|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 14:48:00 -
[1]
Originally by: SereneSally
Originally by: Aneu Angellus They are called ECCM Modules... USE THEM
Oh stop - no one really fits ECCM mods as a general setup
Slow down there skippy - you have a module that protects you pretty damn well (juuust shy of -50% chance to jam per jammer) and you STILL complain?
Fair enough - throw out the ECCM module altogether and make it a Sensor Booster Script. Problem sovled. If you can't find room for a Sensor Booster you clearly don't care about your EWAR resistance.
|
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 17:27:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Borat Sangdiev
quotin' a faildari noobtard still complaining about his inability to kill nano ships. talk about hypocritical. Point is, if you are going to nerf ships that are hard to kill, better nerf em all, and falcons fit into that mold.
Falcons are hard to kill? Am I failing at reading comprehension here?
Let's just take a quick look at something here - standard cookie cutter falcon setup
Covert Ops Cloak 3x Whatever makes you feel better about yourself
1 MWD 6 Racial Jammers
3 Signal Distortion Amps
At my skills that yield 6.6k EHP with a signature of 180m^2 if I don't have the MWD on. Base speed is just over 210 m/s with MWD currently it jumps to 1200m/s.
The ship takes 6.7 seconds to align and has an operating range of 150km (that's as far as I can lock)
Take a look at that list - it's sluggish at a 6.7 second align time (and my evasive maneuver/spaceship command skills are maxed). 150km Is well inside the range of any sniper fit battleship, and within the range of both the Cerberus and Eagle HAC's.
The ship is protected by dreams and faeries. Fitting ECCM doubles your protection against ECM per module - something no other module will claim. I'm willing to grant a lot of ships are shy on mid slots - so the best solution is to roll ECCM into the sensor booster as a script - afterall, that means any sniper fit battleship is immedeatly going to be suited for ECM resistance/interdiction.
|
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 17:35:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Omara Otawan Edited by: Omara Otawan on 29/07/2008 17:12:23
Originally by: Derek Sigres
Slow down there skippy - you have a module that protects you pretty damn well (juuust shy of -50% chance to jam per jammer) and you STILL complain?
Fair enough - throw out the ECCM module altogether and make it a Sensor Booster Script. Problem sovled. If you can't find room for a Sensor Booster you clearly don't care about your EWAR resistance.
------------------- | DO NOT FEED THE | | TROLL | ------------------- || ||
To be fair, ECCM is completely useless on ships below BS size, so he has a point there. They tend to work from sensor strength 20 and up in my experience.
The main problem is he might need one more jammer to reliably take you out, but result is the same, especially in small gang engagements you usually have more falcons than needed to jam the whole enemy fleet even if they fit ECCM.
ECM works well on several of the HAC's - or at least the Caldari HAC's both of which have the ability to engage in the native range of the Falcon and a fairly high sensor strength.
And in a gang fight the falcon is going to ECM the biggest DPS ships first. Yep I can perma jam a frigate - but unless someone needs to make a quick getaway from a tackler I don't bother. I almost always try to leave a jammer free also - never know when I myself need to make a quick getaway.
For more fun, try using Stealth bombers for the falcon interdiction tasks. High native engagment range, fantastic alpha strike (that hits for full damage no less) and the ability to get in close if need be. 3 SB's can instapop a falcon in one volley, and if your within about 70km the missiles will get there before he can even hope to warp.
|
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 17:54:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Ignatious Mei
drones - The person assigning the drones to the inty must be within drone control range of the target. To give you a idea of how hard this is my domi with 2 drone link augmenters still only has a drone control range of 91k
long range guns/long range missle - I combined these becaus eyou are saying the same, IE a sniper ship. This requires the fit of a ECCM module (Probably 2 to make sure you wont get jammed at all) to get a sniper ship out to the range required to hit you at 200k cant spare the slots to fit those ECCM modules you think are so great. Secondly, sniper ships are utterly worthless in small gang combat. They have no tank and crap DPS. Why should I have to sacrifice 2 ship out of my gang for nothing but falcon patrol?
FoF missiles - Not gonna hit at 200k, They never go for the farthest target.
fast ships - Not going to be an option anymore after the speed nerf. This USED to be a decent counter but after the speed nerf falcons will be even more overpowedred
ECCM modules - One again. they are WEAK and having to fit a module that has a single use and only one effect to have to deal with ONE ship is not balance. That why for instance sensor booster are balanced. They defend against damp but when your not agaisnt a damp ship it still a useful module. Have a ECCM and not up against a falcon, you wasted a slot.
Sensor Integrity Gang Link (I use this myself, it's pretty sweet.) - Don't know anything about this but unless it boosts everyone to the point where they are three times harder to jam I don't really care.
warping - Lol, your idea of a counter is running away? Yeah.... Thats balanced. Falcons are perfectly balanced, you can run from them!!
The fail is strong in this one. Your last comment especially shows that you are unusually fail. Falcons have no special ability to got 160Km from the gate. If they can do that it's because they have bookmarks. Other ships can make bookmarks too.
Senor Integrity adds 22.5% sensor strength without a mindlink. That's actually a pretty nice bonus. It will make a BS/BC significantly harder to jam.
Ah, I could go through the rest and amplify, but you won't listen so it would be a waste of time. Suffice it to say that after 5 months of flying falcons I'm perfectly well aware of their strengths and weaknesses, as you are obviously not, and I'm training for something else. I've ben in fights where the enemy was not prepared for ECM ships, and dominated; I've been in fights where they were and been dominated. Rock meet paper meet scissors.
Don't come whining to these forums if ECM gets nerfed and remote-rep gangs are wtfpwning you.
In the grand scheme of things in Eve there are but three routes with which to approach a problem:
Tank, Spank, and Trickery. People whined and moaned when trickery (ECM, Dampners, NOS, Neuts, Speed and so forth - little more than variations on the first two) was insufficent to counter tank and spank. Then it became such that trickery can easily best tank and spank.
Without ECM or Speed or Damps or Nos or Neuts your ONLY options left are to out tank and out gank your opponents.
