Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 20 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 10 post(s) |
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 10:50:00 -
[1]
Following on from the previous round of feedback which was very good. I wanted to update you all on the proposed changes to ECM and ECM specialised ships.
The main changes following the first round of feedback are as follows in summary:
1. The base ECM jammer optimal and falloff ranges have been changed so there is a shorter optimal range but longer falloff range which is affected by numerous bonuses.
2. Signal Distortion Amplifiers (low slot ECM enhancers) have been changed to provide a bonus to both ECM strength and range and their bonus changed respectively.
3. Caldari Recon ships (Falcon & Rook) will have their ECM range reduced so they will not be effective at such huge distances any more but will still be much longer range than any of the other recons are capable off. In lieu, they will gain a ECM strength bonus increase and a small damage increase through addition of drone bay and the some additional bonus changes such as heavy missile velocity to increase the range at which they can damage targets as well as being able to jam them.
4. The scorpion will be kept in the role of long range ECM platform useful in the longer range fleet fights. This made more sense as the ship is large and not very agile and is better able with its higher number of slots to reach the required distances. The max range will be the same as before but it will operate more in ECM falloff range now.
Feedback is welcome on these latest changes and as ever, this is not set in stone and things may change following further playtesting and feedback.
|
|
Sidus Isaacs
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 10:55:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Sidus Isaacs on 31/03/2009 10:58:31
Keeping the Scorp as a fleet ECM ship is nice actually. Cheaper then a Falcon.
SDA givng strength bonus is ok as well, kinda, but read below.
But will SDA's still be mandatory like now, and the recons more or less paper thin with no damage mods? After all since ECM is chance based, you should try to increase your chances as much as possible unless you end up with a fail boat that just dies :S. Thats why I liked the inbuilt strenght bonus, and SDA giving range bonus, that gave the ECM ships the ability to be fitted for samll gang, and open up different fittings for them, now they have 1 fittgn that jams from long range, I am affraid now they will have 1 fitting that jams for medium range, and imo that is a bit boring :(.
Or do, i.e. the Rook gain the needed grid to fit guns/launchers?
I would like to see some stats if all possible to give further feedback and satesfy my curriosity ;)
Oh, drone bays are win, nice! :)
|
Vigaz
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 11:00:00 -
[3]
Scorpion ū Widow I donĘt understand why we cannot have the right progression from T1 to T2. Can we have the 5th launcher removed from Widow to get the same ECM optimal bonus of the new Scorpion? After all itĘs the same ship with 800M ISK cloaking feature.
Rook: Rook doesn't need missile velocity bonus ! please consider to add 5 % resistances per level.
|
Haramir Haleths
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 11:07:00 -
[4]
We need more Info on the Widow changes please
|
Spartan dax
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 11:17:00 -
[5]
I'm telling you right now, having SDA's give a range bonus is bad enough but a strength bonus as well?
This will do nothing but weaken the ships and make them stock up more jammers to capitalize on their low slot sacrifice. You will still have hyper specialized ECM ships with 5-6 jammers ****ing people off and making them go cry on the forums. I know I know, that was the direction CCP chose to go almost 3 years ago but it's high time it changed.
It all comes down to fitting strategies, if you give up lows you're going to make sure you get the best use out of them. That, coupled with the fact that the minimum amount of jammers is 4 due to racials and you will always have ECM modules in absurdum fitted to ECM ships. Stop this! Less jammers = less whining.
End ECM ships low slot Sacrifice NOW! |
Robert Caldera
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 11:18:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Robert Caldera on 31/03/2009 11:23:33
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
1. The base ECM jammer optimal and falloff ranges have been changed so there is a shorter optimal range but longer falloff range which is affected by numerous bonuses.
2. Signal Distortion Amplifiers (low slot ECM enhancers) have been changed to provide a bonus to both ECM strength and range and their bonus changed respectively.
3. Caldari Recon ships (Falcon & Rook) will have their ECM range reduced so they will not be effective at such huge distances any more but will still be much longer range than any of the other recons are capable off.
what numbers are we talking about? Are there some defined bonus percentages? |
Antioch Red
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 11:18:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Antioch Red on 31/03/2009 11:19:47 It's difficult to comment in a meaningful way without some numbers to start us off; any chance of providing some please?
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
but will still be much longer range than any of the other recons are capable off.
And what is the reasoning behind ecm having this much longer range? It may be chance based but it's effect is comensurately greater in prportion upon success, so why does it need this longer range? Give all the ew comparable ranges and then you begin to achieve balance. |
Robert Caldera
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 11:18:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Robert Caldera on 31/03/2009 11:23:07
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
1. The base ECM jammer optimal and falloff ranges have been changed so there is a shorter optimal range but longer falloff range which is affected by numerous bonuses.
2. Signal Distortion Amplifiers (low slot ECM enhancers) have been changed to provide a bonus to both ECM strength and range and their bonus changed respectively.
3. Caldari Recon ships (Falcon & Rook) will have their ECM range reduced so they will not be effective at such huge distances any more but will still be much longer range than any of the other recons are capable off.
what numbers are we talking about? Are there some defined bonus percentages? |
TZeer
BURN EDEN
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 11:19:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Vigaz Scorpion ū Widow I donĘt understand why we cannot have the right progression from T1 to T2. Can we have the 5th launcher removed from Widow to get the same ECM optimal bonus of the new Scorpion? After all itĘs the same ship with 800M ISK cloaking feature.
Rook: Rook doesn't need missile velocity bonus ! please consider to add 5 % resistances per level.
What`s the point with a Widow that does the same as the falcon? Just cant warp cloaked.
Take away it`s damage and you are left with a ****ty ship with no real purpose. |
TZeer
BURN EDEN
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 11:23:00 -
[10]
Quote: Signal Distortion Amplifiers (low slot ECM enhancers) have been changed to provide a bonus to both ECM strength and range and their bonus changed respectively.
Any numbers?
And any info on the comming black op changes?
|
|
Marn Prestoc
Minmatar Queens of the Stone Age Rote Kapelle
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 11:28:00 -
[11]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
I prefer the previous idea, was more like mine...
Quote: Kitsune - Frig gangs, can keep a bit of range, around 100km lock range so 4km/s inties arn't on you in under 10 secs like now. Quick lock so should target and have a chance at jamming a bigger ECM ship if in range.
Rook - Best Ranged ECM ship. Offers an additional ECM, some personal defense and a bit more range over a Falcon. 170 Kind of range.
Falcon - Cloaker, around 150 (before ecm range rigs) so not got as many jam chances (1 less mid) as Rook, the range, or personal defence but you do cloak.
Scorpion - Close range ultimate ECM. Best jam chance of the lot, but easy to counter with longer ranged ECM so pilot might have to sacrifice number of ECM for ECCM. Also slowest locking since its a BS so other have chance to jam you first. Decent armour tank and doesn't need sig amps cos of bonus, but can sacrifice tank for ecm strength.
Hence each has it area of control and counter in ECM vs ECM. Smaller ship can jam you before you have a chance. Longer ranged can jam you while you can't reach it. Ultimate strength might have to sacrifice to limit effect of quicker lock+longer range but has slots to do so and does better at jamming stuff it can target+reach.
To me it sounds like your going more back to the: high range+strength ship > med range+strength ship > small range+strength ship. Rather than High range + lower strength / mid range+strength / Low range + High strength. |
Frug
Repo Industries
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 11:29:00 -
[12]
Ugh. The scorpion needed the proposed boost... |
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 11:32:00 -
[13]
SDA gives strength and range. Wow. So it remains a "must-fit" module -- wasn't the whole point to make it optional? Why on earth would anyone ever not fit SDAs in all lows?
Where are the SDA-equivalents for other forms of ewar?
As a whole, this looks even worse than the previous suggestion. In essence, you're changing nothing. Falcons will still be superior to any other recon, there is no reason whatsoever to fly a Rook, and Scorp remains very borderline.
This will not fix the Falcon problem.
The first outline was by far the best one. Every change since, you've gone back towards not actually changing anything that actually matters.
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 11:36:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Frug Ugh. The scorpion needed the proposed boost...
Yes. I was looking forward to actually seeing Scorps in pvp, and I liked the close-range torp ecm brawler idea. Guess that's not to be. Not much reason to fly a scorp now, except maybe in some specific longrange fleet battles. Disappointing.
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 11:38:00 -
[15]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
3. Caldari Recon ships (Falcon & Rook) will have their ECM range reduced so they will not be effective at such huge distances any more but will still be much longer range than any of the other recons are capable off.
This (still) makes no sense. Why is (by far!) the most powerful form of ewar also much longer ranged that the others? Why is the one form of ewar which only works against ranged targets (damps) severely limited in range?
|
Tital
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 11:39:00 -
[16]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis still be much longer range than any of the other recons are capable off.
Token reduction of range with compensation of extra jam strength... There have been so many good suggestions to counter ECM boats and this is the best you guys can come up with? |
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 11:43:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Alex Harumichi on 31/03/2009 11:45:00 Chronotis, why would anyone fly a Rook over a Falcon, with this proposal? Seriously?
Nobody flies Rooks now, and if this goes through nobody will. The problem isn't ECM as such. The problem is the Falcon: it's much, much too good compared to the others (covops cloak is a massive bonus), plain and simple.
Drop Falcon down to close range and things may work out. Let it keep any amount of range, and it will continue to be a problem.
|
Perry
Amarr The X-Trading Company RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 11:44:00 -
[18]
Scorpion as long range Turret based ECM support, please. Add 1 or 2 Turrets and a bit Powergrid for large caliber Railguns, give it hybrid and ecm optimal range bonus and done, perfect Fleet BS.
|
Lindsay Logan
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 11:45:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Alex Harumichi
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
3. Caldari Recon ships (Falcon & Rook) will have their ECM range reduced so they will not be effective at such huge distances any more but will still be much longer range than any of the other recons are capable off.
This (still) makes no sense. Why is (by far!) the most powerful form of ewar also much longer ranged that the others? Why is the one form of ewar which only works against ranged targets (damps) severely limited in range?
Remember that Caldari is supposed to have the best ewar, Caldri got 7 ecm specced ships!
|
Lord Eremet
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 11:46:00 -
[20]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
2. Signal Distortion Amplifiers (low slot ECM enhancers) have been changed to provide a bonus to both ECM strength and range and their bonus changed respectively.
CCP Chronotis, you should scrap SDA's totally or let them only affect range, or any falcon/rook pilot will just fill up all his lows with them and there won't be a difference from how they are used today.
Teach those falcon alts how to fit a <gasp> tank, like the other races recon pilots have to do. Now that would be shocking, wouldn't it?
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
3. Falcon/Rook changes...
You should use those new Rook/Falcon bonuses you had in your first thread. I especially like the new Rook. It will no longer feel ashamed over that it is not a falcon.
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
4. No Scorpion change.
Good that you keep the Scorpion as a fleet ship. But if you nerf/remove SDA's a increase to 20% ECM strenght per level could be in order.
|
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 11:47:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Lindsay Logan
Originally by: Alex Harumichi
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
3. Caldari Recon ships (Falcon & Rook) will have their ECM range reduced so they will not be effective at such huge distances any more but will still be much longer range than any of the other recons are capable off.
This (still) makes no sense. Why is (by far!) the most powerful form of ewar also much longer ranged that the others? Why is the one form of ewar which only works against ranged targets (damps) severely limited in range?
Remember that Caldari is supposed to have the best ewar, Caldri got 7 ecm specced ships!
Still doesn't answer why damps, the one theoretical anti-range and anti-sniper ewar, are crippled with low range (no range bonuses on ships, no modules to add to range).
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 11:47:00 -
[22]
stats overview coming up for the changes in terms of ECM strength and ranges for the ships and modules.
|
|
Gloria Lewis
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 11:48:00 -
[23]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
1. The base ECM jammer optimal and falloff ranges have been changed so there is a shorter optimal range but longer falloff range which is affected by numerous bonuses.
3. Caldari Recon ships (Falcon & Rook) will have their ECM range reduced so they will not be effective at such huge distances any more but will still be much longer range than any of the other recons are capable off.
You are making very small changes to a hugely overpowered mechanic. ECM needs to become a close-range thing, like the web range of a Rapier, otherwise it will always stay as an "instant-win button" in smaller gangs and drastically affect the outcome of larger fleet battles with enough numbers.
The first changes you suggested (removing optimal + falloff bonuses completely) were the best solution but you decided otherwise because of the communitys negative feedback? There was a much bigger opposition when CCP first announced the speed nerf but that went through (and it's a good thing it did)
|
Vigaz
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 11:50:00 -
[24]
Originally by: TZeer
Originally by: Vigaz Scorpion ū Widow I donĘt understand why we cannot have the right progression from T1 to T2. Can we have the 5th launcher removed from Widow to get the same ECM optimal bonus of the new Scorpion? After all itĘs the same ship with 800M ISK cloaking feature.
Rook: Rook doesn't need missile velocity bonus ! please consider to add 5 % resistances per level.
What`s the point with a Widow that does the same as the falcon? Just cant warp cloaked.
Take away it`s damage and you are left with a ****ty ship with no real purpose.
No real purpose? sniper ECM with cloak and no target delay(like a t1 Scorpion but with cloak -> that's the BO field).
Enemy FC: feel free to call my Widow primary... ops it's cloaked. once the battle begin declock and use the surprise effect.
Try on your own to fight at zero with a sub-capital ship of 800-900M value. with less tank then any common t1 BS. The Op is telling us that is better to leave the Scorpion as ECM sniper due to its low agility/DPS etc... so a Milion ISK ship with almost the same attributes should be in the front line? I hope to be in grid for the KM if it will happen.
So at the end, cheaper Scorpion can sit @ 150-200km while high price Widow have to stay into close range?
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 11:52:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Gloria Lewis
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
1. The base ECM jammer optimal and falloff ranges have been changed so there is a shorter optimal range but longer falloff range which is affected by numerous bonuses.
3. Caldari Recon ships (Falcon & Rook) will have their ECM range reduced so they will not be effective at such huge distances any more but will still be much longer range than any of the other recons are capable off.
You are making very small changes to a hugely overpowered mechanic. ECM needs to become a close-range thing, like the web range of a Rapier, otherwise it will always stay as an "instant-win button" in smaller gangs and drastically affect the outcome of larger fleet battles with enough numbers.
The first changes you suggested (removing optimal + falloff bonuses completely) were the best solution
100% agree.
The first set of changes were by far the best ones; i.e. the ones which would actually fix the problem.
For some unknown reason you're now dumped those, and are going to a model which, to be blunt, changes nothing. It will still be Falcons Online, no reason not to fly them over the other recons (and over other ECM ships). Sad.
|
Roemy Schneider
BINFORD
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 11:53:00 -
[26]
* SDAs - have them boost all EW * jammers in-line with other EW optimals+falloff: 30+60. will accept racial base jam strengths of 5 for t2/best named in return -- alternatively, will accept 48+40 for all EW, once SDAs help * if you must add drones.... 20m¦ max - no web drone for these guys! * yes, long range scorp for fleets plz. i have no idea what people were going to do with their meds up close and a virtual 5 launchers... one of those horrible caldari tanks w/o damage? no change there -.- - putting the gist back into logistics |
TZeer
BURN EDEN
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 11:56:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Alex Harumichi
Originally by: Gloria Lewis
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
1. The base ECM jammer optimal and falloff ranges have been changed so there is a shorter optimal range but longer falloff range which is affected by numerous bonuses.
3. Caldari Recon ships (Falcon & Rook) will have their ECM range reduced so they will not be effective at such huge distances any more but will still be much longer range than any of the other recons are capable off.
You are making very small changes to a hugely overpowered mechanic. ECM needs to become a close-range thing, like the web range of a Rapier, otherwise it will always stay as an "instant-win button" in smaller gangs and drastically affect the outcome of larger fleet battles with enough numbers.
The first changes you suggested (removing optimal + falloff bonuses completely) were the best solution
100% agree.
The first set of changes were by far the best ones; i.e. the ones which would actually fix the problem.
For some unknown reason you're now dumped those, and are going to a model which, to be blunt, changes nothing. It will still be Falcons Online, no reason not to fly them over the other recons (and over other ECM ships). Sad.
One simple reason ECM has a longer range then other E-war.
If you activate a damp, web or scram, you know!! what that module will do.
If you activate a jammer, you know what that jammer will do, IF it activates.
|
Vir Hellnamin
Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 12:02:00 -
[28]
Edited by: Vir Hellnamin on 31/03/2009 12:05:14 \o/
No need to train Rook!
(in case you're wondering, no I'm not happy, just went past any sense...) -- "Entering MH means instant death. It's worse than 0.0. Even the asteroids shoot back." - Alex Harumichi [GRD]
|
TZeer
BURN EDEN
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 12:03:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Vigaz
Originally by: TZeer
Originally by: Vigaz Scorpion ū Widow I donĘt understand why we cannot have the right progression from T1 to T2. Can we have the 5th launcher removed from Widow to get the same ECM optimal bonus of the new Scorpion? After all itĘs the same ship with 800M ISK cloaking feature.
Rook: Rook doesn't need missile velocity bonus ! please consider to add 5 % resistances per level.
What`s the point with a Widow that does the same as the falcon? Just cant warp cloaked.
Take away it`s damage and you are left with a ****ty ship with no real purpose.
No real purpose? sniper ECM with cloak and no target delay(like a t1 Scorpion but with cloak -> that's the BO field).
Enemy FC: feel free to call my Widow primary... ops it's cloaked. once the battle begin declock and use the surprise effect.
Try on your own to fight at zero with a sub-capital ship of 800-900M value. with less tank then any common t1 BS. The Op is telling us that is better to leave the Scorpion as ECM sniper due to its low agility/DPS etc... so a Milion ISK ship with almost the same attributes should be in the front line? I hope to be in grid for the KM if it will happen.
So at the end, cheaper Scorpion can sit @ 150-200km while high price Widow have to stay into close range?
If thats the use you can just fit a cloak on the scorpion. And the widow cant warp while cloaked, so it wont be of any surprise.
And in your scenario you are already set up on the gate waiting for someone to come fight. Gatecamping or whatever.
I fly the widow quite often, yes it`s been in some hairy situations, but I have managed to get it out in one piece.
Taking away it`s damage just so it can sit a 150km jamming is waste of a good ship IMO.
And Widow is not a fleet ship. To many variables in action to use it for that, lag is one of them.
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 12:04:00 -
[30]
Originally by: TZeer
One simple reason ECM has a longer range then other E-war.
If you activate a damp, web or scram, you know!! what that module will do.
If you activate a jammer, you know what that jammer will do, IF it activates.
Not a valid argument.
ECM effect is vastly more powerful. That's the reason why there's a random factor, it balances for the fact that the others are much weaker.
Ewar range should be the same(ish) for all. But they aren't, not by a long shot. This is especially galling for damps, since in theory they work specifically to counter ranged stuff... but can't do that in practice, due to weak range.
And you do know that all the other forms of ewar become chance-based too, outside their (small) optimals? Right?
|
|
Young Team
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 12:06:00 -
[31]
These changes bring Falcons within the range of long range snipers, thus removing the only valid whine - that they can operate at 200km+ with impunity.
Now all you gotta do is shoot them. Hell, even locking them should remove them from the battle, at least temporarily.
Thankyouthankyou for keeping the Scorp in its current role. I'm guessing the higher number of slots referred to means that you expect Scorps to use a couple of SDA's in the low slots? Unfortunately this will kill off armor tank Scorps (most used in sniper fleets). Scorps in fleets will have to use most of their midslots for shield tank, leaving no room for jammers.
Scorps are fine it seems to me.
|
Carniflex
Caldari Fallout Research Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 12:07:00 -
[32]
The general idea of this second iteration seems considerably better as general idea than previous iteration. However - Widow and perhaps Kitsune (altho that one is relatively okish in general) might benefit from some additional tweaking.
Kitsune 'problem' is inadequate lokcing range to fully utilize range as defence. As it's lacking range then perhaps small tweak to make it slighly faster with afterburners but not overly fast with mwd.
Widow .. well .. and black ops in general. They have many issues starting with jump range / fuel and ending with their tier 1 counterparts being able to outperform them in actual combat. I think black ops would deserve separate visit where all of them are looked at once instead of just visiting them one by one when their number comes up in change list. In my personal opinion Widow is a bit misplaced as hybrid e-war platform. It would do better as combat platform as cloaking ECM ship role is already filled by Falcon for cheaper. Ie - make it more like Rattlesnake than like Scorpion.
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 12:09:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Young Team These changes bring Falcons within the range of long range snipers, thus removing the only valid whine - that they can operate at 200km+ with impunity.
No, being able to operate from 150km with impunity (much due to covops cloak) is a very valid complaint, and one which this change hardly solves. In lowsec warfare, Falcons sit usually in the 150km ballpark, and there is very little you can do against them except bring more Falcons.
Guess well see that sort of "game balance" continue. Sigh. I had hopes there, for a while.
|
TZeer
BURN EDEN
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 12:14:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Alex Harumichi
Originally by: Young Team These changes bring Falcons within the range of long range snipers, thus removing the only valid whine - that they can operate at 200km+ with impunity.
No, being able to operate from 150km with impunity (much due to covops cloak) is a very valid complaint, and one which this change hardly solves. In lowsec warfare, Falcons sit usually in the 150km ballpark, and there is very little you can do against them except bring more Falcons.
Guess well see that sort of "game balance" continue. Sigh. I had hopes there, for a while.
Stop whining, we dont even know what the maximum theoretical optimum you can get out of the falcon is yet. Wait until we get some hard numbers on the table before we rage more, shall we?
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 12:16:00 -
[35]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Things
Some generic comments:
SDAs must be balanced such that not fitting them is a viable option. If their bonus to ECM strength and range is too good, then no-one will fit anything else, as is currently the case. I preferred the range-only bonus tbh, unless the dual bonus is weak - but even 10% to strength/range may still make it stupid to fit anything other than SDAs.
Scorpion should indeed be kept in the role of cheap disposable fleet BS - meaning effectiveness at range and rails.
Balancing the Falcon and Rook will be tricky - the covops cloak is immensely powerful. It's not enough to just give the Rook some missile DPS, the Rook will probably have to offer some significant ECM strength advantage (via raw ECM strength or ECM range) over a Falcon at a range where its missiles are still useful.
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 12:20:00 -
[36]
Originally by: TZeer
Originally by: Alex Harumichi
Originally by: Young Team These changes bring Falcons within the range of long range snipers, thus removing the only valid whine - that they can operate at 200km+ with impunity.
No, being able to operate from 150km with impunity (much due to covops cloak) is a very valid complaint, and one which this change hardly solves. In lowsec warfare, Falcons sit usually in the 150km ballpark, and there is very little you can do against them except bring more Falcons.
Guess well see that sort of "game balance" continue. Sigh. I had hopes there, for a while.
Stop whining, we dont even know what the maximum theoretical optimum you can get out of the falcon is yet. Wait until we get some hard numbers on the table before we rage more, shall we?
Fair enough .
If the new Falcon ECM optimals are below 100km (with lows full of SDAs factored in), then it might work out. Also needs for the Rook to have some clear advantage. As the thread title says, we need a role for each of the ECM ships, a (real!) reason to fly each of them.
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 12:22:00 -
[37]
Edited by: Alex Harumichi on 31/03/2009 12:23:24
Originally by: Gypsio III
SDAs must be balanced such that not fitting them is a viable option. ... Balancing the Falcon and Rook will be tricky - the covops cloak is immensely powerful.
Both of these points are extremely important to the issue. I get the feeling that the devs don't quite understand just how critical the covops cloak is to the fact that the Falcon is so overpowered. The Rook needs to be much better in order for it to have a role.
|
Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express Burning Horizons
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 12:24:00 -
[38]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Following on from the previous round of feedback which was very good. I wanted to update you all on the proposed changes to ECM and ECM specialised ships.
The main changes following the first round of feedback are as follows in summary:
1. The base ECM jammer optimal and falloff ranges have been changed so there is a shorter optimal range but longer falloff range which is affected by numerous bonuses.
2. Signal Distortion Amplifiers (low slot ECM enhancers) have been changed to provide a bonus to both ECM strength and range and their bonus changed respectively.
3. Caldari Recon ships (Falcon & Rook) will have their ECM range reduced so they will not be effective at such huge distances any more but will still be much longer range than any of the other recons are capable off. In lieu, they will gain a ECM strength bonus increase and a small damage increase through addition of drone bay and the some additional bonus changes such as heavy missile velocity to increase the range at which they can damage targets as well as being able to jam them.
4. The scorpion will be kept in the role of long range ECM platform useful in the longer range fleet fights. This made more sense as the ship is large and not very agile and is better able with its higher number of slots to reach the required distances. The max range will be the same as before but it will operate more in ECM falloff range now.
Feedback is welcome on these latest changes and as ever, this is not set in stone and things may change following further playtesting and feedback.
Good to see the Scorpion stay as it was mostly though it'll be more in falloff.
The SDAs will as I said in the last thread be mandatory no matter what they do since they are the only ECM boosting mod. (It's like most ships that shoot projectiles have gyros, lasers have heat sinks, etc. Whatever gives an edge becomes mandatory)
What about the blackbird?
Falcon and Rook probably will be destroyed more often which is the goal I'm sure. Although I can fly them I never have in game choosing to use the cheaper Blackbirds and Scorpions. The addition of the drones I don't know if would be helpful to them. Considering their somewhat frail tanks I'm not sure they'd last long enough to get much use out of the drones in fleet warfare, though in small gangs it would be more useful.
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 |
Gneeznow
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 12:27:00 -
[39]
these changes still make the falcon very overpowered when it comes to small gang pvp, ECM needs to operate mostly in falloff for the falcon, the rook on the otherhand should get the optimal bonus because at least you can see it coming, the thing that ruins small gang pvp is the falcons ability to pop up out of nowhere because it can warp cloaked.
|
Robert Caldera
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 12:27:00 -
[40]
dont bring the falcons in the fire range of other ships. Falcon is always primary, its nonsense to operate at close range while sitting in a paper plane, which everybody shoots at. Nobody would use such a T2 expensive ship anymore due to the high probability for losing it right after decloaking.
|
|
Mohenna
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 12:30:00 -
[41]
Edited by: Mohenna on 31/03/2009 12:34:16
Originally by: Vigaz Rook doesn't need missile velocity bonus ! please consider to add 5 % resistances per level.
/signed
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 12:32:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Alex Harumichi Edited by: Alex Harumichi on 31/03/2009 12:23:24
Originally by: Gypsio III
SDAs must be balanced such that not fitting them is a viable option. ... Balancing the Falcon and Rook will be tricky - the covops cloak is immensely powerful.
Both of these points are extremely important to the issue. I get the feeling that the devs don't quite understand just how critical the covops cloak is to the fact that the Falcon is so overpowered. The Rook needs to be much better in order for it to have a role.
Of the top of my head, the advantages of the Rook could be:
Much more DPS than Falcon at a range where it's useful (so needs missile velocity bonus). More defence against tacklers (so 25/50 m3 of drones with 25 m3 bandwidth (e.g. Warriors and light ECM drones), whereas Falcon has no drone bay). Faster/more agile/smaller sig. Greater ECM strength/optimal/falloff bonus.
Yeah, there's a lot there, but I think that's the level of stuff necessary to counter the covops cloak. It really is that powerful. But the devil is, as always, in the detail.
|
Myra2007
Shafrak Industries
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 12:37:00 -
[43]
Your first iteration of changes was much better. Now you gradually cave in and it gets worse with every move. Please go back from where you came and stay on course. These changes will not benefit small gang warfare! --
Originally by: Jasper Dark
I agree! Lets go back into caves and lick rocks!
|
Gaia Vita
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 12:47:00 -
[44]
Edited by: Gaia Vita on 31/03/2009 12:49:40
Originally by: Myra2007 Your first iteration of changes was much better. Now you gradually cave in and it gets worse with every move. Please go back from where you came and stay on course. These changes will not benefit small gang warfare!
Agreed. I've seen no serious poster advocating maintaing the current ECM mechanics. WTF are you thinking CCP, was this all an effort to waste everybodies time? Hold on to the original inspiration for the changes.
With defined roles for the Rook and Falcon, and the SDA as an optional rather than compulsory module: the result will be a more varied and interesting battlefield, even if in some way it turns out to be unbalanced. Its what both ECM and ECCM orientated pilots have wanted for longer than i think you realise.
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 12:50:00 -
[45]
I updated the original post with some ECM stat examples which is hopefully enough though shout if you need any more. We will be applying changes to sisi very frequently now based on feedback and sisi so will update when these changes or any others hit sisi.
Re: the scorpion change:
This was a tough call, the close range role would have been great for gang work but combined with the other changes meant there was not a long range variant and the battleship class made more sense to have in this role for fleet warfare despite the cool short range role it could of had.
The widow will remain focused on close range attacks which means it is not inheriting the role of the scorpion and we think that is fine (though yes the black ops as a whole need a little love and they are getting some)
Re: SDAs
Players who want to 'ECM Tank' their ships can do so and gain a range and strength increase however coupled with the ship bonus changes, there should be less need to focus on ECM tanking the ships alone and it is quite easy to come up with setups.
Changes may still happen on these, but we want to see how all the current changes as a whole to ECM jammer range and strength on each of the ships affects the desire to fully 'ECM tank' at the expense of a HP tank.
|
|
TZeer
BURN EDEN
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 12:50:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Alex Harumichi
Originally by: TZeer
Originally by: Alex Harumichi
Originally by: Young Team These changes bring Falcons within the range of long range snipers, thus removing the only valid whine - that they can operate at 200km+ with impunity.
No, being able to operate from 150km with impunity (much due to covops cloak) is a very valid complaint, and one which this change hardly solves. In lowsec warfare, Falcons sit usually in the 150km ballpark, and there is very little you can do against them except bring more Falcons.
Guess well see that sort of "game balance" continue. Sigh. I had hopes there, for a while.
Stop whining, we dont even know what the maximum theoretical optimum you can get out of the falcon is yet. Wait until we get some hard numbers on the table before we rage more, shall we?
Fair enough .
If the new Falcon ECM optimals are below 100km (with lows full of SDAs factored in), then it might work out. Also needs for the Rook to have some clear advantage. As the thread title says, we need a role for each of the ECM ships, a (real!) reason to fly each of them.
Quote: Without any other rigs or modules fitted with max skills, the BZ-5 (caldari jammer) will have an optimal range of 48km and falloff of 53km with a strength of 11.25 to gravimetric. The same bonuses are applied to the Rook.
Quote: Currently, the SDA II will give a 10% ECM optimal range and 10% ECM strength
Are we happy now?
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 12:50:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Robert Caldera Edited by: Robert Caldera on 31/03/2009 12:33:39 dont bring the falcons in the fire range of other ships. Falcon is always primary, its nonsense to operate at close range while sitting in a paper plane, which everybody shoots at.
That's what every single other cloaking recon has to do. Ffs.
Do you really think an Arazu or a Rapier tanks better than a Falcon?
|
Lindsay Logan
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 12:55:00 -
[48]
Edited by: Lindsay Logan on 31/03/2009 12:56:38 Edited by: Lindsay Logan on 31/03/2009 12:55:34 The thing I am concerned about with Caldari ECM is if you make the strenght too low, they will have too littel chance to jam anyhting decently.
Since ECM is the only ECM that do not have a reliable constant effect it can very easily become either overpowerd or underpowerd.
Scorp as fleet ECM is a good thing, tho I am concerned it it has a tad low ECM strenght.
More or less 1/2 of the reason to fly Caldari is the ECM. Really. The other half is superb capitals. (and the snipr Rokh, the rest is mediopcre at best, with a few exception of course like the Onyx, Harpy adn Drake).
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 12:56:00 -
[49]
Originally by: TZeer
Quote: Without any other rigs or modules fitted with max skills, the BZ-5 (caldari jammer) will have an optimal range of 48km and falloff of 53km with a strength of 11.25 to gravimetric. The same bonuses are applied to the Rook.
Quote: Currently, the SDA II will give a 10% ECM optimal range and 10% ECM strength
Are we happy now?
Those numbers actually do sound quite reasonable. So a Falcon would need to either get in pretty close, or operate in falloff. Ok, that could work.
I'm still concerned with the "why would anyone want to fly a Rook over a Falcon?" question, but maybe numbers will clear that up, too. I'd actually be fine with Rook having more ECM range -- IMHO the problem is the old Falcon combo of covops cloak + range. Either one of those, by itself, is potentially ok.
|
Sidus Isaacs
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 13:00:00 -
[50]
Edited by: Sidus Isaacs on 31/03/2009 13:00:34
Originally by: Alex Harumichi
Originally by: TZeer
Quote: Without any other rigs or modules fitted with max skills, the BZ-5 (caldari jammer) will have an optimal range of 48km and falloff of 53km with a strength of 11.25 to gravimetric. The same bonuses are applied to the Rook.
Quote: Currently, the SDA II will give a 10% ECM optimal range and 10% ECM strength
Are we happy now?
Those numbers actually do sound quite reasonable. So a Falcon would need to either get in pretty close, or operate in falloff. Ok, that could work.
I'm still concerned with the "why would anyone want to fly a Rook over a Falcon?" question, but maybe numbers will clear that up, too. I'd actually be fine with Rook having more ECM range -- IMHO the problem is the old Falcon combo of covops cloak + range. Either one of those, by itself, is potentially ok.
As for Rook over Falcon. Currently if it do not get a decent grib boost there is no reason.
The Rook could be a pretty nice close range ECM ship if it had grid to fit a MWD+Buffer+HAMs (or a full rack of HML).
Currently it lacks in that department, and I see no use to use it ever :(. With the new changes it might be better, but still some stats are missing so I can not comment on it 100% yet.
Make Rook something like the Curse, a close range ship more suited for samll engagements and low sec romaing.
But herein lies a problem as well, with SDA now giving bonuses to stenght again, 3 of them is mandatroy (really, it is!), so no other low slots for damage or tanking. :(
|
|
Mila Prestoc
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 13:00:00 -
[51]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis I updated the original post with some ECM stat examples which is hopefully enough though shout if you need any more. We will be applying changes to sisi very frequently now based on feedback and sisi so will update when these changes or any others hit sisi.
Re: the scorpion change:
This was a tough call, the close range role would have been great for gang work but combined with the other changes meant there was not a long range variant and the battleship class made more sense to have in this role for fleet warfare despite the cool short range role it could of had.
The widow will remain focused on close range attacks which means it is not inheriting the role of the scorpion and we think that is fine (though yes the black ops as a whole need a little love and they are getting some)
Re: SDAs
Players who want to 'ECM Tank' their ships can do so and gain a range and strength increase however coupled with the ship bonus changes, there should be less need to focus on ECM tanking the ships alone and it is quite easy to come up with setups.
Changes may still happen on these, but we want to see how all the current changes as a whole to ECM jammer range and strength on each of the ships affects the desire to fully 'ECM tank' at the expense of a HP tank.
Make the Rook the long range ECM ship, hence vastly different and well compensated for lack of cloak compared to the Falcon.
Shoe horning a big, slow BS with its long lock times (unless filling ECM slot with sensor boosters to get range + lock speed) is not the answer.
SDAs at 10% and 10% will still be a must fit mod, where with only the range bonus you don't have to fit them, like say when in a RR gang with a Scorp so jamming up close. -------------------------
Originally by: "Lord Violent" EvE is slowly becoming a game for the stupid, catered to by devs as they lack ability to kill/survive anything.
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 13:04:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Mila Prestoc
Make the Rook the long range ECM ship, hence vastly different and well compensated for lack of cloak compared to the Falcon.
This would be my choice, too. Make Rook the ranged ECM platform (also capable of fleet ranges).
Revisit the idea of making the Scorp a closer-range brawler. It has the capability of fitting enough tank to actually survive for a while, especially in lowsec small-gang warfare, with RR... and what the Caldari actually lack at the moment is a ship that can combine ECM with dps. The Scorp is the ideal candidate for that.
Also, making Rook the longrange platform gives it a clear role over the Falcon.
|
Gloria Lewis
Caldari lolpatrol B-D
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 13:05:00 -
[53]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
This was a tough call, the close range role would have been great for gang work but combined with the other changes meant there was not a long range variant and the battleship class made more sense to have in this role for fleet warfare despite the cool short range role it could of had.
There doesn't have to be a long range variant
|
Dee Carson
Caldari Seppuku Warriors
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 13:11:00 -
[54]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Without any other rigs or modules fitted with max skills, the BZ-5 (caldari jammer) will have an optimal range of 48km and falloff of 53km with a strength of 11.25 to gravimetric. The same bonuses are applied to the Rook.
Chronotis:
Can you please provide the detail base ship + bonus info and base module stats used to derive these items?
Thanks, DC
http://deecarson.blogspot.com/ |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 13:11:00 -
[55]
Thanks for the update.
But I'm still concerned that, even at 10% range/strength, SDAs are essential mods. And, as far as I can tell, the Falcon has the same strength and range bonuses as the Rook, making the Rook pointless. The Rook must have advantages in ECM range/strength to counter the covops cloak.
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 13:15:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Gypsio III Thanks for the update.
But I'm still concerned that, even at 10% range/strength, SDAs are essential mods. And, as far as I can tell, the Falcon has the same strength and range bonuses as the Rook, making the Rook pointless. The Rook must have advantages in ECM range/strength to counter the covops cloak.
Yeah. To reiterate what I said above: make the Rook the ranged platform. That gives it a clear role that is distinct from the Falcon (choose either cloak or range, not both). Give it plenty of range, but maybe a bit less strength. Make it usable in fleet combat, if fitted all-out for range.
As long as the Rook is "sort of like the Falcon, except without cloak", nobody will fly it. The cloaking ability is Just. That. Good. combined with ECM.
|
Team Dresch
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 13:17:00 -
[57]
So what does that make the optimal and falloff on a Falcon as they are currently fit - SDA II x 3, Sensor Booster w/Targeting range and 2x ECM range rigs?
|
Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 13:18:00 -
[58]
Any thought on removing the ECM Burst activation limit for the Scorpion? This would give the Scorpion a close range role, especially against spider tanks. -------- Ideas for: Mining
|
Vigaz
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 13:19:00 -
[59]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Without any other rigs or modules fitted with max skills, the BZ-5 (caldari jammer) will have an optimal range of 48km and falloff of 53km with a strength of 11.25 to gravimetric. The same bonuses are applied to the Rook.
48km optimal range + 53km falloff and you think that Rook needs missile velocity bonus to reach 120/130km? Why? if u want to stay into the limit of falloff (so why flying a Rook and not a Falcon?) you need just to add 1 rig to reach 100Km with Rook.
Can someone explain me the reason for a drone bay (short range) and a missile velocity bonus (long range) at the same time? To protect the Rook against inty is a no-sense. (a ceptor has 8-14 points... just use a racial/multi jammer, problem solved @ 90% at the first cycle).
|
Young Team
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 13:26:00 -
[60]
Would it be fully insane to make the give the Rook enough tank and DPS to be a (gasp) Caldari solo-boat? (Probe, warp in, point, jam, DPS) Maybe give it rails instead of missiles even?
|
|
TZeer
BURN EDEN
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 13:26:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Team Dresch So what does that make the optimal and falloff on a Falcon as they are currently fit - SDA II x 3, Sensor Booster w/Targeting range and 2x ECM range rigs?
Below 100km.
2xECM range rigs will be useless with 3xSDA cause of stacking
|
Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 13:55:00 -
[62]
stealth bomber nerf and another ECM nerf incomming ... glad my subscription ends today ... don't have to get angry about the idiotic proposals here ... --- SIG --- CSM: your support is needed ! |
quik90
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 14:00:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Alex Harumichi
Originally by: Gypsio III Thanks for the update.
The Rook must have advantages in ECM range/strength to counter the covops cloak.
Absolutely. Personally I would prefer to see the Rook with a range advantage over the Falcon, making it suitable for both fleet and small gang combat. This will bestow the Rook with a versatility advantage over both the Falcon and the Scorpion, giving pilots a real reason to fly it.
A range bonus on the combat recon variant has been the only effective balancing factor against the force recon's covert cloak which has so far been employed. I'm thinking of the Curse here: the only popular combat recon. Perhaps, the same bonus could later be applied to the Lachesis and Huggin. What combat recons they lack in stealth they make up for with more projectable EW systems. Force recons use their stealth systems to get closer to their targets before engaging.
The higher dps combat recons put out with a greater number of high slots currently cannot be justify forfitting a covert cloak. A recon's strength has always been in its EW systems not in its damage output, so this is where the distiction between variants should be.
|
Young Team
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 14:08:00 -
[64]
Originally by: TZeer
Originally by: Team Dresch So what does that make the optimal and falloff on a Falcon as they are currently fit - SDA II x 3, Sensor Booster w/Targeting range and 2x ECM range rigs?
Below 100km.
2xECM range rigs will be useless with 3xSDA cause of stacking
I'm guessing most folks already have at least one ECM range rig attached to their Falcons, probably two.
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 14:08:00 -
[65]
Edited by: Alex Harumichi on 31/03/2009 14:10:45
Originally by: quik90
A range bonus on the combat recon variant has been the only effective balancing factor against the force recon's covert cloak which has so far been employed. I'm thinking of the Curse here: the only popular combat recon. Perhaps, the same bonus could later be applied to the Lachesis and Huggin. What combat recons they lack in stealth they make up for with more projectable EW systems. Force recons should use their stealth systems to get closer to their targets before engaging.
That's a good point. Making a general tweak across the board with the cloaking recons being more close-range and the non-cloaking ones having more range would make all sorts of sense. It works for the Pilgrim/Curse pair pretty well.
So give Rook, Lachesis and Huginn some range love (and balance other stats to compensate). Keep Falcon close-range as in the current proposal -- Arazu & Rapier already are.
(here I use "close-range" to mean ewar optimals in the 40-60km ballpark).
That would give a clear role to all the recons. Choose cloak. Or choose range. Not both.
|
Robert Caldera
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 14:22:00 -
[66]
Edited by: Robert Caldera on 31/03/2009 14:27:42 Edited by: Robert Caldera on 31/03/2009 14:26:57 well, with the shorter range the falcon gets unusable for fleet fights, but at least its still a good option for small scale PvP due to its increased ECM strength. I could live with that... thanks for not nerfing the falcon to death.
The only thing I wish would be 4 launcher or 4 rails (prefered) slots for defence(HAM or HM).
|
Relyen
Caldari Heavy Influence
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 14:23:00 -
[67]
Bringing both recons in so close, is pretty much suicide. They are already the primary of any gang that is in range. If they pop right in the middle of combat, they will instantly die (most of the time).
So, this reduces the desire quite greatly for people to take a 100-150mil isk ship with no insurance. As they will be effective in any decently sized gangs for about 1 minute before they go pop. Sure in a 4vs4 they'd be fine, but in a 30vs30 they would die fast. ________________________________
I am own. |
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 14:41:00 -
[68]
Edited by: Alex Harumichi on 31/03/2009 14:42:08
Originally by: Relyen Bringing both recons in so close, is pretty much suicide. They are already the primary of any gang that is in range. If they pop right in the middle of combat, they will instantly die (most of the time).
Funny enough, all the other recons need to operate in that close range, too. Guess what? They fit tank. Like the Falcon needs to do. Those lowslots? Use them.
Falcon pilots just need to get used to the same risks other recon pilots run all the time.
|
quik90
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 14:49:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Relyen Bringing both recons in so close, is pretty much suicide. They are already the primary of any gang that is in range. If they pop right in the middle of combat, they will instantly die (most of the time).
Not necessarily, in fact it should create an interesting dynamic which will reduce both the effectiveness of ECM boats and their value as a primary target.
Being forced close will generate a requirement for non-suicidal pilots to fit some sort of tank (buffer or speed) like the other recons and maybe some tackling gear. This in turn will leave room for fewer jammers (2-4 i imagine), reducng their jamming effectiveness. Will ECM boats which only have a moderate chance of jamming one ship really justify being primaried over for example a damping/webbing/neutralizing recon or a high dps HIC? Its all starting to balance nicely imo.
Falcon nerf whiners: you really should divorse yourselves from you ship preference, this is a balancing issue. The possibility of not "always being primary", should make you realize that not all reductions in effectiveness are negative.
|
something somethingdark
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 14:50:00 -
[70]
eh ....
2 questions
1) why would i fly a rook 2) why would i fly a widow
wink wink nudge nudge get back to me
|
|
Glen Morange
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 14:52:00 -
[71]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis ... 3. Caldari Recon ships (Falcon & Rook) will have their ECM range reduced so they will not be effective at such huge distances any more but will still be much longer range than any of the other recons are capable off. In lieu, they will gain a ECM strength bonus increase and a small damage increase through addition of drone bay and the some additional bonus changes such as heavy missile velocity to increase the range at which they can damage targets as well as being able to jam them.
Without any other rigs or modules fitted with max skills, the BZ-5 (caldari jammer) will have an optimal range of 48km and falloff of 53km with a strength of 11.25 to gravimetric. The same bonuses are applied to the Rook.
This puts the falcon and rook into the dead zone, with no tank, no resistances bonus to armor, and no point for anything _other_ than ganking lone ships. No fleet combat will be viable with this range, as you aren't in range of remote rep, nor are you able to withstand anything more than a bs alpha (and only 3 BC vollies). So why would I bother pulling an 80+ million isk ship out of my hanger if my only choice is to go pirate with it.
Quote:
4. The scorpion will be kept in the role of long range ECM platform useful in the longer range fleet fights. This made more sense as the ship is large and not very agile and is better able with its higher number of slots to reach the required distances. The max range will be the same as before but it will operate more in ECM falloff range now.
The scorpion with max skills and a BZ-5 (caldari racial jammer) will have a optimal range of 72km and a Falloff range of 80km with a ECM strength of 7.875 without any other modules or rigs fitted.
Feedback is welcome on these latest changes and as ever, this is not set in stone and things may change following further playtesting and feedback.
Again, this either forces the ship into close up (high damage taken, in case you forgot about the blasters vs rails tradeoff) combat without a significant tank (lol for an enforced armor tank on a boat without significant lows) or large enough range to live within the remote rep cloud (without fitting SDAs in all the low slots, and rigging for ).
I have to say that if these changes go live I will be very tempted to close out my accounts, as I apparently chose the wrong race when I was going through the character creation screen, and I honestly am not terribly fond of the idea of another 6 months of training to get into decent pvp ships.
|
Glen Morange
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 15:06:00 -
[72]
Edited by: Glen Morange on 31/03/2009 15:07:17 double post
|
musgrattio
H A V O C Minor Threat.
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 15:10:00 -
[73]
CCP... I think we were all hoping that while nerfing the Falcon, you would boost the Rook. First, this isn't a big nerf at all to the Falcon, if it has the same strength as a Rook. Second, the Rook will still be a horrible ship, even with missile velocity. It's like taking the Scorpion, and adding a missile velocity bonus, and telling us you've fixed the ship. NO.
Give the Rook 1 strength and 1 tanking bonus, as well as a drone bay.
Give the Falcon a lower strength bonus, and a falloff bonus.
After that, do whatever you want. That's definitely a nerf for the Falcon, but the Rook is still an unviable ship. Make it worth flying, please.
|
AngryMax
Gallente Executable Inc
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 15:12:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Glen Morange
This puts the falcon and rook into the dead zone, with no tank, no resistances bonus to armor, and no point for anything _other_ than ganking lone ships. No fleet combat will be viable with this range, as you aren't in range of remote rep, nor are you able to withstand anything more than a bs alpha (and only 3 BC vollies). So why would I bother pulling an 80+ million isk ship out of my hanger if my only choice is to go pirate with it.
Yep, welcome to the life of Arazu pirate. Bring a 100+ mil isk recon ship that you trained months for to shut out ONE battleship as your small gang jumps into a medium blob. Then pray that their ceptor doesnt lock you and get into sub 2km orbit killing you in seconds.
Originally by: Glen Morange Again, this either forces the ship into close up (high damage taken, in case you forgot about the blasters vs rails tradeoff) combat without a significant tank (lol for an enforced armor tank on a boat without significant lows) or large enough range to live within the remote rep cloud (without fitting SDAs in all the low slots, and rigging for ).
I have to say that if these changes go live I will be very tempted to close out my accounts, as I apparently chose the wrong race when I was going through the character creation screen, and I honestly am not terribly fond of the idea of another 6 months of training to get into decent pvp ships.
What we have had in last year and a half is a steady march towards the flat middle ground where everything is about the same... and you fly specialized (aka worthless) expensive pieces of junk that no one but the confused fly anymore.
Falcon now joins the long line of castrated T2 hulls... along with Ishtar, Arazu, EOS, Curse... and these are just the ones i have experience with. I feel for you Caldari guys, it can't feel good having the last inch of your testicular fortitude chopped off.
p.s. I am still coping with the post-bordem of the nano nerf.
|
Young Team
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 15:13:00 -
[75]
An average, level 4 skilled Falcon pilot is going to be stuck with an optimal of around 55-60km.
At that range he'll be so busy dealing with the hordes of intys MWD'ing towards him that he'll have no time to jam anything else in the enemy fleet.
A Max skilled Scorp pilot with two range rigs would get an optimal of 100km, right? He won't be hanging with the other snipers BS out at 160km in a fleet fight any more.
As it stands you're leaving Caldari with only one Sniper fleet ship - the Rokh. Combined with the strength nerf, surely putting Caldari ECM within sniper range is enough to balance things?
Range is pretty much all Caldari have :)
Let the Scorpion optimal at 170km (with a range fit and level 4 skils). Let the Falcon optimal at 120km (with a range fit and level 4 skils). Let the Rook optimal at 70km, but make it a bit meaner.
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 15:22:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Young Team An average, level 4 skilled Falcon pilot is going to be stuck with an optimal of around 55-60km.
At that range he'll be so busy dealing with the hordes of intys MWD'ing towards him that he'll have no time to jam anything else in the enemy fleet.
If the enemy fleet really does have a "horde of inties", then good for them. And in that case, yes, the Falcon needs to use all its ECM on the inties, neutralizing them (they'll be permajammed, due to sensor str).
Do you actually think it's a problem that the enemy needs to use 4-5 ships to neutralize your one ship, in that scenario?
|
Uzume Ame
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 15:27:00 -
[77]
Please make the Rook usefull!!!!
My fav suggestion for an usefull Rook is close range DPS/tank boat, with dronebay and missile damage bonus + some tanking. And leaving the scorp as fleet ship is a good decission (its able to fit fit some tank and withstand some damage), but if you decided to make the Rook short range recon it would be a good idea going with the scorp intial proposed changes (I actually liked the idea).
Either way make the Rook usefull, Curse i.e.?
|
Gloria Lewis
Caldari lolpatrol B-D
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 15:33:00 -
[78]
Originally by: quik90
Not necessarily, in fact it should create an interesting dynamic which will reduce both the effectiveness of ECM boats and their value as a primary target.
Being forced close will generate a requirement for non-suicidal pilots to fit some sort of tank (buffer or speed) like the other recons and maybe some tackling gear. This in turn will leave room for fewer jammers (2-4 i imagine), reducng their jamming effectiveness. Will ECM boats which only have a high chance of jamming one ship, small chance of two, really justify being primaried over for example a damping/webbing/neutralizing recon or a high dps HAC which are guaranteed incapacitate or shortly destroy a ship? Its all starting to balance nicely imo.
This post has excellent points that bear repeating. When your falcon gets nerfed, it's no longer overpowered nor a juicy primary.
|
Vina
Caldari Destructive Influence KenZoku
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 15:34:00 -
[79]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis I updated the original post with some ECM stat examples which is hopefully enough though shout if you need any more. We will be applying changes to sisi very frequently now based on feedback and sisi so will update when these changes or any others hit sisi.
Re: the scorpion change:
This was a tough call, the close range role would have been great for gang work but combined with the other changes meant there was not a long range variant and the battleship class made more sense to have in this role for fleet warfare despite the cool short range role it could of had.
The widow will remain focused on close range attacks which means it is not inheriting the role of the scorpion and we think that is fine (though yes the black ops as a whole need a little love and they are getting some)
Re: SDAs
Players who want to 'ECM Tank' their ships can do so and gain a range and strength increase however coupled with the ship bonus changes, there should be less need to focus on ECM tanking the ships alone and it is quite easy to come up with setups.
Changes may still happen on these, but we want to see how all the current changes as a whole to ECM jammer range and strength on each of the ships affects the desire to fully 'ECM tank' at the expense of a HP tank.
widow needs a big cpu increase so that it can use torps instead of cruise. I never understood why the widow was designed to use cruise (233km range) but does not have an ECM range bonus (ecm range is about 80km with multispecs.) How does this make any sense? -----------------------------------
|
Yunaka Vicc
Fremen Sietch White Noise.
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 15:35:00 -
[80]
Will jammer overload mechanics be changed?
|
|
Gaia Vita
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 15:45:00 -
[81]
Edited by: Gaia Vita on 31/03/2009 15:46:08
Originally by: Uzume Ame Please make the Rook usefull!!!!
My fav suggestion for an usefull Rook is close range DPS/tank boat, with dronebay and missile damage bonus + some tanking. And leaving the scorp as fleet ship is a good decission (its able to fit fit some tank and withstand some damage), but if you decided to make the Rook short range recon it would be a good idea going with the scorp intial proposed changes (I actually liked the idea).
Either way make the Rook usefull, Curse i.e.?
FFS will people stop suggesting this! How can the Rook ever be balanced with the Falcon if it can't fit a covert cloak AND has to fight at closer range. It is the Falcon that should be forced into close range to counter and make use of its cloaking advantage. The "Curse i.e." you mention has a neut/nos RANGE advantage over the Pilgrim, which is what makes it more "useful" in certain situations, and would do the same for the Rook.
It is crazy suggestions like this that led the developers astray from their originally positive proposals for change.
|
Carniflex
Caldari Fallout Research Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 15:54:00 -
[82]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
The scorpion with max skills and a BZ-5 (caldari racial jammer) will have a optimal range of 72km and a Falloff range of 80km with a ECM strength of 7.875 without any other modules or rigs fitted.
Fair enough. This will mean that pilots who have spezialized in it can reach lower edge of normal fleet engagement range with outer edge of falloff with one SDA (159 km). Altho with Caldary BS 5 trained it's tough decision if one would bring Rokh or Scorpion for that fleet fight.
With targets being in falloff area 'effective' strenght will be then approx 4 points against racial target (with 1x SDA) resulting in approx 25% propability of getting off jam against proper battleship target. Cosidering that fleet scorpion has usually 6 jammers it will mean at first glance (without doing proper calculation atm) that one Scorpion will be able to negate 1.5 opposing battleships.
Current 'regular' Scorpion range is 180 km (and that is also currently in falloff) in fleet (ie MWD + booster + 6x ECM).
Have not looked at guns ... can T2 425 mm rails with spike reach those ranges without ship bonuses to range ? I kinda doubt, but if they can Scoprion would be kinda okish - altho in real situation it would prolly not matter as he does not have mids nor lows to spare for gun range enchanting mods.
|
russkinnor
Caldari Failed Diplomacy
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 16:05:00 -
[83]
As a full time Falcon Pilot, in my opinion, taking range away from the Falcon might as well be signing a death warrant for it. I do however understand the frustration that many people have with the ship being used against them. Most of the people that will complain are the people who have never spent any real time flying a falcon, who dont know where it works and where it doesnt or just arent prepared for it.
The Falcon is not a solo boat, it is a support vessel. In my opinion it is best used in small fleet engagements and typically is a wildcard. In fleets that are supporting armor tanking ships, most prepared PVP pilots have 1 or 2 mid slot ECCM rendering Falcon support sketchy at best. EW to me is more blind luck in certain combats, hoping for that magic roll of the dice to knock out a key ships guns. I personally have gone into combats where the prepared pilots made me feel useless. Overloaded, Strengthed out Jammers just cycling with 1 maybe 2 jams getting off out of the whole combat. Yet, I digress.
Giving the falcon a tank vs. range is not applicable in any case. If a Falcon is in scram range, its dead unless you have the correct support for it. There are many ways to defeat a Falcon. 1. ECCM 2. Sniping Ships 3. Your own ECM ships in fleet 4. Support Ships/Remote ECCM 5. Ceptors/Fast closing ships(once they get on top of you, short range jamming seems to hit alot less.)
Those of you that are talking about range of the other Recons vs the Falcon lets touch on that.
Rapier(can tank and produce dps) vs. Falcon (Can ECM tank or Shield Tank and not DPS) much less it has a totally different role, its basically a tackling Recon.
Arazu (Can DPS with drones and Sensor Damp) vs. Falcon(See above) Again, totally different role, tackle plus a limited form of EW. Still easy to counter a Falcon with, get in your range under cloak and damp him. If he is already cycling on your fleet he might not get a jam on you, or he warps.
Seriously you cant really compare these ships as if they are all the same.
CCP Chronotis, I appreciate the work you all are doing in trying to find a true way to Niche the EW ships, I really do. However that being said I implore you and the Dev team to really take a hard look at what the Falcon does best, ECM at long ranges with light armor and even lighter weaponry. I enjoy that aspect of the ship. To me its like chess, needing to keep 1 step ahead of the opponent or adapt quickly before checkmate.
Oh and if you would be interested in doing some testing or suggestions with the Black Ops in general, please let me know id be happy to volunteer some time to help make those ships more appealing. Till then, ill fly my Widow anyway. :)
Russ
|
Winterreign
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 16:09:00 -
[84]
Not happy with loosing the Scorpion changes.
Scorp is the only battleship with out a damage mod or Rof bonus out of all the battleships in eve.
Sure jamming is ok, but the orginal ECM idea 20% jamming str, no optimal range bonus and the 5% ROF was an amazing.
Essentialy your just making a T1 battleship only for pvp -BA
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 16:36:00 -
[85]
Originally by: Carniflex
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
The scorpion with max skills and a BZ-5 (caldari racial jammer) will have a optimal range of 72km and a Falloff range of 80km with a ECM strength of 7.875 without any other modules or rigs fitted.
Fair enough. This will mean that pilots who have spezialized in it can reach lower edge of normal fleet engagement range with outer edge of falloff with one SDA (159 km). Altho with Caldary BS 5 trained it's tough decision if one would bring Rokh or Scorpion for that fleet fight.
Don't forget the possibility of also bringing a mindlinked Eos with ECM optimal range + ECM strength gang modules. While quite rare nowadays, with the reduced optimals they might just become a nice force multiplier for your ranged ECM.
Hmmm, Falcon nerf a (small) Eos boost. Who knew?
|
Cassius Longinus
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 16:40:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Alex Harumichi
Pule
You are killing me.
Long range Rook/Short range Falcon is absolute fail, and I'll be happy to get the hell out of those ships is that is how this ends.
If SDA's are removed, If racials are removed, then strength and range can be balanced, and you will start seeing caldari recons that resemble other racial recons in terms of mixed tanking.
Anything less than that and strength and range "balances" won't be anything but wasting our time or consigning the best caldari pvp option to the wastebin.
I mean, ffs, boost RSD's on the side, but don't let your gallente emo drive your desire to nerf the caldari recons.
(all of this presumes the mechanic stays as it is, which is kind of questionable in my mind, but whatever- we've been using it for years).
|
Omarvelous
Destry's Lounge Important Internet Spaceship League
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 16:40:00 -
[87]
My humble suggestions...
Make signal distortion amps more powerful but limited to 1 per ship. Like Damage Control Units.
Make signal distortion amps affect ALL EWAR.
- Increase Strength (NOT range) of: - ECM - Sensor Damps - Target Painters - Webs (Now a Rapier/Hugin can get better than 60% webs) - Tracking Disruptors - Increase range of Warp Disruptors/Scramblers
Now its a nice strength modifier but its only 1 slot.
If you're lowering the range of ecm - just make the rook's missile range match up. Increase its damage potential.
The scorpion needs some work.
Please give its high slots the ability to fit 6 of a type of weapon. 6 missile launchers, or 6 turrets. It doesn't have a damage bonus and does abysmal damage with 4 weapons - I'm not asking for a damage bonus - just 6 weapons of the same type capable.
I think my proposed SDA change, coupled with 6 weapons makes the Scorpion able to do decent dps and jam. Or it can be a dedicated jammer, and have some low slots available to armor tank.
I wouldn't say no to increasing its drone bay to 100 or even *gasp* 125 (it would be nice to have 1 Caldari ship capable of field 5 large drones - I'm picturing a Torp Scorpion with 5 sentry drones...)
Shorten Jam cycles. Make the module and effect cycle 50% as long. Requires more attention from the ecm pilot, and reduces the ZOMG I'm PERMA JAMMED feel of the fight. Over a long fight it wont matter, as the odds will even it out. In a short fight, the ecm victim might get some locks.
I'm a fan of removing ECCM, and just making sensor boosters have an ECCM script.
Important Internet Spaceship League Wants You |
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 16:40:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Winterreign Not happy with loosing the Scorpion changes.
Scorp is the only battleship with out a damage mod or Rof bonus out of all the battleships in eve.
Sure jamming is ok, but the orginal ECM idea 20% jamming str, no optimal range bonus and the 5% ROF was an amazing.
Agreed. I really wish that idea was brought back (with the Rook taking the ranged fleet jammer role, maybe).
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 16:44:00 -
[89]
Edited by: Alex Harumichi on 31/03/2009 16:44:50 Edited by: Alex Harumichi on 31/03/2009 16:44:04
Originally by: Cassius Longinus
Long range Rook/Short range Falcon is absolute fail, and I'll be happy to get the hell out of those ships is that is how this ends.
*shrug* Your opinion. Our own Falcon pilots seem to think it would be a great way to balance the ships and give each of them a role.
Face it: you can't keep both the covert ops cloak and the ranged full-power ECM, the combo is just too powerful (as we've seen, over the last year). Choose one.
|
quik90
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 16:49:00 -
[90]
Edited by: quik90 on 31/03/2009 16:59:10
Originally by: russkinnor
If a Falcon is in scram range, its dead unless you have the correct support for it. There are many ways to defeat a Falcon. 1. ECCM 2. Sniping Ships 3. Your own ECM ships in fleet 4. Support Ships/Remote ECCM 5. Ceptors/Fast closing ships(once they get on top of you, short range jamming seems to hit alot less.)
Name another cruiser sized ship that isn't vulnerable to exactly the same. At least a falcon has the chance to jam its tackler and get away. There is no short range ECM strength penalty. Point is void and inaccurate.
Originally by: russkinnor
Those of you that are talking about range of the other Recons vs the Falcon lets touch on that. Rapier(can tank and produce dps) vs. Falcon (Can ECM tank or Shield Tank and not DPS) much less it has a totally different role, its basically a tackling Recon.
Assuming the Falcon gets the proposed drone bay (no one has argued against this) the Falcon will have similar dps to the Rapier and Arazu when using small drones. Point is void.
Russ, you need to start thinking about what your Falcon will be able to do rather than what it won't. A tanked close range falcon with stronger but shorter range jammers could be used to tackle cruiser and above sized targets in small gang situations. With its probe launcher it could pick them off at safespots and hold them until support arrives. This was a role last filled by the damp/rapiers (remember them?), before damps and nanos were nerfed. The Rapier now serves almost exclusively as a support tackler, but the Falcon potentially has a new role. Geez you'd think you would be pleased!
Originally by: russkinnor Seriously you cant really compare these ships as if they are all the same.
Err, don't get me wrong i love Falcons, but what do you think? Should it be a bit more "special", just for you? Why is that the falcon pilots are so happy to maintain the staus quo, even it condemns the Rook into obsolecence, or the dubiously cool "close range" role that they don't want their falcon's to fill? Detach you opinions from your ship preference before you post. Can you not see that you have an agenda?
Originally by: russkinnor CCP Chronotis, I appreciate the work you all are doing in trying to find a true way to Niche the EW ships, I really do... Oh and if you would be interested in doing some testing or suggestions with the Black Ops in general, please let me know id be happy to volunteer some time to help make those ships more appealing. Till then, ill fly my Widow anyway. :)
Don't listen to him devs, there are enough emos around here who's personal attachment to Falcons is clouding their judgment and impartiality. Such posters shouldn't be allowed on the dev forum let alone involved with testing.
|
|
Cassius Longinus
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 16:54:00 -
[91]
Edited by: Cassius Longinus on 31/03/2009 16:56:11
Originally by: Alex Harumichi
Face it: you can't keep both the covert ops cloak and the ranged full-power ECM, the combo is just too powerful (as we've seen, over the last year). Choose one.
Keep range and cloak, kill strength.
But I don't seem to think the cloak is worth as much as you do in terms of tactical positioning. Bubbles dictate range as often as snipes do, so in terms of combat, on average, the way cloaks help is through the lock->jam->cloak->wait->deckloak->lock->jam... cycle, which is a pretty gay mechanic. Find a way to nerf that and no one should complain (they would anyway, but v0v).
