EVE Search - A non-insane Falcon nerf:

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

A non-insane Falcon nerf:

» 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)
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2008.09.29 08:49:00 - [1] It seems like one of the main complaints with the ship is the decloak/jam/cloak trick (and warping between bookmarks constantly, which accomplishes the same effect). Since ECM has such a long cycle time, the Falcon can spend most of its time invulnerable, while still being able to re-lock in time for another jam just as the 20 seconds are up. So a very simple change: Warping or cloaking instantly ends all jamming (but does NOT end the module cycle). Now that Falcon has to stick around to get shot at if it wants to keep the target jammed. A failed jam cycle on a target with the range to shoot back now forces a difficult decision: does the Falcon pilot stick around and hope to survive, or does he escape, but at the cost of releasing all his successfuly jammed targets? How would this change small-gang Falcons? Discuss.
Sokratesz Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.09.29 08:54:00 - [2] Woah, something sensible on the topic. It would probably nerf the falcon more than many of the bloody whiners can realise, but it would be a solution. Want to jam people? Stay vulnerable.
Lubomir Penev	Posted - 2008.09.29 08:59:00 - [3] Originally by: Merin Ryskin It seems like one of the main complaints with the ship is the decloak/jam/cloak trick (and warping between bookmarks constantly, which accomplishes the same effect). Since ECM has such a long cycle time, the Falcon can spend most of its time invulnerable, while still being able to re-lock in time for another jam just as the 20 seconds are up. So a very simple change: Warping or cloaking instantly ends all jamming (but does NOT end the module cycle). Now that Falcon has to stick around to get shot at if it wants to keep the target jammed. A failed jam cycle on a target with the range to shoot back now forces a difficult decision: does the Falcon pilot stick around and hope to survive, or does he escape, but at the cost of releasing all his successfuly jammed targets? How would this change small-gang Falcons? Discuss. Does it gives any reason to fly a Rook over a Falcon? If not its not nerfed enough. Frankly the jam strength boost the Falcon got as no one complained about it was completely unwarranted... But anyway it really looks like CCP code doesn't support changing the effect of a mod mid cycle. When it does it's only natural your suggestion goes forward. -- I'm done whining about AFs, it looks like they are making them right \o/
Terianna Eri Amarr Scrutari	Posted - 2008.09.29 09:01:00 - [4] I like it. Would make it so that forcing the falcon to cloak or warp is, in fact, a counter to jamming. If I understand your proposal correctly.. I am a falcon pilot; I have just jammed pilots A, B, and C and assuming I do not cloak/warp they will be jammed for the next 20 seconds, and similarly I cannot activate those jammers on anyone else until the cycle is over 20 seconds later. Suddenly pilot D starts charging at me in a ceptor 5 seconds into the cycle and I cloak. Pilots A, B, and C can immediately start locking again, but I still cannot reactivate my jammers until the full 20sec are completed? This solution also leaves the issues that ECCM doesn't do much on small ships and that BS pilots, in order to insulate themselves from ECM, need to fit ECCM (to get jammed less frequently) and sensor boosters (to relock when they do get jammed), since for BS relocking a target takes almost as much time as was lost by the jam cycle in the first place. To summarize - this seems like a proposed fix for the falcon, but does not address the claim that ECM is too effective overall. __________________________________ Originally by: Arthur Frayn How much to ruin all your holes, luv?
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2008.09.29 09:05:00 - [5] Originally by: Lubomir Penev Does it gives any reason to fly a Rook over a Falcon? If not its not nerfed enough. Frankly the jam strength boost the Falcon got as no one complained about it was completely unwarranted... But anyway it really looks like CCP code doesn't support changing the effect of a mod mid cycle. When it does it's only natural your suggestion goes forward. What is the reason to fly a Huginn over a Rapier? What is the reason to fly a Lachesis over an Arazu? What is the reason to fly a Curse over a somehow-non-sucky Pilgrim? The simple fact is force recons are greatly prefered over their combat recon counterparts. This is true for ALL of them, not just the Rook/Falcon pair, the extra dps just isn't worth losing the covops cloak.