If you don't want blobs you have to give that third option the ability to counter tank and spank. If you're fine with numbers being the only significant factor in the equation, by all means nerf everything that is not directly gank or tank.
Or, you could, I don't know BOOST the other ewar and perhaps the counter ewar?
|
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 17:55:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Malcanis
Speaking as a Falcon pilot, stealth bomber pilots should all be sent to prison for a very long time. Especially Purifier pilots.
It's even BETTER if you're in a blackbird and they put you in deep structure in one volley.
I don't know WHY people so rarely think to bring SB's for the job. I mean, it's sorta the role they appear to be BORN to play.
|
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 20:36:00 -
[6]
Originally by: BABARR Yes the falcon is a pain,and more since CCP boosted the ECM target jammer strenght from 10 to 20% where NOBODY ask for this boost !
It was 15% - 20%. The reasoning was that the combat oriented Recon (The Rook) had better jamming ability in every respect (lock times/range/jammer strength) than the ewar oriented Recon (the Falcon)
|
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 11:19:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Miss Rumpelstilzchen well lets see why the falcon are overpowerd... with the coming nano nerf, no ship is able to get in fast to kill it (ceptors have to less dmg, insta jamm form the falcon)
A cerberus can sling a heavy missile further than a falcon can jam. An Eagle can reach out and touch it.
Battleships can murder it, an Arazu can damp it (throw on rigs and you reach over 150km in falloff with dampners. If you REALLY want to go crazy there are implants for this purpose too).
Ceptors can close with it at which point you can warp your other hac's or cruisers to it to murder it.
6.5k EHP and little mobility isn't all that hard to overcome.
|
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.07.31 14:33:00 -
[8]
Originally by: GateScout Edited by: GateScout on 31/07/2008 02:04:53
Originally by: Ignatious Mei Cerbs don't hit at 200k.
No near a machine I can fire up SiSi...or EFT..so...
How many sensor boosters does it take for a falcon pilot to lock at 200km? At least 1...maybe2?
Isn't optimal for ECM modules something like 164km (w/ all lvl 5 skills)...and maybe 40km for fall off...so theoretically, a falcon can hit at 200km.... How many falcon pilots engage at 200km..?
Not many...and at reduced effectiveness. Try again. Unless, of course, you want to nerf everything that can hot at 200km...?
In order to engage a falcon in it's native engagement range in a cerberus I fit a sensor booster (range) which actually gives me 160km engagement range (versus the falcon's 150 base lock range). If the Falcon is fitting a booster itself and is engaging at it's max unrigged optimal range I must fit a second sensorbooster.
If the Falcon is engaging at it's max rigged optimal range I fit two sensor boosters and two missile velocity rigs and I once again exceed it's figures. It's amazingly easy to drive falcons off in a Cerb.
|
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.07.31 14:42:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Originally by: Lossy Lucy
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Originally by: Lossy Lucy Bellum, there are optimal rigs for your damps if you want to use them. Malcanis's numbers are entirely correct. Stop pretending otherwise.
Ok, Arazu with 2x optimal rigs gives me 63km optimal vs. My Falcons 230km optimal. Hmm, my Falcon's optimal is *almost* FOUR TIMES that of my Arazu. I'm not pretending shit. Stop being obtuse.
I'll ignore the insult for the moment and cherish the fact that you have come to understand that Arazu's can be effective just fine towards a target 150k way. Progress has been made.
Obviously all the MAX skilled and RANGE rigged Falcons in Eve with PROPER Bookmarks will just laugh at this but the rest probably won't when that particular Arazu shows up.
Wait, what? 60km != 150km. 60 is less than half of 150. How do you figure it can damp anything effectively at 150km?
Damp anything effectively - there is your issue. At 150km the Arazu only has to make contact with ONE dampner to remove the falcon from the fight - which by default has an engagement range of 150km (people have to choose between a MWD and sensor booster - most chose MWD and 6 jammers at the moment). Given the arazu is in DEEP falloff it's chance to hit per damp is about 50% - interestingly that's similar to what the falcons chance to jam the Arazu is per jammer (at my 12.5 jam strength on a gallente racial jammer). Getting a hit with that jammer will knock a MAX SKILLED falcon lock range down to about 112km - effectively removing him from the fight for the duration of the dampner.
|
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.07.31 14:56:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Ignatious Mei As far as damps goes this is the problem. Lets say a falcon and a arazu have the same goal. There is raven sitting 30k from a target and the point is to take it out of the fight. The falcon activates a ecm mod and has a 50 percent chance to hit it. Their cycle time is 20 seconds. If they miss the jam they wait 20 seconds and try again. Or if they have to caldari racial they activate the other one.
An arazu in the same posistion to get the same result has almost no chance. This is because it has the same 50 percent chance to hit but it has to hit with THREE damps all hitting at the same time to get the result. In addition the damp cycle is shorter on damps (10 seconds) So not only do I have to "roll" 50 percent three times in a row, I have to hit with all three in a 10 second window. If the moon and stars align and that does happen it lasts a HUGE 10 seconds.
To add to that, It takes ALL of my EW mods to do it. I can only go after one target as opposed to 3-4 like ECM.
The bottom line =
Damp optimal needs to be increased
A damp pilot with rigs and good skills should be able to severely hamper another ship with 2 damps.
I'd say the bottom line in the specific small gang situation you speak of what REALLY needs to happen is your dampner effectiveness needs to change. It takes you 3 modules to remove a ship from the fight.
Of course, this is somewhat overlooking the simple fact that dampners aren't exactly designed to remove a ship from the fight they are designed to force the fight closer - but they could still stand do do this job better.
|
|
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.08.02 21:48:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Originally by: Sconitta
Originally by: Profitteroles Edited by: Profitteroles on 01/08/2008 17:21:13 The way i see it is that when a falcon undocks it has one purpose and one purpose only, to jam. All of the falcons mid, low and rig slots are used to increase its range and strength, thats 12 fitting slots used to achieve that so why should it be so easy to counter.
