EVE Search - Battleships -vs- ECM

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Battleships -vs- ECM

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Nicole Sheridan	Posted - 2009.04.15 16:45:00 - [1] Our battleships are slowly becoming more obsolete becuase of the ECM capability ships. In a small gang fight, a battleship has no chance in winning a battle against a team that is ECM capable. ECM does not really have a true counter balance. Especially since ECCM does not work well. IMHO, weakening the battleship (not give it ability to defend against ECM) is tampering with the fundmental core of EVE mechanic for the entire universe, If you don't see what I am talking about, I recommend that you take a look at why the Dev team are nerfing ECM.
Ruze Ahkor'Murkon Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2009.04.15 16:52:00 - [2] Originally by: Nicole Sheridan Our battleships are slowly becoming more obsolete becuase of the ECM capability ships. In a small gang fight, a battleship has no chance in winning a battle against a team that is ECM capable. ECM does not really have a true counter balance. Especially since ECCM does not work well. IMHO, weakening the battleship (not give it ability to defend against ECM) is tampering with the fundmental core of EVE mechanic for the entire universe, If you don't see what I am talking about, I recommend that you take a look at why the Dev team are nerfing ECM. You continue to hype the 'fundamental core of EvE' in another post. I continue to point out, that this is only your opinion of what that core is. Now on to the topic at hand. Is it wrong to make battleships susceptible to smaller ships? I would say that a 'small gang' of BS's all spec'd for DPS, going up against a small gang of ships fit for a wide variety of roles and task, should lose. That's right. I fully support the ideal that a diverse group should be more powerful than a single-mindset group. DPS is the major compontent of battle, but not the only one. Thus, EvE submits to strategy and tactics (at least in small scale combat). Does this mean that BS's shouldn't remain the king of DPS for roving gangs? By no means. But the fact that they ARE susceptible to smaller craft, ECM and now stealth bombers, means that while they are powerful, they aren't the only ship your gang should have. Again: ECM and EWAR pushes diversity on the one-track-mind. If you bring only damage battleships to a fight and your enemy diversifies, you should burn the flaming, crashing death you deserve. Even the backstory agrees with this. Just look at the Amarr versus the Jove. Originally by: 5pinDizzy Troll Score-o-Meter --------Failure----------\|\|\|-----------Succes------- 10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1--0--1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10
Grimpak Gallente Celestial Horizon Corp. I.C.C Industrial Drive Yards	Posted - 2009.04.15 17:03:00 - [3] Originally by: Nicole Sheridan Our battleships are slowly becoming more obsolete becuase of the ECM capability ships. In a small gang fight, a battleship has no chance in winning a battle against a team that is ECM capable. ECM does not really have a true counter balance. Especially since ECCM does not work well. IMHO, weakening the battleship (not give it ability to defend against ECM) is tampering with the fundmental core of EVE mechanic for the entire universe, If you don't see what I am talking about, I recommend that you take a look at why the Dev team are nerfing ECM. 1-track minds don't belong into EVE. if you don't find a use for Ewar and whatnot, then you suck at PvP. --- Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals. ain't that right.
Faife Federation of Freedom Fighters Aggression.	Posted - 2009.04.15 17:17:00 - [4] i solo carriers in a rook. --
Megan Maynard Minmatar Out of Order Tenth Legion	Posted - 2009.04.15 17:19:00 - [5] Two ECCM on a tempest is pretty fun. Stop, hammer time.