Maybe a ranged rook would be OK with bonused rails that let it reach out and touch at it's jamming optimal (say 100-150). But ranged missile boats were of dubious utility before the QR nerf.
|
Linavin
Mercurialis Inc. Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 16:58:00 -
[92]
Quote: Re: the scorpion change:
This was a tough call, the close range role would have been great for gang work but combined with the other changes meant there was not a long range variant and the battleship class made more sense to have in this role for fleet warfare despite the cool short range role it could of had.
The widow will remain focused on close range attacks which means it is not inheriting the role of the scorpion and we think that is fine (though yes the black ops as a whole need a little love and they are getting some)
But the close range brawling dynamic with supplementary EW presents an opportunity to really make the ship shine at doing something different, and not limit it to huge sniper battles, which is exactly what your doing now. Sure the Scorpion will be the only real ship whom can compete at sniper ranges, but you destroy virtually every other application of the ship. A ship that has been far too underused even though it can achieve the same ranges your proposing already as it currently stands, yet you still don't see them flying around in fleets. Nerfing the caldari recons won't bring scorpions back into sniper fleets (a particular form of gameplay which only a fraction of the player base even wants to engage in).
Contrary to popular belief Battleships aren't solely flown in fleets, they can most certainly be used in small scale pvp, often to come out victorious against a numerically superior opponent. So why not play to the style of combat where most ships in EvE are used in. And besides, the caldari already have a fleet sniper in the Rokh, a long range missile boat in the raven, does the scorpion really need range? It already has missiles, ECM, and the potential for a massive shield tank (c'mon 8 mids), thats 3 of the Caldari ship tenants; so do you really need to pigeon-hole it into small scale uselessness by giving it a range bonus instead of a damage one? Every other race has a close range brawling BS if not two, but the caldari really don't have a single competent one. Move back to the brawler bonuses, it gives caldari a solid pvp brawler with the potential for unique and out of the box fits given all the slots and potential abilities of the ship.
It would be foolish to squander this chance radically improve a ship that has been underused since Exodus for the sake of keeping a 'long range jammer' (which it already is), or infringing on the Widow's turf (another underused ship within a class of underused ships). Hell if anything the Widow should be the long range jammer, letting recons tackle a larger force while the Widow uncloaks at range, dealing death and ecm from afar as to swing the fight for the recons. ---
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 17:00:00 -
[93]
Edited by: Alex Harumichi on 31/03/2009 17:01:12
Originally by: Cassius Longinus Edited by: Cassius Longinus on 31/03/2009 16:56:11
Originally by: Alex Harumichi
Face it: you can't keep both the covert ops cloak and the ranged full-power ECM, the combo is just too powerful (as we've seen, over the last year). Choose one.
Keep range and cloak, kill strength.
But I don't seem to think the cloak is worth as much as you do in terms of tactical positioning. Bubbles dictate range as often as snipes do, so in terms of combat, on average, the way cloaks help is through the lock->jam->cloak->wait->deckloak->lock->jam... cycle, which is a pretty gay mechanic. Find a way to nerf that and no one should complain (they would anyway, but v0v).
Maybe a ranged rook would be OK with bonused rails that let it reach out and touch at it's jamming optimal (say 100-150). But ranged missile boats were of dubious utility before the QR nerf.
Maybe that'd due to different environments. Cloak may not be quite as critical in 0.0, but in lowsec warfare it's crucial. The ability to keep eyes on enemy and provide surprise ewar when needed is what wins battles, all the time.
If that cloak *really* isn't so important to you, I'd imagine that you'd be happy with a long-range Rook as a Falcon replacement, no?
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 17:20:00 -
[94]
Edited by: Gypsio III on 31/03/2009 17:21:08
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
The scorpion with max skills and a BZ-5 (caldari racial jammer) will have a optimal range of 72km and a Falloff range of 80km with a ECM strength of 7.875 without any other modules or rigs fitted.
Be VERY careful that you don't make it more effective to fit damps than ECM on a Fleet Scorpion.
Consider a max skilled Scorpion with ewar optimal rigs and 3x SDA. It will have ECM ~100 km optimal, 80 km falloff and ~10 strength. This means that it has a 25% chance to jam an opposing Apocalypse at 180 km.
Now consider a damper-Scorp, with the same ewar optimal rigs and RSD IIs. It has RSD optimal/falloff of 71 km and 91 km, giving a 50% hit chance with the RSDs on a target at 162 km, where the -42.5% lock range will have exactly the same effect as a successful jam cycle.
At 162 km, the RSD Scorp will have a ~50% "jam" chance, whereas the ECM Scorp will have a ~33% chance. At 200 km, the RSD Scorp will have a ~25% "jam" chance, whereas the ECM Scorp will have a ~17% chance.
This could be a real problem. Independent checking of the numbers would be appreciated!
|
Relyen
Caldari Heavy Influence
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 17:34:00 -
[95]
Originally by: quik90 Edited by: quik90 on 31/03/2009 15:31:51 Edited by: quik90 on 31/03/2009 15:19:26
Originally by: Relyen Bringing both recons in so close, is pretty much suicide. They are already the primary of any gang that is in range. If they pop right in the middle of combat, they will instantly die (most of the time).
Not necessarily, in fact it should create an interesting dynamic which will reduce both the effectiveness of ECM boats and their value as a primary target.
Being forced close will generate a requirement for non-suicidal pilots to fit some sort of tank (buffer or speed) like the other recons and maybe some tackling gear. This in turn will leave room for fewer jammers (2-4 i imagine), reducng their jamming effectiveness. Will ECM boats which only have a high chance of jamming one ship, small chance of two, really justify being primaried over for example a damping/webbing/neutralizing recon or a high dps HAC which are guaranteed incapacitate or shortly destroy a ship? Its all starting to balance nicely imo.
No, Falcons/Rooks will still be quite effective with just 2-4 jammers. Also, that means less jammers to defend themselves. And they will still be very high priority targets. And no real buffer tank (which is all they can fit) will protect them :P ________________________________
I am own. |
Glen Morange
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 18:11:00 -
[96]
Edited by: Glen Morange on 31/03/2009 18:11:25
Originally by: Gloria Lewis
Originally by: quik90
Not necessarily, in fact it should create an interesting dynamic which will reduce both the effectiveness of ECM boats and their value as a primary target.
Being forced close will generate a requirement for non-suicidal pilots to fit some sort of tank (buffer or speed) like the other recons and maybe some tackling gear. This in turn will leave room for fewer jammers (2-4 i imagine), reducng their jamming effectiveness. Will ECM boats which only have a high chance of jamming one ship, small chance of two, really justify being primaried over for example a damping/webbing/neutralizing recon or a high dps HAC which are guaranteed incapacitate or shortly destroy a ship? Its all starting to balance nicely imo.
This post has excellent points that bear repeating. When your falcon gets nerfed, it's no longer overpowered nor a juicy primary.
No, it doesn't. It was made by someone who CANNOT fly a caldari ship, as he would know that there is _no_ way to put a significant tank on a caldari ECM boat. What should a falcon fit? Where? We don't have the lows and fitting for an armor tank, the mids are already overcrowded.
We have T1 resists, 3 low slots, and 7 mid slots. Base shield is 1603 HP, armor is 956. What would your "tank" fit be? 2 ecm modules? Better to have not bothered bringing out the ship. Armor? Structure? Where, oh oracle of knowledge, shall we fit this tank? Where are we going to get the cap for a speed tank when you have ECM mods running?
And of course we would still be primary. Why would you allow for one ship with the slightest possibility of massive fleet disruption (the binary on/off with 20 second knockout of ECM is obscene) survive (or conversely why would anyone bother bringing the ship if it is nerfed until it doesn't do anything and costs as much to fit as a BS)? Can we jam a tackler off? We might be able to, but they are almost guaranteed a 20 second delay while we target and wait for the correct racial jammer to cool down.
Again, the only useful case for the falcon (and rook) with these changes would be restricted to piracy, as it won't be tenable in larger fleet combat due to the enforced range problems.
|
russkinnor
Caldari Failed Diplomacy
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 18:28:00 -
[97]
Originally by: quik90
Err, don't get me wrong i love Falcons, but what do you think? Should it be a bit more "special", just for you? Why is that the falcon pilots are so happy to maintain the staus quo, even it condemns the Rook into obsolecence, or the dubiously cool "close range" role that they don't want their falcon's to fill? Detach you opinions from your ship preference before you post. Can you not see that you have an agenda?
Im not looking from a point of an Agenda, im looking from a point of experience. Just what I have seen with my time inside one. Being informed/knowledgeable on the ship in question should in fact matter. Also, a ship should not be changed simply because no one flies the other "obsolete" Recon. In that situation you change the ship that isnt useful.
I agree with you that they need to do something for the Rook. Making it a viable "close range ship" as it was intended to be that. What that is even I still dont know, since as you said its "obsolete". Most of the Caldari EW pilots I know wont use it and I did try flying one for a while. Problem was I never could find a fitting I liked. Of course that is the same thing most other people who have flown it have said as well.
Also I notice alot of Venom in your posting, perhaps its time for a nap? Thanks again, Russ
|
Ephemeron
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 18:57:00 -
[98]
Quote: 2. Signal Distortion Amplifiers (low slot ECM enhancers) have been changed to provide a bonus to both ECM strength and range and their bonus changed respectively.
Currently, the SDA II will give a 10% ECM optimal range and 10% ECM strength
First, I'd like to note that I have personal experience of flying Falcons on my alt, with maxed skills, with numerous kills involving it. I have always argued that Falcon performance needs to be decreased in some way, it's just a quesiton of how we go about doing it.
With that in mind, I'd like to reconsider the proposed SDA change. While I agree that this change does reduce Falcon effectiveness in an acceptable way, my problem with that idea is that it is a boring solution. It still gives people no reason to pause and think about their low slot fitting on dedicated ECM ship, other than to fill all the lows with SDA like a no brainer it is now.
A more interesting SDA change would be to split the module into 2 groups: 1) +20% ECM strength, -20% optimal range 2) +20% optimal range, no ECM strength bonus
In this case, we still have overall decrease of Falcon performance, but people would have to choose what they sacrifice - either keep strong ECM like it is now, but with much reduced range (still outside scramble range of 30 km and with big falloff) OR they choose long range, but without the 1.4-1.5 ECM strength multiplier that they would normally get by filling lows with SDA mods.
It's certainly more interesting solution than simply having +10 ECM strength and range SDA. Exact numbers could be tweaked for balance. Options are always good
|
quik90
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 19:05:00 -
[99]
Originally by: Glen Morange
Originally by: Gloria Lewis
This post has excellent points that bear repeating. When your falcon gets nerfed, it's no longer overpowered nor a juicy primary.
No, it doesn't. It was made by someone who CANNOT fly a caldari ship, as he would know that there is _no_ way to put a significant tank on a caldari ECM boat. What should a falcon fit? Where? We don't have the lows and fitting for an armor tank, the mids are already overcrowded.
We have T1 resists, 3 low slots, and 7 mid slots. Base shield is 1603 HP, armor is 956. What would your "tank" fit be? 2 ecm modules? Better to have not bothered bringing out the ship. Armor? Structure? Where, oh oracle of knowledge, shall we fit this tank? Where are we going to get the cap for a speed tank when you have ECM mods running?
Oh contrare obsessive Falcon lover, I fly Falcons too. Your comment however smaks of someone who has never flown any recon other than the Falcon. WTF do you think ALL other race recon pilots have been fitting to survive up till now? Minimal speed/buffer tank and your wits! Something pilots like you are clearly missing. With the agility/speed modifications which were originally proposed for the Falcon/Rook(heard no more about this) you could nano your three lows and use a LSE in your mids. Not happy? Well thats what most Rapier pilots have to do to fit dual/tripple webs. Lacking cap? Well wtf, you might have to fit a cap mod.
If you insist on filling your mids and lows with offensive mods dont be surprised when you and your ship variant gets a reputation as a dangerous gank ship which should be primaried, resulting in an instapop, cause your MWD ran dry and you didnt bother buffering.
What makes flying force recons other than the Falcon interesting is that they are ships that can produce a strong positive effect with the drawback that you are likely be primaried. This always makes the decision to decloak and engage a tense one. I guess Falcon pilots sitting 150km from the hurt just aren't used to making this risk vs gain decision, just like they dont know how to sacrifice gank for tank.
Originally by: Glen Morange
Can we jam a tackler off? We might be able to, but they are almost guaranteed a 20 second delay while we target and wait for the correct racial jammer to cool down.
Consider fitting a sensor booster and multispecs then and live with the concequences. More decisions for you to make, and fewer spaces for your EW mods, congratualions on becoming a real recon pilot.
Originally by: Glen Morange
Again, the only useful case for the falcon (and rook) with these changes would be restricted to piracy, as it won't be tenable in larger fleet combat due to the enforced range problems.
You have no imagination. Anyway where is the problem, other than your personal problem of having to decide on another ship that is more suitable to a specific situation? Your desire to only fly the Falcon shouldn't be a reason for you to argue against the changes, you must be impartial enough to admit this.
|
Miyamoto Isoruku
Caldari Noir.
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 19:26:00 -
[100]
Frankly I loved the idea of having the Rook be a mid-range brawler, like the Curse, and hope CCP does not abandon it.
|
|
Lindsay Logan
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 19:39:00 -
[101]
Some more thoughts:
The thing however in bringing Rook and Falcon close in is that they will die quickly. They more or less need the SDA to be effective ECM users, due to the chance based nature of the EWAR type, and that meas less damage and tank mods. Low chances for jamming means higher chance of getting popped (since ECM ships are a high priority), and with the current grid size they will not have enough buffer to really save them, nor the slots since you want at least 4 jammers, neither weapons to fend of attackers effectively.
ECM is an importent tool to the Caldari, and should not be 100% comparable to the other races EWAR. It is after all one of the strong sides of what they do in combat. Not to mention they are the only race to have an EWAR dedicated BS. ECM is almost to the Caldari as drones are to the Gallente, keep that in mind as well.
And to those that say that the Cladari recons should be forced to duke it out close range on par with other races need to look at what the said recons offers now. Currently they got a lot of bonuses to ECM, not anyhting else, and they can not operate solo like some of the ohter recons.
I would like them to tho, I would love a Falcon that can fit weapons and effective ECM mods and still lock down ships. A pirate boat in other words. The drone bay goes a long way to help on this, and is indeed a very welcome addition. But to be able to function solo they need more grid, essentially. Rook in particular, now that it seems to become more viable in the role; Strong ECM and some damage + a mediocre tank and MWD+Tackle will make it a pretty nice small gang boat.
Take away too much of the ECMs value, and you remove some insentive to actually train and use Caldari, cause lets face it. Caldari is not popular for PvP right now, due to the medicore medium sized ships. Particulary the medium sized sniper boats (Moa and Eagle is not that good). The Caracal lack grid to be useful at anything else then long range support dps, and here missile travelling comes into the picture (it can be a decent anti support ship tho).
All in all I know Caldari is range focused, but considering that EVE combat usually takes place within 20 to 30 km (gates and stations) or 100km + (sniping, POS stuff, cap fights) the medium sized sniper boats that got optimals of 40 to 60 km serve no real purpouse as they are no real use to gangs so either close or very long range is the most viable imo (Currently the Falcon is great for long range, maby a bit too good, but the Rook lacks effectivness now). Missiles is supposed to make up for some of the range issues that caldari got, with no optimal and no tracking and such, but due the the kinetic only bonus for most of the ships, they loose out once again as the kinetic is the resistance that is generally high unless facing minmatar T2, thus loading other damage types is often better. So in essence the caldari got a bonus that is not really useful on may of the missile ship, and loose dps over it. That is why the Falcon is so popular as well, its a very effective long range medium sized ship, while not doing damage it can lock down other ship taking it out of the figh for long periods (and thats all it do).
But I digress. I essens one need to see ECM in the bigger context. ECM is not only a recon only thing for the Caldari, but a large racial trait, and should be treaed as such. Missile do need some rework as well to make Caldri BS sized missiles more useful (cruise missiles in particular), and a lot of Caldari ships needs grid bonuses, but that is for discussing in other threads.
Now, I have not seen the new stats in detail, and can not comment further on it, just general thoughts about it.
|
Robert Caldera
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 19:48:00 -
[102]
give the rook some better tank and dps in cost of ECM range/efficiency so there is a ship differently from the falcon.
|
Arkady Sadik
Minmatar Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 20:05:00 -
[103]
I like the current direction. The numbers noted in the first post are really good - 60km optimal, 80km useful jam range in falloff sounds about right for a Falcon. I have a few suggestions, though.
First, drop SDAs completely. Balancing ships without these is much easier, as you can give each of them a dedicated role without requiring the low-slot modules. There are rigs for those who want the bonuses, just like for other ewar.
Also, change ECCM to give a fixed bonus, not a percentage. Currently, ECCM is barely useful on BS and some T2 cruisers (which usually do not have the mid slots to spare). Giving them a fixed +30 sensor strength would turn the module into a seriously useful module for all ship sizes.
Finally, consider dropping the racial ECM. Boost multispectral ECM so they work at the desired ranges, but with less strength than the current racials. Again, much easier to balance without having to account for all the possibilities with racials.
|
Cletus Graeme
Caldari Duty.
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 20:08:00 -
[104]
Originally by: Vigaz Rook: Rook doesn't need missile velocity bonus ! please consider to add 5 % resistances per level.
EDIT: a max skilled Rook pilot can use heavy from 88km in TQ atm (without rig/imp), adding a velocity bonus this value will increase up to 120km - 130km -> much more than required; also considering the new drone bay (max range 60/70km?) it sounds wrong to me.
I think the missile velocity bonus has less to do with giving the Rook longer range (which it doesn't need) and more to do with making the missiles reach their target faster (i.e. decreasing the delay in dealing damage). However, I'm not sure exactly how much this will really help if the Rook is already at close/medium range (i.e. 50km or less).
Giving it a shield resist bonus instead would definitely be useful.
|
Sidus Isaacs
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 20:18:00 -
[105]
Originally by: Cletus Graeme
Originally by: Vigaz Rook: Rook doesn't need missile velocity bonus ! please consider to add 5 % resistances per level.
EDIT: a max skilled Rook pilot can use heavy from 88km in TQ atm (without rig/imp), adding a velocity bonus this value will increase up to 120km - 130km -> much more than required; also considering the new drone bay (max range 60/70km?) it sounds wrong to me.
I think the missile velocity bonus has less to do with giving the Rook longer range (which it doesn't need) and more to do with making the missiles reach their target faster (i.e. decreasing the delay in dealing damage). However, I'm not sure exactly how much this will really help if the Rook is already at close/medium range (i.e. 50km or less).
Giving it a shield resist bonus instead would definitely be useful.
A velocity bonus do help HAM's tho.
|
Sidus Isaacs
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 20:23:00 -
[106]
Edited by: Sidus Isaacs on 31/03/2009 20:24:40 Dual posted.
|
Cletus Graeme
Caldari Duty.
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 20:27:00 -
[107]
Edited by: Cletus Graeme on 31/03/2009 20:33:42
Originally by: Ephemeron A more interesting SDA change would be to split the module into 2 groups: 1) +20% ECM strength, -20% optimal range 2) +20% optimal range, no ECM strength bonus
[..]
It's certainly more interesting solution than simply having +10 ECM strength and range SDA. Exact numbers could be tweaked for balance. Options are always good
I agree that the SDA changes need more consideration if CCP wants more variation in setups. Giving them a range bonus as well as a strength bonus makes it even better to fit them in your lowslots over anything else.
The actual bonuses offered by SDA should complement the changes to the ECM ship bonuses.
A possible solution would be to swap the current strength bonus to a range bonus thus forcing pilots to choose to use their lowslots for either better ECM range or better armor tank.
Alternatively, introducing two variations of SDA as you suggested would also increase the choices available and result in more variation in setups.
I'd prefer to split the proposed bonuses out into two separate modules but with no penalties, so we must choose between either range or strength. This would complement the current ECM rigs.
i.e. Something like this:
Signal Distortion Amplifier: +10% ECM jam strength Signal Distortion Projector: +10% ECM optimal range
|
Cletus Graeme
Caldari Duty.
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 20:32:00 -
[108]
Edited by: Cletus Graeme on 31/03/2009 20:31:49
Originally by: Sidus Isaacs A velocity bonus do help HAM's tho.
Very good point! If HAMs also become viable to use then that's a major DPS boost right there. However, I don't think the Rook currently has enough grid to fit them and a tank so that would need to be looked at too.
|
Gromik
THE FINAL STAND
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 20:33:00 -
[109]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Currently, the SDA II will give a 10% ECM optimal range and 10% ECM strength
Without any other rigs or modules fitted with max skills, the BZ-5 (caldari jammer) will have an optimal range of 48km and falloff of 53km with a strength of 11.25 to gravimetric. The same bonuses are applied to the Rook.
Just some quick math, 2 SDA would give a Falcon a jam strength of 11.25*1.1*1.087 (assuming stacking) = 13.45 Range would be 48km*1.1*1.087 = 57.4km optimal. Sounds good to me range-wise.
I really, really would have loved to play with the original Scorpion changes. A high-strength, close range brawler would have been fun, in my opinion. Long range fleet jammer isn't that exciting to me. :(
|
Threv Echandari
Caldari K Directorate
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 20:33:00 -
[110]
OK Wahts the word on the Blackbird, Griffin and Kitsune? Do they stay the same? ---------------------------------------- Happiness is a Wet Pod
|
|
Cletus Graeme
Caldari Duty.
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 20:41:00 -
[111]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis 4. The scorpion will be kept in the role of long range ECM platform useful in the longer range fleet fights.
I'm glad that the long range fleet Scorpion is not being nerfed but why not make it also useable in close range fights?
BS should be versatile. A Rokh can be fit with either Blasters or Rails. A Raven can be fit with either Cruise or Torps. Both ships operate usefully with either setup. The same is true for most other battleships which can be fit for either close or long range.
Also, the Caldari lack an effective close range RR BS as both the Rokh and Raven shield tank well but armor tank badly.
I'm not sure exaclty what bonuses or slot changes (if any) the Scorp needs to also be useful in close range pvp but I do think it's something that CCP should look at.
|
Vulcar Dumas
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 20:50:00 -
[112]
Has anyone proposed the idea of making ECM modules sized based?
Meaning that a standard griffin would have weaker strength modules on its ships than say a cruiser sized ship allowing the possibility of not nerfing the range of the ships but allowing the modules to dictate what class of ships it can jam successfully with.
I once flew a griffin to a capital fleet fight as a support wing [back when i was very young and poor], i was able to successfully jam a capital ship in the griffin, which to me is a little overpowered. However if there was a way to regulate the strength of the module based on module size then I would have a very slim possibility of jamming anything above a T1 cruiser with constant repeating.
I don't know if this has been submitted as a possibility, and do not know if this is the best way to stop the range nerfing on paper thin ships so please be considerate and take this as an idea.
Also CCP should fix the ECCM modules as they are currently useless, and maybe add an added effect of an ECCM module to shrink the amount of time the pilot is jammed.
Thanks, and again this is a suggestion that I hope may be beneficial but who knows.
|
Ephemeron
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 21:07:00 -
[113]
Quote: Signal Distortion Amplifier: +10% ECM jam strength Signal Distortion Projector: +10% ECM optimal range
My problem with that idea is that the nerf becomes to severe - as you reduce all dedicated ECM ship strengths by about 20% AND reduce their optimal operating ranges
As I said before, I do think Falcons should be nerfed, but I don't want it to be done using the CCP Nerf Sledgehammer - I want some more surgical type of instrument. ECM should not suffer the fate of nano
|
Bilaz
Minmatar Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 21:22:00 -
[114]
sda giving both strength and optimal makes no sense. make them 2 different modules, have different scripts or leave just 1 bonus. i thought whole "sda changes" point was to make players decide what they want of their ship - there is no deciding when you get everything you need.
|
Sekundar Burnes
Woopatang Primary.
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 21:44:00 -
[115]
Lots of people fly Falcons, few people fly Rooks. Yet the Rook is in most ways a better ship than the Falcon. The Rook has much better resists, higher sensor strength, lower sig radius and so on. But the Falcon can warp cloaked.
That's why there is all this emotion on the boards, btw. If all Caldari pilots flew Blackbirds or Scorpions or Rooks the conversation would be more civil. The frustration comes in when a gang fight is going and you think you have a good chance - and then the Falcons uncloak.
The problem is that this tactic is both effective and necessary. Effective because a jam takes another ship out for 25 seconds or more (20 sec jam + relock). Necessary because if your opponents count your ECM ships and don't like the number they are far less likely to engage.
If I were the Ishukone Corporation I would make ECM modules that fit in the high slot but with radically lower range. I bet that would solve most of the issues here.
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 22:16:00 -
[116]
Awesome idea. Remove ECM from fleet battles while doing nothing to change its domination in 1v1s. Why didn't I think of that?
Hint: CCP, play your damn game. We know there have been accusations of cheating, but I would much rather have dev characters in BoB/goons/whoever than a bunch of developers who are this out of touch with the current environment. -----------
|
Cletus Graeme
Caldari Duty.
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 22:40:00 -
[117]
Originally by: Ephemeron
Quote: Signal Distortion Amplifier: +10% ECM jam strength Signal Distortion Projector: +10% ECM optimal range
My problem with that idea is that the nerf becomes to severe - as you reduce all dedicated ECM ship strengths by about 20% AND reduce their optimal operating ranges
I also agree that CCP should be very careful not to over-nerf the Falcon but I don't follow your reasoning here.
Afaik the Falcon jam strength is remaining unchanged (20% per level) as only it's range is being nerfed. The Rook is getting a slight bonus to it's jam strength (from 20% to 25%) to compensate for it's lack of cloak so it's worth flying again.
If the SDA bonus also remains at 10% (as I'm suggesting) then where is the nerf to jam strength?
|
sylvester stallowned
Trotters Independent Trading
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 22:46:00 -
[118]
So what will be the actual optimal and falloff ranges of a Typical Falcon and Rook with 2 SDAs and 2 ECM range rigs, assuming recon and support skills are at level 4?
Also what is the effect of ECM jam strength in falloff? I have never understood exactly how this works, i.e. you are trying to jam somebody at 1x your falloff. With turrets this equals a 50% chance of hitting, does this equate to a 50% of the ECMs jammer strength?
|
Dr Resheph
Amarr YOU ARE NOW READING THIS LOUDLY
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 22:54:00 -
[119]
What started as an issue with overpowered Falcons has led to a general nerf and stats reshuffle. I don't see anything to make the ships more interesting.
You've ignored a valuable alternative suggestion in the previous thread. I'll repeat it here in condensed form:
1. Multispecs and Racials have the same strength, cap and cycle time. Multispecs have half the optimal and falloff of Racials. 2. Multispecs only break the lock, and the target can begin to reacquire immediately. Racials keep the target pinned for 50% of the module's cycle time. 3. Blackbird and Falcon get cycle time and strength bonuses, making them ideal with Multispecs. 4. Scorpion and Rook get range and jamming duration bonuses, making them ideal with Racials. 5. Griffin and Kitsune get ECM Burst cap and strength bonuses.
What this means is that all Caldari EW ships still get ECM strength to make them superior to other race's ships. There are three ECM jammer types and two ship choices for each (tech 1 and tech 2). Any Caldari EW ship can still use any ECM module, but it's 2nd bonus will be useless or slightly good/bad.
|
Spartan dax
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 23:24:00 -
[120]
Looked up the numbers and yeah, damps will be the Ewar module for fleets if the currents stats won't change. Not only do they have better hit chance, they work on all races as well. And you'll be able to armourtank as well. A no brainer IOTW.
Get rid of the SDA's and balance from there. If the verdict from ccp is that ECM were to powerfull they need to nerf that. The ships themselves always sucked and is in dire need of love. Getting rid of SDA's will do that to a huge extent.
|
|
Glen Morange
|
Posted - 2009.03.31 23:57:00 -
[121]
I find I should make clear my issue: I feel that this "nerf" isn't going to fix anything, and just puts off dealing with the larger issue of the imbalance brought by ECM. I don't feel that any ability that can completely remove a player from action for 20+ seconds will ever be well balanced, as it is a razor thin difference in a game that is known for is constant changes.
Originally by: quik90
Oh contrare obsessive Falcon lover, I fly Falcons too. Your comment however smaks of someone who has never flown any recon other than the Falcon. WTF do you think ALL other race recon pilots have been fitting to survive up till now? Minimal speed/buffer tank and your wits! Something pilots like you are clearly missing. With the agility/speed modifications which were originally proposed for the Falcon/Rook(heard no more about this) you could nano your three lows and use a LSE in your mids. Not happy? Well thats what most Rapier pilots have to do to fit dual/tripple webs. Lacking cap? Well wtf, you might have to fit a cap mod.
The difference is that the mods for a rapier use 4 cap, but the multispecs that you suggest require over ten times that much cap. As both ships have the exact same base recharge, the falcon will have two choices: use the jammers or use the MWD. Fit _a_ cap mod? Pull the other one, it hath got bells on.
In addition, you have to remove one third of the range and power from the numbers quoted in the first post if you are discussing multispec ECM, leading to the question: "why bring a falcon at all?" Given that a scorpion would have the same ECM strength as the multispec mods at a much more viable range, I don't see a huge point to the Falcon outside a very narrow niche (2-3 man gank squads).
Originally by: quik90
If you insist on filling your mids and lows with offensive mods dont be surprised when you and your ship variant gets a reputation as a dangerous gank ship which should be primaried, resulting in an instapop, cause your MWD ran dry and you didnt bother buffering.
What makes flying force recons other than the Falcon interesting is that they are ships that can produce a strong positive effect with the drawback that you are likely be primaried. This always makes the decision to decloak and engage a tense one. I guess Falcon pilots sitting 150km from the hurt just aren't used to making this risk vs gain decision, just like they dont know how to sacrifice gank for tank.
We have never had a question, we haven't needed any tank because anything that can hit us is probably going to pop us within 2-3 volleys, as stated above, we don't have the flexiblity for any tanking. I will agree that the 200km + range for the falcon means that our tank is overpowered, but when the mods you use deny the cap to use any speed tank, and the slots for a passive tank, where should one look for survivability?
Originally by: quik90
Originally by: Glen Morange
Can we jam a tackler off? We might be able to, but they are almost guaranteed a 20 second delay while we target and wait for the correct racial jammer to cool down.
Consider fitting a sensor booster and multispecs then and live with the concequences. More decisions for you to make, and fewer spaces for your EW mods, congratualions on becoming a real recon pilot.
Again, you cannot compare the two. A rapier isn't going to be harassed by an inty, as all it's abilities are designed to kill them. Two webs on the tackler plus the rapier's minimal firepower would equal a dead tackler (well, any interceptor/frigate based tackle). Other solutions present themselves for the Amarr. I have little idea what one would to in an Arazu, but this might explain why I haven't seen them used heavily.
Originally by: quik90
Originally by: Glen Morange
Again, the only useful case for the falcon (and rook) with these changes would be restricted to piracy, as it won't be tenable in larger fleet combat due to the enforced range problems.
You have no imagination. Anyway where is the problem, other than your personal problem of having to decide on another ship that is more suitable to a specific situation? Your desire to only fly the Falcon shouldn't be a reason for you to argue against the changes, you must be impartial enough to admit this.
I am dislike the change of a ship into a glorified paperweight (unless your goal was to head out a'gankin). I honestly want to see a massive change to the underlying mechanism of ECM, not the overzealous nerfing of an entire race's ships to compensate for poor design.
|
Trellish
The Perfect Storm Controlled Chaos
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 00:27:00 -
[122]
I'm not overly thrilled by how some of these changes look... it seems like there's 2 options.
1... the currently chosen... nerf range and compensate by making stronger jams 2... nerf jam strength but keep the range tank
Can we look more at number 2 than at number 1?
As an example, the goal here is really centered around small fleet combat to prevent the falcon from being overpowered. Why not keep things mostly as they are, but make the strength of the jams a fleet bonus. Single or double squad would have a much weaker falcon... up through full on fleet combat where the falcon would be the current falcon that we have a love hate relationship with.
The falcon's tank is really all about range... taking that away is going to nerf the falcon in more ways than just the desired ones. Make the falcon's jam strength lower in small gangs, and some balance returns... yet the falcon can be flown in the same fashion as now. If, as is the current plan, the falcons tank is going to be it's jams... all you'll do is increase frustration on both sides. Ships will be MORE likely to be permajammed by a falcon than ever before due to the stronger jam strength, while at the same time, the moment the number of ships exceeds the number of fitted jammers, the falcon will be dead due to being close enough to engage. The falcon becomes more of a primaried suicide ship than ever. This seems like it actually exacerbates the complaints on both sides of the question rather than helping anyone. If we look at working with balancing jam strength rather than range, the situation becomes a LOT more workeable.
|
Lucky Willfind
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 01:20:00 -
[123]
Do you think by simply lowering the range/increasing the strength of the ECM or messing up the SDA will make whiners stop crying about "being permajammed"? No. Will this nerf solve the problem of limited use of other recons? No.
This "cut a piece from here - add a little there - change this - turn upside-down that" is just destroying the game and creats upsets after every patch. In short term it might seem to be a solution but in long term you have to do the "rebalance" again and again and again.
Yes, the Scorp needs changes as it is underused compared to other tier 1 bs-es. And i suppose CCP wants to give options to the players.
Why dont you guys figure out how to make the other recons viable? I feel nerfing the falcons/rooks would be like nerfing the drone abilities of a dominix because other t1 bs cant solo afk any lv4... or nerfing iteron V because it has too much cargospace.
So the question really is: why to change something which works well instead of changing those things which are not?
|
Aoa Lux
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 02:05:00 -
[124]
At current changes: Why would I fly a rook?
Make rook the long range ship. Ex: Pilgrim and Curse.
SDA: Giving them a strength bonus means they are a "must fit 3" mod. Isn't that what you are trying to avoid?
I liked the brawler torpion idea :(
|
Marco Ragnos
eXceed Inc. Minor Threat.
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 02:58:00 -
[125]
okay i have solved the problem
THIS IS HOW YOU FIX THE FALCON/ROOK
Okay the current battle is between the people that want the falcon to retain long range, and the ones that want to make it a.."jamming rapier" sort of ship.
The falcon isnt by any means a "dps" type ship, and it is made of paper, so people def dont want to get close.
WIth your 2nd round falcon ideas... lets say the falcon would be a ship that can jam err maybe up to 100km give or take? Okay that sounds like a very fair range concidering a hac set up for sniping can hit that no problem. This puts the falcon on par with the sniping cruiser/bc group. Very fair. The falcon can jam them at that range, and can also be fired upon by various vessels. IT WILL NOT BE SAFE AT THAT RANGE. Of course everyone that wants to fly around in a blasterthron might be buthurt because their blasters dont reach that far, but oh well.
There are also the folks that say...wtf, we dont want to fly 1 setup falcons, we want them to get up close with other recons... while it sounds like it would be fair, it isnt. Compare the falcon to the rapier, the dps dif, the drones, having the mid slots freedup for LSEs..etc etc etc... falcon just cant do the low range thing...unless...
I think people mentioned in other threads about making scripts for ECM(or a dif mod all together) 1 script will have a weaker strength allowing it to jam at SNIPE HAC range (100ish km)
the other script will give it more jam strength but taking away its range (jamming at point range 20-45km)
This allows the falcon pilots to have different setups... having stronger shortrange jams will allow the pilot to use less ecm mods (probably even multispec tbh) and putting on a larger tank and possibly point.
giving the falcon pilots different options will vary the many ways the falcons would be used. and lets face it, no matter what yoNO matter what you do to the falcon, people are not going to be happy, ECM is annoying and the only way to make those people happy is to get rid of it all together which wont happen.
you people have to understand that ecm is annoying yes, but you cannot just nerf it to hell because of it.
Frigs should be able to jam at the max range of typical frig weaps (small rails,artys etc)
Falcon/rook should be able to contend with the max range of other cruiser size ships and also have the flexability to get up close.
The scorp should be able to jam at other BSs Snipe range (large artys, etc)
ECCM needs to be used as a counter to jams. allowing the falcon and rook to get stronger-smaller range jams means that ECCMs would be vital for people to have in small gangs (will allow at least one person to target/kill the falcon)
At long range, the falcons jams wont be as effective (But capable of course) And to kill/scare away, all you need is 1 sniperhac with an eccm.
If everyone cant agree to somthing along these lines, i dont know what would be better.
This will make it fair to everyone including the falcon pilots.
If your going to mess with the falcon, at least give us options.
|
TZeer
BURN EDEN
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 03:33:00 -
[126]
I`m not sure what all of you are complaining about.
Those against falcons just saw the falcon and rook get their range massively reduced.
They can actually be engaged with drones now.
Second:
I`m not sure anyone of you have checked it, but if you add rigs, you can do some pretty interesting stuff.
If you are looking for strength, you can now use T1 rigs, which have same bonus as SDA. This will free up much of the lowslots.
If you go for range you can get T1 rigs which gives a 20% bonus.
You actually have to think a little how you wanna fly the ship now.
Same with scorp, fill all rig slots with strength rigs and you have the same jamming power as if you used 3xSDA II, and on top of that you have 4 lows to tank with.
|
Vasili Z
Pyre of Gods
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 05:21:00 -
[127]
Originally by: TZeer I`m not sure what all of you are complaining about.
Those against falcons just saw the falcon and rook get their range massively reduced.
They can actually be engaged with drones now.
Second:
I`m not sure anyone of you have checked it, but if you add rigs, you can do some pretty interesting stuff.
If you are looking for strength, you can now use T1 rigs, which have same bonus as SDA. This will free up much of the lowslots.
If you go for range you can get T1 rigs which gives a 20% bonus.
You actually have to think a little how you wanna fly the ship now.
Same with scorp, fill all rig slots with strength rigs and you have the same jamming power as if you used 3xSDA II, and on top of that you have 4 lows to tank with.
Listen to this man 'bout time they nerfed the bloody range of those things. Still op against small gangs though. -------
Eve requires no skill anymore |
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 05:41:00 -
[128]
The new changes change nothing for me.
I was really looking forward to being able to put away my Falcons for a bit and use something else for a change, but with the new peak strength numbers I'm not seeing much of a difference in the Falcons (or any other ECM ship's) performance. In fact, I think that for what ECM ships currently do (permajam stuff) they'll actually be better at it than ever before. That's bad.
ECM is overpowered and needs to have it's capacity reduced by a significant amount, say, like damps were. Just reduce the strength of them by about 50% and you're all set. One ship needs to be able to disable another single ship, and that's about it. Very similar to what damps are capable of doing now.
With the suggested changes, I'll still be operating outside drone range, outside most medium to long-ish range guns and missiles, and will have more strength with maxed out rigs and SDAIIs than I currently have.
I was looking forward to doing something else than having half my gang be composed of Falcons, but I guess not.
Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Death of Virtue is Recruiting
|
Sekundar Burnes
Woopatang Primary.
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 05:42:00 -
[129]
Originally by: TZeer I`m not sure what all of you are complaining about.
Those against falcons just saw the falcon and rook get their range massively reduced.
They can actually be engaged with drones now.
Yeah, this is kind of a problem. Once any of the ECM ships have drones on them they are in deep trouble. Unlike other weapons systems, once the drone is locked on it doesn't break when the controlling ship is jammed. (And for a while at least drones continue to attack even if the controlling ship has warped off or blown up. That's a feature, right??)
So if you warp into range of a group of ships you will pretty much have to lock and jam them before they lock and send drones against you.
This is another example of the binary results that ECM seems to have, and few other weapons systems. In this case, you are either safe from drones or you're aligning to warp out.
|
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 06:06:00 -
[130]
Liking these changes. Short, sweet and effective. Although I was looking forward to an uber torpedo perma-jamming scorpion of doom.
Originally by: CCP Whisper So you're going to have to do some actual thinking with regards to hull components and their capabilities instead of copying some cookie-cutter setup. Cry some more.
|
|
something somethingdark
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 06:24:00 -
[131]
Right this is aproximatly what i feel it should look like
max skills no aditional mods/rigs racial jammer
ship | ecm optimal | targeting range | strength (1=best)
bbird | 80km optimal | dont care | 3 rook | 120km optimal | 160km | 1 falcon | 80km optimal | 160km | 3 scorp | 160km optimal | 125km | 2
and for giggles hers the widow (our new ecm overlord) widow | 160km optimal | 125km | 1
propper calculations available when you offer me a job
|
KissedByDeath
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 07:42:00 -
[132]
Originally by: Roemy Schneider * SDAs - have them boost all EW * jammers in-line with other EW optimals+falloff: 30+60. will accept racial base jam strengths of 5 for t2/best named in return -- alternatively, will accept 48+40 for all EW, once SDAs help * if you must add drones.... 20m¦ max - no web drone for these guys! * yes, long range scorp for fleets plz. i have no idea what people were going to do with their meds up close and a virtual 5 launchers... one of those horrible caldari tanks w/o damage? no change there -.-
lol all other race recons have 40+m3 drone space except caldari have none 1) missiles are nerfed so they're useless and there's no missile damage bonus on the caldari recons except for that pathetic 5% kinetic damage on rook 2) ecm is chance based which is the reason they should be operating at longer range. If ccp wants to nerf the range of ecms they better make all other ewar chance based. Having chance based sensor damps sounds good. :) 3) 20m3 drone space is pathetic (tho better than nothing) compared to other race recons. 25 or 30m3 sounds more reasonable (careful not to make the caldari pvp viable :) )
Judging from the first ecm proposal thread i see absolutely no change in ccp stance to upcoming ecm nerf even tho they've looked carefully at posted comments. Bottom line, scream and cry all you want, they do what they want to.
What i propose. If they absolutely have to nerf ecms. Reduce ecm optimal & falloff to what the multispectrals have right now and be done with it. Don't touch ship ecm bonuses. but plz do add the drone space and some damage bonus for the rook. I see it as the closer range brawler of the two. Falcon's job is to be stealthy and stuff not get up close and personal. I mean seriously what's it gonna get personal with? it's cloak 2 missile and 1 turrent slot? it'll have laughable dps.
ccp loves to f**k with caldari so much just to pretend they're doing their job / a job. They've already reduced caldari close to nothing in pvp.
If you absolutely want something to tweak with, something just to pretend you're trying to make eve a game that continues to develop, why not make ecm script based.
Going from multi(no script) to racial scripts. But keeping ecm strength when used against the wrong race same as it is now. Why? because with sensor damps you only have to think about using 2 scripts and you don't have to worry about race. With with ecm scripts you'll be wasting valuable seconds trying to load the right script if you're having trouble jamming.
|
Cpt Cosmic
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 08:07:00 -
[133]
1.fix ranges on the jammers, less optimal, more falloff 2.remove SDAs and increase the ship bonuses 3.give rook and falcon a proper drone bay 4.increase scorpions bay/bandwith 5.to make rook more viable, increase its bonuses over the falcon, make it sturdier
few easy changes to make everyone happy :>
|
Virgo I'Platonicus
Zoners
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 08:35:00 -
[134]
Edited by: Virgo I''Platonicus on 01/04/2009 08:36:57 Edited by: Virgo I''Platonicus on 01/04/2009 08:36:18 I dont get it.
You want widow to remain close range boat, but her ECM strength SUX for close range? To elaborate : It is now same as rook / falcon, but after changes it will be smaller? (actually remain unchanged, but rook's and falcon's get love, while widow's don't if i understand correctly)
I better sell widow now.
V.
PS: the change to SDA IIs will kill widow as well. They boost ECM to help long range ecm boats, while widow remains short range vessel and doesn't get helped by such bonuses. <3 |
The Alchemyst
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 08:35:00 -
[135]
Change ECM function :
Instead of reducing targets number to 0, each succesfull ECM module cycle unlock 2 targets
example : I lock 6 targets and fire at one of them. Falcon jam me with 3 modules. 1st jam succes, I lose 2 random targets, have 4 left 2nd jam succes, I lose 2 more random targets, have 2 left 3rd jam succes, I lose 2 more random targets, none left each time I can try to lock new targets and fire at them but Falcon still jamming me...
Very efficient agains frigates size because they have few max locked targets even if they lock fast. Efficient agains BS size because they lock slowly.
This will make all modules increasing max targets and multitasking skill more usefull.
|
Carniflex
Caldari Fallout Research Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 08:45:00 -
[136]
Good point about dampeners and scorpion. They indeed seem to be more effective than ECM now at fleet ranges on paper. I would also like to add, that if one is going to fit dampeners anyway for e-war then one is better off in dampener Rokh in fleet than in Scorpion with dampeners. It's not like Rokh needs all those tracking computers to reach fleet ranges.
|
Carniflex
Caldari Fallout Research Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 09:08:00 -
[137]
Ok - some numbers also
Current Fleet Scorpion 180 km (plus gang bonuses) range, up to 200 km ECM optimal (with rigs and max skills) around 8 (with DD buffer) to 12 ECM strenght at optimal. New Fleet Scorpion 180 km (plus gang bonuses) range, up to ~ 85 km ECM optimal + 90 km falloff (with rigs and skills) around 4 (with DD buffer) to 4.5 ECM strenght at fleet range (~25% sucsess rate) Dampener Scorpion 180 km (plus gang bonuses) range, up to 71 km damp optimal (with rigs and skills) + 90 km falloff. Around 50 - 33 % sucsess rate at fleet ranges. Dampener Rokh 180 km range, same dampener max stats, altho has 2 less midslots.
So - looking at those numbers currently - if you want to do e-war in fleet it makes perfect sense to bring Scorpion. After the changes the Scorpion effectivity at fleet ranges will drop around 3x and dampener Scorpion will be roughly 50% 'better' at fleet range than ECM Scorpion. Hell, even Dampener Rokh will be approx as 'good' at e-war at fleet ranges as ECM Scorpion.
So at first glance the proposed changes seemed not too bad, but after thinking about it - I think those changes will still kill the fleet scorpion role. If that is all that can be reached then I would take that short range brawler instead. It at least might be able to do something elsewhere .. perhaps ... and I could always fit Damps if I want to do fleet stuff. Or bring better ship.
|
Spartan dax
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 10:02:00 -
[138]
Originally by: The Alchemyst Change ECM function :
Instead of reducing targets number to 0, each succesfull ECM module cycle unlock 2 targets .......and more stuff
Something along these lines then. Lock disrupting mechanic
|
Spartan dax
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 10:11:00 -
[139]
Originally by: Carniflex
So at first glance the proposed changes seemed not too bad, but after thinking about it - I think those changes will still kill the fleet scorpion role. If that is all that can be reached then I would take that short range brawler instead. It at least might be able to do something elsewhere .. perhaps ... and I could always fit Damps if I want to do fleet stuff. Or bring better ship.
Yeah well, if CCP developers decides to make a ship better with unbonused ewar than it's supposed bonused ewar.... Well, I doubt that's gonna happen tbh. They're probably thinking up something else right now. The current situation is just too hilarious and it'll never hit TQ. (only talking scorpion and fleets here)
|
Cailais
Amarr Diablo Advocatus Vanguard.
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 10:38:00 -
[140]
A lot of the comments about bringing ECM ships closer to the battle all seem to be complaining about 'paper thin' tanks.
Surely the answer then is to simply improve the overall tank of those ships that need to operate at 'close' range?
Improving resists and / or Shield HPs would achieve this without needing to change the slot lay out of these ships.
C.
Originally by: Capa So if you wake up one morning and it's a particularly beautiful day, you'll know we made it.
|
|
Lord Eremet
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 11:34:00 -
[141]
From CCP Chronotis first ECM ships thread...
Originally by:
The falcon is the "sniper" of the two ECM roles having less ECM strength and more ECM range.
Falcon: Caldari Cruiser Skill Bonus: 12.5% Bonus to ECM Target Jammer Optimal & Falloff 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
The rook operates at shorter ranges, able to launch a stronger ECM attack and whilst having shorter ECM range can lay some real damage on its target gaining a heavy/heavy assault and standard missile velocity bonus in addition to a small drone bay for additional utility.
Rook: Caldari Cruiser Skill Bonus: 10% Bonus to Light & Heavy, Heavy assault Missile Velocity per level 10% reduction in ECM Target Jammer capacitor use per Level
Recon Ships Skill Bonus: 25% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per level 5% bonus to heavy, heavy assualt and light missile kinetic damage per level
Attribute Changes: +25m3 drone bay +25mbit drone bandwidth
CCP Chronotis, beats me why you are not using the ideas for Falcon/Rook you had first, they were clearly better. Did all those falcon alt's tears threaten to drown you? I was looking forward to the new Rook but now it looks like it will still feel ashamed over not being a falcon :P
Scrapping SDA's completely or let them only affect all races electronic warfare optimal range would also be best. If they give both range and ECM strenght bonus then no one will fit anything else in their falcon's lows and Rook will still not be used any more then it is today, read=hardly at all.
If not really changed Falcons will still remain the most used recon everywhere. Those newly proposed changes in your new thread are a joke. Disappointing really.
|
Rastigan
Caldari Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 12:33:00 -
[142]
The Scorpions best use is for long range sniping support, not that big of a cost, not too many SP needed and you too can help out in a fleet battle.
Why would you want to waste an awesome ECM range bonus (the main reason why there were 100's of nerf Falcon threads on the forums) for a 5% ROF bonus.. +25% ROF of crap DPS is still crap DPS, if you want a close range ECM brawler, just load up your Raven with Multispecs, and enjoy losing your ship just as fast as a close range Scorpion.
|
Sherylin Fenn
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 12:52:00 -
[143]
As a falcon pilot I agreed with these changes. Bringing caldari recons to a line with other races recons are good. One I wish to add. Reduce jammer's cycle to 10 sec, as dampers & trackdiz's. If you wish to long range ECM to operate from falloff - reduce the cycle, coz with 20 sec cycle it is pointless to jam from falloff range, chances are lacking.
But in overall - good work! |
Baudolino
Gallente Royal Crimson Lancers
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 13:06:00 -
[144]
CCP is going way of the grid here..
Post regarding my standing on ECM/Falcons
For a med to large sized gang- there is no problem countering Falcons, and the solution doesn`t even include falcons or ECM. I`m not telling you though. As stated under the link i posted- damp range should be increased though.
Falcon with damage and drones? Who comes up with this crap. Falcon is paper thin- it`s like the stealth bomber- if someone targets it- it`s dead. Making the falcon a close range should is tantamount to burying the ship. At short to medium range it will have no damage to contribute with, no tank at all to sustain damage with (as it needs mids for ECM and lows for SDAs) and pits the falcon against combat ships using a chance based module.. This is silly..
Reducing jamming range from 200km to 100km is more than enough. Ad an increase to dampening range and you`re fine- at least mid to large gangs will be golden. Solo players will still be screwed, but that is just how the game is designed.
What you`re talking about here is a completely different ship. Improve the rooks combat effectiveness- give it an extra high slot and maybe even an extra low-slot. Then move all these other ideas to the tech III ships- so people can make short range jammers with good resists and some combat abilities out of tech III.
ECM changes, BO changes, stealth bomber changes and tech III seem to me to be crashing and suffering from a lack of cohesive thinking. You need to sit down and breath slowly, before making some huge mistakes, because it seems to me that right now, with the current flow of ideas, things are just getting messy..
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 13:18:00 -
[145]
Originally by: Baudolino Falcon with damage and drones? Who comes up with this crap. Falcon is paper thin- it`s like the stealth bomber- if someone targets it- it`s dead.
Current Falcons are paper-thin because they have no tank fitted. It's quite straightforward to get over 30k EHP on a Falcon (while retaining 5x ECM), putting it at similar EHP levels to any another tanked force recon.
You can do it on a Rook as well, although you'll have no PG to fit any weapons afterwards. PG boost needed there.
|
Sherylin Fenn
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 13:29:00 -
[146]
Edited by: Sherylin Fenn on 01/04/2009 13:30:59 WoW people you are blind or somth? Stop crying ) With these changes Falcon/Rook will be very good as solo or small gang ship - after SDA giving only 10% of ECM strengh, you can get it with 2 rigs, and you have low slots for DC, damage mods, tanking or anything. In small gang 48 optimal are good enough. So, it will be as other recons anyway.
If you want a long range - use SDA (+10%), fit rigs for anything else and jam it from falloff. Even with SDA or optimal rigs (they do have stacking penalty, btw) ECM optimal will be somth around 65-70. No "UBER" falcon/rook jam from 150+ anymore. The only thing I wish to add, as I sad before - ECM cycle must be reduced to 10 sec as other EWAR - coz 20 sec cycle on a chance based EWAR on falloff (again reduced chance) will be useless.
|
Vigaz
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 13:58:00 -
[147]
Originally by: something somethingdark Right this is aproximatly what i feel it should look like
max skills no aditional mods/rigs racial jammer
ship | ecm optimal | targeting range | strength (1=best)
bbird | 80km optimal | dont care | 3 rook | 120km optimal | 160km | 1 falcon | 80km optimal | 160km | 3 scorp | 160km optimal | 125km | 2
and for giggles hers the widow (our new ecm overlord) widow | 160km optimal | 125km | 1
propper calculations available when you offer me a job
Widow dosent have a optimal ECM range bonus.... it's a close range BS without the ability to proper fit Torp launcher T2 (if u wanna use torp you can use Faction launchers or no tank at all).
Scorpion has same hull and its a long range BS (cannot be a short range due to its bad agility, and very large size -> quotation from CCP) Widow is just a suicidal short range BS.
|
Eigof Tahr
Dirt Nap Squad
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 14:55:00 -
[148]
1. Caldari recons used range and ecm as tank. CCP has clearly stated caldari's thematic bonuses are extra range, but now they are being removed. A battleship can alpha a falcon/rook because it is so paper thin.
2. Ecm isn't like any of the other ewar. It can be overheated. It has lowslot modules that change its strength. It is percentage based effectiveness. Some ewar has scripts, some can be overheated, some can be bonuses, some just sit there (tp). By turning ecm into everything else, you are saying you don't want a diverse play environment that forces people to think.
3. Where is the other bonus system for caldari recons? Amarr have neut/nos bonus, minmatar have webs, gallente have scram/disruptor bonus. Caldari have.....nothing anymore. We had range, that made sense, Caldari have never been "short range brawlers" because that didn't fit their model. Lol add drone bay to a caldari recon, methinks, you confuse gallente and caldari ships.
4. 72km is not long range CCP. A battleship needs to hit effectively to twice that to be considered long range. When was the last time anyone saw a battleship that was long range that had a range of 72+80? Maybe 150+60. Falloff kills ecm, and a strength of 7.875 with max skills is lol.
If someone where coming to a bs sniper fight with one of those scorpions I would shoot them myself and tell them to get in a raven. At least it would be able to hit far enough with a cruise missile and have someone resembling a tank. That scorpion isn't going to do anything because he will constantly be out of range and no strength.
5. Why not back the whole train up and just reduce the insanely good strength bonus the falcon and rook get. Drop it from 20% per level to 10% per level.
6. Falcon whiners will exist until the falcon is useless and then they will move on to their next flavor and ruin someone else's fun because they can't figure out how to work the situation. I predict it will be either a weapons system or a tanking system. Clearly CCP only believe in tank and gank anymore so, it has to be one of those two to get the next cry. ------- A rose, by any other name, would be "deadly thorn-bearing assault vegetation." |
Nipplator
Amarr Pyre of Gods
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 15:20:00 -
[149]
My biggest problem with ECM is that a frig can come in at 150km and perma-jam my BS with 1 module and completely take it out of the fight. I would like there to be a limit on what class for ships that a certain type of ship can jam and if it goes out of it's class it loses strength of it's jams(something like frigs can jam frigs and cruisers with the cruiser jam having less strength, the recons jamming cruisers, BC and BS losing strength on the BC and BS jams,and BS being able to jam BS with loss of strength on cap ships, also allowing each to jam below it's class), also moving the falcons and stuff into gun range is nice but not really helpful when a ECCM can't stop them from jamming me now so I will just get a better look at them while they do it. If that isn't possible how about a extended cool down counter on the jammers themselves so as to give the ship being jammed a chance to get a few shots off or his drones on the jamming ship at least. Make the falcon pilots sweat with the rest of us in a fire fight.
|
Rastigan
Caldari Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 16:04:00 -
[150]
Originally by: Nipplator My biggest problem with ECM is that a frig can come in at 150km and perma-jam my BS with 1 module and completely take it out of the fight.
Which frig does this with just 1 module ?
|
|
Vigaz
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 16:38:00 -
[151]
Edited by: Vigaz on 01/04/2009 16:39:05
Originally by: Gypsio III
Originally by: Baudolino Falcon with damage and drones? Who comes up with this crap. Falcon is paper thin- it`s like the stealth bomber- if someone targets it- it`s dead.
Current Falcons are paper-thin because they have no tank fitted. It's quite straightforward to get over 30k EHP on a Falcon (while retaining 5x ECM), putting it at similar EHP levels to any another tanked force recon.
You can do it on a Rook as well, although you'll have no PG to fit any weapons afterwards. PG boost needed there.
Could u please post falcon fit to reach 30k EHP?
meanwhile let me post a sample Rapier fit (I'm not a Rapier pilot... so forgive me for that... just try to compare with the high tank capability of the new Falcon):
Short version: Speed 2000m/s 29k EHP 286 DPS 3x Web covertop cloaking
Full version:
Low: 1x damage control t2 1x power diag t2 2x overdrive t2
Med: 2x LSE t2 1x MWD t2 3x Web t2
high: 3x 425 t2 ū I dunno what is the best ammo... 286 with Hail M 1x Covertop cloak
Rig: 2x core defence field extender
Drones: 3x Hammerhead t2 2x Hobgoblin t2
no implant - no booster - skills @ 5
|
Ephemeron
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 16:58:00 -
[152]
A Falcon SHOULD NOT have Tank and Gank as good as other recons such as Rapier
Rapier can't neutralize 1-3 people at a time. If you consider the amount of DPS you save on tank from the jamming, it's pretty safe to say - 400 dps (if HAC gang) to 800 dps (if bs)
No other recon can survive better than a Falcon specifically because it can reduce enemy damage to 0. So it just needs a buffer tank for the drones.
And even then, it will pretty much always stay at least 50 km away from the enemy - even the shortest range version. Which is out of the way of most drones and scramblers.
Even at 50-80 km operating ranges, the Falcon will still be the safest recon to use in combat
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 16:59:00 -
[153]
This is the tanked Falcon I made up:
Damage Control II 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Amarr Navy Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane
10MN MicroWarpdrive II Large Shield Extender II 5x ECM
31,865 EHP. Using faction items is usually "cheating" in this sort of comparison, but AN EANMs are fairly cheap. It's 31,079 EHP with T2 EANM, so maybe not worth the ISK anyway. Rig slots free still. Speed 1100 m/s.
You could criticise this a dual tank. But it's a buffer tank - it doesn't matter where the EHP are, as long as the fit is sensible and the EHP satisfactory. Anyway, does having the DC make it a triple-tank? And spreading the EHP between shield and armour (and structure) avoids resist holes.
In comparison, an Arazu with 1600 plate, DC and dual Navy EANM has 32,040 EHP (30,025 EHP with T2 EANMs) - essentially the same as the Falcon.
Obviously this is a comparison of armour tanks. Whether that's meaningful depends on whether people will prefer to armour- or shield tank the future Falcon, which will probably depend on tactics and the balance between SDAs and rigs. A shielded Falcon with DC, LSE and overheated Inv has 21,302 EHP, for comparison.
|
Polinus
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 17:11:00 -
[154]
Originally by: Winterreign Not happy with loosing the Scorpion changes.
Scorp is the only battleship with out a damage mod or Rof bonus out of all the battleships in eve.
-BA
The Apoc is calling you for a little chat....
|
Polinus
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 17:13:00 -
[155]
Originally by: Vigaz Edited by: Vigaz on 01/04/2009 16:39:05
Originally by: Gypsio III
Originally by: Baudolino Falcon with damage and drones? Who comes up with this crap. Falcon is paper thin- it`s like the stealth bomber- if someone targets it- it`s dead.
Current Falcons are paper-thin because they have no tank fitted. It's quite straightforward to get over 30k EHP on a Falcon (while retaining 5x ECM), putting it at similar EHP levels to any another tanked force recon.
You can do it on a Rook as well, although you'll have no PG to fit any weapons afterwards. PG boost needed there.
Could u please post falcon fit to reach 30k EHP?
meanwhile let me post a sample Rapier fit (I'm not a Rapier pilot... so forgive me for that... just try to compare with the high tank capability of the new Falcon):
Short version: Speed 2000m/s 29k EHP 286 DPS 3x Web covertop cloaking
Full version:
Low: 1x damage control t2 1x power diag t2 2x overdrive t2
Med: 2x LSE t2 1x MWD t2 3x Web t2
high: 3x 425 t2 ū I dunno what is the best ammo... 286 with Hail M 1x Covertop cloak
Rig: 2x core defence field extender
Drones: 3x Hammerhead t2 2x Hobgoblin t2
no implant - no booster - skills @ 5
You realize that rapier has the signature of a Battleship?
|
Vigaz
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 17:16:00 -
[156]
Originally by: Polinus
Originally by: Vigaz Edited by: Vigaz on 01/04/2009 16:39:05
Originally by: Gypsio III
Originally by: Baudolino Falcon with damage and drones? Who comes up with this crap. Falcon is paper thin- it`s like the stealth bomber- if someone targets it- it`s dead.
Current Falcons are paper-thin because they have no tank fitted. It's quite straightforward to get over 30k EHP on a Falcon (while retaining 5x ECM), putting it at similar EHP levels to any another tanked force recon.
You can do it on a Rook as well, although you'll have no PG to fit any weapons afterwards. PG boost needed there.
Could u please post falcon fit to reach 30k EHP?
meanwhile let me post a sample Rapier fit (I'm not a Rapier pilot... so forgive me for that... just try to compare with the high tank capability of the new Falcon):
Short version: Speed 2000m/s 29k EHP 286 DPS 3x Web covertop cloaking
Full version:
Low: 1x damage control t2 1x power diag t2 2x overdrive t2
Med: 2x LSE t2 1x MWD t2 3x Web t2
high: 3x 425 t2 ū I dunno what is the best ammo... 286 with Hail M 1x Covertop cloak
Rig: 2x core defence field extender
Drones: 3x Hammerhead t2 2x Hobgoblin t2
no implant - no booster - skills @ 5
You realize that rapier has the signature of a Battleship?
With MWD or without?
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 17:17:00 -
[157]
Originally by: Polinus You realize that rapier has the signature of a Battleship?
I don't. I realise that it has a 200 m sig with skills trained and MWD off, but that's not BS-sized. Or even BC-sized.
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 17:26:00 -
[158]
A very quick post until we get chance to read over rest of the feedback later. These changes should be on sisi now. There is a known issue which will be resolved over the coming days with the falcon. It currently receives a missile RoF bonus and should be a hybrid damage bonus and does not receive its ECM capacitor bonus.
|
|
Endless Subversion
The Accursed
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 17:45:00 -
[159]
Edited by: Endless Subversion on 01/04/2009 17:49:48 I think it's important to remember all the modifiers available to ECM. When the speed nerf hit snakes and rigs got nerfed too, let's not forget the ECM pirate implants and rigs. We've all seen what happens with rigs that are BETTER than modules. Let's bring ECM rig range down to around 10% as well as change the centurion implants to something like smaller range and cap usage.
I'd really like to see ecm-ship optimal, after SDAs, remain inside drone control / fof range. But that might better be served by buffing drone control range and FOF range and intelligence rather than nerfing the ecm ranges.
As to the people complaining about how fragile the caldari recons are...
Their mid and low slot layout and base hp and resists allows them to have JUST as much tank as all the rest of the recons. Everybody else needs to make an ewar/cap/hp tradeoff, now the caldari resons will too. Boo hoo.
|
A Junior
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 18:05:00 -
[160]
why not boost eccm instead redesign a complete ship class??? I don't understand ccp...
|
|
Perry
Amarr The X-Trading Company RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 18:05:00 -
[161]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis A very quick post until we get chance to read over rest of the feedback later. These changes should be on sisi now. There is a known issue which will be resolved over the coming days with the falcon. It currently receives a missile RoF bonus and should be a hybrid damage bonus and does not receive its ECM capacitor bonus.
Anyone else thinking what im thinking right now?
3x Heavy Neutron Blaster Coward Ops Cloacking MWD Warp Scrambler 4x Multispec ECM LSE 2x Magstab 1x ECM Mod 5x Hobgoblin
366dps in your permajammed face and if local spikes i just cloak lol
|
Lady Laserlance
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 18:24:00 -
[162]
how about making the gallente recons the stone to the caldari ecm scissors? give them some damp range and locking time love and voila, you have a nice neutalizer. and as an extra plus, it also works out on the RP side.
|
Carniflex
Caldari Fallout Research Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 18:50:00 -
[163]
Originally by: Lady Laserlance how about making the gallente recons the stone to the caldari ecm scissors? give them some damp range and locking time love and voila, you have a nice neutalizer. and as an extra plus, it also works out on the RP side.
Reason why Falcons are atm 'king of the hill' is bcos damps got nerfed. As a sideeffect we also got those scripts that go into damps and tracking disruptors plus some changes to sensor boosters and how they stack against damps.
|
Avalira
Caldari N'Th'Rack Squadron Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 19:02:00 -
[164]
If the rook is supposed to be a brawler, why not give it a big bonus to ECM bursts? It would be a nice anti-blob get-up-close ECM ship.
Originally by: CCP Tuxford Its been fixed. All in all its one of the more embarrassing mistakes I made, but it made game design laugh. Now lets never speak of this again.
|
KissedByDeath
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 19:08:00 -
[165]
Quote: Anyone else thinking what im thinking right now?
3x Heavy Neutron Blaster Coward Ops Cloacking MWD Warp Scrambler 4x Multispec ECM LSE 2x Magstab 1x ECM Mod 5x Hobgoblin
366dps in your permajammed face and if local spikes i just cloak lol
lol so make the falcon into a blastertron? lol
I say rook needs to be the brawler not the falcon.
|
Solid Prefekt
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 19:38:00 -
[166]
Looking at the current ideas, the Falcon will still have the best range and be the most damaging to hostiles. And with ships going half the speed (because of the speed nerf) they will still be far away. I would really like to see it nerfed to the range levels of the other Recons. I would even make it not chance based anymore (100% chance) but then make it only 60% effective so say guns would only do 40% dmg.
|
deltauk1
Vale Heavy Industries Molotov Coalition
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 20:26:00 -
[167]
I like the look of the new changes, keeping the SDA's is a good thing (splitting the bonus 10% to strength and optimal is good as well) and although fall off will still enable long range jamming anyone who flies a caldari recon will know when your out of optimal your jamming efficiency drops quite sharply, i never go out of optimal when jamming for the above mentioned reason so yes a falcon may still jam at long range but nowhere near the current efficiency and if it wants to make a valuable contribution to a fight it's going to have to come a lot closer and it would make ships fitted with eccm a lot harder to jam out of optimal and retain the modules usability. As for caldari recons still having a longer range than the other races i think it's not a bad balance compared to the damage differences of the other recons they have either more or the same high slots as well as having a minimum of a 40m3 drone bay so if you really want to bring the rook and falcon even closer you've got to give them the drone bay which would be out of charcater of caldari ships as a whole. Finally as for the tank issue, removing SDA's isn't going to 'force' people to tank, with the exception of a damage control if your going to tank a caldari ship it's going to be in the shield department not armor so therefore your going to use your mids not your lows (no point recharge tanking a recon. i think thse 'amended' changes will still force people to 'fly' their ew boat rather than sit stupid distances out 'token' jamming. A lot of people are slating rooks I fly one more than my falcon and know other people who do as well mostly in small fleet pvp. That's my opinion on these latest changes
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 20:49:00 -
[168]
Edited by: Hirana Yoshida on 01/04/2009 20:50:35
Originally by: Solid Prefekt <snip> Mark my words (and you can quote this so I don't change it) the Falcon will still be the most popular Recon after these changes.
So very true. The Vagabond that was destined for the scrapheap post QR according to these forums is still the 3rd most used ship (probably not 100% accurate but the ratios should be valid enough).
Object of this 'exercise' is to nerf the ECM platforms enough for regular mortals (ie. non fleet snipers) to be able to counter them, but without making them obsolete.
PS: Still hoping that the chance based 'feature' is removed from ECM, that actual counter modules become viable and the cinematic nature of being jammed is removed.
PPS: ECCM is NOT a viable counter as it yields zero benefit except if an ECM boat targets you. SB/Injector/TC/TE etc. all give a benefit which is then reduced by applicable eWar.
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 21:32:00 -
[169]
Edited by: Scatim Helicon on 01/04/2009 21:33:49
Originally by: Roemy Schneider * SDAs - have them boost all EW
I've seen this mentioned a few times but never a response from CCP as to whether they think its a goer. People crosstrained into Caldari not so much because ECM was massively powerful, but more because the other three racial e-war types were so pointless. The ECM reworking does nothing to fix that, whereas reworking SDAs to boost other e-war types might be some help.
|
TheLibrarian
Tides Of War
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 22:01:00 -
[170]
It is sad to see that the scorpion is remaining a very underused ship. While I respect its role for long range jamming in a semi-cheaper ship that has insurance. I also think that your making two ships fill 1 role. That the falcon does better in every way. However I dont know what the final distances are on everything with modules so I could be wrong about this. I need to get on SISI and test.
I was really looking forward to the changes with the scorpion receiving a RoF bonus as were many many pilots. The ship was going to be completely reinvented and used widely by lots of people with those changes. In my honest opinion, I think the scorpion will remain a widely underused ship with its current patch outlook.
Overall I appreciate the reading and the hard work being done to balance ECM instead of just nerfing it into the ground. Lots of people are upset and lots of people are happy. Overall I think the game will benefit when you are able to have a chance of killing falcons. I am not biased either I have spent 3+ months training for a max skilled falcon. I enjoy the overall benefit that the game will receive when we can no longer jam 4-6 ships from 200K and doing it aligned to your other jam spot.
On to more important things, I have a few questions for CCP:
1. How are the modules and rigs going to be stacking nerfed now that SDA's provide str + range. (for example Nanofiber II's stacking nerfed with all other speed modules) 2. Is CCP looking at the rigs and their effectiveness? 3. Is the scorpion change final? It seemed like the other changes were not final but your opinion on the scorpion was?
Thanks for the hard work and reading!
|
|
Yakov Draken
Minmatar Tides Of War
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 22:38:00 -
[171]
Dissapointing to see SDA's back to giving a strength boost.
The biggest problem with ECM has been committing to a fight, having Falcons uncloak, and then being jammed out of the fight = no fun. Losing a fight can be fun - not getting to fight is not.
Smaller ships have low sensor strengths, shorter range, and a dearth of mids for ECCM meaning jamming really hurts. In practice this means you fly small ships and Falcons jam you up the whazoo. Sure they are closer in than before so you will have some options but the strength of the jammers vs the sensor strength of smaller ships needs to be addressed.
I propose:
Buff the sensor strength of ships under BS size!
Do this for the fun factor - do this to give us more effective ship options.
|
Yakov Draken
Minmatar Tides Of War
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 22:48:00 -
[172]
Originally by: TheLibrarian I was really looking forward to the changes with the scorpion receiving a RoF bonus
Likewise.
|
Robert Caldera
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 23:29:00 -
[173]
Edited by: Robert Caldera on 01/04/2009 23:29:22 the constant comparisons of the falcon to other recons are annoying me. Such are just for dogs unless you dont like diversity, the caldari recons are just different! Otherwise, we could make them all do the same across races but color the effects differently and voila we have a perfect balanced, but dull and boring game, where everybody can do the same like others.
|
L0nz0p
Insurgent New Eden Tribe Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 23:38:00 -
[174]
are you kidding me? armor tanking a caldari ship? bah...
i hope the range cutted by 2/3 will be rerouted on the strenght, or the caldari will get the worst EW of the game: slight more range of others & chance based.
|
Sigras
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 01:22:00 -
[175]
i dont see what the problem is with nerfing the falcon's range to 90 + falloff with racials or 70 + falloff with multispecs . . . its still outside the range of everything sub battleship except the eagle/cerberus which are their roles by definition . . .
I also think the signal distortion amps should be changed; It would be interesting if they were scripted modules offering range at the expense of strength or vice versa . . . im thinking unscripted they would do nothing, or offer a small range and strength bonus.
***** Script 1 +15% range -15% strength
Script 2 +15% strength -15% range
Unscripted +5% strength and range *****
I also propose a change to ECCM, script it as well.
***** Script 1 +96% Sensor Strength
Script 2 -50% sensor recalibration time (the duration you're jammed for)
Unscripted +25% Sensor Strength -30% sensor recalibration time (the duration you're jammed for) *****
this would not only differentiate between ECCM and sensor backup arrays, but it would make ECCM effective on frigate class ships because as it stands right now, 2x a laughable jam strength is twice the laughable jam strength.
It would also be harder to perma jam a ship running ECCM
|
Karlemgne
Tides Of War
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 01:28:00 -
[176]
So basically, you're leaving Falcon's un-nerfed, except of course pirate Falcons. Yet one more advantage goes to non-flashies.
Pirates will not have the range to engage non-flashy targets at gates in low-sec without tanking sentries, but with about a 100k range and slightly less (not much less) jam strength non-flashies can still engage flashies at gates/stations giving non-flashies a significant tactical advantage.
Your best bet, CCP, is to stick with the original changes OR change how ECM works.
I don't feel as though you're really thinking this through.
-Karlemgne My sig don't fracking work. |
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 02:13:00 -
[177]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Without any other rigs or modules fitted with max skills, the BZ-5 (caldari jammer) will have an optimal range of 48km and falloff of 53km with a strength of 11.25 to gravimetric. The same bonuses are applied to the Rook.
Right. That's optimal with no rigs or modules. Except SDAs will give +10% each, and rigs give +20% each. So +30% in modules, +40% in rigs. Looks like ECM optimal will still be on the very edge of RSD falloff. Wonderful. Still no effective defense against ECM.
Taxman VII: Kingdom of Vlad
|
Noisrevbus
Caldari Breams Gone Wild
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 02:24:00 -
[178]
I'm not going to evaluate the proposed changes as much as i am going to suggest a completely different approach :).
Noisrevbus 10-step approach to streamlining ECM ships to their related racial counterparts:
Originally by: "Noisrevbus"
1. Don't split their tank and EWar, split their EWar and damage (like the Amarr). 2. That would mean that you make ECM modules high slot modules. 3. Remove racials, introduce racial scripts to the multispecs. 4. Cut ECM range down to equivalent range of the other races' forms of ranged EWar. 5. The easiest way to execute that is to remove the range bonus from the Recons, but keep it on the Scorpion. 6. Give the Recons a secondary bonus to burst ECM area of effect (as their secondary EWar). 7. Keep burst ECM as a midslot module competing with tank. 8. Keep a drone bay on the Rook as per proposal. 9. Keep the missile range bonus on the Rook, because i like that change (nice tradition from the Caracal). 10. Remove SDA's from the game, no other EWar module has a similar necessity.
This would allow the ECM ships a native midslot tank, which would warrant cutting down their range. This would provide a choice for the ECM pilot to either go full ECM or mix a bit of ECM with a bit of damage.
An example there would be having say, 5 highs, and choosing between a 5+0 or 2+3 ECM/Launcher split for a Rook. For a Falcon, fitting a cloak comes natural, so it will naturally have one less potential ECM module for internal balance). A Falcon would be unlikely to split in the manner of a Rook, but could still only fit a 4+1 split at most; effectively cutting down it's total jamming modules and the amount of ships it can lock out, in favour of some flexibility against pre-located targets. You would have a ship capable of operating up to around 100km and a bit longer in falloff with racials, and slightly shorter when unscripted (which will put them in sensor dampener range, among many other things). You could have a slot layout along the lines of 5-6-3 (in contrast to today's 4-7-3 on a Falcon). The burst ECM bonus would allow a minor chance to pre-align and potentially shake off tacklers, if the module would reach 20-25km when bonused (thus excluding ships with tackle bonus).
This is just off the top of my head, i'll revisit the thread and possibly add more examples and discussion.
|
CrestoftheStars
Caldari Recreation Of The World
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 02:58:00 -
[179]
Originally by: Marn Prestoc Edited by: Marn Prestoc on 31/03/2009 11:33:45
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
I prefer the previous idea, was more like mine...
Quote: Kitsune - Frig gangs, can keep a bit of range, around 100km lock range so 4km/s inties arn't on you in under 10 secs like now. Quick lock so should target and have a chance at jamming a bigger ECM ship if in range.
Rook - Best Ranged ECM ship. Offers an additional ECM, some personal defense and a bit more range over a Falcon. 170 Kind of range.
Falcon - Cloaker, around 150 (before ecm range rigs) so not got as many jam chances (1 less mid) as Rook, the range, or personal defence but you do cloak.
Scorpion - Close range ultimate ECM. Best jam chance of the lot, but easy to counter with longer ranged ECM so pilot might have to sacrifice number of ECM for ECCM. Also slowest locking since its a BS so other have chance to jam you first. Decent armour tank and doesn't need sig amps cos of bonus, but can sacrifice tank for ecm strength.
Hence each has it area of control and counter in ECM vs ECM. Smaller ship can jam you before you have a chance. Longer ranged can jam you while you can't reach it. Ultimate strength might have to sacrifice to limit effect of quicker lock+longer range but has slots to do so and does better at jamming stuff it can target+reach.
To me it sounds like your going more back to the: high range+strength ship > med range+strength ship > small range+strength ship. Rather than High range + lower strength / mid range+strength / Low range + High strength.
this ___________________________________________ Whoever appeals to the law against his fellow man is either a fool or a coward. Whoever cannot take care of himself without that law is both. For a wounded |
TZeer
BURN EDEN
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 03:25:00 -
[180]
It`s just frightening to see the amount of whine here now.
Before: Nerf falcon, falcon has to much range!! NERF!
Then they change it so the falcon and rook will never get an optimal over 100km with mods and stuff.
Range on the scorp gets reduced to around 100km optimal.
Main complains before was that "ECM has stupid range, you need to bring it in so we can counter it"
Thats excactly whats happening now.
And now you peeps suddenly complain that the ECM, that is supposed to be fitted on a close range fragile ship is jamming stuff? Give me a break!
Whats the difference between an arazu and a falcon orbiting and putting 3 EW modules on your battleship?
Both will make you useless...
Arazu with damps and T1 rigs will take a single sensorboosted raven down to 20km while keeping him there. And theres nothing the BS pilot can do if the arazu is outside 20km range.
Now lets see if the raven had ECCM and a falcon did the same. We can assume the falcon carried 4 racial and a multi. And a small tank.
In the end it`s a higher chance for the jammers to fail and falcon get locked up then arazu get within locking range of the BS.
Only thing the BS could have done is released drones before he got agro.
And people advocating ECCM is not working, get your head out of the sand please. It IS working and stating otherwise is a bloody lie. Yes it would be cool to get a second attribute to the ECCM, like more targets locked up, small increase in scan resolution etc.
And ECM working better on smaller ships, well surprise, same goes for damps since most smaller ships have shorter lockingrange by default.
Same with damage, no matter how much tank you fit on your cruiser, frig whatever. Your ships WILL be blown out of the sky if you are exposed to superior firepower. No amount of tank will save you.
Same with EW, the smaller the ship, the crappier is the sensors on them. If you are in gang and use a ECCM, you might not notice it in the receiving end if you get jammed. But the guy giving out the love will feel it for sure. ECCM is soaking up jammers.
And just because CCP made damps very hard to use now ( stupid move IMO ) doesnt mean we have to stomp ECM down the same hole.
If the whine squad had just used like 10% of the effort they are using in the NERF ECM crusade, and tried to advocate a boost to the arazu`s and lachesis, then maybe, maybe the world would become a better place.
|
|
Carniflex
Caldari Fallout Research Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 04:09:00 -
[181]
Originally by: Vladimir Norkoff Right. That's optimal with no rigs or modules. Except SDAs will give +10% each, and rigs give +20% each. So +30% in modules, +40% in rigs. Looks like ECM optimal will still be on the very edge of RSD falloff. Wonderful. Still no effective defense against ECM.
Those are stacking against each other so rigged ECM ~85 km optimal and Rigged damps ~70 km optimal. That is not 'optimal at outer edge of falloff'. And things will look even quite good if you take into account that ECM is propability based even in optimal while damps are propability based only in falloff (and start ticking down from 100% vs ECM starting going downwards whatever it's propability happened to be against that target).
Granted - as ECM ships tend to have quite good max lock ranges and also fit sensor boosters damps are not that optimal against them if they would be operating at sub 100 km range.
|
Liang Nuren
No Salvation PuPPet MasTers
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 05:19:00 -
[182]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 02/04/2009 05:22:18 Not really impressed with these changes. I'd really prefer to see the old Scorp with much stronger ECM and lower range. Also, gimme 6 launcher/hybrid slots and a ROF/damage bonus.
So for instance we'd see:
6x Launcher/Hybrid 8x Mid 4x Low 3x Rig
5% damage bonus, 20% ECM strength
Also, I am really fond of Omarvelous' idea of 1 SDA per ship with stronger bonuses (like damage controls) to make them much less of a required module.
-Liang
Ed: It may also be worth scrapping the official 'random' jamming and moving to making ECM work much like guns do - with a hit percentage and hit quality... and if the total jamming points on you is more than your sensor strength, then you're jammed. Then give ecm a lower optimal and much longer falloff so that we'd see 37.5% jamming strength at optimal + falloff. Then get rid of racial ECM. :) -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org |
El Sheme
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 06:01:00 -
[183]
so my falcon is now going to have crap range? how am i suppose to break up a gate camp thats bubbled when i cant ecm very well pasted 150kkm, which is where you have to warp to not get sucked into the bubble. i cant bring a scorp in a gang like that its to slow for roaming. yay for gate camping buff
|
TheLibrarian
Tides Of War
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 06:18:00 -
[184]
CCP Chronotis,
I still think that your original logic of ECM was much more role defining.
Having the roles defined by sensor strength and range were great.
You defined the roles as long range having lower jam strength, medium ranged having balanced jam strength, and short range having high jam strength.
This not only defined the roles for the ship, but balanced out ECM in a very good gamestyle way. It allowed corps to use ECM for different roles, they could pick which version or role of ECM they wanted. Long range for fleet warfare or small gangs, middle range for roaming gangs, and close up for remote repping gangs.
In the current state people are going to be fitting SDA's again, which remove the ability to fit tank and fight. The ship styles will still be trying to achieve the longest possible range while not loosing any jam strength.
In the end I like the old post of roles and different ECM ranges better than I like the current changes. The original ideas were more of a change, the current changes are not much of a change. More of a fitting issue on how to get the best range/strength out of your ship. Fitting the right combination of stacking nerfed modules to gain the most benefit will become the optimal fit. Thus leading to the same stale meta game.
Please re-evaluate how much you want to define roles in ECM ships. I think the original rebuttle towards your idea was because they were to drastic. If you had time to think about how to balance the Long Range, Medium Range, and Short range ECM ships. The best way to start would be to pick out which ships should fit which roles then work on balancing them properly.
-TheLibrarian |
McEivalley
Fallen Angel's Blade.
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 07:21:00 -
[185]
Originally by: Antioch Red Edited by: Antioch Red on 31/03/2009 11:19:47 It's difficult to comment in a meaningful way without some numbers to start us off; any chance of providing some please?
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
but will still be much longer range than any of the other recons are capable off.
And what is the reasoning behind ecm having this much longer range? It may be chance based but it's effect is comensurately greater in prportion upon success, so why does it need this longer range? Give all the ew comparable ranges and then you begin to achieve balance.
STOP THIS! Why do you care so much about balance?! If you want balance on ewar, then I want a hybrid damage bonus on my rokh so it can blast its way in close range as much as a much cheaper mega can. Or nerf the mega. If you want balance, then I want a 100m3 drone baye on my rokh with at least 75m/bit bandwidth. I want shield boosting cap usage reduced or up the amount of shield boosts. Or significantly lower the shields recharge time on most caldari battleships to allow a more favorable passive/buffer close range tank fits. For the love of ccp, I want to be able to tackle with caldari ships!
You get the drift... if you try to balance so much, everything dims. Everything becomes the same. You don't need to rely on anyone anymore. Social cooperation on that level goes out the door. CCP, please ignore such pleas of reasoning - they will spoil your wonderful game. Do - don't die trying. |
Zanquis
Caldari Universal Exports
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 07:28:00 -
[186]
Here are the current Settings On SISI as of 02/04/2009
Falcon
Caldari Cruiser Skill Bonus:
- 5% Bonus to Heavy and Heavy Assault Missile Launcher Rate of Fire per level
- 10% Bonus to ECM Target Jammer capacitor use per level
Recon Ships Skill Bonus:
- 30% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per level
- -96% to -100% reduction in Cloaking Device CPU use per level
Role Bonus: 80% reduction in liquid ozone consumption for cynosural field generation and 50% reduction in cynosural field duration. Note: can fit covert cynosural field generators
Drone Bay & Bandwith: +25 Turret Hardpoints: +1
Rook Caldari Cruiser Skill Bonus:
- 5% Bonus to Heavy and Heavy Assault Missile Launcher Rate of Fire per level
- 10% Bonus to ECM Target Jammer capacitor use per level
Recon Ships Skill Bonus:
- 30% Bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per level
- 10% Bonus to Heavy & Heavy Missile velocity per level
Drone Bay & Bandwith: +25 Shields: 1788 (+100)
Scorpion
Caldari Battleship Skill Bonus:
- 15% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per level
- 10% bonus to ECM Target Jammer optimal and falloff range per level
No Other changes detected to the ships fitting and stats
Racial ECM Jammar's Strength (Primary): 3.6 (+/- 0) Strength (other): 1.2 (+/- 0) Optimal: 32 km (-22 km) Falloff: 35 km (+8 km)
Multispectral ECM Jammar's Strength: 2.4 (+/- 0) Optimal: 21 km (-15 km) Falloff: 23 km (+5 km)
Personal Evaluation Falcon Battlefield Summary: The Falcon seems to have lost its edge with these changes with the only strength of the ship becoming the covert ops cloaking device. However it must operate between 50-90 km to be effective when using all low slots of SDAIIĘs. The ship is very squishy even after using 3 slots and 2 rigs for tank. This version of the Falcon has been converted with a Turret ship gaining an additional turret slot and being able to fit the new T2 250mm guns easily with the available grid. However the bonus given to the ship is a missile launcher bonus which is peculiar, and likely an error given the changes. With the current bonus weapons are still pointless because they are unable to reach any targets at range, which is the only thing that will protect this ship from certain destruction. Suggested Changes:[i] This ship needs to regain the sniper role, and it needs to make the sacrifice of jammer strength in order to accomplish this. To accomplish this the strength bonus should be reduced and changed to a strength and falloff bonus which will allow the Falcon to snipe with a weaker jammer strength using falloff. The missile bonus needs to be changed to a optimal range bonus which should allow the falcon to reach sniper ranges with its rail guns applying very weak damage. Caldari Cruiser Skill Bonus:
- 5% Bonus to Heavy and Heavy Assault Missile Launcher Rate of Fire per level -> 20% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret Optimal Range per level
- 10% Bonus to ECM Target Jammer capacitor use per level
Recon Ships Skill Bonus:
[*]30% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per level --> 20% Bonus to ECM Target Jammer Strength and Falloff per level [*]-96% to -100% reduction in Cloaking Device CPU use per level
Rook [i]Battlefield Summary: The Rook seems to have a significant boost with this patch turning the boat into a mid ranged brawler which is capable of dealing some decent dps up till around 100km. This ship has been given a new life with these changes likely finding its home in smaller engagements and roaming gangs where its balance of EWAR and DPS will be downright deadly. However it has some significant capacitor problems due to the jammer drain combined with the increased demands placed on the ship to gain mobility a ---------------------------------------------- EvE Personality Test
|
Zanquis
Caldari Universal Exports
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 07:32:00 -
[187]
Edited by: Zanquis on 02/04/2009 07:36:10 Edited by: Zanquis on 02/04/2009 07:33:14
Personal Evaluation
Falcon Battlefield Summary: The Falcon seems to have lost its edge with these changes with the only strength of the ship becoming the covert ops cloaking device. However it must operate between 50-90 km to be effective when using all low slots of SDAIIĘs. The ship is very squishy even after using 3 slots and 2 rigs for tank. This version of the Falcon has been converted with a Turret ship gaining an additional turret slot and being able to fit the new T2 250mm guns easily with the available grid. However the bonus given to the ship is a missile launcher bonus which is peculiar, and likely an error given the changes. With the current bonus weapons are still pointless because they are unable to reach any targets at range, which is the only thing that will protect this ship from certain destruction. Suggested Changes: This ship needs to regain the sniper role, and it needs to make the sacrifice of jammer strength in order to accomplish this. To accomplish this the strength bonus should be reduced and changed to a strength and falloff bonus which will allow the Falcon to snipe with a weaker jammer strength using falloff. The missile bonus needs to be changed to a optimal range bonus which should allow the falcon to reach sniper ranges with its rail guns applying very weak damage. Caldari Cruiser Skill Bonus:
- 5% Bonus to Heavy and Heavy Assault Missile Launcher Rate of Fire per level -> 20% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret Optimal Range per level
- 10% Bonus to ECM Target Jammer capacitor use per level
Recon Ships Skill Bonus:
- 30% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per level --> 20% Bonus to ECM Target Jammer Strength and Falloff per level
- -96% to -100% reduction in Cloaking Device CPU use per level
Rook Battlefield Summary: The Rook seems to have a significant boost with this patch turning the boat into a mid ranged brawler which is capable of dealing some decent dps up till around 100km. This ship has been given a new life with these changes likely finding its home in smaller engagements and roaming gangs where its balance of EWAR and DPS will be downright deadly. However it has some significant capacitor problems due to the jammer drain combined with the increased demands placed on the ship to gain mobility and tank. This ship will have no place in a large scale fleet engagements with an insufficient tank, range, or stealth to survive the fight. This is a fair tradeoff however and it is so formidable in small gang warfare that it might be prudent to make some fitting change to limit the number of jammers this ship will fit and encourage a balance of tank and jammers. Suggested Changes:
- Small reduction in CPU
- Small increase to capacitor
---------------------------------------------- EvE Personality Test
|
Zanquis
Caldari Universal Exports
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 07:34:00 -
[188]
Edited by: Zanquis on 02/04/2009 07:41:51
Scorpion Battlefield Summary: The Scorpion changes where few but drastic turning it into some sort of oddball. It no longer has the range to sit with the sniper fleet, but it doesnĘt have the stealth or agility to sneak around and be alone at the 100-130 KM range mark where must can sit now as it will just die alone without support. It stands no chance in a close engagement since it far too large a target with a weak tank of an unpopular type (shield). Its jam strength is sub par which will put increasing demand on the pilot to fit more jammers and SDAĘs to make up for the weakness. Suggested Changes: This ship needs to fit a role and given its mobility as a battleship this will limit the choices to a close range tank/ewar boat or long range sniper. For the sake of uniqueness I would suggest this ship be modified to be a close range Ewar boat with a heavy shield tank and high jammer strength. This would leave the role of sniper to the Falcon and make this ship a significant pain in close range engagements even when primary target. The lack of a damage bonus will not be a problem for this ship at close range for its secondary use can be as a utility ship in a similar fashion as a Domination using energy nukes, remote rep, or shield transfers in the high slots. The addition of tank would drastically open new opportunities for this ship as a utility boat.
Caldari Battleship Skill Bonus:
- 15% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per level -> 25% Bonus to ECM Target Jammer Strength per level
- 10% bonus to ECM Target Jammer optimal and falloff range per level -> 5% Bonus to Shield Resistances per level
Fitting Changes:
---------------------------------------------- EvE Personality Test
|
McEivalley
Fallen Angel's Blade.
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 07:43:00 -
[189]
Originally by: Zanquis limit the number of jammers this ship will fit and encourage a balance of tank and jammers.
Unless it's a highly specialized role, please never ever do that again. Think of it like the US constitution or something like that. Please maintain the liberty to fit. If someone is smart enough, don't gimp him. If someone is foolish enough and fail fits, he'll die and might learn from it (or keep dying, which is fine by me).
I liked your report on the falcon. I wouldn't touch the falcon regardless. I would like it to maintain the missiles bonus or get no bonus to weapons range but rather weapons tracking. EWAR should be its main weapons, its range should be its tank, and the rest of the hi mods should employ whatever the pilot deems as a good GTFO counter measures. TBH, I'd kill any boni to weapons on a falcon, and have it keep its role. Do - don't die trying. |
Zanquis
Caldari Universal Exports
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 07:49:00 -
[190]
Edited by: Zanquis on 02/04/2009 07:50:09
Originally by: McEivalley
Originally by: Zanquis limit the number of jammers this ship will fit and encourage a balance of tank and jammers.
Unless it's a highly specialized role, please never ever do that again. Think of it like the US constitution or something like that. Please maintain the liberty to fit. If someone is smart enough, don't gimp him. If someone is foolish enough and fail fits, he'll die and might learn from it (or keep dying, which is fine by me).
I liked your report on the falcon. I wouldn't touch the falcon regardless. I would like it to maintain the missiles bonus or get no bonus to weapons range but rather weapons tracking. EWAR should be its main weapons, its range should be its tank, and the rest of the hi mods should employ whatever the pilot deems as a good GTFO counter measures. TBH, I'd kill any boni to weapons on a falcon, and have it keep its role.
The way I encouraged them to do this was by making a small reduction to the CPU of the ship. Since Jammars are more CPU heavy then tank modules you would simply be more pressed to fit a full rack of jammars and make it a pure jam boat. However this cpu reduction wouldn't stop you from using modules such as a CPU upgrade in order to fit a full rack.
Keep in mind the difference between many tank modules and Jammar modules is only about 10 cpu. So if you reduced the cpu by like 20tf it would have the right effect without placing a hard restriction on the ship. ---------------------------------------------- EvE Personality Test
|
|
Carniflex
Caldari Fallout Research Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 08:14:00 -
[191]
Scorpion is looking better with the latest changes. Not entirely sure about if they are adequate enough to make it keep it's viability as fleet e-war support. So correct me if I'm wrong (not able to get into SiSi atm).
80 km x 1.5 (ship bonuses) + 70 km x 1.5 (ship bonuses) = 120 km optimal + 105 km falloff. 14 points at 120 km ... 10 points at 150 km ... 8 points at 180 km
Unless I missed something. If I did not is seems quite viable platform - slightly better below fleet ranges, approx the same at regular fleet range (150-160 km) and slightly lower at it's usual max engagement range (180 - 190 km) than currently. It would outperform dampener scorpion at those ranges.
Note that those numbers are not based on actually looking at ship in SiSi but on eariler relase of ECM range with max skills and no modules plus that post few lines upwards stating that scorpion now has 15% per level strenght bonus and 10% to both optimal and falloff for ECM per level.
|
MukkBarovian
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 08:41:00 -
[192]
Eckk. Can we please just rethink what ewar does? Like completely disable all highslots? At least then you could hold a point. IDK. I say it now and then but can we fix that-
THE ONLY PLAYER SKILL INVOLVED IS IF YOU FIT AN ECCM OR NOT.
Damp you get closer. Tracking disruptor you reduce transversal. Nuet you micromanage your cap. Scram you can still attempt some manuevering. Same for the web.
And the counters are useful for situations not against that specific type of ewar. Sensor booster, tracking computer, cap booster, afterburner.
|
Vigaz
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 08:45:00 -
[193]
Widow on Sisi If the role must be short range BS with ECM, I think it is better to check the ECM bonus on the Widow.
Sisi: Widow has 25% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per BO level -> 125% @ level 5 (rank 10 - 2,1M SP from level 4 to level5) Rook and Falcon have 30% bonus per Recon level -> 150% @ level5 (rank 6 - 1,2M SP from level 4 to level5).
TQ: Falcons/Rooks have the same Strength bonus of the Widow (20% per level).
5% more for the Widow ECM bonus (TQ 20% <-> Sisi 25%) it's not enough imo for balancing ECM role. This short range BS needs at least to be in line with Falcons and Rooks (it's a slow fat BS, close range but with less ECM strenght than a 5xtimes cheaper Falcon?)
|
Perry
Amarr The X-Trading Company RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 09:02:00 -
[194]
Edited by: Perry on 02/04/2009 09:02:52
Originally by: Vigaz Widow on Sisi If the role must be short range BS with ECM, I think it is better to check the ECM bonus on the Widow.
Sisi: Widow has 25% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per BO level -> 125% @ level 5 (rank 10 - 2,1M SP from level 4 to level5) Rook and Falcon have 30% bonus per Recon level -> 150% @ level5 (rank 6 - 1,2M SP from level 4 to level5).
TQ: Falcons/Rooks have the same Strength bonus of the Widow (20% per level).
5% more for the Widow ECM bonus (TQ 20% <-> Sisi 25%) it's not enough imo for balancing ECM role. This short range BS needs at least to be in line with Falcons and Rooks (it's a slow fat BS, close range but with less ECM strenght than a 5xtimes cheaper Falcon?)
Widow is a Blackops, its supposed to be crap.
|
Spartan dax
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 10:30:00 -
[195]
Originally by: Carniflex Scorpion is looking better with the latest changes. Not entirely sure about if they are adequate enough to make it keep it's viability as fleet e-war support. So correct me if I'm wrong (not able to get into SiSi atm).
80 km x 1.5 (ship bonuses) + 70 km x 1.5 (ship bonuses) = 120 km optimal + 105 km falloff. 14 points at 120 km ... 10 points at 150 km ... 8 points at 180 km
Unless I missed something. If I did not is seems quite viable platform - slightly better below fleet ranges, approx the same at regular fleet range (150-160 km) and slightly lower at it's usual max engagement range (180 - 190 km) than currently. It would outperform dampener scorpion at those ranges.
You're missing something.
Base Racial module optimal 32 km * skills 1.5 * bonus 1.5 x 3 SDA's 1,18 = 84,96. Say 85k Base racial Falloff 35 * skills 1,5 * bonus 1,5 = 78k Base racial strength 3.6 * skills 1,25 * bonus 1,75 * 3 SDA's 1,18 = 9,3.
On a BS with sensorstrength of 22 in one falloff ( 163km) it'll have 9,3/22=,042 42% chance on the racial if it gets a hit. (50%). Yeah, uhmmm... I'll pass.
It is, in fact, far far inferiour to the damp scorp which you can armourtank and ofc doesn't need racials. Wake up and smell the manure people, chance based mechanics don't mix well with falloff!
Also the shorter cycle time on damps is, when you're in falloff, a huge bonus to have as snipe ships take sometime to lock onto a target.
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar M. Corp
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 11:33:00 -
[196]
Originally by: McEivalley
Originally by: Antioch Red Edited by: Antioch Red on 31/03/2009 11:19:47 It's difficult to comment in a meaningful way without some numbers to start us off; any chance of providing some please?
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
but will still be much longer range than any of the other recons are capable off.
And what is the reasoning behind ecm having this much longer range? It may be chance based but it's effect is comensurately greater in prportion upon success, so why does it need this longer range? Give all the ew comparable ranges and then you begin to achieve balance.
STOP THIS! Why do you care so much about balance?! If you want balance on ewar, then I want a hybrid damage bonus on my rokh so it can blast its way in close range as much as a much cheaper mega can. Or nerf the mega. If you want balance, then I want a 100m3 drone baye on my rokh with at least 75m/bit bandwidth. I want shield boosting cap usage reduced or up the amount of shield boosts. Or significantly lower the shields recharge time on most caldari battleships to allow a more favorable passive/buffer close range tank fits. For the love of ccp, I want to be able to tackle with caldari ships!
You get the drift... if you try to balance so much, everything dims. Everything becomes the same. You don't need to rely on anyone anymore. Social cooperation on that level goes out the door. CCP, please ignore such pleas of reasoning - they will spoil your wonderful game.
that is an ilogical rant.
His concerns are valid. ECM is the strongest Ewar and has longer range.
Now take target painters for example. THe weakest Ewar (COULD BE CORRECTED BY REMOVING STACK NERF FROM THEM). but with range (45km ) too short to be used when it would be most useful ( helping snipers hit smaller ships).
Or do you really think would be overpowered for target painters to have same range as ECM? ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
|
TZeer
BURN EDEN
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 11:35:00 -
[197]
Originally by: Vigaz Widow on Sisi If the role must be short range BS with ECM, I think it is better to check the ECM bonus on the Widow.
Sisi: Widow has 25% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per BO level -> 125% @ level 5 (rank 10 - 2,1M SP from level 4 to level5) Rook and Falcon have 30% bonus per Recon level -> 150% @ level5 (rank 6 - 1,2M SP from level 4 to level5).
TQ: Falcons/Rooks have the same Strength bonus of the Widow (20% per level).
5% more for the Widow ECM bonus (TQ 20% <-> Sisi 25%) it's not enough imo for balancing ECM role. This short range BS needs at least to be in line with Falcons and Rooks (it's a slow fat BS, close range but with less ECM strenght than a 5xtimes cheaper Falcon?)
This!!
|
BoB's Dream
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 11:43:00 -
[198]
Quote: 2. Signal Distortion Amplifiers (low slot ECM enhancers) have been changed to provide a bonus to both ECM strength and range and their bonus changed respectively.
Currently, the SDA II will give a 10% ECM optimal range and 10% ECM strength
May be added script for SDA +10% optimal/-10% strength and -10% optimal/+10% strength
It will add flexibility in a configuration of the ships
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 13:13:00 -
[199]
Responding generally to some suggestions:
Signal Distortion Amps affect all EWAR
This would be difficult to do with just one single type due to the vastly different impact of the same bonus on different types of EWAR. Range for example is critical in scrambling and webbing and any changes or additional bonuses to this would be extremely powerful moreso than the impact of additional range to jamming due to the nature of the different mechanics.
That said it is something we can look into for the future but no promises of course that we would not find the concept horribly overpowered and resulting in ships that ultra focus too much.
Current Signal Distortion Amps should be scripted or come in two different flavours (range and strength variants)
These two have merit. The changes to these modules are not perfect and it is a difficult balancing decision between allowing specialisation and making that specialisation a necessity above other functions of the ships. Personally I would much more prefer that these modules were less required and ECM pilots could concentrate on not ultra-specialising their setups which is more the case now at least for gang setups and the intention of the range and strength bonus changes we have done.
We are certainly not finished with these yet and more changes may come in the future as we get opportunities to continue to perfect the whole ECM balance which is rightfully a controversial issue where it can swing either way quickly between powerful and useless such is the effect of a binary mechanic.
Close range scorpion was cool, we want that!
It definitely had a role and a place and we liked it however it did leave a big gap in the fleet warfare role combined with the other changes (though perhaps this is indicative of deeper issues with fleet warfare and use of engagement ranges as a whole which rule out many ships from having a place there).
Making a hybrid role scorpion that could do both roles would be too powerful overall and would break the two bonuses for Tech 1 ships rule. This is perhaps something we can address one day with ideas like configuration rigs but that is a drawingboard idea.
New falcon and rook will rule for gang/solo warfare
Quite possibly given the changes and individual scenarios, however now that the ships are in reachable counter-attack distances we think this is a fair compromise.
As with everything, we will see how things play out and continue from there.
|
|
TZeer
BURN EDEN
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 13:32:00 -
[200]
Edited by: TZeer on 02/04/2009 13:32:54 And what about the bonus on the widow?
It is as fragile as the falcon/rook, and suffer just as much when it comes to nerfing the range on the jammers.
And especially when you are flying around in a 600mil coffin I see no reason why this ship should have less bonus then it`s T2 closerange cousins.
|
|
Antioch Red
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 14:02:00 -
[201]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Responding generally to some suggestions:
Signal Distortion Amps affect all EWAR
This would be difficult to do with just one single type due to the vastly different impact of the same bonus on different types of EWAR. Range for example is critical in scrambling and webbing and any changes or additional bonuses to this would be extremely powerful moreso than the impact of additional range to jamming due to the nature of the different mechanics.
That said it is something we can look into for the future but no promises of course that we would not find the concept horribly overpowered and resulting in ships that ultra focus too much.
The suggestion for SDA's to affect oter ew DIDN'T include warp disruption or webs, only the dampners, tracking disruptors, target painters, and ecm. This avoids the headache you mention and gives all races a chance to buff their otherwise lacking ew.
|
SecHaul
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 14:09:00 -
[202]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis That said it is something we can look into for the future but no promises of course that we would not find the concept horribly overpowered and resulting in ships that ultra focus too much.
How ironic when SDA's are resulting in ships that ultra focus too much and are overpowered. Maybe you should consider removing the module entirely to prevent said ship from being ultra focused.
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Personally I would much more prefer that these modules were less required and ECM pilots could concentrate on not ultra-specialising their setups which is more the case now at least for gang setups and the intention of the range and strength bonus changes we have done.
EVE is largely a min/max game, people won't do something because it's polite; they will usually do the most effective approach. Remove the module and tweak the ships as (if) required. Otherwise give all the recons the same ability to ultra-focus and also become overpowered.
Originally by: CCP Chronotis We are certainly not finished with these yet and more changes may come in the future as we get opportunities to continue to perfect the whole ECM balance which is rightfully a controversial issue where it can swing either way quickly between powerful and useless such is the effect of a binary mechanic.
This is where you should start. ECM is a stupid mechanic, whoever thought of it didn't think very hard. Crowd control in MMO's is an extremely poor mechanic, and ECM is laughable when you consider that all other EWAR has some pilot available counter (even if they are extremely limited in some circumstances). Sitting jammed for 20 secs + re-lock, and usually perma-jammed anyway, really makes people happy.
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Quite possibly given the changes and individual scenarios, however now that the ships are in reachable counter-attack distances we think this is a fair compromise.
In solo and small-gang combat the falcon will perma-jam the entire fleet. It doesn't matter if they are at 10 km, you cannot target them to shoot them. And even if they get drone aggro, being jammed for 2-3 cycles completely one-sides the engagement anyway.
And wasn't the point to prevent "horribly overpowered and resulting in ships that ultra focus too much"?
I don't often post or criticize a Dev post, but seriously, you didn't join a few dots above.
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 14:09:00 -
[203]
Originally by: TZeer Edited by: TZeer on 02/04/2009 13:32:54 And what about the bonus on the widow?
It is as fragile as the falcon/rook, and suffer just as much when it comes to nerfing the range on the jammers.
And especially when you are flying around in a 600mil coffin I see no reason why this ship should have less bonus then it`s T2 closerange cousins.
It is fine to increase this more however it would take time we do not have and we think it needs a more focused rethink and look at the black ops ships and all their attributes as a whole really as was noted in the black ops feedback. It did get a small increase this time round and we agree it is far from perfect or fair but better still.
|
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 14:12:00 -
[204]
Originally by: Antioch Red
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Responding generally to some suggestions:
Signal Distortion Amps affect all EWAR
This would be difficult to do with just one single type due to the vastly different impact of the same bonus on different types of EWAR. Range for example is critical in scrambling and webbing and any changes or additional bonuses to this would be extremely powerful moreso than the impact of additional range to jamming due to the nature of the different mechanics.
That said it is something we can look into for the future but no promises of course that we would not find the concept horribly overpowered and resulting in ships that ultra focus too much.
The suggestion for SDA's to affect oter ew DIDN'T include warp disruption or webs, only the dampners, tracking disruptors, target painters, and ecm. This avoids the headache you mention and gives all races a chance to buff their otherwise lacking ew.
I was using the extreme case but the point would still stand, it would still require a large amount of thought and playtetsing before we would be comfortable adding a module that affects all of these. Not disagreeing with the idea however, it does have merit.
|
|
TZeer
BURN EDEN
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 14:13:00 -
[205]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: TZeer Edited by: TZeer on 02/04/2009 13:32:54 And what about the bonus on the widow?
It is as fragile as the falcon/rook, and suffer just as much when it comes to nerfing the range on the jammers.
And especially when you are flying around in a 600mil coffin I see no reason why this ship should have less bonus then it`s T2 closerange cousins.
It is fine to increase this more however it would take time we do not have and we think it needs a more focused rethink and look at the black ops ships and all their attributes as a whole really as was noted in the black ops feedback. It did get a small increase this time round and we agree it is far from perfect or fair but better still.
When is this patch due to hit TQ?
And what prevents the team from changing the bonus from 25% to 30% while CCP are rethinking the black ops ships as a whole?
|
Sigras
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 14:30:00 -
[206]
Edited by: Sigras on 02/04/2009 14:36:21
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Signal Distortion Amps affect all EWAR
This would be difficult to do with just one single type due to the vastly different impact of the same bonus on different types of EWAR. Range for example is critical in scrambling and webbing and any changes or additional bonuses to this would be extremely powerful moreso than the impact of additional range to jamming due to the nature of the different mechanics.
. . .
Current Signal Distortion Amps should be scripted or come in two different flavours (range and strength variants)
What about combining these two ideas and scripting the signal distortion amps to effect different e-war differently.
********** Tracking Disruptor Script +10% Strength for Tracking Disruptors
Target Painter Script +15% Falloff for Target Painters
Sensor Dampener Script +7.5% Optimal Range for Sensor Dampeners +7.5% Falloff for Sensor Dampeners
ECM Script +10% Strength for ECM +10% Optimal Range for ECM
***** OPTIONAL (I made these optional as they are the secondary ECM of the race, or in the case of Nos, it could be overpowered)
Web Script +10% Strength of Stasis Webifiers.
Warp Disruptor Script -20% Cap Usage for Warp Disruptors and Scramblers
Nos/Neut Script +5% Range for Nos/Neut +5% strength for Nos/Neut **********
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Close range scorpion was cool, we want that!
It definitely had a role and a place and we liked it however it did leave a big gap in the fleet warfare role combined with the other changes (though perhaps this is indicative of deeper issues with fleet warfare and use of engagement ranges as a whole which rule out many ships from having a place there).
Making a hybrid role scorpion that could do both roles would be too powerful overall and would break the two bonuses for Tech 1 ships rule. This is perhaps something we can address one day with ideas like configuration rigs but that is a drawingboard idea.
Why not make the rook the ranged fleet ship? It makes more sense to have a range tank as it basically cannot fit a tank of any other kind; this also would make a distinct difference between the Rook and the Falcon. Additionally, the scorpion is a cheaper ship to loose, and would therefore be more likely to have pilots willing to pit it in harms way.
This would delegate the role of short range brawler to the scorpion which has enough EHP, being a battleship, to take a few licks and keep on ticking.
i propose the following change
********** Scorpion
Caldari Battleship Skill Bonus: 20% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per level 5% bonus to Shield Resistance per level
Widow
Caldari Battleship Skill Bonus: 20% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per level 5% bonus to Shield Resistance per level
Black Ops Skill Bonus: 30% bonus to ECM Burst range and +1 ECM Burst activation per level multiplies the cloaked velocity by 175% per level **********
I would also like to see racial scripts for ECM bursts; i think they have potential but as they currently are, theyre basically not worth the minerals they're made of.
I would really like some feedback on these ideas and what you all think . . .
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 14:35:00 -
[207]
Originally by: TZeer
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: TZeer Edited by: TZeer on 02/04/2009 13:32:54 And what about the bonus on the widow?
It is as fragile as the falcon/rook, and suffer just as much when it comes to nerfing the range on the jammers.
And especially when you are flying around in a 600mil coffin I see no reason why this ship should have less bonus then it`s T2 closerange cousins.
It is fine to increase this more however it would take time we do not have and we think it needs a more focused rethink and look at the black ops ships and all their attributes as a whole really as was noted in the black ops feedback. It did get a small increase this time round and we agree it is far from perfect or fair but better still.
When is this patch due to hit TQ?
And what prevents the team from changing the bonus from 25% to 30% while CCP are rethinking the black ops ships as a whole?
Not ruling out the possibility but it may not happen if we feel that the black ops require a deeper look and it is better to wait until that time seeing as the bonus has been increased already.
Watch this space in short. Being so open about the design process and stages does have its drawbacks with effective live updates sometimes but it is a process we find the best when involving the community.
|
|
TZeer
BURN EDEN
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 14:46:00 -
[208]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: TZeer
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: TZeer Edited by: TZeer on 02/04/2009 13:32:54 And what about the bonus on the widow?
It is as fragile as the falcon/rook, and suffer just as much when it comes to nerfing the range on the jammers.
And especially when you are flying around in a 600mil coffin I see no reason why this ship should have less bonus then it`s T2 closerange cousins.
It is fine to increase this more however it would take time we do not have and we think it needs a more focused rethink and look at the black ops ships and all their attributes as a whole really as was noted in the black ops feedback. It did get a small increase this time round and we agree it is far from perfect or fair but better still.
When is this patch due to hit TQ?
And what prevents the team from changing the bonus from 25% to 30% while CCP are rethinking the black ops ships as a whole?
Not ruling out the possibility but it may not happen if we feel that the black ops require a deeper look and it is better to wait until that time seeing as the bonus has been increased already.
Watch this space in short. Being so open about the design process and stages does have its drawbacks with effective live updates sometimes but it is a process we find the best when involving the community.
Ok, I understand.
But it would be sad to see if doesnt get the same bonus.
I can only speak for myself here, but that bonus is tipping the scale of fitting a SDA or not.
And as your goal was to try and make the SDA less of a required module, widow staying at 25% bonus tips it in the wrong direction.
I already have 2 setups ready.
One for 25% boost and one for 30% boost. And the 30% doesnt include SDA...
Just saying.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 14:50:00 -
[209]
When I get on Sisi later I'll have a look at the balance between damper-Scorp and ECM Scorp at fleet ranges again. Carnifex seems to think that ECM Scorp is sensible again though.
But my other concern still seems to be valid. What is the motivation to fly a Rook over a Falcon? Both seem to have the same ECM range and strength. As an ECM pilot, your main concern is ECM, not DPS, and so the superior DPS of the Rook is fairly inconsequential, particularly given the immense tactical utility of the covops cloak.
I still can't help but think that the Rook should get ECM that is slightly stronger or longer-ranged than the Falcon to make up for the immensely powerful covops cloak.
Also, sufficient PG for the Rook to fit a rack of HMLs, MWD and 1600 plate would be necessary - otherwise the first thing to go is the HMLs, leaving you with no DPS advantage over the Falcon anyway.
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar M. Corp
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 15:19:00 -
[210]
Somethign I want to say is. Thanks a lot for the level of iteration that CCP is showing on this balance round.
I have not seen anything as good as that since the Tier 2 BC inception discussion.
Continue a good work like this and soon there will be very few things for players to complain :) ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
|
|
Vigaz
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 15:23:00 -
[211]
Originally by: Gypsio III When I get on Sisi later I'll have a look at the balance between damper-Scorp and ECM Scorp at fleet ranges again. Carnifex seems to think that ECM Scorp is sensible again though.
But my other concern still seems to be valid. What is the motivation to fly a Rook over a Falcon? Both seem to have the same ECM range and strength. As an ECM pilot, your main concern is ECM, not DPS, and so the superior DPS of the Rook is fairly inconsequential, particularly given the immense tactical utility of the covops cloak.
I still can't help but think that the Rook should get ECM that is slightly stronger or longer-ranged than the Falcon to make up for the immensely powerful covops cloak.
Also, sufficient PG for the Rook to fit a rack of HMLs, MWD and 1600 plate would be necessary - otherwise the first thing to go is the HMLs, leaving you with no DPS advantage over the Falcon anyway.
Sisi Rook it's better than Tq rook imo. less range - more dps. Still I prefer to see a 5% resists than 10% missile velocity bonus. An higher ECM bonus I dont think is needed, but of course better than 10% missile velocity bonus.
It's not clear if there is a plan to keep the idea of Rook @ 40-60km. If not, I think CCP should remove the drone bay (it's a long range Caldari cruiser!) and add a kin damage/RoF to the missile system. Otherwise just change the missile velocity bonus to something more useful @ 40-60Km.
For HAMs, Rook needs better PG (MWD and buffed tank) as stated by Gypsio (HAMs not HMLs typing error I guess).
|
kessah
The Accursed
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 15:48:00 -
[212]
Dissapointed with the Scorpion changes, id like that to be more like the rook as a close range high jam strength boat with a ROF bonus like with the Widow.
It would make it alot more appealing for us that choose not to fly in large blobs of players and choose to fight at close range.
|
Sidus Isaacs
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 16:11:00 -
[213]
Originally by: kessah Dissapointed with the Scorpion changes, id like that to be more like the rook as a close range high jam strength boat with a ROF bonus like with the Widow.
It would make it alot more appealing for us that choose not to fly in large blobs of players and choose to fight at close range.
Even tho it would be nice, having a fleet ECM ships outweights that.
|
Isobel Mitar
Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 17:08:00 -
[214]
Originally by: Arkady Sadik Also, change ECCM to give a fixed bonus, not a percentage. Currently, ECCM is barely useful on BS and some T2 cruisers (which usually do not have the mid slots to spare). Giving them a fixed +30 sensor strength would turn the module into a seriously useful module for all ship sizes.
Yes. Supported.
Right now one of the big problems with ECM is that many ship types (most glaringly T1 cruisers and frigates) are both 1) easy to permajam AND 2) there is no viable way to fit against it.
|
Cletus Graeme
Caldari Duty.
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 17:12:00 -
[215]
Edited by: Cletus Graeme on 02/04/2009 17:13:55
Originally by: Vigaz It's not clear if there is a plan to keep the idea of Rook @ 40-60km. If not, I think CCP should remove the drone bay (it's a long range Caldari cruiser!) and add a kin damage/RoF to the missile system. Otherwise just change the missile velocity bonus to something more useful @ 40-60Km.
For HAMs, Rook needs better PG (MWD and buffed tank) as stated by Gypsio (HAMs not HMLs typing error I guess).
The curent Sisi Rook already has a ROF missile bonus (but no kinetic damage bonus).
I think the 25m3 drone bay which allows for a 5 light drones is a very useful defence against interceptors and enemy drones (aswell as adding 75-100 DPS) and shouldn't be underestimated.
Without any PG improvements to the Rook, with lvl 4 skills, I can fit 5 HML an LSE and an MWD if I fit a single PDS. Alternatively, I can fit 5 HAML, an LSE and an MWD if I fit a single RCU.
Losing a lowslot to a fitting mod means one less SDA but as these have both an ECM strength and an ECM range bonus they now stack with ECM rigs so fitting two of them is fine if you are fitting ECM rigs aswell.
You can have tank, DPS and ECM and while none of them are individually impressive, the combination of all three is. However, if you want to maximise it's performance in one of these roles then you must still choose between them.
The Sisi Falcon currently has the same ECM capabilities as the Sisi Rook. The Falcon always had more PG then the Rook so it's easier to fit a tank and the covops cloak compensates for the lack of DPS.
The real question is whether it can operate effectively in falloff yet still remain far enough away to avoid being tackled.(i.e. 50-100km)
|
Liang Nuren
No Salvation PuPPet MasTers
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 17:25:00 -
[216]
Originally by: Sidus Isaacs
Originally by: kessah Dissapointed with the Scorpion changes, id like that to be more like the rook as a close range high jam strength boat with a ROF bonus like with the Widow.
It would make it alot more appealing for us that choose not to fly in large blobs of players and choose to fight at close range.
Even tho it would be nice, having a fleet ECM ships outweights that.
No, it really doesn't. Don't get me wrong - I've always said that the scorp was spectacular because of cost vs effectiveness+survivability, but the way these changes are panning out - you don't have a viable fleet BS and I don't have a close range RR ECM/Gank boat. We're both boned, and that's no good.
Seriously, my first scorp the moment this goes live will be a RSD scorp because it's more effective (arguably much more effective if you consider things like relocking time and cycle time vs the aggregate chance to jam in falloff).
-Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org |
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 17:30:00 -
[217]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
No, it really doesn't. Don't get me wrong - I've always said that the scorp was spectacular because of cost vs effectiveness+survivability, but the way these changes are panning out - you don't have a viable fleet BS and I don't have a close range RR ECM/Gank boat. We're both boned, and that's no good.
Seriously, my first scorp the moment this goes live will be a RSD scorp because it's more effective (arguably much more effective if you consider things like relocking time and cycle time vs the aggregate chance to jam in falloff).
-Liang
That's a very valid argument. If the new Scorp is best used in fleet battles with damps, it means that something is wrong here.
Either give it more range, so it can *actually* use ECM from fleet ranges.
Or drop that idea, and make it the close-range brawler lots of people seem to want. Let damps be the fleet-range ewar of choice.
The current version seems to give neither a useful fleet ECM ship, nor a useful small-gang ship. Everyone loses.
|
Cletus Graeme
Caldari Duty.
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 18:00:00 -
[218]
Edited by: Cletus Graeme on 02/04/2009 18:02:26
Originally by: Alex Harumichi The current version seems to give neither a useful fleet ECM ship, nor a useful small-gang ship. Everyone loses.
I agree with this but for slightly different reasons. Let's examine the fleet Scorpion.
On Sisi racials have had their optimal range reduced from 54km to 32km and their falloff increased from 27km to 35km.
The Sisi Scorpion has a reduced optimal range bonus of 15% instead of 20% per level but now also gets a fallof bonus of 25% per level.
This means that a pilot with with max skills and 3 ECM range rigs fitted has an ECM optimal+fallof of 128+80.
In order to operate at fleet distances (i.e. 150-200km) the pilot must reduce his chance of jamming by upto 50% by operating within falloff. The Scorpion can fit upto 4 SDAs to compensate for this by boosting it's ECM strength to pref nerf levels (i.e approx 10).
The problem is that this setup requires maxed skills (BS 5, Long Range Jam 5, Freq Mod 5) and 3 ECM range rigs and 3/4 SDAs to work. This seems a bit extreme!
|
TheLibrarian
Tides Of War
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 18:21:00 -
[219]
Originally by: Cletus Graeme
The problem is that this setup requires maxed skills (BS 5, Long Range Jam 5, Freq Mod 5) and 3 ECM range rigs and 3/4 SDAs to work. This seems a bit extreme!
Not only is the skill requirement extreme just to reach close to the max range you need. You will have absolutely zip tank if your fitting 3/4 SDA's and 3-4 jammers.
While I dont think the argument that skills being level 5 is too valid, the point that even at level 5 skills your still not doing what you need to do is very valid. I also fail to understand why it is required to have a fleet ECM battleship that is insurable. We are completely duplicating ships scorp/falcon just to make sure that one is insurable? Instead of making a completely new ship role in the game which many people would comfortable want to fly.
I mean when I saw the changes for the scorpion I was like wow. Caldari are now going to have 3 amazing battleships. The logistics close range remote repping scorpion was going to be freaking fantastic. Now its just the same subpar battleship that is there to die because it can get insurance.
Bleh. I feel like I am ranting for the first time. But atleast ECM is being changed so I can't be to unhappy. Although now its more a nerf for pirate falcons than anything, since we can no longer jam outside of gate gun range, but people will still be well outside of our tackling range.
|
Linavin
Mercurialis Inc. Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 18:48:00 -
[220]
Quote: It (he Scorpion) definitely had a role and a place and we liked it however it did leave a big gap in the fleet warfare role combined with the other changes (though perhaps this is indicative of deeper issues with fleet warfare and use of engagement ranges as a whole which rule out many ships from having a place there).
The worst problem with a range bonus'd Scorp is that we already have a Scorpion that can do that. And guess what? Nobody flys them currently. Nerfing falcon range won't magically make Scorps start showing up in fleets, and especially if they'll be fighting in their jammer's falloff the whole time as opposed to having 150+ optimal like now. The whole point here is that this is a downgrade, and just because a ship fills a role dosen't mean it suddenly gets used. This is especially true if that role is only a really small part of gameplay that most players don't participate in.
Why be so stubborn on forcing the Scorpion into a role with little applications outside fleets and questionable effectiveness even in fleets. Doing so is simply a condemnation into uselessness until the next big balance patch.
The worst part is that I don't really see why Caldari doesn't deserve a more multipurpose battleship for smaller gangs like every other race. The whole Caldari range gimmick is getting old (hell your decreasing the optimal of ECM in general by a huge amount), so why not let one of the battleships relfect this new kind of thinking. ECM and a bit of dps can be what a Caldari character can contribute to a small gang not just on the cruiser level with the new Falcon, but the Scorpion too. ---
|
|
Kytanos Termek
Caldari Darkstorm Command Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 19:02:00 -
[221]
Edited by: Kytanos Termek on 02/04/2009 19:04:57 Edited by: Kytanos Termek on 02/04/2009 19:04:30 I have to agree with Lina
But, Do not nerf the scorpion so hard it cannot operate effectively at 100+ ranges, which as a 0.0 pilot. Is what I see most sniper fleets operating at. Most are at 100-150 and that should be the scorpions. "sweet spot" I see no reason to have the sniper fleet way back there, the enemy fleet in front, and a big clump of scorpions in the middle with a large sign stuck on top saying "Shoot here first, were closer".
|
Gneeznow
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 19:22:00 -
[222]
Originally by: Arkady Sadik Also, change ECCM to give a fixed bonus, not a percentage. Currently, ECCM is barely useful on BS and some T2 cruisers (which usually do not have the mid slots to spare). Giving them a fixed +30 sensor strength would turn the module into a seriously useful module for all ship sizes.
This is a good idea, would be awesome if some variant of this idea was implemented.
|
sylvester stallowned
Trotters Independent Trading
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 19:36:00 -
[223]
Originally by: Arkady Sadik Also, change ECCM to give a fixed bonus, not a percentage. Currently, ECCM is barely useful on BS and some T2 cruisers (which usually do not have the mid slots to spare). Giving them a fixed +30 sensor strength would turn the module into a seriously useful module for all ship sizes.
This is a good idea, but do not replace the existing active Mid-slot module, either create a new module or replace the lowslot ECCM module with this, so the 2 can be combined.
CCP Chronotis, PLEASE give us some more options for ECCM:
Here are some suggestions:
1: A Flat bonus variant of the current ECCM mods :(maybe change the lowslot module to this?
2: ECCM RIGS: I see no reason why these are not in game
3: ECCM Hardwires: 1%, 3%, 5% like there is a hardwire for just about everything else.
Combining these 3 changes would allow ships to actually be setup to have a valid counter to ECCM, If you were expecting to encounter an opponent that overly uses ecm ships( i.e. 6 falcons in a 20 man gang). But it would be at the sacrifice of something else in your ship setup like everything else in eve.
|
DeathsEmbrace
Minmatar The Renegades Asylum DEFI4NT
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 23:13:00 -
[224]
Edited by: DeathsEmbrace on 02/04/2009 23:15:13 Please stick to the original idea, 30% to ecm strength per recon level on these boats take an already overpowed boat and boosts them. Bring the falcon/rook inline with the other recons to balance it out. 30-50km combat range, 10% strength bonus to main ewar/ecm (tp's, rsd's, td's are already have a 10% and under bonus). The falcon/rook has no viable combat ewar e.g nos/neuts for amarr recons; webs for minmatar; scrams/disruptors for gal. Use the other 20% of bonus's in 2 types as you have done for the other recons for an offensive ewar. e.g
10% per lvl to ecm burst radius 10% per lvl to ecm burst strength
This would balance the Falcon/Rook against the other recons. Under the current sisi status the Falcon/rook can still jam at 50-100km (150km max in fall off) and has gained a 10% per lvl (50% max) bonus to their ecm strengths. At 20% per lvl a bs requires 2 eccm's to avoid perma jamming, even then jam cycles will get the bs. With that extra 50% a bs will need another 1/2 eccm's fitted to have the same chance of not being jammed. Thats 3/4 mids to counter one "possible" recon.
For the record I fly all recons except the falcon/rook and have been extensively testing the changes with an alliance mate who can fly them. To live is to die, and to die is to give life. Thus pain is a form of euphoria.
|
Arkady Sadik
Minmatar Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 23:27:00 -
[225]
Originally by: DeathsEmbrace Please stick to the original idea, 30% to ecm strength per recon level on these boats take an already overpowed boat and boosts them.
When I first saw the +30%, I thought the same - "they can't be serious!". But a few calculations later, it turns out that an old Falcon with all skills at 5 and 3x SDA II has the same jam strength as the new Falcon with all skills at 5 3x SDA II (3.14 modifier old vs. 3.16 modifier new). With Recons 4, it's actually less effective. What this changes is not their effectiveness in jamming, but their need to fit SDA IIs. But fitting less SDA IIs means they have less jam strength than before still. So I'd say the +30% - while sounding like a lot at first - is actually quite balanced.
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 23:39:00 -
[226]
Originally by: Arkady Sadik
Originally by: DeathsEmbrace Please stick to the original idea, 30% to ecm strength per recon level on these boats take an already overpowed boat and boosts them.
When I first saw the +30%, I thought the same - "they can't be serious!". But a few calculations later, it turns out that an old Falcon with all skills at 5 and 3x SDA II has the same jam strength as the new Falcon with all skills at 5 3x SDA II (3.14 modifier old vs. 3.16 modifier new). With Recons 4, it's actually less effective. What this changes is not their effectiveness in jamming, but their need to fit SDA IIs. But fitting less SDA IIs means they have less jam strength than before still. So I'd say the +30% - while sounding like a lot at first - is actually quite balanced.
No it's not. My falcon has 14.77% jam strength now with racials, and that's not even using faction ECM. That's way overpowered.
Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Death of Virtue is Recruiting
|
RyMcQeN I
Caldari Demonic Retribution Minor Threat.
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 23:49:00 -
[227]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Responding generally to some suggestions:
Close range scorpion was cool, we want that!
It definitely had a role and a place and we liked it however it did leave a big gap in the fleet warfare role combined with the other changes (though perhaps this is indicative of deeper issues with fleet warfare and use of engagement ranges as a whole which rule out many ships from having a place there).
I think when you consider the Scorpion in the fleet warfare role you need to compare it to the Tier 1 Battleships of the other races. When you are doing fleet warfare (ie. long range sniping etc.) the battleships typically used are the Tier 2 and Tier 3 variants. Its not often that you see Typhoons, Dominixs, and Armageddons in fleet battles. They are close range battleships. If you keep the scorpion on par with this, then it makes sense for it to have the close range bonus's.
I suppose in the case of Caldari, the close range brawler currently would be the Raven, even though its the Tier 2 model. It is possible to go close range with the scorpion but it doesn't have the damage currently.
To summarize, I think that the close range brawler scorpion is a good idea, and I agree that the need to maintain its role in fleet warfare is a problem indicative of fleet warfare itself. |
Arkady Sadik
Minmatar Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.04.02 23:50:00 -
[228]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus No it's not. My falcon has 14.77% jam strength now with racials, and that's not even using faction ECM. That's way overpowered.
EFT says that the current Falcon with "All level V" and 3x SDA II has a racial jam strength of 14.14. That's not very far off from your value there. Of course, you could argue that that's way overpowered, and I'm not going to argue against that, but it's not a big change to now, which is what I said in my post.
Am I missing something?
Your number seems higher than I'd expect, though:
Old Falcon: +20% per ship level (*2) +20% per SDA II (*1.2 *1.174 *1.114) => *3.14
New Falcon: +30% per ship level (*2.5) +10% per SDA II (*1.1 *1.087 *1.057) => 3.16
Add 25% for the skill and 3.6 base strength for the racials, and you get 14.13 for the old Falcon and 14.22 for the new. Not sure how you get to 14.77 from the 14.22, which is a 4% bonus - did you plug in jam strength rigs or so as well?
|
Kixu
Earned In Blood
|
Posted - 2009.04.03 00:01:00 -
[229]
I think the unmentioned elephant standing in the room is that ecm is really really boring!! Change the effect to something other then target breaking; Overheats enemies modules.
Deactivates random modules.
Removes random targets from overview every successful cycle. This one would be really cool, could randomize where they are listed too despite settings, which would be FUN to combat. Also makes sense from an e-war perspective.
I realise that there is only so much time allowed from developers for fixes and all that, but putting some real effort into ecm could make it much more fun then current "I'm jammed" and waiting 20 seconds or if the e-war is too great sitting idle until you die / deagress and leave.
So many times I have been in a small gang engagement where each side has a falcon and it just results in a stalemate with neither side getting any kills, or one side having a falcon/ecm boat and the other being unable to do anything which is about as fun as killing npcs. (3+ cruiser size ships effectively nullified is not cool).
The issue you are currently addressing is that falcons are near invulnerable while making ships unable to do anything, really the main problem is that ecm is not fun in any way, shape or form to fight against or have on your side.
|
AZN Steve
|
Posted - 2009.04.03 00:29:00 -
[230]
- make jammers pulse instead of cycle : keep the 20 second duration , but reduce the actual jam to only 1 second - leave the jamming ships as they are now ( on TQ ) - make ECCM modules give a fixed amount of sensor strength , same for sensor backup arrays - increase the effectiveness of remote sensor dampeners
result :
- no gay 20 sec of doing nothing , just a 1 second lock breaker . - makes sensor damps usefull again - not OP - promotes the use of other recons besides the falcon - can still make a target unable to lock for a while , but it takes 2 different recons now instead of just 1 falcon
|
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue
|
Posted - 2009.04.03 00:33:00 -
[231]
Originally by: Arkady Sadik
Originally by: Bellum Eternus No it's not. My falcon has 14.77% jam strength now with racials, and that's not even using faction ECM. That's way overpowered.
EFT says that the current Falcon with "All level V" and 3x SDA II has a racial jam strength of 14.14. That's not very far off from your value there. Of course, you could argue that that's way overpowered, and I'm not going to argue against that, but it's not a big change to now, which is what I said in my post.
Am I missing something?
Your number seems higher than I'd expect, though:
Old Falcon: +20% per ship level (*2) +20% per SDA II (*1.2 *1.174 *1.114) => *3.14
New Falcon: +30% per ship level (*2.5) +10% per SDA II (*1.1 *1.087 *1.057) => 3.16
Add 25% for the skill and 3.6 base strength for the racials, and you get 14.13 for the old Falcon and 14.22 for the new. Not sure how you get to 14.77 from the 14.22, which is a 4% bonus - did you plug in jam strength rigs or so as well?
Yep. Jam strength rigs. In hindsight not really worth it (4%). However, I don't see Falcons being used any differently than they are right now: max strength ECM at as far a range as possible and simply aligned/warp out when attacked. Small tacklers will be permajammed, so they're not an issue.
Anyway, all I see at this point are Falcons being used at shorter ranges, which is good in general, really bad for pirates. And Falcons operating at 70-80km will have very little problems with drones.
Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Death of Virtue is Recruiting
|
The Djego
Minmatar merovinger inc
|
Posted - 2009.04.03 00:52:00 -
[232]
Originally by: Gneeznow
Originally by: Arkady Sadik Also, change ECCM to give a fixed bonus, not a percentage. Currently, ECCM is barely useful on BS and some T2 cruisers (which usually do not have the mid slots to spare). Giving them a fixed +30 sensor strength would turn the module into a seriously useful module for all ship sizes.
This is a good idea, would be awesome if some variant of this idea was implemented.
Supported, but make it 40-50 Points. A ECCM should mean something(ONE ECCM not 2-3 like you need them now), im still permajammed in a Tier 3 BS with overheated ECCM having 50 Points Sensor strenght by a Falcon and as it looks now you even give more jamming power to the ships, not less.
Back on the Topic, actualy WTF? The problem with the Falcon is Cov Ops Cloak + Jammingpower + huge Range that make them pawn anything in small Gangs with beeing well out of range. A falcon that have to operate at 50km can be shoot(and will be for a reason) it has to use Slots for Tank like any other Recon to(you can fit the same tank like other Recons, you can operate at the same ranges). Yet it would be still more usefull than a Arazu, Rapier or Pilgram for a gang in most of the practical combat scenarios today. Im fine with huge ranges on the other Jamming ships(Rook and BB for Fleet jamming), but on a ship with a Cov Ops Cloak it is utterly broken.
Also I liked the Idea of a short range torp Scorp more, that sound like a lot of fun to play in small Gangs.
---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
Wannabehero
Absolutely No Retreat
|
Posted - 2009.04.03 02:00:00 -
[233]
After thinking about it, I like lowering the optimal and increasing the falloff as a method to readjust the range/power relation of ECM. I however think that there is still not quite enough falloff on ECM in the current change. The scorpion especially could use a heftier boost to falloff, given it's significantly lower jam strength.
Along this same line of thinking, the other non-propulsion based EW systems could benefit from a similar treatment as these ECM changes: less optimal, more falloff. Give tracking disruptors, sensor dampeners, and target painters the ability to be used at 'sniping' ranges to near equal effectiveness (read: chance to succeed due to range) as ECM, but through heavy falloff penalty. Likewise, make mid-range use of these modules still subject to occasional failure due to lowered optimal.
Lastly, yes please, more modules to influence EW. SDA type modules for sensor damps, tracking disruptors, target painters, warp disruptors, and webifiers would be most welcome. Come on, you know you guys can balance them appropriately, please implement it! --
Don't harsh my mellow |
Nerogk Shorn
Caldari Royal Hiigaran Navy SCUM.
|
Posted - 2009.04.03 02:49:00 -
[234]
Man, what happened to the Rook changes that made it an actually viable choice in comparison to the Falcon. Give it reduced range at higher strength than the falcon. I'd really like to see it get used more often... Hell i have Recon V and a falcon. I want to use the Rook please. I don't care if you nerf the Falcon to make the Rook an actual option, because right now it pretty much isn't.
The Bulbasaur Wizard D-F-A-A-B-A-A-S
|
DiseL
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Associates
|
Posted - 2009.04.03 03:11:00 -
[235]
I must say these changes are disappointing to say the least! A Falcon with 3 SDA II's, 2 Particle Dispersion Projectors, and max skills gives a 74km optimal and 53km falloff. Pathetic at best. The same current setup yields 190km optimal and 33km falloff. A 61% optimal nerf is a bit much. A Scorpion setting out at either it's optimal (around 100k) or max range (around 180k) is still first ship to die in every fleet battle. It's jamming ability at 180km will be laughable and even worse to set 50-70km inside the rest of his fleet to be in optimal. The Rook changes are not bad but I really don't like it being the range ship. Being a combat recon it should be the ship of choice between the two that has the possibility to lock down and kill a target on it's own. Give it an additional low slot and a higher ECM strength but at close range. There is really no point in an ECM boat setting out at 120km spamming missiles.
It amazes me that something that was buffed in recent years to fix a previous nerf can once again be unbalanced enough to require this much tweaking. What exactly was the thought process that went into these changes before? Constantly hammering different races, different ships, different mods, with the nerf bat is not good for the game whether it is for balancing or not.
|
Nataly Logoffsky
|
Posted - 2009.04.03 03:43:00 -
[236]
the only thing im sure is - DONT give jammer ships dronebay!!! imagine tanked falcon, with neutralizer, disruptor, jam, and dronebay!!!!
and finally give the 5th med drone to poor arazu!!! you nerfed it for years! dampers, drones, speed...
|
Yon Krum
The Knights Templar Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.04.03 04:00:00 -
[237]
Originally by: RyMcQeN I
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Responding generally to some suggestions:
Close range scorpion was cool, we want that!
It definitely had a role and a place and we liked it however it did leave a big gap in the fleet warfare role combined with the other changes (though perhaps this is indicative of deeper issues with fleet warfare and use of engagement ranges as a whole which rule out many ships from having a place there).
I think when you consider the Scorpion in the fleet warfare role you need to compare it to the Tier 1 Battleships of the other races. When you are doing fleet warfare (ie. long range sniping etc.) the battleships typically used are the Tier 2 and Tier 3 variants. Its not often that you see Typhoons, Dominixs, and Armageddons in fleet battles. They are close range battleships. If you keep the scorpion on par with this, then it makes sense for it to have the close range bonus's.
To summarize, I think that the close range brawler scorpion is a good idea, and I agree that the need to maintain its role in fleet warfare is a problem indicative of fleet warfare itself.
These are very astute points.
I think, Chronotis, that you're missing a point in fleet warfare. Namely, though people do bring Scorpions out for ECM "sniping", FCs would rather they not. Even the Blackbird is considered to be more effective due to its smaller sig radius, faster locking time, and align time. Also, Scorpions are primary targets because (like destroyers for support) they are easy to lock and die very fast.
So why do we even need an ECM sniping battleship, when no other race has a sniping EW ship?? Better to change it into a defined close-range role and let the long-range work get done by the T1 and T2 cruisers. I assure you, it will get used.
In the SB thread you said you didn't want to litter your database with under-used relics. The Scorpion is one such relic, used at all primarily because it can be insurance-tanked rather well. That's sad.
--Krum
--Krum |
Missy krunk
|
Posted - 2009.04.03 04:06:00 -
[238]
ECM ships should not need to fit four racials to do their job. They also should not be able to jam multiple ships from range with the ease they have now.
My idea is based off of real world EWAR ships. Jamming requires enormous power to swamp the sensors of the target. So i think that should carry over to Eve ships.
1. Make frigate, cruiser and BS class ECM mods, with the range and power consumption tailored to the mod. Frigs having short range and BS's having the ultra long fleet range.
2. Make the power usage prohibitive. Running ECM should be hell on your cap. Running 1 might not be too tough while running more will run you dry.
3. Give ECM's scripts for each type of sensor. Instead of a falcon needing 4 racial's to cover whatever might appear that need jamming, it can get by with 1 ECM mod and 4 scripts to cover any opponent. If point 2 is balance correctly, there will be no need to worry about someone running 4 ECM mods and switch scripts to jam, their cap won't support it.
I did not post any math because the numbers to balance all of that would require testing, but I think the core ideas should work with a little effort. These changes would make ECM mods a little more attractive to non EWAR boats, but without the ship bonus of the Falcon or Rook they should be very hit or miss. I am not sure where to fit multispectrums into the equation, I must admit though.
|
Bastaardicious
Enrave Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2009.04.03 08:08:00 -
[239]
Can't all those whiners about ECM just please fit ECCM as that is intended to counter ECM ? And then stop whining?
This whole nerf gives me the thought that if you bash the CCP forums long enough about a certain ship, with enough people, you will get your way eventually. Falcon is a good ship, and the people who cry about ECM should reconsider their fittings IMO. This game is all about strategy, and you can't expect it all to go the way you want it to go. Stop whining, more ECCM, everyone happy.
|
Sigras
|
Posted - 2009.04.03 08:34:00 -
[240]
Edited by: Sigras on 03/04/2009 08:34:08 @Bastaardicious
The argument isnt that the falcon is a good ship, the argument is that the falcon is a necessary ship for medium to large fleet combat as the only way to counter one is with another falcon.
Thats the reason speed was nerfed, the only way to counter it was with more speed, so that removes strategy because everyone always brings the same thing all the time.
That and your argument is axiomatically wrong as the ECCM currently sucks on anything sub battleship sized. (twice a terrible sensor strength is still terrible sensor strength)
|
|
Bastaardicious
Enrave Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2009.04.03 08:58:00 -
[241]
Then CCP should look into giving bonusses on ECCM instead of degrading the other. Some races have terrible sensor strength, that's the nature of that race. You want to fix that by nerfing the falcon? Try increasing the weak race's sensor strength instead.
|
Yourdoom
|
Posted - 2009.04.03 09:07:00 -
[242]
Edited by: Yourdoom on 03/04/2009 09:15:21 First of all ... just leave the scorpion exactly as it is now.
Nerfing it aswell as the falcon will just leave no viabile option. As far as it si now scorpion has the exactly same optimal as falcon ( please do the math and check ) only a 5% lower strength / level. This is countered by another low slot and more mids.
Reasons scorp is underrated as it is now are:
-urban mith that scorp has lower optimal range -no cloak -worse lock time -slow as a brick
On the other side scorp as it is now can perfectly be used as a counter to falcon... with a good set up it can achive over 100 sensor str witch will make falcon miss 2 out of 3 cycles while it can perma-jam falcon from same range.
Just ... leave at least scorpion as it is.
My opinion is eccm is that what it's broken. Fixing eccm will provide that rock/scissor/paper feeling once again. You have a long range eccm ship -> good you are safer. You dont you suffer.
might find some sucky(rightnow) ships and give them increased range ( with low dps ) and better sensor str making them viabile anti ECM ships. we want diversity. no ? making falcon suck in every scenario wont give us that. it will just remove one more ship caldari fly.
|
Carniflex
Caldari Fallout Research Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2009.04.03 09:46:00 -
[243]
Ofcource it would be best leave Scorpion as it is currently (with correbonding changes to ship bonuses to take into account changes to ECM mods and SDA'S).
One of main reasons to use Scorpion in fleets currently is that it is relatively easy for carebear to get into and do something. Ie BS lev 4, ECM skills at 4 is considerably shorter training time than T2 guns plus ship itself is relatively cheap (altho will be primary more often than not). Granted with attribute remapping available it's no longer so big deal if you have carebear char and want to go combat.
New Scorpion will not be quite cutting it at fleet ranges with just lev 4 skills - it will need approx same amount of training as other fleet ships do (ie 2-3 months) and thus in the future it popularity will most likely fall somewhat. At least thats what I would speculate - if you have to pick either T2 guns or max skills for ECM I sure know what I would pick as first preference.
With max skills it will outperform dampeners on the same ship at fleet ranges. I have still not tested it myself so can't comment if it would need the rigs at all costs to reach fleet ranges. Currently they are used quite often without any rigs as they are usually considered 'suicide' ships in fleet battles.
|
Hun Jakuza
24th Imperial Guard
|
Posted - 2009.04.03 09:54:00 -
[244]
Muahahaha
On the test server, T2 Ecm modules optimal range changed 54km to 32km. Nice work CCP.
|
Overbrain
|
Posted - 2009.04.03 11:15:00 -
[245]
Long ranged tactical race the "Caldari" is becoming more close range and brawler race every year :D
Couple months later, i fear caldari ships will gain bonus to blasters and only allowed to use ecm bursts lol . Still no tank and tackle, its their trademark.
|
Seth Quantix
Domination. PuPPet MasTers
|
Posted - 2009.04.03 11:44:00 -
[246]
good work, -----------------------------------------------
The NC final solution:
Quote: rawr-vuk-lau: can we set BoB blue so we can kill Tri together?
|
OggerPL
|
Posted - 2009.04.03 13:05:00 -
[247]
Originally by: Bastaardicious Can't all those whiners about ECM just please fit ECCM as that is intended to counter ECM ? And then stop whining?
This whole nerf gives me the thought that if you bash the CCP forums long enough about a certain ship, with enough people, you will get your way eventually. Falcon is a good ship, and the people who cry about ECM should reconsider their fittings IMO. This game is all about strategy, and you can't expect it all to go the way you want it to go. Stop whining, more ECCM, everyone happy.
Yes but to do this someone need to think but noooooo I will lose my dps ;/ |
Young Team
|
Posted - 2009.04.03 13:39:00 -
[248]
Originally by: Carniflex Ofcource it would be best leave Scorpion as it is currently (with correbonding changes to ship bonuses to take into account changes to ECM mods and SDA'S).
One of main reasons to use Scorpion in fleets currently is that it is relatively easy for carebear to get into and do something. Ie BS lev 4, ECM skills at 4 is considerably shorter training time than T2 guns plus ship itself is relatively cheap (altho will be primary more often than not). Granted with attribute remapping available it's no longer so big deal if you have carebear char and want to go combat.
New Scorpion will not be quite cutting it at fleet ranges with just lev 4 skills - it will need approx same amount of training as other fleet ships do (ie 2-3 months) and thus in the future it popularity will most likely fall somewhat. At least thats what I would speculate - if you have to pick either T2 guns or max skills for ECM I sure know what I would pick as first preference.
With max skills it will outperform dampeners on the same ship at fleet ranges. I have still not tested it myself so can't comment if it would need the rigs at all costs to reach fleet ranges. Currently they are used quite often without any rigs as they are usually considered 'suicide' ships in fleet battles.
This.
Leave newish Caldari characters with something to do in sniper fleets - please.
|
Zaraki KenpachiSan
|
Posted - 2009.04.03 14:37:00 -
[249]
All this work and efforts to make ecm even better. And you didn't give a f*k when destroyed the dampeners. Try to fix other races too, caldari are not your only sons.
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2009.04.03 14:43:00 -
[250]
Hey Folks,
Quick updates on changes coming to sisi for testing over the weekend:
Scorpion
we changed the bonus back to 20% ECM optimal range per level. Still means a range reduction due to the base jammer stat changes but will give you more ECM accuracy at longer range.
Widow
The ECM strength bonus has been increased to 30% as its focus is short to medium range.
We will respond further to the feedback from the last few pages later on.
|
|
|
Wrayeth
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams
|
Posted - 2009.04.03 15:00:00 -
[251]
After looking over the changes, I have to say I'm not particularly fond of most of them as I believe jamming is already too powerful and should be toned down somewhat to make for more enjoyable fights, not just "Falcon Online". I also thought the original idea of making the falcon a short range jamming boat was awesome since it a.) brought it into line with other force recons (i.e. pilgrim has shorter-ranged nos/neuts than the curse) and b.) gives it a serious drawback for being able to cloak; it also allowed people to respond more effectively to the falcon they didn't know was there ahead of time instead of being stuck with just saying "crap, we're screwed".
Anyway, all of that said, I do have a request: if the widow must be a short-range jamming boat, then it must be able to fit some sort of tank. Would it be possible to grant it another low or something similar to give it the ability to fit a more effective buffer while still fitting enough SDA's to jam effectively or BCUs to DPS effectively? (Also, please note that it's my personal opinion that the widow should not be a jamming ship at all; even a 30% jamming strength would not be enough to compensate for its drawbacks, especially if cynoing directly into combat where it will end up in weapons range of the enemy immediately.) -Wrayeth n00b Extraordinaire "Look, pa! I just contributed absolutely nothing to this thread!" |
TZeer
BURN EDEN
|
Posted - 2009.04.03 15:17:00 -
[252]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Hey Folks,
Quick updates on changes coming to sisi for testing over the weekend:
Scorpion
we changed the bonus back to 20% ECM optimal range per level. Still means a range reduction due to the base jammer stat changes but will give you more ECM accuracy at longer range.
Widow
The ECM strength bonus has been increased to 30% as its focus is short to medium range.
We will respond further to the feedback from the last few pages later on.
Nice!
Now I can throw away the SDA II
And good one on the Scorpion regarding fleet setup.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.04.03 15:37:00 -
[253]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Scorpion
we changed the bonus back to 20% ECM optimal range per level. Still means a range reduction due to the base jammer stat changes but will give you more ECM accuracy at longer range.
Oooh nice. I don't think that the current TQ fleet Scorp is regarded as overpowered, so it would be good to see it not hit too hard here.
|
Hesperius
|
Posted - 2009.04.03 15:51:00 -
[254]
After spending many hours using it on the test server - I LOVE the Rook the way it is now.
I have not actually used or seen anyone else using the Scorp or Falcon, so no opinion there.
|
TZeer
BURN EDEN
|
Posted - 2009.04.03 15:51:00 -
[255]
Edited by: TZeer on 03/04/2009 15:53:12
Originally by: Wrayeth After looking over the changes, I have to say I'm not particularly fond of most of them as I believe jamming is already too powerful and should be toned down somewhat to make for more enjoyable fights, not just "Falcon Online". I also thought the original idea of making the falcon a short range jamming boat was awesome since it a.) brought it into line with other force recons (i.e. pilgrim has shorter-ranged nos/neuts than the curse) and b.) gives it a serious drawback for being able to cloak; it also allowed people to respond more effectively to the falcon they didn't know was there ahead of time instead of being stuck with just saying "crap, we're screwed".
Anyway, all of that said, I do have a request: if the widow must be a short-range jamming boat, then it must be able to fit some sort of tank. Would it be possible to grant it another low or something similar to give it the ability to fit a more effective buffer while still fitting enough SDA's to jam effectively or BCUs to DPS effectively? (Also, please note that it's my personal opinion that the widow should not be a jamming ship at all; even a 30% jamming strength would not be enough to compensate for its drawbacks, especially if cynoing directly into combat where it will end up in weapons range of the enemy immediately.)
You are making assumptions based on TQ mechanics. And I doubt you will see any more of those 200km permajamming falcons.
The strength havent changed much, but the range has been reduced drastically. 48km optimal on a falcon. Thats within range of drones.
You alot more choices when it comes to countering a falcon.
-Drones, if fear of falcon with range fit, you can fit a dronelink which will boost drone range by 20km.
-Most midrange fit ships will be able to reach it. Falcon will either pop very fast if engaged, or forced of the field quite quickly if it misses a jam.
Another important factor is also the falcons need to fit a small tank now. Which will reduce it`s overall ECM capacity.
It sounds from you post that you want to have tank or max damage on top of jamming.
But as you said, you dont feel the widow should jam.
So theres nothing stopping you from fitting tank modules in those midslots and 3 or 4 BCU in the lowslot.
If you use your mids to tank/buffer and lows for BCU you reach reach 91k EHP and 996 DPS with navy torps with plane T2 mods.
|
Ol' Delsai
Caldari Kernel of War Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2009.04.03 16:12:00 -
[256]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Responding generally to some suggestions: Close range scorpion was cool, we want that!
It definitely had a role and a place and we liked it however it did leave a big gap in the fleet warfare role combined with the other changes (though perhaps this is indicative of deeper issues with fleet warfare and use of engagement ranges as a whole which rule out many ships from having a place there).
Making a hybrid role scorpion that could do both roles would be too powerful overall and would break the two bonuses for Tech 1 ships rule. This is perhaps something we can address one day with ideas like configuration rigs but that is a drawingboard idea.
First of all, thanks a lot for all your implication there and the real discussion you have with your customers.
And you are right, close range scorpion was cool, really cool, even too cool or too powerful for a Tech 1 ship if it was made a hybrid role (short and long) ship. Then, why don't you change the widow to have this cool hybrid role ? It would make a real brawler ECM platform (assuming you put in it more T2 shield resists) and, at last solve the role issue of the caldari black ops. A tanked torp widow with short ECM range would be really and absolutely a great ship ...
|
Dee Carson
Caldari Seppuku Warriors
|
Posted - 2009.04.03 17:20:00 -
[257]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
It definitely had a role and a place and we liked it however it did leave a big gap in the fleet warfare role combined with the other changes (though perhaps this is indicative of deeper issues with fleet warfare and use of engagement ranges as a whole which rule out many ships from having a place there).
Any doubt about which role in general and which specific Caldari ship will get the nerf-bat next?
It is clear that the direction of the majority of the recent and proposed changes is to force everyone to operate within the engagement range of everyone else. Gank & tank. No strategy, no tactics, just may the biggest blob win.
DC
http://deecarson.blogspot.com/ |
DiseL
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Associates
|
Posted - 2009.04.03 18:32:00 -
[258]
The comparisons to the Curse/Pilgrim combo just doesn't fly. The Pilgrim is my favorite solo ship. It has 5 lows, 5 mids, and 4 highs. One ewar type in the highs, one in the mids, and a full five low slot tank. <----- This all while being able to do some decent dps, completely break the tank of target, and fit a point/web if needed. The Falcon will never come close to any of these things. It's sole Ewar is mid slots, it's a shield tanking race, and add a point a web to that. Sure you can fit an armor tank in the lows but it's the weakest of all recons. The DPS is pathetic when you consider you are going against a full tank so the Falcon will never kill anything on it's own.
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue
|
Posted - 2009.04.03 18:36:00 -
[259]
With all of the changes the Falcon, Rook etc. are still just as powerful as they ever were with respect to jam strength. This doesn't solve anything. When I'm permajammed by someone at 50km or 200km, I'm still permajammed.
Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Death of Virtue is Recruiting
|
isdisco3
Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture
|
Posted - 2009.04.03 18:49:00 -
[260]
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
|
|
Sky Marshal
IMpAct Corp Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2009.04.03 19:37:00 -
[261]
Edited by: Sky Marshal on 03/04/2009 19:40:55
Quote: It's not a nerf.
You seriously think that Falcons/Rooks will take risks and go at less than 100 km in fleet battles ?
It is a nerf, and a serious one. And instead to whine of their strength against ECCM-fitted ships, just whine about the useless ECCM module.
It is tiring to see how everyone want nerf everything when there is only one thing to BOOST. Repeat after me : B-O-O-S-T...
CCP should boost ECCM to make them interresting.
All Recons are now for low-range fights... The difference between Rook & Falcon is only the Covert Ops and a small bonus... The Rook will be better for roaming, so like this, for me, the Falcon is definitively dead. And I doubt that anyone will use Recons in fleet fights, as they are unable to tank, and now more close of all FOE, so less survival capacity...
But at least, the Scorpion seems nearly OK. Less strength or more SDA to have it, and a correct range if the ship is dedicated for this, but he will have some difficulties to tank something, or fit something (more SDA = less PDS/RC). We will have to choice.
It would be a good idea to find a way to make any others EWAR interresting. Give us choice, give us diversity. People are annoyed by jam/disrupt/others ? They just have to ADAPT and find counter-measures.
We don't play at "Tank/DPS Online". Well, we nearly play at this game as people don't like complexity and whine all the time on it...
I would prefer restore the range of the Falcon at a limit of 160 Km maximum with Skills/SDA (The ship would be at the range of every BS and same some HAS like Eagle), but by keeping the fall-off idea. Find a way to make a Falcon user unable to permajam because of a Capacitor leak (or no capacitor leak at the cost of some Cap Recharger fitted... So less Jam modules). This would reduce permajam, or make it on less targets at the same time. And why not, reduce his jam strength to 11 maximum.
|
Linavin
Mercurialis Inc. Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2009.04.03 20:18:00 -
[262]
Quote: Leave newish Caldari characters with something to do in sniper fleets - please.
Isn't that the reason the Rokh exists? Is training sharp shooter 4 and caldari BS 4 really too much? Its a dead simple to fly too, no extra locks to worry about, just the targets the FC calls. Oh and unlike the scorp it can be very easily DD tanked without any determent to its role in the fleet.
Do the Caldari really need another fleet battleship? I still don't see any reason why the Caldari should get another long range fleet ship instead of a solid close range brawler. So what if the greenest of the green Caldari characters can't fly it in fleets. What about everyone else who can fly the Scorpion with more than 5 million skillpoints? Is CCP intending condemn the Caldari Battleship skill into just another prerequisite save sniping fleet fights and PvE? ---
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue
|
Posted - 2009.04.03 20:59:00 -
[263]
Originally by: Sky Marshal Edited by: Sky Marshal on 03/04/2009 19:40:55
Quote: It's not a nerf.
You seriously think that Falcons/Rooks will take risks and go at less than 100 km in fleet battles ?
I could care less about fleet battles. Use Scorpions instead. Give them a role ffs. Why should a Falcon be *the* tool for every situation?
That being said, the Falcon will still be doing exactly what it's doing now after the change: ruining small gang PVP.
I was looking forward to being able to bring something other than my Falcons to PVP, but I guess not. I'll still be stuck with needing 3-4 Falcons in every gang, and nobody will be killed because everybody on both sides will be jammed 100%.
Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Death of Virtue is Recruiting
|
KissedByDeath
|
Posted - 2009.04.03 21:23:00 -
[264]
all of you stop whining about ecm and get over it. fit an eccm, sacrifice a mid/low slot. Enough nerfing caldari.
|
isdisco3
Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture
|
Posted - 2009.04.03 21:39:00 -
[265]
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
|
puckohontas
|
Posted - 2009.04.03 21:53:00 -
[266]
i see this as a boost to rook instead of a nerf ive been using falcon as a close range brawler anyway with 1600plate
glad i can fit some bcu's on the rook and some ecm and mwd and point and go solo roam in lowsec
|
The Djego
Minmatar merovinger inc
|
Posted - 2009.04.03 22:18:00 -
[267]
Edited by: The Djego on 03/04/2009 22:21:09
Originally by: KissedByDeath all of you stop whining about ecm and get over it. fit an eccm, sacrifice a mid/low slot. Enough nerfing caldari.
Fighting over 5 Minutes against mutliple Ships(ok not actualy shooting because I was permajammed by a Falcon, but tanking and looking for a chance to get a lock) with a over heated ECCM on a Tier 3 BS, I can say ECCM is one of the most useless mods in PVP you can fit. It is a pure joke, it is like fitting a Cap Recharger to fight a Neut Domi, it is fare to weak to do anything that would change the outcome of the fight, the Cap Recharger is even supperior since it gives me a advantage when Im not neuted to hell, the ECCM only helps agaist jamming, while still dooing not even this to a amount that make it worth fitting(as a single module, not 2-3 ECCM you would actualy need to get a halve decend ECM protection).
---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
DiseL
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Associates
|
Posted - 2009.04.04 00:26:00 -
[268]
Originally by: isdisco3 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.
You need to go back and read this thread slowly. They removed the Falcon range bonus so what are you talking about? Permajamming at 100km is going to be next to impossible. Have you actually been on the test server and tried anything you are speaking about. Read my post above with real numbers from TQ and SISI with same setup. Currently with 3 SDA II's, 2 particle dispersion projector, and max skills you get 74km optimal. I don't see people using this fit either because it's stacking nerfed the gains after the first three mods are minimal. So I see most Falcon's in the 68K max optimal areaAt 100km your ecm strentgh has went down significantly since you are over halfway into falloff. This was a 68% reduction in optimal from the same setup on TQ.
|
Darnoth El'lyan
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.04.04 01:16:00 -
[269]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Re: the scorpion change:
This was a tough call, the close range role would have been great for gang work but combined with the other changes meant there was not a long range variant and the battleship class made more sense to have in this role for fleet warfare despite the cool short range role it could of had.
No. There is no "cool short range role". Giving ships with no tank a "short range role" is ******ed at best. I'm glad this got changed because no matter how "cool" you think it is, it would have made the ship worthless. Much like any ship that specializes in target painting, weapon disruptors, sensor dampening.......
|
arjparking
|
Posted - 2009.04.04 02:20:00 -
[270]
as a scorpion pilot i endorse that change. scorps could just not compete with the falcon and dad several disadvantages
|
|
Shadow Devourer
|
Posted - 2009.04.04 02:27:00 -
[271]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Hey Folks,
Quick updates on changes coming to sisi for testing over the weekend:
Scorpion
we changed the bonus back to 20% ECM optimal range per level. Still means a range reduction due to the base jammer stat changes but will give you more ECM accuracy at longer range.
Widow
The ECM strength bonus has been increased to 30% as its focus is short to medium range.
We will respond further to the feedback from the last few pages later on.
This is great stuff. The Widow boost is welcome as most people right now use it as a raven with a cloak and an uber tank. And thank you for not gutting the scorpion.
|
Dex Nederland
Caldari Lai Dai Infinity Systems
|
Posted - 2009.04.04 03:46:00 -
[272]
Edited by: Dex Nederland on 04/04/2009 03:46:19 CCP Chronotis & team, please as you go about balancing ECM do not forget that the ships involved are Caldari and the general feeling behind Caldari ship design such as:
1. Armor tanking is not the primary Caldari means of tanking 2. Drones are a rarity: -- only T2 Caldari ship with drones is the Basilisk (Logistics) -- The Blackbird is the one T1 Caldari ship without a drone bay --- providing the T2 versions with one seems illogical beyond trying to provide 'DPS' 3. Caldari ships bigger than a Frigate fight at range and are generally not meant to get in close (sub-50km) to fight.
But I expect to be shouted down.
In-Game Browser : http://ldis.caldari-made.net |
TZeer
BURN EDEN
|
Posted - 2009.04.04 03:51:00 -
[273]
Edited by: TZeer on 04/04/2009 03:55:18
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Originally by: Sky Marshal Edited by: Sky Marshal on 03/04/2009 19:40:55
Quote: It's not a nerf.
You seriously think that Falcons/Rooks will take risks and go at less than 100 km in fleet battles ?
I could care less about fleet battles. Use Scorpions instead. Give them a role ffs. Why should a Falcon be *the* tool for every situation?
That being said, the Falcon will still be doing exactly what it's doing now after the change: ruining small gang PVP.
I was looking forward to being able to bring something other than my Falcons to PVP, but I guess not. I'll still be stuck with needing 3-4 Falcons in every gang, and nobody will be killed because everybody on both sides will be jammed 100%.
Nothing stops you from bringing something else then a falcon.
But the main difference that you willingly forget is that when that falcon fails, or not able to jam every single ship in the gang, which is highly unlikely, unless that gang consists of 2 cruisers with no ECCM. It will be within range of every ship with a drone bay out there. And every ship that is set up to medium range. It will be catch 22. If doesnt jam him, he will lock him up and fire, put drones on him. If he decides to jam asap the drones will aggro.
Thats quite a big difference compared to current TQ status, where if it fails, it just sits far out of range for any ship out there. Except sniper set up BS gangs.
I`m not sure what engagement ranges you see falcon operating from.
But if they stay within optimal they will catch drone aggro very quickly.
|
URSOKWL
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.04.04 04:54:00 -
[274]
I wont fly falcons any more. NO one will. CCP you may as well remove the ship you FAIL.
U R SO FAIL
|
Trepkos
Corp 1 Allstars PuPPet MasTers
|
Posted - 2009.04.04 05:39:00 -
[275]
I loled at the falcon now being Caldari's premiere drone ship.
Gj, CCP. Complete win.
|
S'vart Tseirgn
World Wide Wallabies Manifest Destiny.
|
Posted - 2009.04.04 06:49:00 -
[276]
Originally by: Dex Nederland Edited by: Dex Nederland on 04/04/2009 03:46:19 CCP Chronotis & team, please as you go about balancing ECM do not forget that the ships involved are Caldari and the general feeling behind Caldari ship design such as:
1. Armor tanking is not the primary Caldari means of tanking 2. Drones are a rarity: -- only T2 Caldari ship with drones is the Basilisk (Logistics) -- The Blackbird is the one T1 Caldari ship without a drone bay --- providing the T2 versions with one seems illogical beyond trying to provide 'DPS' 3. Caldari ships bigger than a Frigate fight at range and are generally not meant to get in close (sub-50km) to fight.
But I expect to be shouted down.
- Signed!
|
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.04.04 07:47:00 -
[277]
Originally by: TZeer Edited by: TZeer on 04/04/2009 03:55:18
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Originally by: Sky Marshal Edited by: Sky Marshal on 03/04/2009 19:40:55
Quote: It's not a nerf.
You seriously think that Falcons/Rooks will take risks and go at less than 100 km in fleet battles ?
I could care less about fleet battles. Use Scorpions instead. Give them a role ffs. Why should a Falcon be *the* tool for every situation?
That being said, the Falcon will still be doing exactly what it's doing now after the change: ruining small gang PVP.
I was looking forward to being able to bring something other than my Falcons to PVP, but I guess not. I'll still be stuck with needing 3-4 Falcons in every gang, and nobody will be killed because everybody on both sides will be jammed 100%.
Nothing stops you from bringing something else then a falcon.
But the main difference that you willingly forget is that when that falcon fails, or not able to jam every single ship in the gang, which is highly unlikely, unless that gang consists of 2 cruisers with no ECCM. It will be within range of every ship with a drone bay out there. And every ship that is set up to medium range. It will be catch 22. If doesnt jam him, he will lock him up and fire, put drones on him. If he decides to jam asap the drones will aggro.
Thats quite a big difference compared to current TQ status, where if it fails, it just sits far out of range for any ship out there. Except sniper set up BS gangs.
I`m not sure what engagement ranges you see falcon operating from.
But if they stay within optimal they will catch drone aggro very quickly.
And that makes falcons 100% useless outside of very small gangs like the rest of the recons. Now we can go back to the pure dps ships again. Go go ewar. And yea this is my sig. Real PVP'ers only use f1. |
Tessen
Stellar Tide
|
Posted - 2009.04.04 07:57:00 -
[278]
ECM scripts : pilots have to chose optimal range or strengh bonus. ___________________________________________
Giving drones to Falcon is very dangerous : Actualy there is very few ways to conter a long range Falcon : An other Falcon A very fast agile ship (Inty) A Cov Op/fast bomber A sniper ECCM BS
Drone will make a Falcon even more painfull to catch making inty option alomst useless and SB very dangerous. Ideas for a complete Bounty Hunter profession sytem. |
Hayat Siwa
|
Posted - 2009.04.04 09:45:00 -
[279]
Edited by: Hayat Siwa on 04/04/2009 09:47:03 greetings
my comments are based on my understanding that the range of the falcon is going to be around 100k, from what i read. i am not certain that i understood that correctly and would appreciate some clarification in case i got it wrong.
if i did understand correctly then here's my opinion:
i dont like the drastic changes to the falcon at all! drones wtf
the vast majority of guys i know/see employ the falcon in a stand-offish sniper position, taking advantage of max range as tank.
the proposed changes cut down the range to <100k (not sure if i'm correct here). that being the case the falcon is now becoming a totally new ship. drones, missile changes...
i can understand the arguments to change the ratio of optimal vs fall-off, i can also see the reasoning behind reducing jam strength, and a somewhat (read slightly) toned down max range. changes in these areas would reduce the effectiveness of the falcon by a good amount while still allowing the ship to be employed in it's current role as a long range support ship.
the closer range ecm support with fighting skills is the rook. take that one if you want to do damage and jam. general variety of roles is still maintained using all the other ecm ships.
i dont know how others feel about it, but the time i spent specializing in long range ecm support will be wasted. redesigning the ship and creating a requirement to completely overhaul it's use is simply wrong. noone expects the hulk to be anything but a spezialized miner either.
the current falcon is going to the dump, a new cruiser with the same name is created. rubbish.
regards
hs
edit: when is the new patch to be expected?
|
Looren
|
Posted - 2009.04.04 09:50:00 -
[280]
as falcon pilot i must say, atm the changes (for falcon) goes into wrong direction. the true problem for most of the people are not the *real* falcons but tons of the falcon alts (and this is the fault of ccp that encourages double and more accounts-to max cash- and of players that cannot play with 1 acc).
we have tested the changes at sisi for days now....due to much shorter range you go attacked by drones nearly every time and have to warp out and back...the only solution for this problem we have found are...more falcons( rook¦s miss cloak for recon and scorpion is much too slow and big).
So if you change it this way you will see still tons of falcon alts and MORE real falcons...and the whiners will cry here even more (most of them flying short range spider tank bs gangs and will die to the new falcon like to the old one).
Change the range to 90 or 100km optimal + old falloff (so with max skills you have 100km optimal and max. 150km falloff).
This will give the falcon a bit range it need¦s to survive (as everytime primary, overall with no real tank except jamm and range) but can still be reached by fast ships in few seconds or by sniper weapons (or the falcon is at 150km and has nearly no ecm strengh at the end of falloff).
This will hit mostly all the alt-falcons since they now not safe 200km away and its very difficult to fight with 2 accounts at same time.
I think everyone can live with such solution of the problem...and dont look to much at the all time whiner¦s....even if you nerv falcon to no use they will asap find the next ship to whine about it.
sorry for all english mistakes :)
|
|
Dee Carson
Caldari Seppuku Warriors
|
Posted - 2009.04.04 11:26:00 -
[281]
Originally by: Hayat Siwa my comments are based on my understanding that the range of the falcon is going to be around 100k, from what i read. i am not certain that i understood that correctly and would appreciate some clarification in case i got it wrong.
Based on the 86469 SISI build, max EWAR and ship skills, and a racial jammer only (no rigs or SDA):
Targeting Range: 93 Blackbird 112 Scorp 150 Falcon 187 Rook
Optimal Jam Range: 72 Blackbird 96 Scorp 48 Falcon 48 Rook
Jam Strength: 7.88 Blackbird 7.88 Scorp 11.25 Falcon 11.25 Rook
Max Optimal Range: 74 Falcon/Rook
Max Jam Strength: 14.78 Falcon/Rook
Typical Falcon Fit: 194 Optimal/13.4 Jam Strength - TQ 68 Optimal/14.6 Jam Strength - Sisi
So, roughly 65% reduction in optimal engagement range for a 9% increase in jam strength. Caldari recon pilots can choose to be sneaky or to deal a little more DPS, but in the same engagement envelope.
The Falcon alt does indeed go away, but those of us that fly Falcons as mains can't help but feeling more than a bit shat upon.
Predictions: 1. Falcon prices drop like a rock. 2. RR Battleship gangs and OOC reppers will be much more problematic 3. Small gangs flying cruisers, HACs, 'ceptors & AF will be more (not less) likely to be jammed by Falcons. 4. Small gangs will see more (not fewer) Falcons used. 4. The forum crying about #3/#4 will continue unabated. 5. Sniper ships will be the next target of the nerf bat.
Some suggested alternatives:
Alternative A (leaving ranges, strengths, rigs & ships as they currently sit on TQ): 1. Jam cycle prevents jammer warp out for post-jam cooldown period of time equal to length of the jam cycle. 2. Script ECCM mods to provide either % buff or flat point buff 3. Script SDA mods to provide either strength or range buff 4. Reduce jam cycle time by 50%
Alternative B (assuming something close to SISI changes): 1. Give Falcon/Rook same shield resists as other T2 Caldari cruisers (0/50/70/80) 2. +25 grid/+50 CPU to Falcon/Rook 3. +1 mid/+1 low slots to Falcon/Rook
/me continues to cross train for Amarr snipers, the next class to be nerfed.
DC
http://deecarson.blogspot.com/ |
Darnoth El'lyan
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.04.04 11:51:00 -
[282]
Originally by: Dee Carson
Alternative B (assuming something close to SISI changes): 1. Give Falcon/Rook same shield resists as other T2 Caldari cruisers (0/50/70/80) 2. +25 grid/+50 CPU to Falcon/Rook 3. +1 mid/+1 low slots to Falcon/Rook
I agree, that they need to have higher resists, however no t2 ship should have a 0% em shield resist. But higher resists in itself isn't really a replacement for their current range tank. They WILL be primaried if they're in range, and they will go down in an instant. 10% less incoming dps won't mean anything if you have 100k burst damage.
As much as I like jamming the way it is, jam time of 20 seconds and a cycle time of 20 seconds doesn't work. That's why you can permajam someone. Reducing the amount of jam time would go a long way to fixing jamming without messing with ships. Another thing that would go a long way to fixing jamming would be to make the other ewar worthwhile so not everyone is in an ecm boat.
|
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.04.04 12:13:00 -
[283]
Originally by: Dee Carson
Targeting Range: 93 Blackbird 112 Scorp 150 Falcon 187 Rook
Optimal Jam Range: 72 Blackbird 96 Scorp 48 Falcon 48 Rook
Jam Strength: 7.88 Blackbird 7.88 Scorp 11.25 Falcon 11.25 Rook
Max Optimal Range: 74 Falcon/Rook
Max Jam Strength: 14.78 Falcon/Rook
Typical Falcon Fit: 194 Optimal/13.4 Jam Strength - TQ 68 Optimal/14.6 Jam Strength - Sisi
The blackbird will be a better ecm boat and its practically free. I'm not gonna use a 100+ mill uninsurable ship as a disposable ship.
These changes are a joke. And yea this is my sig. Real PVP'ers only use f1. |
Fish Mittens
Minmatar 0utbreak
|
Posted - 2009.04.04 12:19:00 -
[284]
Originally by: Dee Carson
Originally by: Hayat Siwa my comments are based on my understanding that the range of the falcon is going to be around 100k, from what i read. i am not certain that i understood that correctly and would appreciate some clarification in case i got it wrong.
Based on the 86469 SISI build, max EWAR and ship skills, and a racial jammer only (no rigs or SDA):
Targeting Range: 93 Blackbird 112 Scorp 150 Falcon 187 Rook
Optimal Jam Range: 72 Blackbird 96 Scorp 48 Falcon 48 Rook
Jam Strength: 7.88 Blackbird 7.88 Scorp 11.25 Falcon 11.25 Rook
Max Optimal Range: 74 Falcon/Rook
Max Jam Strength: 14.78 Falcon/Rook
Typical Falcon Fit: 194 Optimal/13.4 Jam Strength - TQ 68 Optimal/14.6 Jam Strength - Sisi
So, roughly 65% reduction in optimal engagement range for a 9% increase in jam strength.
<snip>
Why is nobody considering falloff when complaining about these changes. ECMs do not suddenly stop working outside of their optimal.
From what I can see, with max skills a falcon will get a 48km falloff to its Racial ECMs, so with your typical falcon fit of 68km optimal and a jam strengh of 14.6:
Optimal x0.5 faloff = 92km : 75% jam strength = 10.95
At 92km a typical falcon fit will have a 78% chance of jamming a Vagabond per racial jammer.
Really this is still overpowered, as far as a vaga is concerned, 78% is perma-jammed and thus means certain death from even an interceptor.
With the speed nerf, 100km is still a long range to cover, leaving the falcon plenty of time to warp out and get to a new jamming spot.
If they keep these ranges the strength of the ECM modules need to be drastically reduced or ( I would prefer ) leave them powerful at close ranges ~50km with a much shorter falloff.
IMO if these changes correctly balance the falcon, it will be forced to engage at around 50km and thus the standard fit will be MWD, 2x LSE and just 4x racial jammers. At these ranges with the shield buffer there, the falcon will perform and be flown like every other recon in the game.
|
Hayat Siwa
|
Posted - 2009.04.04 13:21:00 -
[285]
thanks dee carson for that shockingly revealing summary.
Quote: At 92km a typical falcon fit will have a 78% chance of jamming a Vagabond per racial jammer. Really this is still overpowered,
i accept that this is the goal.
Quote: IMO if these changes correctly balance the falcon,
that is wrong. you achieve your goal by eliminating the falcon, rather than adjusting it.
the difference is that by reducing the range of the ship you completely eliminate it's established role as long range support.
from my earlier post:
Quote: i can understand the arguments to change the ratio of optimal vs fall-off, i can also see the reasoning behind reducing jam strength, and a somewhat (read slightly) toned down max range. changes in these areas would reduce the effectiveness of the falcon by a good amount while still allowing the ship to be employed in it's current role as a long range support ship.
tell me what's wrong with this?
if anyone needs a close range jammer with a fighting ability look at the rook.
Quote: At these ranges with the shield buffer there, the falcon will perform and be flown like every other recon in the game.
why do all recons have to be fighting within similar ranges? recons, unlike interceptors for example, are specialized T2 ships with different attributes.
by redesigning the falcon as badly as proposed you might satisfy the falcon haters, but all falcon pilots will need to look at another boat to fly.
100k and drones, ffs, that's concerning.
regards
|
Dee Carson
Caldari Seppuku Warriors
|
Posted - 2009.04.04 13:36:00 -
[286]
Originally by: Fish Mittens Why is nobody considering falloff when complaining about these changes. ECMs do not suddenly stop working outside of their optimal.
Because A> everyone always desires to engage at optimal, few people choose to engage with any weps system in falloff and B> optimal to optimal provides a consistent basis of comparison for the same probability of jam.
Making every ship and/or every hull in a given ship class fight the same way and in the same engagement envelope is not desirable IMO and certainly not desirable if the approach taken is to adjust to the lowest common denominator. The closer you drive toward that circumstance, the less racial diversity exists, the more simplistic the strategies and tactics become, the more homogeneous everything becomes. Skillpoints and wallet size will matter more than anything else. Warp to 0, lock, f1-f8 and see who's the best at EFT Online.
As a pilot, your choice becomes what color ship you want to fly because everything else is about the same. It's checkers, not chess.
DC
http://deecarson.blogspot.com/ |
Antioch Red
|
Posted - 2009.04.04 15:09:00 -
[287]
All minmatar weapons are used in falloff. Please play the game a little more widely before using blanket comments.
|
Dee Carson
Caldari Seppuku Warriors
|
Posted - 2009.04.04 15:45:00 -
[288]
Originally by: Antioch Red All minmatar weapons are used in falloff. Please play the game a little more widely before using blanket comments.
So given a choice where there is no tactical distinction between fighting in falloff and closing the range to fight at optimal, most Minmatar prefer to fight in falloff?
Projectile weps are arguably more effective when fighting in falloff than hybrids, but that's not the same as saying most pilots would choose to fight in falloff vs fighting in optimal.
Please PM me your thinking as I am very interested in your response, but don't want to hijack this thread.
DC
http://deecarson.blogspot.com/ |
Spartan dax
|
Posted - 2009.04.04 16:15:00 -
[289]
Originally by: Fish Mittens
At 92km a typical falcon fit will have a 78% chance of jamming a Vagabond per racial jammer.
No it won't. The module will have a 75% chance to work at half falloff. Then you do the Jammer roll.
There is no strength reduction of the module itself meaning, fighting in falloff hurts the ECM ships real bad. It would be better if it worked like you described but it doesn't.
|
TheLibrarian
Tides Of War
|
Posted - 2009.04.04 16:41:00 -
[290]
I am on vacation now and dont have sisi installed on this laptop. What are the ranges looking like for falcons/rooks with good fits?
Include Optimal + Strength please?
|
|
Destructor1792
Minmatar Priory Of The Lemon Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.04.04 16:48:00 -
[291]
Originally by: Dee Carson
Originally by: Antioch Red All minmatar weapons are used in falloff. Please play the game a little more widely before using blanket comments.
So given a choice where there is no tactical distinction between fighting in falloff and closing the range to fight at optimal, most Minmatar prefer to fight in falloff?
Projectile weps are arguably more effective when fighting in falloff than hybrids, but that's not the same as saying most pilots would choose to fight in falloff vs fighting in optimal.
Please PM me your thinking as I am very interested in your response, but don't want to hijack this thread.
DC
I lol'd at this!!
Minny pilots fight in falloff for a reason - we have utterly pathetic tanks compared to other ships so rely on our speed to keep out of scram/web/neut/nos or whatever else range whilst still dealing half our actual DPS. That's when we get lucky!! Usually we dish out 1/4 of our actual DPS due to misses & all other bizarre thing that happen in the midst of a scrap!
Now look at the way the other 3 race recons have to fit.. we all trade part our our ability to tackle for a paltry tank.. Falcons don't! They fit as many mods as possible & sit @ 200km jamming everything with little to no fear.
Any change that pulls them into the midst of things is good - and those one dimensional, "i fit it one way only" people are in for a shock!
And before people start *****ing about damage, most recons lose high slots straight away.. Cloak & cyno (3 if you're fitting a cov-cyno as well) which leaves space for either 2 or 3 guns / missiles!
And (there's alot of &'s in this! ) guess what, recons are usually primaried & blown to kingdom come the minute we un-cloak.. Rapiers probably top of the list (falcons would be tied up there if they were actually in the midst of things), but falcons still have the upper hand.. they can still jam and gtfo of dodge - the 3 others can't.
Obviously, this is more true in small to mid size engagements.. Large fleet fights just get messy & everyone gets shot at
**fake edit** I'm in EMO mode today.. Damn sunday drivers (or saturday ones) doing 30 in a 60!! GRRRRR ______________________________________
Bringing The Fun Back
[gold]I Have No Fear, That's your Problem[/go |
Htrag
The Carebear Stare
|
Posted - 2009.04.04 17:52:00 -
[292]
Edited by: Htrag on 04/04/2009 17:55:41
Please reconsider nerfing the range stats to allow a recon option for jamming from 151km with max skills and rigs, otherwise it severely impacts the ability of pirates to use falcons outside sentry range at gates, meaning the balance of using ECM in an engagement will fall heavily toward the non flashys.
I'm sure many may view this as a good thing, and [trust me] we will adapt, but it's worth mentioning. As we're almost always tanking sentries in our combat ships, can't jump into high sec with GCC, and already a target to all of eve, the long range ECM has always been a useful tool.
Currently a falcon pilot needs max skills to jam at stations outside sentry range, because even at 151km from the station, you're usually 200km from the undock. It sounds like this option is being removed entirely.
Applying the multispec range stats to the racial jammers could be an option along with a boost to ECCM and adding ECM/ECCM scripts, rather than completely overhauling the ship roles.
Additionally, we've already figured out non ECM ways of countering falcons even at max range. I'm sure everyone else can as well.
|
Fish Mittens
Minmatar 0utbreak
|
Posted - 2009.04.04 17:59:00 -
[293]
Originally by: Spartan dax
Originally by: Fish Mittens
At 92km a typical falcon fit will have a 78% chance of jamming a Vagabond per racial jammer.
No it won't. The module will have a 75% chance to work at half falloff. Then you do the Jammer roll.
There is no strength reduction of the module itself meaning, fighting in falloff hurts the ECM ships real bad. It would be better if it worked like you described but it doesn't.
Really? I had always thought that % hit mechanics in faloff that apply to turrets would be applied to the strength of EW modules.
So you are saying that all EW modules (ECM, Damps, TPs, etc.) Hit or Miss the same as turrets in falloff? This is very interesting, is there any documentation or dev posts on this that you could point me to?
Either way however, I accept that trying to jam at the lowend of falloff x2 would be be bad, but my point was that it is a curve, not a sudden drop off, and the implication given by other posts here that EW are only effective inside optimal is misleading.
From Optimal to 0.5 x Falloff you are still being very effective at jamming, particularly on any Sub-BS ship.
|
Spartan dax
|
Posted - 2009.04.04 20:15:00 -
[294]
Edited by: Spartan dax on 04/04/2009 20:19:35
Originally by: Fish Mittens
Either way however, I accept that trying to jam at the lowend of falloff x2 would be be bad, but my point was that it is a curve, not a sudden drop off, and the implication given by other posts here that EW are only effective inside optimal is misleading.
From Optimal to 0.5 x Falloff you are still being very effective at jamming, particularly on any Sub-BS ship.
That's not particulary correct either though. Basically what happens is in 0.5 falloff instead of 4 fitted ECM modules of each race rolling the dice vs your target(s) you have 3. In one falloff you have two etc etc. And then you realize that this is racial jammers meaning, well, your jamming chance on a single target, if your in one falloff, will be utter poo since racials tend to suck quite bad against wrong targets. So a drop off is actually precisely what it is.
Make no mistake, fighting in falloff, with a chancebased mechanic, with racial modules..... It's a very heavyhanded nerf. It wouldn't be so bad if racials weren't around and Multispecs had slightly higher strength but as it stands now it is indeed a very tough nerf.
Not that I care too much though, haven't flown a caldari recon in ages since they were so damb boring so I'm cheering on the recon changes for all I'm worth. All that's needed in the recon department atm on Sisi is slightly more speed and PG on the Rook and that will be one sweet cruiser. ATM it's way too slow, with puny cap and no PG to fit tank and a cap booster. ECM was great on these ships but the ships themselves were awfull so they need a few more tweaks on SISI before they're good to go.
|
Theron Gyrow
Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.04.04 20:16:00 -
[295]
Originally by: Spartan dax
Originally by: Fish Mittens
At 92km a typical falcon fit will have a 78% chance of jamming a Vagabond per racial jammer.
No it won't. The module will have a 75% chance to work at half falloff. Then you do the Jammer roll.
84% (0.5^((range_over_optimal/falloff)^2), in this case 0.5^(0.5^2) = 0.5^0.25), but otherwise correct. -- Gradient forum |
Spartan dax
|
Posted - 2009.04.04 20:22:00 -
[296]
Originally by: Theron Gyrow
Originally by: Spartan dax
Originally by: Fish Mittens
At 92km a typical falcon fit will have a 78% chance of jamming a Vagabond per racial jammer.
No it won't. The module will have a 75% chance to work at half falloff. Then you do the Jammer roll.
84% (0.5^((range_over_optimal/falloff)^2), in this case 0.5^(0.5^2) = 0.5^0.25), but otherwise correct.
Thanks, I don't keep the falloff numbers in my head so I just took his numbers and ran with it. (Couldn't find the turret tracking guide either, WTH did that go?)
|
Commandante Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.04.04 20:30:00 -
[297]
Edited by: Commandante Caldari on 04/04/2009 20:37:04 The actual result of the Falcon nerf is the totally wrong direction. It will make the ship useless for what it was meant to be.
I agree that an optimal of 225 is too much. So lower it to 150.
The major problem of ECM is that it will be exploited by fleets as a sure win button. ECM in the hands of killmail wh*res is the worst use. 7 Falcon jamming a ship what is anyway blobbed is just pathetic and worth a whine. But that's EVE. So what.
However. The Falcon is eg. one and eventually the only way to engage "solo" [dual boxing] a camp with a good chance to kill some and let the rest run off. If this camp is just prepared well with a counter Falcon, ECCM, Snipers or just fast ships to scare the Falcon off ... the Falcon will fail here and you will lose definitely your fighting ship.
So what's the point to nerf the Falcon that extreme?
We could also whine for: nerf camps, nerf blobs. Because they give 0% chance to fight back and win.
If you dual box a BS in a BC and ruin the fight for him by perma-jamming THAT'S the same way like beeing blobbed or just jumping into a Rancer camp. We have to live with that. It's not like that every fight is ruined by ECM. ECM is bad for the victim in some cases but useful in many other cases.
The actual Falcon nerf will support camps, blobs and piracy. It will be a great day for all of them when CCP brings that nerf. They don't need ECM now anymore because a Falcon at 60-100 km is so easy to scare off or catch now. They just need some fast ships with ECCM or they place a Falcon getting remote repped if under sentry fire. But a solo player or fleet not that strong would need ECM support against a good organized camp or blob with serious DPS. If you bring ECM against a camp every day they just answer with bringing counter ECM, ECCM and so on. That is my experience I made in Hagilur with several corps. At a special size of the camp or blob a single Falcon is anyway useless.
So again: what's the point to nerf ECM that extreme if there are many possible tactics against it?!
I just see it that way: the nerf is just a result of a big whining of lazy, non-creative players ... not willing to sacrifice a slot for ECCM or thinking about different tactics against a Falcon.
I will say again: where's the difference beeing blobbed or beeing dual boxed with ECM? I faced more blobs in EVE then solo pilots or small fleets with heavy ECM.
A Falcon under 100km is dead when using it the way for what it was meant for. Fighting a single player with 60 km ECM or blobbing a single player with multiple ECM at 60 km will still ruin the fight and cause EPIC WHINING. So the good use of a Falcon against numbers is actually ruined.
CC
|
Shade Millith
International House of PWNCakes Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.04.05 03:33:00 -
[298]
I fly Falcons a bit.
And I'm more likely to fly a falcon after this change. Would be more fun --------------------------------------------
|
Valkorsia
Caldari Battlestars GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.04.05 05:03:00 -
[299]
Originally by: Shade Millith I fly Falcons a bit.
And I'm more likely to fly a falcon after this change. Would be more fun
More fun? More like insta-primary in optimal of everything on the field, including pulse Apocs again. There is no way to survive for a Falcon at that range without a complete revamp of the ship, from agility>>mass>>speed>>shield hit points>>sig radius.
It's an over nerf and CCP knows it. That's what they wanted to do. And no amount of *****ing here is going to change it. |
DelboyTrotter
Trotters Independent Trading
|
Posted - 2009.04.05 06:30:00 -
[300]
Originally by: Valkorsia
Originally by: Shade Millith I fly Falcons a bit.
And I'm more likely to fly a falcon after this change. Would be more fun
More fun? More like insta-primary in optimal of everything on the field, including pulse Apocs again. There is no way to survive for a Falcon at that range without a complete revamp of the ship, from agility>>mass>>speed>>shield hit points>>sig radius.
It's an over nerf and CCP knows it. That's what they wanted to do. And no amount of *****ing here is going to change it.
Yes more fun, they will actually take some skill to fly, rather than sitting at 150k and being untouchable. And yes most likely be called primary just like any other recon on the field.
This is called balancing, and its not an over nerf, current changes are nowhere near enough. Falcons need to be brought into 50km effective combat range, just like all the other recons.
Try flying a rapier.
|
|
Hayat Siwa
|
Posted - 2009.04.05 06:34:00 -
[301]
Quote: I just see it that way: the nerf is just a result of a big whining of lazy, non-creative players ... not willing to sacrifice a slot for ECCM or thinking about different tactics against a Falcon. And CCP is listening to all these endless petitions or forum threads.
this
interestingly there are no falcon pilots here who argue against a nerf. they all agree that the ship could do with some tweaking. there are shockingly few arguments considering the nature of the falcon, though (long range ecm support).
what is the reason to change the role of the falcon?
Quote: i can understand the arguments to change the ratio of optimal vs fall-off, i can also see the reasoning behind reducing jam strength, and a somewhat (read slightly) toned down max range. changes in these areas would reduce the effectiveness of the falcon by a good amount while still allowing the ship to be employed in it's current role as a long range support ship.
i'm still waiting for someone to tell me what's wrong with this.
hs
|
Commandante Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.04.05 07:21:00 -
[302]
Edited by: Commandante Caldari on 05/04/2009 07:26:51
Originally by: DelboyTrotter Yes more fun, they will actually take some skill to fly, rather than sitting at 150k and being untouchable. And yes most likely be called primary just like any other recon on the field.
This is called balancing, and its not an over nerf, current changes are nowhere near enough. Falcons need to be brought into 50km effective combat range, just like all the other recons.
Try flying a rapier.
Disagree! You are touchable at 150 km. Easily, depending on the fleet. Everything depends on the fleet setup you face. The goal is not to kill the Falcon. The goal is to scare the Falcon off and remove ECM from the fight.
If you engage a camp of 4 BS and some small ships with one BS and you bring ECM you will die at the point when ECM is scared off. The chance to lose is anyway higher if these guys had fitted ECCM or just bring a Sniper for the Falcon. Keep in mind that you can't jam everybody and that you can't have the right jam mods for every situation. Experienced camps/blobs know how to make it hard for you.
I am mainly bringing the example gate campers. Well, that's the worst way of ganking players and give them zero chance. For busting a camp a Falcon is perfect. If the camp is aware they just prepare. With the new nerf they will not just be able to scare ECM off, they simply get a great chance now to kill ship easily. Just place one or two Falcons/Rooks at the gate and support them by remote repping when under sentry fire. Your ECM will be disabled and if you stay longer that close they will try to tackle you for sure. Dead!
So that actual nerf is not re-balancing ECM. It does not nerf. It will revert overpowered to useless.
That's my personal opinion as a high skilled and experienced Falcon pilot.
|
Mistress Frome
SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2009.04.05 07:24:00 -
[303]
Give the rook another low~
I want my third bcs >_> ---
|
DelboyTrotter
Trotters Independent Trading
|
Posted - 2009.04.05 07:59:00 -
[304]
Edited by: DelboyTrotter on 05/04/2009 08:00:27
Originally by: Commandante Caldari Edited by: Commandante Caldari on 05/04/2009 07:39:54 Disagree! You are touchable at 150 km. Easily, depending on the fleet. Everything depends on the fleet setup you face. The goal is not to kill the Falcon. The goal is to scare the Falcon off and remove ECM from the fight.