It doesnt need nerfing if you want to counter it fit a ship to do that with the same dedication a falcon does to jam you.
sounds like the defence the nano guys used see were that got them
QFT. And we do know what is about to happen to nano's. Same will eventually happen to falcons. Anyone who claims the BEST counter against falcons ARENT falcons is lieing.
A falcon is hardly the best coutner for a falcon. Why? Because it takes 2 jammers to reliably jam a falcon out of a battle for long (those things have better sensor strength than battleships afterall). This is why virtually EVERY falcon pilot (or scorpion for that matter) carries 2x caldari racial jammers.
You have PLENTY of options for killing falcons available: snipe it for example. I know, I know this is an unreasonble scenario because you all can't be bothered to have somebody come along with a fitting to counter a ship.
Two HAC's are well suited to the task (cerberus and Eagle) - both can engage at the falcon's native ranges and deliver enough DPS to drive them from the field in short order.
Stealth Bombers can alpha strike falcons in 3 volleys - meaning that 3 stealth bombers can instapop a single falcon. If you use your cloak to move within 70km or so, the falcon probably won't have time to register the threat AND warp before the missiles slam home. This is probably my favorite tactic because it works pretty wonderfully and gives you a reason to fly those 15million ISK glass cannons.
|
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.08.04 12:26:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Originally by: Runner647
Go cry somewhere else, or train Falcons yourself.
Dont worry we all have falcon alts including myself. Still doesnt change the fact that it needs a nerf. Failed arguments.
I'm fairly convinced that people will never be happy until ECCM makes them immune to ECM. I understand that many ships are shy on the slots requried for such contrivances, and people don't want to sacrifice a slot if they aren't sure it's gong to help them.
I still don't see why there seems to be resistance making ECCM into a sensor booster script. The problem with ECCM isn't that it doesn't work (because it does and anyone who denys this should file bug reports regarding disfunctional modules) it's that it only does one function and the rest of the time sits there being entirely useless. If it's a SB script at least you can swap over to lockrange/lock time when there are no jammers about.
I still don't think this will satisfy many people, but at least I could say "If you can't find a place to fit a module that increases locking range, time and sensor strength you aren't trying very hard"
|
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.08.05 04:22:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 04/08/2008 17:01:43
Originally by: Matrixcvd
R u special or somethin? What part of your wakkadoo mind do you think its even remotely sensible to equate a module to a ship in the sense that 1 is better than the other when selecting capabilities?? Ok lets break it down primitive style for you Captain Stupid, 1 module or many modules? who wins???? So how are you going to say
Ok now that we got that over and next question. Why do you feel your fail analysis "If the BEST counter to a certain ship is the ship itself then it is broken" is the end all be all of game mechanics mantra? The ECM has a percentage chance of jamming its target based on skillz and target type. ECCM decreases that chance. Neither is absolute. Obviously bringing your own EWAR ship is a good start towards FITTING A BALANCED FLEET. not introducing game breaking mechanics
you're a complete nubcake
Aw thats cute. Whats the matter? Afraid that your going to lose another FOTM tool in eve? You're about to lose one soon. I know it's hard for you to understand when you're flying in FOTM-ship fleets powered by GTC's 24/7 but not all eve are FOTM chasers. Glad we cleared that first.
Now, your whole discussion about 1 module vs more modules is irrelevant. Why? Because modules get bonuses from ships. So it is more sensible to actually compare 1 ship to another or a fleet of 10 mixed ships vs another fleet of 10. I dont know but YOU might be too special to understand this.
With that in mind if you have a fleet of say 15 and you need one more pilot you will pick a falcon instead of trying to eccm all 15 in your fleet. If you dont grasp this then youre utterly stupid. What does this mean? Falcons counter falcons, eccm does not. Simple.
I really try to take your responses with a grain of salt - I DO but the nerf threads you pop up in tend to take the revolving door style of argument.
My stance is fairly simple - firstly the falcon is not the ONLY or even the most effective counter to a falcon. In fact simply SHOOTING the falcon is the most effective counter in the most general sense. ECCM facilitates this shooting function quite nicely and as such it stands to reason that the single best counter to a falcon is an ECCM fitted ship with sufficient range to make the falcon run crying for the hills. I understand ECCM has little utility for most ships - my suggestion is rather than swinging the nerf bat around like it's the only way to resolve a problem try BOOSTING the couter. Making ECCM a sensor booster mod means it's going to work very well with the current best counter - afterall sniper ships will have sensor boosters and one cannot argue against the utility of the modules. If that still proves insufficient THEN you look at the ship itself - ratchet down the bonus gradually. The falcon was never used at 10% jammer strength but 15% would be approaching a finer balance - especially with boosted ECCM thrown into the mix.
It's not that I don't empathize with the annoyance of falcons - even as a caldri pilot i've been on the wrong side of a falcon more than once. I'm just irritated that the only solution people can see to an issue of balance is "nerf the thing that works" rather than "boost the thing that doesn't work". If you people have you're way we can ensure that the recon line of ships will be relegated to hanger queens.
|
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.08.05 21:24:00 -
[14]
Originally by: TNT009
Originally by: Borat Sangdiev There should be no ship that is allowed to completely disable your ability to target back and fight. Perma jamming falcons and ecm are overpowered. nerf it.
thats what ECCM is for and if u dont fit one than its U that need to be nerfed
Max skilled falcons can't really PERMA Jam. To do so their jammer strength MUST exceed the target's sensor strength. This means that the ONLY targets that a falcon can perma jam are cruisers and frigates. ECCM's two greatest flaws are it's reliance on an existing number (sensor strength) for it's boost. One can ECCM an Ibis (I've never tried actually I don't even know if it FITS) but that still doesn't boost it's sensor strength high enough to keep it from being permenantly jammed. The ships most suited to ECCM are battleships, specifically caldari battleships. We have natively HIGH sensor strength and range bonuses that mean we can both afford to fit the module and recieve a tangible benefit.