Reikazenzero	Posted - 2009.04.15 17:22:00 - [6] grimpack got it in whole.Diverse balance FTW
Dr Karsun Gallente Empire News The Security Council	Posted - 2009.04.15 17:23:00 - [7] Well, ECM has no counter balance, true, but still, the longer I play, the more I see that ECM is beatable pretty often. Especially in bigger gangs ecm can be beatable, because you can take a lot of your own ewar and lower your enemies chances without a problem. Sensor dampening falcons that are 150k away is a nice start of balancing chances. Or carrying eccm on your ship. My pvp bs's fly with 2x eccm when they can and it's always a nice surprise when I'm not ecmed and start to shoot at the poor ecm ship suddenly. ------------------------
Sniper Wolf18 Gallente A Pretty Pony Princess General Tso's Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.15 17:24:00 - [8] Stealth bombers with ECCM counter falcons fairly well, they have a high base sensor strength so if they are ECCMed and a falcon tries to jam it, it has to use most/all of its jammers on the stealth bombers, which are the counters to the falcon and not the main part of the fleet. So is the falcon will be either killed of rendered useless as it has used all of it's ECM on the stealth bomber, thereby being no use to the main fleet. There are counters to ECM, whining on the forums is not one of them. And to finish, thank you for reading my sig -------------------------------------------------- If you are still reading i would probably hav posted by now
Esmenet Gallente	Posted - 2009.04.15 17:29:00 - [9] Originally by: Sniper Wolf18 There are counters to ECM, whining on the forums is not one of them. Wrong. Its very effective. And yea this is my sig. Real PVP'ers only use f1.
Tippia Raddick Explorations BlackWater.	Posted - 2009.04.15 17:33:00 - [10] Originally by: Nicole Sheridan In a small gang fight, a battleship has no chance in winning a battle against a team that is ECM capable. "A battleship" is not a small gang, and as such should lose against a team that uses numerous vectors of attack. Quote: ECM does not really have a true counter balance. Especially since ECCM does not work well. If there's any ship where ECCM actually starts working, it's battleships. Battleships also tend to be very good at the whole spider-X:ing thing, and one of the things you can do is remote ECCM which is even more effective than the regular kind. Or you could just have a support fleet that simply nukes those ECM ships. Quote: IMHO, weakening the battleship (not give it ability to defend against ECM) is tampering with the fundmental core of EVE mechanic for the entire universe Again, battleships are better than most ships against denfending against ECCM. Also, what's this "fundamental core" thing you're talking about? If anything is fundamental to EVE, it's the fact that everything has a weakness. Quote: If you don't see what I am talking about, I recommend that you take a look at why the Dev team are nerfing ECM. …or you could just tell us your interpretation rather than give us some irrelevant allusions (which rather make it seem like you have no argument and hope that no-one will call you on it). ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in =v=… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.04.15 17:41:00 - [11] Originally by: Esmenet Originally by: Sniper Wolf18 There are counters to ECM, whining on the forums is not one of them. Wrong. Its very effective. Apparently so.
Nicole Sheridan	Posted - 2009.04.15 19:51:00 - [12] If I am wrong, then why CCP is nerfing ECM ships? -Becuase ECM ships are unbalancing the core foundation of EVE.
Ruze Ahkor'Murkon Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2009.04.15 19:53:00 - [13] Edited by: Ruze Ahkor''Murkon on 15/04/2009 19:54:44 Originally by: Nicole Sheridan If I am wrong, then why CCP is nerfing ECM ships? -Becuase ECM ships are unbalancing the core foundation of EVE. Your arguments wrong. Sometimes modules become too powerful. They have to be balanced. But that doesn't mean they are unnecessary. The line, though, is that their recent changes to ECM were all that's needed to put the perfectly reasonable and acceptable style of warfare back on the right page. Note: I take it back. Your arguments not 'wrong', I just disagree with it. And I feel that CCP's recent changes support my feelings and my argument far more than it supports yours. Originally by: 5pinDizzy Troll Score-o-Meter --------Failure----------\|\|\|-----------Succes------- 10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1--0--1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10
Tippia Raddick Explorations BlackWater.	Posted - 2009.04.15 19:54:00 - [14] Edited by: Tippia on 15/04/2009 19:53:46 Originally by: Nicole Sheridan If I am wrong, then why CCP is nerfing ECM ships? -Becuase ECM ships are unbalancing the core foundation of EVE. Yes, but it is not the thing you think is a core foundation. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in =v=… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Azirapheal Amarr Ministry of War	Posted - 2009.04.15 20:04:00 - [15] as a general rule of thumb, if something becomes used by so many people its practically mandatory, it gets nerfed so it is no longer mandatory. see my sig for pretty much the be all and end all of the argument,. Originally by: Grohalmatar The proposed changes in the game development forum are obviously a nerf to falcon pilots. However, what they really are is a nerf to falcon alts.
