EVE Search - Stop saying 'nerf Falcons' and let us know the real problem.

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Stop saying 'nerf Falcons' and let us know the real problem.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Leeluvv Federation of Freedom Fighters Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2008.09.28 19:24:00 - [1] Edited by: Leeluvv on 28/09/2008 19:27:00 Every 'neref Falcon' thread I've read chops and changes the actual problem as the debate continues. Please will all the people asking for Falcons to be nerfed ignore the ship and describe the actual problem. Is it: ECM, Range, Cloak, All of them above, Something else entirely... Then we can have a sensible debate (hahaha, fat chance, but it's worth a try). Lee == Sig to follow
Evanade Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.09.28 19:30:00 - [2] c) incompetence of the whiners --------------------------- sok alt - main got banzored
Horchan Gallente	Posted - 2008.09.28 19:37:00 - [3] I'd rather they keep the Falcon as is, and buff the rest of the recon ships so they are of comparable ability. --- DesuSigs
Leeluvv Federation of Freedom Fighters Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2008.09.28 19:40:00 - [4] Edited by: Leeluvv on 28/09/2008 19:39:49 Originally by: Horchan I'd rather they keep the Falcon as is, and buff the rest of the recon ships so they are of comparable ability. You mentioned the name of the ship, therefore you lose. Read the post and let me know the problem that would necessitate other Recons being changed, when Battleships, Covert Ops, Black Ops and a whole host of other ships share some of the things a Falcon has. Lee == Sig to follow
Horchan Gallente	Posted - 2008.09.28 19:42:00 - [5] So because I don't comply with your arbitrary rules on an open forum I lose? --- DesuSigs
Miss KillSome Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.09.28 19:46:00 - [6] Falcons..hmm..they jamm from 250km..make their optimal as dampers have, double falloff that dampers do. Problem solved.
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2008.09.28 19:47:00 - [7] The problem is long-range ships that Megathrons can't counter. The Gallente PvP "experts" refuse to accept that PvP can happen outside of the 24km warp scramble range. The ship that shall not be named is simply one of the few long range ships that can really hurt a blaster ship, the Gallente pilot's ego is not concerned about sniper battleships because they don't have 99999999999999 EFT damage.
Orion GUardian Caldari	Posted - 2008.09.28 20:15:00 - [8] So the problem is not the problem with the ship but with the PvPers against it. My opinion really as Caldari has ECM as only real viable Pv tactic as our DPS is not very good. and to get 250km range on nottobenamed ship is difficult...lets say 150km. It would be a viable option to change other Recons to reach similar ranges BUT the modules itself had different range implemented [ECM higher range than webifiers and SDs etc] so that was balancing,too why throw that overboard because one ship is working as intended?
LadyLubU2 Caldari Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2008.09.28 20:17:00 - [9] Posting in one of the first anti-nerf-the-falcon-whinethreads. Good try op
Orion GUardian Caldari	Posted - 2008.09.28 20:24:00 - [10] keep it alive ^^
Angelic Eviaran	Posted - 2008.09.28 21:54:00 - [11] Originally by: Merin Ryskin The Gallente PvP "experts" refuse to accept that PvP can happen outside of the 24km warp scramble range. That is no problem. As long as it cant use a cov ops cloak its fine to jam from 250km out. Rooks and scorps are fine.
Grimpak Gallente Trinity Nova Trinity Nova Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.28 22:04:00 - [12] Originally by: Leeluvv Edited by: Leeluvv on 28/09/2008 19:27:00 Every 'neref Falcon' thread I've read chops and changes the actual problem as the debate continues. Please will all the people asking for Falcons to be nerfed ignore the ship and describe the actual problem. Is it: ECM, Range, Cloak, All of them above, Something else entirely... Then we can have a sensible debate (hahaha, fat chance, but it's worth a try). Lee range. I'm actually fine with the ECM strength, but with the upcoming speed change, the only thing that I would change would be the range bonus of the ship that won't be named. it would also breathe new life into the ship's uncloaked brother. --- Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals. ain't that right.