If you engage a camp of 4 BS and some small ships with one BS and you bring ECM you will die at the point when ECM is scared off. The chance to lose is anyway higher if these guys had fitted ECCM or just bring a Sniper for the Falcon. Or very simple: counter ECM. Keep in mind that you can't jam everybody and that you can't have the right jam mods for every situation. Experienced camps/blobs know how to make it hard for you.
I am mainly bringing the example gate campers. Well, that's the worst way of ganking players and give them zero chance. For busting a camp a Falcon is perfect. But if the camp is not made of noobs and aware they just prepare. With the new nerf they will not just be able to scare ECM off, they simply get a great chance now to kill ship easily. Just place one Falcon/Rook at the gate and support them by remote repping when under sentry fire. Your ECM will be disabled and if you stay longer that close they will try to tackle you for sure. Dead!
Before the nerf you had 2 battle fields: the main battle and the fight at distance to keep/disable ECM.
So that actual nerf is not re-balancing ECM. It does not just nerf. It will revert overpowered to useless.
That's my personal opinion as a high skilled and experienced Falcon pilot.
By untouchable I meant exactly what you described, at very best you will make the falcon warp away, rather then destroy it and remove it from the fight.
In the situation you describe, any experienced falcon pilot will be prepared with multiple bookmarks to warp to around the engagement at range, so once any tacklers get close, it is free to just warp to another spot and continue jamming.
No other ship that can warp cloaked can effect a fight to the extent a falcon can at such extreme ranges. All other covert recons operate at 20-40 km, and then they will effect only 1-2 targets with their EWAR. A skilled falcon pilot is capable of completely removing 5 ships from a fight.
Even IF CCP properly balance the falcon and reduce it range far more that the current proposed changes, to around 20-40 KM, it will still be more powerful than any other recon, and just like all the other recons, it will remain paper thin and primary, taking skill to fly effectively.
|
Spartan dax
|
Posted - 2009.04.05 10:18:00 -
[305]
Originally by: DelboyTrotter
No other ship that can warp cloaked can effect a fight to the extent a falcon can at such extreme ranges. All other covert recons operate at 20-40 km, and then they will effect only 1-2 targets with their EWAR. A skilled falcon pilot is capable of completely removing 5 ships from a fight.
Even IF CCP properly balance the falcon and reduce it range far more that the current proposed changes, to around 20-40 KM, it will still be more powerful than any other recon, and just like all the other recons, it will remain paper thin and primary, taking skill to fly effectively.
Take your ECM whines somewhere else and keep your comments to the SISI changes. No Falcon on SISI will ever jam 5 targets unless it's in optimal, and in optimal there are even plenty of frigs that can shoot it now.
SISI falcon jamming from 100k.... It's a joke and an utter failure. Which was the intention all along obviously.
|
DelboyTrotter
Trotters Independent Trading
|
Posted - 2009.04.05 10:39:00 -
[306]
Originally by: Spartan dax
Take your ECM whines somewhere else and keep your comments to the SISI changes. No Falcon on SISI will ever jam 5 targets unless it's in optimal, and in optimal there are even plenty of frigs that can shoot it now.
Exactly where was I whining? Current SISI changes, they are not enough, falcons should have a 60k optimal on their jammers after rigs and SDAs
Originally by: Spartan dax SISI falcon jamming from 100k.... It's a joke and an utter failure. Which was the intention all along obviously.
This sound pretty damn whiney to me. The changes are not a joke, Falcons in their current form on TQ are a joke, take no skill to fly and are the easy button in eve currently.
|
Marlona Sky
Astroglide X The Foray Project
|
Posted - 2009.04.05 11:06:00 -
[307]
CCP is bringing the falcon in line with the other recons?? This is an outrage!!!!!!
No seriously, all these falcon pilot/alt tears are by far the best tasting tears ever. I mean EVER!!!
Long over due changes and you all know it.
Great job CCP!
|
Commandante Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.04.05 11:22:00 -
[308]
Originally by: DelboyTrotter
Originally by: Spartan dax
Take your ECM whines somewhere else and keep your comments to the SISI changes. No Falcon on SISI will ever jam 5 targets unless it's in optimal, and in optimal there are even plenty of frigs that can shoot it now.
Exactly where was I whining? Current SISI changes, they are not enough, falcons should have a 60k optimal on their jammers after rigs and SDAs
Originally by: Spartan dax SISI falcon jamming from 100k.... It's a joke and an utter failure. Which was the intention all along obviously.
This sound pretty damn whiney to me. The changes are not a joke, Falcons in their current form on TQ are a joke, take no skill to fly and are the easy button in eve currently.
As I mentioned before: there a enough methods and tactics against ECM. Even at 225. The problem is: people ignore that and whining is the easy way, noobs whine anyway because they have no deep knowlegde and have any clue what happened to them. Most of the people don't want to prepare against ECM because it needs some changes in their routine. Overall I lost some Falcons to fleets who know how to deal with it.
Using ECM against single trapped players is anyway brutal. 225 or 60km. It makes no difference. All kind of EWAR rercons would cause a similar “unfair, no chance“ situation.
The behaviour is a bit similar to the Myrm nerf some time ago. Massive whine about a 5x Ogre overpowered BC while most of the people did not shoot drones first. It's so easy, you just need to be aware that a drone ship without drones is simply dead. But it's easier to whine instead of changing the way how to fight and setup an overwiew for that. Finally CCP listened to these guys again and additionally the nerfed drones because they are so overpowered when noone wants to shoot them first.
|
welsh wizard
0utbreak KrautbreaK
|
Posted - 2009.04.05 11:22:00 -
[309]
Falcon - *Cloak *Close range ewar *Drone bay *2x missile & turret hardpoints *Damage bonus. They're going to die immediately in pretty much every fight but I think most are resigned to that fact now. Half the problem with bringing these ships in close is the fact that pretty much everything (bar frigs) will lock it up immediately and negate its cloak. This will neccesitate a large buffer tank but with a drone bay and damage bonuses I guess this is acceptable. No second role though :/
Scorpion - *2x missile & turret hardpoints *damage bonus *close range ewar *increased drone bay size?. Again, will be immediate primary but atleast its cheap and now has solo application!
Rook - I quite like other peoples ideas for this remaining the long range ECM option. Problem is its a waste of time leaving it in BS optimals because its basically instapop fodder. Jump > lock Rook > pop. Whats the point? Unless its optimal is going to be around the 200km mark with rigs/SDA's then it may aswell be a close range boat aswell. Thing is I love the idea of a close range Scorp :S GGNNNGHHH! --------------- RIP Crazy Horse |
Hayat Siwa
|
Posted - 2009.04.05 11:22:00 -
[310]
if you argue that a ship is too hard to kill why not apply that to covert ops or cloaking modules in general?
the purpose of the nerf is obviously to take the ubar out of the falcon, is it not?
Quote: In the situation you describe, any experienced falcon pilot will be prepared with multiple bookmarks to warp to around the engagement at range, so once any tacklers get close, it is free to just warp to another spot and continue jamming. ... A skilled falcon pilot is capable of completely removing 5 ships from a fight.
which falcon pilot has multiple bookmarks along any roaming route? the only one situation where having multiple bookmarks is practical (and half of the falcon pilots i know don't even bother for some reason) is during homedefense in or directly around your station system. in all other situations bookmarks are created on the fly, but then again that's ok for a battleship isn't it?
you second argument of eliminating 5 ships from the fight is actually very unrealistic for a falcon hardly ever has all the proper racials fitted to achieve that. you cannot possible argue with extreme cases, otherwise a single bs will pop any frigate instantly, too, given ideal conditions.
i am flying falcons now for a few months and it happened exactly once (!) that i managed to jam 4 hostiles who were engaging a careless pilot on his way to dock on station. he managed to escape. surely a situation that ****ed off those 4 reds, but on the other hand it made 2 guys rather happy. what's wrong with that?
now i can agree to reduce a falcons efficiency and for the third time i'm asking what's wrong with this:
Quote: i can understand the arguments to change the ratio of optimal vs fall-off, i can also see the reasoning behind reducing jam strength, and a somewhat (read slightly) toned down max range. changes in these areas would reduce the effectiveness of the falcon by a good amount while still allowing the ship to be employed in it's current role as a long range support ship.
everyone who demands the falcon to be made a close range ship purposefully ignores it's role as a long range support ship. i do wonder why. how about making the rokh, a dedicated sniper bs, a close range ship, too?
making all recons act and behave in similar fashion eliminates any incentive to cross train or spezialise as skill time will be wasted come next patch. a nerf like that only helps satisfy the lazy and uncreative solo player who cannot be bothered to find a solution with his team.
being regularly attacked by hostiles in our home system i can attest to the fact that their use of eccm, long range cerbs or interceptors is doing amazing things to our falcons motivation.
so, again, why does the role of the falcon as a long range support ship need to change?
someone enlighten me. i'm getting impatient.
regards
hs
|
|
The Djego
Minmatar merovinger inc
|
Posted - 2009.04.05 11:33:00 -
[311]
Originally by: Hayat Siwa
Quote: I just see it that way: the nerf is just a result of a big whining of lazy, non-creative players ... not willing to sacrifice a slot for ECCM or thinking about different tactics against a Falcon. And CCP is listening to all these endless petitions or forum threads.
this
interestingly there are no falcon pilots here who argue against a nerf. they all agree that the ship could do with some tweaking. there are shockingly few arguments considering the nature of the falcon, though (long range ecm support).
what is the reason to change the role of the falcon?
The combination of Cov Ops Cloak, long Range and huge Jamming power that is terrible OP against small Gangs or against solo Players, not any combat situation happens with 30+ People and sniper Setups. Now people have actualy take a risk of getting shot here when deciding to use a Cov Ops cloaked Recon or simply use the Range of Ships not able to fit a Cov Ops Cloak.
Also why should be the Falcon counter should be this creative(you get nearly imunity if you don¦t screw up atm)? You kill Falcons in Bubble camps if you are lucky to deacloak them, you kill Falcons that are not aligned(pure pilote mistake), you kill Falcons that don¦t fit a buffer and get killed in one Alpha(again if it takes more the pilote simply screwed up because he didn¦t align and warp out). The Falcon is basicly this popular because her pilotes don¦t need to think about diffrent tactics and the Cov Ops Claok gives them way to mutch protection and one ECCM don¦t give you a solid protection(you need 2-3 on a BS to get this).
Originally by: Hayat Siwa
Quote: i can understand the arguments to change the ratio of optimal vs fall-off, i can also see the reasoning behind reducing jam strength, and a somewhat (read slightly) toned down max range. changes in these areas would reduce the effectiveness of the falcon by a good amount while still allowing the ship to be employed in it's current role as a long range support ship.
i'm still waiting for someone to tell me what's wrong with this.
hs
Again, the combination of Cov Ops Cloak, long Range and huge Jamming power. Now people at least have to decide between range and a Cov Ops Cloak to protect them.
---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
The Djego
Minmatar merovinger inc
|
Posted - 2009.04.05 11:48:00 -
[312]
Originally by: Hayat Siwa
Quote: i can understand the arguments to change the ratio of optimal vs fall-off, i can also see the reasoning behind reducing jam strength, and a somewhat (read slightly) toned down max range. changes in these areas would reduce the effectiveness of the falcon by a good amount while still allowing the ship to be employed in it's current role as a long range support ship.
everyone who demands the falcon to be made a close range ship purposefully ignores it's role as a long range support ship. i do wonder why. how about making the rokh, a dedicated sniper bs, a close range ship, too?
making all recons act and behave in similar fashion eliminates any incentive to cross train or spezialise as skill time will be wasted come next patch. a nerf like that only helps satisfy the lazy and uncreative solo player who cannot be bothered to find a solution with his team.
being regularly attacked by hostiles in our home system i can attest to the fact that their use of eccm, long range cerbs or interceptors is doing amazing things to our falcons motivation.
so, again, why does the role of the falcon as a long range support ship need to change?
someone enlighten me. i'm getting impatient.
regards
hs
Anyone that demands a Cov Ops cloaked long range jamming Ships as a role knowes this concept is compleetly broken and make any other kind of ECM and EW Ship compleetly useless compared to the Falcon.
The Rohk is allready a very powerfull short Range BS.
Making all reacons halve way ballanced elimitates the need of cross training for the Falcon. A nerf like this helps to kill all the lazy and uncreative players(also Falcon alt users) that hide behind cov ops cloaks and huge ranges in small Gang combat that can not be bothered to use a other tactice and demand one tactic to work in any kind of sitiation outside of 1o1 better than any other EW.
---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
Hayat Siwa
|
Posted - 2009.04.05 12:54:00 -
[313]
first, thanks for your thought out response.
Quote: Anyone that demands a Cov Ops cloaked long range jamming Ships as a role knows this concept is compleetly broken and make any other kind of ECM and EW Ship completly useless compared to the Falcon.
tbh, i don't know why the concept of cloaker/jammer/range is so faulty. but it doesn't matter. even if it is, fact is the falcon is meanwhile an established long range/cloaking/jamming ship. people have chosen to skill in this direction and employ stand-off tactics. are these not demanding enough? well, there are still plenty of falcons on killmails.
my point is that this is the current situation. personally i would prefer to take the curretn role as a starting point for a nerf rather than creating a totally new role for it. i see that as a much fairer approach towards players.
the other recons being useless is surely resulting from the above average attributes of the falcon. increase falloff, reduce jam strength, 150k, mission accomplished. hard to kill, so what? all pilots are hard to kill if they know what they are doing and easy to kill if they don't no matter what ship they fly.
Quote: Now people at least have to decide between range and a Cov Ops Cloak to protect them.
you are talking about the scorpion?
Quote: A nerf like this helps to kill all the lazy and uncreative players...
correction! it affects 1 race. noteworthy nerfs that i witnessed in my short time in eve were mainly the speed and the missile nerf. but those were covering the whole spectrum of races pretty much.
anyway, to move ahead, i conclude that i understand and agree (!) with the motivations to reduce the falcons effectiveness but i still absolutely disagree (!) with the approach that is pursued, i.e. creating a new role rather than adjusting it.
regards
hs
|
Zubakis
Bambooule
|
Posted - 2009.04.05 13:40:00 -
[314]
Edited by: Zubakis on 05/04/2009 13:40:26 Can you look at the cpu usage on projected eccm's, while you are tweaking ecm ships? 55cpu on t2 eccm projector and 40cpu on best named is too much.
edit: And maybe increase range on those too? |
Robert Caldera
|
Posted - 2009.04.05 14:12:00 -
[315]
Edited by: Robert Caldera on 05/04/2009 14:16:40
Originally by: Commandante Caldari The problem is: people ignore that and whining is the easy way, noobs whine anyway because they have no deep knowlegde and have any clue what happened to them. Most of the people don't want to prepare against ECM because it needs some changes in their routine.
very true.
Nerf everything what is not gank or tank and even WORKS(w00000000w!!) The worst thing is CCP follow the whines and really do it, bye bye diversity.
In my opinion its going really to only gank/tank since I'm playing eve, with tons of useless things around it those nobuddy uses.
So now its ECM, what is going to be tomorrow? |
The Djego
Minmatar merovinger inc
|
Posted - 2009.04.05 14:28:00 -
[316]
Edited by: The Djego on 05/04/2009 14:32:50
Originally by: Hayat Siwa first, thanks for your thought out response.
Quote: Anyone that demands a Cov Ops cloaked long range jamming Ships as a role knows this concept is compleetly broken and make any other kind of ECM and EW Ship completly useless compared to the Falcon.
tbh, i don't know why the concept of cloaker/jammer/range is so faulty. but it doesn't matter. even if it is, fact is the falcon is meanwhile an established long range/cloaking/jamming ship. people have chosen to skill in this direction and employ stand-off tactics. are these not demanding enough? well, there are still plenty of falcons on killmails.
Well simple, a Falcon combines the biggest range(or better a range that gives him imunity ot about 90% of possible Counters) with the most effective EW(ECM, a jammed ship is unable to use Turrets, unable to fire Missles directly and we all know how ineffective unfocused FOFs are, unable to hold Point, Web, ECM, Damps, Target Painters, Neuts, Nos, Remote Rep or cordinate Drones, while also having one of the weakest countermodules with not other purpose than reduce the chance of getting jammed) and also gives the ships the ultimate unconsensual PVP mod, the Covert Ops Claok leaving the ship the choice when to engage and where. Any counter tactic is based on kill it with alpha or the mistake of the Pilote to not align correct before decloaking or decloak in the wrong place.
Originally by: Hayat Siwa
my point is that this is the current situation. personally i would prefer to take the curretn role as a starting point for a nerf rather than creating a totally new role for it. i see that as a much fairer approach towards players.
Well the Falcon is actualy broken because of his role unfortuanaly and there will be no solution that changes the curret situation on TQ if the ship keep it¦s role.
Originally by: Hayat Siwa
the other recons being useless is surely resulting from the above average attributes of the falcon. increase falloff, reduce jam strength, 150k, mission accomplished. hard to kill, so what? all pilots are hard to kill if they know what they are doing and easy to kill if they don't no matter what ship they fly.
It¦s more like that Damps and Webs are kind of broken on the related Recons(60% Web on the Rapier\Huggin is a joke, like the Damps are on the Lachesis\Arazu). This ships done fairly well with powerfull EW even at her short range.
Originally by: Hayat Siwa
Quote: Now people at least have to decide between range and a Cov Ops Cloak to protect them.
you are talking about the scorpion?
Yes(also the BB), in my optinon the Torp/ECM closerange Scorp would have been nicer and the rook should be the long range ECM platform(ECM + huge Range without Cov Ops Cloak is still very powerfull but leaves fare better options to counter/avoid it).
Originally by: Hayat Siwa
Quote: A nerf like this helps to kill all the lazy and uncreative players...
correction! it affects 1 race. noteworthy nerfs that i witnessed in my short time in eve were mainly the speed and the missile nerf. but those were covering the whole spectrum of races pretty much.
anyway, to move ahead, i conclude that i understand and agree (!) with the motivations to reduce the falcons effectiveness but i still absolutely disagree (!) with the approach that is pursued, i.e. creating a new role rather than adjusting it.
regards
hs
Actualy it affects mostly 1 Ship. The core problem is this simply that this sayed ship steamrolls you in small gang PVP atm, you can¦t see it(cov ops cloak), it can compleetly negate 2-3 Ships(all her DPS-unfocused Drones/FOF and EW) while beeing to fare out to be attackalbe by general fittings, even if you can get him you chase him off if he didn¦t make a mistake, you don¦t kill him and you need more ships for this(If you don¦t do the obvious and bring your own Falcon with you).
|
Laechyd Eldgorn
Caldari Endemic Aggression Exalted.
|
Posted - 2009.04.05 14:41:00 -
[317]
i don't know how many times this has to be repeated but ECM ships will be useless piece of junk in gangs if they can't jam effectively from 150km and above. In practice it has to be more like 200km. Because you can't be positioned exactly at 150km... ships are moving...
Comparing ecm ship range with other recons is pointless because other recons have other abilities to support their role at more closer range. Giving drones for falcon is pretty useless also...
Now the other thing, the close range ecm stuff. ECM ships will be blown into bits if they ever get aggroed by drones, except bs class which can take drone aggro for a short bit...
Shortening ecm range and increasing weapon range is really bad idea for rook and falcon.
Falcon doesn't need any weapons it's pure ecm boat, it can't kill anything, it can't tackle or damage anything even if you would give it a little weapon bonus. Not to mention non-existant speed or tank. Falcon can only last for like one volley from other gang...
Rook doesn't need range bonus it needs capacitor, agility, speed, dps and tank to be better at it's close range role and it really doesn't need range bonus, which would be only useful IF it could fit ham's, but it doesn't have even nearly enough power grid for that.
I personally like the idea of scorpion and widow being effective on close range and stuff. BUT they can't do effective damage anymore since torpedo nerf (yeah you can fit target painter but hey what slots you use for tackling then, if you can't tackle you can as well take other ship), scorpion only has so many missile hardpoints (and it's hard to imagine how it could have more without ruining whole fitting layout) and widow is expensive as hell...
Also since SDA's are going to get nerf bat it already drops ecm strenght pretty dangerously for anyone who would like to go to close range with ecm boat... fail one cycle and you're dead. Too much luck factor there...
in other words boost tempest and large ac's...
|
The Djego
Minmatar merovinger inc
|
Posted - 2009.04.05 15:07:00 -
[318]
Edited by: The Djego on 05/04/2009 15:14:45 Edited by: The Djego on 05/04/2009 15:13:33
Originally by: Laechyd Eldgorn Rook doesn't need range bonus it needs capacitor, agility, speed, dps and tank to be better at it's close range role and it really doesn't need range bonus, which would be only useful IF it could fit ham's, but it doesn't have even nearly enough power grid for that.
Now how many people actualy fly rooks today? Nobody ever will if you can have cov ops cloak and range on the Falcon because it is plain better in any possible way(beeing out of range, engage/disengage at will with the same jamming power or even more since you don¦t need to fit a buffer).
Originally by: Laechyd Eldgorn
Also since SDA's are going to get nerf bat it already drops ecm strenght pretty dangerously for anyone who would like to go to close range with ecm boat... fail one cycle and you're dead. Too much luck factor there...
30% Jamming strengh per Level, it got actual boosted(comparing to TQ with SDA fitted), while freeing the low Slots for other stuff if you don¦t want the range that SDA give you(like a Plate or some Overdrives, Damagemods, DCU etc.) while having the same jamming power.
|
McEivalley
Fallen Angel's Blade.
|
Posted - 2009.04.05 16:29:00 -
[319]
Originally by: DelboyTrotter
By untouchable I meant exactly what you described, at very best you will make the falcon warp away, rather then destroy it and remove it from the fight.
In the situation you describe, any experienced falcon pilot will be prepared with multiple bookmarks to warp to around the engagement at range, so once any tacklers get close, it is free to just warp to another spot and continue jamming.
No other ship that can warp cloaked can effect a fight to the extent a falcon can at such extreme ranges. All other covert recons operate at 20-40 km, and then they will effect only 1-2 targets with their EWAR. A skilled falcon pilot is capable of completely removing 5 ships from a fight.
Even IF CCP properly balance the falcon and reduce it range far more that the current proposed changes, to around 20-40 KM, it will still be more powerful than any other recon, and just like all the other recons, it will remain paper thin and primary, taking skill to fly effectively.
But falcons can't kill. You may ninja on a KM, you are a very effective support - granted - but you don't kill. You survive and help other survive. It's like complaining about a scimitar remote repping a drake which you thought you'd own in your gank mega.
So yeah, for some people it's boring. Others dedicate their skill plans to it and live in it for very extended periods of times. Basically, I kinda hate salvage thieves, but it's a legitimate trade and I came to terms with its existence because game mechanically speaking it's as legitimate as podding is. Obviously you suffer when it happens, especially with a snake set in (when you get podded - not ninja salvaged duh!), but **** happens.
Same's with the falcons. You might not like it that you have to burn to it, or take a sniper that can kill it, or another falcon to jam it back and put it out of the fight as well (and how many falcon tears pilots have shed when they got jammed by their peers). But, hey, this is the game and it makes it so much more fun. I love burning to falcons in my intys. I praise the 200kms I need to do that, because it allows me to switch to fof missiles, and requires skill to bump the sucker till it's dead. Others can warp to me and help kill it too. When a falcon pilot sees me burning to him he has 2 choices - grow balls and jam me, or grow brains, cloak and warp out, which is good for the team anyways.
So yeah, usually when I'm burning to it I make it warp away at the very least. But if it doesn't, I've never died to a falcon because it has absolutely no offensive capability to speak of. If he smartbombs, he can't cloak and gets locked, as well as becomes cap unstable so double trouble. Intys can survive quite a lot vs any heavy missiles it might shoot. Best thing to come in mind vs intys would probably be assualt launchers with precision light missiles. But then again, the inty can burn out of their range if it is too threatened, and no falcon pilot will bother with a scrambler on his ship because - yeah, jammers are so much more handy.
The only new terror would be the light drones bay, 5 warrior IIs or just ECM-300s as yet another GTFO ticket for it will truely make it untouchable at those ranges. But then, that's why it didn't got a drone bay to begin with. But even if they do, you still can't speak of solo something other than other falcons, as you don't jam the tank on the other ship. Falcons are not curses.
When you nerf the falcons' range, you nerf interceptor roles as well. You boost long range snipers.
It isn't cheap either - albeit for faction webs on rapiers - it's possibly the most expensive recon in the game. And falcons, believe it or not, do die. Look in the killboards - they die. They get owned. PWNed. Yes, called primary every time. If an FC sees a falcon on grid and he has no way to counter it, he will do the smart thing and fold or die. I love what falcons bring to the game. Don't touch them ccp. Do - don't die trying. |
McEivalley
Fallen Angel's Blade.
|
Posted - 2009.04.05 17:14:00 -
[320]
Originally by: Robert Caldera Edited by: Robert Caldera on 05/04/2009 14:16:40
Originally by: Commandante Caldari The problem is: people ignore that and whining is the easy way, noobs whine anyway because they have no deep knowlegde and have any clue what happened to them. Most of the people don't want to prepare against ECM because it needs some changes in their routine.
very true.
Nerf everything what is not gank or tank and even WORKS(w00000000w!!) The worst thing is CCP follow the whines and really do it, bye bye diversity.
In my opinion its going really to only gank/tank since I'm playing eve, with tons of useless things around it those nobuddy uses.
So now its ECM, what is going to be tomorrow?
Sniping, obviously. And again, it's going to be caldari who gets the brunt, with eagles (already a relatively rotten ship compared to other hacs) and the sniping cerb.
BTW, someone commented earlier something about missiles speed for extending ranges is not a good enough boost for the rook, since it can shoot further than it can jam. Well, amigo, I have news for you.... you aced eft but failed math, and more importantly, failed at playing the game.
Missiles velocity is more than just S... there's v*t there too. v means the missiles connect with fast ships, and if S is shorter it means t is shortened due to the increase in v. Means you put the hurt more quickly than before.
I don't mind the rook being the brawler. Hell, it does need love as it is useless except for lol fits compared to the current falcon. So an increase in its dps and a drone bay to the rook, plus some grid/cpu boost and maybe even some speed would work wonders on the poor recon. I'm totally in favor of what Ephemeron suggested regarding the SDAs, and I would totally go for a solution that scripts them or make two seperate modules.
I would also think about allowing to script eccm modules to either up the strength points or the chance of successfully surviving a jam (so if you expect a falcon in close range, you'd fit the chance script, while going for the points script when he's 200km away, in falloff).
I also wanted to note that in a camp you can expect a falcon at 200km or more, with multi safe spots. But in all other scenarios expect them to appear in a much closer range, and have maybe one safe near the gate. Do - don't die trying. |
|
Dunkin McLoud
|
Posted - 2009.04.05 17:41:00 -
[321]
The main problem i see with the nerf it seems to just be a huge chop of the falcon surviability people say to add tanks to the falcon, but look its a caldari cruiser. your saying were suppose to passive or active tank this ship while still maintaining its ECM at an efficent capacity compared to the scorpion.
If you take everything into account such as the chance to jam, the fewer number of ecm modules (if the ship is to tank), the high priority target, and the limited range. AS well take into account that these ranges are with all the skills maxed out. This basically makes the a falcon a dangerous target but a target that has little change in a battle except to draw enemy gangs alpha strikes. while maybe jamming 1 or 2 ships for a short amount of time untill it is blown up. Making it an expensive but ineffective ship in small gangs.
|
DelboyTrotter
Trotters Independent Trading
|
Posted - 2009.04.05 18:18:00 -
[322]
Originally by: Dunkin McLoud The main problem i see with the nerf it seems to just be a huge chop of the falcon surviability people say to add tanks to the falcon, but look its a caldari cruiser. your saying were suppose to passive or active tank this ship while still maintaining its ECM at an efficent capacity compared to the scorpion.
If you take everything into account such as the chance to jam, the fewer number of ecm modules (if the ship is to tank), the high priority target, and the limited range. AS well take into account that these ranges are with all the skills maxed out. This basically makes the a falcon a dangerous target but a target that has little change in a battle except to draw enemy gangs alpha strikes. while maybe jamming 1 or 2 ships for a short amount of time untill it is blown up. Making it an expensive but ineffective ship in small gangs.
And will make it exactly like every other cov-ops recon out there. You will actually have to think about the tactical situation before you decloak and start jamming, and if you screw up there will be a high chance your expensive T2 recon will get popped.
No different from flying a rapier, arazu or pilgrim.
|
The Djego
Minmatar merovinger inc
|
Posted - 2009.04.05 18:29:00 -
[323]
Edited by: The Djego on 05/04/2009 18:32:54
Originally by: McEivalley
I don't mind the rook being the brawler. Hell, it does need love as it is useless except for lol fits compared to the current falcon. So an increase in its dps and a drone bay to the rook, plus some grid/cpu boost and maybe even some speed would work wonders on the poor recon. I'm totally in favor of what Ephemeron suggested regarding the SDAs, and I would totally go for a solution that scripts them or make two seperate modules.
Nobody that flys Falcons would mind the rook beeing the brawler because it would be still useless and don¦t fix the problem with the Falcon.
The short range Rook compared to a Falcon with more Range and cov ops cloak is absolutly uselsess, it leaves pilote the decision between one Ship with 2 drawbacks(close range, no cloak) and one ship with 2 advantages(long range, cloak) for Caldari recons, this is the reason why the Falcons are extrem popular and rooks are extremly uncommon(rook and falcon got the same ECM range and power atm, so the only diffrence is one can fit a Cov Ops Cloak and one can¦t).
The only way a rook could be usefull is a rook that has the range bonus and the Falcon is reduced to close range but got the cov ops cloak. Simply look at Pilgram/Curse if the Pilgrim would have the range Bonus and the Cov Ops Cloak there would be zero reason to ever use a Curse because range+cov ops cloak are plain better. ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
Blastil
|
Posted - 2009.04.05 18:29:00 -
[324]
This nerf has been a long time In coming, and I think CCP has done exactly what was needed.
Last night I jumped a Myrm into a three man camp. I popped a sabre, and was working on the zealot when a falcon decloaked at 250 KM and ended the fight. I warped away without even breaking my tank, but the problem is in the fact that the falcon quite simply is untouchable in small or solo combat. regardless of the chance system, the falcon remains the king of not just fleet-to-fleet warfare, but for ganks and small gang PVP, enabling two to three men to end a fight with absolutely no risk. The falcons don't have to commit, and the only people in danger are the tacklers, who are being backed by a falcon. TBFH, the falcon is a 100% risk negation tool. And the only counter for a falcon is another falcon, or enough targets to cram down its throat so it physically can't jam them all. And if any of these happen, the falcon merely warps off and lives on to fight another day.
To falcon pilots- Your ships role is not LONG RANGE ECM support, its ECM support. No other type of Ewar gains the ability to activate at practically off grid distances, and neutralize an opponent in all ways, with no form of retaliation. No drones, no FOF's. the counters placed into the game to remove your strengths through planning or skill are gone due to range.
Every ship should have its weaknesses, and the truth is, the falcon has none, save for the issue that it can be killed in a gate camp- just like every other ship.
|
CHAOS100
Widowmakers
|
Posted - 2009.04.05 18:54:00 -
[325]
This is not a good nerf. 50k optimal is a super-nerf. You forgot why ECM ships are so far in the first place, because they have limited or no defence.
Make them be able to jam well at 100-120km, in line with the sensor dampener range.
The rook having the same bonus? Means it is useless as ever to use it over the falcon. Give it at least maybe a bit better range bonus since it can't cloak, or at least a strength bonus. Think like how the curse has a range bonus for neuts when compared to the pilgrim. (NO THIS DOES NOT MEAN NERF THE CURSE).
Black ops --> giving it a fuel bay is the first step, why not go all the way and give it a covert cloak like the stealth bomber? At least then it would have the ability to choose its fights. --------------
|
Mycenaean
|
Posted - 2009.04.05 19:00:00 -
[326]
Falcon is way overpowered atm..
Take away its range so it equals the Pilgrim/Rapier, and nerf the ECM strenght..
Problem fixed, and perhaps 1 or 2 players might start solo pvp'ing again..
|
Robert Caldera
|
Posted - 2009.04.05 19:43:00 -
[327]
Edited by: Robert Caldera on 05/04/2009 19:43:12
Originally by: Mycenaean Take away its range so it equals the Pilgrim/Rapier, and nerf the ECM strenght..
if you like the pilgrim, take a pilgrim, no need for making the falcon equal to other ships, it IS a different ship. You know why there are 4 races in the game??
The falcon was fine as it was.
|
Mycenaean
|
Posted - 2009.04.05 19:50:00 -
[328]
Originally by: Robert Caldera Edited by: Robert Caldera on 05/04/2009 19:43:12
Originally by: Mycenaean Take away its range so it equals the Pilgrim/Rapier, and nerf the ECM strenght..
if you like the pilgrim, take a pilgrim, no need for making the falcon equal to other ships, it IS a different ship. You know why there are 4 races in the game??
The falcon was fine as it was.
Obvious falcon pilot spotted!
Falcon needs to be equally balanced to the other Recon ships, as stated in my original post..
|
Vi Emacs
|
Posted - 2009.04.05 20:14:00 -
[329]
Is a heavy assault missile bonus still on the cards for the rook ? I liked that if the rook was going to be based around close range.
|
Prince Spiderman
|
Posted - 2009.04.05 21:27:00 -
[330]
Edited by: Prince Spiderman on 05/04/2009 21:32:30 This nerf is just ruining Falcons. Welcome on the killmail. Campers will love it.
|
|
Commandante Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.04.05 21:31:00 -
[331]
Edited by: Commandante Caldari on 05/04/2009 21:34:15 Here we have the first proof that pirate camps can't wait to have that Falcon nerf. I just logged 30 mins ago myself and my main into my low-sec homesytem what is heavily camped for weeks now.
Read and enjoy :-) CCP: please read and rethink :-)
[ 2009.04.05 20:44:27 ] J***** Sch********** > COMMANDER R*TARDO REPORTING FOR DUTY [ 2009.04.05 20:44:39 ] J***** Sch********** > I MEAN [ 2009.04.05 20:44:41 ] J***** Sch********** > CALDARI [ 2009.04.05 20:46:36 ] L***** V***** > heh, was already wondering what p********* is doing without his falcon alt :P [ 2009.04.05 20:47:30 ] T***** A** > roughing it? [ 2009.04.05 20:48:47 ] i****** > i know right [ 2009.04.05 20:49:02 ] i****** > how is he going to be able to kill anyone without dual booting so they cant shoot back? <--- nice try, 99% of my killmails do not involve ECM. Just the tough ones where I did a classic assbomb right into their camp or had to deal with numbers :-D [ 2009.04.05 20:49:08 ] P********* G******* > I will simply adapt :-D [ 2009.04.05 20:49:25 ] P********* G******* > you will see, I will see [ 2009.04.05 20:49:40 ] L***** V***** > you better do, have been on sisi lately ? [ 2009.04.05 20:49:48 ] P********* G******* > yes [ 2009.04.05 20:49:52 ] P********* G******* > 71 optimal [ 2009.04.05 20:49:56 ] P********* G******* > I don't care <--- yeah, I am desparate, tbh. :-D The nerf sucks indeed! [ 2009.04.05 20:49:57 ] A****P***** > ouch :D [ 2009.04.05 20:50:05 ] P********* G******* > I will anyway catch you guys random [ 2009.04.05 20:50:14 ] A****P***** > Looks like we're going to see a falcon loss here and there [ 2009.04.05 20:50:41 ] L***** V***** > I'm pretty sure I'll kill your falcon alt in the next week sometime [ 2009.04.05 20:50:46 ] P********* G******* > looks like CCP is supporting camps [ 2009.04.05 20:51:06 ] P********* G******* > I am pretty sure I will still kill some of you [ 2009.04.05 20:51:42 ] A****P***** > or nerfing falcon alts [ 2009.04.05 20:52:16 ] P********* G******* > for what and when I use a Falcon ... that will still work ... more stress, but it will <--- showing up my Poker face :-P [ 2009.04.05 20:52:30 ] P********* G******* > most of my kills do not involve a Falcon [ 2009.04.05 20:52:41 ] P********* G******* > just busting a camp will need that for sure [ 2009.04.05 20:53:00 ] P********* G******* > but I am not that stupid to jump into a prime time DT camp [ 2009.04.05 20:53:50 ] P********* G******* > smaller camps still will suffer ... but I will lose more Falcons for sure. Guess what: I don't care. [ 2009.04.05 20:54:08 ] L******** > That's the spirit! yaaarrrrr [ 2009.04.05 20:54:19 ] L***** V***** > heh, I welcome teh change tbh, falcons in arty range is sexy [ 2009.04.05 20:54:32 ] P********* G******* > will be interesting to work out some tactics and train more dual stress boxing [ 2009.04.05 20:55:10 ] L***** V***** > I'd just switch to pilgrim or arazu, falcon gonna be worthless for dualboxing [ 2009.04.05 20:55:49 ] L***** V***** > unless you're prepared to lose a ton
The bad fact here is: they are right. They will love the nerf because they will kill Falcons easily now. What I said before in my former post.
|
DelboyTrotter
Trotters Independent Trading
|
Posted - 2009.04.05 21:37:00 -
[332]
Edited by: DelboyTrotter on 05/04/2009 21:38:47
Originally by: Commandante Caldari Here we have the first proof that pirate camps can't wait to have that Falcon nerf. I just logged 30 mins ago myself and my main into my low-sec homesytem what is heavily camped for weeks now.
Read and enjoy :-) CCP: please read and rethink :-)
First of all, pirating is a legitimate form of gameplay in eve, you seem to think that CCP should in some way be opposed to them?
Second, proposed changes will actually hurt pirate gatecamps, as they will no longer be able to use falcons to jam anyone attempting to bust their camp from outside sentry gun range.
Originally by: Commandante Caldari The bad fact here is: they are right. They will love the nerf because they will kill Falcons easily now. What I said before in my former post.
You have just confirmed the dire need for this change, that falcons are near impossible to kill at the moment, unlike any other recon.
|
Commandante Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.04.05 22:23:00 -
[333]
Edited by: Commandante Caldari on 05/04/2009 22:25:54
Originally by: DelboyTrotter Edited by: DelboyTrotter on 05/04/2009 21:38:47
Originally by: Commandante Caldari Here we have the first proof that pirate camps can't wait to have that Falcon nerf. I just logged 30 mins ago myself and my main into my low-sec homesytem what is heavily camped for weeks now.
Read and enjoy :-) CCP: please read and rethink :-)
First of all, pirating is a legitimate form of gameplay in eve, you seem to think that CCP should in some way be opposed to them?
Second, proposed changes will actually hurt pirate gatecamps, as they will no longer be able to use falcons to jam anyone attempting to bust their camp from outside sentry gun range.
Originally by: Commandante Caldari The bad fact here is: they are right. They will love the nerf because they will kill Falcons easily now. What I said before in my former post.
You have just confirmed the dire need for this change, that falcons are near impossible to kill at the moment, unlike any other recon.
Pirates camping for ages know how to deal with sentries. I saw camps using Inties beeing remote repped. A bigger camp shares the sentry fire and just will use rr. Not a problem for them.
They don't need a Falcon anymore. And if: just in the middle of the camp supported by rr. Or a better option: just a Pilgrim with ECCM will do the job. Falcon cap drained. Falcon down. You can waste a slot for a cap booster ofc but that nerfs again the ECM capabilties. It's hard to catch actually a Falcon on TQ. True. But it's easy to force a Falcon to warp off and move back. Even if you have gate spots. You need to warp, lose the lock and try again. The other side usually has their spots too if we talk about a fight with a daily gate camp. In other situations - fighting at an unknown spot - the Falcon warps usually at 100km.
100km should be the minimum. I want to see 150 km with lvl5 skills and rigs.
|
Gilbert T
Gallente Fulcrum Mercenary Services
|
Posted - 2009.04.05 22:28:00 -
[334]
Edited by: Gilbert T on 05/04/2009 22:29:50 the falcon nerf is bull, losing the range advantage in this ship makes it useless. The ECM were already nerfed once making them far less reliable, and without the range bonuses the falcon will be completely useless, in my opinion. I'll have to either train for an entirely different ship and hope it doesn't get nerfed the day I finish (unlikely) or quit playing this game if this goes to TQ. In fact, if this IS going to TQ, I'd like to know now so I don't waste any more money on Eve.
There is the requested opinion of a Falcon pilot, for what it's worth.
- Gil
|
The Djego
Minmatar merovinger inc
|
Posted - 2009.04.05 23:04:00 -
[335]
Originally by: Commandante Caldari
local stuff
The bad fact here is: they are right. They will love the nerf because they will kill Falcons easily now. What I said before in my former post.
I as a Pirate love this to, now people actualy have to fight me instead have the easy permajam option from save distance. I might adimit that it sucks for you now you actualy have to fight people(I actualy loled at the Astarte kill using your Falcon alt to jam this poor guy, I even took one out under Carrier RR with my Mega with both shooting/using Drones at me).
I personaly won¦t miss you guyes, last time I engaged a Mega and a Broadsword under Sentry aggro with my Mega they would both died without her Falcon alt. Get over it and try to do real PVP again.
Btw I also loled at the guy with the Arazu/Pilgim comment since I used a Arazu under sentry aggro before and know how hard it is to keep it alive(simply impossible to dualaccount).
Side note: I would be ashamed if i got killed by Los Chupacabras, this guyes preaty mutch sucked last time they wardeced us the lost some ships and some of them left the corp(after we ganked her cearbear ships 30 jumps away) or didn¦t logged in as we started to chase them around the empire with 2-3 vents and some low skilled guyes of our corp. They even docked up at a Mega vs Gedon + Tempest and don¦t left station before a 2. Pest arived.
As for ballance purpose, preat mutch a failpost of someone that will miss his Falcon backbone for easy mode PVP, nothing more in the end. Stop failing, if I can PVP without a Falcon alt, other people might be able to do this to. ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
The Djego
Minmatar merovinger inc
|
Posted - 2009.04.05 23:17:00 -
[336]
Originally by: Commandante Caldari
Pirates camping for ages know how to deal with sentries. I saw camps using Inties beeing remote repped. A bigger camp shares the sentry fire and just will use rr. Not a problem for them.
They don't need a Falcon anymore. And if: just in the middle of the camp supported by rr. Or a better option: just a Pilgrim with ECCM will do the job. Falcon cap drained. Falcon down. You can waste a slot for a cap booster ofc but that nerfs again the ECM capabilties. It's hard to catch actually a Falcon on TQ. True. But it's easy to force a Falcon to warp off and move back. Even if you have gate spots. You need to warp, lose the lock and try again. The other side usually has their spots too if we talk about a fight with a daily gate camp. In other situations - fighting at an unknown spot - the Falcon warps usually at 100km.
100km should be the minimum. I want to see 150 km with lvl5 skills and rigs.
Again stop failing and stop posting with your Falcon alt. What you request is the Falcon in his most broken environment, nearly as powerfull as it is now for guyes that are used to "I can take on everything with my Falcon alt, because it can¦t shoot back.". It is not even funny, it is just sad.
---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
Crazy Tasty
Beyond Divinity Inc
|
Posted - 2009.04.05 23:49:00 -
[337]
Objectively, even as a specced ECM pilot, I can't deny the logic behind these changes.
But if the Falcon/Rook will have to be in close for good jam strength, how bout an extra low slow, at least on the Rook, at least for a bit of honor tank and a couple % points on survivability. ECM ships are already instant primary, much more than any other recon would be, range was the only real defense, might need a little something more now. ------ // This is by design. When a ship jumps through a gate, it clears all aggression. // - BH ******** Pew on gate, if it gets hot, jump through and Ctrl-Q. Game mechanic endorsed by CCP. |
Commandante Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.04.06 07:38:00 -
[338]
Edited by: Commandante Caldari on 06/04/2009 07:46:02
Originally by: The Djego I as a Pirate love this to, now people actualy have to fight me instead have the easy permajam option from save distance. I might adimit that it sucks for you now you actualy have to fight people(I actualy loled at the Astarte kill using your Falcon alt to jam this poor guy, I even took one out under Carrier RR with my Mega with both shooting/using Drones at me).
I personaly won¦t miss you guyes, last time I engaged a Mega and a Broadsword under Sentry aggro with my Mega they would both died without her Falcon alt. Get over it and try to do real PVP again.
Btw I also loled at the guy with the Arazu/Pilgim comment since I used a Arazu under sentry aggro before and know how hard it is to keep it alive(simply impossible to dualaccount).
As for ballance purpose, preat mutch a failpost of someone that will miss his Falcon backbone for easy mode PVP, nothing more in the end. Stop failing, if I can PVP without a Falcon alt, other people might be able to do this to.
The nerf will not change your situation. If you face a solo player tackling you and there's a Falcon at 70 km you are still dead. It's not a problem of an optimal of 225 you can have with maxed skills and rigs.
I was talking about using the Falcon what it was meant for: even the numbers when engaging someone/a fleet who would kill you easily without ECM.
Example: my main was fighting a Myrm with a Myrm. In the middle of the battle an Abaddon warped in to get the sure kill. My Falcon jammed the Abaddon only to keep it out of that fight because at this point I had lost. The Myrm was still 1v1 me. That will still work but now my Falcon could be scared away by drones. Why not.
The bad issue with the change is now that in other situations where you have to fight a fleet or camp the Falcon will die fast. Gate camps will adapt to kill it 100% everytime. So it's useless now for that specific situation. And we need something against these annyoing campers believing they were the best PvPers ever just by filling up killboards. A counter fleet is too hard to bring in all the time so we need something effective for single players or small groups.
Most people think that the goal is to kill everything. No. A Falcon is operating at 180 km usually - even if you have optimal of 228 you will have spots at 180-190 km for the case that ships moving around at different distance to you. So just bring counter ECM or fast tackler, ECCM. It's not a big deal to adapt for that. In my homesystem the actual gate camp is using different tactics now since they lost too much. They bring a Huggin, Arazu, Vaga, Ishtar with Bouncer. Hey, it works. Just the Vaga is enough to keep your Falcon moving and you lose the important time to kill and scare before they kill you.
Dual boxing is not the easy PvP mode if you go for bigger targets. I am not talking about players who bait and bring ECM to kill solo players. You have tons of unfair situations in EVE. Who ever jumped dual on a nice camp knows what I am talking about. Example: you face a camp with Broadsword, Astarte, Harbinger, Absolution. Try to fight that in a solo lvl5 skilled Megathron with 1112 DPS. Even under sentry fire they will kill you. With some luck and imps you eventually can hold long enough to kill the BC. But I doubt that if the camp is experienced and well skilled. The only way to try on them is ECM. Could be that 70 km still works in this case.
ECM just give more possibilities to me. You can have the easy mode. I agree but you can have some nice challange if you go for harder multiple targets. From that pov you just some kind of mini-blob. Every gate camp is more worst. And if they kill players in that way they just deserve ECM at 200 km. Period.
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.04.06 07:58:00 -
[339]
Originally by: Crazy Tasty Objectively, even as a specced ECM pilot, I can't deny the logic behind these changes.
But if the Falcon/Rook will have to be in close for good jam strength, how bout an extra low slow, at least on the Rook, at least for a bit of honor tank and a couple % points on survivability.
Lachesis has to "tank" with the same number of lows (3), and has to operate in equivalent range as the new Rook.
Welcome to the world of the "other recons"
|
Gilbert T
Gallente Fulcrum Mercenary Services
|
Posted - 2009.04.06 08:27:00 -
[340]
The problem is that in "the world of other recons" things are not hit-or-miss like the ECM is (since it was already nerfed once). If the range is being made shorter to make them more like the other recons, then undo the last nerf so that the jamming stacks again, or better yet, make everything else (target painters, sensor dampeners, tracking disruptors, neutralizers, warp disruptors, ...) all prone to "miss" like the ECMs do. Wouldn't it be great if the neutralizers on that curse would just randomly miss an entire cycle, or the warp disruptors on that interceptor? The fact that the ECM is the only form of electronic warfare with that deficiency makes the statement ridiculous. CCP needs to just quit changing ships and modules that people train skills to use and develop countermeasures for them (like they already did with ECM anyway).
|
|
Commandante Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.04.06 08:29:00 -
[341]
Originally by: The Djego
Again stop failing and stop posting with your Falcon alt. What you request is the Falcon in his most broken environment, nearly as powerfull as it is now for guyes that are used to "I can take on everything with my Falcon alt, because it can¦t shoot back.". It is not even funny, it is just sad.
Well, my alt is flying the Falcon so I guess I am qualified to post here. Try to dual box with ECM and tell me IF you can take on everything.
You will expand ofc the chance to win fights where you usually were 100% dead. Let's say the most nasty case: Thorax with Falcon *** kills BS. I just say from that pov: nerf blobs, big fleets, camps, carriers camping the gate, nerf everything what's unfair in EVE etc. Understood!?
You can't take on everything. You can try now to fight bigger things. Evolve your PvP. Where do you find even fights these days or just an even 1v1? Very rare.
In my homesystem my main got hotdropped by a couple of carriers at the gate to highsec. Camping with carriers and a mom. Nice. Why not. Should I whine now: nerf caps into 0.0 because it's so unfair!!!
Where ECM also makes sense: we engaged a couple of them at their station. You know that campers have a great alternative: hug the station. Problem was: carrier again. The only way to fight them was to jam the carrier because cap rr sucks. :-) And now try to imagine what happens to a Falcon at 70 km when jamming a carrier with fighters/drones out. Thanks!
|
McEivalley
Fallen Angel's Blade.
|
Posted - 2009.04.06 08:33:00 -
[342]
Very recent examples for those saying "falcons cannot die" or "Falcons are kings" etc.
http://blade-alliance.com/killboard/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=20235 - People can make mistakes http://blade-alliance.com/killboard/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=20107 - There is no shame in bringing a falcon of your own. http://blade-alliance.com/killboard/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=19856 - Drones auto-aggro and bumpage ftw. http://blade-alliance.com/killboard/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=19869 - Snipey blob. No, he wasn't cynoing. http://blade-alliance.com/killboard/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=19683 - More bumpy action.
Etc... Note the dates. As you can see there are many effective ways to counter falcons. That's the point of these links. There are other dead falcons in between, and there are lots more in the past.
I love the falcon as it is now, because its a double edged sword rather than how most people tend to describe it. Sometimes it's a win button, and sometimes it's the facilitator of overconfidence and complete annihilation of the falcon and its gang. It's much more exciting and challenging to fly with and against them. That's what makes this game more co-operative and that's what you want for it as well.
What CCP suggests now is making everything easier to most ships against the falcon, while nerfing caldari ships even more. Of all the supporters of this change, only Ephemeron's suggestion is an acceptable nerf, as it allows classic ecm-sniper (thought weaker) for the falcon on one hand, while opening new avenues of fits and roles for the ship on another hand, making the nerf less noticable (though it would still be a nerf).
CCP, please, put that bulky chainsaw down and for once take a micro-laser scalpel attitude with this.
Caldari is the only race that must co-operate to survive a fight - no effective solo work for them. Highly specialized ships all over the place makes this race fun and interesting to pvp with and against. I'm really trying to concentrate here on the subject, and not throw in comparisons with other races, which imo are over-powered in other ways, which is fine by me. To each his own. And if someone rather have another race in his disposal, it is well within his ability to do so by either creating a new char or x-train or recruit someone who can do that.
Seriously - concentrate your efforts on bringing totally new things into the game rather than fixing one of your best features in it. Do - don't die trying. |
The Djego
Minmatar merovinger inc
|
Posted - 2009.04.06 09:45:00 -
[343]
Originally by: Commandante Caldari
Originally by: The Djego stuff
stuff
I might not fly solo all the time, and if the close range Falcon wouldn¦t have a chance to screw me it would be broken(it still has but it isn¦t untuchable anymore).
Since you now need a buffer and watch range/aggro/Drones it becomes harder to use on a 2. account, making it fare more likely to kill it if not piloted corcetly like other recons. A failed jam cycle will now eventualy give people the chance to put some drones on him or force him off the field for a short time with Guns/Missles etc and continue fighting against other combat ships.
If you tell me 70km == 200km as operation window, well I fly a Arazu(that sucks but not because of the short range but because of Damps suck on it) and I disagree here. Other Recons can screw you to, the problem with Falcon was simply it was way out of reach to do something effective against it if the pilote is on the controls.
About the rest.
The Falcon isn¦t a tool to take on larger gangs, any larger Gang have a Falcon this days because of exactly this problem that also adds a fare greater Combat value to the gang that any specific anti Falcon fitted combat ship.
Dualboxing with the Falcon is easy mode, it is easy to control, the range gives you a extrem long time to react, the jam cycles are 20 Seconds and as soon as you press F1 for the Cloak you get your 2. Ship out of harm(you can also move it with next to zero risk and other ships won¦t see you in the fist place). Also you can shout down the DPS of 2-4 Ships in small scale, that is extrem powerfull, plus you have the option to get out with the other ships since a jammed ship also looses all his tackle.
Also if you engage a Pirate camp in Low Sec this guyes will allready have Sentry aggro you won¦t with your Falcon, it nerf the Pirates actualy way harder, they can¦t even use Drones/Falcons there. 70km is still out of Drone Range, out of Blaster, AK, Puls, Torp Range. People now have to chase you, leaving RR and jump range giving you more options to kill them.
As for the example thats one BS vs a HIC, 2 Commands(that are is a bit under BS performance most of the time) and one BC. You can still use a Falcon in this fight, non of them have the range to do any harm even at 50km, every ship that gooes after the Falcon can¦t shoot you. Well I personaly would try to get back to the gate, if this is not possible I would drop the Harb first(serious thats 20 Seconds in a skilled Mega) shout down the local tank of the Astarte with the Neut and try to drop him before I pop(with a bit of Sentry focus fire this won¦t take long). It is still 1 vs 4 and people could bring a diffrent ship than the Falcon to aid them to.
I admit I might have a bit more than just 1112 DPS with the Mega.
Again, no you don¦t deserve 200km Range in a Falcon because you think your goal is noble and it aids you. It just screws up this kind of PVP, since many of this camps have a cloaked Falcon somewhere on grid to and screw you even harder, because the number of kills you can get from them is exactly 0 in this way, no matter how awsome your skills or your ship is because you standing there, webbed, pointed, jammed and can¦t do anything about it(beside the common more Falcons or bring a blob solution).
---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
welsh wizard
0utbreak KrautbreaK
|
Posted - 2009.04.06 09:49:00 -
[344]
I quite like the changes overall although I preferred the earlier iteration. However I'm still a bit ****ed off that the Eve populace has gotten away with not having to bother fitting ECCM again. No-one will after this change because there are better counters. This is sad, ECCM should be the main counter.
Another victory for cookie cutter setups. --------------- RIP Crazy Horse |
The Djego
Minmatar merovinger inc
|
Posted - 2009.04.06 10:25:00 -
[345]
Edited by: The Djego on 06/04/2009 10:29:49
Originally by: Commandante Caldari
Originally by: The Djego
Again stop failing and stop posting with your Falcon alt. What you request is the Falcon in his most broken environment, nearly as powerfull as it is now for guyes that are used to "I can take on everything with my Falcon alt, because it can¦t shoot back.". It is not even funny, it is just sad.
Well, my alt is flying the Falcon so I guess I am qualified to post here. Try to dual box with ECM and tell me IF you can take on everything.
You will expand ofc the chance to win fights where you usually were 100% dead. Let's say the most nasty case: Thorax with Falcon *** kills BS. I just say from that pov: nerf blobs, big fleets, camps, carriers camping the gate, nerf everything what's unfair in EVE etc. Understood!?
No!?
Originally by: Commandante Caldari
You can't take on everything. You can try now to fight bigger things. Evolve your PvP. Where do you find even fights these days or just an even 1v1? Very rare.
Mayby by flying around and looking for them instead of complaining I can¦t take on huge camps in pirate infested systems without my 200km away Falcon alt. Evolve your PVP, try to fight people that can shoot back or have your Alt at a range where you will loose ships from time to time.
Originally by: Commandante Caldari
In my homesystem my main got hotdropped by a couple of carriers at the gate to highsec. Camping with carriers and a mom. Nice. Why not. Should I whine now: nerf caps into 0.0 because it's so unfair!!!
Exactly, BECAUSE OF FALCONS. Since this has actualy nothing to do with Falcons.
Originally by: Commandante Caldari
Where ECM also makes sense: we engaged a couple of them at their station. You know that campers have a great alternative: hug the station. Problem was: carrier again. The only way to fight them was to jam the carrier because cap rr sucks. :-) And now try to imagine what happens to a Falcon at 70 km when jamming a carrier with fighters/drones out. Thanks!
What happens with docking games all the time, bring more numbers or start a contest what side is anoyed enught to leave first.
Well what would happen to the Falcon? I gess the same thing that would happen to a Arazu, it warps and activates the cloak and comming back in after this. A bit tricky I know but it actualy works for me. Also using fighters under sentry aggro is a extrem ex*****ve tactic for carrier pilotes and no Carrier under Sentry aggro will leave his Drones in his orbit but use them on Targets as soon as he lunches them.
---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
Dasalt Istgut
|
Posted - 2009.04.06 11:31:00 -
[346]
These ships are now broken and useless. I was getting sick of falcons but ffs if you're going to put them in Arazu disruptor range at least let them fit a goddamn tank.
|
Commandante Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.04.06 12:24:00 -
[347]
Edited by: Commandante Caldari on 06/04/2009 12:27:13
Originally by: The Djego
What happens with docking games all the time, bring more numbers or start a contest what side is anoyed enught to leave first.
Well what would happen to the Falcon? I gess the same thing that would happen to a Arazu, it warps and activates the cloak and comming back in after this. A bit tricky I know but it actualy works for me. Also using fighters under sentry aggro is a extrem ex*****ve tactic for carrier pilotes and no Carrier under Sentry aggro will leave his Drones in his orbit but use them on Targets as soon as he lunches them.
Sharing sentry fire is what makes it possible. Everyone in EVE has a different experience so we see that case from different pov's.
I fly a Falcon for a while now and I am not the type of guy who's able to live 50% of his life in EVE. I am one of the Falcon pilots who understand that a nerf makes sense till a point where the use is getting harder but not completely useless. Yeah, I speak open: I am dual boxing and that nerf hurts far too much. I can't fleet up much spontaneaous or planned due to rl just to disturb a frakking 10/7 gate camp who don't care and laugh at us: "So much work for just a senseless act. We just dock, don't care. BBL! AFK!"
Many people have that problem. It's a game and not life.
EVE does need players like me who have ECMed balls to do something effective against this plaque of campers. :-)
So CCP should read, filter and decide what's the way to go. I would recommend as a sucessful dual boxer - but still losing ships and Falcons to pilots who know how to deal with it: nerf ECM but to a realistic level. Boost the challange for the Falcon pilot and the chance for the other side. But don't invert it from overpowered to a useless piece of primary sh*t. What actually happens on SISI is exactly that.
150 km optimal maximum with maxed skills and rigs. That is what we all can live with.
We have to understand that bringing numbers is not possible for most of the people. Especially for the anti-pirate. I have never seen fleets protecting a gate for hours. Makes no sense because: no profit, no kills and just boring waste of time. Especially bigger pirate corps have a great advantage. They just camp the gate for profit in small fleets or at prime time in big fleets making it impossible to break because you need to organize something hard against them what they just do every day. Login, fleet up, undock, camp. Period. After a while it's a pure routine with having fun on Vent ... especially at numbers. Some kind of gate mining with a little risk left that some random groups try to bust.
Carrier camping or hotdrops are a result of: BECAUSE, WE CAN! and not: FALCONS. Noone is skilling a carrier because there are too many Falcons. Sorry, but I have to laugh if I try to imagine that.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.04.06 13:15:00 -
[348]
Originally by: Dasalt Istgut These ships are now broken and useless. I was getting sick of falcons but ffs if you're going to put them in Arazu disruptor range at least let them fit a goddamn tank.
It's trivial to get a Falcon to the same EHP as an Arazu. Next.
|
Sigras
|
Posted - 2009.04.06 13:27:00 -
[349]
Originally by: Gilbert T The problem is that in "the world of other recons" things are not hit-or-miss like the ECM is (since it was already nerfed once). If the range is being made shorter to make them more like the other recons, then undo the last nerf so that the jamming stacks again, or better yet, make everything else (target painters, sensor dampeners, tracking disruptors, neutralizers, warp disruptors, ...) all prone to "miss" like the ECMs do. Wouldn't it be great if the neutralizers on that curse would just randomly miss an entire cycle, or the warp disruptors on that interceptor? The fact that the ECM is the only form of electronic warfare with that deficiency makes the statement ridiculous. CCP needs to just quit changing ships and modules that people train skills to use and develop countermeasures for them (like they already did with ECM anyway).
The key is that none of the other EW can take 100% of the ships in the game out of the fight completely.
A good Arazu pilot can take one or maybe two people out of the fight, if they're not using any form of propulsion.
A great Rapier pilot can take two people out of the fight if they don't have MWD's or long range weapons
A Pilgrim can take someone out of a fight, if they aren't using missiles or projectiles, and at what range?
A Falcon pilot can take 3 people out of the fight pretty darn near 100% of the time at 162K
The balance for all the power of being able to take 3 people out of a fight no sweat is that it doesn't work 100% of the time, only 90% of the time.
the fact that they can do this at 162K is just overpowered, and that's what this nerf is addressing (finally).
Plus did you notice? you're the only form of EW with a low slot mod to assist in doing what you do?
|
Takon Orlani
Caldari Rowdy Ramblers Mortal Destruction
|
Posted - 2009.04.06 13:46:00 -
[350]
Honestly, I would prefer the scorp be bonunsed towards brawling. I want to be a 0.4 WCS fitting griefer.
|
|
Marlona Sky
Astroglide X The Foray Project
|
Posted - 2009.04.06 17:14:00 -
[351]
Edited by: Marlona Sky on 06/04/2009 17:14:27 "OMG, if I fit for max jam strength my optimal is 50km!"
So? Don't get that close. Maybe different rigs? Or maybe, just maybe, in order to stay semi-safe you can be further out and only jam the targets half/most of the time instead of ALL of the time.
Get a grip people. CCP is bringing the falcon and other related ecm ships in line with the other race effectivness ranges. (except for pilgrim, its still worthless - well, most of the time)
No more 100% safe falcon alt crap (thats right, 100%!! because by the time anything can get close you have already warped to another 200km jam spot), you want to do that then at least now we stand a chance. You want to be able to jam me 100% of the time then your gonna have to put yourself in harms way like everything else.
So wipe the freakin tears, its pathetic!
|
Marlona Sky
Astroglide X The Foray Project
|
Posted - 2009.04.06 17:17:00 -
[352]
Originally by: Takon Orlani Honestly, I would prefer the scorp be bonunsed towards brawling. I want to be a 0.4 WCS fitting griefer.
That would be cool. I don't fly scorps but an in your face jamming ship would be fun to see in fights. He would be primary but still, to see a jamming boat right there means the guy has a set.
|
Hayat Siwa
|
Posted - 2009.04.06 17:29:00 -
[353]
Quote: Get a grip people. CCP is bringing the falcon and other related ecm ships in line with the other race effectivness ranges.
says he who rather than using any of the available counters simply wants the ship within his own fighting range. where is your adaptation?
reducing range fine, reducing jam strength fine, change the optimal/fall-off ratio fine, but making the falcon fight at 50k is ridiculous. that's not nerfing, that's creating a new ship.
hs
|
Marlona Sky
Astroglide X The Foray Project
|
Posted - 2009.04.06 17:39:00 -
[354]
Originally by: Hayat Siwa
Quote: Get a grip people. CCP is bringing the falcon and other related ecm ships in line with the other race effectivness ranges.
says he who rather than using any of the available counters simply wants the ship within his own fighting range. where is your adaptation?
reducing range fine, reducing jam strength fine, change the optimal/fall-off ratio fine, but making the falcon fight at 50k is ridiculous. that's not nerfing, that's creating a new ship.
hs
Yeeeaaaahhh..... I just want it to have some risk by being there. So stop with 'spin-his-words' game.
So with the new changes you HAVE to be at 50km to do anything? Is that what you are saying? REQUIRED?!
|
LtTrog
|
Posted - 2009.04.06 18:36:00 -
[355]
My thoughts on this topicą.
The Falcon
Ok I admit it the falcon is over powered but if you bring it in close you will destroy it for the reasons already stated.
Please keep the falcon max sniper range as it is now but make most of that in falloff, make optimal the kind of range that puts the falcon in danger from most weapon systems (not blasters thatĘs just silly) For the love of god boost ECCM so an inty with a ECCM can really put the ****s up a falcon. This still allows it to do its current job with out being an all powerful ECM overlord. DonĘt give it a drone bay itĘs simply too much on 1 ship if you keep the range
The Rook
25m3 drone bay, yes please sounds awesome Shorter max range but mostly in optimal, have max optimal about the same as its weapons can hit at Velocity bonus could be ok if coupled with enough PG to fit HAMs MWD and a bit of tank Other wise a tank bonus would be much better, 5% resists/lvl wouldnĘt be over powered on this ship I donĘt think
(OMFG Caldari solo ship woot mofo woot, if this happens im totally flying 1)
The Scorpion/Widow
I am tempted by the idea of a short range Scorp. I think we need to keep a sniper ECM BS though. Overall the Scorp should have strength in between that of the Falcon and Rook and range on a par with the Falcon. LetĘs make the widow able to work up close and personal with torps with Scorp like strength but less range letĘs say short optimal long falloff.