Sebea Bottomfeeders Science and Research	Posted - 2009.04.15 20:32:00 - [16] Originally by: Nicole Sheridan I am wrong You could have shortened it all to this and we'd have understood
Slapchop Gonnalovemynuts	Posted - 2009.04.15 20:39:00 - [17] Originally by: Azirapheal as a general rule of thumb, if something becomes used by so many people its practically mandatory, it gets nerfed so it is no longer mandatory. This right here... There was a time everyone was fitting WCS to their battleships, NERFED. Once upon a time everyone was fitting Damps to their ships, NERFED. Then everyone was using nanoships, NERFED, then NERFED again. Now everyone has to have a falcon or 2 in their fleet... -------------------------------------------- Quote: EVE-Online... Too rough for ya? Don't like it? GTFO...
Tippia Raddick Explorations BlackWater.	Posted - 2009.04.15 20:47:00 - [18] Originally by: Sebea Originally by: Nicole Sheridan I am wrong You could have shortened it all to this and we'd have understood Weeeell… technically, we would only have known it — without the OP's excellent description of the underlying causes, we wouldn't have understood why it was true. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Nicole Sheridan	Posted - 2009.04.15 20:49:00 - [19] CCP is nerfing your ECM. The debate is over. Congrat to CCP...
Tippia Raddick Explorations BlackWater.	Posted - 2009.04.15 20:53:00 - [20] Originally by: Nicole Sheridan CCP is nerfing your ECM. The debate is over. Congrat to CCP... What debate? You're making a statement (which, btw, is wrong on two accounts: it has nothing to do with battleships, and ECM is actually being buffed). We're simply explaining why your assertions are wrong… ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Faife Federation of Freedom Fighters Aggression.	Posted - 2009.04.15 20:56:00 - [21] Originally by: Nicole Sheridan CCP is nerfing your ECM. The debate is over. Congrat to CCP... fun fact, you will still suck. --
SpaceSquirrels Caldari	Posted - 2009.04.16 01:07:00 - [22] Well if people werent so damned linear in thinking. Most people just spec a ship for dps/tank and all mids go to scram, web, and what mwd or sensor booster. Thus all the people with no "outside the box" thinking get mad at ECM because it renders their uber gank boat useless. Think outside the box.
Another Forum'Alt Gallente Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2009.04.16 01:17:00 - [23] BECAUSE OF FALCON. Anyway, ECM is getting nerfed now BECAUSE OF FALCON. Guide to forum posting
Drunk Driver Gallente Aliastra	Posted - 2009.04.16 01:30:00 - [24] FALCONS CAUSE WORLD HUNGER!
Sabrage	Posted - 2009.04.16 01:34:00 - [25] Originally by: Nicole Sheridan CCP is nerfing your ECM. The debate is over. Congrat to CCP... Inferiority complex spotted.
Salmeria	Posted - 2009.04.16 01:36:00 - [26] i have this ground breaking revelation! ECM + battleships = pwn
The Riddik	Posted - 2009.04.16 02:16:00 - [27] ONE WORD: ECCM noobs
GateScout	Posted - 2009.04.16 03:02:00 - [28] My falcon/scorp/kitsune is a solo OWN-mobile. ECM is all powerful. Quit now and give me your stuffs!
