EVE Search - Falcon Force Recon Improvement

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Falcon Force Recon Improvement

» 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)
Murkelost Swedish Aerospace Inc Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.08.09 20:43:00 - [1] Edited by: Murkelost on 09/08/2007 20:49:21 Long story short, Falcon sucks! Why? Because the Rook has 10 percent more bonus to jamming strenght per level than the Falcon. Now, if we compare the Falcon and Rook with gallente recons, the arazu and lachesis share the same dampen and scramble bonuses in percentage amount. Why isn't this the issue between Falcon and Rook? Imo the Falcon is the better Recon ship of Caldari, which the capability of warping cloaked is the reason why. So I would like to have the same bonuses to it as the Rook has. The Falcon current status renders it useless (for jamming) and lame to fly so please adjust, and give it some damage bonuses on missiles as well. Just my 2 cents... Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes -Sahwoolo
James Lyrus Lyrus Associates Betrayal Under Mayhem	Posted - 2007.08.09 21:12:00 - [2] Sorry, of the two, I rate the Falcon higher. They're different tools for different jobs.
Waxau Mortis Angelus	Posted - 2007.08.09 22:22:00 - [3] if you actually think the falcon sucks, then you dont know how or when to fly it. It could use a slight boost, possibly - but dude - its by far not useless...
Murkelost Swedish Aerospace Inc Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.08.10 02:53:00 - [4] Edited by: Murkelost on 10/08/2007 02:53:29 Originally by: Waxau if you actually think the falcon sucks, then you dont know how or when to fly it. It could use a slight boost, possibly - but dude - its by far not useless... There are some useful areas yes, but let me put it this way, why buy a fancy sportscar if it hasn't got what it takes compared to an average family slowboat Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes -Sahwoolo
Murkelost Swedish Aerospace Inc Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.08.10 03:00:00 - [5] Originally by: James Lyrus Sorry, of the two, I rate the Falcon higher. They're different tools for different jobs. Interesting point indeed, the Falcon can do stuff the Rook can't yeah, but still it bothers me that it sucks for pvp jamming Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes -Sahwoolo
Kaben	Posted - 2007.08.10 06:33:00 - [6] In responce to the current nos nerf, which has very little to do with this, but I had very little sympathy for pilgrims and I have very little for this. A force recon is not a combat recon, read the ships description. If you want a combat recon, get the rook, if you want tactical advancement, infiltration and cap ship deployment then this is the right ship for you. Description of the force recon on the ships description. Force recon ships are the cruiser-class equivalent of covert ops frigates. While not as resilient as combat recon ships, they are nonetheless able to do their job as reconaissance vessels very effectively, due in no small part to their ability to interface with covert ops cloaking devices and set up cynosural fields for incoming capital ships. note: it says they are nonetheless able to do their job as a reconaissance vessel very effectively, no where does it state anything about combat except in the second sentence which says they aren't as resilient as combat recons.
Lord Loom Loom Service Derek Knows Us	Posted - 2007.08.10 09:31:00 - [7] if anything it's the Rook that sucks - yeah it's strong, but for that it gives up all tank and gank, not what I'd imagine a Combat Recon to be, and even less so compared to the other three in the class and all comparisons to Gallente are flawed, we all know they're "balanced" ---------- KEEP TRY!!!
Solbright altaltalt Republic Military School	Posted - 2007.08.10 10:15:00 - [8] All other recons have equal EW strengths. The Falcon is the only one that is reduced. The diff between the combat and force recons are generally in other areas like PG, hardpoints/highslots, damage, resists, speed, targeting range are all boosted a little in the combat version ... and the force recon gets those bonus coverts.
Aramendel Amarr Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2007.08.10 17:26:00 - [9] Originally by: Solbright altaltalt All other recons have equal EW strengths. The Falcon is the only one that is reduced. Wrong. You might want to compare the pilgrim & the curse. The first is missing a rather essential bonus.
James Lyrus Lyrus Associates Betrayal Under Mayhem	Posted - 2007.08.10 18:03:00 - [10] A rook does powerful jamming, cruiser grade DPS. A falcon does _fairly_ powerful jamming, and covops cloaking. (And LOLtastic DPS) I don't see this as a huge issue. I'd still _like_ to see all the ECM ships get an extra 5% jamming power, but I'm not sure I see a need why the Rook and the Falcon have to be the same jamming strength. The falcon, after all, does have an extra lowslot for SDAs.
