM Skills that work together with Modules.
The most simple Solution would be to create a Skill that simply boost Sensor Strength, but there would also be other options.
Examples: Sensor Finetuning: Grants a 10% per Level resistance against non-specialised Jammers. That means at Level 5. A Multispec or a racial Jammer of the wrong type has a an additional 50% chance of failing a jam cycles. Racial Jammers that match your ships sensors, are not affected.
Counter Measures Adjustment: Skill at configuring the ECCM Arrays. Each Level of Skill increases the chance of creating a critical backlash on a hostile Jammer by 2%, effectivly causing it to jam itself. At Level 5 there is a 10% chance that the ECM critically fails and jams itself for a cycle. Requires an active ECCM to work.
Good Idea really, nice thought :)
Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts.
Your signature is too large. Please resize it to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Mitnal |
Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express Burning Horizons
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 08:07:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 26/03/2009 16:44:15
Originally by: Mecinia Lua At 200km you could pick a Falcon off with a sniping Amarr Battleship and destroy it in short order.
Honestly asking here...
How many sniping battleships do you need to reliably run off a Falcon?
Seems to me if the Falcon sees an Apoc on the field it will get the full force of the Falcon's jams and ECCM or no the Falcon will probably succeed. In the meantime the Apoc, pimped as it is for sniping at extreme ranges and ECCM has crapall for a tank. Falcon's buddies will pummel it into dust ASAP to get their Falcon safe and on to other targets.
So, do you need two battleships fit explicitly for long range to run off one Falcon? Three battleships? What about all the other ECCM support ships mentioned earlier to render the Falcon useless? Now you need 3-4 (or more ships) to reliably fend off a single Falcon? What happens when the enemy gang has more than one Falcon? Seems with relatively few Falcon pilots they can easily make it impractical for any small/med gang to counter (e.g. for every Falcon their opponents need to field 2-3 ships minimum).
The problem with Falcons is that they seem to be the "must have" ship for most roaming gangs these days. You just do not leave home without them if you can at all manage it. When any ship (or setup such as nanoes once were) becomes a default in EVE something is messed up. When the best counter for a Falcon is another Falcon (or nanoships another nanoship) something is amiss in the balance of EVE.
I am not saying what adjustments are best here but arguing that is certainly looks like some adjustment is necessary.
Ideally you'd use a bait ship that the falcon jams then warp the Apoc or other sniper in and kill the falcon, an Arazu or Rapier could do it too if they can get on top of the falcon.
Other than that the apoc only needs a few shots. If it fits a couple of mid eccm boosters it can probably get them if it remembers to turn them on ;)
Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts.
Your signature is too large. Please resize it to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Mitnal |
Spurty
Caldari Amok. Minor Threat.
|
Posted - 2009.03.27 10:55:00 -
[30]
asking questions as i can not find the answer:
- Does one falcon's jam attempt stack with the other one or two that tend to be there as well or does each one have to individually have to beat the strength of the ship they are jamming?
Personally, find it daft to nerf down, bring all other recons up, inline with falcon, 200km range points, webs, nuets and damps sounds way more fun :)
Originally by: Butter Dog
I think you'll find that 10 seconds > 1 month
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |