|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 10 post(s) |
isdisco3
Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture
|
Posted - 2009.04.03 18:49:00 -
[1]
Edited by: isdisco3 on 03/04/2009 18:50:19 These changes are not enough, not nearly. All you're saying is that falcons will have to move from 200km to 100 (minimum, as you said its w/out SDA's or rigs), and they're still going to be able to jam an ECCM'd battleship without any problem. Except they'll be doing it from 100 (minimum) and plinking it with railguns for added annoyance. Falcons won't come in close because their tank will remain their range; if they come in close, even while perma-jamming their enemies (which they're going to be able to do, just as now, very very easily), all they have to do is put out drones which auto-aggro and kill said falcon.
tl;dr the changes only change the range at which falcons will be jamming everyone on the field. they'll still be jamming everything, they'll still be overpowered, they're just going to be doing it at 100 instead of 150.
Also, I think the changes are being mis-marketed. It's not a nerf. Given how the falcon's primary role in eve is to annoy the sh*t out of every player they come up against, allowing falcons to put dps on them as well makes them even more obnoxious.
I do think the changes to the scorp are good though. Makes more sense for it to be long-range.
Please resize your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Navigator
|
isdisco3
Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture
|
Posted - 2009.04.03 21:39:00 -
[2]
Guess my sarcasm was a bit too subtle :P
Of course its a nerf, but its not enough of one. It should have either a range or a strength bonus, having both is bad. All the other cloaking recons (rapier, razu, pilgrim) have two bonuses but in different areas - it would be as if the rapier got a bonus to web range and web strength per level. It's overpowering.
And only a moron could say "fit ECCM, get over it" as if that's the solution. I've been perma-jammed by falcons in my bs with an overheated ECCM before. That's not game complexity, that's just dumb. Whenever it gets to the point of "you can't go out in a gang without xxx ship," there's something wrong with how balancing is working. And the proposed changes at the moment will still make falcons perma-jam me, but a little closer, and maybe with dps (which they won't use).
tl;dr give falcon either a strength or range bonus, don't give it both.
Please resize your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Navigator
|
isdisco3
Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture
|
Posted - 2009.04.08 14:26:00 -
[3]
We must remember that none of the other recons actually take away dps from opposing targets. The rapier slows them down (marginally), the arazu slows them down (if they use mwd), the pilgrim / curse takes away their cap, but the falcon actually eliminates dps.
I don't think the range nerf is enough. The falcon will still be able to permajam people very easily. All we can do now, instead of being permajammed at 180 and cursing the game, is be permajammed at 50 and hope our drones auto-aggress the jammer. It's still going to be superbly annoying, and falcons will still be able to completely eliminate dps from the targets.
|
isdisco3
Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture
|
Posted - 2009.04.08 14:55:00 -
[4]
Continuing, i think the change to optimal and falloff is ideal. However I think we should shoot for a minmatar-style optimal / falloff relationship where the falloff is 2-3x greater than a small optimal (15-20k).
For example, I just (about 3 minutes ago) got out of a fight. In this fight it was me (rapier) and a friend (broadsword) versus 2 bc's and an inty. We attacked, falcon decloaked at 60 and perma-jammed both of us for the entire fight (5 minutes) with no missed cycles. This is the 'future' of what will happen if this nerf is implemented - falcons still crazy strong but doing it from 60 instead of 160. They're still going to be able to completely shut down fights and make them just absurdly annoying to be in.
Reduce the optimal to like 10-20, increase falloff to 60-80, and make it so a falcon on the field is NOT guaranteed jam.
|
isdisco3
Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture
|
Posted - 2009.04.08 17:48:00 -
[5]
Originally by: DNSBLACK
1. You had no ECCM on.
2. You had a fleet that got out matched were is your falcon.
3. moving the falcon in close or far away would not have helped you win the fight you discribed.
4. As a FC and allaince leader i recruit falcon pilots cause I realize the impartance of EWAR.
Juast my thought on your engagment.
All true points. However, I would say that no gang should be forced to have a falcon to counter other falcons (who wants to have a mandatory ship in any gang?). Furthermore, your point #3 re-enforces my point that the proposed nerf here will be insufficient and that a falcon at 60 will still be able to permajam 2+ ships with little or no problem.
|
isdisco3
Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture
|
Posted - 2009.04.08 19:16:00 -
[6]
Edited by: isdisco3 on 08/04/2009 19:17:34
Originally by: DNSBLACK
falcon stuff
The point of my example was not to get pointers on how to roam, but simply to illustrate that a falcon at 60 is just as strong jammer-wise as a falcon at 180. In a small-gang situation, they are still going to completely take members out of the fight with impunity.
I've flown in many ECCM'd battleships (and overheated them, even more often), and have been perma-jammed by falcons before. ECCM is weak, but its only weak because the jamming strength of falcons is overpowering. By making falcon jammers live in falloff, we essentially cut their jamming strength in half; the result is that ECCM will make more of a difference.