Inflexible InNova Tech Inc	Posted - 2007.08.10 18:15:00 - [11] Originally by: Murkelost Now, if we compare the Falcon and Rook with gallente recons, the arazu and lachesis share the same dampen and scramble bonuses in percentage amount. It's problem with gallente recons, not caldari ones imo.
Solbright altaltalt	Posted - 2007.08.11 02:27:00 - [12] Originally by: Aramendel Originally by: Solbright altaltalt All other recons have equal EW strengths. The Falcon is the only one that is reduced. Wrong. You might want to compare the pilgrim & the curse. The first is missing a rather essential bonus. The strengths are both 20% bonus for the Pilgrim and the Curse. The Curse also gets a range bonus but that's a second bonus, the Rook's second bonus is kinetic damage. We are discussing the value of the primary recon EW bonus.
Aramendel Amarr Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2007.08.11 10:07:00 - [13] Originally by: Solbright altaltalt The strengths are both 20% bonus for the Pilgrim and the Curse. The Curse also gets a range bonus but that's a second bonus, the Rook's second bonus is kinetic damage. We are discussing the value of the primary recon EW bonus. The EW range is the primary bonus. Nos strength is more the equivalent to the dps bonuses. Range has a far greater effect than strength here since it makes the difference between operating in web range and operating outside scram range.
Solbright altaltalt	Posted - 2007.08.11 10:32:00 - [14] Originally by: Aramendel Range has a far greater effect than strength here since it makes the difference between operating in web range and operating outside scram range. Fair call, range is important, and jamming boats would be useless without their range bonuses, but it's still not the EW strength. Maybe I should have kept the definition to strength. My original statement is more correct - "All other recons have equal EW strengths. The Falcon is the only one that is reduced."
Aramendel Amarr Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2007.08.11 11:18:00 - [15] With that argumentation bot the gallente and minmatar recons are underpowered because they got compared to their t1 version no EW strength bonus. Only range.
Solbright altaltalt	Posted - 2007.08.11 11:42:00 - [16] I'd be open to that idea. :)
Aramendel Amarr Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2007.08.11 11:56:00 - [17] Edited by: Aramendel on 11/08/2007 11:56:53 The point is the EW range bonus IS a strength bonus. No, it does not literary increase the strength of the recons EW, however it increases the range where it is effective, which is in many cases much more important. And as result in general increases the efficiency of the recon. Comparing only a single stat is a fallacy, you need to compare everything. I would agree though that the rapier and arazu loose compared to the pilgrim and falcon less from their combat -> force recon conversion. Still the problem is that caldari recons are more or less purely specialized on ECM. Only loosing its dps is no real penality for them. The gal & minnie recons have at least partly also a dps role, so loosing dps is hurting them more. And as mentioned already the falcon has one more low for SDAs which is boosting its EW somewhat. Compared to the rook with both ships having all lows filled with SDA it has 83% of its efficiency, that isn't that big a price to pay for cloaking.
Solbright altaltalt	Posted - 2007.08.11 12:30:00 - [18] Range is vital for ECM fleet work. ECM is not really useful for solo work. That is no so for the other EWs. If a recon dampener had that sort of range then fleets would all consist of Lachesises. First to get all their damps spread wins the round. Although, painters are not so devastating as the other EW, giving the Huginn and Rapier more range would be a good idea.
Solbright altaltalt	Posted - 2007.08.11 12:33:00 - [19] And range is in no way the strength!
Aramendel Amarr Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2007.08.11 14:42:00 - [20] You miss the point. I am not talking about damp, TD or TP range. But about the range bonus of nosses, scram and webs. A minmatar recon with a web strength instead range bonus would be utterly pointless for example. The range bonus for those is very much part of the ships EW strength. A pilgrim is significantly weaker due to no range bonus. Hell, even if ou ignore that, it has compared to the curse only 60% of the available slots for nosses & neuts. Even if it had identical bonuses it would still be 40% weaker than it due to that. The falcon has as many available slots for ECM as the rook. To repeat myself, you are only looking at one single stat and get due to that very wrong results. The falcon is very much not the only recon which has reduced effective EW strength.
Solbright altaltalt	Posted - 2007.08.11 15:17:00 - [21] Fair enough. I've made my points. I'll leave it at that.
Blood Cultist	Posted - 2007.08.11 15:44:00 - [22] Originally by: James Lyrus A rook does powerful jamming, cruiser grade DPS. A falcon does _fairly_ powerful jamming, and covops cloaking. (And LOLtastic DPS) I don't see this as a huge issue. I'd still _like_ to see all the ECM ships get an extra 5% jamming power, but I'm not sure I see a need why the Rook and the Falcon have to be the same jamming strength. The falcon, after all, does have an extra lowslot for SDAs. The extra low slot is practically meaningless since you can put a jamming strength rig on the rook.