Rawr Cristina Caldari Omerta Syndicate	Posted - 2008.09.29 09:05:00 - [6] Wasn't even aware Falcons could do this. And I fly Falcons. Sounds reasonable... - Infectious -
Malcanis RuffRyders Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.09.29 09:05:00 - [7] Originally by: Merin Ryskin It seems like one of the main complaints with the ship is the decloak/jam/cloak trick (and warping between bookmarks constantly, which accomplishes the same effect). Since ECM has such a long cycle time, the Falcon can spend most of its time invulnerable, while still being able to re-lock in time for another jam just as the 20 seconds are up. So a very simple change: Warping or cloaking instantly ends all jamming (but does NOT end the module cycle). Now that Falcon has to stick around to get shot at if it wants to keep the target jammed. A failed jam cycle on a target with the range to shoot back now forces a difficult decision: does the Falcon pilot stick around and hope to survive, or does he escape, but at the cost of releasing all his successfuly jammed targets? How would this change small-gang Falcons? Discuss. That sounds perfectly reasonable.
Lubomir Penev	Posted - 2008.09.29 09:11:00 - [8] Originally by: Merin Ryskin Originally by: Lubomir Penev Does it gives any reason to fly a Rook over a Falcon? If not its not nerfed enough. Frankly the jam strength boost the Falcon got as no one complained about it was completely unwarranted... But anyway it really looks like CCP code doesn't support changing the effect of a mod mid cycle. When it does it's only natural your suggestion goes forward. What is the reason to fly a Huginn over a Rapier? What is the reason to fly a Lachesis over an Arazu? What is the reason to fly a Curse over a somehow-non-sucky Pilgrim? The simple fact is force recons are greatly prefered over their combat recon counterparts. This is true for ALL of them, not just the Rook/Falcon pair, the extra dps just isn't worth losing the covops cloak. Well before the Falcon boost you saw Rooks, when damps where still useful the Lachesis was a better dampmobile than the Arazu, you still see Huginns flown because they do more dps, and offcourse Curse is king. The Rook advantage in dps over the Falcon is completely moot as in it should be too far to use its weapons anyway. Fixing the recon balance IMHO should start by fixing intra-racial balance... -- I'm done whining about AFs, it looks like they are making them right \o/
Delichon The First Foundation SOLAR FLEET	Posted - 2008.09.29 09:13:00 - [9] Probably wouldn't be significant, at least for me, as a Falcon pilot, it wouldn't. Just nerf Falcon slightly at it's jammer strength bonus (from 20% to 15% per level) and boost Rook's DPS a bit (from 5% to kinetic damage - to 7.5% to ROF) - and you will solve 2 problems at the same time. Rook - very good 150km jamming boat (current Falcon's stregth) or med-range ECM and DPS (220 with new bonus of any damage type - good enough for Recon) Falcon - cloaked ship with no DPS and lower ECM (12.25 on a Racial jammer with "all to 5") ------------------------------------------ All nerfs are meant to hurt you personally. They will be nerfing you directly next. EVE A new game every 6 months. (c) Atomos Darksun
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2008.09.29 09:16:00 - [10] Edited by: Merin Ryskin on 29/09/2008 09:18:31 Edited by: Merin Ryskin on 29/09/2008 09:17:47 Originally by: Lubomir Penev Well before the Falcon boost you saw Rooks, when damps where still useful the Lachesis was a better dampmobile than the Arazu, you still see Huginns flown because they do more dps, and offcourse Curse is king. The Rook advantage in dps over the Falcon is completely moot as in it should be too far to use its weapons anyway. Fixing the recon balance IMHO should start by fixing intra-racial balance... The Huginn/Lachesis add a trivial amount of dps. Any ship that can tank the dps of an Arazu/Rapier can probably also tank the dps of the combat recon just fine. In gangs, it gets even more trivial, as your extra dps is a tiny fraction of what a single gank ship can put out. It's just not worth giving up the ability to scout in a gang and pick your targets solo. The Curse is only good because it can use a massively overpowered nano setup with snakes/polys, while the Pilgrim is an incredibly terrible ship with anything other than a cargo expander fit. Compare a post-nerf Curse to a somehow-fixed Pilgrim, and you'll see the exact same bias towards the force recon. In fact, you already DO see that, with a lot of excitement about a scram/AB Pilgrim post-nerf, while the only thing being said about the post-nerf Curse is "sell yours before the price crashes". The Rook/Falcon are correctly balanced right now, and that balance should not be changed. But anyway, rather than yet another a general "nerf Falcons" thread, could we stick to the topic of the specific nerf I proposed?