5pinDizzy	Posted - 2009.04.16 03:17:00 - [29] Edited by: 5pinDizzy on 16/04/2009 03:24:28 Originally by: Ruze Ahkor'Murkon Originally by: Nicole Sheridan Our battleships are slowly becoming more obsolete becuase of the ECM capability ships. In a small gang fight, a battleship has no chance in winning a battle against a team that is ECM capable. ECM does not really have a true counter balance. Especially since ECCM does not work well. IMHO, weakening the battleship (not give it ability to defend against ECM) is tampering with the fundmental core of EVE mechanic for the entire universe, If you don't see what I am talking about, I recommend that you take a look at why the Dev team are nerfing ECM. You continue to hype the 'fundamental core of EvE' in another post. I continue to point out, that this is only your opinion of what that core is. Now on to the topic at hand. Is it wrong to make battleships susceptible to smaller ships? I would say that a 'small gang' of BS's all spec'd for DPS, going up against a small gang of ships fit for a wide variety of roles and task, should lose. Or just take a gang of ships that all fit ecm, and **** every similar sized wide variety gang you come across, including any dps battleships. I think the trick to balance is to make eccm actually have a point outside being jammed. Everyone fits sensor boosters and screws up dampener ships because they're a great help whether you ever get dampened or not. Everyone fits cap injectors outside being neuted to death because its an easy burst of cap stability to survive through most fights. I think eccm needs a similar angle, not sure what exactly but something that makes eccm less of gamble and a possible waste. Because they're such a spare part of a module. if you disagree with me then you should probably post a response and stop reading my signature.
Abrazzar	Posted - 2009.04.16 03:36:00 - [30] Get a Blackbird. With 3x Remote ECCM and 3x Remote Sensor Booster and you're set. -------- Ideas for: Mining
CrestoftheStars Caldari Eternum Pariah	Posted - 2009.04.16 04:37:00 - [31] Originally by: Megan Maynard Two ECCM on a tempest is pretty fun. you haven't even tryid it. 8 eccm's on a scorpion and it still gets jammed by a falcon (that's 546 strength it have ). and this is on the test server with the nerfs too ecm :P soo stfu
CrestoftheStars Caldari Eternum Pariah	Posted - 2009.04.16 04:49:00 - [32] Originally by: Sniper Wolf18 Stealth bombers with ECCM counter falcons fairly well, they have a high base sensor strength so if they are ECCMed and a falcon tries to jam it, it has to use most/all of its jammers on the stealth bombers, which are the counters to the falcon and not the main part of the fleet. So is the falcon will be either killed of rendered useless as it has used all of it's ECM on the stealth bomber, thereby being no use to the main fleet. There are counters to ECM, whining on the forums is not one of them. you do realise that the falcon can tank the sb quite easily and that THAT sb is killed within seconds by something in the fleet, right? besides the falcon have quite a high sensor strength, and will jam a sb with 1-2 jammers, soo your plan is quite dead there
Grimpak Gallente Celestial Horizon Corp. I.C.C Industrial Drive Yards	Posted - 2009.04.16 11:01:00 - [33] Edited by: Grimpak on 16/04/2009 11:01:55 Originally by: CrestoftheStars Originally by: Megan Maynard Two ECCM on a tempest is pretty fun. you haven't even tryid it. 8 eccm's on a scorpion and it still gets jammed by a falcon (that's 546 strength it have ). and this is on the test server with the nerfs too ecm :P soo stfu yes it gets jammed. for how long? it appears that you don't understand chance-based mechanics. --- Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals. ain't that right.
Ratchman	Posted - 2009.04.16 11:04:00 - [34] ECM has not been nerfed. The ships have just been dragged closer to the battle, where the risk is greater. The ECM itself is stronger than before, but the cost of that is the increased chance of dying. Personally, I think CCP have made the right decision on this. The range is what made the Falcon so, so popular. ECM is vital to the game, but don't fool yourselves into thinking that the Falcon was already 'balanced'. If it was, then why do they outnumber the other recons significantly? People don't willingly fly the worst ship in the game. People want to win, so they pick the ship that is most likely to grant them that win. As someone has already mentioned, everybody doing exactly the same thing is a good way to bring a nerf down on that technique. It's happened time and again. If people actually experimented with ships, rather than slavishly following the edicts laid down by the few, less of these nerfs would happen. And it is only a 'nerf' if you don't believe in game balancing. Everything must have a counter. ECM has ECCM, but now Falcon's can't sit risk-free at the edge of a battle.