I continue to not think that every gang I roam in should have a dedicated anti-falcon pilot. That's a sign right there of how overpowered the ship is. I don't fly around with a dedicated anti-rapier ship, or an anti-curse ship, or an anti-anything ship. I fly around in ships that handle a wide range of situations. Furthermore, the thought that 'you should bring something to counter it' would encourage blobbing, because it requires multiple ships.
And finally, why should every ship I fly be expected to sacrifice one midslot to counter one overpowered ship?
I still think that making falloff be 60-80 and optimal be 10-20 would be ideal, and even keeping with the 'brawler' role. If they want to ensure jams, they have to be up close and personal. If they want to take a chance, they sit far away, but they do not get guaranteed jams on everything on the field.
|
isdisco3
Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture
|
Posted - 2009.04.08 19:19:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Smooth Kitty
sounds like you got beat by someone smarter then you. Learn from it and do better next time.
Thanks troll, you really contribute to a meaningful discussion on the ship.
|
isdisco3
Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture
|
Posted - 2009.04.08 21:32:00 -
[8]
Edited by: isdisco3 on 08/04/2009 21:34:18 making sensor boosters have a script for ECM still means that every ship you fly will have to have a sensor booster. you're just re-naming the ECCM module, making it mandatory on every setup, and giving it a target res / targeting range option.
it fails to solve the problem that an ECCM'd ship is still extremely likely to be permajammed (a hictor for exmaple only has 13 scan strength, that's the same as 1 individual ECM module on a falcon), and its still likely to be permajammed from an untouchable distance.
we should make the ECM modules have a short (20km) optimal and longer falloff (50-60km) by default, then give the falcon only a bonus to falloff (something around 15% per level or so) and no bonus for strength. this way a falcon would have optimal of 20 and falloff of 100-120 at lvl5, giving it the option of being far out while shooting but not nearly as overpowering / game-ending as it is now. if a falcon wants a guaranteed jam, the falcon has to come in close and actually be in danger.
just making it come in closer and marginally diminishing its strength is not enough.
|
isdisco3
Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture
|
Posted - 2009.04.09 00:09:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Esmenet
Aww someone got ganked by a gang with a falcon.
I refuse to pay you 3 cents to cross the bridge, troll.
|
isdisco3
Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture
|
Posted - 2009.04.09 19:16:00 -
[10]
My hictor example was solely to illustrate a point, which was to show that making the falcon come in from 180 to 80 won't diminish its ability to permajam multiple ships pretty much at will.
i continue to argue that the best solution is to make ecm have a short optimal (20km) and a longer falloff (60-80km), and give the falcon a bonus ONLY to falloff range, not strength. Rapiers get a bonus to web range but not web strength, razu's get a bonus to scram range but not scram strength, pilgrims get a bonus to neut / nos strength but not range. there's no reason the falcon should be the only recon getting dual bonus to its specialized module.
|
|
isdisco3
Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture
|
Posted - 2009.04.10 01:57:00 -
[11]
Edited by: isdisco3 on 10/04/2009 01:58:19 Edited by: isdisco3 on 10/04/2009 01:58:06
Originally by: DiseL
stuff
I said 'to its primary ewar.' Giving the falcon a bonus to another type of ewar would be perfectly acceptable. The falcon having a bonus to range and strength is contrary to how all other recons work.
Originally by: DelboyTrotter
Tell you what, you can have the Rapiers TP bonus on the falcon, and give the rapiers webs a 100km range and give them a 90% chance of reducing any ships speed to 0km/s instantly for 20 seconds. Then we can fit rapiers with 4 webs and a sensor booster, and lock down 4 different ships form 100km away in complete safely.
QFT.
|
isdisco3
Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture
|
Posted - 2009.04.14 23:22:00 -
[12]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Hi all, a very quick update on the scorpion:
The ECM Optimal and falloff bonus has been increased to 20% per level.
This is a small boost upon what is currently there to allow its operation jamming range to be more effective.
There's been 10 pages of pretty good posts about the falcon since you last posted, and this is all we can get? Please reply to the many good ideas put forth.
|
isdisco3
Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture
|
Posted - 2009.04.16 20:54:00 -
[13]
This 'nerf' is a major boost for falcons in small-gang warfare. I have already been in a fight where a falcon perma-jammed 2 other recons and a hac for about 3-4 minutes, even with one recon being at 80k.
So yeah, mad props CCP, this TOTALLY fixed the falcon/ecm issue.
It won't be more than a week before we see roaming gangs of 5 falcons, able to jam anything on earth and able to jam / cloak / run away whenever they feel like it.
|
isdisco3
Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture
|
Posted - 2009.04.16 21:39:00 -
[14]
Edited by: isdisco3 on 16/04/2009 21:39:24
Originally by: Esmenet
Originally by: isdisco3 This 'nerf' is a major boost for falcons in small-gang warfare.