Aramendel Amarr Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2007.08.11 22:00:00 - [23] Edited by: Aramendel on 11/08/2007 21:59:52 Originally by: Blood Cultist The extra low slot is practically meaningless since you can put a jamming strength rig on the rook. Which has instead 20% only 10% base strength. And stacks with SDAs.
Blood Cultist	Posted - 2007.08.11 22:30:00 - [24] Rook: 2 SDA IIs, 1 Particle dispersion augmentor, relevant skills maxed Strength on a T2 racial: 12.57/4.19/4.19/4.19 T2 Multispec: 8.38 Falcon with 3 SDAs: T2 racial: 10.59/3.53/3.53/3.53 t2 multispec: 7.062 The extra low for a SDA II on the falcon doesn't come close to closing the gap in jamming strength between the two created by the rook's stronger bonus.
Aramendel Amarr Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2007.08.11 22:47:00 - [25] Edited by: Aramendel on 11/08/2007 22:47:11 Originally by: Blood Cultist The extra low for a SDA II on the falcon doesn't come close to closing the gap in jamming strength between the two created by the rook's stronger bonus. And I claimed it did where exactly? Originally by: Aramendel ...And as mentioned already the falcon has one more low for SDAs which is boosting its EW somewhat. Compared to the rook with both ships having all lows filled with SDA it has 83% of its efficiency, that isn't that big a price to pay for cloaking. So, lets see. But firstly, your numbers are wrong and you are also using a rig with the rook but none with the flacon. Correct comparsion: Rook multi is: 2.4 * 2 * 1.25 * 1.2 * 1.174 * 1.057 -> 8.934 Falcon multi is: 2.4 * 1.5 * 1.25 * 1.2 * 1.174 * 1.114* 1.028 -> 7.26 7.26 / 8.934 -> 0.813 -> 81.3% Which is pretty near to what I said. T2 Multispec rook: 8.38 t2 multispec falcon: 7.062 7.062/8.38 -> 0.813 or 81.3%..almost exactly like I said. And that is with using a rig on the rook and none on the falcon.
Ferocious FeAr Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.08.11 23:14:00 - [26] It needs 20% bonus to jamming strength not 10% Don't hate me, learn to love me
Jehovah Cooper Convergent Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.08.11 23:48:00 - [27] Sorry Murk but I haven't seen anyone point out yet one of the Falcon's great strengths. It can jam at fleet BS range and cloak right after starting a jam cycle, making it almost impossible for enemy BS to ever target it and it is out of range of support. This isn't practical with other ewar due to the cycle times. If it had the same strength as the Rook plus this ability it would be overpowered.
Blood Cultist	Posted - 2007.08.12 00:29:00 - [28] Originally by: Aramendel And I claimed it did where exactly? It is a statement of fact. This thread is not about you. Speaking of facts, here is another: the force recons all lose one of their combat recon equivalent's bonuses which is replaced by the cloak CPU use bonus. The remaining bonus which is determined by the recon ships skill is the same for both recons of each race, except the Rook and Falcon. The falcon gets a bonus half as strong. Originally by: Aramendel ...And as mentioned already the falcon has one more low for SDAs which is boosting its EW somewhat. Compared to the rook with both ships having all lows filled with SDA it has 83% of its efficiency, that isn't that big a price to pay for cloaking. So, lets see. Quote: But firstly, your numbers are wrong and you are also using a rig with the rook but none with the flacon. (...) They are corrected. Quote: And that is with using a rig on the rook and none on the falcon. I used the same number of jamming strength affecting mods. Set up for full jamming strength the numbers are: Rook T2 Multi: 9.18 Faclon T2 Multi: 7.31
Aramendel Amarr Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2007.08.12 08:51:00 - [29] Edited by: Aramendel on 12/08/2007 08:51:15 Originally by: Blood Cultist Speaking of facts, here is another: the force recons all lose one of their combat recon equivalent's bonuses which is replaced by the cloak CPU use bonus. The remaining bonus which is determined by the recon ships skill is the same for both recons of each race, except the Rook and Falcon. The falcon gets a bonus half as strong. As I said already in this thread this is ignoring a few things: - the gallente and minmatar recons are more dps based than the caldari ones. Loosing that dps is effecting them a good deal more than the rook loosings its dps. And, as said, the falcon has more slots available for ECM mods, so if it had the same bonus it would be stronger than the rook. I would agree however that the arazu and rapier loose less than the other recons for their cloak varsions. - the pilgrim looses a good deal more than the falcon. Firstly it looses its rangeb onus which means it has to operate in web distance and secondly even if you ignore that it has only 60% of the nos/neutpower of the curse, simply because it has less free slots for them. A ships performance is not a single stat. Quote: They are corrected. Your racial numbers for the rook are still wrong. Quote: I used the same number of jamming strength affecting mods. Fallacy. The 3 lows for the falcon is an advantage of it, just as the bigger ship bonus is an advantage of the rook. Ignoring that and not using his ability to fit 1 more SDA in addition to 2 SDAs and a rig is like ignoring the rooks higher bonus. It is a weak attempt of manipulating numbers in your favor and no equal comparsion.