Spurty Caldari Amok. Minor Threat.	Posted - 2009.04.16 11:12:00 - [35] w00t falcon not so much of a chicken's ship any more. Originally by: Butter Dog I think you'll find that 10 seconds > 1 month
Grimpak Gallente Celestial Horizon Corp. I.C.C Industrial Drive Yards	Posted - 2009.04.16 11:27:00 - [36] Originally by: Ratchman ECM is vital to the game, but don't fool yourselves into thinking that the Falcon was already 'balanced'. If it was, then why do they outnumber the other recons significantly? well, that's why some people would prefer to boost the other recons instead of fiddling with the falcon. because, well, just MAYBE they need a bone thrown at them after all the nerfs that affected them. --- Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals. ain't that right.
Johan Sabbat R.E.C.O.N. Dara Cothrom	Posted - 2009.04.16 12:23:00 - [37] Originally by: CrestoftheStars Originally by: Sniper Wolf18 Stealth bombers with ECCM counter falcons fairly well, they have a high base sensor strength so if they are ECCMed and a falcon tries to jam it, it has to use most/all of its jammers on the stealth bombers, which are the counters to the falcon and not the main part of the fleet. So is the falcon will be either killed of rendered useless as it has used all of it's ECM on the stealth bomber, thereby being no use to the main fleet. There are counters to ECM, whining on the forums is not one of them. you do realise that the falcon can tank the sb quite easily and that THAT sb is killed within seconds by something in the fleet, right? besides the falcon have quite a high sensor strength, and will jam a sb with 1-2 jammers, soo your plan is quite dead there I likes me a good bit of theory craft with the old rules, given the SB and Falcon in your scenario would be 180km away from the fleet the SB just needs to switch to FoF cruises. It's all moot now, just remember this nerf when you complain about Rooks :)
Esmenet Gallente	Posted - 2009.04.16 13:45:00 - [38] Originally by: Ratchman ECM is vital to the game, but don't fool yourselves into thinking that the Falcon was already 'balanced'. If it was, then why do they outnumber the other recons significantly? Its because the other recons are useless in most gangs. You are better off with a inty, hac, BS, dictor, heavy dictor or a ecm ship(depending on type of gang). Adding another ship to the scrapheap wont make the other recons any more popular. And yea this is my sig. Real PVP'ers only use f1.
lebrata Hedion University	Posted - 2009.04.16 13:47:00 - [39] Originally by: CrestoftheStars Originally by: Megan Maynard Two ECCM on a tempest is pretty fun. you haven't even tryid it. 8 eccm's on a scorpion and it still gets jammed by a falcon (that's 546 strength it have ). and this is on the test server with the nerfs too ecm :P soo stfu Be quiet ffs.
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.04.16 13:51:00 - [40] Originally by: Ratchman ECM is vital to the game, but don't fool yourselves into thinking that the Falcon was already 'balanced'. If it was, then why do they outnumber the other recons significantly? Because eve is now mostly a gang game and as such gang ships and gang fits will be more used than others. The range the other recons work at makes them rather worthless at gang combat and now the falcon is being moved into the same range......do the math.
Galvatine Caldari Dark Materials Heretic Nation	Posted - 2009.04.16 13:53:00 - [41] Originally by: CrestoftheStars Originally by: Megan Maynard Two ECCM on a tempest is pretty fun. you haven't even tryid it. 8 eccm's on a scorpion and it still gets jammed by a falcon (that's 546 strength it have ). and this is on the test server with the nerfs too ecm :P soo stfu Personally I found that 2 ECCM on my apoc made it annoyingly resistant to ECM, sure they can still manage it occasionally, but a lot less often. You do know that ECM stregth has gone up by 50% with the new patch right, but even with that, I very much doubt you will get perma jammed with 546 sensor stregth. I would estimate thats about a 5-8% chance with those resists. You were expecting total immunity?

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.