IF we went with the suggestion of making it an SB script and that proves insufficient the only other option is to institute at bonus of (X constant increase in sensor strength or Y percent increase in sensor strength, whichever is better).
|
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.08.11 13:36:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Originally by: General Paul
Taking away a falcons range is like making a rokhs bonus inverted though (425mm rails at 30KM)
It would simply be killed a lot all the time
Like the pilgrim you mean? It also gets killed all the time. GG.
The pilgrim's utility is not a question here. Afterall they are different ships from different races that fufill a fundamentally different role (Cap warfare versus target system supression). The only correlation is the fact that they share the same ship class.
Given the fact that you admit that the Pilgrim is an inferior ship (compared to the curse I assume) because of it's short range I hope you'll see exactly WHY removing the range from the falcon would render it a failship.
Lets be honest here - when asking for a nerf to a ship or concept you are admitting you are UNWILLING (not unable) to build a ship with counters. I understand many ships are shy on mid slots - that does not excuse you from the fact that a module that is effective as a defense exists, and when fitted works quite well at providing protection from ECM. When asking for a boost to the counter you are amitting that the counter is either not viable or not working well enough to justify it's placement on your ship - this is an agument I can stomach because of the aformentioned shortness of mid slots most ships are saddled with.
ECCM can be boosted in a variety of ways - making it a sensor booster script is the most obvious. Afterall the utility concers can be asuaged when a single module provides defense against BOTH forms of targeting suppression AND provides real and tangible benefits when no ewar is applied. Other options include making ECCM shorten the jam times to a fraction of the cycle time - but this function would hardly help a large ship which are currently the best insulated and benefit the MOST from an ECCM. The third option is go give the ECCM an either/or quality - either a flat constant sensor strength bonus (say 20 points) OR double strength whichever yields a greater total in the end.
|
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.08.11 19:29:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 11/08/2008 18:35:11
Originally by: General Spaz
You win.
Doesn't require a lock and can bubble the Falcon so it stays put until it dies (slow) to your missiles.
Not even a Flycatcher has to worry about being killed by a Falcon.
Have you actually tried this? Have you actually used FoFs? Really? Have you?
I have indeed used FOF's. At close ranges with many targets to choose from FOF's offer some questionable target selection AI but that doesn't mean they don't continue to hit targets for damage. If there's only one target in the vicinity FOF's only engage that target. Since falcon's sit so far from the battle you'll find that FOF's target them juuuust fine - you don't even have to worry about drones.
Other solutions include stealth bombers which you consistantly ignore - 3 bombers can one shot a falcon - one bomber will instantly drive it from the field (you see after you nuke the shields the average falcon pilot decides it's time to leave). If the falcon tries to stay and fight with even a SINGLE stealth bomber it loses (and stealth bombers have one of the WORST tanks in the game). To be brutally honest the SB is THE best counter to the Falcon - it negates the falcon by killing it or driving it away - no ECCM needed.
ECCM is there to increase a ship's protection against ECCM in much the same way an armor hardner protects you from damage. Yes it's utterly useless if you aren't being jammed and it's functional mechanics favor larger ships over smaller ones but you can't deny it works. (Actually, apparently you can because apparently it does absolutely nothing except harm your ship fitting according to many arguments here) Is there a viable reason to boost ECCM? Certainly - it's too limiting of a module to stick in a mid slot where it competes with EVERYTHING else. THAT is the failing of ECCM - that it's situational usefulness means 95% of pilots opt for a more generally useful module rather than ECCM.
Whining about inability to engage falcons is laughable - there are MANY counters to the noble falcon - from dampners (no really - you CAN get a damp to reach out falcon range on gallente ships, effectively removing them from a fight) to battleship snipers (ECCM can handily be fit on these ships and pretending it can't is silly) to a handful of HACs (Cerberus, Eagle) to stealth bombers (all races, easy to train for), to other recons (high sensor strength makes them natively difficult to jam, most recons can sling enough damage to murder a falcon in short order) to FOF armed missile ships, to drone ships. Your options are nearly limitless.
All a falcon can do is keep you from locking - meaning all a falcon accomplishes in a gang is cutting down enemy DPS and mitigates or exacerbates the numerical equation. It's direct combat support is non-existant making it a true combat multiplier (It's like putting armor on infantrymen - its presence passively increases the combat potential of a unit). The Whine Brigade however doesn't want to hear tales like this - to them the fact that "moar firepower" is not the solution to a problem in eve irks them (in the same way that it irked people that shooting nano ships by pressing F1-f8 was hard). A single button complete counter to ECM is the ONLY thing that will satisfy people, or rendering ECM useless. In either case the argument for nerfing falcons boils down quite simply to the fact that people don't want to THINK when they play this game. They want cookie cutter configurations and cookie cutter solutions to problems. In spite of the fact that such solutions are available to the falcon problem people still don't accept it because using a specialized ship to kill another specialized ship is some sort of sin against humanity.
|
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.08.11 19:31:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Originally by: Atsuko Ratu Blob loses to bigger blob.
Blob is overpowered.
Tank loses to more tank.
Tank is overpowered.
DPS loses to more DPS.
DPS is overpowered.
Nanos lose to more nanos.
Nanos are overpowered.
ECM loses to more ECM.
ECM is overpowered.
Etc.
Actually you totally misunderstood me.
DPS specced fleet can easily die to ewar heavy fleet. A BS blobs can easily die to 20 bombers or ewar heavy fleet or a sniper fleet. Tank can easily die to some neuts and ranged fleet.
Nano fleets were only tackled and killed by bigger nano fleets effectively. That is the MOST effective way to KILL another nano fleet.
To counter an ECM heavy fleet you bring MORE ECM. To counter 5 falcons you bring 10. It is the BEST counter.
It is wrong.
It's the best counter because no one wants to consider the fact that stealth bombers have ALL the tools at thier disposal to solve the falcon problem. Seriously. Get a few friends in SB's and join some gangs. I gurantee that cloak + cruise launcher combo will resolve the issue in SHORT order. And by resolve I mean "cause to implode". That's right - bombers can KILL falcons (a frigate kiling a cruiser?!?1)
|
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.08.11 19:52:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Borat Sangdiev
Originally by: Derek Sigres
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Originally by: Atsuko Ratu Blob loses to bigger blob.