Lubomir Penev	Posted - 2008.09.29 09:36:00 - [11] Originally by: Merin Ryskin But anyway, rather than yet another a general "nerf Falcons" thread, could we stick to the topic of the specific nerf I proposed? You missed the part where I agreed with you ? Your proposal makes much sense as a general mechanic and should be extended. If someone start to paint a target while I'm locking it in my BS lock time should be recalculated too, stuff like that. -- I'm done whining about AFs, it looks like they are making them right \o/
Delichon The First Foundation SOLAR FLEET	Posted - 2008.09.29 10:08:00 - [12] Originally by: Merin Ryskin But anyway, rather than yet another a general "nerf Falcons" thread, could we stick to the topic of the specific nerf I proposed? Ok. a) The nerf itself is not sufficient. b) There is little to none, and there will be little to none reason to fly a Rook. Signed, Caldari Cruiser 5/Recon 5 pilot P.S. Another thing you could do to a Falcon - its lock range to 110 km at perfect skills. You make Sensor booster a mandatory module and the top range still is around 160-170 even after that. ------------------------------------------ All nerfs are meant to hurt you personally. They will be nerfing you directly next. EVE A new game every 6 months. (c) Atomos Darksun
ArmyOfMe Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated	Posted - 2008.09.29 10:10:00 - [13] i would prefer if it couldnt cloak/warp at all while ecm was active so once a cycle starts he would be stuck there until the end of it Originally by: deadmaus Because by the time we had calmed Plague down after he heard BoB were back in the vicinity it was too late to do anything
Vaal Erit Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2008.09.29 10:15:00 - [14] I've never flown a flacon but I swear whenever one has warped off, the jam would end on me. I've never really tested it before, but it makes sense, when I put a pt on someone, it he goes out of my range that first cycle of scram still gets him. Huh, ya learn something new all the time. I approve of this change. If you want to jam people, then you should be on the field of play. I would also like the range on racial jammers to be the same as multispecs, but I think I am going off topic :) -- http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html
DiaBlo UK Killer Koalas	Posted - 2008.09.29 10:22:00 - [15] OMG, is there some sort of Nerfing Weekly magazine you all subscribe to that i'm missing out on? Maybe a news letter you can sign up to? Get weekly e-mails telling you what to whine about next? Originally by: CCP Navigator Pretty sure someone is selling tinfoil hats. You should buy one
Jin Entres Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams	Posted - 2008.09.29 10:23:00 - [16] Originally by: Rawr Cristina Wasn't even aware Falcons could do this. And I fly Falcons. Sounds reasonable... Same here. But if falcons are overpowered as argued by many, this change will not be enough. Their greatest asset is the covert ops cloak: scorpions and rooks are exposed to a number of vulnerabilities: getting into system, getting into position on the grid, avoiding enemy eyes (the chances of getting a fight are greatly diminished if your EW is detected and hiding from scanner is pretty difficult without a cloak). The fact that you can have one (falcon) sit cloaked practically invulnerable from any harm until you need to use it makes it so easy to field an alt for that purpose. But I wouldn't suggest removing their ability to field the cloak. Perhaps reinstating the reduced ECM strength bonus that falcon used to have. ----------------------
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.09.29 10:31:00 - [17] problem is here, ppl will just activate warp and stop it.. Unless of course ecm only disactivates once their off-grid.. Wld make for some good tactics, i like it Awesome EVE history
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2008.09.29 10:39:00 - [18] Originally by: BiggestT problem is here, ppl will just activate warp and stop it.. Unless of course ecm only disactivates once their off-grid.. Wld make for some good tactics, i like it Why would you ever want to cancel your own ECM by warping and then stopping warp? There's a very good reason I included the part about it not canceling the module's cycle time. The jammed ship instantly gets its ability to lock as soon as you either cloak or hit the warp button, but your modules still have to finish the 20 second cycle time (if it's started already). There is no possible advantage to canceling intentionally.