The Blackbird
Fine as is.
EWAR Frigates
DonĘt know never used ęem no one seems to be talking about them. I guess that means no one uses them, so they probably need some love too. Any ideas?
ECCM
Ill say it again boost this so it works better in particular on small ships please
SDA
I like the small increase to both range and strength idea, but id love to see scripts for them. Something working like SEBO scripts would be good i.e. +% in A but -% in B for 1 script and vice versa for the other. Please lets see the other racial EWARs get some similar kind of mod to boost there range/strength. letĘs give the other recons love. Nerfing all until there is nothing left to nerf is not the way, boost the crappy underused stuff so we have more options and cool stuff to use
Most of what I have said here is what others have said already I just wanted to put it all together in my own words so there is one more post in favour of what I see as the most reasonable changes. Ive not put down actual numbers as I feel that should be thrashed out on the test server (and I cant be bothered to get the calc out ) and when I compare ships im talking about current TQ stats.
So there you go. And guys please donĘt get too emo when you reply it makes a stronger argument if you at least try to be objective. free hugs for the emos
|
Dale Konstantine
|
Posted - 2009.04.06 20:04:00 -
[356]
Sad to say, yes, the falcon with racial ecm is OP, while the multispec ecm is not nearly so far out of balance. Some ideas: 1. Falcon/Rook bonuses work only on multispec ecm, nerf the range to about 80 km optimal/120km falloff with max skills, before rigs/SDAs.
2. Give all other recons racial ecm bonuses to be on par with the updated falcon/rook.
3. All recons with drone bay gain ewar drone bonuses. Rook gains a small drone bay.
4. Falcon/Rook gain seperate bonuses to ecm burst modules.
5. The targeted ecm randomly determines length of jam (between 1 to 20 seconds)
6. Projected eccm immediately makes a roll to break a jam, having a chance to break the lock of the jammer.
7. SDAs greatly increases strength of one type of ewar modules, at the significant expense of range. SDAs have a flavor for each type of ewar.
8. Signal distortion projector greatly increases range of one type of ewar at the significant expense of strength. Only one SDA or SDP may be fitted at a time.
9. Sensor boosters gain sensor strength script. (This horse isnt quite dead yet.)
10. Improve range bonus on damps, scrams, neuts, TDs, webs, ect. for other recons.
|
Meatypopsicle
|
Posted - 2009.04.06 20:33:00 -
[357]
Originally by: Commandante Caldari
Example: you face a camp with Broadsword, Astarte, Harbinger, Absolution. Try to fight that in a solo lvl5 skilled Megathron with 1112 DPS. Even under sentry fire they will kill you. With some luck and imps you eventually can hold long enough to kill the BC. But I doubt that if the camp is experienced and well skilled. The only way to try on them is ECM. Could be that 70 km still works in this case.
This is exactly why the Falcon is overpowered right now. There is no way that a single cruiser sized ship should be all that is required to turn the tide in that situation.
|
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.04.06 23:21:00 -
[358]
Originally by: Alex Harumichi
Originally by: Crazy Tasty Objectively, even as a specced ECM pilot, I can't deny the logic behind these changes.
But if the Falcon/Rook will have to be in close for good jam strength, how bout an extra low slow, at least on the Rook, at least for a bit of honor tank and a couple % points on survivability.
Lachesis has to "tank" with the same number of lows (3), and has to operate in equivalent range as the new Rook.
Welcome to the world of the "other recons"
The lachesis gets nowhere near the same attention as a falcon. Everyone knows a shortrange ecm ship is useless outside of very small gangs, even if they dont admit it. All this does is put one more ship on the already overfilled scrapheap for mid-larger gangs. Nothing much will change for the very small gangs. And yea this is my sig. Real PVP'ers only use f1. |
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.04.06 23:27:00 -
[359]
Edited by: Esmenet on 06/04/2009 23:27:24
Originally by: Mycenaean
Take away its range so it equals the Pilgrim/Rapier, and nerf the ECM strenght..
Give my blaster ships equal range to laser ships. etc
In fact lets make all ships equal but with a different skin.
And yea this is my sig. Real PVP'ers only use f1. |
Pride NL
The Legendaries
|
Posted - 2009.04.07 00:06:00 -
[360]
Edited by: Pride NL on 07/04/2009 00:12:45 Seriously, why bother with dps and a drone bay.
A jamming ship (unless its a scorp) will sit as far away as they can. Because when you jam, you usually do not fit a tank. With drones you can go up to 50km without any added modules. What is the point of that when you fly a ship without a tank?
When you are able to use the drones you are already dead. All cruiser sized ships have either a MWD fitted or can shoot you at that range.
Adding missile bonusses doesnt work either. At best you have 3 high slots availble. Even if you where able to fit 3 HML's, your dps would still be near zero. Thats why people sit at 200km. The only role a falcon has is jamming and not dps.
If you want to nerf falcons because they are too good, reduce their ecm bonus. People dont fly a scorp because a falcon is way better at jamming. On top of that it can warp cloaked.
I'd change the jamming strength of each ship. So based on jamming points the order would be: Kitsune, rook, falcon, scorpion. The kitsune can only jam one ship succesfully, the rook usually is close to the fight as it can carry up to 5 HML.
Besides this I actually think it is more fun to kill a falcon at long range simply because it adds more tactic into the gameplay. When a falcon is under 100km it is cannonfodder. Over 200km it takes skill and preperation to kill one. Sounds like fun to me.
No One Better |
|
Lieutenant Isis
Caldari Gristle Industries
|
Posted - 2009.04.07 00:26:00 -
[361]
Originally by: Spartan dax I'm telling you right now, having SDA's give a range bonus is bad enough but a strength bonus as well?
I'd say that a better strategy would be to create a new item that gives the range bonus, and bump up the bonus to 15-20% for sacrificing your low. This would allow the pilot to choose whether he wants an fleet type setup but with less strength or lots of strength but not much range or somewhere in-between. Because the jammer ships already have very few lows which most people try to balance tank or strength already it'll add another dimension to the jam ships
|
Menolly Cho
|
Posted - 2009.04.07 00:57:00 -
[362]
Edited by: Menolly Cho on 07/04/2009 00:58:22
Originally by: CCP Chronotis 3. Caldari Recon ships (Falcon & Rook) will have their ECM range reduced so they will not be effective at such huge distances any more but will still be much longer range than any of the other recons are capable off.
This is a fairly extreme version of reduced. I would have thought that taking off a third or maybe even halving the optimal with max skills would be a reduction. This is more of a decimation.
In the past I've always looked at changes like this as balancing. This time it really does seem like a straight-out nerf.
The role reversal doesn't really seem to make sense to me. These ECM ships are ones that have been designed for a special purpose and the battleship - able to get in there and tank - has the sniper role, while the falcon - paper thin and will insta-pop if in range - is expected to get into the fight at close range. This seems a bit backwards no?
I realise that ECM needs to be balanced, but I'd like to see a gradual testing of a reduction of racial optimals for a ship like the falcon than just a straight-out redesign of the ship.
*Edit* I agree with the poster above. Split the SDA into 2 different mods. One for range, one for strength. Give people a choice of the role they want to play rather than forcing them into one.
|
Major Makoto
Section Nien
|
Posted - 2009.04.07 01:56:00 -
[363]
Originally by: Menolly Cho
*Edit* I agree with the poster above. Split the SDA into 2 different mods. One for range, one for strength. Give people a choice of the role they want to play rather than forcing them into one.
Or,make it use scripts like a sebo.One for extra range,one for extra strength. |
Tyrion Foxhound
|
Posted - 2009.04.07 07:55:00 -
[364]
I like the idea of scripts
On the note of ECM being powerful in its current state; I think the ECCM should really be looked at as it is the main counter. My ideas:
1. Make a type of ECCM that is very long activation re-use (say 40-60s) that can be used 'while' you are jammed.. that cancels the jam for ~20s. I think the biggest problem people have atm is that blobbing with ECM can last the entire fight and it makes the victim feel really helpless (which is true.. you cant really do much besides bump or something )
2. Make (projected) ECCM bonuses on logistics
3. Make projected ECCM 'project' the origin's sensor type. For clarity: A mega using ECCM on a rifter would give that frig +21 mag, while reducing their own to 0. This adds a whole tactical layer of "ship variety" where you need all those sensor types
4. At the least, if you are going to heavily reduce range to the current extent, make ECCM reduce targeting range... since falcon/rook/bb will undoubtedly be within range of most guns (not even sniper setups)
|
Cone Filler
|
Posted - 2009.04.07 11:17:00 -
[365]
Yeah more cave in from CCP, seriously you feel the need to nerf everything to hell and back ECM has been nerfed so many times its not getting fun at all, why dont you listen to the player base that actually use them? instead of rolling over everytime carebears cry ?
1. BOOST THE ECCM, see i bolded it for you in case you missed it in the several hundred other post
2. i like the SDA schanges
3 so with this you just negated any real pvp'ers ( we all know that only real pvp'ers engage under sentry guns )ability to use any form off recons.... why in gods name do you want the lightest tanked ECM to be upclose and personal ? keep the distance of the falcon ( some what tweak it down to optimal + fall off at 190 this is with rigs and modules ) make the rook more close combat, AND BOOST ECCM, BOOST ECCM, BOOST ECCM
4. ermm what? Again you make theese nerfs based on FLEET FIGHTS? WTF ? OTHER than 0.0 dwellers actually use ECM Granted they dont need the range BUT us that live in low sec DO otherwise im hopping you nerf sentry range aswell
IF any off you didnt know pirates and the likes use falcons at range i order to kick the asses off ppl thinking they can gank a small group with 3:1 numbers
BOOST ECCM BOOST ECCM BOOST ECCM
|
Stitcher
Caldari ForgeTech Industries
|
Posted - 2009.04.07 11:32:00 -
[366]
stuck record much?
This IS a boost to ECCM, backhandedly. suddenly, the long-range jamming setups don't have anything close to the same strength, which in turn makes ECCM far more effective against the long-range ships. And in order to actually break the ECCM, the brawlers have to get into the high-risk zone where the weapons which could insta-pop them operate. and because ECCM does work a decent percentage of the time (not all, but often enough) there's no way for the "brawler" ECM boats to guarantee that they aren't going to fail to hit a couple of times in a row and suddenly take two or three blaster volleys to the face. - Verin "Stitcher" Hakatain. |
Stefan F
Enrave Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2009.04.07 11:48:00 -
[367]
Edited by: Stefan F on 07/04/2009 11:53:41 Edited by: Stefan F on 07/04/2009 11:52:42 I think this nerf is overdone a little bit as stated multiple times before. If however the falcon loses its role the scorp needs to take it over.
With current sisi changes the scorp really lacks in the jamming power department, as it would need all of its rig slots to get to the 150km sniping range.
Therefore either increase the jamming bonus to 20% per level on the scorp(now 15%) or change the range bonus to 30% per level (now 20%) so some of the rig slots can be used to increase jamming strength.
Also the rook currently has not enough powergrid. It can't even fit a single large shield extender if you also put guns on it. Increasing power output from 600 to 650 would fix this and (maybe) make it a viable small gang boat to use.
The falcon needs its damage bonus changed from a missile rof to hybrid rof.
In general are the both recons really lacking in tanking ability, adding a lowslot to both may relieve it a little (effecively makeing it armor tankers) or change the falcon damage bonus and the rook's missile velocity bonus into % shield resistance and hitpoints bonusses.
|
Cone Filler
|
Posted - 2009.04.07 12:08:00 -
[368]
Originally by: Stitcher stuck record much?
This IS a boost to ECCM, backhandedly. suddenly, the long-range jamming setups don't have anything close to the same strength, which in turn makes ECCM far more effective against the long-range ships. And in order to actually break the ECCM, the brawlers have to get into the high-risk zone where the weapons which could insta-pop them operate. and because ECCM does work a decent percentage of the time (not all, but often enough) there's no way for the "brawler" ECM boats to guarantee that they aren't going to fail to hit a couple of times in a row and suddenly take two or three blaster volleys to the face.
Never sat in a falcon much?
do you think a range falcon is setup with 3 sda and 2 strength rigs? in that case you fail much did you know an abaddon with no ECCM facing 1 ecm will be jammed 40 % or less off the time, when falcon at 200? so by your faulty logics the spped and the web nerf equals eachother out? LOL And changing 3 ships a number off modules is easier than boosting 1 fecking module? I can take down any falcon within seconds WITHOUT FALCON SUPPORT, if you cant figure out any way off countering the falcon without having CCP put it right in your face, well then this game is obviously not for you
and its not a boost to ECCM ( reading comprehension needed )
If you havent found out this is another low sec nerf, Not everyone lives in Eve-Light (if you didnt know = 0.0)nobody engages on blinkys, they wait for blikies to engage and then what fly a falcon 50 off a gate or station? LOL ITS A LOW SEC NERF see i said it again.
|
Pieth
|
Posted - 2009.04.07 13:02:00 -
[369]
Anyone who complaines now about the "low" range of the caldari recons is invited to fly with a pilgrim and enjoy the really high range off about 12km to drain/nos, have fun with it
|
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.04.07 13:30:00 -
[370]
Originally by: Pieth Anyone who complaines now about the "low" range of the caldari recons is invited to fly with a pilgrim and enjoy the really high range off about 12km to drain/nos, have fun with it
Yea because pilgrims are always primaried like ecm ships. And yea if one ship is useless in mid-larger gangs all ships should be. And yea this is my sig. Real PVP'ers only use f1. |
|
SecHaul
|
Posted - 2009.04.07 13:54:00 -
[371]
The issue with 'boost ECCM' is that ECCM provides no benefit to your ship except to counter ECM.
A tracking computer / tracking enhancer provides a massive benefit under normal conditions, and counters a tracking disruptor. A sensor booster provides a massive benefit under normal conditions, and counters damps. A MWD / AB provides massive benefit under normal conditions, and counters webs. A ECCM does f' sweet all and counters ECM.
People fit modules to improve their fit and fly their ship a certain way. Quite frankly, I think sensor resolution should be the value on which ships are jammed, so sensor boosters are the counter to ECM. Throw away ECCM modules, they are useless mods because they are a wasted slot, unless you buff their stats enough to warrant being almost immune to being jammed.
|
Cone Filler
|
Posted - 2009.04.07 14:21:00 -
[372]
Edited by: Cone Filler on 07/04/2009 14:25:36
Originally by: SecHaul The issue with 'boost ECCM' is that ECCM provides no benefit to your ship except to counter ECM.
A tracking computer / tracking enhancer provides a massive benefit under normal conditions, and counters a tracking disruptor. A sensor booster provides a massive benefit under normal conditions, and counters damps. A MWD / AB provides massive benefit under normal conditions, and counters webs. A ECCM Increases your Sensor strenght and counters ECM.
People fit modules to improve their fit and fly their ship a certain way. Quite frankly, I think sensor resolution should be the value on which ships are jammed, so sensor boosters are the counter to ECM. Throw away ECCM modules, they are useless mods because they are a wasted slot, unless you buff their stats enough to warrant being almost immune to being jammed.
useless mod ? wasted slot? as far as i know if you are going against ppl known to have jammers i better well fit that useless mod, if not well thats your choice but dont go whining over TS that you are jammed 70-80 % off the time .... YES falcons do NOT permajam get it into your heads, any respectable RR gangs with or without falcon support fit the useless mod, i consider this the same as not DDD profing you BS in 0.0 .... Titans dont always come down and pwn your ass , but if you have buisness to tend too in hostile 0.0 well you ARE gonna DDD proof your ships AND ALSO fit that 1 ECCM (very useless module ) which might give you 12 more RR cycles on your mate so tell me again why is it worthless?
u see the ECCM like the TC SB and MWD AFB increases the value of a number on you ship
TC increases tracking SB increases Scan res MWD AFB increases speed ECCM increases Sensor strenght
so dont go out telling people lies mmm k?
|
Hayat Siwa
|
Posted - 2009.04.07 15:44:00 -
[373]
Quote: The issue with 'boost ECCM' is that ECCM provides no benefit to your ship except to counter ECM.
don't reverse engineer arguments, please.
a non racial jammer is useless against any ship, too. and fitting multis is reducing jam chances by ca 30% compared to racials that's why they are not overly popular. and remember, these percentages apply not only in falloff range but in optimal, too!
the eccm being useless? well here's a little example:
an average falcon (jam strength 12)against:
1. curse without eccm 43% jam chance 1.1 curse with eccm 22% jam chance
2. dominix without eccm 54 % jam chance 2.1 dominix with eccm 28% jam chance
4. vagabond without eccm 85% jam chance 4.1 vagabond with eccm 44% jam chance
there are countless things people do to take advantage of an enemies weakness. ammo, shiptype, fleet composition, time of day, tactics, you name it. eccm is just one of those.
not using it is your choice, but then don't complain.
hs
|
Vigaz
|
Posted - 2009.04.07 15:45:00 -
[374]
After testing a bit on sisi:
Rook: I like the sisi modifications. Rook has an improved DPS (drones + RoF bonus). ECM range is still adequate (50/60km) for small gangs.
Falcon: ECM Range has been decreased a lot (in TQ it's used as Uber ECM sniper boat). The new drone bay add same DPS, but I think it could have 3 hardpoints for missile launchers and 1 for turrets. I dunno if the sisi Falcon description is wrong, but there is a RoF bonus and only 1 launcher point, that's lame (switch the bonus to hybrid then).
Scorpion: ECM optimal range is too low compared to TQ. My suggestion is finally to put in line this BS with others tier1, remove ECM optimal range bonus, add 1 launcher point and add 5% cruise/torp RoF/velocity bonus. Also sig radius/velocity/agility/scan res should be checked (480 Sig radius is too much imo for a tier1, even with same ECM capabilities).
Widow: Fix the tier1 attributes (Scorpion) then apply the same progression of the other BOs. There is a discussion running for BO changes, imo fixing Tier1 is the first step. Also considering that Widow has already 5 launcher (scorpion +1) and RoF bonus + ECM strength bonus (no ECM optimal bonus on the Widow).
|
yani dumyat
Minmatar purple pot hogs Doctrine.
|
Posted - 2009.04.07 16:33:00 -
[375]
Many thanks to CCP, 100% support to these changes.
Testing the rook on sisi i can fit mwd, 5x HAMS, scram, web, a little bit of tank and still have room for a few multispecs. With the dronebay and hams it actually has the dps to work as a solo boat now.
Fun because with 10k EHP inside web range it's do or die time :)
As for the falcon at 100km it is pure win. An alert pilot should have no problem operating at this range. Bookmark hopping or going tag team with a ceptor while hoping your HP buffer tank holds should make this a far more fun ship to fly.
Any ship that is a necessity rather than an option to have in your fleet is bad for the game and if after this nerf there is still a plague of falcons then please nerf it some more.
No comment on the BS's as the only time you'll see me in one is a comedy suicide torpion of doom.
Sig_________________________________________________________________________________
My alliance, corp, psychiatrist and parole officer claim no responsibility for my actions on these forums. |
Dex Nederland
Caldari Lai Dai Infinity Systems
|
Posted - 2009.04.07 16:47:00 -
[376]
Edited by: Dex Nederland on 07/04/2009 16:47:31 No Blackbird changes right?
The new ECM bird of choice is... the Blackbird... still gets a high bonus to range, decent ECM strength, and has an extra rig slot for Particle Dispersion Augmentor or Particle Dispersion Projector. It also gets more range from the SDAs
Also the only thing it can't do is warp cloaked over the current Falcon/Rook and has a 15% Strength bonus versus 20%.
Oh and 0 drone bay. Hurrah, T1 Cruiser becomes ship of choice due to nerf bat!
In-Game Browser : http://ldis.caldari-made.net |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.04.07 19:18:00 -
[377]
Edited by: Gypsio III on 07/04/2009 19:25:57
RSD are still better on Fleet Scorp than ECM.
Max skills assumed. ECM Scorp has 2x ewar optimal rigs, 1x ecm strength rig and 3x SDA. Gives ECM optimal of 147 km, falloff of 52.5 km and strength of 9.4. To jam SS 20 Apoc at:
150 km: 48% 175 km: 39% 200 km: 24% 225 km: 11%
RSD Scorp has 3x ewar optimal rigs. To get successful damp hit at:
150 km: 60% 175 km: 40% 200 km: 25% 225 km: 14%
|
Gut Punch
Shade. Penumbra Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.04.07 19:48:00 -
[378]
Originally by: yani dumyat As for the falcon at 100km it is pure win. An alert pilot should have no problem operating at this range. Bookmark hopping or going tag team with a ceptor while hoping your HP buffer tank holds should make this a far more fun ship to fly.
This. The falcon is still way overpowered. Its very easy to fit a full set of ratial ecm and two 2x LSE IIs which competes with the current Rapier/Arazu setups. The range still needs to be hacked down. 50km Optimal and 50km falloff should be the max with top skills so that the falcon is closer to being in line with the "Sniper" webs and disruptors.
Simply changing the range from 200km to 100km doesn't take away the overpoweredness of it. That and the traditional rigs and SDAs still give a ratial strength of +10 which is still a guarenteed hit. Hack it down more please.
|
Spartan dax
|
Posted - 2009.04.07 19:57:00 -
[379]
Originally by: Gypsio III
ECM Scorp uses twice the mods to get slightly inferior performance. I appreciate that RSDing an opposing BS doesn't necessarily stop it RRing or shooting stuff closer, but I don't have the experience to interpret the significance of this in the context of a fleet battle.
Those numbers wouldn't be so bad if you take ECM greater utility in account. However, The damp fit gets to:
1. Fit a full armourtank. (SDA's) 2. Not have racially handicapped EWAR. (Racial jammer)
Just removing one of these two points would make the ECM scorp the obvious choice. But as it stands right now it won't be. And with BS 4 they're not even close.
|
Spartan dax
|
Posted - 2009.04.07 20:08:00 -
[380]
Originally by: Gut Punch
Simply changing the range from 200km to 100km doesn't take away the overpoweredness of it. That and the traditional rigs and SDAs still give a ratial strength of +10 which is still a guarenteed hit. Hack it down more please.
Heh, halving the jamming distance AND the amount of working modules on you isn't enough? Methinks you expect a bit too much.
Also, WTB "Guaranteed to hit" 10 strength jammer.
|
|
Spartan dax
|
Posted - 2009.04.07 21:24:00 -
[381]
@ CCP Chronotis
Regarding the Rooks and Falcons 10% Cap use bonus.
This bonus made a lot of sense when these ships where standoffish ships and could (had to) stock up on tons of jammers. However the Sisi Rooks and Falcons won't be able to do that. Definetly not the Rook anyway thus having a cap usage bonus is wasted.
Things to look at instead: 1. Cap bonus. These ships have puny cap, it got better with the speed nerf but it's still puny. 2. Speed/agility. They have none compared to the other recons. 3. Hitpoints/resistances. They're going to remain bullet magnets mostly because of how the ECM mechanic works and not the actual threatlevel. 4. Locktime. Caldari ships are always the slowest lockers, a bonus aimed to alleviate this would be cool and far more usefull then the cap reduction bonus. It sort of makes sense for recon ships to have enhanced sensors right?
Also the Rook needs a sliver more PG (25) and could stand an equally small reduction in CPU.
|
Khavid Kharver
Amarr
|
Posted - 2009.04.07 21:31:00 -
[382]
Originally by: Pieth Anyone who complaines now about the "low" range of the caldari recons is invited to fly with a pilgrim and enjoy the really high range off about 12km to drain/nos, have fun with it
I get on the order of 70km with my neut on a Curse, and in Battleclinic they give a setup that neuts out to 75KM with max skills and no faction neuts!
|
Spurty
Caldari Amok. Minor Threat.
|
Posted - 2009.04.08 00:08:00 -
[383]
now try flying that curse in pvp, will make for a comical loss mail
Originally by: Butter Dog
I think you'll find that 10 seconds > 1 month
|
Sky Marshal
IMpAct Corp Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2009.04.08 03:49:00 -
[384]
Edited by: Sky Marshal on 08/04/2009 03:56:47 Edited by: Sky Marshal on 08/04/2009 03:51:59
Originally by: Pieth Anyone who complaines now about the "low" range of the caldari recons is invited to fly with a pilgrim and enjoy the really high range off about 12km to drain/nos, have fun with it
So what ? Because all others Recons are so sucky, Caldari recons must be nerfed ?
I prefer the other way : Boost non-Caldari Recons.
Seriously, before this topic I didn't even remember the existence of Tracking Disruptors and Nosferatus. They are not more a threat since their overnerf more than one year ago. I don't think about the probability than the ennemy can use them in fight, as their effect is unsignificant.
After the nerf of ECM, we would be able to say : "Welcome to Tank/DPS Online" as there would not have efficient Ewar anymore. Well, OK, this would depend if CCP make it worse than today for the poor Falcon who will be useless after it.
Boost all others Ewars, all others Recons. Stop the stupid "Nerf everything", who is the laziest and the worse way to do something, as it virtually supress content from the game.
|
Sol Halcon
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.04.08 06:02:00 -
[385]
Originally by: Sky Marshal Edited by: Sky Marshal on 08/04/2009 03:57:57
Originally by: Pieth Anyone who complaines now about the "low" range of the caldari recons is invited to fly with a pilgrim and enjoy the really high range off about 12km to drain/nos, have fun with it
So what ? Because all others Recons are so sucky, Caldari recons must be nerfed ?
I prefer the other way : Boost non-Caldari Recons.
Seriously, before this topic I didn't even remember the existence of Tracking Disruptors and Nosferatus. They are not more a threat since their overnerf more than one year ago. I don't think about the probability than the ennemy can use them in fight, as their effect is unsignificant.
After the nerf of ECM, we would be able to say : "Welcome to Tank/DPS Online", depending if CCP make it worse than today (already a Falcon useless, a Scorpion with a sucky efficiency, the Rook next...).
Boost all others Ewars, all others Recons. Stop the stupid "Nerf everything", who is the laziest and the worse way to do something, as it virtually supress content from the game.
I agree completely. All that needed to be done was to raise the sensor strength of the other ships a couple points and the jam chances go way down.
So now here we go again, months of skill training down the tubes. Nos nerf, Missile nerf, dampener nerf, speed nerf, stealth bomber nerf, and now 2 more ships relegated to the hanger of oblivion by another stupid nerf. Then, to add insult to injury, they remove yet another launcher from the now badly handicapped Falcon. The Falcon is tin foil with toilet paper for shields, and costs 100 million in uninsured ISK. Who in their right mind is gonna take that into the frey just to be useless (0 damage), and insta-poped.
All that's left is to remove the range bonuses from the Eagle, Zealot, Apoc, and the Rokh, and we truely will have "Tank and DPS Online"........with wormholes.
|
Astal Atlar
Caldari Priory Of The Lemon Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.04.08 07:55:00 -
[386]
here are my thoughts,i tried it on sisi and i dont like it.Man it is insane. Falcon is too fragile,it does not work in close if it stays at 100km it still can be used with some range rigs ect,but what i don't get is why it need change? Yes they are used mostly instead of rooks because of the cloak,but to make them useless because of it... Also have you seen a large battle in eve how many jammers it have let say 1% of the ships in such fights are ecm ships.in 499 when we had 700bs there was only like 5-6 scorpions? and you want ot nerf them,why not nerf apocalypse megathron tempest,the only fleet snaipers used in fleets today.Rokh and mael are too expensive,if ccp want to give equal chance of all ships fix that not the ecm. Ecm is ok many times i haven't been able to jam a single ships even with 2 racials on it and it frustrates me,but sometimes i jam a eccm-ed bs from the first try with 1 racial,it makes the things intresting. Yes most people complain against falcons because they don't know how to pvp. Low sec pirates noobs ect they got slaughter when they came to 0.0 and if ccp change the one of only 2-3 viable caldari ships for pvp it will be insane. What i think is when changes hits ecm will get lost in fleets it will all turn to tank and tracking as ecm will be easy to kill from the support,most of the sniper hacs can hit 100 and above easily.
|
Hayat Siwa
|
Posted - 2009.04.08 09:16:00 -
[387]
for me this discussion has left the ecm nerf already. it's about the general nerfing policy more than anything else.
pvp is about the good versus the better. the fact that people like to dish out but can't accept being on the receiving end is given too much attention. all the ecm counters available and still the whine and outcry to which ccp reacts. it aint so amusing to have wasted skill time and realise that the whining and whinging mob is actually pampered.
after the falcon is dropped dead another ship will be the focus of another outcry. going on with this will eventually reduce all ships to T1 frig qualities. beautiful prospects.
by then we can hopefully walk around on stations in fancy outfits.
hs
|
Vasili Z
Pyre of Gods
|
Posted - 2009.04.08 09:39:00 -
[388]
Edited by: Vasili Z on 08/04/2009 09:41:13
Originally by: Astal Atlar Ecm is ok many times i haven't been able to jam a single ships even with 2 racials on it and it frustrates me,but sometimes i jam a eccm-ed bs from the first try with 1 racial,it makes the things intresting. Yes most people complain against falcons because they don't know how to pvp.
hahahaha, that was funny. I can fly every single recon and the Falcon is by far the most over-powered. It's not even close. I could go get a drink during a fight if I'm flying a falcon from 200km. Maybe now falcon pilots will have to DUN DUN DUN, learn how to pvp. -------
Eve requires no skill anymore |
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.04.08 11:33:00 -
[389]
Originally by: Vasili Z Edited by: Vasili Z on 08/04/2009 09:41:13
Originally by: Astal Atlar Ecm is ok many times i haven't been able to jam a single ships even with 2 racials on it and it frustrates me,but sometimes i jam a eccm-ed bs from the first try with 1 racial,it makes the things intresting. Yes most people complain against falcons because they don't know how to pvp.
hahahaha, that was funny. I can fly every single recon and the Falcon is by far the most over-powered. It's not even close. I could go get a drink during a fight if I'm flying a falcon from 200km. Maybe now falcon pilots will have to DUN DUN DUN, learn how to pvp.
Perhaps you only gank noobs with 10:1 or higher odds but in real fights you cant do that. Its funny how you whiners come with ******ed "anecdotes" to justify your cries for help so that CCP can babysit you to make it easier to blob targets with just normal dps ships. And yea this is my sig. Real PVP'ers only use f1. |
Astal Atlar
Caldari Priory Of The Lemon Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.04.08 11:53:00 -
[390]
Quote: hahahaha, that was funny. I can fly every single recon and the Falcon is by far the most over-powered. It's not even close. I could go get a drink during a fight if I'm flying a falcon from 200km. Maybe now falcon pilots will have to DUN DUN DUN, learn how to pvp
this shows how much you understand the pvp mate,ecm ships and logistics are always primary for the enemy for obvious reasons,so as it was said to you go whine everywhere else. I can agree that the chance based ecm may need tweaking but not and in the way ccp are planing it.Caldari boats are already few in the fleet battles they will become non existant with the exception of cerberus and onyx after this changes.
And the basic problem of ecm is people don't know how to counter it is easier to whine I am jammed then to find way to turn the things,this is what i think.
And for the record I fly caldari and ammar,up to bs,every recon has its weakness and strenghts the skill to fly it does not mean you know how to fly it...
|
|
SecHaul
|
Posted - 2009.04.08 12:23:00 -
[391]
Originally by: Cone Filler so dont go out telling people lies mmm k?
Clearly you cannot read, nor can the poster below you.
All other counter EWAR mods provide a benefit to your ship under normal conditions, and under EWAR conditions. ECCM provides NO benefit to you EXCEPT under EWAR conditions.
In other words, in the absence of EWAR, it's a 100% wasted slot, unlike ALL other EWAR counters.
Get it? Try re-read my post, it's what I posted the first time, no lies.
|
SecHaul
|
Posted - 2009.04.08 12:30:00 -
[392]
Originally by: Hayat Siwa don't reverse engineer arguments, please.
a non racial jammer is useless against any ship, too. and fitting multis is reducing jam chances by ca 30% compared to racials that's why they are not overly popular. and remember, these percentages apply not only in falloff range but in optimal, too!
the eccm being useless? well here's a little example:
hs
Firstly, a non-racial jammer is not useless against any ship, it's a perfectly viable mod.
Secondly, I never said ECCM was useless, I said ECCM is 100% useless except when under EWAR conditions.
In other words, learn to read the post you are replying to, dropping all your wonderful numbers in, before you look like even more of an idiot.
And please, an 'average falcon of jam strength 12', try closer to 14 with a 175km+ optimal. That will permajam a vaga without ECCM, and of course, fitting a vaga with ECCM sacrificing your tank makes SO much sense, let me see if I ever see a vaga fitted that way. Here is the reason - comprising a mid-slot to reduce jamming chance to 50% (which is still very very high) at the sacrifice of half your tank (in case you see an ECM bird, otherwise it's a 100% wasted slot) is a FAILED mechanic.
|
Smooth Kitty
|
Posted - 2009.04.08 14:08:00 -
[393]
Originally by: SecHaul
Firstly, a non-racial jammer is not useless against any ship, it's a perfectly viable mod.
Secondly, I never said ECCM was useless, I said ECCM is 100% useless except when under EWAR conditions.
In other words, learn to read the post you are replying to, dropping all your wonderful numbers in, before you look like even more of an idiot.
And please, an 'average falcon of jam strength 12', try closer to 14 with a 175km+ optimal. That will permajam a vaga without ECCM, and of course, fitting a vaga with ECCM sacrificing your tank makes SO much sense, let me see if I ever see a vaga fitted that way. Here is the reason - comprising a mid-slot to reduce jamming chance to 50% (which is still very very high) at the sacrifice of half your tank (in case you see an ECM bird, otherwise it's a 100% wasted slot) is a FAILED mechanic.
Actually ECCM makes it harder to probe you out so it's not 100% worthless.
ECM ships have little damage, little tank and need to use one of 4 racial jammers to have a decent jam chance. 50% is not a good change against a vaga with a falcon. You'd be dead in 1 or 2 missed jam cycles. Coincidentally Vaga with dual eccm is a nice dedicated falcon killer since it will rarely be jammed.
It sounds like you are one of those whiners who cant handle it when something prevents them from winning every fight. You want your cookie cutter vaga to kill everything it lands on so you can look at your kb and feel special. You should not be able to kill everything with one setup in eve. That just makes the game boring.
BTW how many sensor boosters, cap boosters, or tracking enhancers/computers do you use on your vaga to counter other ewar? Oh yea, the other ewar recons have been nerfed to hell and back because of people like you.
|
Dex Nederland
Caldari Lai Dai Infinity Systems
|
Posted - 2009.04.08 14:12:00 -
[394]
Originally by: SecHaul Secondly, I never said ECCM was useless, I said ECCM is 100% useless except when under EWAR conditions.
Except you are wrong; it has a use when trying to go to ground and hide (unless there has been a change to how probing ships down functions).
Originally by: http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Ship_Probing Target Signal Size = Target Signature Radius / Target Sensor Strength
This means that the smaller your target's signature radius and the larger his sensor strength, the harder he will be to find with probes. A target with several shield extenders will have larger signature radius and be easier to find, while a target with ECCM will have higher sensor strength and will be harder to find.
So, while it may not have an immediate combat use beyond combating a possible jam, it has a definite use if you are trying to hide and have a large Signature Radius.
In-Game Browser : http://ldis.caldari-made.net |
isdisco3
Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture
|
Posted - 2009.04.08 14:26:00 -
[395]
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 -
[396]
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.
|
Fish Mittens
Minmatar 0utbreak
|
Posted - 2009.04.08 16:38:00 -
[397]
Originally by: isdisco3 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.
/Signed
Fantastic suggestion, will make the falcon still more powerful than any other recon, whilst still at least having a chance to counter them.
|
DNSBLACK
Gallente Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Associates
|
Posted - 2009.04.08 16:39:00 -
[398]
Originally by: isdisco3 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.
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.
|
isdisco3
Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture
|
Posted - 2009.04.08 17:48:00 -
[399]
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.
|
DNSBLACK
Gallente Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Associates
|
Posted - 2009.04.08 18:07:00 -
[400]
Edited by: DNSBLACK on 08/04/2009 18:10:54
Originally by: isdisco3
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.
Well if you like to have a chance at winning you may need to re think your fleet. I agree with you that they are addressing the ECM adjustments all wrong. ECCM is what they should be looking at. Falcon are very effective at doing the job they are built for. What i find sad is you have Gank and super tanks who dont want to give up a slot to fight a falcon. I have some of the best falcon pilots in the game, all of them dedicated falcon flyers and supporting my fleets. They are not as easy as people think to fly effectivly. Ask any falcon pilot what they fear most and that is a BS with ECCM Raven any AMAR BS and such. We call those falcon killers and we fly with one of those all the time. 95% of the time the falcon misses the jam on that ship and the BS locks and begins killing the falcon. So as a FC you should not always asume the fights are going to be up close and you should always assume that falcons are going to be present. Your advance scouts should reconize a falcon in system. If local has 10 enemies and only 8 are accounted for you should assume the are falcons and adjust your fleet. CCP has given us the snad box tools to adjust to any situation but people are jsut lazy. The best ship or modual in this game is sitting right on top of your shoulders be creative.
p.s. They should also look at buffing the ecm burst for BS so if you find your self in a pinch you could hit it jam the up close ships and maybe get away. I promise you a falcon is not going to jam you to death and if you can get a Burst off and escape well then you can adjust and come back.
|
|
isdisco3
Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture
|
Posted - 2009.04.08 19:16:00 -
[401]
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.
|
Smooth Kitty
|
Posted - 2009.04.08 19:17:00 -
[402]
Originally by: isdisco3 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.
sounds like you got beat by someone smarter then you. Learn from it and do better next time.
|
isdisco3
Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture
|
Posted - 2009.04.08 19:19:00 -
[403]
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.
|
Smooth Kitty
|
Posted - 2009.04.08 19:21:00 -
[404]
Originally by: isdisco3 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.
Nothing is guaranteed jams or not. If you were perma-jammed in a eccm bs then that falcon was set up to take your race out of the fight.
You seem to want to fly around with your standard setup and be able to kill whatever you want. Eve doesn't work that way. You have strategy and counter. If the enemy gang has ECM you counter. If they have RR BS your counter. Or you can just go blindly in and whine when you get toasted by a smarter group.
|
Sky Marshal
IMpAct Corp Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2009.04.08 19:40:00 -
[405]
Edited by: Sky Marshal on 08/04/2009 19:43:17
Well, instead of use ECCM modules that generate a loss of one or two slots...
Why not use Sensor Boosters instead ?
A script who permit to boost your sensor strength, to resist again ECM. After all, it is the work of Sensor Boosters to alterate your sensors...
If you see one ECM ship, you change your script, activate it, and go at range to kill him. You will avoid some Jam cycles without any specific modules, but not all of them of course. So, the ECCM module would be deleted from the game.
Of course, the script only boost the sensor strength, not the scan resolution nor the targetting range.
This would be a better compromise than reducing Falcon range, who need to keep a minimum range of 150/160 Km.
|
ezraniel
Caldari 0ccam's Razor Nexus-Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.04.08 21:13:00 -
[406]
Originally by: Sky Marshal Edited by: Sky Marshal on 08/04/2009 19:43:17
Well, instead of use ECCM modules that generate a loss of one or two slots...
Why not use Sensor Boosters instead ?
A script who permit to boost your sensor strength, to resist again ECM. After all, it is the work of Sensor Boosters to alterate your sensors...
If you see one ECM ship, you change your script, activate it, and go at range to kill him. You will avoid some Jam cycles without any specific modules, but not all of them of course. So, the ECCM module would be deleted from the game.
Of course, the script only boost the sensor strength, not the scan resolution nor the targetting range.
This would be a better compromise than reducing Falcon range, who need to keep a minimum range of 150/160 Km.
THIS !
I don't think honestly a lot of people understand the sheer stupidity in turning the falcon into a "short range brawler".
In my opinion, however much its worth, falcons are good nowadays. People whine and ***** about 200 km falcons, but those prolly don't have ECCM fit, and any other falcon can EASELY take them out(jam them).
Falcons also have NO tank what so ever so making them "short range brawlers" is just stupid since if you miss 1 cycle your dead, right now that fact is made up for by longer range, range which gives you the time to try and get a second cycle off or flee.
If we make it very black/white it's like a game of instagib in Unreal tournament. you either kill him (jam him) first go, because if he hits you once you die. Thats the reality of being a falcon pilot (and I love it ! )
|
Strike Valheru
Caldari Divine Retribution Sons of Tangra
|
Posted - 2009.04.08 21:27:00 -
[407]
Im on the boat with SDA being just ranged boost, Im primarily ecmer (yeah one of those nasty falcon pilots) but I would really like to use rook more, to do that it needs some sort of either better defence or what been previously suggested so as it would have some open slot in mids ( due to having 4 racials ) like a multispec jammer which you can load ratial scrips into. Then you can further break down to close range/ high ecm multispec and long range/low ecm multispec. this would solve the range issue help those ecmers to get closer in range who want to actually shoot stuff.
Sig: Support the cause!!
http://sons-of-tangra.mybrute.com/ |
isdisco3
Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture
|
Posted - 2009.04.08 21:32:00 -
[408]
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.
|
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.04.08 23:47:00 -
[409]
Originally by: isdisco3 Edited by: isdisco3 on 08/04/2009 21:41:04 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 typically-fit 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.
Aww someone got ganked by a gang with a falcon. And yea this is my sig. Real PVP'ers only use f1. |
Noisrevbus
Caldari Breams Gone Wild
|
Posted - 2009.04.08 23:54:00 -
[410]
Originally by: SecHaul Clearly you cannot read, nor can the poster below you.
All other counter EWAR mods provide a benefit to your ship under normal conditions, and under EWAR conditions. ECCM provides NO benefit to you EXCEPT under EWAR conditions.
In other words, in the absence of EWAR, it's a 100% wasted slot, unlike ALL other EWAR counters.
Get it? Try re-read my post, it's what I posted the first time, no lies.
I've seen that argument put forward quite a few times by now, and it's still as bad as it ever was.
You are posing it as if someone actually fit tracking computers in the event that another might have tracking disruptors, and then get the added benefit of better tracking when they are not disrupted. People usually fit modules to achieve something particular. If someone actually do fit an electronic modules of that kind, by putting your EWar on them then, you sabotage whatever they tried to achieve. People don't stack up any electronic bonuses more than they are prepared to give up slots for ECCM. If you have a ship that fit a sensor booster or tracking computer to snipe, let's say a sniping HAC aiming for 100km, he has little additional benefit of overstacking and by putting EWar on him you can effectively destroy his role and purpose.
You could argue about the flexibility with scripts, but that goes both ways as the responding EWar modules also have scripts and provide the option of chosing what you want to impair on your target. ECM do only one thing, as such, as do ECCM. Had you put an unscripted computer on above your required range and tracking, you'd get the additional tracking but the moment someone put a TD on you - you would be well below your base range because you didn't script to counter. Painters are more similar to ECM in how they only do one thing (while with Painters there really is no plausible counter, as there are no sig radius shrinker modules).
To reiterate, it might look good on paper to be able to use scripts flexibly or use an unscripted module for a dual benefit, but it doesn't haven much practical use, since unless fit to counter it wouldn't counter. Scripted benefitial modules can be squared against scripted EWar modules. Not to mention, ECM "scripts" are covered by creating unique racial modules (which is far inferior to having scripts) while your ECCM counter them regardless of what module is used on you. You can say alot about the power of ECM, but arguing that it has more flexibility is hardly one of them. The same goes for Caldari Recons, they may be strong, but arguing that they would be more flexible is perhaps not where i'd put my focus or invest my time.
You have specialized ships, utilizing specialized modules, thus they have specialized counters. I'm sure alot of people overall would welcome a secondary benefit from ECCM, if that meant secondary benefit for ECM. The same goes overall for the Caldari Recons. I'm sure alot of people could be convinced to give up some specialization in trade for flexibility. Yet people who make claims against ECCM or complaining about "Falcons" in general are not prepared to give them that. They'd rather see another "Arazu failure" than they'd like to see another "Curse success". The Curse being a perfect example of a flexible ship that performs very well.
The problem deep down is that people don't account for everything that sets the concepts apart (obviously, nore did CCP, when Damps got hammered or with these proposed changes).
|
|
isdisco3
Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture
|
Posted - 2009.04.09 00:09:00 -
[411]
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.
|
Dex Nederland
Caldari Lai Dai Infinity Systems
|
Posted - 2009.04.09 00:17:00 -
[412]
Originally by: isdisco3 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 typically-fit falcon), and its still likely to be permajammed from an untouchable distance.
Did you consider that it was in fact an attempt at balance that hictors have a "low" sensor strength?
They are able to stop a multi-billion isk ship from warping or jumping away! Just maybe that is the intent of the low sensor strength.
In-Game Browser : http://ldis.caldari-made.net |
Noisrevbus
Caldari Breams Gone Wild
|
Posted - 2009.04.09 00:55:00 -
[413]
Edited by: Noisrevbus on 09/04/2009 01:07:19
Originally by: isdisco3 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 typically-fit falcon), and its still likely to be permajammed from an untouchable distance.
Considering that this fall into my long rant above, i had to qoute it just as Dex did.
Originally by: Noisrevbus Not to mention, ECM "scripts" are covered by creating unique racial modules (which is far inferior to having scripts) while your ECCM counter them regardless of what module is used on you.
If we assume for a second that one ECCM = one extra ECM (obviously it doesn't, but to humour the quote).
In practise it would = 4 extra ECM (as there are four HICs with different sensors, and you have racial ECM modules not scripts).
When people complain about ECCM as an effective counter, they always leave that out. They look at how they themselves fare against an ECM ship (in an ideal position), and not at how ECM mechanics apply across the grid. That is also why they continue to phrase it "permajam" since if you only count the times when it works, of course it will be "perma" .
|
Valkira Grozna
|
Posted - 2009.04.09 02:53:00 -
[414]
CCP should know that with every nerf kills this beautiful game. I will give an example, when the vaga was nerfed it were killed from the game, no1 is willing to drive a 120 million vessel, which is not anymore special. In truth I hated them, but not because they were too strong, but because while I was taught playing nobody told me that to kill nano ships you need cap neut, when I realized that this bast of ship become paper made , it was enough to have in a fleet a BS with a full heavy cap neut fits. No more nano ships no longer even need to have cap neut with me . When they killed the nano ships , have been killed a efficient way to counter Falcon, no1 falcon pilot will stay in battle with 3 "ex-nano" ship , true they can jamm them, but pilot will prefer to warp off then wait they los one jamm cycle and died in next 15 sec. Why in the game are eccm modules , perhaps to look nice on the market ? One module will not keep safe from falcon , but falcon will need more module to keep you quite . If in this game are few stupid FC who are complaining because they dont have ideas , tactics how to fight some ships we need nerf ?? There are many way to counter a falcon, why I have in the fleet a sniper squad , why I had fitted my cerb for 250 km range ? CCP will not stop no this nerf today Falcons and ECM, yesterday Vagas or speed . This game will soon turn to the DPS and tanking and I think that I will not play when that time came . Every nerf open Pandora box and there are less tactics and less used fits that can be used. If you ask me return most of nerfed ships bk . Maybe some nerf was good , but pls dont kill this game if few players dont have imaginations !!!!
|
Edghariuss I
|
Posted - 2009.04.09 03:12:00 -
[415]
Ok I am also a caldari so I will be aginst this nerf , but why nerf something when you can make ECCM more powerful ??? Find a solution on problem dont kill the original idea of the game !!!
|
Tagami Wasp
|
Posted - 2009.04.09 05:14:00 -
[416]
I am not a Falcon pilot, nor did I expected ever to be. I was training for Flycatcher and Onyx, since I prefer to fly into the midst of the enemy, lock him down and try to help my gang kill as many as possible. I live in 0.0, I have participated in a lot of fleet fights, a lot of gang fights and some soloing (being Caldari, I mostly died). The problem, when you fly Caldari, has always been that you cannot dictate the tactical situation, the ships are slow to move, slow to lock and do delayed damage (I am looking at you Cerberus). If you try to get near the target (to scram and web), in order to minimize missile travel time and increase damage, you get scrammed/webbed, the target's friends arrive and not being able to put distance between you and them, you die. If he hasn't any friends or didn't scram you he just puts all his damage on you, your signature is huge (MWD, right? AB is not for solo work and not even in fleet is looked upon favorably), you disengage or die. Not really what you were trying to do.
Looking at the reconfiguration of the Falcon, I now see the first Caldari boat capable of solo missions.
I will let you figure the fitting out (half the fun) but taking into consideration the proposed changes, I can see a Falcon operating deep into enemy territory, zooming around under cover of the cov ops cloak and looking for solitary targets. Consider this scenario:
Since you are warping cloaked, the target does not see you as you warp cloaked within 20Km (Fit a MWD to get into position if you need it, it is quite of use). Uncloak, lock, scram, jam, apply dps through guns and drones. I'd take out any drones first and make sure I can cloak if anyone comes, since my target will not be able to lock me, right? A couple of Multiracials with 2x SDA at 20 Km will mean he won't be locking anything. If the target was ratting, his drones will probably be on the rats, not on you. If he deploys them after you tackled and jammed him, TAKE THEM OUT FIRST. By the way, a Falcon fitted this way will have a tank close to a Navy Caracal and similar to a Vagabond's. Surprised?
If friends come to save him, warp out (he can't hold you there, can he?)and cloak as you warp and keep moving. If his friends don't come, loot his wreck, warp cloaked to the gate, avoid the gatecamp (they din't see you coming, did they?)and go sell the loot. Profit.
Now, this boat will be very skill intensive and only really hardened pilots (still trying to get there) will be able to fly it this way, but it makes me quiver in anticipation for it's arrival.
|
Commandante Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.04.09 07:17:00 -
[417]
Edited by: Commandante Caldari on 09/04/2009 07:23:10
Originally by: Valkira Grozna
CCP should know that with every nerf kills this beautiful game. I will give an example, when the vaga was nerfed it were killed from the game, no1 is willing to drive a 120 million vessel, which is not anymore special. In truth I hated them, but not because they were too strong, but because while I was taught playing nobody told me that to kill nano ships you need cap neut, when I realized that this beast of ship become paper made , it was enough to have in a fleet a BS with a full heavy cap neut fits. No more nano ships no longer even need to have cap neut with me . When they killed the nano ships , have been killed a efficient way to counter Falcon, no1 falcon pilot will stay in battle with 3 "ex-nano" ship , true they can jamm them, but pilot will prefer to warp off then wait they los one jamm cycle and died in next 15 sec. Why in the game are eccm modules , perhaps to look nice on the market ? One module will not keep safe from falcon , but falcon will need more module to keep you quite . If in this game are few stupid FC who are complaining because they dont have ideas , tactics how to fight some ships we need nerf ?? There are many way to counter a falcon, why I have in the fleet a sniper squad , why I had fitted my cerb for 250 km range ? CCP will not stop no this nerf today Falcons and ECM, yesterday Vagas or speed . This game will soon turn to the DPS and tanking and I think that I will not play when that time came . Every nerf open Pandora box and there are less tactics and less used fits that can be used. If you ask me return most of nerfed ships bk . Maybe some nerf was good , but pls dont kill this game if few players dont have imaginations !!!!
I had a lot of experience with fighting against Nano Vaga fleets terrorising our former 0.0 space. I agree that a well skilled Nano Vaga is fun in the hands of a good pilot but it's pure pain because they fit some faction stuff, orbit you out of heavy neut range and killing you slowly. I saw Vaga's speeding up to 12K. That was just stupid.
Even with the nerf a Vaga is still hard to catch if the pilot knows how to fly it. Another example is a Zealot with 1450ms, Lasers and just a 30km scram. Try to fight that solo eg. in an Ishtar. No chance. Even webber drones for pre-tackle will not help.
A Vaga is still too fast to hunt it down if the pilot is not stupid. I am talking about mainly if you face that 1v1.
The speed nerf was well balanced IMO. Bringing a scram what deactivates MWD is nasty, but we all adapted I guess.
The actual Falcon nerf is wrong balanced. It's like bringing a Vaga from 5.800ms down to max. speed of 580ms. That's my opionion from my game play pov because I use the Falcon mainly against gate camps of fighting numbers by dual boxing. An believe me: I am a well experienced PvPer actually and I lost some Falcon to good counter work.
The actual nerf ruins totally the option to go against numbers or annoying gate camps smacking arrogant in local all the time because they feel so safe pussin' around a gate and ganking everything without giving them a chance while claiming: WE ARE SO UBER PVP!
CCP should give us still the option to fight numbers. The nerf just supports gate camps or blobs. CCP should be aware that WE DON'T LIVE IN EVE 23/7. We can't. But some seem they can. So we need something effective against this.
My recommendation is: nerf the max. optimal with lvl5 skills and rigs down to 150km. That's really hard enough. And please force the other lazy side to bring counter tactics and not just hanging around with their usual setups which will be the uber win button. Some gate camps are creative. We have one corp in our homesystem who brought now a fleet setup with Ishtar and Sentries, Vaga's, Rapier, Huginn, Ceptors, FALCONS ... just to NERF the falcon by tactics.
Let not CCP do the job in a bad unlogical way.
|
Lornnar
|
Posted - 2009.04.09 07:56:00 -
[418]
true word (even if those 200km/permajamm Falcon is a myth or better said a lie from the people that cannot think abaut more as short range spider bs gang¦s). 150km is a good change, it will hit all the Falcon alts at second accouts (sentry damage/shorter reaction time) but not made a *real* Falcon useless.
As said 100 times boost eccm (and at best make a big topic if you log in *hey stupids there is a thing called eccm module*) shorter the range to 100km optimal+ 50km falloff and we will see no nerf but balance.
those, you can call it only inconsiderate changes, as atm will take falcons effectively out of the game (rook+scorpions too btw.) in fights bigger as 5 ships/every side. In the mystical 1v1 (praised all time in forums , neralv never happens in reality) a Falcon after changes will be even more deadlier as its now, from 70+ km...the whiner will whine 100x times more.
after all i dont think that this thread will change anything, i pretty sure that its alredy decided to make the falcon useless (and force the people into another ships) but CCP should overthink if its a good idea to make the game simplier and simplier until every ape can fit a ship with weapons and tank, jump in at 0 and hit F1 for all grouped weapons and wait until one of the ships is destroyed.
if the ecm changes come as they are atm i see waves of sniper ships overall in 0.0 and low sec since they have than really nothing to fear...jump in, align and shoot all down from range, tery no falcons/other ecm ships to counter them except other sniper ships (but falcon that counters falcon is lame^^) and as soon they take damage they warp out.
Exactly same situation as today and the "short range spider bs" *randoms* will immidiatly cry to nerf snipers...will you kill than as next all Snipers in EVE?
Make the Game as simple that you can call it WoW-in Space is a great way it will prosper (like Star Wars Galaxie¦s after the WoW-like downgrade, how much play it today?). Overthink you changes and if you cut the whiner¦s and the falcon alts (the side that said 200km is fine) out you will see that a Falcon need range to survive and most fights beginns at 100km (for Falcons), this should be the range of its Weapon (and ECM is the only interessting Weapon of a Falcon, for dmg weapons there are nummerous other ships that can do it better)+ a falloff since in space ships moving.
redesign better Rook and Scorpion to make them a better dmg dealer with ecm capacity that can survive longer in close range....falcon is a long range sniper ecm ship---or dead and useless.
anyway i have no hope CCP will make it so, i think they go the fast way of *nerf to dead* anyway...time to max skills of my sniper ships..after all less work for me since there is no need to scout for the fleet as in falcon anymore^^
As alwayws sorry for all english mistakes
|
Severice
Crushed Ambitions
|
Posted - 2009.04.09 08:54:00 -
[419]
I don't have that much of a problem with falcons at the moment. But if we want to scream for a falcon nerf, that isn't really that much of a nerf, how about we BUFF some GALLENTE e-war. cause, if the falcon gets to turn ships into floating scrap metal that can't do fug all for 20 second intervals, potentially permanently, then why shouldn't an arazu beable to do the same thing? to just as manny targets? a sensor damp should drop someones targeting range by 80% off an arazu 2 of them should drop you down to 5-10km on average. Sounds find to me. Don't like it? Sensor booster still work well to counter SDs. Unlike ECCM.
|
Vasili Z
Pyre of Gods
|
Posted - 2009.04.09 10:00:00 -
[420]
Originally by: Esmenet Perhaps you only gank noobs with 10:1 or higher odds but in real fights you cant do that. Its funny how you whiners come with ******ed "anecdotes" to justify your cries for help so that CCP can babysit you to make it easier to blob targets with just normal dps ships.
I wish I could get 10 people in my gangs, it would make fighting ECM a lot easier.
Did you even read what I said? I can fly every recon, and actively do it, therefore I don't just blob **** with dps. ECM is just way more powerful than the rest. Falcon pilots are just wahing because they finally have to be as good as a curse pilot. It won't happen though, because Falcon pilots suck. -------
Eve requires no skill anymore |
|
The Djego
Minmatar Hellequin Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.04.09 13:46:00 -
[421]
Edited by: The Djego on 09/04/2009 13:46:35
Originally by: Commandante Caldari
The actual Falcon nerf is wrong balanced. It's like bringing a Vaga from 5.800ms down to max. speed of 580ms. That's my opionion from my game play pov because I use the Falcon mainly against gate camps of fighting numbers by dual boxing. An believe me: I am a well experienced PvPer actually and I lost some Falcon to good counter work.
The actual nerf ruins totally the option to go against numbers or annoying gate camps smacking arrogant in local all the time because they feel so safe pussin' around a gate and ganking everything without giving them a chance while claiming: WE ARE SO UBER PVP!
CCP should give us still the option to fight numbers. The nerf just supports gate camps or blobs. CCP should be aware that WE DON'T LIVE IN EVE 23/7. We can't. But some seem they can. So we need something effective against this.
My recommendation is: nerf the max. optimal with lvl5 skills and rigs down to 150km. That's really hard enough. And please force the other lazy side to bring counter tactics and not just hanging around with their usual setups which will be the uber win button. Some gate camps are creative. We have one corp in our homesystem who brought now a fleet setup with Ishtar and Sentries, Vaga's, Rapier, Huginn, Ceptors, FALCONS ... just to NERF the falcon by tactics.
Lets see this are Ishatar, Vaga, Raiper, Huggin, Ceptor, Falcon -> 6 Ships to counter one(and by counter i mean foring it to leave since you can¦t kill a Falcon with them if the Falcon pilote is at the controlls).
Because it would change nothing at all? Thats stupid. The one that is lazy is exactly you, you won¦t invest into expensive Fittings or Ships to have a chance to slug it out. You won¦t put your alt at risk while PVPing. You want the most broken ship in small gang still be the most broken in small gang.
The Falcon will still a very powerfull force multiplyer with a shorter range(more powerfull than the other Recons actualy what is still broken) while now having to face risks for beeing able to use a Cov Ops Cloak. If it is not about the Cov Ops Cloak you could use a Scorp for this(oh wait thats actualy a risk to move it around and to use it).
---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
Valkira Grozna
|
Posted - 2009.04.09 15:02:00 -
[422]
Ok some nerf was good , even if caldari pilot I like the missile nerf , now I need in fleet few ships with target painters , more webs , and made this game more fun . Maybe vaga used faction fits and was at bigger range of cap neut , but why nerfing vaga to death when you can put items to counter that treat ? This game is fun because you can fit your ship in 100 way , and with all bad nerfing this will became a boring game with same fits for all . No one is using remote eccm , dont know why , but make it stronger and have in fleet more support vessels for that job . THIS GAME IS STRATEGICAL GAME where all unit are players and not some kind of 1vs1 . Make more fits , do that players use more ship in dedicate roles , pls dont kill ships . Make this game more complicate and not more simple .
|
Blake Zacary
Volatile Nature Frontal Impact
|
Posted - 2009.04.09 17:36:00 -
[423]
Edited by: Blake Zacary on 09/04/2009 17:38:47 I need to do a lot more testing(anyone got some planned?).
But I think it needs more tweeking i.e.
Some sort of damage bonus to the hybrids.
Speed/agility I don't know if this was changed but like most caldari ships it's still slow and turns like a brick.If it's going to work closer in it needs a boost to both.
But my main concern is the actual jammers,multis are still as crap on sisi.Having to fit different jammers for each race was an acceptable disadvantage to the current falcon but when the range is closer having to waste four slots when I would also need to fit a small tank,mwd,sensor booster etc,etc is just a bit too much for the ship to work effectivly.It doesn't have enough slots for armor tanking and putting a plate on it is a joke as it makes it even more brick like.
I have to say on first looks,the way it is on sisi it's just a flying coffin.But like I said I do need a lot more testing.
P.S. I crossed trained for the rapier the other week just to try it and I had a lot of fun with it,I really hope we will be able to do solo stuff with the new falcon as well.
|
isdisco3
Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture
|
Posted - 2009.04.09 19:16:00 -
[424]
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.
|
DiseL
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Associates
|
Posted - 2009.04.09 19:36:00 -
[425]
Originally by: isdisco3 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.
I love this arguement. Why doesn't the secondary Ewar bonus ever get mentioned on the other 3 recons. TP on the Rapier, Damps on the Arazu, and TD's on the pilgrim. So all four races get two ewar related bonuses. The Falcon having only one Ewar type gets both ewar bonuses to it. So you want to take one of the bonuses away from the Falcon and now it has one Ewar type with one Ewar bonus while the other three races have 2 and 2. Brilliant form of balancing.
|
Spartan dax
|
Posted - 2009.04.09 21:13:00 -
[426]
I'm agreeing with Isdisco3 actually. There's no longer any point for the Rook and Falcon to have dual bonuses (or triplebonuses as on TQ). Cap use bonus can be replaced with something else.
|
DelboyTrotter
Trotters Independent Trading
|
Posted - 2009.04.09 23:34:00 -
[427]
Originally by: DiseL
I love this arguement. Why doesn't the secondary Ewar bonus ever get mentioned on the other 3 recons. TP on the Rapier, Damps on the Arazu, and TD's on the pilgrim. So all four races get two ewar related bonuses. The Falcon having only one Ewar type gets both ewar bonuses to it. So you want to take one of the bonuses away from the Falcon and now it has one Ewar type with one Ewar bonus while the other three races have 2 and 2. Brilliant form of balancing.
Because the secondary EWAR bonus are pathetic.
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.
|
isdisco3
Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture
|
Posted - 2009.04.10 01:57:00 -
[428]
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.
|
Handon Guild
The Glenn Quagmire Finishing School for Young Ladies
|
Posted - 2009.04.10 02:11:00 -
[429]
I agree with Isdisco3, making it close range with a falloff which lowers your chance of succes and no ECM Strength bonus, give it a bonus to falloff range for example, maybe make it so each time you get a hit on a target there's a ECM " timer " on that SINGLE target that got hit where he cant get jammed, which means you will have to circle your jammers on different targets to get full effect of your jammers... takes more skills aswell..
just an idea, i dont think you should be able to permajam.
|
Dex Nederland
Caldari Lai Dai Infinity Systems
|
Posted - 2009.04.10 03:36:00 -
[430]
Originally by: isdisco3 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.
Alright, so do you apply the above to the Rook then? Or should the other Combat Recons be adjusted to be more like the Rook? I am specifically referring to the missile bonus that two Combat Recons receive.
My idea, a simple change to the bonuses the ships and some slot changes. It adds firepower to the Falcon, reduces its range and strength, plus number of jammers. The bonuses on the Rook are moved around to give it some additional weapons range and be the better ECM ship.
Reduce the effective range of the Falcon and make the Rook a desirable combat ship.
Originally by: Falcon Cruiser: 15%/lvl Jammer Strength, 5%/lvl Medium Hybrid Turret damage Recon: 10%/lvl Jammer capacitor use, -96 to -100% Clocking Device CPU
5 Hi, 6 Mid, 3 Low 3 Launcher/4 Turret Drone (capacity/bandwidth): 0/0
Originally by: Rook Cruiser: 20%/lvl Jammer Strength, 10%/lvl missile velocity Recon: 10%/lvl Jammer capcitor use, 20%/lvl Jammer optimal range
5 Hi, 7 Mid, 3 Low 5 Launcher/3 Turret Drone (capacity/bandwidth): 0/0
The idea is that the Falcon is a Blackbird with cloaking systems and some additional firepower, while the Rook is the advanced version of the Blackbird.
