| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Spartan dax
We are Legend
   |
Posted - 2008.08.05 20:24:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: DruzidelCastro
I think the biggest problem with falcons is their range - not their jam strength. With a covert cloak and the ability to jam from 180-200km away they have a tendency of completely buggering gangs up. If they were brought down to only 100km range however...
"But you can't do that! It's too close and I wouldn't be able to fly my falcon!"
So get a rook. As it stands the rook is useless when compared to the falcon - yay more dps? Lowering the jamming range on a falcon would make a defining statement between the rook and falcon.
Rook - Jam strength and range out to 200km
Falcon - Jam strength and range out to 100km, but with a covert cloak to make up for the range loss
Oh please! The Rook is horribly bipolar, Long range jamming coupled with medium range missiles? It's the Rook that needs changing to make people prefer it over the Falcon.
Drop the stupid range bonus on it, move a mid to a low and give it some speed/damage/agility/drone bay or something instead. In fact, make it a bigger kitsune with teeth. That is the way to get people into rooks.
|
Spartan dax
We are Legend
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 14:07:00 -
[2]
Originally by: DruzidelCastro
Originally by: Spartan dax
Oh please! The Rook is horribly bipolar, Long range jamming coupled with medium range missiles? It's the Rook that needs changing to make people prefer it over the Falcon.
Drop the stupid range bonus on it, move a mid to a low and give it some speed/damage/agility/drone bay or something instead. In fact, make it a bigger kitsune with teeth. That is the way to get people into rooks.
Er, I'm pretty sure people don't hop into falcons or rooks to do dps. The launchers are there primarily for self-defense I'd think.
That's the thing. The Falcon and Rook perform the exact same role. Mix it up a bit I say, the curse and Pilgrim are two very different beasts so why can't the Rook and Falcon have some differences? Give people a reason to fly the damb ship and you might see less Falcon pilots out there and more Rooks.
(And no I don't have a Rook BPO  )
|
Spartan dax
We are Legend
eXceed.
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 13:39:00 -
[3]
Originally by: DruzidelCastro
It's not even really that ECM works as well as it does, it's how well it works from a stupidly high range. Might not be much of an issue for people in 0.0 due to an abundance of snipe-fit battleships, but small engagements in low-sec? Forget it.
I'd consider falcons to be twice the ship the rook is just because it can cloak and jam with the same strength and range.
This is what it looks like now:
Rooks - Cannot cloak, high jam strength, long jam range
Falcons - Can cloak, high jam strength, long jam range
This is what I'd like to see it come to:
Rooks - Cannot cloak, high jam strength, long jam range
Falcons - Can cloak, high jam strength, much lesser jam range
Seems a bit more balanced between the two, eh? Everyone disregards the cloak for some reason. It's a pretty big deal.
Oh fine let's say CCP adheres to your whining and removes the optimal bonus, what does it get instead? If you're clever enough to come up with a way to make sure the Falcon isn't overpowered then you should be smart enough to come up with a usefull bonus for it while demanding it nerfed.
So what does it get, a 5% kinetic damage bonus?
|
Spartan dax
We are Legend
eXceed.
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 13:59:00 -
[4]
I think further comments won't be required.
|
Spartan dax
We are Legend
eXceed.
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 15:30:00 -
[5]
You don't get it. What you're describing, the midrange jammer that can chase off inties, that is the Combat recon but currently that combat recon sucks at doing that. A Falcon with its puny launchers and hitpoints would get ganked by a Bantam trying to do this.
Sure the speednerf might help slightly but what really needs to be done is making the Rook more attractive as an alternative to the Falcon.
But to play along with your little Non optimal Falcon charade.
Usefull bonuses: (per lvl)
5% more agility
5% more CAP
5% more speed
That nifty MWD bonus the Thorax gets
5% smaller sigradius
And of course you'd have to redesign locking ranges so it locks faster and shorter as well. A 25m3 dronebay would hardly overpower it come to think of it.
Hell I'd fly that, 25% more agility, 25m3 drone bay.... Not a gang ship anymore. Please give me one.
|
Spartan dax
We are Legend
eXceed.
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 18:04:00 -
[6]
I just find it amusing that he wants the ship with no defensive capabilities whatsoever to be the shortranged one. Seeing how he thinks the rooks 5 launchers is usefull for selfdefence when it's supposed to sit at 200k......
Here's a newsflash for our nerf enthusiast, if you set up gatespots around a gate it won't matter one bit wether you're in a Falcon or a Rook since a good Falcon pilot won't actually cloak between the gatespots since you have a retargeting delay even on the cov ops cloak.
So why are people flying Falcons? Because the Rook does the exact same thing only with less utility. It will not be one iota less devastating than a Falcon on a well setup gatecamp complete with jammingspots.(And lets be honest here, as all nerfers know, Falcons ALWAYS come with a complete set of Bookmarks around a gate and they're always AT LEST 200k away with 4 x 7 racials which PERMA jams ECCM:d CARRIERS)So no, nerfing the Falcon won't stop your lamenting about long range jammers.
A ship with no tank, no dps, no speed at closer ranges just _dies_, cloak or no cloak. (Think passive drake without the tank) The Rook is pitifull at defending itself and the Falcon would need a MASSIVE boost to pull it off. For starters, SDA's would have to disappear from the game giving back the ship its low slots and the jamming strength of the ships would have to be adjusted.
|
| |
|