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.09.29 10:50:00 - [19] Originally by: Merin Ryskin Originally by: BiggestT problem is here, ppl will just activate warp and stop it.. Unless of course ecm only disactivates once their off-grid.. Wld make for some good tactics, i like it Why would you ever want to cancel your own ECM by warping and then stopping warp? There's a very good reason I included the part about it not canceling the module's cycle time. The jammed ship instantly gets its ability to lock as soon as you either cloak or hit the warp button, but your modules still have to finish the 20 second cycle time (if it's started already). There is no possible advantage to canceling intentionally. I thought you were talking about when the hostile ship activates warp itll stop ecm, while your ecm module stays active so you cant resuse it just yet. lol forgot that you cant cloaked when locked And how does one cloak while the hostile ship is locked? Tho your version seems good for the warping bit.. Awesome EVE history
Vathar The Wings of Maak	Posted - 2008.09.29 10:58:00 - [20] Originally by: Merin Ryskin The simple fact is force recons are greatly prefered over their combat recon counterparts. This is true for ALL of them, not just the Rook/Falcon pair, the extra dps just isn't worth losing the covops cloak. This is anything but true. - Curse can NOS at twice the distance and has much greater survivability in tough engagements provided you don't go for a tankless nanofit. - Huginn can actually provide around 330dps if fitted properly, although not everytime as it requires careful flying. - Lachesis/Arazus are quite meh atm :( - I've seen Battlerooks with interesting fits, but they're definitely overshadowed by the falcon as soon as serious fighting begins. In don't favor a falcon nerf, I've always adapted to whatever ccp devised, but something like the op said would be an interesting solution. In a wider application, I would phrase it as: If you lose the lock on your target, your EW modules' effects cease immediately. That would include ECM/damp/TD/TP. It's pretty much what happens now with webs and scramblers and makes sense.

Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2008.09.29 10:58:00 - [21] Originally by: BiggestT And how does one cloak while the hostile ship is locked? Tho your version seems good for the warping bit.. What you do (now) is decloak, lock, jam, and cloak again while the rest of the 20 second timer expires. This makes it a huge pain to fight back, as the Falcon is cloaked most of the time, but you're still jammed. Warping between on-grid bookmarks does the same thing.
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.09.29 11:02:00 - [22] Originally by: Merin Ryskin Originally by: BiggestT And how does one cloak while the hostile ship is locked? Tho your version seems good for the warping bit.. What you do (now) is decloak, lock, jam, and cloak again while the rest of the 20 second timer expires. This makes it a huge pain to fight back, as the Falcon is cloaked most of the time, but you're still jammed. Warping between on-grid bookmarks does the same thing. Oh duh, now i see what your describing, for an instant there i thought you were saying lock was possible with cloak x) /puts the bong away Awesome EVE history
Tharim Villains	Posted - 2008.09.29 11:12:00 - [23] I think its not really the Falcon that is the problem. It is more the nature of having a module in game that completely locks a ship out of the fight that is the issue. When you then add a ship that can sit at 100km+ and succesfully lock out 3 ships from a fight, it gets ugly. It must be a reason that they destroyed dampening as they did. For a while, it was a win button no doubt. A rapier fitted with damps, webs and a scrambler could kill almost anything as long as you had enough ammo. Was really no doubt that it needed a change. Thats why i dont understand why they dont do the same with jammers. They effectively made jammers the only viable ew modules you could defend fitting on your ship. So, i propose, that we change jammers to have a max range at 40km (same as dampeners and webbers isnt it), make it almost completley useless without fitting a script that either gives you more range to your jammer or a script that makes the jamming time longer, by a few seconds.. And there we go. Jammers are in line with the other ew modules, and we dont have to change anything on the Falcon.