Blob is overpowered.
Tank loses to more tank.
Tank is overpowered.
DPS loses to more DPS.
DPS is overpowered.
Nanos lose to more nanos.
Nanos are overpowered.
ECM loses to more ECM.
ECM is overpowered.
Etc.
Actually you totally misunderstood me.
DPS specced fleet can easily die to ewar heavy fleet. A BS blobs can easily die to 20 bombers or ewar heavy fleet or a sniper fleet. Tank can easily die to some neuts and ranged fleet.
Nano fleets were only tackled and killed by bigger nano fleets effectively. That is the MOST effective way to KILL another nano fleet.
To counter an ECM heavy fleet you bring MORE ECM. To counter 5 falcons you bring 10. It is the BEST counter.
It is wrong.
It's the best counter because no one wants to consider the fact that stealth bombers have ALL the tools at thier disposal to solve the falcon problem. Seriously. Get a few friends in SB's and join some gangs. I gurantee that cloak + cruise launcher combo will resolve the issue in SHORT order. And by resolve I mean "cause to implode". That's right - bombers can KILL falcons (a frigate kiling a cruiser?!?1)
k, its been said before but for some reason you either can't read or comprehend.
It's simply **** poor planning to bring 3 stealth bombers to kill 1 Falcon, when you can bring 1 falcon to counter the enemy falcon and then still shut down 3 more of the enemy fleet besides the hostile falcon.
3 bombers instapop a falcon. 1 bomber drives it from the field. I don't see why needing 1 20 million ISK ship to drive away (or kill if they stick around and fight) an 80 million isk ship is poor planning. Likewise I don't see why using 3 20 million isk ships to instantly destroy 1 80 million isk ship is poor planning. Indeed MOST operations involve using vastly superior nubmers to kill individual targets (if it's a fair fight you've done something wrong - remember that key bit of Eve wisdom?)
Seems like the bomber works REALLY well to me
|
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.08.12 04:12:00 -
[19]
Originally by: baltec1 A cruise missile is just as deadly from a SB as a battleship.
Often it's deadlier - it after all has the explosion radius of a frigate missile.
|
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.08.12 15:20:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Originally by: Sokratesz
I'm not denying that. I'm merely saying that spending alot less ISK and alot less effort will net you similar results.
And a falcon has a pretty darn high sensor strength to begin with..(28pts), so unless you get veyr lucky you won't be 'shutting down' more than one of them unless you're loaded on racial jammers.
Stop trolling and turning everything personal.
Yeah but the problem is that if your philosophy is fitting 25-50 ships with eccm instead of bringing 1-2 falcons as ecm counter then youll be losing a heck of alot more isk then those falcons are worth.
Once again we come to the crux of the problem - falcons aren't overpowered an ECCM isn't underpowered. ECCM does it's job remarkably well (Every ship sporting ECCM means your gang is immensely well insulated against ECM afteral). The key problem we see yet again here is that ECCM is a module that takes up a precious mid slot - in a fleet situation those mid slots are crammed with sensor boosters and tracking enhancers (and if you're caldari sensor booster and Tank). If ECCM were a script for a sensor booster a fleet of sniper battleships would natively have the modules at their disposal to accomplish the job of countering the falcon with a much less significant loss of utility.
Other solutions include using a raven at 249km to drive the falcon away (249km insulates the Raven from anything but Rokhs most of the time, who often fit something besides spike ammo anyway to make up for their lack of a damage bonus and fight at the 160 - 180km range). The missiles might not ever even touch the falcon but a handful of cruise ravens are perfectly suited to drive falcons away - afterall they can fit remote ECCM fairly handily and their native incredibly long range means that while they will be squishy targets they won't be primaried early on (most people don't consider a cruise raven a credible addition of DPS to a fleet so they generally end up low on the target list).
Of course we see yet again that the stealth bomber would work wonders here if the lag situation were somewhat forgiving. Lag is the key problem with most advanced maneuvers and tactics, especially regarding bombers (like actually successfully using those bombs when you may have many seconds of module lag to compensate for - in fleet situations those bombing runs are almost ALWAYS suicide missions just because you aren't likely to be able to warp out before the bomb goes off thanks to lag)
|
|
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.08.12 22:15:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Originally by: Grimpak
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer range nerf
imho only nerf acceptable on the falcon tbh. as for the rest, leave it as it is.
Imo they should remake the whole ecm thing. ECM should be a missile disruptor, just like amarr get TDs. Makes much more sense and is more fun for everyone.
No because then TD's would just plain be better - there ARE more turret ships than missile ships out there afterall.
I too think EWAR should be redesigned but I think TD's should offer both turret disurption AND missile disruption.
|
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.08.15 16:38:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Originally by: baltec1
A single ECCM stoped my geddon from being jammed by a falcon and a rook. I would get hit a few cycles in a row then get the same amount of time to fire back.
I'm pretty sure you made that up.
Yea, or it could be a a true story. Most falcons carry 1 amarr racial - giving you a 60 or so percent chance to jam a non eccm'd Apoc or abou 30% chance to jam an ECCM'd apoc. Depending on how the dice rolls work that can work out something like this:
jam no jam no jam jam no jam no jam
OR even like this: jam jam no jam jam no jam no jam no jam
OR if viewed in the short term where statistcal probability won't likely achieve an even sort it could work out like
jam jam jam jam no jam
Regardless, in the long term an ECCM'd apoc gets jammed `1/3 of the time by a falcon with 1 amarrian racial. If the falcon pilot is desperate to jam that apoc he may start throwing non racial jammers on him to up his chances. Denying the statistical odds do you no good when you say it doesn't work.