Not really, but it still works in very small gangs. The nerf just eliminated them for fleet fights and larger gangs were they always worked fine.
Incorrect. It is a major, major boost for falcons in small-gang warfare. They're able to be in close, able to jam 2-3 ships minimum with little difficulty (because of the absurd 30% jam strength per level bonus), and can throw dps on them at the same time.
As I said along, this 'nerf' is completely insufficient. The falcon is going to be even more dominating in a small (say, less than 5 per side) engagements. It's still fully capable of completely neutralizing multiple enemies of the same shipclass, something no other ship can do, with little to no drawback because it can jam its tacklers and GTFO whenever it wants.
It's a terrible change, and whats worse is that now that it's implemented, people will be resistant to more useful changes because "the falcon's already been nerfed."
Yeah, some focus on small-gang pvp.
|
isdisco3
Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 17:09:00 -
[15]
Originally by: ezraniel
Incorrect, the Signal Distortion Amps where adjusted to give range ASWELL as strength so the falcon got a bigger buff to strength to compensate, the strength is the same as pre nerf.
And since the falcon was overpowered pre-nerf (not just due to range, but also due to its overwhelming ability to completely shut down opponents), its still overpowered.
Originally by: ezraniel
Drawback is that you are limited in slots and now that you need to be in close range you need to fit a decent buffer tank, something which'll cost you 2 slots probably if you want anything decent worth a buffer. So you can't do as you say since your jams are restricted and if your out of racial for that type, your out of luck most likely.
Doesn't matter in small-gang situations, because the falcon can still easily perma-jam 2-3 ships. The only solution to a falcon is to bring so many ships that it can't jam them all, or fit a dedicated module to every ship you fly solely to counter 1 over-powered recon. This 'nerf' does nothing to solve the problem.
Originally by: ezraniel
What CCP should've done is made the falcon "top off" at 100 km optimal with a falloff of 30-40. (keep strength as it was) that way the falcons used by pirates would not be viable no more (200km+ Falcons), the 'normal' falcons would be pretty untouched and still be fair, since what is 100 km to cross for a ceptor anyways? its actually only 80 km because of the 20km point, so at the slowest speed I can think of 4km/s it'll take you 20 seconds, and thats not even 1 jam cycle as the falcon tends to have to wait a few secs to lock after decloaking (lag I guess) so a "on-the-ball" ceptor will be able to tackle it, probably long enough for the likes of a vaga to close in and blast it.
I disagree completely, but this is all beside the point.
Falcons are still overpowered in many situations. The only counter to them CONTINUES to be either bringing more ships (so that the falcon can't jam them all) or fitting a dedicated ECCM module, which may or may not work in the first place.
People cannot sit here and actually tell me that a falcon should be able to perma-jam 2 recons and a hac for 4 minutes, and that doing so is somehow balanced gameplay.
|
isdisco3
Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 17:43:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Xira Xarien dumb examples
None of these completely eliminate the opponent's dps and remove them entirely from the fight. Your comparisons are patently bad.
|
isdisco3
Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture
|
Posted - 2009.04.18 20:20:00 -
[17]
Edited by: isdisco3 on 18/04/2009 20:22:30 My point is that this 'nerf' does nothing to change the actual problem with falcons, which is their ability to completely eliminate ships from the fight with little to no danger. In a small-gang situation (3 v 3, for example), a falcon can permajam 2 ships with little to no problem. That's 66% of the opponent's squad that is now relegated to being nothing but damage takers.
The only solution to falcons that works in a small-gang situation is to bring more ships than it can jam, or hope to god you can jam it yourself before it jams you.
Now, you can say 'fit ECCM', but fact is that even with ECCM the odds are quite high that you'll still get jammed. Furthermore, its a bit ridiculous that every ship in the game should be expected to fit one module simply to counter-act the overpowering abilities of one specific ship (the falcon).
In a small-gang situation, all this 'nerf' did was give the falcon dps. Nothing changed with regards to its overpowering capabilities as it completely shuts down entire gangs. In a fleet engagement, this change helps because falcons are now in a more targetable range; but CCP has stated that one of its main goals is to encourage small-gang pvp, and this does absolutely nothing to help that. Furthermore, because this 'nerf' happened, people are going to be against changing the falcon again.
Also, I like how CCP has completely disappeared from this thread in the past 12 pages. They put up a thread, said "what do you think?", ignored pretty much all suggestions, and did what they wanted to do anyway. But they did change the scorp some. So I guess that's something.
</bitter>
Quote: At the optimal range that falcons now have they are vulnerable to damps and most med range weapon systems.
This assumes that the opposing ships are able to target said falcon, which in a small-gang situation, they're not.
|
|
|
|