asiofjioaewf	Posted - 2008.09.29 11:17:00 - [24] Edited by: asiofjioaewf on 29/09/2008 11:17:44 Originally by: Lubomir Penev Originally by: Merin Ryskin It seems like one of the main complaints with the ship is the decloak/jam/cloak trick (and warping between bookmarks constantly, which accomplishes the same effect). Since ECM has such a long cycle time, the Falcon can spend most of its time invulnerable, while still being able to re-lock in time for another jam just as the 20 seconds are up. So a very simple change: Warping or cloaking instantly ends all jamming (but does NOT end the module cycle). Now that Falcon has to stick around to get shot at if it wants to keep the target jammed. A failed jam cycle on a target with the range to shoot back now forces a difficult decision: does the Falcon pilot stick around and hope to survive, or does he escape, but at the cost of releasing all his successfuly jammed targets? How would this change small-gang Falcons? Discuss. Does it gives any reason to fly a Rook over a Falcon? If not its not nerfed enough. Frankly the jam strength boost the Falcon got as no one complained about it was completely unwarranted... But anyway it really looks like CCP code doesn't support changing the effect of a mod mid cycle. When it does it's only natural your suggestion goes forward. Then make it so you can't activate a cloak while you have modules activated on other people.
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated	Posted - 2008.09.29 11:39:00 - [25] Originally by: Merin Ryskin It seems like one of the main complaints with the ship is the decloak/jam/cloak trick (and warping between bookmarks constantly, which accomplishes the same effect). Since ECM has such a long cycle time, the Falcon can spend most of its time invulnerable, while still being able to re-lock in time for another jam just as the 20 seconds are up. So a very simple change: Warping or cloaking instantly ends all jamming (but does NOT end the module cycle). Now that Falcon has to stick around to get shot at if it wants to keep the target jammed. A failed jam cycle on a target with the range to shoot back now forces a difficult decision: does the Falcon pilot stick around and hope to survive, or does he escape, but at the cost of releasing all his successfuly jammed targets? How would this change small-gang Falcons? Discuss. This would nerf the falcons that are actively piloted, wich are not the main problem. The main problem are the hordes of falcon alts that decloak, jam ships and warp off if something comes close to them; by that time they have done enough damage and disruption to tilt the battle anyway. Youre nerfing the wrong kind of falcons. What you want to nerf are the falcon alts. You do that by nerfing the range of the falcon down to 100km. That way active falcon pilots can still avoid getting caught by warping between their 100km bookmarks around the gate and firing some missiles at tacklers coming close. For a falcon ALT this range is far too little to be of real use while you are not actively trying to protect your falcon. Youre doing it totally wrong. The hidden agenda still is: I want to keep my falcon alt but Im trying to throw a bone to the whiners so that they think that something has been done. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2008.09.29 12:00:00 - [26] A jam cycle doesn't end when the ECM ship cloaks or warps? .. sounds like an oversight from CCP. Declare it an exploit (no module should be able to affect the surroundings when in warp/cloaked) and start work on addressing the main issue with the Blackbird line (BB) of ships. I would agree that the primary issue is range, jamming from over 150km out just seems wrong . With no other E-War ships having a range bonus there is no easy way to compare, but can you imagine an E-War range bonus on the Arbitrator line .. gun based fleet warfare would be made into close range gank fests overnight. The easiest solution to the current BB would be to swap the optimal and falloff stats on ECM modules around. That will give a max skilled BB pilot 60-75km optimal with falloff taking it beyond 100km.
