Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Nexus Kinnon
Neo Spartans
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 12:17:00 -
[1]
Switch the optimal bonus to a falloff bonus and double it to 40% additional falloff per level. This gives you a 157.5km falloff at recons IV and 220.5km at V.
All jam % chances are done using 12.20313 strength racials despite the fact that fittings would probably change, I'm just too lazy to figure out what the new strength would be.
which means
@ 100km
Hyperion = 44.9% // 47.1% Thorax = 68.8% // 72.2% Tristan = 103.2% // 108.3%
@ 150km
Hyperion = 28.9% // 34.4% Thorax = 44.4% // 52.7% Tristan = 66.5% // 79.1%
@ 200km
Hyperion = 18.6% IV // 25.1% V Thorax = 28.6% // 38.5% Tristan = 42.8% // 57.8%
For reference, jam chances in optimal (81km for racials) look like this:
Hyperion = 53.1% Thorax = 81.4% Tristan = 122.0%
This change means that the falcon pilot would have to pick between being closer and jamming more, or being safer at distance and failing more cycles.
|
Burn Mac
Minmatar The Tuskers
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 12:31:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Nexus Kinnon S
For reference, jam chances in optimal (81km for racials) look like this:
Hyperion = 53.1% Thorax = 81.4% Tristan = 122.0%
No my frigate still gets permjammed wtf im getting shafted!
|
Elendor Xanadaph
Amarr Redwind Trading Facility
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 12:32:00 -
[3]
This actually looks like a pretty decent suggestion, a falcon could still take out multiple ships if it stays within the victims engagement range or take out a couple without being in harms way.
|
Nexus Kinnon
Neo Spartans
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 12:35:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Burn Mac
Originally by: Nexus Kinnon S
For reference, jam chances in optimal (81km for racials) look like this:
Hyperion = 53.1% Thorax = 81.4% Tristan = 122.0%
No my frigate still gets permjammed wtf im getting shafted!
The strength of the jammers has not changed in those numbers at all, so obviously you're getting permajammed by a falcon.
|
Terianna Eri
Amarr Scrutari
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 12:35:00 -
[5]
I like it, very elegant way to make falcons have to make a choice between jamming power and range while using the current game mechanics.
I take it the other ECM ships (rook mostly) will retain their old bonuses, and that the falcon has to make this choice in exchange for the cloak that it gets? __________________________________
Originally by: Arthur Frayn How much to ruin all your holes, luv?
|
Nexus Kinnon
Neo Spartans
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 12:37:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Terianna Eri I like it, very elegant way to make falcons have to make a choice between jamming power and range while using the current game mechanics.
I take it the other ECM ships (rook mostly) will retain their old bonuses, and that the falcon has to make this choice in exchange for the cloak that it gets?
Correct.
|
TimMc
Gallente The Motley Crew
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 12:40:00 -
[7]
I like this change.
|
RedSplat
Suddenly Ninjas
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 12:43:00 -
[8]
Eloquent, simple and effective suggestion. It looks like it would work.
Now watch CCP ignore it and a half dozen falcon alts deride it.
|
Commander Shallow
Caldari Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 12:49:00 -
[9]
Nice suggestion mate, looks like the only fair way of sorting it out.
|
Malcanis
RuffRyders Eradication Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 12:55:00 -
[10]
One of the least bad suggestions I've seen.
|
|
daisy dook
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 12:59:00 -
[11]
Originally by: RedSplat Eloquent, simple and effective suggestion. It looks like it would work.
Now watch CCP ignore it and a half dozen falcon alts deride it.
Does that mean that you have a choice between a suicide Falcon or a 'useless' Falcon and is the 'useless' Falcon going to be useless enough that it doesn't require further nerfs?
I can conceive that a Rook would become useful for a gang that is controlling the engagement zone (in that its presence does not need to be hidden as much or can sit off grid preparing to warp in).
|
Taco Raptorian
The Tuskers
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 13:00:00 -
[12]
LOL falcon whine #5389539...
Oh wait! It's actually really good. Who are you and what have you done to the whiners?
____________________________ A smile reflected in endless space. |
Lord TYMAN
You're Doing It Wrong
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 13:17:00 -
[13]
I have a falcon alt.