Luna Nilaya Ultrapolite Socialites GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.08.12 12:29:00 - [30] Originally by: Aramendel Fallacy. The 3 lows for the falcon is an advantage of it, just as the bigger ship bonus is an advantage of the rook. Ignoring that and not using his ability to fit 1 more SDA in addition to 2 SDAs and a rig is like ignoring the rooks higher bonus. It is a weak attempt of manipulating numbers in your favor and no equal comparsion. I'm using 1600mm plate in the third low slot. It has saved my Falcon couple of times already. 3x SDA and the rig doesn't propably add almost any strenght to your ECM's because of being heavily penalized.
Aramendel Amarr Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2007.08.12 14:37:00 - [31] Originally by: Luna Nilaya I'm using 1600mm plate in the third low slot. It has saved my Falcon couple of times already. 3x SDA and the rig doesn't propably add almost any strenght to your ECM's because of being heavily penalized. Correct. However then you have a falcon which has easily twice the effective HP than the rook which is a considerable advantage. If you fit the rook with 1 SDA, an 1600mm plate and an strength rig it has on racial 11.7 strength, do the same thing with a falcon but with 2 SDAs since it has one more low and it has 10.1 strength on racials. Which means that the falcon has with a plate setup on both ships 86% of the EW strength as the rook. The maxxed EW setup is where the rook has the biggest advantage compared to the falcon.
Aria Jenneth Caldari Omerta Syndicate Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2007.08.13 06:34:00 - [32] The Rook is a (even "the") straight-up ECM platform, pure and simple. It's extremely good at what it does, but what it does is exactly one thing. Any advantage it might gain by closing range to use its weapons is an advantage its horrible vulnerability to attack makes extremely dangerous to take. It is, in a nutshell, a souped-up Blackbird, with all the same essential traits. The Falcon is a multipurpose recon ship, good for infiltration, scouting, cyno placement (if you've got a sufficiently bold / suicidal Falcon pilot) ... and capable of providing roughly Blackbird-grade ECM combined with a pulsing cloak. Frankly, in any situation where I don't have time to map out a pile of ECM-"snipe" bookmarks, I'll take the Falcon any day of the week. It waltzes happily through enemy fleet concentrations where the Rook would get primaried and ganked in a second, can place itself at extreme range without the slightest warning, and gets to choose -exactly- when it wants to enter a battle. Any effort to bring these two ships' ECM capabilities closer together will accomplish only this: the murder of the Rook. I already ended up leaving my poor lonesome Rook behind the last time my corp executed a major move; don't embarrass the poor thing further.
R0ot Got R0ot	Posted - 2007.08.13 09:25:00 - [33] Falcon and rook are both really effective ships and as already said they both preform their roles perfectly, but its obvious that ships like the Arazu and Lachesis way out-power the caldari counterparts. I'm not saying the rook/falcon aren't pwn mobiles, but the whole ECM nerf awhile back has severely gimped the rook, falcon and scorpion, but at the same time its better than seeing every pvp ship flying with one multi spec and being able to jam their target without fail, problem is damps are the new multi spec tool, with a small squad of frigs each with a damp rendering almost any target screwed. So imho opinion the bonuses for the rook/falcon/scorp need boosted, or damps need nerfed evening up the sides once more because do gallente really need another i-win button in pvp.... ------------------------------------------------------------------
Luna Nilaya Ultrapolite Socialites GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.08.13 15:12:00 - [34] Originally by: Aramendel Originally by: Luna Nilaya I'm using 1600mm plate in the third low slot. It has saved my Falcon couple of times already. 3x SDA and the rig doesn't propably add almost any strenght to your ECM's because of being heavily penalized. Correct. However then you have a falcon which has easily twice the effective HP than the rook which is a considerable advantage. If you fit the rook with 1 SDA, an 1600mm plate and an strength rig it has on racial 11.7 strength, do the same thing with a falcon but with 2 SDAs since it has one more low and it has 10.1 strength on racials. Which means that the falcon has with a plate setup on both ships 86% of the EW strength as the rook. The maxxed EW setup is where the rook has the biggest advantage compared to the falcon. Well actually I'm using Large Shield Extender II in my rook so I have pretty much same amount of HP with both ships. My jamming strenght is almost 13 with racials if I remember correctly. Rook is mean ship, I think the jamming strenght difference is quite significant. Yes, I could fit 1 more jammer with Falcon but since I'm doing a lot of scouting with it, I have the same amount of jammers in both ships.
