EVE Search - After having a bit of seat time with the new Falcon...

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

After having a bit of seat time with the new Falcon...

» 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)
xHomicide Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.24 04:39:00 - [31] Also, grats on managing to warp away, I heard thats hard. --- Razor CEI
Gavin Darklighter THE FINAL STAND	Posted - 2009.04.24 07:43:00 - [32] ECM should be effective for the smaller gang fighting the larger gang, not the other way around making the larger gang invincible to the smaller one. To this end, they could change ECM so that when you are jammed, you can still lock anyone who has locked you in the past 30 seconds. In a gang fight, you would still be able to remove ships from the fight with ECM as long as you are focusing fire on the primaries, but anyone getting shot at would be able to at least shoot back at their aggressor. This would also make falcons and such less invulnerable since they wouldn't be able to simply jam someone who tackled them and warp; instead you would have to have a pair of falcons working as a team that could jam each other's tacklers. signature picture exceeds the size limit.~WeatherMan
Katarlia Simov Minmatar Cowboys From Hell	Posted - 2009.04.24 10:11:00 - [33] Originally by: xHomicide After reading a bit of your post I realized... YOU ARE A MORON and probably full of ****, the chance of a falcon jamming 4 consecutive ships at 100km is less than 7%. If they were 4x BS, its about 1%. This man speaks the truth. You can't say that falcons now operate at 100km. It's as much of a lie as saying they operated at 200km before. To get that kind of optimal you need everything to 5 AND rigs. And using the rigs for range means not for anything else, which means you aren't as effective as you want to be. Also, 100km, even if we assume everyone fits the same kind of stuff and has max skills, requires significantly less speccing out to hit, and a ceptor can be bumping against your hull in half the time. Oh and you are just about in damp range which will RUIN your day and, shock horror, remove YOU from the fight.
PirateGorex Amarr Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.24 10:54:00 - [34] Originally by: Hexor V The ship had enough done to it. Thanks for the useless dronebay and turret slots deuchebag. Oh no a falcon jams WAAAHHHHH. Thats as redundant as saying a pilgram neuts, an arazu points, and a rapier webs. What will you cry about next? Ohh nooo that damn guardian is repping? It's a tech II specialized ECM ship, deal with it. This here is how to post. Outstanding assessment of CCP catering to the whiners. Again. Amarr is next. Guaranteed. Once the nerf cycle in an MMO starts spiraling, it is hard to reverse.
SateenAntilles The Black Rabbits The Gurlstas Associates	Posted - 2009.04.24 14:28:00 - [35] Originally by: Bellum Eternus Originally by: SateenAntilles Back seat time? You jam with a falcon? According to BattleClinic you have never flown a Falcon. You're absolutely right. Nobody in Eve has more than one character, or even more than one account. Thank god you're so much smarter than everyone else and checked Battleclinic, the end-all be-all of combat information. I think CCP needs to nerf trolls.
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2009.04.24 17:57:00 - [36] Originally by: Katarlia Simov Originally by: xHomicide After reading a bit of your post I realized... YOU ARE A MORON and probably full of ***, the chance of a falcon jamming 4 consecutive ships at 100km is less than 7%. If they were 4x BS, its about 1%. This man speaks the truth. You can't say that falcons now operate at 100km. It's as much of a lie as saying they operated at 200km before. To get that kind of optimal you need everything to 5 AND rigs. And using the rigs for range means not for anything else, which means you aren't as effective as you want to be. Also, 100km, even if we assume everyone fits the same kind of stuff and has max skills, requires significantly less speccing out to hit, and a ceptor can be bumping against your hull in half the time. Oh and you are just about in damp range which will RUIN your day and, shock horror, remove YOU from the fight. I do have all ECM skills at 5. And I do use two range rigs. I mean, DUH. Why would I have anything else? The stacking penalty for strength rigs on top of 3x SDAs is horrible. Why would you ever want to use anything other than range rigs? Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam.* Death of Virtue is Recruiting