For the Huginn and Lachesis the following changes. - Huginn change the 5% bonus to Launcher ROF to a 10%/lvl bonus to Velocity Factor of Stasis Webifiers (see Kronos). This makes it such that a Huginn with T2 Webber will reduce the target's speed to 90% (at max skills). - Lachesis change the 5% bonus to Launcher ROF to a 20%/lvl bonus to Sensor Dampener optimal/falloff. This makes it an excellent anti-sniper/Rook ship.
In-Game Browser : http://ldis.caldari-made.net |
|
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2009.04.10 09:05:00 -
[431]
Hmm, I still dont get why you want to reduce range and increase jamming strength.
As it stands, the current strength of a single racial on TQ is enough to permanently jam any HAC without ECCM fitted (even a blackbird does that pretty well actually).
Increasing jamming strength will completely ruin small-gang warfare, as you usually dont have any long-range weapons in a gang of say 4 ships, so 60km range or 250km range makes no difference at all since you can never lock.
And if you can get a lock, you are webbed anyway and arent gonna close in on the ecm ship.
Keep range as it is (even boost it on BB maybe), but reduce the strength.
BB 10% strength/level kitsune,falcon,rook,scorpion 15% strength/level
|
Spartan dax
|
Posted - 2009.04.10 10:09:00 -
[432]
The module strength on all out ECM fits will be basically the same as before. No change there.
The optimal range will be crap though and when you get into falloff the amount of jammers will be reduced resulting in fairly inefficient use of the ship while still remaining in weaponsrange of tons of ships. The change really does nothing for you in a gank scenario but for smallish gangs this change will require entirely different piloting of the Caldari recons (A good thingÖ).
TBH I don't see either the Rook or Falcon being able to fit more than 3 jammers in the future as they will need 2-3 slot tank and a MWD leaving you with multispecs which drops your jamming strength significantly. Overall reduction of ECM ingame accomplished.
The scorp is where the real problem is, atm it doesn't do anything particulary well.
|
Stefan F
Enrave Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2009.04.10 12:09:00 -
[433]
Some new changes with the patch:
Scorpion & blackbird optimal bonus is nerfed from 20% optimal to 10% optimal (+10% falloff).
This effectively means that from 160k you'll get with a fully rigged scorp, with a small armor tank in the lows, a jamming strenght of about 4,5. This effectively means that you can jam 1 other battleship on sniperrange, but you are so easily popped yourself that bringing another sniper is a lot more beneficial.
If you start filling up your lows again with SDA's and also use the rigs you'll get about 7 effective sensor strenght per jammer at 160k. This means jamming 2 BS but they'll only have to sneeze at you and you pop (only a dc2 for tank).
So why not just remove the SDA's and put the effect of fitting 3 of them into the modules itself. Fitting them to non-bonussed ships still won't be viable, as they're not even worth fitting on a bonussed scorp.
As explained earlier in this thread, a damp scorp can take out about 3 hostile BS and fit a bit of a tank, whereas the scorp with the same tank can only take out one. If you really go for it ecm wise you can take out 2, but then you'll loose any kind of tank you could fit and we're back to square one.
|
darrolav
|
Posted - 2009.04.10 14:12:00 -
[434]
I just logged on Sisi and noticed falcon's dronebay was reduced from 25m3 to 10m3. Did I miss something? because in my opinion 10m3 is really a joke.
|
Cletus Graeme
Caldari Duty.
|
Posted - 2009.04.10 15:12:00 -
[435]
Edited by: Cletus Graeme on 10/04/2009 15:24:17
Originally by: Omara Otawan As it stands, the current strength of a single racial on TQ is enough to permanently jam any HAC without ECCM fitted (even a blackbird does that pretty well actually).
This is a misrepresentation of the facts.
HACs have the following sensor strengths: Cerb (16), Eagle (18), Ishtar (16), Deimos (15), Zealot (13) Sac (15), Vaga(14) , Muninn (13)
The maximum possible jam strength of a racial ECM fitted on a Falcon/Rook with 3 SDAs, T2 jam strength rigs and used by a pilot with maxed ECM skills is approx 15. So only a max skilled ECM pilot can permajam a HAC.
Also Recons, BC and BS all have higher sensor strengths than HACs so they're less likely to be permajammed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why am I bothering with all this? Let me first say that I think the current proposed changes are well thought out and look promising. However, as many people have already mentioned they don't address the main issue with ECM.
I don't think that ECM jam strength is the problem. I also don't agree with CCP that ECM jam range is the problem.
The problem is that jammers can be stacked onto the same target without penalty,
Allow me to explain.
When using ECM you must make a choice.
You can either
(1) spread your jammers over several targets and try to jam them each for only a few cycles
or
(2) concetrate them all on one or two targets in the hope of permajamming them.
ECM is fine in long range fleet fights.
Tactic (1) is more commonly used in fleet fights because there are large numbers on both sides so targets die fast and ECM ships are quickly primaried so you rarely get a chance to permajam anyone.
Indeed, even if (2) succeeds it still doesn't imbalance the fight since you've used your ship to take out another ship (or at most two).
This is annoying for the pilots who are permajammed but can be considered a fair trade as they have the option to warp out of the fight and when they return you attention will hopefully be elsewhere.
ECM is overpowered in close range small gang fights
In such fights pilots can still choose between either (1) or (2), but usually opt for (2).
This is because each ship in a small gang is vital to the success of the fight. so being able to disable one or two of them for the duration of the engagement gives one side a huge advantage. Additionally, these fights usually occur at close range so the jammed targets may also be tackled and thus unable to warp out.
The Falcon compounds the above imbalance because it can also (A) jam from far away (B) cloak.
(A) means that in a close range fight it remains safely at distance, effectively untouchable. (B) means that it can choose if/when to join the fight while remaining completely invulnerable until it does so.
ECM as a whole isn't broken and neither are most of the ECM ships. However, certain ships such as the Falcon become overpowered in certain pvp situations. Any changes should aim to re-balance them in these special circumstances without nerfing their abilities overall.
The crux of the problem is that it's currently worth using mulitiple jammers (see above) to attempt to permajam a target.
However, if jammers were stacking penalised then it would only be worth placing one or two (or at most 3) on a single target and permajamming would decrease significantly. A stacking penalty does not affect situation (1) above. It only affects (2) which is the cause of the current ECM problems.
|
Sky Marshal
IMpAct Corp Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2009.04.10 16:17:00 -
[436]
Edited by: Sky Marshal on 10/04/2009 16:18:16
Originally by: isdisco3 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.
No, it don't make the Sensor Booster mandatory, like the ECCM who is not mandatory today. And I seriously doubt that you can't find someone in your gangs who don't have one SB, so find a gangmate who can't act when a Falcon appears. It is a multiplayer game, remember, so just find someone who can accept to kill Falcons at will.
And the script can make the ship more stronger than the ECCM. We all know than the 80% of ECCM module is not enough, so the script must raise it by 120%, or 150%.
There is always a solution, so it don't fail to solve the problem of the permajam. This is a bad argument.
Quote: 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.
The idea of the falloff is not bad, but the Falcon would be more dead than with the Chronopolis choice if he don't have the strength bonus. Even all others recons would be better. Maybe than a Rapier don't have a Web strength bonus, but still a range one, and a 100% success chance, unlike the ECM boats.
You just want destroy totaly the ship.
Also, the optimal at 20 is a wrong choice, as disruptor has a range of 24 Km. The ship must be able to save himself, so he need a minimum of 30/40 Km of optimal to react in time. Remember, it is still a thin paper ship, not a Battlecruiser.
I agree than the Falcon need a total range of 160 Km maximum, unlike the actual 200+, and a counter-measure not really annoying to be accepted by everyone, but not a over-over-nerf.
|
Vigaz
|
Posted - 2009.04.10 16:54:00 -
[437]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Hey Folks,
Quick updates on changes coming to sisi for testing over the weekend:
Scorpion
we changed the bonus back to 20% ECM optimal range per level. Still means a range reduction due to the base jammer stat changes but will give you more ECM accuracy at longer range.
Widow
The ECM strength bonus has been increased to 30% as its focus is short to medium range.
We will respond further to the feedback from the last few pages later on.
Sisi Widow: Caldari Battleship Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to cruise and siege missile launcher rate of fire and 10% bonus to cruise missile and torpedo velocity per level Black Ops Skill Bonus: 25% bonus to ECM target jammer strength and multiplies the cloaked velocity by 125% per level
Is this temporary due to the Sisi new build or I miss something?
|
Cletus Graeme
Caldari Duty.
|
Posted - 2009.04.10 18:06:00 -
[438]
Edited by: Cletus Graeme on 10/04/2009 18:07:30
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Scorpion
we changed the bonus back to 20% ECM optimal range per level. Still means a range reduction due to the base jammer stat changes but will give you more ECM accuracy at longer range.
Awesome.
I will check the resulting numbers when this change hits the test server but hopefully it should mean the Scorp is still viable as a fleet ECM platform (150-200km range) even if it must now operate within falloff.
It will be difficult to test its effectiveness on Sisi without staging an actual fleet fight but people can warp in at range into the FFAs and see how it performs.
Thanks!
|
StarConquer212
|
Posted - 2009.04.10 21:13:00 -
[439]
The way I see it is like this, people want a role for the rook that the falcon can not do already.
Now its unfair to the older players that have have maxed skills for the falcon to nerf it. (recons V, EW skills etc) It already is paper thin and has no dps. Plus every one shoots at them any way, if you bring them in to 50km there going to always get wasted the moment they decloak. If anything make it so you can't fit senor boosters on it, so they can't sit 200 km of jamming.
More importantly what is needed is a defined role for the Rook, because as it stand no one fly's them because there is not advantage over the falcon. The best solution is to give the Rook a range bonus. As I stated above. only change the falcon so that it can't fit sensor boosters making its optimal range only 100km with militi spics. And Give the Rook a rang bonus so, or let it fit senor boosters so that it can sit 200 km of jamming. that way you can ether pick cloak or range not both.
|
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
|
Posted - 2009.04.10 23:46:00 -
[440]
Originally by: StarConquer212 It already is paper thin and has no dps. Plus every one shoots at them any way, if you bring them in to 50km there going to always get wasted the moment they decloak.
Ummm... Welcome to the life of a Arazu or Rapier pilot. Honestly, why should the Falcon get the uber range safety while none of the other recons do. Arazu and Rapier dps also sucks, and they have laughable tanks as well.
Taxman VII: Kingdom of Vlad
|
|
Susan Delgad0
Caldari Sons Of 0din
|
Posted - 2009.04.11 03:21:00 -
[441]
Quote: interestingly there are no falcon pilots here who argue against a nerf. they all agree that the ship could do with some tweaking.
That's not true. It's just useless to post, no one wants to hear it. I've read 15 pages of people whining, that's 2 hours I'm not going to get back, and where the real crime here lies! That's what the eve forums are for I guess, whiners...
15 pages of crap, the only decent post is this:
Quote: I don't think that ECM jam strength is the problem. I also don't agree with CCP that ECM jam range is the problem. The problem is that jammers can be stacked onto the same target without penalty.
Nice job Cletus, this is a solution that fixes the problem, not create new ones. If only you were a dev. we might achieve the balance that so many claim to want but lack the intellect to see.
Best,
~s~ |
Xorth Adimus
Caldari The Perfect Storm Controlled Chaos
|
Posted - 2009.04.11 08:31:00 -
[442]
Originally by: DelboyTrotter
Originally by: DiseL
I love this arguement. Why doesn't the secondary Ewar bonus ever get mentioned on the other 3 recons. TP on the Rapier, Damps on the Arazu, and TD's on the pilgrim. So all four races get two ewar related bonuses. The Falcon having only one Ewar type gets both ewar bonuses to it. So you want to take one of the bonuses away from the Falcon and now it has one Ewar type with one Ewar bonus while the other three races have 2 and 2. Brilliant form of balancing.
Because the secondary EWAR bonus are pathetic.
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.
Yes please!
It is a perfect example of how the falcon is a T2 specialised ship and the other cloaking recons are not. Fix them all; first bonus is range (I agree falloff is the way to go make people pay for doing it at extreame ranges and give them the choice and flexability), second is strength with the cloaking version of the recon having less range. Problem is nerfing is easier, so here we go!
|
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.04.11 09:57:00 -
[443]
Originally by: Vladimir Norkoff
Originally by: StarConquer212 It already is paper thin and has no dps. Plus every one shoots at them any way, if you bring them in to 50km there going to always get wasted the moment they decloak.
Ummm... Welcome to the life of a Arazu or Rapier pilot. Honestly, why should the Falcon get the uber range safety while none of the other recons do. Arazu and Rapier dps also sucks, and they have laughable tanks as well.
Brilliant thinking. If one ship is useless, lets make sure they are all useless. And yea this is my sig. Real PVP'ers only use f1. |
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.04.11 10:00:00 -
[444]
Originally by: Cletus Graeme
I don't think that ECM jam strength is the problem. I also don't agree with CCP that ECM jam range is the problem.
The problem is that jammers can be stacked onto the same target without penalty.
/Thread And yea this is my sig. Real PVP'ers only use f1. |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.04.11 10:49:00 -
[445]
Sisi Scorpion:
Caldari Battleship Skill Bonus: 15% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per level 10% bonus to ECM Target Jammer optimal and falloff range per level
A couple of pages ago I pointed out that, at fleet ranges, a Scorp was better off fitting RSD. Now its range has been nerfed. Lolz.
RIP Fleet ECM Scorp. CCP, if you don't want Scorps to be viable in sniper fleets, at least gives a close-range brawler.
|
darrolav
|
Posted - 2009.04.11 11:41:00 -
[446]
With ECM changes a major issue about the rook will be powergrid, 600 base stat is just too low to fit 5 missile launchers T2(HAM/HML), MWD and some buffer tank without powergrid rigs and low mods.
|
Commandante Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.04.11 12:30:00 -
[447]
Edited by: Commandante Caldari on 11/04/2009 12:31:58
Originally by: The Djego Edited by: The Djego on 09/04/2009 13:46:35
Lets see this are Ishatar, Vaga, Raiper, Huggin, Ceptor, Falcon -> 6 Ships to counter one(and by counter i mean foring it to leave since you can¦t kill a Falcon with them if the Falcon pilote is at the controlls).
Because it would change nothing at all? Thats stupid. The one that is lazy is exactly you, you won¦t invest into expensive Fittings or Ships to have a chance to slug it out. You won¦t put your alt at risk while PVPing. You want the most broken ship in small gang still be the most broken in small gang.
The Falcon will still a very powerfull force multiplyer with a shorter range(more powerfull than the other Recons actualy what is still broken) while now having to face risks for beeing able to use a Cov Ops Cloak. If it is not about the Cov Ops Cloak you could use a Scorp for this(oh wait thats actualy a risk to move it around and to use it).
First at all: I use expensive, rigged setup. Second: fighting dual is hard. It's beyond beeing lazy because I do night jam a hauler and kill it with my main BS. You can't focus on 2 ships at the same time. That's a big risk from this pov because you risk 2 ships everytime. A good skilled and organized fleet/camp is a challange. I just lost my Falcon because the camp brought a sniper in and an unexpected Falcon. Result: while beeing engaged by 6 ships my main got jammed by the Falcon, the Falcon jammed my Falcon and the Sniper did a good job. Finally my expensive setup helped me to jump out.
That happens if a camp tries to counter ECM.
And if I lose a Mega and Falcon we talk about 400m minimum.
|
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2009.04.11 16:38:00 -
[448]
Originally by: Cletus Graeme
Originally by: Omara Otawan As it stands, the current strength of a single racial on TQ is enough to permanently jam any HAC without ECCM fitted (even a blackbird does that pretty well actually).
This is a misrepresentation of the facts. (stuff)
Dont try and teach me about how ecm works, I've flown them excessively for 2.5 years now and do know pretty well how they work.
I've also flown HACs for quite some time, and while its true that you get maybe one cycle unjammed against a properly skilled ecm ship in a regular fight, its safe to say you are jammed 95% of the time.
If we're looking at a max skilled ecm pilot (most of them actually are if they are serious about it), the sensor str numbers you quoted for HACs clearly show that 5 out of 8 are indeed permanently jammed (100%), 2 get jammed 98% of the time, and one 95%...
And just to correct you here, packing all your jammers on a single ship is plain stupid, from the both options you have listed only #1 is viable, and every ecm pilot worth his salt is doing it that way.
|
StarConquer212
|
Posted - 2009.04.11 19:02:00 -
[449]
Originally by: Esmenet
Originally by: Vladimir Norkoff
Originally by: StarConquer212 It already is paper thin and has no dps. Plus every one shoots at them any way, if you bring them in to 50km there going to always get wasted the moment they decloak.
Ummm... Welcome to the life of a Arazu or Rapier pilot. Honestly, why should the Falcon get the uber range safety while none of the other recons do. Arazu and Rapier dps also sucks, and they have laughable tanks as well.
Brilliant thinking. If one ship is useless, lets make sure they are all useless.
Thank you, it seems a lot of people are complaining about the other recons and not having anything better to add other then that. The point of this thread is to point out what these ships need changed to have there rolls defined, not to complain about how uber these ships are compared to the others, and how they should be just as bad as the others. If the other recons need fixing find that thread and comment on it there not here.
|
Cletus Graeme
Caldari Duty.
|
Posted - 2009.04.11 19:06:00 -
[450]
Edited by: Cletus Graeme on 11/04/2009 19:17:04
Originally by: Omara Otawan Dont try and teach me about how ecm works, I've flown them excessively for 2.5 years now and do know pretty well how they work.
Then don't make sweeping generalisations without properly qualifying what you're saying.
Originally by: Omara Otawan I've also flown HACs for quite some time, and while its true that you get maybe one cycle unjammed against a properly skilled ecm ship in a regular fight, its safe to say you are jammed 95% of the time.
This is correct, but only if you have a max skilled ECM pilot in a Recon fitted specifically to maximise jam strength, which is a pretty big assumption to make. You chose HACs because they suited your argument while ignoring other ship clases such as HICs, Recons, CS and BS. If HACs are perma -jammed too easily then, instead of nerfing ECM, perhaps they need a boost?
Originally by: Omara Otawan If we're looking at a max skilled ecm pilot (most of them actually are if they are serious about it)
No, they aren't. Many pilots can't afford to spend the time to max their ECM skills as it restrcits them to flying nothing but ECM ships for several months. I am one such pilot. Infact, the long train time and specialised nature of these ships is what has led players to train Falcon alts.
Originally by: Omara Otawan And just to correct you here, both 'jamming strategies' you have listed are what only inexperienced pilots would use, the proper way to do it is what we call 'cycle jamming', i.e. use your jammers one by one and only use a 2nd one if you failed to get a cycle in.
Neither of the strategies I listed exclude the use of cycle jamming which is a technique that every competent ECM pilot uses. I was talking about a choice which must be made i.e which targets the ECM pilot attempts to jam. Cycle jamming describes how the ECM pilot attempts to jam a target. They are two separate things. However, it is true that (2) benefits from cycle jamming much more than (1).
Racial jammers are generally favoured over multispecs but as there are 4 types an ECM pilot can only fit 1-2 of each unless he has intel on the enemy gang composition.
In a fleet fight or a situation where there is no intel available it makes sense to bring a mix of all types which lends itself to a strategy where jammers are used to jam multiple targets. In a small gang fight where the enemy ship composition is known the ECM pilot can fit to disable specific ships. Even without any intel he will typically still concentrate on attempting to only jam the most dangerous targets.
Cycle jamming is used in all the above situations.
Originally by: Omara Otawan They do not stack because their effect is not reliable, i.e. chance based.
Originally by: Omara Otawan Besides, if you know how the math behind the success calculation for multiple jammers works, you'd realize that ECM modules do indeed stack
First you claim that they don't stack and then you claim they do. Make your mind up!
Jammers do not stack. They work using independent probability. This means that the chance for each jammer to succeed is independent of how many are used. However, using multiple jammers on a single target does increase your overall chance of getting a jam.
What would adding a stacking penalty mean?
If the ECM pilot was cycle jamming a single target and the first jammer failed then he'd continue to use jammers on the same target until one of them succeeded.
Normally each jammer would have an equal chance to succeed. However, with the addition of a stacking penalty the second and any successive jammers used will have their chance to jam further reduced.
In other words, the chance to jam is no longer independent as it now also depends on how many (failed) jammers have already been used. This further reduces the overall chance to jam but [i]only in the cases where multiple
|
|
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2009.04.11 21:13:00 -
[451]
Edited by: Omara Otawan on 11/04/2009 21:14:46
Originally by: Cletus Graeme
Originally by: Omara Otawan They do not stack because their effect is not reliable, i.e. chance based.
Originally by: Omara Otawan Besides, if you know how the math behind the success calculation for multiple jammers works, you'd realize that ECM modules do indeed stack
First you claim that they don't stack and then you claim they do. Make your mind up!
You just misread what I posted. Or its my use of the word 'stacking' that leads people to think about 'stacking penalty' in the eve context.
What I was trying to say is 2 ECM mods dont double your success probability, that could be seen as stacking.
|
Spartan dax
|
Posted - 2009.04.11 22:24:00 -
[452]
Edited by: Spartan dax on 11/04/2009 22:27:44 I still can't understand why CCP thinks using falloff is a good way to reduce long range jamming effectiveness. Having SDA's increase optimal and reduce strength would yield a similar but far more predictable (IE better for the user) result.
Numbers pulled out of My proverbial sphincter. Max skills fitted Scorpion; Strength and optimal bonused.
Before SDA's ECM racial module 100k optimal Strength 10.
1 SDA + 20% optimal - 10% Strength
After 3 SDA's ECM Racial module 147k optimal 7.7 strength
Easy to balance, easy to predict results. Makes ECM ships fit for the occasion even further than just choosing racials. No ******ed (mentally challenged) falloff with an already chance based Ewar system. Pure win.
Obviously optimal rigs would get a good nerfbatting.
|
5pinDizzy
|
Posted - 2009.04.12 14:05:00 -
[453]
Edited by: 5pinDizzy on 12/04/2009 14:09:52
I prefer the old suggestions better then the new ones.
Sounds like you're starting to back track from ecm whoring alliance whines.
I can't see how the updated suggestions really change anything much.
All it means is bring more of them for each ship type really and we're back to square 1.
I was liking the idea of making the scorpion shorter range as I could then actually put something in the highslots that was actually useful on a support ship like remote reps and remote energy transfers and nos/neuts.
Now though I'm just a bit disapointed.
I was hoping the Scorpion would turn out to be more like a battleship version of the rook, but it seems it's going to be staying as more of a battleship version of a non covops cloak falcon.
Which is just pretty sad for battleship.
if you disagree with me then you should probably post a response and stop reading my signature. |
Malin folkungs
|
Posted - 2009.04.12 15:04:00 -
[454]
Originally by: Cletus Graeme Edited by: Cletus Graeme on 10/04/2009 18:10:03
Originally by: Omara Otawan As it stands, the current strength of a single racial on TQ is enough to permanently jam any HAC without ECCM fitted (even a blackbird does that pretty well actually).
This is a misrepresentation of the facts.
HACs have the following sensor strengths: Cerb (16), Eagle (18), Ishtar (16), Deimos (15), Zealot (13) Sac (15), Vaga(14) , Muninn (13)
The maximum possible jam strength of a racial ECM fitted on a Falcon/Rook with 3 SDAs, T2 jam strength rigs and used by a pilot with maxed ECM skills is approx 15. So only a max skilled ECM pilot can permajam a HAC.
Also Recons, BC and BS all have higher sensor strengths than HACs so they're less likely to be permajammed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why am I bothering with all this? Let me first say that I think the current proposed changes are well thought out and look promising. However, as many people have already mentioned they don't address the main issue with ECM.
I don't think that ECM jam strength is the problem. I also don't agree with CCP that ECM jam range is the problem.
The problem is that jammers can be stacked onto the same target without penalty.
Allow me to explain.
When using ECM you must make a choice.
You can either
(1) spread your jammers over several targets and try to jam them each for only a few cycles
or
(2) concentrate them on one or two targets in the hope of permajamming them
ECM is fine in long range fleet fights.
Tactic (1) is more commonly used in fleet fights because there are large numbers on both sides so targets die fast and ECM ships are quickly primaried so you rarely get a chance to permajam anyone.
Indeed, even if (2) succeeds it still doesn't imbalance the fight since you've used your ship to take out another ship (or at most two). While this is annoying for the pilots whom you've permajammed it can be considered a fair trade as they still have the option to warp out and if/when they return your attention will hopefully be elsewhere.
ECM is overpowered in close range small gang fights
In such fights pilots can still choose between either (1) or (2), but usually opt for (2).
This is because each ship in a small gang is vital to the success of the fight. so being able to disable one or two of them for the duration of the engagement gives one side a huge advantage. Additionally, these fights usually occur at close range so the jammed targets may also be tackled and thus unable to warp out.
The Falcon compounds the above imbalance because it can also (A) jam from far away (B) cloak.
(A) means that in a close range fight it remains safely at distance, effectively untouchable. (B) means that it can choose if/when to join the fight while remaining completely invulnerable until it does so.
ECM as a whole isn't broken and neither are most of the ECM ships. However, certain ships such as the Falcon become overpowered in certain pvp situations. Any changes should aim to re-balance them in these special circumstances without nerfing their abilities overall.
The crux of the problem is that it's currently worth using mulitiple jammers (see above) to attempt to permajam a target.
However, if jammers were stacking penalised then it would only be worth placing one or two (or at most 3) on a single target and permajamming would decrease significantly. The addition of a stacking penalty wouldn't affect tactic (1) above. It only affects (2) which is the cause of the current ECM problems.
This is super dooper!!! Love the idea, best solution purposed imo.
|
Tyronous
|
Posted - 2009.04.12 16:34:00 -
[455]
So guys, i think that the modifications you are doing in the moment are good, but i have one idea. If the Scorpion should the jammers "sniper" ship, it should be able to operate within the normal sniper range. A normal sniper has an optimum range of ~170km + ~30km falloff. The Scorpion jamms on ~110km + ~70km falloff and the statement was the scorpion should be the sniper in fleets. So my idea would be to increase the range bonus far enough so that she could stay with the shooting snipers in the fleet. That would not create any imbalance, because any sniper could shoot on them but would, in my opinion make sense because she should stay with all te other normal snipers in the fleet. Possible you give her 15% optimum range bonus instead of 10% range + falloff, then the scorp should have an optimum range which is high enough to operate at the snipers range. And another point is that no scorpion which is in range for the close range fighting ships could reach the sniper and it is highly difficult to reach the snipers without enough range. That would decrease her strength as part of the fleet because the "sniper" jammer could not reach the snipers i.e. could not fullfill their role. So please think about it.
|
Perry
Amarr The X-Trading Company RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.04.12 19:24:00 -
[456]
The Fleet Scorpion is dead.
Congratulation on killing the most usefull and most fragile Battleship on the field by "enforcing its role". The role you, ccp, want it to fulfill is to be a long range jammer. Im perfectly fine with that. But lets look at its ECM Optimal with 2x Low Slot ECM mod and 1x ECM range Rig. The Racial Tech II Jammer has now 92km Optimal and around 80km Falloff. Why is this terrible?
Fleets fight at around 150km. Tempest, Apoc, Megathron and Rokh reach and surpass this range even only using their Optimal. They dont even use Falloff at this range. (Okay Tempest a bit but single digit). The new Scorp will be in deeeeeeep Falloff. The allready unreliable ECM will become so weak its not efficent anymore to use a Scorpion over anything else. Even the specialised Caldari Battleship Pilots will have to switch over to the expensive Rokhs to be of any use soon.
Even right now on Tq its difficult to jam a battleship. I use my Scorp to jam Sniper HACs most of the time because its just too inefficent to use ECM on hostile Battleships. Soon the chance to Jam even a Zealot with meager 13 Sensor Strength will be less then 30% in Falloff. Thats a joke.
I see three Options:
1) Scorpion stays long range ECM Plattfrom and gets a proper ECM Range Bonus of AT LEAST 20%. No Less.
2) Scorpion is compensated for ECM nerf by getting more Turrets, more Grid and a Hybrid Optimal Range Bonus. If ECM is mostly useless, let it be a secondary Sniper after the Rokh. Less Hitpoints but ECM as Tank.
3) Nerf it like stated. This will make Scorpion useless for fleets and anything else.
|
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2009.04.12 20:23:00 -
[457]
The main issue imo is its impossible to balance the ecm ships for fleet warfare as well as skirmish warfare.
So the question is, is it acceptable that ecm is powerful in skirmishes, or is it acceptable it is worthless in fleet fights?
Difficult question balance-wise, but maybe the answer lies in the first 'M'of MMO...
|
Spartan dax
|
Posted - 2009.04.12 22:41:00 -
[458]
Originally by: Perry
Soon the chance to Jam even a Zealot with meager 13 Sensor Strength will be less then 30% in Falloff. Thats a joke.
That's not how fallof works. It would be better if the ECM modules strength dropped as it went further into falloff but it doesn't work like that. If you have 6 ECM's only 3 will typically work while in one falloff and they will do so at full strength.
So while in falloff you will be dually Chancebased. This is fubared for a number of reasons, racial jammers being one. A much better alternative would be to just lower the strength the further out you get, as per my suggestion a few posts up, to make sure you always get to do that diceroll vs sensorstrength.
And there's nothing to stop us from having a Strength SDA's as well that Lowers optimal so that ECM ships by default don't have high sensorstrength within Disruptor range.
This whole falloff business is just a sham and poor gamedesign.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.04.13 10:13:00 -
[459]
Originally by: Spartan dax That's not how fallof works. It would be better if the ECM modules strength dropped as it went further into falloff but it doesn't work like that. If you have 6 ECM's only 3 will typically work while in one falloff and they will do so at full strength.
Heh. And what, exactly would the difference be? (Hint: none.)
|
Sangre Elle
Amarr Ministry of War
|
Posted - 2009.04.13 12:12:00 -
[460]
Originally by: Antioch Red Give all the ew comparable ranges and then you begin to achieve balance.
This.
Regards,
Falcon Pilot. Who needs a sig? |
|
Spartan dax
|
Posted - 2009.04.13 12:16:00 -
[461]
Originally by: Gypsio III
Originally by: Spartan dax That's not how fallof works. It would be better if the ECM modules strength dropped as it went further into falloff but it doesn't work like that. If you have 6 ECM's only 3 will typically work while in one falloff and they will do so at full strength.
Heh. And what, exactly would the difference be? (Hint: none.)
Gypsio you surprise me. OFC there would be a difference with a strength reduction falloff instead of module reduction. Different jamming priorities for starters, more support less BS. The support would have better chances of not getting jammed etc etc.
Your supposition holds true if we assume Scorps will continue with their current behavior of jamming BS's though. But that's an assumption I'm not willing to make or concede to.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.04.13 12:29:00 -
[462]
Originally by: Spartan dax Gypsio you surprise me. OFC there would be a difference with a strength reduction falloff instead of module reduction. Different jamming priorities for starters, more support less BS. The support would have better chances of not getting jammed etc etc.
Your supposition holds true if we assume Scorps will continue with their current behavior of jamming BS's though. But that's an assumption I'm not willing to make or concede to.
Hmmm. Maybe I misunderstood you? I was saying that there's no difference in the to-jam chance between ECM that, in falloff, has a ōto-hitö chance (as currently is the case) and ECM that always hits in falloff, but with appropriately reduced jam strength.
E.g. Attempting to jam a SS 20 target with a Strength 8 jammer at one-falloff range. Currently, we get a 50% ōto-hitö roll, followed by the 40% ōto-jamö roll, giving a 20% jam chance. If we altered mechanics such that ECM always ōhitö in falloff, but with a reduced strength, then weĘd get a 100% ōto-hitö chance, but jammer strength would have been halved to 4, giving a 20% ōto-jamö chance ū the same as under current mechanics.
But I may have misread your post and now am blathering on about something completely irrelevant.
|
Spartan dax
|
Posted - 2009.04.13 12:46:00 -
[463]
No you understood that part perfectly. I'm just saying that it would create a different behaviour in jamming priorities to keep the successrate high on the ECM modules. IE instead of choosing a SS 20 ship you'd go after a SS 13 ship. Would make life easier for friendly support I'd wager when they drop into the hostile blob.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.04.13 15:55:00 -
[464]
Well, maybe I'm being thick, but I'm still not seeing the difference between a 50% to-hit module chance, and a 100% to-hit chance with halved jam strength.
|
Quesa
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.04.13 19:02:00 -
[465]
Edited by: Quesa on 13/04/2009 19:02:36 Try keeping the jamming str static throughout the falloff and reduce the time that you are jammed by ever increasing amounts as the ECM pilot increases his distance past optimal. All the while the cycle time remains the same.
This will force ECM pilots to stay within the danger zone and try to get a full jam, or fly at invuln ranges but less effective at removing a targets ability to fight back.
Along with these changes you need to:
Completely revamp or buff ECCM modules. Give them a static sensor strength boost increase of say, 30.
Move the Scorpion to a Fleet Sniper ship with optimal bonuses so that at BS lvl4 and ECM skills at lvl4 you can achieve a 160-180 optimal. Give 4 turret slots and a bonus to range comparable to the Rokh.
Off the wall suggestion: Give Falcon Multispec bonuses only, thus forcing them into the danger zone and removing them as a Fleet ECM ship. Couple this with a reduction of jam time when in falloff while maintaining the cycle time, it could mean more interesting fights and require Falcons to buffer/tank up.
Another off the wall suggestion: Keep the ECM cycle time the same but reduce the time a target can be jammed. 20 second cycle time -> 10-15 second jam time.
|
5pinDizzy
|
Posted - 2009.04.13 20:02:00 -
[466]
After reading this whole thread I've been put in the mood to just delete all the ewar bonused caldari ships from the game.
If there was any real balance in the game then the called primaries wouldnt be the same old shiptypes in every single fight.
if you disagree with me then you should probably post a response and stop reading my signature. |
Robert Caldera
|
Posted - 2009.04.13 21:31:00 -
[467]
Originally by: 5pinDizzy After reading this whole thread I've been put in the mood to just delete all the ewar bonused caldari ships from the game.
If there was any real balance in the game then the called primaries wouldnt be the same old shiptypes in every single fight.
I translate: make the ships all the same finally, the way it does not matter anymore what you declare primary to get rid of all that annoying stuff called "strategy".
|
Fish Mittens
Minmatar 0utbreak
|
Posted - 2009.04.14 02:04:00 -
[468]
Originally by: Quesa Edited by: Quesa on 13/04/2009 19:02:36 Try keeping the jamming str static throughout the falloff and reduce the time that you are jammed by ever increasing amounts as the ECM pilot increases his distance past optimal. All the while the cycle time remains the same.
This will force ECM pilots to stay within the danger zone and try to get a full jam, or fly at invuln ranges but less effective at removing a targets ability to fight back.
Along with these changes you need to:
Completely revamp or buff ECCM modules. Give them a static sensor strength boost increase of say, 30.
Move the Scorpion to a Fleet Sniper ship with optimal bonuses so that at BS lvl4 and ECM skills at lvl4 you can achieve a 160-180 optimal. Give 4 turret slots and a bonus to range comparable to the Rokh.
Off the wall suggestion: Give Falcon Multispec bonuses only, thus forcing them into the danger zone and removing them as a Fleet ECM ship. Couple this with a reduction of jam time when in falloff while maintaining the cycle time, it could mean more interesting fights and require Falcons to buffer/tank up.
Another off the wall suggestion: Keep the ECM cycle time the same but reduce the time a target can be jammed. 20 second cycle time -> 10-15 second jam time.
These are all fantastic suggestions, especially for ECCM, I love the idea of a flat bonus ECCM mod, but it should not replace the existing % based mods, it should be in addition to them.
Also we should have rigs for ECCM.
|
nomore lies
|
Posted - 2009.04.14 02:10:00 -
[469]
When I have read first time this post I was **** off like hell , many my eve friends told me that I am exaggerating but now even they realize that this game is dieing . There is no problem in ECM , the problem is that electronic warfare is weaker than should be . After this nerf from what I can see in 0.0 will came another big problem , there will be nothing to counter snipers so soon I smell in sniper nerfing ( there is no anymore speed dps , and now long range ecm will be past tense ). For smaller fight also dont c future in ecm since ecm ship will be need in drone range and even if they get some cycle drones will still hit ecm ship . Few of you told ah nice ccp is making now that ecm ships must start using tanks , dont c a point on having a tank on ship that is not made for making dmg . We all know that caldari can not fight solo , but they are gods in supporting , now they will start suck even in that . We are not killing here only tactics , ships & ecm but we are killing a race There will always be someone complaining about something , and never we be possible that all are happy , but why not ask to all players ( making one special petition ; 1 vote per character ) to see what they are thinkg about all that ?
|
Edghariuss I
|
Posted - 2009.04.14 02:16:00 -
[470]
There are few nice proposal , making others force recons stronger , boosting ECCM , improving more el. warfare ect . And all sounds better to me than nerfing ECM . My 2 c .
|
|
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2009.04.14 03:09:00 -
[471]
Edited by: Omara Otawan on 14/04/2009 03:09:33
Originally by: Fish Mittens
Also we should have rigs for ECCM.
Thats a nice idea in itself, though it wouldnt help.
The only thing that would happen is people going all "waaah I shouldnt need to drop a trimark rig just to counter ewar".
Sad but true.
|
Quesa
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.04.14 03:10:00 -
[472]
Originally by: Fish Mittens
Originally by: Quesa Edited by: Quesa on 13/04/2009 19:02:36 Try keeping the jamming str static throughout the falloff and reduce the time that you are jammed by ever increasing amounts as the ECM pilot increases his distance past optimal. All the while the cycle time remains the same.
This will force ECM pilots to stay within the danger zone and try to get a full jam, or fly at invuln ranges but less effective at removing a targets ability to fight back.
Along with these changes you need to:
Completely revamp or buff ECCM modules. Give them a static sensor strength boost increase of say, 30.
Move the Scorpion to a Fleet Sniper ship with optimal bonuses so that at BS lvl4 and ECM skills at lvl4 you can achieve a 160-180 optimal. Give 4 turret slots and a bonus to range comparable to the Rokh.
Off the wall suggestion: Give Falcon Multispec bonuses only, thus forcing them into the danger zone and removing them as a Fleet ECM ship. Couple this with a reduction of jam time when in falloff while maintaining the cycle time, it could mean more interesting fights and require Falcons to buffer/tank up.
Another off the wall suggestion: Keep the ECM cycle time the same but reduce the time a target can be jammed. 20 second cycle time -> 10-15 second jam time.
These are all fantastic suggestions, especially for ECCM, I love the idea of a flat bonus ECCM mod, but it should not replace the existing % based mods, it should be in addition to them.
Also we should have rigs for ECCM.
I just didn't want any ship to become that "impossible" ship to jam. Carriers run around with a (~70?) sensor str, which with 1 ECCM would put it at 100 sensor str. The number would obviously have to be played with, and I'd even be for increasing that number (considering it's a modules SPECIFICALLY designed to deal with ECM effects). Right now it's a really bad module on anything lower than a Battleship.
Instead of adding a % modifier to the static value, maybe they should keep a static value and add a % reduction to the duration of the jam.
|
Nicole Sheridan
|
Posted - 2009.04.14 03:17:00 -
[473]
I dont understand why ECM is at 40km, every thing else in EVE is less than 25km (Noz, Scrambler, Web etc..) -Make ECM a short range jammer like the other modules. -At least the other modules you have a counter balance, but ECM doesnt. Once you are jammed, you are done. -The core basic of eve are ship, guns/missiles, armor, shield and energy. When did we become WoW's Spellcaster and WoW's AOE on ships. ECM destroyed the core foundation of EVE.
Dev team, stick w/ the basic, ships vs ships... it works since 2003. We don't want to play WoW's spellcasting.
|
Quesa
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.04.14 03:24:00 -
[474]
Originally by: Nicole Sheridan I dont understand why ECM is at 40km, every thing else in EVE is less than 25km (Noz, Scrambler, Web etc..) -Make ECM a short range jammer like the other modules. -At least the other modules you have a counter balance, but ECM doesnt. Once you are jammed, you are done. -The core basic of eve are ship, guns/missiles, armor, shield and energy. When did we become WoW's Spellcaster and WoW's AOE on ships. ECM destroyed the core foundation of EVE.
Dev team, stick w/ the basic, ships vs ships... it works since 2003. We don't want to play WoW's spellcasting.
Your speaking of the secondary ewar of the other recons and the lowest range-highest utility ewar for the Arazu/Lach (scram). Comparing ECM to those doesn't make sense and is viewed as a poor attempt to slant an argument.
All other recons have some other/secondary ewar capability, Caldari recons do not. So the strength of that single ewar has to reflect that.
|
Sol Halcon
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.04.14 06:13:00 -
[475]
Edited by: Sol Halcon on 14/04/2009 06:13:48
Originally by: nomore lies Edited by: nomore lies on 14/04/2009 02:39:31 When I have read first time this post I was **** off like hell , many my eve friends told me that I am exaggerating but now even they realize that this game is dieing . There is no problem in ECM , the problem is that electronic warfare is weaker than should be . After this nerf from what I can see in 0.0 will came another big problem , there will be nothing to counter snipers so soon I smell in sniper nerfing ( there is no anymore speed dps , and now long range ecm will be past tense ). For smaller fight also dont c future in ecm since ecm ship will be need in drone range and even if they get some cycle drones will still hit ecm ship . Few of you told ah nice ccp is making now that ecm ships must start using tanks , dont c a point on having a tank on ship that is not made for making dmg . We all know that caldari can not fight solo , but they are gods in supporting , now they will start suck even in that . We are not killing here only tactics , ships & ecm but we are killing a race There will always be someone complaining about something , and never we be possible that all are happy , but why not ask to all players ( making one special petition ; 1 vote per account ) to see what they are thinkg about all that ?
QFE Does CCP even remember the stealth bomber boost? Remember when Caldari was the only one with 3 launchers? The solution was to boost the other bombers to 3 launchers, and problem solved. No one had any more complaints, at least not viable ones anyway. So give the other EWAR ships a bit of a boost. Give the Arazu the ability to counter the Falcon. It should be able to but it's range is so bad it can't counter another Arazu. Same for the Pilgrim and Curse.
Then there is this business of putting on a tank and rifles on a Falcon (a 100 Mil ISK ship) and take it into the blob. Well, after testing this, we find that you last a whole 5 seconds instead of the 2 you last without it, and all the slots for ECM are now used in tank so there is no ECM on it anyway. You're better off in a cheap Moa. At least you will last a bit longer and maybe get in on a kill mail. Also when you do die, you won't be out a 100 mil. You can dress up a Honda to look like a Harley all you want, in the end it's still a Honda.
Here's the real kicker. In their mad rush to nerf the Falcon and Rook, they made the Blackbird the most powerful ECM ship in the game. A ship anyone can get after less than a week in the game. That's a sure sign of just wanton nerfing, to please a few "we want a win button" types, without a single look at the rest of the game as a whole.
Welcome to "Tank and DPS Online"
|
ollobrains
Caldari State Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.04.14 06:41:00 -
[476]
with the changes how will this affect combat against sleepers
|
Lornnar
|
Posted - 2009.04.14 07:29:00 -
[477]
Edited by: Lornnar on 14/04/2009 07:34:12 give it up^^ the reason is not to *fix* anything but to destroy the ECM to please the most crying *tank and dps* dumb faction (that will find asap a other thing to cry).
There were much solutions of the Problems here but you see nothing of it implemented at Sisi....everyone can live with 100-120km optimal and max 150km range (with falloff), it will hit falcon alts but allow the Falcon to stay usefull (anyway in range of sniper¦s and other) but no. Arazu with adjusted dampener range would be a dream anti falcon ship but *tank and dps* dont fly arazu too.
At other side those idiots (really you cannot say it in other way) rebuild the falcon to the strongest gank ship for pirates..as its now look for a ship not bigger as bc (at best with no/few drohnes) put electron rails, 2 light t2 drohnes, cover ops cloak and some jammer + scrambler/mwd...jump and fly until 2 km out of you traget, entcloak,jamm and kill^^ from fleet ecm recon to solo gank boot..this is the brainpower of the devloper^^
anyway, age of sniper ships is coming (as the last counter to them except other sniper ships will now be destroyed).
and the best one thing is...the solo and small gangs will be hurt by the *new* falcon much more as today...you can still jamm a solo player to death from 70km or 2-3 as you oversee very good what happens, drones etc and have now more ecm strengh^^
But in Fleetfights with hundred¦s or more ships and drohnes/fighters you will be instant dead (alone to lag and drohne/fighter aggro). So ecm will go stronger in solo/small gang (that has whines about Falcon) and useless in big fights (where no one has complain about it)....brainpower of devloper^^
sorry for all english mistakes
|
Suitonia
Gallente interimo Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.04.14 08:28:00 -
[478]
These sound like very reasonable changes. I'd like to thank you for constantly updating the orginal post and adapting your suggested ideas with the feedback you have recieved.
|
Theron Gyrow
Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.04.14 11:07:00 -
[479]
Originally by: Gypsio III Well, maybe I'm being thick, but I'm still not seeing the difference between a 50% to-hit module chance, and a 100% to-hit chance with halved jam strength.
Well, if you have 12 jam strength and are far enough in falloff that your to-hit chance is 75%, you have 25% chance to fail jamming a <=9 sensor strength ship instead of always permajamming it. But yeah, other than permajams turning to non-permajams, there is no difference. -- Gradient forum |
Sky Marshal
IMpAct Corp Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2009.04.14 11:43:00 -
[480]
Edited by: Sky Marshal on 14/04/2009 11:44:45
Originally by: nomore lies Edited by: nomore lies on 14/04/2009 02:39:31After this nerf from what I can see in 0.0 will came another big problem , there will be nothing to counter snipers so soon I smell in sniper nerfing
This would be Logistics before anything else IMO. A good amount of Logistics in a fleet, who will remote themselves and their teammates, are really hard to destroy but can be stopped with ECM. After the nerf, it won't anymore. The winner on a fight will be the one who have 8+ Logistics.
You are right, CCP don't realize than nerf something always generates an unintended consequence, an other problem... They created the Speed Nerf, who required to over-nerf missiles, and as speed was low, it was difficult to counter Falcons (I planned to pilot one, as missiles are now sucky), so nerf Falcon, who will... Nerf are necessary, sometimes, but Boost would generate LESS problems.
Anyway, there is no more Chronopolis in this thread.
|
|
5pinDizzy
|
Posted - 2009.04.14 13:02:00 -
[481]
Edited by: 5pinDizzy on 14/04/2009 13:01:52
Originally by: Robert Caldera
Originally by: 5pinDizzy After reading this whole thread I've been put in the mood to just delete all the ewar bonused caldari ships from the game.
If there was any real balance in the game then the called primaries wouldnt be the same old shiptypes in every single fight.
I translate: make the ships all the same finally, the way it does not matter anymore what you declare primary to get rid of all that annoying stuff called "strategy".
That thing you're calling strategy is a list of ships predeterminately written out first to last to take out in order before a fleet or it's makeup is ever seen, because the list is always the same when capital ships aren't involved.
That thing that is incredibly biased to what race you picked at the start of the game.
if you disagree with me then you should probably post a response and stop reading my signature. |
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2009.04.14 13:33:00 -
[482]
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.
|
|
Robert Caldera
|
Posted - 2009.04.14 13:40:00 -
[483]
please increase them for the falcon as well.
|
Zamolxiss
Amarr ROMANIA Renegades Legiunea ROmana
|
Posted - 2009.04.14 13:48:00 -
[484]
Originally by: Robert Caldera please increase them for the falcon as well.
Dude.. not again ffs.. stop this *****ing allready, tbh the amount of whining in this thread is disgusting.. pointless whining that is.. No range boost for Falcon please, it has more than enough allready.
|
Robert Caldera
|
Posted - 2009.04.14 14:40:00 -
[485]
100km with all skills to V dude! Way too close.
|
Zamolxiss
Amarr ROMANIA Renegades Legiunea ROmana
|
Posted - 2009.04.14 15:10:00 -
[486]
Edited by: Zamolxiss on 14/04/2009 15:11:33
Originally by: Robert Caldera 100km with all skills to V dude! Way too close.
No dude, it should be well below 100k concindering the CovOps cloak.. the >100k range should be the realm of the Rook.. Infact, this whole thread is pointless to some extent, noone ever bothered to state the Role of each ship in particular, the diferences betwin Combat and Force Recons and the reason behind them..
I belive that Combat Recon ships should be the true Ewar support, with powerfull EWAR effects at 100K ranges, and somehow effective combat abilities..
On the other hand the CovOps versions, namely the Force Recons should not have EWAR effects as powerfull as Combat Recons, and very limmited range.. they should have enough EWAR and Gank to defend themselfs from tacklers and the likes and give some EWAR support to the gangs they bring in threw the CovOps Cyno, they're best suited for reconnaissance duty and infiltration tactics given the CovOps Cloak & Cyno and the ability to bring in entire gangs of more potent combat ships, effectively 'under the radar'
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.04.14 15:41:00 -
[487]
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.
Nice one. This should ensure that it's more sensible to fit ECM on a Fleet Scorp, rather than RSD.
Although I can't help but think that maybe RSD should be the ewar to use at fleet ranges, with ECM for use at closer ranges. That would push the Scorp into the brawler role initially discussed...
|
Lornnar
|
Posted - 2009.04.14 17:24:00 -
[488]
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.
Give the Falcon a Optimal of 100-110 km and some 40-50 falloff, it will hit the falcon alts that fight from bookmarks (and nobody want to have them around) but, especially in bigger Fleetfights the Falcon needs those Range..its still in range of the most sniper and some other counters but at 50-60km (as now) you dead in fleetfights...you will have drone-aggro very quickly, take some lag (as common in bigger fights) and you dead bevore you can ever see what hits you.
More Range for Falcon and lower ECM Strengh Bonus....exactly other for Rook...short Range but more strengh and bigger tank.
|
Robert Caldera
|
Posted - 2009.04.14 17:39:00 -
[489]
130-140km would be fine, 100 is too much of a nerf!! The falcon needs its range.
|
Zamolxiss
Amarr ROMANIA Renegades Legiunea ROmana
|
Posted - 2009.04.14 18:24:00 -
[490]
Edited by: Zamolxiss on 14/04/2009 18:25:40
Originally by: Lornnar
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.
Give the Falcon a Optimal of 100-110 km and some 40-50 falloff, it will hit the falcon alts that fight from bookmarks (and nobody want to have them around) but, especially in bigger Fleetfights the Falcon needs those Range..its still in range of the most sniper and some other counters but at 50-60km (as now) you dead in fleetfights...you will have drone-aggro very quickly, take some lag (as common in bigger fights) and you dead bevore you can ever see what hits you.
More Range for Falcon and lower ECM Strengh Bonus....exactly other for Rook...short Range but more strengh and bigger tank.
What are you doing in a fleet engagement in a Flacon dude!? for that you take the Rook or the Scorp.. cause tbh, why do you need a CovOps Cloak if you want to commit to the fight!? if you want the CovOps Cloak you should sacrifice something for it, and range is the best choice.. Keep it constructive if you insist on posting.. crying for overpowered ships/bonuses isn't that tbh..
|
|
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar OVERLOAD. Dead Terrorists
|
Posted - 2009.04.14 19:41:00 -
[491]
Originally by: Robert Caldera 130-140km would be fine, 100 is too much of a nerf!! The falcon needs its range.
Speaking for the perma-flashy population, either make it 170km+ so we can use them as well, or make it nice and close so we can actually get rid of them easy.
|
Gut Punch
Shade. Penumbra Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.04.14 21:05:00 -
[492]
Edited by: Gut Punch on 14/04/2009 21:05:59 100km range is still to far. Thats still around 50 seconds for cruisers to close and BCs/BSes are even longer!
Falcons max ECM range needs to be 30-60km like every other EW ship. And I don't care about the "secondary" bonus bull - Minmatar Recons never use the TP bonus, RSDs are a waste of time and completely ineffective if you have more than one hostile on the field, and Tracking Disruptors don't work against EVERYONE like ECM.
Lets stop beating around the bush and really bring ECM in line with Webs, Disruptors, and Neuts.
|
Stefan F
Enrave Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2009.04.14 21:07:00 -
[493]
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.
A much needed improvement, now the scorp will become somewhat viable as an armortanking ecm sniper. With a small armor tank in the lows and all rig slots dedicated to range you'll get 150k optimum with all skills maxed (about 120-130k with average skills) and then a nice falloff of about 80-100k. Makes you jam 1 eccm'ed BS (or 2 who decided not to fit one). Even in tanking mode it still only has half the HP of other tanked BS, so taking them out first shouldn't be too much of an issue.
If you forego your tank entirely you'll get to jam 1,25 eccm'ed BS, so indeed the SDA's are made perfectly useless now, as intended :) In its current form it's ok-ish to fly one. Not half as good as a falcon once was, but hey, costs decreased by 50% aswell.
One other, more general issue: lot of people are/where complaining about being taken out of the fight for 20 whole seconds. This will not change with the current changes. Why not make the cycle time of ecm 10s, so this will be less of an issue? The "permajammed" issues are now mostly gone aswell (with a 30% to miss if you stick 3 racial jammers on a non-eccm BS) and it would give the scorpion (ex falcon) pilots more to do in micromanaging, now the cloaking cycles aren't needed any more.
|
Robert Caldera
|
Posted - 2009.04.14 21:08:00 -
[494]
Edited by: Robert Caldera on 14/04/2009 21:12:17 Edited by: Robert Caldera on 14/04/2009 21:08:11
Originally by: Gut Punch Edited by: Gut Punch on 14/04/2009 21:05:59 100km range is still to far. Thats still around 50 seconds for cruisers to close and BCs/BSes are even longer!
Falcons max ECM range needs to be 30-60km like every other EW ship. And I don't care about the "secondary" bonus bull - Minmatar Recons never use the TP bonus, RSDs are a waste of time and completely ineffective if you have more than one hostile on the field, and Tracking Disruptors don't work against EVERYONE like ECM.
Lets stop beating around the bush and really bring ECM in line with Webs, Disruptors, and Neuts.
right, lets make the situation worse than it is right now. Caldari Recon the only useful one? Naaahhhh, no good, nerf it into oblivion similarly like the useless recons other races have plsthx.
|
Salmeria
|
Posted - 2009.04.14 23:18:00 -
[495]
How about this idea. Remove racial jammers and just make multispecs be able to use a script which changes it to a racial jamming type. You can only change a script once every 30 seconds.
No more fitting the wrong jammer anymore. Plus it would fit in with the rest of the types of ECM having to use a script.
|
isdisco3
Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture
|
Posted - 2009.04.14 23:22:00 -
[496]
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.
|
Stefan F
Enrave Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2009.04.15 00:54:00 -
[497]
I think this was the most needed change. Apparantly CCP wants to see the falcon's long range go and there is no amount of whining that can change that. During that process they also killed the scorpion (that has been hit by the overall ECM module nerf already) and now partly restored their error.
For example the scorp fitting i posted with 150k range on sisi, would have 250k range on TQ at this point in time.
I do like the proposal of changing ecm into scripts though, now the long range advantage has gone maybe its time to change that aswell. Would be weird to fit a different king of web (or sensor damp) for differnt kind of ships, wouldn't it?
|
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar OVERLOAD. Dead Terrorists
|
Posted - 2009.04.15 00:59:00 -
[498]
Originally by: Salmeria How about this idea. Remove racial jammers and just make multispecs be able to use a script which changes it to a racial jamming type. You can only change a script once every 30 seconds.
No more fitting the wrong jammer anymore. Plus it would fit in with the rest of the types of ECM having to use a script.
Actually, just remove off-racial strength from racials. That way the range issue is solved, or if you want range you got limited jammers available.
Best part is it doesnt impact fleet warfare in any way.
|
Liang Nuren
No Salvation PuPPet MasTers
|
Posted - 2009.04.15 01:13:00 -
[499]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 15/04/2009 01:15:47
Originally by: Gypsio III Well, maybe I'm being thick, but I'm still not seeing the difference between a 50% to-hit module chance, and a 100% to-hit chance with halved jam strength.
Consider:
Chance to jam = max(J/S, 1) Falloff chance = 0.5 ** ((max(0, range-optimal)) / falloff ** 2) [This may be slightly wrong, it's from memory]
We'll call falloff chance F.
Since they are independent events, you multiply the chances together. P(x) = max(J/S, 1) * F
When J/S >= 1 P(x) = max(J/S, 1) * F = 1 * F = F
When J/S < 1 P(x) = max(J/S, 1) * F = J/S * F = JF/S
(You are correct in your assertion only if J/S < 1)
-Liang
Ed: Added some notation and that the events are independent. -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org |
DiseL
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Associates
|
Posted - 2009.04.15 02:25:00 -
[500]
Logic obviously has went out the window. Why reduce the Falcon drone bay down to 10m3 after starting out giving it 25m3? A close range brawler gets 10m3 while the long range sniper gets 25m3. Do you honestly expect 10m3 to be useful in a close range brawling ship? You guys are seriously out of touch with reality. I started out being optimistic because it appeared you were listening but it is obvious you have no idea what exactly you want these ships to do other than die significantly more often. I predict that the next nerf/change will be the stealth bomber that is getting tweaked in this patch also. Nothing better than ccp nerfing a ship that was last buffed incorrectly(cough, cough, all ecm boats). At least we have ambulation coming, lol!
|
|
Astal Atlar
Caldari Priory Of The Lemon Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.04.15 11:23:00 -
[501]
Well in previous posts i said i understand the changes CCP are about to make.. But why they need to tweak it this way leave falcon 100 -150 with falloff rook down to 100 with falloff and things are still good. People will always whine but why CCP make 1 whole race Caldari non existant in pvp despite 2 ships 3 at most, crow onyx cerberus. Most people whine are low sec residents noob pvpers ect. What i see after changes falcons will deminish the same as rook,why i give 100mil for falcon as i can have my zealot curse sac cerberus for the same amount of money and be usefull with alpha dmg,not being primary the moment i am seen and really helpful for my fleet.
It will go the same with scorps, ravens are no to be seen in major aliances pvp and fleets in most of them ravens are forbiden in fleet,scorps are rare to be seen so they will disapear too being less efective then before.
If ccp are going to chance something let them think: why only apoc tempest mega are used in fleet sniper fleets and ect,people like to have fun they train for ships they like the race they like,but if you want to be in o.o aliance you have to fly certain ship have to train certain skills...
|
AZN Steve
|
Posted - 2009.04.15 12:02:00 -
[502]
so , pirates wont be able to use falcons anymore ? ... that's not really fair , is it ?
|
Fish Mittens
Minmatar 0utbreak
|
Posted - 2009.04.15 14:33:00 -
[503]
Originally by: Robert Caldera please increase them for the falcon as well.
Please Decrease the optimal for the falcon too.
Having the scorp as the long range jammer and the falcon as close range like every other recons would be perfectly balanced.
50k ecm optimal on a falcon with rigs and SDAs please.
|
Robert Caldera
|
Posted - 2009.04.15 14:54:00 -
[504]
other recons are cr*p, save the falcon
|
Zamolxiss
Amarr ROMANIA Renegades Legiunea ROmana
|
Posted - 2009.04.15 15:10:00 -
[505]
I really like most changes that made it to the patch.. what i fail to see is why the Falcon's 25m3 drone bay was converted to a 10m3 and acording bandwidth.. give it another thought Chronotis, to some extent the 10m3 drone bay & bandwidth has absolutely no use, except maybe for taking out other small drones., 25m3 will not give it 'lol' DPS for a Recon but it will give it more options in dealing with Frigs and larger drones.. and there's still time to drop it with the new patch.. C'mon man!
|
Master Hu
Caldari Flight of the Phoenix Dirt Nap Associates
|
Posted - 2009.04.15 18:24:00 -
[506]
Now it is painfully obvious that some of the dev's have never really played this game or intend to listen to logic of any type. A 10m3 drone bay on a brawler Falcon but the sniper has 25m3 drone bay? Come on, what is going on at that office? Do you really think about what is going on or just roll a set of dice and assign random items to ships?
Are you going to lower the other recon's to 10m3 of drone space?
|
Gromik
THE FINAL STAND
|
Posted - 2009.04.15 19:27:00 -
[507]
Originally by: AZN Steve so , pirates wont be able to use falcons anymore ? ... that's not really fair , is it ?
Please explain to me why Falcons should perform any differently than any of the other recons when the pilot has a negative sec status. Please explain to me why a Falcon should perform differently than a Blackbird when the pirate has a negative sec status.
How many Rapiers, Pilgrims, and Arazus do you see in pirate camps without remote rep support? Not many, because the pitiful excuse for a buffer tank the other recons can fit doesn't last long under sentry fire. There is nothing that prevents a Falcon from being supported under sentry fire in the same ways the other recons can be.
Interesting that the changes are going out so soon, it will be interesting to see how the smarter pilots adapt and still take advantage of the Falcon's high jam strength. I'm curious to see if we'll stop seeing gangs that are 30% falcons (10-30 man fleet).
|
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2009.04.15 19:58:00 -
[508]
Originally by: Gromik
Interesting that the changes are going out so soon, it will be interesting to see how the smarter pilots adapt and still take advantage of the Falcon's high jam strength. I'm curious to see if we'll stop seeing gangs that are 30% falcons (10-30 man fleet).
My personal guess is we'll see a ton of gangs that are half falcons (supplemental dps) and the other half tacklers ruining any small gang fight for teh lulz.
Then we'll see a crapton of whinethreads on these exact forums, probably from the same people that made the old whinethreads.
Then it'll get changed again...
|
Htrag
The Carebear Stare
|
Posted - 2009.04.15 22:03:00 -
[509]
While not having 'adapted' to the new changes yet, my impression is that this significant ship role overhaul was not very well thought out. The objectives were unclear from the start and the implementation is questionable.
|
Sol Halcon
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.04.16 09:49:00 -
[510]
Originally by: AZN Steve so , pirates wont be able to use falcons anymore ? ... that's not really fair , is it ?
Actually my friend, in their haste to remove the evil Falcon from the average fleet, they created quite the belt prowler. Think about it, it warps cloaked, therefore can slide around undetected until it finds a victim. Then it can get within 2K decloak, jam, and kill. It's got great jam strength, will easily fit 4 racials, (or multis, your pref) can fit a large shield extender, warp scram, MWD, 3 t-2 electron blasters, 2 SDA's and a mag stab...or visa versa. Ether way, you'll most likely never get caught if you play it right. Get 2 of ya working together, and you can really rule the belts.
Cheers! ~Sol
|
|
Lijhal
FrEE d00M Fighters
|
Posted - 2009.04.16 10:40:00 -
[511]
hello ccp,
give the rook & falcon the same amount of drone bandwith/cargo like the others recons
10m3 drone cargo on a "close-brawler" recon is just laughable!
thanks
|
Robert Caldera
|
Posted - 2009.04.16 12:11:00 -
[512]
Originally by: Sol Halcon
Originally by: AZN Steve so , pirates wont be able to use falcons anymore ? ... that's not really fair , is it ?
Actually my friend, in their haste to remove the evil Falcon from the average fleet, they created quite the belt prowler. Think about it, it warps cloaked, therefore can slide around undetected until it finds a victim. Then it can get within 2K decloak, jam, and kill. It's got great jam strength, will easily fit 4 racials, (or multis, your pref) can fit a large shield extender, warp scram, MWD, 3 t-2 electron blasters, 2 SDA's and a mag stab...or visa versa. Ether way, you'll most likely never get caught if you play it right. Get 2 of ya working together, and you can really rule the belts.
Cheers! ~Sol
wow falcon is literally a gank monster with its 2 HM/HAM launcher + 2 unbonused medium rails doing approx. 130 DPS in total.
|
Sol Halcon
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.04.16 14:35:00 -
[513]
Edited by: Sol Halcon on 16/04/2009 14:35:58
Originally by: Robert Caldera
Originally by: Sol Halcon
Originally by: AZN Steve so , pirates wont be able to use falcons anymore ? ... that's not really fair , is it ?
Actually my friend, in their haste to remove the evil Falcon from the average fleet, they created quite the belt prowler. Think about it, it warps cloaked, therefore can slide around undetected until it finds a victim. Then it can get within 2K decloak, jam, and kill. It's got great jam strength, will easily fit 4 racials, (or multis, your pref) can fit a large shield extender, warp scram, MWD, 3 t-2 electron blasters, 2 SDA's and a mag stab...or visa versa. Ether way, you'll most likely never get caught if you play it right. Get 2 of ya working together, and you can really rule the belts.
Cheers! ~Sol
wow falcon is literally a gank monster with its 2 HM/HAM launcher + 2 unbonused medium rails doing approx. 130 DPS in total.
Just so ya know Robert, they gave it 3 gun slots took back the extra missile, (down to 1 now) and gave a 5% per level damage bonus on the guns. So, 3 t-2 Electron blasters loaded with Void will tend to give anyone a bad day. And, if said pilot has bitten off more than he can chew, jam, cloak, and warp. Two of you out there, and just about any target is in trouble.
mmmkay?