Aramendel Amarr Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2007.08.13 15:41:00 - [35] Originally by: Luna Nilaya Yes, I could fit 1 more jammer with Falcon but since I'm doing a lot of scouting with it, I have the same amount of jammers in both ships. In which case you are using the falcon for multiple roles (ew and scouting) and the rook only for one role (EW). A specialized ship is obviously better. If you use both ships for EW only, with the rook 1 SB2, 1 LSE2 and 5 * ECM and the falcon 1 SB2 and 6 * ecm the falcon will have 90% of the rooks EW strength.
Lady Caeser Open Fist of Castallus	Posted - 2007.08.14 09:47:00 - [36] The problem with the rook and falcon is too many people fly it yep, and as more people become capable of fying it (those caldari specced players - far too many of them) it will seem like its overpowered, as people ming3 and whine about being perma jammed by 3 fully specc'd rook/falcon pilots. the key to winning at eve, is to fly a race/ship that is totally underutilised, find a unique tactic to exploit which makes it overpowered, but most important, tell nothing to anybody and hope not enough people moan about it. 1 such current ships are the huginn/rapier, that get an impossible bonus to web range making them solowtfpwn mobiles if you fit a faction scrambler. -------------------------------------- What are you looking at? --------------------------------------
Lydia Browm Gallente	Posted - 2007.08.14 10:10:00 - [37] You do know the recons are supposed to work together right. When they worked together the enemy ship / ships: Will be jammed, dampened, scrammed, webbed, painted, nossed and tracking disrupted and theres no wai you can run. And they will do damage to you even if it does slowly kill u ___________________________________________ Cookies if you hijack or sign my sig. There tasty...
prathe Minmatar Omega Enterprises Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2007.08.14 17:36:00 - [38] Edited by: prathe on 14/08/2007 17:41:15 minmatar recons primary ecm target painting effective thru both variants gallente recons primary ecm sensor damps effective thru both variants ammar recons primary ecm turret disruption effective thru both variants caldari recons primary ecm Jammers reduced effectiveness on force recon model minmatar recons primary weapon webbing same effect all models gallente recons primary weapons scrambling same effect all models ammarr recons primary weapons nos reduced effectiveness on force recon model caldari recons primary weapons ecm reduced effecttiveness on force recon model end result recons are not ballanced i fly all four races of recon and truthfully caldari needs a boost for it force recon
Luna Nilaya Ultrapolite Socialites GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.08.14 19:54:00 - [39] Originally by: Aramendel Originally by: Luna Nilaya Yes, I could fit 1 more jammer with Falcon but since I'm doing a lot of scouting with it, I have the same amount of jammers in both ships. In which case you are using the falcon for multiple roles (ew and scouting) and the rook only for one role (EW). A specialized ship is obviously better. If you use both ships for EW only, with the rook 1 SB2, 1 LSE2 and 5 * ECM and the falcon 1 SB2 and 6 * ecm the falcon will have 90% of the rooks EW strength. It's not that simple, I'm not going to do the math but Rook is a lot more effective jammer, even with one less jammer. And I can keep some cruisers perma jammed with one racial because it's strenght is higher with Rook than the sensor strenght of the ship but with Falcon I can't. SB? I would never fit my rook with shield booster.. at least not in a gang.
Aramendel Amarr Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2007.08.14 20:00:00 - [40] Originally by: Luna Nilaya It's not that simple, I'm not going to do the math but Rook is a lot more effective jammer, even with one less jammer. To repeat myself: If you use both ships for EW only, with the rook 1 SB2, 1 LSE2 and 5 ECM and the falcon 1 SB2 and 6 * ecm the falcon will have 90% of the rooks EW strength.* And SB2 = sensor booster 2. Noone in his right mind would waste a med slot for a shield booster for caldari recon, be it in gang or not in gang.

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.