Approach the issue from what you REALLY have an issue with - that ECCM is only situationally useful and on a ship shy of mid slots (like an apoc) you can't afford to have a situational module. In short, make it a SB script and, if necessary, give the script a follow on bonus to ECCM strength and/or give it an either/or boost (i.e. 15 point boost OR x percent, whichever is greater, giving small ship a REASON to fit the things - as it stands T1 ships smaller than battleships see limited benefit, going from perma jam in frigates to 90% odds of jamming for example) I don't think the latter will be necessary because the single biggest issue with ECCM is few ships actually fit the things (regardless of what people say less than 5% of ships I see show any indidcation they are trying to stop my jamming shenanigans).
|
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.08.16 06:24:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Derek Sigres on 16/08/2008 06:25:16
Originally by: goodby4u
Originally by: Aneu Angellus They are called ECCM Modules... USE THEM
Cown's vid
Near the end youll see him packing 3x eccms and still being perma jammed, overloaded thats 160 freaking sensor strength.
Are you REALLY asking us to pack or say 5 or 6?
Past this im not one to call NARF! But the falcon being able to lock down 160 sensor strength for any amount of time is just bad...Especially at 100km.
1) I didn't see him perma jammed - I saw him jamed at the end. There was a LOT of that video where he wasn't jamed - ergo he was not permenantly jammed even for the duration of his video.
2) 160 Sensor strength versus 14.5 strength jammer (excellent skills, sda's and so forth) yeilds less than a 10% chance per jammer to jam.
3) It is unknown how many jamers were dedicated to jamming him and ONLY him.
4) Like anything based on luck just because your chance to be jammed is say 5% doesn't mean you won't happen to have a streak of bad luck where you're jammed 5 times in a row. Statistically speaking the odds of that happening are 0.00000000390625% though. That's worse than your chances of getting struck by lightning AND winning the lottery.
5) Conversely a 60% chance to jam (as good as you're going to get versus battleships give or take a point or two) could yield 5 missed jams at a 1% possibility.
So let's look at this even more statistically - if you're base chance to be jammed by a SINGLE jammer is 60% and you happen to be in a battleship capable of shooting the falcon (I.E. any sort of sniper ship) you need 2 cycles of not being jammed to actualy finish locking and start shooting (1 cycle gets you a lock and MAYBE a volley if you're johnny on the spot with the button mashing). Base non ECCM'd odds of this happening: 16% With ECCM (cutting your jam chance down to about 30%, once again approximated) gives you the following chance to get two consesecutive missed jam cycles: 49%
ECCM doesn't just halve your chance to get jammed - it's effects are far greater reaching than that. Yes it's luck of the dice and 49% may not be good enough for a situational module, but don't be bandying about words like perma jam when all you really mean is you were unable to contribute any offensive or projectected defensive capabilities for a frustrating period of several jam cycles.
|
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.08.16 19:39:00 -
[24]
Originally by: goodby4u
Originally by: Derek Sigres Edited by: Derek Sigres on 16/08/2008 06:25:16
Originally by: goodby4u
Originally by: Aneu Angellus They are called ECCM Modules... USE THEM
Cown's vid
Near the end youll see him packing 3x eccms and still being perma jammed, overloaded thats 160 freaking sensor strength.
Are you REALLY asking us to pack or say 5 or 6?
Past this im not one to call NARF! But the falcon being able to lock down 160 sensor strength for any amount of time is just bad...Especially at 100km.
stuff
You watching the same video as me? String of bad luck doesnt happen that often, and not only that it should NEVER happen, so what if the falcon lost jam 2 or 3 times? The guy with the MAGICAL COUNTER DEVICE was dropped because he was jammed(by the looks of things almost perma)the entire fight.... And what if he was able to lock again? He wouldnt be able to primary the falcon because hes sitting over 100km off.
So what if he was solo? 3x eccms should always = no jamming... Not to mention that means he has the sensor strength of more then 4 battleships without eccms.
And no im not going entirely off the video alone, im also going off ingame experience, because when i see a falcon on my overview I instantly think half our fleets dps will be taken away.
Lastly, Can a pilgrim do what that falcon did in the video? Only to turret ships.... Can an arazu? Doubt it because packing 3x sensor boosters = no dampening ability and a dead arazu due to the arazus short range compared to the falcon.
The Falcon's only direct peer is the Gallente Recon set. Why? Becase both Gallente EWAR and Caldari EWAR accomplish the same fundamental thing: supression of enemy targeting systems.
There was a TIME when gallente EWAR was handy, especially in small gangs. Unfortunately the nerf brigade pitched a fit for MONTHS and got the modules nerfed into thier current state of obscalescence.
Now, if your complaint is that a falcon/rook works really well while all the other recons are situationally useful at best perhaps that's an idication of the real problem. The falcon works, the rest don't. The solution isn't to break the falcon (though it does offer balance) it's to make the OTHER recons more useful.
As to your point of bad luck doesn't happen like that - well yeah actually it DOES. But let's face it, there are things in that video that are NOT clear - i.e. how many racial jammers he has on him from what number of ships. 3 ECCM provides immesne protection against a jammer or two (as many as you are really likely to hvae on you) but do nothing if you have 2 falcons worth of jammers being dumped on you.
|
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.08.18 12:45:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Phoibos Edited by: Phoibos on 18/08/2008 12:14:59 I think ccp should shutdown the all nerf threads on this forum and only allow constructive ideas if you want something changed in game. Nerf threads with the words nerf this shis its overpowered.... fits a +10 yearsold FPS game..
This forum is filled with so much crap and this really need a change!
. . . Having played many FPS games I can honestly say it's pretty freakin' rare that you actually hear about people wanting something nerfed.
Who can say why? Is it because balance is easier to achieve in a game where player dexterity, reaction time and precision is the ultimate key to victory? Is it because FPS players don't really suffer anything when they get killed by a "possibly out of line" weapon?
All MMO's are whine fests on the forums, Eve is not alone in this regard. The only difference is, in Eve death is more than a mild inconvience (OH NOES - I have to repair my armor after I got killed 46 times in WoW!).
Take whines with a grain of salt. Most of the time people have zero experience with what they're talking about and only jump on bandwagons. Nano whines are a great example - how many times have you actually fought a Vagabond going 12km/s? I KNOW it's possible to get a Vaga to go that fast but, let's face the music here - not MANY players have the billion isk or two required to pull it off. Reading the nerf threads on nano's you'd think EVERY vagabond was going that fast (and yet, somehow also delivering all of that DPS in spite of the fact that Vaga's don't generate damage beyond their drones and missile launcher at speed).
My biggest issue with most whines is people don't want to be given the tools to solve the problem themselves, they want to be handed a solution by the developers - in the form of breaking what works. Asking for a buff to a counter is one thing - you are stating your toolset won't let you complete a certain action. Asking for a nerf is another - you're stating that either 1) The toolset is so dramaticially ineffecient for the task that a nerf would be less game breaking than a buff (not true in this case) or 2) you don't want to make compromises and prefer solutions being handed to you on a silver platter.
|
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.08.18 13:40:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Phoibos BTW I dont give a f... if its similar nerf threads on other mmo's forums could be a very-good idea to try change that then...
You clearly misunderstood my post. Here's the cliff notes version: 1) Whining is an integral part of the MMO community 2) Most whines are conducted by people with no real experience in the matter, it's just bandwagon hopping. 3) Whining for a nerf is asking for a handout, asking for a boost is requesting the tools to resolve the prolem yourself.
|
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.08.18 15:21:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Cpt Branko
Originally by: Derek Sigres
My biggest issue with most whines is people don't want to be given the tools to solve the problem themselves, they want to be handed a solution by the developers - in the form of breaking what works. Asking for a buff to a counter is one thing - you are stating your toolset won't let you complete a certain action.
Can I haz 500% buff to ECCM?
Oh, wait. Buffing one thing nerfs another...
Do you think a 500% buff to ECCM is required?
And, just as importantly if you buff the counter you still have to FIT the counter. My belief is the real underlying issue with ECM isn't it's power OR the power of the counter module - it's the fact that people don't fit them. People claim they fit them just like the ratting raven pilot will cliam he fitted a heavy neut before being owned by a solo vagabond but I think we all know how true THAT story is.
Saying buffing one thing nerfs a another is patently false. Buffing railguns doesn't make lasers any worse afterall - it only makes them worse with respect to railguns. Buffing TD's doesn't make guns worse, only worse with respect to Tracking Disruptors. Nerfing a railgun means it's always going to be worse, not just situationally worse. THAT is the difference between a nerf and a boost.
|
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.08.18 15:34:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Dr Fighter eccm on a capital works well but far from unjammable, eccm on a BS makes a bit of difference but not alot, fitting one on anything smaller wont make any difference at all.
Going from 60% chance to jam per module on you to 30% (a full 50% reduction) is substantial especially when you look at the real numbers.
If you want to do some good in a battleship you need to get TWO cycles without being jammed. Without ECCM your odds of doing that? Less than 20%. With ECCM? Almost 50%
|
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.08.20 21:33:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Lorz0r
Originally by: Srioghal moDhream There is no way a caldari ship should add anything to pvp so nerf the falcon. Nerf the raven too as it is becoming a usable ship in pvp. Hit them hard so that they know there place is in pve and they will never leave it again.
Look I fly Caldari and yeah we aren't the best for PVP but when 1 ship can essentially make a small gang of battleships totally and utterly useless from 180km away then something isn't right.
Why is it not right? I'm curious - it is afterall what the ship is designed to do fit to do and flown to do. If it didn't do that THEN we'd have some problems about things not being right.
Of course, it is irritating to be jammed - I can sympathize. I have flown falcons (and I don't really enjoy it much but that's neither here nor there) and I have been on the receiving end of falcons and I think either side of that particular stick sucks but face the music: the falcon is the ONLY recon that is useful in any gang for any situation. Does that make it overpowered or does that indicate the other recons are underpowered? I tend to believe the latter. |
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.08.21 18:06:00 -
[30]
If the falcon CANNOT effectively remove 2 ships worth of DPS (or the other ECM ships for that matter) then there is no reason to fly the ships.
As such, I present my multi step program for "fixing" ecm since it appears everyone believes it's "broken". Note that the steps are in order if implementation and represent a scalability to the "nerf" proposal. 1) Make ECCM a sensor booster script 2) Boost ECCM effectiveness on small ships (give it an base strength bonus and a percentage bonus with an either/or standard, whichever is higher) 3) Reduce falcon's jam strength to 15% per level versus 20% 4) Reduce Falcon's Range from 10% to 5% per level
I don't think it will take all four steps - really 1 and 2 would essentially resolve the issue. 3 and 4 would still make the falcon useful for it's surprise EWAR but it would be forced into closer ranges (zealot's for example could murder them) while the rook would take the long range/high strength jamming roles. |
|
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.09.26 05:08:00 -
[31]
Originally by: arbalesttom This.
Damps are stackingnerfed, webs are stackingnerfed, td's are (not sure about that though), neuts are....yeah...another story i suppose, and ecm is way overpowered.
There's a REALLY good reason why ECM isn't stacknerfed. It doesn't stack.
Neat how that works isn't it?
Asking for a stack nerf on a non stacking effect is like asking for GUNS to be stack nerfed - they too work on the same principle. Each module operates of it's own accord independently of what the other modules do. The effects are not added together to make one giant roll, instead you get a series of smaller rolls. As such the effects of the module are already stack nerfed - just start doing the math yourself and you'll quickly find that your increased odds of jamming per module applied clearly indicate a naturally occuring diminishing return.
Now, that being said, there are LOTS of good solutions to the falcon condrum. Every 10 pages or so, someone throws out some good suggestions. By an large this nearly 800 post thread is little more than whining and counter whining that is pretty much the epitome of the internet argument. I hope the DO nerf falcons - and then whatever the hell it is the people who did the most whining fly. That'll learn ya
|
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.09.29 15:51:00 -
[32]
ECCM in this game is actually fairly odd. In the case of ladar/radar all it's effecitvely doing is increasing the amplitude of the signal being broadcast, thus overpowering the interference. In this case, unless the jamming signal can actually overpower the radar signal the worst case scenario is an inaccurate return (something similar to the way a sensor dampner works). A better countermeasure would involve rapid frequency hops, or even better multi-frequency operation. Radio theory indicates if a signal is 750MHz away from an interfereing frequency it has no effect.