Etho Demerzel Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone	Posted - 2009.04.24 20:02:00 - [37] Originally by: Bellum Eternus I do have all ECM skills at 5. And I do use two range rigs. I mean, DUH. Why would I have anything else? The stacking penalty for strength rigs on top of 3x SDAs is horrible. Why would you ever want to use anything other than range rigs? Evenso your chances of doing what you said you did at 100km with the Falcon are almost non-existent. And at this distance you are much more vulnerable to sentries than sniper HACs will ever be. ===== "If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron...
SpankMeElmo Interstellar eXodus BricK sQuAD.	Posted - 2009.04.24 20:19:00 - [38] On this character I have considerable skills and seat time in the Falcon, both before and after the nerf. Here's my view: 1. Current Falcon vs Previous Falcon - current is pretty much crap compared to the old. 2. Current Falcon vs Current Force Recons (Other) - current Falcon is pretty much on par with other race's ships in this class. Every one of them are eggshells in space after all. Methinks I'll check out the tech 2 projector rigs to see how those work out. If I don't like that I'll probably find another ship to fly for awhile. There's some others out there that can be fun, too.
Mr Ignitious R.E.C.O.N. Dara Cothrom	Posted - 2009.04.24 21:44:00 - [39] Originally by: Bellum Eternus It's still just waaay too good. I can happily sit at 100km or so and jam 3-4 targets (BS, with ECCM) often enough that it completely wrecks their effectiveness in a fight. Earlier today I jammed a Chimera that was remote repping a Geddon long enough for the Geddon to die. From 120km. Is that right? Side note: I also had the Geddon jammed 100% as well. A carrier and a BS? Really? My buddy got caught out by a small blob (6-10 ships, Onyx, Deimos, assorted BS) so I warped in at 100km with my Falcon and jammed enough tacklers that he warped out the instant I got locks on everyone with a point on him. Every jam, the very first time, across four ships. I want to put my Falcon away, I really do, but it's still far too overpowered to be left unused when everyone else has the same capability. Side note: out of 12+ engagements there were no kills simply because everyone jammed everyone else's tacklers/DPS and warped out/deagressed. This sucks. Fix it. While effectiveness was part of the issue, it is MY OPINION that the fact they are now much closer helps with killing them. Granted 100km range is pretty far, it's pretty easily attainable by bs's. If you're going on an RR roam then just have 2-3 of your bs's fit for 100 or range to deal with any falcons, the rest of the bs's can be kitted traditionally close range. The falcon pilot probably isn't going to know who the long range kit bs's are initially so it would need a bit of luck to ensure it's not going to get pewpew'd. I've argued with lots of people about falcons and 90% say that falcon sucks now and that its TOTALLLY worthless and crap. So tbh, I'm quite content with the changes, it's MUCH better than nothing. I read the forums assuming there are no trolls, only really stupid people. Originally by: CCP Zulupark WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU?
Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. United Freemen Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.25 03:20:00 - [40] Everyone is still in the 'primary-the-falcon' mode, and as such there's no way you can fight at 3-50 km range. Therefor my falcon flying days will be iced until that mentally subsides.

Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2009.04.25 03:41:00 - [41] Originally by: Etho Demerzel Originally by: Bellum Eternus I do have all ECM skills at 5. And I do use two range rigs. I mean, DUH. Why would I have anything else? The stacking penalty for strength rigs on top of 3x SDAs is horrible. Why would you ever want to use anything other than range rigs? Evenso your chances of doing what you said you did at 100km with the Falcon are almost non-existent. And at this distance you are much more vulnerable to sentries than sniper HACs will ever be. The really funny thing is that it did work. Frankly, I don't just use my Falcon every single time like most other players do. I only use it as a last resort when I have no other option, as I hate using it that much. But when I do use it, it works, like clockwork. I don't have to jam anyone for five minutes to get the job done. Just two or three consecutive jams and then I cloak, or even a single jam and then cloak back up. That's all that's needed to either swing the fight my way or escape or whatever. That's why Falcons are too good. One small little nudge with the fight and I win by using it. Without it I'd lose, and if the enemy has one more Falcon than I do then I lose. It's usually never about who has more skill in flying their actual ships in combat. Just who underestimated the Falcon count. And that's a stupid way to play the game. Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. Death of Virtue is Recruiting
Turiel Demon Minmatar Shadow Reapers DAMAGE INC...	Posted - 2009.04.25 10:05:00 - [42] Heh, the sweet falcon-pilot tears flow freely once more, very enjoyable /signed, a nano*** Also, it has come to my attention that I'm really in need of a proper signature.
honey bunchetta	Posted - 2009.04.25 10:25:00 - [43] Originally by: Bellum Eternus It's still just waaay too good. I can happily sit at 100km or so and jam 3-4 targets (BS, with ECCM) often enough that it completely wrecks their effectiveness in a fight. Earlier today I jammed a Chimera that was remote repping a Geddon long enough for the Geddon to die. From 120km. Is that right? Side note: I also had the Geddon jammed 100% as well. A carrier and a BS? Really? My buddy got caught out by a small blob (6-10 ships, Onyx, Deimos, assorted BS) so I warped in at 100km with my Falcon and jammed enough tacklers that he warped out the instant I got locks on everyone with a point on him. Every jam, the very first time, across four ships. Fraps of this happening on TQ in actual combat pls.
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.04.25 10:51:00 - [44] Originally by: Bellum Eternus Sniper HACs don't live too long inside sentry range. Neither do sniper BS. The Pulse Apoc doesn't do too well either when it has enough tank to operate inside sentry range. Nothing that does not have a adequate tank or is being RR'd and tries to stay inside hostile sentry gun range for extended periods of time does well tbh. Are you blaming the falcon for the fact that you need to tank sentry guns if your pirating now?... Originally by: Bellum Eternus I'm not passing judgement on the ECM changes one way or the other, I'm just asking that nobody else do the same based on observations that are limited in scope. Id say claiming that falcons are still over powered because non tanked or RR supported sniper hacs and sniper BS cannot tank gate guns is the very definition of a limited scope. The same reasoning and problems applies to them facing any ship at range including other snipers ect and as such is not a falcon/ecm issue but a limitation from having: 1. a low sec status. 2. being in low sec. 3. shooting at non pirates thus getting sentry aggro. 4. using non tanked long range fits without RR support. 5. And most importantly thinking that those non tanked or RR supported sniper fits are ineffective pirating in low sec because of the falcon. Originally by: Bellum Eternus Yes, I'm referring to operating Falcons inside sentry range in lowsec, but I'm building a best case scenario (which is an entirely common occurance) in which Falcons operate to make the point that they are still overpowered in that environment. Wrong, a untanked/un logistic supported sniper hac/BS is ineffective with sentry aggro and that is a tanking issue not a ecm or falcon issue. Looks to me that all you have proved is that sniper hacs ect do not operate well against sentry fire without a local tank or logistic support when fighting against ships at range that do NOT have sentry aggro because of comparative sec status or whatever.... THIS IS A MATTER OF FITTING YOUR SHIPS PROPERLY AND A PIRACY/LOW SEC TANKING ISSUE VS ALL SHIPS THAT CAN WORK AT 100KM NOT A ECM ISSUE.
Katarlia Simov Minmatar Cowboys From Hell	Posted - 2009.04.25 11:18:00 - [45] Originally by: Bellum Eternus Originally by: Katarlia Simov Originally by: xHomicide After reading a bit of your post I realized... YOU ARE A MORON and probably full of ****, the chance of a falcon jamming 4 consecutive ships at 100km is less than 7%. If they were 4x BS, its about 1%. This man speaks the truth. You can't say that falcons now operate at 100km. It's as much of a lie as saying they operated at 200km before. To get that kind of optimal you need everything to 5 AND rigs. And using the rigs for range means not for anything else, which means you aren't as effective as you want to be. Also, 100km, even if we assume everyone fits the same kind of stuff and has max skills, requires significantly less speccing out to hit, and a ceptor can be bumping against your hull in half the time. Oh and you are just about in damp range which will RUIN your day and, shock horror, remove YOU from the fight. I do have all ECM skills at 5. And I do use two range rigs. I mean, DUH. Why would I have anything else? The stacking penalty for strength rigs on top of 3x SDAs is horrible. Why would you ever want to use anything other than range rigs? EFT tells me that you get 68km optimal with two rigs, which is the kind of range that you are taking serious chances at just getting slapped by something with scorch. I was for some crazy reason under the impression that people either didn't bother rigging their falcons or went for the buffer fit route. Maybe thats just the kinda falcons I saw.
Xelios Minmatar Broski Enterprises Avarice.	Posted - 2009.04.25 12:04:00 - [46] I don't know about using Falcons in low sec or empire wars, but they're now useless in 0.0 fleet engagements with more than 15 people per side. I guess that was intended though, since the Scorpion was supposed to take over the long range fleet jamming role. Only problem is it's still terrible.
emf Amarr Knights Of the Black Sun	Posted - 2009.04.25 18:45:00 - [47] I think a lot of people just don't understand how annoying ships escaping are. Lots of low sec pilots are perfectly happy skirmishing with no one dying, camping a non-kickout station, shooting at ships outside stations which havn't aggroed etc etc... They cannot understand how bad the effect of a few jam cycles is because of this. Everything would have been fine if they had just made the changes without touching the jam strength bonus. Another way would be to just rework ECM altogether.


Pages: 1 [2] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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