Felix Dzerzhinsky Caldari Wreckless Abandon G00DFELLAS	Posted - 2008.09.28 22:21:00 - [13] Edited by: Felix Dzerzhinsky on 28/09/2008 22:25:12 I tend to agree that range in an issue when it comes to ECM specilized ships. I don't particularly think the Falcon is overpowered (especially since I have been flying ECM ships since 04) but that ECCM is not strong enough - I think ECCM should reflect jams when jams fail. So Radar ECCM not only decreaces the chance that you are jammed, but if you fail, then the Falcon is jammed for that period. Make it a skill or something. Originally by: Merin Ryskin The Gallente PvP "experts" refuse to accept that PvP can happen outside of the 24km warp scramble range. I know you are on some strange crusade in creating new FOTMs - and one of your priorities is to scare pilots out of Gallente ships. Without directly commenting on this - I will say that its the Gallente and Minmatar ships that are taking the biggest risks in PvP. Caldari ships may be good at sitting at range and adding delayed dps (missles) or jam. . .but I urge you to recongnize that its the blaster and AC boats inside that are fitting webs and scrams and they are the troopers you support (as Caldari). ---- GO BLUE!!
NoNah	Posted - 2008.09.28 23:01:00 - [14] I keep suggesting this, and so far I havn't actually recieved a single reason not to, so I will keep suggesting it. If the range of damps and ECM were switched, the problem would more or less be solved. It's some what logic that a longer range EW is less powerful than the shorter range variant.(ECM is obviously stronger than damps.) As it stands right now, ECM-specialized ships got no weak range, it's equally good at 0km as it is at 200km, it eliminates an opponent completely and it can easily get to the distance(cloak) it desires and get away(cloak) should the opponent move and thus alter the distance. With the change it would have most of the above, but two things would be different. First off it would have to specialize in it to get to 150km+ ranges and secondly damps would be at almost the same range, but have a greater chance to shorten the opponents targeting range. Hence you have the options of either A) Crippling opponents more often or B) Eliminating opponents less often. Parrots, commence! Postcount: 782283
Cheenie	Posted - 2008.09.28 23:10:00 - [15] Falcon was balanced when it had 10% strength per level to ECM compared to the Rook having 20%, a compensation for the fact that the Rook is the Combat Recon, always exposed. The Falcon can warp cloaked, bring it back to 10% and bring back the risk vs reward choice for Caldari Recons, Rook is currently obsolete.
darkmancer	Posted - 2008.09.28 23:27:00 - [16] The problem with the rook isn't that its jamming power - its that it can jam/cloak/jam/coak, and jam from obscene ranges. Alter it so you can't cloak while jamming, knock the optimal bonus to 15% per level and change rigs to boost ecm fall off range. --------------------------------- There's a simple solution to every problem. It is always invariably wrong
Aleus Stygian	Posted - 2008.09.28 23:34:00 - [17] Edited by: Aleus Stygian on 28/09/2008 23:35:11 Originally by: Merin Ryskin The problem is long-range ships that Megathrons can't counter. The Gallente PvP "experts" refuse to accept that PvP can happen outside of the 24km warp scramble range. The ship that shall not be named is simply one of the few long range ships that can really hurt a blaster ship, the Gallente pilot's ego is not concerned about sniper battleships because they don't have 99999999999999 EFT damage. Truth. But you have to admit that once you get out of the 24 km range or find yourself in a tight spot, the probability of surely downing another ship for profit decreases rather drastically. And not everyone flies The-Ship-That-Must-Not-Be-Namedpoc... Edit: Dear oh dear, I made a teensy little mistake...
Warrio Southern Cross Incorporated Southern Cross Alliance	Posted - 2008.09.28 23:52:00 - [18] Originally by: Leeluvv Range, Cloak, As above. It needs to have the same tradeoff as the Amarr are given. i.e. the Curse and the Pilgrim are both good ships but if you want to cloak you'll have to get in close to fight. Good thread by the way. sXe
Jason Edwards	Posted - 2008.09.29 00:36:00 - [19] Buff Remote sensor dampeners to have remove 1 locked target. So lets say 2 falcons vs 2 Arazu against a standard fit Carrier. 2 Falcons can pretty much permanently jam the carrier using multispecs. 2 Arazus can pretty much die very very quickly to the carrier; certainly cant render it useless like the falcons can. ------------------------ "There was this bright flash of light - and now this egg shaped thing is on my screen - did I level up?"