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2008.09.29 12:14:00 - [27] Originally by: Tharim It must be a reason that they destroyed dampening as they did. For a while, it was a win button no doubt. A rapier fitted with damps, webs and a scrambler could kill almost anything as long as you had enough ammo. Was really no doubt that it needed a change. The reason they "destroyed" damps was that they were a win button on non-specialized ships. Note the ship in your example: a Rapier could kill everything with damps. A *RAPIER, not an Arazu. Every random ship could fit a damp or two in their spare midslots, and expect to do almost as well as the dedicated damping recon ships. It's just like how ECM was nerfed, it changed the module from an every-ship win button (anyone remember the NOS/ECM Dominix? ECM instead of tracking disruptors on a Pilgrim?) to a very effecitve weapon, but one restricted to the dedicated ships. The problem with the damp nerf was they didn't increase the ship bonuses to compensate at all (or even add an SDA equivalent to let the damp ships sacrifice all their low slots to get their power back). Originally by:* Lyria Skydancer Originally by: Merin Ryskin This would nerf the falcons that are actively piloted, wich are not the main problem. The main problem are the hordes of falcon alts that decloak, jam ships and warp off if something comes close to them; by that time they have done enough damage and disruption to tilt the battle anyway. Youre nerfing the wrong kind of falcons. What you want to nerf are the falcon alts. You do that by nerfing the range of the falcon down to 100km. That way active falcon pilots can still avoid getting caught by warping between their 100km bookmarks around the gate and firing some missiles at tacklers coming close. For a falcon ALT this range is far too little to be of real use while you are not actively trying to protect your falcon. I seriously doubt the Falcon alt problem is as bad as people claim on the forums. Yes, obviously they exist, but how many people are really dual accounting with two combat ships and not just throwing away ISK? Meanwhile, to kill off this mostly-imaginary problem, you've completely nerfed the Falcon in its intended role as a fleet ewar ship. 100km (even less with multispecs) is not enough range to do the job properly. Quote: Youre doing it totally wrong. The hidden agenda still is: I want to keep my falcon alt but Im trying to throw a bone to the whiners so that they think that something has been done. Think again. My Falcon pilot is my main (and ONLY combat character). I trained for the ship long before it became the FOTM, in fact, it was the main reason I switched to Caldari after the Pilgrim died (the fact that it's paid off with all the other nice ships was an unexpected benefit). My only alt is a covops probe alt with zero PvP combat ability..
kyrv	Posted - 2008.09.29 12:33:00 - [28] How about the falcon and infafct most ecm ships have a cone of say 30 degrees they can target jam within so like jam only infront of the ship.
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2008.09.29 12:55:00 - [29] Originally by: kyrv How about the falcon and infafct most ecm ships have a cone of say 30 degrees they can target jam within so like jam only infront of the ship. Never going to happen, for the same reason that limited firing arcs for weapons will never happen. The calculations involved are just too demanding, and would result in significantly decreased performance.
Wannabehero Caldari Absolutely No Retreat	Posted - 2008.09.29 14:22:00 - [30] Honestly the fix I see is to remove the need for relocking after having been jammed. Once the ECM timer expires a jammed ship should reacquire all lost locks instantly assuming no event occured in the jammed interval that would prevent the subsequent lock. As it stands you need two types of modules to counter-act ECM, ECCM and Sensor Boosters. A reevaluation of ECM strength numbers might be required to compensate for the lost strength in some ships. If this was implemented, the cycle time on ECM could be reduced to a lower number, say 10 seconds, so that jam/cloak or jam/warp tactics reduce total jamming effectiveness.



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

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