~Sol
|
Gaogan
Gallente Solar Storm Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2009.04.16 16:45:00 -
[514]
Someone explain to me why the falcon, rook, and widow needed a whopping 25% increase to their jam str.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.04.16 17:14:00 -
[515]
Originally by: Gaogan Someone explain to me why the falcon, rook, and widow needed a whopping 25% increase to their jam str.
Brcause the 20% str boost per SDA module is being removed.
|
Gaogan
Gallente Solar Storm Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2009.04.16 18:02:00 -
[516]
Originally by: Murina
Originally by: Gaogan Someone explain to me why the falcon, rook, and widow needed a whopping 25% increase to their jam str.
Brcause the 20% str boost per SDA module is being removed.
It is? I took the patch note to mean they were reducing it some ( maybe to 10 or 15% ) and adding a range bonus.
|
Zeo 68
|
Posted - 2009.04.16 18:22:00 -
[517]
Well, lets have a look the falcon is now very vulnerable to drones and dictors. I can understand the major hit to the range but you then give the falcon a 10m3 drone bay for its defense, I am sorry but thats laughable.
Emphasisng the 30% bonus to jam strength is a poor way to make us think we are getting a boost, the jam strength is on a parr to what it was prior to the patch with mods factored in.
I propose either: 1: Remove the shield hp penalty for the jam rigs 2: Give the falcon a 20m3 drone bay so it can put up a fight (remove turret slot) 3: Give the falcon better fittings to utalise the extra turret slot 4: Give the falcon an extra 10-15km jam range so it wont be as likely to get drone swarmed.
|
isdisco3
Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture
|
Posted - 2009.04.16 20:54:00 -
[518]
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.
|
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.04.16 21:15:00 -
[519]
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. And yea this is my sig. Real PVP'ers only use f1. |
isdisco3
Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture
|
Posted - 2009.04.16 21:39:00 -
[520]
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.
|
|
KissedByDeath
|
Posted - 2009.04.16 21:47:00 -
[521]
So SDA strength has been decreased from 20% to 10% but no ECM strength bonuses added to BlackBird? Oh i know everyone's trying to save the falcon but BB in small gangs work pretty well. Please don't make it into another useless caldari ship and give it better ecm strength bonuses.
And lastly stop making a joke of caldari and give the falcon 25m3 minimum drone space it deserves. all other faction have 40+ m3 drone space
|
ezraniel
Caldari 0ccam's Razor Nexus-Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 08:40:00 -
[522]
Originally by: isdisco3
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.
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.
Originally by: isdisco3
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.
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.
Originally by: isdisco3
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."
It is a terrible change, but not because of what you think.
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.
|
Xira Xarien
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 16:01:00 -
[523]
Ship: Falcon Rigs: 2 ECM optimal range enhancer Low: 3 Signal Distortion Amplifiers Skills: ECM related to level 4
Optimal range before patch: 212 km Optimal range after patch: 69 km
The role of the Falcon is to ECM ships. So the buff / bonus now is to give it Medium Hybrid Guns and Drones?
|
isdisco3
Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 17:09:00 -
[524]
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.
|
Xira Xarien
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 17:13:00 -
[525]
People cannot sit here and actually tell me that a pilgrim should be able to perma-neutralize 2 recons and a hac for 4 minutes, and that doing so is somehow balanced gameplay.
--------
People cannot sit here and actually tell me that an Arazu should be able to perma-sensor damp 2 recons and a hac for 4 minutes, and that doing so is somehow balanced gameplay.
--------
People cannot sit here and actually tell me that a bellicose should be able to perma-target-paint 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 -
[526]
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.
|
lecrotta
Minmatar lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 18:15:00 -
[527]
Originally by: isdisco3
Originally by: Xira Xarien dumb examples
stupid answer
Some of them actually do and they are also 100% gaurenteed to have their effects within their optimal.
|
Gromik
THE FINAL STAND
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 19:52:00 -
[528]
Originally by: lecrotta Some of them actually do and they are also 100% gaurenteed to have their effects within their optimal.
Incorrect. Here's why: A Pilgrim can eventually cap out 3 ships, albeit slowly (one medium neut with max skills and LG talismans is about -40cap/sec. This can be counteracted with a cap booster. Cycle time means that there is at least 5 seconds of cap recharge to activate modules even without a cap booster. Cycle time also allows for a cap booster to provide bursts of capacitor. Even while neuted, the pilot can target, direct drones to attack specific targets, and fire capless weapons at the Pilgrim. Those 3 things cannot be done at all while jammed. Tracking disruptors can be highly effective at certain ranges vs turret ships, but do nothing against drones or missile ships.
An Arazu can reduce a ship to about 20% of its targeting range with damps. The target ship can still target anything below that range, direct drones to specific targets, fire any and all weapons at targets within that range, remote repping gang mates, etc. Those cannot be done while jammed. Maneuvering is still possible vs. and Arazu (though at under 20km MWD-ing may be an issue), whereas maneuvering does nothing for you while jammed.
A Rapier painting a target makes it effectively take more incoming damage, but does nothing to prevent that target from targeting anyone, firing any and all weapons, directing drones, remote repping gangmates, etc. Those things cannot be done while jammed. ECM is a much larger force multiplier than painting, webbing, neuting, and to a lesser extent, tracking disrupting.
Effects may be 100% guaranteed to occur, but the effect is not 100% guaranteed to remove the target from the fight for the duration of the effect. Not even close.
|
lecrotta
Minmatar lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 20:19:00 -
[529]
Originally by: Gromik
Originally by: lecrotta Some of them actually do and they are also 100% gaurenteed to have their effects within their optimal.
Incorrect. Here's why: A Pilgrim can eventually cap out 3 ships, albeit slowly (one medium neut with max skills and LG talismans is about -40cap/sec. This can be counteracted with a cap booster. Cycle time means that there is at least 5 seconds of cap recharge to activate modules even without a cap booster. Cycle time also allows for a cap booster to provide bursts of capacitor. Even while neuted, the pilot can target, direct drones to attack specific targets, and fire capless weapons at the Pilgrim. Those 3 things cannot be done at all while jammed. Tracking disruptors can be highly effective at certain ranges vs turret ships, but do nothing against drones or missile ships.
An Arazu can reduce a ship to about 20% of its targeting range with damps. The target ship can still target anything below that range, direct drones to specific targets, fire any and all weapons at targets within that range, remote repping gang mates, etc. Those cannot be done while jammed. Maneuvering is still possible vs. and Arazu (though at under 20km MWD-ing may be an issue), whereas maneuvering does nothing for you while jammed.
A Rapier painting a target makes it effectively take more incoming damage, but does nothing to prevent that target from targeting anyone, firing any and all weapons, directing drones, remote repping gangmates, etc. Those things cannot be done while jammed. ECM is a much larger force multiplier than painting, webbing, neuting, and to a lesser extent, tracking disrupting.
Effects may be 100% guaranteed to occur, but the effect is not 100% guaranteed to remove the target from the fight for the duration of the effect. Not even close.
We are all well aware of the effects and limitations of all the varios ewar systems including ECM, this does not change the fact that the other recons should have a range and effect buff to certain systems instead of the falcon ect getting a range nerf.
Along with giving ECCM a secondary useful effect.
|
Sekundar Burnes
Woopatang Primary.
|
Posted - 2009.04.17 21:32:00 -
[530]
Once again I'd like to say that the biggest issue of ECM is it's binary nature. You are either jammed for 20 seconds, or you aren't.
Some jams should be for 5 seconds, some for 30, depending on signal strength and luck. This would make an ECCM mod almost always useful and would bring ECM in line with other weapons systems.
|
|
KaiH
Club Bear Turbo.
|
Posted - 2009.04.18 01:42:00 -
[531]
Edited by: KaiH on 18/04/2009 01:42:23
Originally by: Cletus Graeme Edited by: Cletus Graeme on 10/04/2009 18:10:03
Originally by: Omara Otawan As it stands, the current strength of a single racial on TQ is enough to permanently jam any HAC without ECCM fitted (even a blackbird does that pretty well actually).
This is a misrepresentation of the facts.
HACs have the following sensor strengths: Cerb (16), Eagle (18), Ishtar (16), Deimos (15), Zealot (13) Sac (15), Vaga(14) , Muninn (13)
The maximum possible jam strength of a racial ECM fitted on a Falcon/Rook with 3 SDAs, T2 jam strength rigs and used by a pilot with maxed ECM skills is approx 15. So only a max skilled ECM pilot can permajam a HAC.
Also Recons, BC and BS all have higher sensor strengths than HACs so they're less likely to be permajammed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why am I bothering with all this? Let me first say that I think the current proposed changes are well thought out and look promising. However, as many people have already mentioned they don't address the main issue with ECM.
I don't think that ECM jam strength is the problem. I also don't agree with CCP that ECM jam range is the problem.
The problem is that jammers can be stacked onto the same target without penalty.
Allow me to explain.
When using ECM you must make a choice.
You can either
(1) spread your jammers over several targets and try to jam them each for only a few cycles
or
(2) concentrate them on one or two targets in the hope of permajamming them
ECM is fine in long range fleet fights.
Tactic (1) is more commonly used in fleet fights because there are large numbers on both sides so targets die fast and ECM ships are quickly primaried so you rarely get a chance to permajam anyone.
Indeed, even if (2) succeeds it still doesn't imbalance the fight since you've used your ship to take out another ship (or at most two). While this is annoying for the pilots whom you've permajammed it can be considered a fair trade as they still have the option to warp out and if/when they return your attention will hopefully be elsewhere.
ECM is overpowered in close range small gang fights
In such fights pilots can still choose between either (1) or (2), but usually opt for (2).
This is because each ship in a small gang is vital to the success of the fight. so being able to disable one or two of them for the duration of the engagement gives one side a huge advantage. Additionally, these fights usually occur at close range so the jammed targets may also be tackled and thus unable to warp out.
The Falcon compounds the above imbalance because it can also (A) jam from far away (B) cloak.
(A) means that in a close range fight it remains safely at distance, effectively untouchable. (B) means that it can choose if/when to join the fight while remaining completely invulnerable until it does so.
ECM as a whole isn't broken and neither are most of the ECM ships. However, certain ships such as the Falcon become overpowered in certain pvp situations. Any changes should aim to re-balance them in these special circumstances without nerfing their abilities overall.
The crux of the problem is that it's currently worth using mulitiple jammers (see above) to attempt to permajam a target.
However, if jammers were stacking penalised then it would only be worth placing one or two (or at most 3) on a single target and permajamming would decrease significantly. The addition of a stacking penalty wouldn't affect tactic (1) above. It only affects (2) which is the cause of the current ECM problems.
This, this is how you post
This is a fantastic idea, and I support it fully. Small gang pvp is suffering quite severely right now, and solo is on the edge of extinction. Something like this might just even things out abit.
|
DiseL
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Associates
|
Posted - 2009.04.18 01:46:00 -
[532]
Originally by: isdisco3 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.
This is just hilarious. So the ship has the exact same jam strength as before but optimal was reduced around 65%. So you come in here with your high tech testing session where 3 ships were perma jammed in one whole engagement and proclaim it was a buff! You should be the CCP official tester because no one tests as thorough as you.
|
Quesa
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.04.18 05:12:00 -
[533]
Originally by: DiseL
Originally by: isdisco3 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.
This is just hilarious. So the ship has the exact same jam strength as before but optimal was reduced around 65%. So you come in here with your high tech testing session where 3 ships were perma jammed in one whole engagement and proclaim it was a buff! You should be the CCP official tester because no one tests as thorough as you.
The overall problem with ECM wasn't the range. It was the strength of the ECM and the complete uselessness of the module specifically designed to protect against jamming.
The only thing this change does is oust Falcons as fleet EWAR and completely neutered the Scorpion.
|
xHomicide
Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.04.18 11:15:00 -
[534]
This game is ****ing horrible. --- Razor CEI
|
KaiH
Club Bear Turbo.
|
Posted - 2009.04.18 19:51:00 -
[535]
Originally by: DiseL
Originally by: isdisco3 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.
This is just hilarious. So the ship has the exact same jam strength as before but optimal was reduced around 65%. So you come in here with your high tech testing session where 3 ships were perma jammed in one whole engagement and proclaim it was a buff! You should be the CCP official tester because no one tests as thorough as you.
You dont seem very bright so I'll spell it out for you. He's saying that the changes seem to be yet another nail in the coffin for small gang warfare. (Which would be in line with my own experiences post patch, after 4 different engagements)
If you have more than cheap sarcasm to offer, such as an actual counter-argument, im sure most people here are all ears - but if not, maybe it would be best if you stopped posting. Completely.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.04.18 20:00:00 -
[536]
Originally by: KaiH
Originally by: DiseL
Originally by: isdisco3 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.
This is just hilarious. So the ship has the exact same jam strength as before but optimal was reduced around 65%. So you come in here with your high tech testing session where 3 ships were perma jammed in one whole engagement and proclaim it was a buff! You should be the CCP official tester because no one tests as thorough as you.
You dont seem very bright so I'll spell it out for you. He's saying that the changes seem to be yet another nail in the coffin for small gang warfare. (Which would be in line with my own experiences post patch, after 4 different engagements)
If you have more than cheap sarcasm to offer, such as an actual counter-argument, im sure most people here are all ears - but if not, maybe it would be best if you stopped posting. Completely.
I suppose it could be considered another nail in the coffin for small gangs that insist on not bringing ANY ewar at all along with them and then cry when others do and beat them....
At the optimal range that falcons now have they are vulnerable to damps and most med range weapon systems.
PS: I think the fella making claims about "perma jamming" is exhagerating the amount of time and the consecutive jams.........As per usual..
|
isdisco3
Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture
|
Posted - 2009.04.18 20:20:00 -
[537]
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.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.04.18 21:04:00 -
[538]
Originally by: 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.
You can easily do the same with a arazu's damps or a pilgrims/curse's TD's as long as your gang has the sense to keep its distance. Admittedly those ships need to be piloted correctly but on the other hand their effects cannot fail within optimal so.....
Quote:
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.
Because the falcon has a magic ability to always lock ships first?.
|
BroTom
|
Posted - 2009.04.19 01:15:00 -
[539]
This long thread demonstrates the problem with history re-writing "adjustments".
Consider that the point of a game is for players develop strategies and use those strategies to play. They invest serious time training up skills and purchasing ships/equipment to follow their plan. Only to discover that, because it's "too good" of a strategy, the rules are abruptly changed.
Mid-game rule changes that don't advance the game are simply not fun.
Moving the game forward could be achieved by slowly giving other ships resistance via new inventions and then measure the results for a while and repeat if needed. It should result with the same net effect without all the drama. (And as a bonus, it works within Universe rules. Arms races advance tech, not somehow magically roll back abilities. If I want magic, I'll play a different MMOG.)
Oh, and just because a majority of players seem OK with this type abrupt rule change that doesn't make it right.
Consider that Eve has already lost players NOT ok with this approach, so naturally the only remaining users are going to be more inclined to not leave when facing such a heavy handed approach. The game (and CCP) is better with more players, not fewer.
Personally, I'm a fairly new player and I'm pretty tired of it already. Don't bother asking for my stuff, it will be going to my corp mates when the time comes.
|
Lornnar
|
Posted - 2009.04.19 06:47:00 -
[540]
as expected (and predict) this patch has killed falcons in big fleet fight¦s (no way with all the lag and at this range) in there nobody has complain about them due to all the ways to counter them and changed not much in small combat where all the whiners were^^ (you hear overall new whine¦s as predict too since the simpletons still to simpele to counter a Falcon in their short range spider tank bs gangs).
Scorps still useless (now for to small ecm strengh and too small range in big fleet fights....full in range in sniperfleets and still no tank availiable to come even to 10 points of ecm strengh. Rook is still as useless as it was in any way compared to Falcon. Only *positive* chanage is that a Falcon is now a capable solo gank boat versus smaller ships^^
really..thanks ccp for this great work and the implement of the (sometimes really good) ideas we have seen here^^ of course nobody of us will atm stop eve due to this stupid changes but if a other mmo scifi game will come (and JGE is not MMO but WoW in Space^^) at last i will reminder those *changes*
anyway i still have much fun to read all the whines,complaining and insults in local from simpletons after fight (in my falcon^^). only sad thing is the, now, useless ecm in big, laggy Fleet fights.
So once again (i speak now only for falcon) overthink it an give Falcon 100km Optimal and 50km falloff, this will allow once again be usefull in bigger fights and still kill all the Falcon alt¦s (that nobody likes but most people have^^).
sorry for english mistakes
|
|
Domina Brutalis
Caldari Perfect Eternal Transports Limited
|
Posted - 2009.04.19 20:31:00 -
[541]
I'm missile skilled but only have 1 launcher slot on the falcon left now... This wasn't mentioned on the Patchnotes and i cant undock it now. My Heavies are skilled to use T2, my Med Rails are not. Not that i ever had used more that 2 weapons besides Cloak and Cyno on a Falcon anyway.
Oh.. and 20 seconds cycle time per ecm module - try to deagress and jump though a gate without getting popped - tyvm. This combined with 4 points less jamming strengh on a Scorpion compared to a Falcon with racial Jammers... (different fittings ofc).. oh well.. still the prayer ship. And i didnt mention the tiny Kitsune in fast frig battles...
|
Jarne
Increasing Success by Lowering Expectations Vanguard.
|
Posted - 2009.04.20 10:49:00 -
[542]
The changes are good for small gang warfare. With signal dist amps you get approx. the same strength as you did before (at least with Recon Ships V). The optimal range is now so low that you see Falcons actually decloaking in a range which makes them vulnerable. Which is a good thing.
The problem wasn't ECM strength, the problem was range and the resulting complete invulnerability of a Falcon with good bookmarks.
Now you can still jam from about 100km, but the effectiveness will be reduced through falloff. It's a choice you have to make, wether to be more effective but close-range or to be safer but less effective.
From some small skirmishes involving a Falcon (on the other side, with us in some T1 ships with medium sensor strength, BCs/Cruisers) I can tell that now it is actually quite fun even if you are jammed. Your drones, if you handle them right, can put a good pressure on the Falcon, you can approach it and make it get out or take a huge risk of being popped. We didn't kill a Falcon in those skirmishes, but it was very close some times.
And there is no being "perma-jammed" if you have a sensor strength of 14 or higher (which many ships have). Also consider that the Falcon pilot won't always have the right racial for you. If you encounter Falcons often, you might now consider to fly in "racial" gangs, which will make you less vulnerable against a racial-fit Falcon. Assumed the Falcon pilot doesn't know your gang composition, in which case he probably will fit a mix of different racials...
As a conclusion, now you don't have to be ****ed about that Falcon jamming you anymore without the remote chance of killing it. Your chances of scaring a Falcon away have vastly increased. And that means at the same time, even if jam strength is the same as before, that it has practically been decreased! Because, a Falcon that is under drone fire and has ships closeby with the chance that a jam cycle on them fails will either have to leave the fight for the moment or die eventually, effectively decreasing the jam cycles it will be able to set on its opponents.
Another thing: You have now the option to fit the ECM strength rigs and get nearly the same jam strength as before but with your low slots finally being useful! - Success=Achievements/Expectations
|
Omu Negru
Caldari Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2009.04.21 11:19:00 -
[543]
...the 10m3 drone bay addition on Falcon is the most stupid thing ever done by CCP EVEr.
What do you think I should do with 2 light drones? defend myself??? kill something???
.... enough said. Im quite vexed.
|
W0wbagger
|
Posted - 2009.04.21 14:07:00 -
[544]
Originally by: Omu Negru
...the 10m3 drone bay addition on Falcon is the most stupid thing ever done by CCP EVEr.
What do you think I should do with 2 light drones? defend myself??? kill something???
.... enough said. Im quite vexed.
2 ECM drones ftw, nothing wrong with a bit of extra jamming! :P
|
5pinDizzy
|
Posted - 2009.04.21 18:00:00 -
[545]
Who says there has to be a point to two added light drones?
The idea was that it was for a pet light drone to sit and watch.
Then they realised it'd be lonely on its own so they made it so you can fit two light drones.
if you disagree with me then you should probably post a response and stop reading my signature. |
xHomicide
Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.04.21 20:53:00 -
[546]
CCP obviously doesn't understand how range works in this game.
Forcing a Falcon to 60km puts them within medium weapon range. There is a BIG difference between 200km range and 60km range. Its kinda like going on spring break in Botswana without any condoms. Medium range weapons are massively overpowered right now (pulse apocs, sniping hacs, etc). You are basically feeding the current FOTM.
The reason Falcons dominate is because everyone is so ****ing slow and doesn't even bother tackling ships more than 150km away. Yes, I blame every problem on the nanonerf because this game is a ****ing joke now.
Also, way to ass **** every Caldari ship. |
Blut'Engel
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 01:39:00 -
[547]
Edited by: Blut''Engel on 22/04/2009 01:43:45 Edited by: Blut''Engel on 22/04/2009 01:40:41 The Falcon and Rook should have an upgraded optimal and falloff range; Along with better jamming strength! Add more Mid slots to the falcon & rook, make it easier to train for a falcon/rook, and make them cheaper! Make the Falcon/Rook have a 90% Resistance to Shield,armor, and Structure for all damage types. That is what can be done to further enhance the falcon. Edit: Why do so many people want to nerf the Falcon and Rook? Why not nerf an Apoc? The Apoc is the cheapest POS ship there is in this game. Make the Apoc only shoot 40km Secondary Edit: CCP, You have now successfully nerfed EVERY SINGLE Caldari ship to shyt. Good job on your part. The last standing ship the Caldari had to offer, You all turned to garbage because of whining little bears and people who like to Pvp without tactics. Way to listen to the whining population.
|
Blut'Engel
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 02:00:00 -
[548]
Edited by: Blut''Engel on 22/04/2009 02:05:27 I still cannot fully understand why everyone has the idea of constantly nerfing ships all of the time. What is starting to happen is that CCP makes all these ships less than worthwhile to pilot - In doing that there comes a need later on to nerf another ship until it utterly sucks; This puts themselves back into a 'nerfing cycle'. Why not boost other ships 'SLIGHTLY' istead of hitting the ships being complained about with the gigantic nerf bat. CCP keeps allowing themselves to be put into a never ending struggle of nerfing because they cater to the needs of these whiners and complainers much too often. There was nothing wrong with the Falcon, the better way to go about this would have been to have these complainers change their tactics instead of crying right off the bat. Anywho... It's just a thought jogging through my mind that I happen to be continuously stumped at. |
xHomicide
Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 07:01:00 -
[549]
Apoc is now the best ECM in the game. Same range as falcon. Same chance to succeed. Cheaper than falcon.
Except when it does succeed, the target explodes.
WOW you guys are horrible at game design. |
Vasili Z
Pyre of Gods
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 07:33:00 -
[550]
Edited by: Vasili Z on 22/04/2009 07:34:39
Originally by: Blut'Engel There was nothing wrong with the Falcon, the better way to go about this would have been to have these complainers change their tactics instead of crying right off the bat.
wow
Originally by: xHomicide Apoc is now the best ECM in the game. Same range as falcon. Same chance to succeed. Cheaper than falcon.
Except when it does succeed, the target explodes.
WOW you guys are horrible at game design.
WAAAAAH WE'RE NOT INVULNERABLE ANYMORE OH MY GAAAAAAAWD |
|
Omu Negru
Caldari Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 08:07:00 -
[551]
Edited by: Omu Negru on 22/04/2009 08:10:49 Edited by: Omu Negru on 22/04/2009 08:08:33
Originally by: W0wbagger
Originally by: Omu Negru
...the 10m3 drone bay addition on Falcon is the most stupid thing ever done by CCP EVEr.
What do you think I should do with 2 light drones? defend myself??? kill something???
.... enough said. Im quite vexed.
2 ECM drones ftw, nothing wrong with a bit of extra jamming! :P
Thats stupid. Did you ever jammed something with 2 light ecm drones? O are you joking ? lol
Of cource now Falcon have others "recons range" like, but the other recons have some tank, speed and dps!
If the stupid designers would make a ballance in this game they should realyze they must give something good in exchange, and not the 10m3 drone bay. Thats dust in the eyes. Not to mention the 3 turret slots.
|
Emah Spina
Phantom Squad Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 08:47:00 -
[552]
Slicing the Falcon's range to 1/3rd and not giving it more strenght is a terrible balance concept.
Unlike other Recon ships. The Falcon got a weak cap and is slow. Giving it no chance to survive.
Jaming strenght or Range needs to be crammed up some. ~20 on Racial Jammers Str or ~100km Range on Racial Jammers |
W0wbagger
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 08:50:00 -
[553]
Originally by: Omu Negru Edited by: Omu Negru on 22/04/2009 08:10:49 Edited by: Omu Negru on 22/04/2009 08:08:33
Originally by: W0wbagger
Originally by: Omu Negru
...the 10m3 drone bay addition on Falcon is the most stupid thing ever done by CCP EVEr.
What do you think I should do with 2 light drones? defend myself??? kill something???
.... enough said. Im quite vexed.
2 ECM drones ftw, nothing wrong with a bit of extra jamming! :P
Thats stupid. Did you ever jammed something with 2 light ecm drones? O are you joking ? lol
well I was half joking but did you miss the "extra" in extra jamming? Obviously I fit ECM too but every little helps and I'd argue it's more worthwhile to gang warfare than the dps from one medium or 2 light combat drones. It's unlikely that 20 dps will make a difference to gang warfare but a single jam can make a big difference. I use my Falcon now as a prober/tackler finding mission runners and people at safes and it works pretty well with 4 jammers and the ECM drones (although who knows how much they actually contribute). |
Blut'Engel
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 12:23:00 -
[554]
Originally by: Vasili Z Edited by: Vasili Z on 22/04/2009 07:34:39
Originally by: Blut'Engel There was nothing wrong with the Falcon, the better way to go about this would have been to have these complainers change their tactics instead of crying right off the bat.
wow
Originally by: xHomicide Apoc is now the best ECM in the game. Same range as falcon. Same chance to succeed. Cheaper than falcon.
Except when it does succeed, the target explodes.
WOW you guys are horrible at game design.
WAAAAAH WE'RE NOT INVULNERABLE ANYMORE OH MY GAAAAAAAWD
Please tell me what you are trying to say when you say 'wow'. Are you one of the few crybabies that cannot deal with a falcon? What do you do when you Pvp?.. that is.. if you Pvp. Do your gangs fly ships of the same race and never even take the time to make your ship have higher sensor strength? Mix up your fleets and you should have no problem. Or are you saying 'wow' because you do not agree with me, but you don't have anything worthwhile to say to prove me wrong? You, I, and everyone else knows damn well that everyone who complained about the falcon were just too lazy to change up 'your brilliant tactics' enough to counter the falcon. |
de4deye
Project Nemesis
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 12:31:00 -
[555]
Edited by: de4deye on 22/04/2009 12:31:40
Originally by: Emah Spina Slicing the Falcon's range to 1/3rd and not giving it more strenght is a terrible balance concept.
Unlike other Recon ships. The Falcon got a weak cap and is slow. Giving it no chance to survive.
Jaming strenght or Range needs to be crammed up some. ~20 on Racial Jammers Str or ~100km Range on Racial Jammers
^ this. If it were up to me, I would have both. Both would be useful because the ship is so weak and is not agile; and also has weak cap, as you said. What is a Falcon worth if a curse were to get ahold of a falcon? How long do you think the jams will last then? Anyways... the patch is just nonsense.
|
de4deye
Project Nemesis
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 12:34:00 -
[556]
Originally by: Vasili Z Edited by: Vasili Z on 22/04/2009 07:34:39
Originally by: Blut'Engel There was nothing wrong with the Falcon, the better way to go about this would have been to have these complainers change their tactics instead of crying right off the bat.
wow
Originally by: xHomicide Apoc is now the best ECM in the game. Same range as falcon. Same chance to succeed. Cheaper than falcon.
Except when it does succeed, the target explodes.
WOW you guys are horrible at game design.
WAAAAAH WE'RE NOT INVULNERABLE ANYMORE OH MY GAAAAAAAWD
It's not 'Invulnerable', it's just using a different ship type than you use. Learn to deal with other ships than just battleships?
|
honey bunchetta
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 16:45:00 -
[557]
Edited by: honey bunchetta on 22/04/2009 16:47:16 Why limit jammers to racial units or crappy str multi spec's?.
Give multi spec's the same stats as racial ecm units and remove racial ecm units from the game.
At least then ecm ships will be able to fit a tank AND have a chance to jam all races of ships that they may face instead of one or the other.
Are webs, nuets, nos, damps, points, TP's ect ect race limited?...even TD's have 3 races to be effective against, so ecm units should be multi racial as well.
|
Quesa
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 21:33:00 -
[558]
Edited by: Quesa on 22/04/2009 21:34:06
Originally by: honey bunchetta Edited by: honey bunchetta on 22/04/2009 16:47:16 Why limit jammers to racial units or crappy str multi spec's?.
Give multi spec's the same stats as racial ecm units and remove racial ecm units from the game.
At least then ecm ships will be able to fit a tank AND have a chance to jam all races of ships that they may face instead of one or the other.
Are webs, nuets, nos, damps, points, TP's ect ect race limited?...even TD's have 3 races to be effective against, so ecm units should be multi racial as well.
The trade off is that Caldari ECM boats have to fit a full rack of ECM for best performance in most situations coupled with the fact that Caldari have 1 ECM effect whereas all other Recons have 2, regardless of the secondary EWAR strength.
|
KissedByDeath
|
Posted - 2009.04.23 01:58:00 -
[559]
this patch was a hidden nerf to scorp/BB/kitsune. way to make a joke of caldari ccp
|
honey bunchetta
|
Posted - 2009.04.23 07:23:00 -
[560]
Originally by: Quesa Edited by: Quesa on 22/04/2009 21:34:06
Originally by: honey bunchetta Edited by: honey bunchetta on 22/04/2009 16:47:16 Why limit jammers to racial units or crappy str multi spec's?.
Give multi spec's the same stats as racial ecm units and remove racial ecm units from the game.
At least then ecm ships will be able to fit a tank AND have a chance to jam all races of ships that they may face instead of one or the other.
Are webs, nuets, nos, damps, points, TP's ect ect race limited?...even TD's have 3 races to be effective against, so ecm units should be multi racial as well.
The trade off is that Caldari ECM boats have to fit a full rack of ECM for best performance in most situations coupled with the fact that Caldari have 1 ECM effect whereas all other Recons have 2, regardless of the secondary EWAR strength.
Thats not a trade off its a double gimp.
All the others have 2 options of ewar to fit as well as those 2 systems each having multi racial effects, caldari are not only limited to 1 system but its best jammers racially limited.
ECM needs to be changed from racial to multi spec.
|
|
Quesa
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.04.23 23:36:00 -
[561]
Edited by: Quesa on 23/04/2009 23:39:26
Originally by: honey bunchetta
Originally by: Quesa Edited by: Quesa on 22/04/2009 21:34:06
Originally by: honey bunchetta Edited by: honey bunchetta on 22/04/2009 16:47:16 Why limit jammers to racial units or crappy str multi spec's?.
Give multi spec's the same stats as racial ecm units and remove racial ecm units from the game.
At least then ecm ships will be able to fit a tank AND have a chance to jam all races of ships that they may face instead of one or the other.
Are webs, nuets, nos, damps, points, TP's ect ect race limited?...even TD's have 3 races to be effective against, so ecm units should be multi racial as well.
The trade off is that Caldari ECM boats have to fit a full rack of ECM for best performance in most situations coupled with the fact that Caldari have 1 ECM effect whereas all other Recons have 2, regardless of the secondary EWAR strength.
Thats not a trade off its a double gimp.
All the others have 2 options of ewar to fit as well as those 2 systems each having multi racial effects, caldari are not only limited to 1 system but its best jammers racially limited.
ECM needs to be changed from racial to multi spec.
It's a trade off, regardless of your opinion of the strengths and weaknesses of such mechanic.
If you choose to fly an ECM ship with a rack of Multi-specs, you do so and remove the stated restrictions. You trade jamming strength for a better chance of jamming any race of ship with any of your Multi-spec ECM modules. If you choose to fit a rainbow-rack of jammers, you can jam much more effectively but it's ship race specific. I don't know a better term to describe that type of situation besides...trade off.
|
xHomicide
Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.04.24 02:57:00 -
[562]
new defined role: worthless piece of **** --- Razor CEI
|
Rordan D'Kherr
Amarr
|
Posted - 2009.04.24 07:58:00 -
[563]
Originally by: KissedByDeath this patch was a hidden nerf to scorp/BB/kitsune. way to make a joke of caldari ccp
Hitting i.e. ECM again and again and again, nerfing missiles - it's a very bad choice to be Caldari. CCP should make a big fat notice in character creation screen: "Warning: Choosing Caldari leads you inevitably into a PvE carreer."
ECM is the only ewar system that works and now Devs are "brainstorming" about it. That looks like the death of a system. Devs seem to have a special preference in removing ewar (look: webs, damps, NOS - TP has ever been weak).
|
Valkorsia
Caldari Battlestars GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.04.24 08:52:00 -
[564]
Originally by: xHomicide CCP obviously doesn't understand how range works in this game.
Forcing a Falcon to 60km puts them within medium weapon range. There is a BIG difference between 200km range and 60km range. Its kinda like going on spring break in Botswana without any condoms. Medium range weapons are massively overpowered right now (pulse apocs, sniping hacs, etc). You are basically feeding the current FOTM.
The reason Falcons dominate is because everyone is so ****ing slow and doesn't even bother tackling ships more than 150km away. Yes, I blame every problem on the nanonerf because this game is a ****ing joke now.
Also, way to ass **** every Caldari ship.
I just wanted to quote this ... Because CCP doesn't get it yet. |
honey bunchetta
|
Posted - 2009.04.24 09:58:00 -
[565]
Originally by: Quesa
It's a trade off, regardless of your opinion of the strengths and weaknesses of such mechanic.
If you choose to fly an ECM ship with a rack of Multi-specs, you do so and remove the stated restrictions. You trade jamming strength for a better chance of jamming any race of ship with any of your Multi-spec ECM modules. If you choose to fit a rainbow-rack of jammers, you can jam much more effectively but it's ship race specific. I don't know a better term to describe that type of situation besides...trade off.
Because your totally ignoring the amount of mids the ship has, the amount of races in eve AND its need to now fit a tank.
If things had remained the same with range ect this issue could be ignored due to range being its tank but now it needs a tank to prevent it being alphad the option to fit one of each racial jammer is no longer their without gimping the fit.
So yea maybe in your limited understanding of the problem and narrow view using those 2 options only its a trade off but in reality its yet another total gimp forcing the falcon to fit 2 or 3 weak multi specs and a tank or 2 or 3 racials and a tank.
With the multi specs it misses jams due to how crap they are and with the racials they cannot fit for all 4 races and have even a barley adequate tank...hence "GIMPED".
Maybe you should try looking past the simple basics.
|
Quesa
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.04.24 16:53:00 -
[566]
Edited by: Quesa on 24/04/2009 16:56:10
Originally by: honey bunchetta
Originally by: Quesa
It's a trade off, regardless of your opinion of the strengths and weaknesses of such mechanic.
If you choose to fly an ECM ship with a rack of Multi-specs, you do so and remove the stated restrictions. You trade jamming strength for a better chance of jamming any race of ship with any of your Multi-spec ECM modules. If you choose to fit a rainbow-rack of jammers, you can jam much more effectively but it's ship race specific. I don't know a better term to describe that type of situation besides...trade off.
Because your totally ignoring the amount of mids the ship has, the amount of races in eve AND its need to now fit a tank.
If things had remained the same with range ect this issue could be ignored due to range being its tank but now it needs a tank to prevent it being alphad the option to fit one of each racial jammer is no longer their without gimping the fit.
So yea maybe in your limited understanding of the problem and narrow view using those 2 options only its a trade off but in reality its yet another total gimp forcing the falcon to fit 2 or 3 weak multi specs and a tank or 2 or 3 racials and a tank.
With the multi specs it misses jams due to how crap they are and with the racials they cannot fit for all 4 races and have even a barley adequate tank...hence "GIMPED".
Maybe you should try looking past the simple basics.
There are plenty of ways to still fly the Falcon, be very effective and survive. If you haven't acquired the piloting skills to fit/fly a Falcon and survive by now, maybe you shouldn't be in one.
I'll give you single tip: Stop flying the Falcon as a fleet ship.
Beyond that, the Falcon does just fine in small gang combat, you just have to be more aware now than before...and you may actually get targeted now and again.
Quote: Maybe you should try looking past the simple basics.
There is nothing simple and basic about piloting a Recon. Piloting paper ships in combat takes more than the normal piloting skills and techniques. Develop some instead of arguing with someone on the forums, especially when I'm defending my trade off comment and you seem to completely missed that in your emo rage.
|
honey bunchetta
|
Posted - 2009.04.24 19:07:00 -
[567]
Originally by: Quesa
There are plenty of ways to still fly the Falcon, be very effective and survive. If you haven't acquired the piloting skills to fit/fly a Falcon and survive by now, maybe you shouldn't be in one.
I'll give you single tip: Stop flying the Falcon as a fleet ship.
Beyond that, the Falcon does just fine in small gang combat, you just have to be more aware now than before...and you may actually get targeted now and again.
Blah blah blah... empty "learn to fly it properly" comments with nothing to back them up are a sure sign that a player has 0 arguments.
Originally by: Quesa There is nothing simple and basic about piloting a Recon. Piloting paper ships in combat takes more than the normal piloting skills and techniques.
Develop some instead of arguing with someone on the forums.
The fact they are paper and the range they operate is the reason they are only really used and effective in very small gank gangs. Piloting skills for a recon mostly involve ganking single ships with a gang of buddies or being aligned and warping away if you come accross a gang of any reasonable size.
Stop acting like there is some secret piloting skill that allows recons to be useful/tankable in even reasonably sized gang v gang combat because they are not and they spend most of the fight warping away or landing and staying just long enough to align out, maybe lock and slap some rather pointless web/damp or TD on a target before they are primaried and get melted or need to warp out again.
The other systems have at least a multi racial AND 100% gaurenteed effect in their optimal while ECM it now stuck with the same crippling range the other recons have but has also a chance based system in optimal as well as being unable to fit 1 of each racial and a even half decent buffer tank.
|
de4deye
Project Nemesis
|
Posted - 2009.04.24 21:02:00 -
[568]
Edited by: de4deye on 24/04/2009 21:03:45 Edited by: de4deye on 24/04/2009 21:02:18
Originally by: Valkorsia
Originally by: xHomicide CCP obviously doesn't understand how range works in this game.
Forcing a Falcon to 60km puts them within medium weapon range. There is a BIG difference between 200km range and 60km range. Its kinda like going on spring break in Botswana without any condoms. Medium range weapons are massively overpowered right now (pulse apocs, sniping hacs, etc). You are basically feeding the current FOTM.
The reason Falcons dominate is because everyone is so ****ing slow and doesn't even bother tackling ships more than 150km away. Yes, I blame every problem on the nanonerf because this game is a ****ing joke now.
Also, way to ass **** every Caldari ship.
I just wanted to quote this ... Because CCP doesn't get it yet.
I don't think its that 'they don't get it'.More or less they can just give 2 shyts and a **** what others think. All CCP did is they saw these complainers crying about how bad the falcon sucks and these douches escalated it into the falcon being gimped to a joke. I blame CCP for being so stupid to just nerf everything all of the time; They act without thought. I'd like to know what the point is of giving the falcon a dronebay and making their missiles reach farther. Seriously.. this is ****ed.
The Falcon's new defined role: "If you train for this ship, You are now a complete stupid piece of ****."
|
Stefan F
Enrave Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2009.04.27 18:38:00 -
[569]
Just further increase its jamming strength (to 40% per level) and move 2 of its midslots into lowslots so it can actually fit a tank. Same goes for Scorp, increase strength to 30% per level (now 15%) and move 2 mid slots to lows.
|
Gaogan
Gallente Solar Storm Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2009.04.27 19:31:00 -
[570]
You guys forgot to buff the jam str bonus on the bb/kitsune/scorpion. It is absurd that a Rook has 43% more jam str than a Scorpion. The bb and scorp need their bonus increased to 20% per level.
|
|
Eigof Tahr
Dirt Nap Squad
|
Posted - 2009.04.27 22:42:00 -
[571]
CCP Chronotis, The last time we heard from you was 4/14/2009 on this topic. The racial bonuses for the force recons are as follows:
Pilgrim: Amarr Cruiser Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Tracking Disruptor effectiveness 10% bonus to drone hit points and damage per level. Recon Ships Skill Bonus: 20% bonus to Energy Vampire and Energy Neutralizer transfer amount -96% to -100% reduction in Cloaking Device CPU use per level
Rapier: Minmatar Cruiser Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire 7.5% bonus to target painter effectiveness per level Recon Ships Skill Bonus: 60% bonus to stasis webifier range -96% to -100% reduction in Cloaking Device CPU use per level
Arazu: Gallente Cruiser Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage 5% bonus to Remote Sensor Dampener effectiveness per level Recon Ships Skill Bonus: 20% bonus to warp disruptor range -96% to -100% reduction in Cloaking Device CPU use per level
Falcon: Caldari Cruiser Skill Bonus: 5% Bonus to Medium Hybrid Damage Per Level 10% Bonus to ECM Target Jammer capacitor use per level Recon Ships Skill Bonus: 30% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per level -96% to -100% reduction in Cloaking Device CPU use per level
Caldari, time and again have been marked and labeled by CCP as range ships (rohk, eagle, cerb (heavies), merlin, moa, raven, etc.) and removing that range bonus without providing an adequate bonus in-line with the other force recon class ships is disappointing. A cap bonus to ecm and hybrid turret dmg bonus are weak compared to the other race bonuses. The Falcon has been nerfed by roughly 70% range, and given a joke bonus. Please re-address this. ------- A rose, by any other name, would be "deadly thorn-bearing assault vegetation." |
Jan'z Kolna
Vale Heavy Industries Molotov Coalition
|
Posted - 2009.04.28 05:38:00 -
[572]
how is hybrid dmg bonus weak compared to projectile ROF bonus? how is ecm cap use weak compared to TP bonus?
other recons need their 3rd bonus to get their extended ewar range , caldari have that range for granted
ecm strength has been boosted
falcon is now in-line with other recons - that means sharing same risks , like drones or mwding HAC
some tank, less jammers - falcon is now more of lock breaker, needs to actually put some effort like other recons
no more easy-mode pvp for falcon alts CETERUM CENSEO CALDARI NERFAM ESSE |
Cyberus
Caldari Final Destination. Scalar Federation
|
Posted - 2009.04.28 17:12:00 -
[573]
My 2 cents.
1) Remove all racial jammers 2) Boost multiespectrals strength and make it 100% chance as other El. warfare ( webs, damps, etc) 3) Add staking penaltys on them. ( so pilots dont fit more as 2.. max 3) to sucessfully count with eccm fitted ships 4) Bring Caladri recon ships combat abilitys ( + scorp will need some change meaby) in line with they brothers from other races. 5) Enjoy the game.
As i said my 2 cents. Go flam now! ===== * Your signature file is broken. Please use one that will display - Fallout |
Astal Atlar
Caldari Priory Of The Lemon Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.04.29 08:56:00 -
[574]
ok, I have to say people arguing again and again same arguments make me yell. But it is true in the moment falcon is trash a 100 mil trash.
Hubrid weapon bonus ok,but dps is so weak even with it,not to mention as force recon in most cases falcon has probe launcher and cyno fited or at least cyno. The close range made it very vulnarable,as i have said several times falcons scorpions are disappearing from fleet ops. Yeah falcon in small gang med size pvp should be able to do something and not die horibly.
But there is no fc in this game that will not call falcon primary the moment it uncloacks honesly. So the weak tank will not hold,yeah the jammers are a bit stronger you can get easier jams but you can miss this jams at the same rate,it is still chance based.
I would love to see the old falcon back or at least 100km optimal. In the moment caldari are only cerberus onyx and flycatcher/- catcher only because it can fit 2 bubles easily/viable for pvp,yeah crow is good ceptor but man he is too expensive why fly crows in fleet when you can get malediction at the half price tackling better and surviving at good rate...
|
xHomicide
Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.04.29 12:56:00 -
[575]
Are you guys ****ing ******ed? 225km to 75km? --- Razor CEI
|
xHomicide
Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.04.29 12:57:00 -
[576]
wow this website is slower than a fat asian --- Razor CEI
|
DANNE0
|
Posted - 2009.04.30 16:03:00 -
[577]
Yet again caldari haters get there way...
I like what happend with missiles, even though it made my pvp life harder at least it will shut up the gun nuts who say we have it easy. I even liked the fact that the over powerd falcon and ecm in general was going to get a nerf, but this nerf just went to far. falcons are useless and ecm in general is weak, making it MUCH less of an option.
The thing i like about eve pvp is that there is so many ships and set ups to choose, so many options. what is ****ing me off and making me question if i should even keep playing the game is that ccp is removing ships and options from the pvp choice list, instead of specialising ships and making eachone worth a place in a squad for different reasons, giving stratagy options there making it tank/dps based. there simply bending to the will of whoever moans loudest on the forums.
ccp need to have a vision of a fair blanced game, giving the player the options to play using the tools they provide. atm they simply follow forum fashion of the day and the game is suffering for it. MORE important then graphics improvements, lag fixing, content advancement is a fair balenced game (ie game play) fix that first, then fix the super boring pos wars issue then start the rest.
just my (rare) opinion (first post for years)
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.04.30 16:50:00 -
[578]
Originally by: DANNE0 Yet again caldari haters get there way...
I like what happend with missiles, even though it made my pvp life harder at least it will shut up the gun nuts who say we have it easy. I even liked the fact that the over powerd falcon and ecm in general was going to get a nerf, but this nerf just went to far. falcons are useless and ecm in general is weak, making it MUCH less of an option.
The thing i like about eve pvp is that there is so many ships and set ups to choose, so many options. what is ****ing me off and making me question if i should even keep playing the game is that ccp is removing ships and options from the pvp choice list, instead of specialising ships and making eachone worth a place in a squad for different reasons, giving stratagy options there making it tank/dps based. there simply bending to the will of whoever moans loudest on the forums.
ccp need to have a vision of a fair blanced game, giving the player the options to play using the tools they provide. atm they simply follow forum fashion of the day and the game is suffering for it. MORE important then graphics improvements, lag fixing, content advancement is a fair balenced game (ie game play) fix that first, then fix the super boring pos wars issue then start the rest.
just my (rare) opinion (first post for years)
Consider this for amusment factor.
If damps, nano, webs and now ECM had not been nerfed the nano could have caught the ECM, the webs could have caught the nano the ECM and damps could have countered each other and defended or removed dmg dealers ect...
Talk about "rock", "paper", "sissors".......but instead we have nerfed "rock", "paper", "sissors" (and a few other things as well) because of short sighted idiots.
|
Audri Fisher
Caldari VentureCorp Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2009.04.30 17:38:00 -
[579]
Originally by: xHomicide Apoc is now the best ECM in the game. Same range as falcon. Same chance to succeed. Cheaper than falcon.
Except when it does succeed, the target explodes.
WOW you guys are horrible at game design.
I want to disagree, but I can't....
|
Karentaki
Gallente Oberon Incorporated Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.04.30 18:00:00 -
[580]
Edited by: Karentaki on 30/04/2009 18:01:37
Originally by: Eigof Tahr CCP Chronotis, The last time we heard from you was 4/14/2009 on this topic. The racial bonuses for the force recons are as follows:
Pilgrim: Amarr Cruiser Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Tracking Disruptor effectiveness 10% bonus to drone hit points and damage per level. Recon Ships Skill Bonus: 20% bonus to Energy Vampire and Energy Neutralizer transfer amount -96% to -100% reduction in Cloaking Device CPU use per level
Rapier: Minmatar Cruiser Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire 7.5% bonus to target painter effectiveness per level Recon Ships Skill Bonus: 60% bonus to stasis webifier range -96% to -100% reduction in Cloaking Device CPU use per level
Arazu: Gallente Cruiser Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage 5% bonus to Remote Sensor Dampener effectiveness per level Recon Ships Skill Bonus: 20% bonus to warp disruptor range -96% to -100% reduction in Cloaking Device CPU use per level
Falcon: Caldari Cruiser Skill Bonus: 5% Bonus to Medium Hybrid Damage Per Level 10% Bonus to ECM Target Jammer capacitor use per level Recon Ships Skill Bonus: 30% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per level -96% to -100% reduction in Cloaking Device CPU use per level
Caldari, time and again have been marked and labeled by CCP as range ships (rohk, eagle, cerb (heavies), merlin, moa, raven, etc.) and removing that range bonus without providing an adequate bonus in-line with the other force recon class ships is disappointing. A cap bonus to ecm and hybrid turret dmg bonus are weak compared to the other race bonuses. The Falcon has been nerfed by roughly 70% range, and given a joke bonus. Please re-address this.
Please note one tiny point
Pilgrim: - primary EW bonus: 5% (TD) - secondary EW bonus: 20% (Neut) - weapon bonus: 10% - Total: 35%
Rapier: - primary EW bonus: 7.5% (TP) - secondary EW bonus: 60% (Web) - weapon bonus: 5% - Total: 72.5%
Arazu: - primary EW bonus: 5% (SD) - secondary EW bonus: 20% (Scram) - weapon bonus: 5% - Total: 30%
Falcon: - primary EW bonus: 30% (ECM) - secondary EW bonus: 10% (ECM) - weapon bonus: 5% - Total: 45%
Now do you see how it works? The falcon gets 2 primary e-war system bonuses (with a total bonus greater than all but one), while the other ships get a 'split e-war system'. OhNoes, the falcon got nerfed to be in line with other ships. Get over it.
Quote:
EVE is like a sandbox with landmines. Deal with it.
|
|
Lone Gunman
Forhotea Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.04.30 18:43:00 -
[581]
Originally by: Karentaki Please note one tiny point
Pilgrim: - primary EW bonus: 5% (TD) - secondary EW bonus: 20% (Neut) - weapon bonus: 10% - Total: 35%
Rapier: - primary EW bonus: 7.5% (TP) - secondary EW bonus: 60% (Web) - weapon bonus: 5% - Total: 72.5%
Arazu: - primary EW bonus: 5% (SD) - secondary EW bonus: 20% (Scram) - weapon bonus: 5% - Total: 30%
Falcon: - primary EW bonus: 30% (ECM) - secondary EW bonus: 10% (ECM) - weapon bonus: 5% - Total: 45%
Now do you see how it works? The falcon gets 2 primary e-war system bonuses (with a total bonus greater than all but one), while the other ships get a 'split e-war system'. OhNoes, the falcon got nerfed to be in line with other ships. Get over it.
So your saying that NOW they are inline? Except for the fact that the Pilgrim, Arazu and Rapier best EW works on any ship and 100% of the time. Whereas the Falcon best EW (Racial ECM) is only effective on specific ship types and is chance based.
Uh oh we lost our sticky status...
I'm falling.....
|
Karentaki
Gallente Oberon Incorporated Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.04.30 19:16:00 -
[582]
Originally by: Lone Gunman So your saying that NOW they are inline? Except for the fact that the Pilgrim, Arazu and Rapier best EW works on any ship and 100% of the time. Whereas the Falcon best EW (Racial ECM) is only effective on specific ship types and is chance based.
Uh oh we lost our sticky status...
I'm falling.....
Well, let's take the arazu (the one I fly) as an example:
1. Sensor damps don't work on any ship. If you are being targeted by a blaster HAC 100m away, then reducing his range isn't going to do you much good.
2. Do damps work 100% of the time? Yes, but they only reduce the range or scan res. ECM sets these to zero. I feel an 80% chance to jam something is a fair trade off for a 100% increase in effectiveness.
3. A falcon can jam 2 to 4 ships simultaneously with a reasonable chance of success, depending on the ship. An arazu can only really be effective against 1 or 2 ships at most.
Quote:
EVE is like a sandbox with landmines. Deal with it.
|
Lone Gunman
Forhotea Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.04.30 22:47:00 -
[583]
Originally by: Karentaki
Well, let's take the arazu (the one I fly) as an example:
1. Sensor damps don't work on any ship. If you are being targeted by a blaster HAC 100m away, then reducing his range isn't going to do you much good.
Neither is ECM against a Sniper HAC using ECCM while the the Falcon is in falloff, we could do worse case scenarios all day.
Originally by: Karentaki
2. Do damps work 100% of the time? Yes, but they only reduce the range or scan res. ECM sets these to zero. I feel an 80% chance to jam something is a fair trade off for a 100% increase in effectiveness.
I don't believe the average is even close to 80% but I agree that a chance based system with only a 20 second cycle time is just acceptable for what ECM does.
Originally by: Karentaki
3. A falcon can jam 2 to 4 ships simultaneously with a reasonable chance of success, depending on the ship. An arazu can only really be effective against 1 or 2 ships at most.
An Arazu has 6 midslots and the you can only be effective against 2 targets with a 100% chance of damping or scramming? While a Falcon has only one more mid slot but can be effective on twice as many ships is chance based and has less of a tank, DPS and is slower? In all of your cases this would only be true in the very best situation for the Falcon and absolute worse case for the Arazu.
|
Eigof Tahr
Dirt Nap Squad
|
Posted - 2009.05.05 08:32:00 -
[584]
While I think it is clear CCP stopped caring.... The blackbird has now become the ecm boat of choice, because it can still jam outside of Apoc insta-pop range.
Karentaki: All your scenarios are assuming you tank the arazu and don't tank the falcon. Throw a tank on the falcon and you will jam far fewer targets, 1-2.
I was trying to point out that the falcon's ecm cap bonus was out of line and the range was reduced by 70%. (That means down to 30% of what it was.) The strength bonus equates to the exact same ecm strength numbers pre-nerf because of the modifications to signal distortion amps.
The other races' recons have webs (range), neut/nos (cap + range) [double bonus that you didn't count Karentaki] , and warp disruptors/scram bonuses (range), but caldari get ecm capacitor use, which is a joke. ------- A rose, by any other name, would be "deadly thorn-bearing assault vegetation." |
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2009.05.05 09:43:00 -
[585]
Originally by: Eigof Tahr The blackbird has now become the ecm boat of choice, because it can still jam outside of Apoc insta-pop range.
Falcon/Rook no longer work well as the ONLY eWar ship, mixing in TD's and Damps will give them the range/time they need to mess up the opposition even more than before. A single TD on the Pulse Apoc cuts his range well below optimal ECM range. If you do not have anyone able to supply that alternative eWar a single LSE with a T2 EM hardener should reduce the Apoc's Scorch damage to manageable levels.
Originally by: Eigof Tahr The other races' recons have webs (range), neut/nos (cap + range) [double bonus that you didn't count Karentaki] , and warp disruptors/scram bonuses (range), but caldari get ecm capacitor use, which is a joke.
All the range bonuses you list have no skills to increase them (neut/web/scram) and are short range to begin with. Even with the bonuses the recons in question still have to be significantly closer than either of the Caldari recons for them to use those tools.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.05.05 12:25:00 -
[586]
Originally by: Hirana Yoshida
Falcon/Rook no longer work well as the ONLY eWar ship, mixing in TD's and Damps will give them the range/time they need to mess up the opposition even more than before. A single TD on the Pulse Apoc cuts his range well below optimal ECM range. If you do not have anyone able to supply that alternative eWar a single LSE with a T2 EM hardener should reduce the Apoc's Scorch damage to manageable levels.
All the range bonuses you list have no skills to increase them (neut/web/scram) and are short range to begin with. Even with the bonuses the recons in question still have to be significantly closer than either of the Caldari recons for them to use those tools.
Its interesting to look at things from a differant perspective though.
Look at how much neuts, webs and points are regularly fitted on gank/tank gang ships because of their gaurenteed effects, along with damps and TD's also making regular appearances on non-bonused ships in solo and small unit combat.
DAMP on a bonused arazu = -53.13% targeting range with 0-45km optimal 90km falloff. DAMP on gank /tank ship = -42.50% targeting range with 0-45km optimal 90km falloff.
TD on bonuse'd curse = -62.81% to optimal/falloff with 72km optimal 36km falloff. TD on gank/tank ship = -50.25% to optimal/falloff with 72km optimal 36km falloff.
So why bother using a ship with CRAP dmg and AWFUL tank for around 10-12% more effect, when you can fit them on to tanked to hell and back monsters of DPS?.
ECM on the other hand is never fitted on non-bonused ships due to its chance based mechanic.
|
Edghariuss I
|
Posted - 2009.05.12 14:59:00 -
[587]
Caldari: ... While the Caldari State may not be nearly as big as that of the Gallenteans, let alone the Amarrians, they are still universally feared and admired. Their economy is strong, and their military might parallel to that of the larger empires. Coupled to the fact that they are more unscrupulous than the Gallenteans and more combative than the Amarrians, this makes them in many ways the most meddlesome of all the empires. ... Caldari society is steeped in military tradition. ... Even if the Caldari have not engaged in war for many decades, they still strive to be at the cutting edge of military technology and their vessels, weapons and fighting methods are inferior to none but the enigmatic Jovians. ... This is description for caldari race , but last 3 years of caldari nerfing bring caldari race as joke in pvp . Even before caldari was not good for solo pvp , but thx of their specialized ships in larger fleet was good pvp-ers since could cover lot of pvp roles . But now people laugh when see caldari ship in pvp ! If I have lost 30 mil sp in wrong race at least change the caldari description for people who will start play now and want be good pvp-ers . I think that this game in not balanced at all . There is huge difference and unfortunately caldari now are worst race . Fro me is not problem the missile nerf since have bring more items to use and more combination , but i dont like when some nerf bring less items to use and kill some ships completely . ( falcon now is worst force recon in game ! ) I was expect from this game to becam more and more complicate . I start to play this game because i saw that there can be 1000 of different fits and combination to counter other 1000 different fits and combination ,for which you will need more tactics and think about strategic . But things have change and there is less fit and less combination you can use making this game dps against tank and this game is became boring !
|
Diaz Kerensky
|
Posted - 2009.05.20 13:14:00 -
[588]
Originally by: xHomicide Apoc is now the best ECM in the game. Same range as falcon. Same chance to succeed. Cheaper than falcon.
Except when it does succeed, the target explodes.
Originally by: Edghariuss I I start to play this game because i saw that there can be 1000 of different fits and combination to counter other 1000 different fits and combination ,for which you will need more tactics and think about strategic . But things have change and there is less fit and less combination you can use making this game dps against tank and this game is became boring !
Eve is indeed slowly turning to Tank&Spank-Online. Makes me a very sad panda..
______________________________________________________________
I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes. |
Talitha Pellacia
|
Posted - 2009.05.29 05:01:00 -
[589]
I just trained up and finally got a Scorpion. I have to say that it's the most vulnerable battleship there is when fitted for ewarfare, with miniscule dps to boot. Scorpions require a good pilot to be effective. Even then, victory is not guaranteed as ecm can still fail. Nerfing the ecm potency of the scorpion to force pilots to fly even closer to their targets is creating riduclous imbalances in the risk/reward. Either make the ecm optimal range 10kms and give the scorp a few more lowslots with which to armor tank, or leave it well alone. Why focus on reducing the usefulness of ecm, when it would be smarter to simply increase the effectivity of the other forms of ewarfare? I'm now aiming for a Widow. If rediculous nerfs are being planned, make them sooner rather than later so I'm not wasting 4 months' skill training for no good reason.
|
Rordan D'Kherr
Amarr
|
Posted - 2009.05.29 07:28:00 -
[590]
Originally by: Diaz Kerensky
Originally by: xHomicide Apoc is now the best ECM in the game. Same range as falcon. Same chance to succeed. Cheaper than falcon.
Except when it does succeed, the target explodes.
Originally by: Edghariuss I I start to play this game because i saw that there can be 1000 of different fits and combination to counter other 1000 different fits and combination ,for which you will need more tactics and think about strategic . But things have change and there is less fit and less combination you can use making this game dps against tank and this game is became boring !
Eve is indeed slowly turning to Tank&Spank-Online. Makes me a very sad panda..
I feel ya...
|
|
Rip Striker
|
Posted - 2009.05.29 08:06:00 -
[591]
Originally by: Karentaki Edited by: Karentaki on 30/04/2009 18:01:37
Originally by: Eigof Tahr CCP Chronotis, The last time we heard from you was 4/14/2009 on this topic. The racial bonuses for the force recons are as follows:
Pilgrim: Amarr Cruiser Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Tracking Disruptor effectiveness 10% bonus to drone hit points and damage per level. Recon Ships Skill Bonus: 20% bonus to Energy Vampire and Energy Neutralizer transfer amount -96% to -100% reduction in Cloaking Device CPU use per level
Rapier: Minmatar Cruiser Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire 7.5% bonus to target painter effectiveness per level Recon Ships Skill Bonus: 60% bonus to stasis webifier range -96% to -100% reduction in Cloaking Device CPU use per level
Arazu: Gallente Cruiser Skill Bonus: 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage 5% bonus to Remote Sensor Dampener effectiveness per level Recon Ships Skill Bonus: 20% bonus to warp disruptor range -96% to -100% reduction in Cloaking Device CPU use per level
Falcon: Caldari Cruiser Skill Bonus: 5% Bonus to Medium Hybrid Damage Per Level 10% Bonus to ECM Target Jammer capacitor use per level Recon Ships Skill Bonus: 30% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength per level -96% to -100% reduction in Cloaking Device CPU use per level
Caldari, time and again have been marked and labeled by CCP as range ships (rohk, eagle, cerb (heavies), merlin, moa, raven, etc.) and removing that range bonus without providing an adequate bonus in-line with the other force recon class ships is disappointing. A cap bonus to ecm and hybrid turret dmg bonus are weak compared to the other race bonuses. The Falcon has been nerfed by roughly 70% range, and given a joke bonus. Please re-address this.
Please note one tiny point
Pilgrim: - primary EW bonus: 5% (TD) - secondary EW bonus: 20% (Neut) - weapon bonus: 10% - Total: 35%
Rapier: - primary EW bonus: 7.5% (TP) - secondary EW bonus: 60% (Web) - weapon bonus: 5% - Total: 72.5%
Arazu: - primary EW bonus: 5% (SD) - secondary EW bonus: 20% (Scram) - weapon bonus: 5% - Total: 30%
Falcon: - primary EW bonus: 30% (ECM) - secondary EW bonus: 10% (ECM) - weapon bonus: 5% - Total: 45%
Now do you see how it works? The falcon gets 2 primary e-war system bonuses (with a total bonus greater than all but one), while the other ships get a 'split e-war system'. OhNoes, the falcon got nerfed to be in line with other ships. Get over it.
The Falcons so called secondary "10% EW bonus" is nothing but a cap bonus, which means that the Falcon only has ONE true EW bonus.
|
Rordan D'Kherr
Amarr
|
Posted - 2009.05.29 08:26:00 -
[592]
True. Devil's in the detail...
|
Slave 2739FKZ
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 18:40:00 -
[593]
Edited by: Slave 2739FKZ on 04/06/2009 18:40:40 So much for drone rebalance, silentlly unstickied and falling onto the forgotten deepness of the forums...
CCP: not keeping their promises since '03 |
Qarthy
|
Posted - 2009.06.04 23:41:00 -
[594]
It's kinda strange when the Tech I version of the Caldari EWAR ship is prefered over everything else the Caldari have in EWAR.
Could CCCP maybe admit they screwed the pooch on this one and get around to fixing it? |
Vigaz
|
Posted - 2009.06.09 09:26:00 -
[595]
I think Falcon new range is fine. But the 10M3 drone bay and 10Mbits bandwidth are just wrong.
Recon drone bandwidth summary:
Pilgrim 50Mbits Rapier 40Mbits Arazu 40Mbits Falcon 10Mbits ??!?!
|
Max Tux
|
Posted - 2009.06.11 01:17:00 -
[596]
Originally by: Vigaz I think Falcon new range is fine. But the 10M3 drone bay and 10Mbits bandwidth are just wrong.
Recon drone bandwidth summary:
Pilgrim 50Mbits Rapier 40Mbits Arazu 40Mbits Falcon 10Mbits ??!?!
Falcon IS fine (i fly falcon For the record) it is no longer an I-win button and means that you don't need dedicated ships to kill it incase one comes up.
i do agree that the drone bay / bandwidth is a joke though..... not that it matters as a falcon really shouldn't get into a range where its viable to use drones... |
Ros Tin
|
Posted - 2009.06.11 19:02:00 -
[597]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
The scorpion with max skills and a BZ-5 (caldari racial jammer) will have a optimal range of 72km and a Falloff range of 80km with a ECM strength of 7.875 without any other modules or rigs fitted.
Feedback is welcome on these latest changes and as ever, this is not set in stone and things may change following further playtesting and feedback.
Enough about falcon. Why scorpions were nerfed if not many people used them even before? Scorpions operetes at lower range now so they should be a bit stronger like 20% jamm strenght per lvl. (or have more range bonus) |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 20 :: [one page] |