I approve of this suggestion.
K thx
|
FT Diomedes
Gallente Ductus Exemplo
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 13:22:00 -
[14]
As someone with a pretty good Falcon pilot (excellent skills except Recon IV), this is one of the least objectionable changes I have seen.
With that said, the only objection I have to the Falcon as it is currently implemented is that it makes the Rook relatively useless. I don't know why anyone would fly a Rook instead of a Falcon (or a Huginn instead of a Rapier for that matter).
So, if they made changes to the Rook, or Falcon, that made the Rook a better choice in some situations, that would be fine by me. In the same vein, changes to the Gallente Recons would also be good - so that they can counter Caldari Recons more effectively. ------------
Improvize. Adapt. Overcome.
Selling Gallente, Minmatar and SoE faction goodies (including Virtue implants).
I am looking for a good 0.0 corp/alliance. Convo if interested. |
Nexus Kinnon
Neo Spartans
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 13:29:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Nexus Kinnon on 28/10/2008 13:33:34
Originally by: daisy dook Does that mean that you have a choice between a suicide Falcon or a 'useless' Falcon and is the 'useless' Falcon going to be useless enough that it doesn't require further nerfs?
I'd like to preface this with the fact that I do in fact, fly falcons, and that I just bought one so it's hardly in my best interests to see them nerfed into the ground.
With that said, I can't see how this makes flying a falcon either suicide or useless? If you want to jam with total impunity at 200km under these suggestions, then give up your cloak and fly a rook. If you want to suprise your opponent with a falcon, then you trade your jamming effectiveness at long distances for your cloak.
Perhaps the numbers need a little tweaking, maybe 45% per level or something but this is the most reasonable and workable idea that I've seen posted on these boards. (yes, I am a little biased I suppose )
edited for readability
|
pippan
Gallente Synthetic Frontiers Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 13:40:00 -
[16]
I am a falcon alt with all lvl 5 except frequency modulation IV. I approve of this thread although i would have to finish that skill.
Nexus Kinnon for President! So stop crying noob. |
Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 13:44:00 -
[17]
decent one, simple yet effective ...
I can only agree ... --- SIG --- CSM: your support is needed ! |
daisy dook
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 13:51:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Nexus Kinnon Edited by: Nexus Kinnon on 28/10/2008 13:33:34
Originally by: daisy dook Does that mean that you have a choice between a suicide Falcon or a 'useless' Falcon and is the 'useless' Falcon going to be useless enough that it doesn't require further nerfs?
I'd like to preface this with the fact that I do in fact, fly falcons, and that I just bought one so it's hardly in my best interests to see them nerfed into the ground.
With that said, I can't see how this makes flying a falcon either suicide or useless? If you want to jam with total impunity at 200km under these suggestions, then give up your cloak and fly a rook. If you want to suprise your opponent with a falcon, then you trade your jamming effectiveness at long distances for your cloak.
Perhaps the numbers need a little tweaking, maybe 45% per level or something but this is the most reasonable and workable idea that I've seen posted on these boards. (yes, I am a little biased I suppose )
edited for readability
So we agree that flying a Falcon at the jammers optimal range is suicide?
My use of 'useless' is to denote that while A Falcon can still perform its role then there will be people crying nerf because they have been permajammed; this is not saying the Falcon would be useless after the sugggested change.
|
Dr Fighter
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 14:14:00 -
[19]
All cloaking recons should be forced closer IMO.
Having the stealth ability AND being way out of normal combat range is a bit silly.
I have no issue with other recons being that far away, like say any dedicated sniper (it cant cloak and warp around the BF at range) |
SynackFin
Caldari Ihatalo Research and Development Ihatalo Cartel
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 14:16:00 -
[20]
/support |
|
Grimpak
Gallente Trinity Nova Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 14:25:00 -
[21]
grimpak approves of this |
Nexus Kinnon
Neo Spartans
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 14:26:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Nexus Kinnon on 28/10/2008 14:26:26
Originally by: daisy dook
Originally by: Nexus Kinnon Edited by: Nexus Kinnon on 28/10/2008 13:33:34
Originally by: daisy dook Does that mean that you have a choice between a suicide Falcon or a 'useless' Falcon and is the 'useless' Falcon going to be useless enough that it doesn't require further nerfs?