Chainsaw Plankton IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE	Posted - 2008.09.29 00:47:00 - [20] Originally by: Jason Edwards Buff Remote sensor dampeners to have remove 1 locked target. So lets say 2 falcons vs 2 Arazu against a standard fit Carrier. 2 Falcons can pretty much permanently jam the carrier using multispecs. 2 Arazus can pretty much die very very quickly to the carrier; certainly cant render it useless like the falcons can. heh I remember pre nerf when 1 arazu could pretty much lock down a carrier...
Prometheus Exenthal Genos Occidere	Posted - 2008.09.29 02:03:00 - [21] "falcons" arent the problem, theyre just the most common ship. ecm is the problem. be is the range or strength or whatever, ecm is the problem. - FRIGANK
Kagura Nikon Minmatar Infinity Enterprises	Posted - 2008.09.29 02:16:00 - [22] ECM long range is the largest of the problems> also is too easy to keep several ships completely out of the fight. If you have a rook (see i skiped that name) with 2 ammar jammers and 2 gallente. I t can easily cancel 2 BS from enemy fleet for 95% of time. No other recon can do that. Pilgrim need to get in dangerous range and takes a while to hurt one of them. No way can cancel 2. Rapier can just hold them so they don't run so they cancel nothing. ECM is far far too powerful. Simple as that. A module whose effect is completely remove the enemy from the fight Cannot in NO WAY work at 200 km and neither should have a success ratio of 70% or more. All other Ewars have a simple countner that do not even require to change your fittings. Nos and neuts you turn your MWD off and use the cap charges, mitigating the problem. Dampeners.. you get closer, really simple Tracking disruptors get closer or control flight direction to reduce transversal. Again mitigating effects. Target Painters. you laught sterically when the enemy paints you. Web, you just need to not be a nano***ot and you don't have anything to fear from it. ECM - NOTHING Caldari ships have 1 ewar only so their bonuses are all focused on it. That helps a lot to make it unbalanced. Creating a secondary ewar to caldari and split the bonuses would help a lot. Otherwise I want my rapier to have a web strenght and a web range bonus on same ship. ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.09.29 02:16:00 - [23] Originally by: NoNah I keep suggesting this, and so far I havn't actually recieved a single reason not to, so I will keep suggesting it. If the range of damps and ECM were switched, the problem would more or less be solved. It's some what logic that a longer range EW is less powerful than the shorter range variant.(ECM is obviously stronger than damps.) As it stands right now, ECM-specialized ships got no weak range, it's equally good at 0km as it is at 200km, it eliminates an opponent completely and it can easily get to the distance(cloak) it desires and get away(cloak) should the opponent move and thus alter the distance. With the change it would have most of the above, but two things would be different. First off it would have to specialize in it to get to 150km+ ranges and secondly damps would be at almost the same range, but have a greater chance to shorten the opponents targeting range. Hence you have the options of either A) Crippling opponents more often or B) Eliminating opponents less often. Scorpion 4x Cruise II, 2x Lg Solace RR 100mn MWD, Sensor Booster II, 6x RSD II 1600 RT, 2x EANM II, DC II 3x Ewar Range Rigs This is why that's a bad idea. -Liang --
Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.09.29 03:11:00 - [24] Range + Cloak is the problem along with preety powerful ECM. A ship which requires very specific few counter ships (or flying in a large blob of sniper BS) due to its range and cannot be scouted for while providing a very powerful form of ECM would be broken if it existed. If nothing except totally specialized BS snipers and one HAC can hit a ship, then it has too few counters to have a covops cloak on top. Such a ship would be as balanced as a covops cloak nano curse. There, name is not mentioned anywhere ;) Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Derek Sigres	Posted - 2008.09.29 03:39:00 - [25] The essential problems that are inherit with ECM from a balance standpoint tend to exist primarily in smaller gang combat. Nitpicking about probabilities aside, one can assume that WITHOUT ECCM, a skilled ECM pilot applying a single jammer on a BS, BC, Cruiser, Frigate, HAC, AF, and inty has essentially removed them from the battle. The reasons involves the interaction of lock times AND sensor strengths. If a 50% chance to jam is applied to a battleship and a jam misses the now unjammed battleship will have to begin the process of relocking a target. Against a battleship and assuming no sensor boosters are used this means it will take roughly half the 20 second window that statistics say you'll have to actually do anything tha requires a target lock. This means, the ship that is naturally the MOST insulated to jamming out of the above list has the HARDEST time becomming useful again. Smaller ships, like frigates and interceptors can actually be perma jammed, meaning that the jammer strength exceeds the sensor strength and as such the target will only clear the jam by leaving the grid (or hoping someone blows up the offending ship). Therefore, the ships best suited to getting a new lock are generally speaking the easiest ship to actually jam. Cruisers are somewhere in the middle but still tend to be easy to jam (it's even possible to perma jam a few of them), and fair no better than their lighter or heavier cousins. Thus, we have the essential issue: properly used a jamming ship can remove a certain number of ships from the opposing gang, and naturally the fewer ships in the opposing gang the more powerful the jamming asset appears. This issue is compounded by the fact that smaller gangs struggle to have anything approaching balance - when you're trying to cover the essential basic of firepower and tackling, other issues rapidly fall to the wayside meaning in the smaller gangs the only good solution to ECM is ECM, because on a ship by ship basis it is simply the most effecient solution to the problem. If there is no opposing ECM support your gang can now engage larger gangs and win, or fight similar sized gangs with substantially reduced (or even eliminated) risk. If there IS opposing ECM, the ECM pilots will either ignore one another and essentially provide an even platform, or jam one another and essentially negate the advantage. This is why I don't like the idea of ECM as a counter - it doesn't counter, it simply achieves parity - it takes 1 ECM ship to negate the usefulness of 1 ECM ship, and that's hardly what I'd call effecient. But if this issue exists in small gangs is there a solution? While one can argue about ECCM boosts and better insulation against ECM in general, these suggestions would not fundamentally alter the small gang battlefield. For such modules to make a difference they would have to become drastically more powerful to justify losing precious damage mods/tackle/maneuver/etc, all of which are essential for any battle. If this happened, the functionality of ECM is fundamentally broken and the ships become utterly useless. The solution really seems to be a rethink of how ECM functions and how you can negate the advantage. Nerfing range won't really change the gameplay issue here - if you can't get a lock it doesn't matter if the jamming ship is inside your range as you STILL won't be able to hit them. Variable strength isn't a solution as all it does is force a jamming ship closer, meaning it's a nerf to fleet ECM more than small gang ECM. The solution as I see it involves a rework of the counter modules and perhaps a reevaluation of the ECM function itself. ECCM - make it a SB function as has been said a million times Backup Sensor Array - 1:1 slot countering. 1 Backup makes you immune to 1 jammer ECM Change - minimum range implementation, with a variable on a ship to ship basis that either expands or reduces the minimum range.
NoNah	Posted - 2008.09.29 04:50:00 - [26] Originally by: Liang Nuren Scorpion 4x Cruise II, 2x Lg Solace RR 100mn MWD, Sensor Booster II, 6x RSD II 1600 RT, 2x EANM II, DC II 3x Ewar Range Rigs This is why that's a bad idea. -Liang I.. admittably still don't see it. You'll have a boat working at up to 127 km optimal, at best bringing down an opponent to 20% of it's original targeting, or 6 targets to 57.5% of it's targeting. This compared to a similiar build with ecm tanking almost as much but more or less eliminating up to some 3 other targets at some 15% longer optimal range. Parrots, commence! Postcount: 273324
Angelonico Series of Tubes	Posted - 2008.09.29 04:56:00 - [27] Originally by: Horchan I'd rather they keep the Falcon as is, and buff the rest of the recon ships so they are of comparable ability. Thread over.
Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.09.29 05:49:00 - [28] Originally by: Zeerover b) Go for a well-rounded fit and blow the Falcon to bits. Oh wait, people can do that already Oh, wait, you're stupid? Well rounded fit? Blow Falcon to bits.... hm. Hey, I have a Minmatar ship which can do this. It's a well rounded DC II tanked Maelstorm which it totally focused on range, range, range and range, together with two ECCMs in order to be actually able to lock. Well rounded, indeed! You're just trolling on purpose really. There is absolutely nothing well rounded about bringing a fully one-dimensional sniper-fit BS whose sole purpose in combat is to drive off Falcons, and it has absolutely 0 viability for any small gang. There's a few specialized ships which can hit at Falcon ranges while not being huge and stationary death traps. 0 of them fit covert ops cloaks. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Raymond Sterns Utopian Research I.E.L. The ENTITY.	Posted - 2008.09.29 06:09:00 - [29] Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: Zeerover b) Go for a well-rounded fit and blow the Falcon to bits. Oh wait, people can do that already Oh, wait, you're stupid? Well rounded fit? Blow Falcon to bits.... hm. Hey, I have a Minmatar ship which can do this. It's a well rounded DC II tanked Maelstorm which it totally focused on range, range, range and range, together with two ECCMs in order to be actually able to lock. Well rounded, indeed! You're just trolling on purpose really. There is absolutely nothing well rounded about bringing a fully one-dimensional sniper-fit BS whose sole purpose in combat is to drive off Falcons, and it has absolutely 0 viability for any small gang. There's a few specialized ships which can hit at Falcon ranges while not being huge and stationary death traps. 0 of them fit covert ops cloaks. Not really I mean, you could also shoot other support ships with it. OH WAIT, YOU'RE NOT DOING OVER 9000 DPS. Jesus, you're completely obsolete then. _
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.09.29 06:22:00 - [30] Originally by: Cpt Branko Oh, wait, you're stupid? Well rounded fit? Blow Falcon to bits.... hm. Hey, I have a Minmatar ship which can do this. It's a well rounded DC II tanked Maelstorm which it totally focused on range, range, range and range, together with two ECCMs in order to be actually able to lock. Well rounded, indeed! You're just trolling on purpose really. There is absolutely nothing well rounded about bringing a fully one-dimensional sniper-fit BS whose sole purpose in combat is to drive off Falcons, and it has absolutely 0 viability for any small gang. There's a few specialized ships which can hit at Falcon ranges while not being huge and stationary death traps. 0 of them fit covert ops cloaks. Um, I'm impressed if you managed to get a 2x ECCM Mael to hit 240km with a reasonable alpha (read not in deep falloff and it's lockable) and still have a MWD + DC II. The Apoc can pull it off, but you're down to one ECCM; the Rokh can pull it off, but you have no buffer, and the Mega can pull it off but again you're down to one ECCM. All of these ships will have severe trouble engaging on gates (this is important to me). However, there is the homely Raven sitting over there. With halfway decent command bonuses you can hit all the way to 250km and the missiles will only get there in 20 seconds. If you're lucky, you'll score off a second volley before he manages to get you jammed, and he may not notice that you've fired on him. When the first volley impacts, he has eight seconds to warp out or die (which is surprisingly little time to react if he's at rest). Well, that's the theory anyway. I find more often than not that I'm the one flying with ECM support rather than the other fellow. [Raven, ECCM Sniper] 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Damage Control II 100MN MicroWarpdrive I Heavy Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 800 Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range ECCM - Gravimetric II ECCM - Gravimetric II Cruise Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Paradise Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Paradise Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Paradise Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Paradise Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Paradise Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Paradise Cruise Missile Large 'Solace' I Remote Bulwark Reconstruction Large 'Solace' I Remote Bulwark Reconstruction Hydraulic Bay Thrusters I Hydraulic Bay Thrusters I Hydraulic Bay Thrusters I -Liang --

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: 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.