Magnetometric and Gravimetric sensors on the otherhand work on stranger principles, that would actualy be harder to jam. Magnetometric jammers could function by producing "false positives" by emmiting small clouds of highly magnetic debris (similar to how chaff works by producing a second option). Again, the targeting system could probably STILL function at a reduced effeciency. Gramimetric sensors don't really seem to function within my understanding of physics or target acquisition and therefore who can say exactly how or why a jammer would or would not work.
To me, it seems that ECCM in it's current state at BEST should be a sensor booster function. Having the option to route additional power trough the sensor arrays for radar/ladar would result in a higher amplitude signal, helping to overpower the noise being broadcast by the pesky Falcon. The true ECCM device would, in reality represent either a secondary (or even group) of sensor arrays that can reduce any targeting error.
It seems to me, a better, more realistic option for ECM functionality doesn't involve removing the ability to make a lock, instead it should increase the error probability of a system, and only in extreme cases result in a complete shutdown of the sensor array.
Basically, the suggestion goes something like this:
Under normal jamming a jammed ship will have a PENALTY regarding the signature size of any target. In other words, as the jamming strength increases, the target's effective signature resolution shrinks (making it take longer to lock and making it harder to hit). This represents the fact that the ship is attempting to overcome the jamming through error correction protocols. Jamming strength would be applied to senor strength and the ratio would determine the percentage bonus a potential target recieves in signature radius. If the ratio exceeds a result of 1, which today results in the true fabled perma jam, the target's sensors are totally supressed and they lose all ability to target.
Such a change represents a significant nerf to jamming ships. As such, a long standing convention whereby jammers do not stack should be removed, and replaced with a reduced stacking foruma. Rather than directly adding jamming strength, we can assume that a single jammer applies only a portion of it's strength to the target. 2 jammers in this case would remove the average HAC/BC from a fight indefinitely, whereas it would take 3 jammers to do the same to a battleship.
There are of course problems with such a suggestion. The functionality is essentially that of a combination of sensor dampner and tracking disruptor (only it works on missiles as well). The essential purpose of removing DPS from an opposing gang remains, and while a perma jam can still be acquired (and more easily) it requires a subsntantial application of jammers. Thus the 3 - 4 battleships worth of DPS removal remains. Those battleships are still free to act in an offensive fashion however, which often seems to be the biggest gripe.
|
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.09.29 15:54:00 -
[33]
The single biggest problem however is the simple fact that jammers in this case would become standard issue mid slot modules. Even a humble multispec will virtually guarntee a substantial damage reduciton on a non ECM ship. The solution is to force the modules to ONLY function on ECM boats.
The solution is shockingly simple: apply a HUGE CPU use to each module. ECM ships receive a reduction to ECM CPU use (similar to the bonus on BC's and Command Ships for command modules).
|
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.09.29 16:33:00 -
[34]
One last caveat to add - if such a change were implemented cycle time would have to be dramatically reduced. The reason is appears that the effects of ECM do not "turn off" once you lose lock (and presumably stop projecting the effect on a ship). By removing the probability based system and replacing it with a static effect there is no need to fiddle with cycle times as a balance. A short, 3 - 5 second cycle is all that's required, with the cap per cycle adjusted accordingly. |
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.09.30 05:03:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Azeroth Uluntil
Originally by: Derek Sigres One last caveat to add - if such a change were implemented cycle time would have to be dramatically reduced. The reason is appears that the effects of ECM do not "turn off" once you lose lock (and presumably stop projecting the effect on a ship). By removing the probability based system and replacing it with a static effect there is no need to fiddle with cycle times as a balance. A short, 3 - 5 second cycle is all that's required, with the cap per cycle adjusted accordingly.
So, in summary, we'd go back to 2003-2004 when you could only jam a target by applying enough to overcome their sensor strength, but without the cycle jamming ability of old.
Nope, the result is a true "removal" of a ship from the fight would take more jammers, resulting in fewer actual or theoritical "perma jams". The primary function of ECM would essentially be to reduce damage by forcing the targeted ship to fire on what is essentially a smaller target. In short, a single jammer reduces the ships DPS output guarnteed by a quantity. Several jammers remove the ship from the fight entirely. The balance would amount to the average falcon could completely remove 2 battleships or 3 cruisers from a fight if dedicating all jammers to the cause, or it could force 6 battleships/cruisers to fight at a reduced effeciency.
In smaller gangs the falcon would no longer be an absolute death sentence. Ships would still be able to fight under jamming, and even attempt to drive the offending ECM ship from the battlefield. Thus, reacting promptly to the falcon's presence is possible, even with run of the mill small gang ships.
ECM would become an exceedingly dangerous task in general, but still undeniably useful. Hoards of falcon alts would be respecced (or canceled) because the increased danger means the pilot will be forced to pay attention to the battle or risk losing the expensive recon again and again.
|
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.10.03 20:15:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Borat Sangdiev
Originally by: supr3m3justic3 Your crys of nerf are going to be unheard...just like the nano nerf.....it isnt gonna happen!!!
That is not up to me or you to decide. ECM and ECCM needs adjustments, that is all I wanted to point out.
The players are indeed the only people who's opinion matters. You can think about a game as being in the hands of uncaring and irreverent gods (i.e. the developers) all you want - at the end of the day they have to have a product that convinces people that paying a monthly fee is a good investment. **** off enough of the customer base and the product fails.
That being said, vocal minorities and idiots are common in all MMO's I've ever participated it, and luckily the developers often steer cleer of silly arguments.
ECM and nano happen to be in a justifiable need of a nerf for a host of reasons. It's just that most of the suggestions on how to accomplish it are, to put it bluntly, stupid.
|
|
|
|