I'd like to preface this with the fact that I do in fact, fly falcons, and that I just bought one so it's hardly in my best interests to see them nerfed into the ground.
With that said, I can't see how this makes flying a falcon either suicide or useless? If you want to jam with total impunity at 200km under these suggestions, then give up your cloak and fly a rook. If you want to suprise your opponent with a falcon, then you trade your jamming effectiveness at long distances for your cloak.
Perhaps the numbers need a little tweaking, maybe 45% per level or something but this is the most reasonable and workable idea that I've seen posted on these boards. (yes, I am a little biased I suppose )
edited for readability
So we agree that flying a Falcon at the jammers optimal range is suicide?
My use of 'useless' is to denote that while A Falcon can still perform its role then there will be people crying nerf because they have been permajammed; this is not saying the Falcon would be useless after the sugggested change.
Incorrect, because the current optimal range on a Falcon is ~160km with All Vs & T2 racials. I fail to see how jamming from 160km constitutes suicide though. I don't understand what point you are trying to make, please elaborate/explain.
|
SoftRevolution
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 16:12:00 -
[23]
Seems reasonable. Actually seems to address the meat of the complaints.
|
Cautet
Celestial Apocalypse Resurgency
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 16:19:00 -
[24]
Just because people complain does not mean there is a problem.
Why don't we wait until the speed changes hit TQ and see how things stand rather than everyone asking for mass changes based on theorycrafting in advance. It could well be that increases in long and medium range gun platforms makes it harder to survive at any range for the falcon, which to be honest we are seeing on TQ even before the changes.
|
Dark Soldat
Caldari Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 16:37:00 -
[25]
I approve this suggestion. I don't usually approve things.
|
Aleus Stygian
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 16:37:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Cautet Just because people complain does not mean there is a problem.
Why don't we wait until the speed changes hit TQ and see how things stand rather than everyone asking for mass changes based on theorycrafting in advance. It could well be that increases in long and medium range gun platforms makes it harder to survive at any range for the falcon, which to be honest we are seeing on TQ even before the changes.
Eat crap. Feel good. We're losing a counter, you moron. The game balance that CCP can affect is in the stats, not how many people use what ship and so on.
To me, this looks like a more than excellent suggestion.
/support
|
InsanlyEvlPerson
Gallente Night-Stalkers
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 16:39:00 -
[27]
Hi, my name is InsanlyEvlPerson, and I approve this message:
Originally by: Nexus Kinnon Switch the optimal bonus to a falloff bonus and double it to 40% additional falloff per level. This gives you a 157.5km falloff at recons IV and 220.5km at V.
---------------------------------------------
I may be a bit over Zealot, but i cant help myself, its the best investment i ever made! |
Rita Zechs
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 16:57:00 -
[28]
Edited by: Rita Zechs on 28/10/2008 17:12:40 Far too reasonable to be ever considered by CCP, who suffers from a huge NIH syndrome anyway, it took them what, 2 years to finally implement Khanid Mk2?
Quote:
@ 100km
Hyperion = 44.9% // 47.1% Thorax = 68.8% // 72.2% Tristan = 103.2% // 108.3%
Numbers seem wrong. At further than optimal the jammers won't hit the Tristan 100% of the time so cannot ensure a perma jam, jam strength non-withstanding. How did you came down with those numbers? |
thisisnotanalt
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 17:30:00 -
[29]
How exactly does one achieve greater than 100% chance to jam? . . . You can't. I'd suggest looking up a probability and statistics textbook. Once you figure out the right answer, you will see that ECM is in fact BALANCED and does not need any changes. Give CCP some credit for developing a unqiue game mechanic that works fairly. If somebody can't post the right answer then perhaps I will think about telling you guys. But really, I kinda enjoy that ECM is such a misunderstood beast, it makes it all that more sweeter when I jam you.
|
Elhina Novae
Sky's Edge
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 17:32:00 -
[30]
*Elhina Novae notices that people agree for once of the forums* |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |