EVE Search - I solved the falcon problem [srspost]

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

I solved the falcon problem [srspost]

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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.
Nexus Kinnon Neo Spartans	Posted - 2008.10.28 12:35:00 - [2] 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.
Nexus Kinnon Neo Spartans	Posted - 2008.10.28 12:37:00 - [3] 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.
Nexus Kinnon Neo Spartans	Posted - 2008.10.28 13:29:00 - [4] 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
Nexus Kinnon Neo Spartans	Posted - 2008.10.28 14:26:00 - [5] 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.
Nexus Kinnon Neo Spartans	Posted - 2008.10.28 19:27:00 - [6] Edited by: Nexus Kinnon on 28/10/2008 19:30:17 http://scrapheap-challenge.com/viewtopic.php?t=20028&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=45 here is where I first proposed the idea, although I accept that someone may have thought of it before that date, I didn't see it. Here are the spreadsheets I used to calculate these chances : http://dl.eve-files.com/media/0810/jamming.zip and my maths is based off Ryysa's guide in the ships and modules sticky. I have no idea if EVE rounds the possibility of a jam down to 1 before continuing to calculate with falloff, so I left them as they were.
Nexus Kinnon Neo Spartans	Posted - 2008.10.28 19:29:00 - [7] Originally by: daisy dook I had made the foolish presumption that you would have taken into account the loss of ship bonus when calculating optimal range (which is the point of this thread). My bad, maybe i should have said jamming at ~80km is suicidal. To work out the range of a non-bonused racial jammer, I opened up EFT and put a ECM - Phase Inverter II on an Omen. Last time I checked, the omen didn't have an ECM bonus. All of that maths is calculated on the basis that the optimal is 81+w/e the falloff is.
Nexus Kinnon Neo Spartans	Posted - 2008.10.28 20:25:00 - [8] Originally by: Rajere Edited by: Rajere on 28/10/2008 19:53:19 I would assume you'd need to do so (round down to 100%), because it's basically a chance to work (like a pass/fail) once you're past optimal, and then if it does work, you have your regular jam chance. So jamming past optimal can never be 100% success. So it's more appropriate to say XX% chance to have a 122% Chance to jam (or whatever, forgot the original figures), rather than combine the two together. yes, I agree with this, but I was talking about the success chance before I multiply it by the falloff modifier. For example, if I round 1.223 or whatever to 1 before I multiply it by 0.5612 (the falloff mod) then will that be correct or will I have a rounding error?
Nexus Kinnon Neo Spartans	Posted - 2008.10.28 20:36:00 - [9] Stop ****ting up the thread please, there are plenty of other threads that you can use for general ranting about what you think is wrong/right about the falcon the way it is. If you want to offer some criticism specific to this suggestion, feel free. Otherwise I can't really see how you think your posting is either on-topic or useful.
Nexus Kinnon Neo Spartans	Posted - 2008.10.28 20:50:00 - [10] Edited by: Nexus Kinnon on 28/10/2008 20:50:13 Originally by: Rajere I see, I thought it rolled to check if the jam succeeded before checking if it failed due to range. I don't really feel like re-running the numbers in the OP given that I just reformatted and reinstalled XP, so maybe I'll update it tomorrow.
Nexus Kinnon Neo Spartans	Posted - 2008.10.29 21:20:00 - [11] oh lawl, derail. Maybe the arazu needs a falloff bonus too? Could anyone better at maths than me work out the new falloffs would be after calculating the bonus correctly () then I'll chuck it into the spreadsheet along with the over 100% fix.
Nexus Kinnon Neo Spartans	Posted - 2008.10.30 11:05:00 - [12] Cheers mitnal, updating the OP with numbers now
Nexus Kinnon Neo Spartans	Posted - 2008.10.30 16:42:00 - [13] ba-da-bump, this forum moves fast
Nexus Kinnon Neo Spartans	Posted - 2008.10.31 13:58:00 - [14] vaguely hopin' someone will see this post
Nexus Kinnon Neo Spartans	Posted - 2008.11.01 22:35:00 - [15] aaannnd up.
Nexus Kinnon Neo Spartans	Posted - 2008.11.02 14:55:00 - [16] Originally by: Darth Skorpius i have a better idea, give jammers scripts, so you could have a range script, or an effectiveness script. problem solved scripts suck that is all.
Nexus Kinnon Neo Spartans	Posted - 2008.11.03 17:55:00 - [17] keepin' dis on the front page
Nexus Kinnon Neo Spartans	Posted - 2008.11.03 21:22:00 - [18] Originally by: Laechyd Eldgorn Edited by: Laechyd Eldgorn on 03/11/2008 18:58:50 Maybe I should make 10 threads how powerful are those 3 rapiers in my 4 man gang? Oh noes I forgot it's my falcon which kills everything. cool go right on ahead br0
Nexus Kinnon Neo Spartans	Posted - 2008.11.04 13:53:00 - [19] I wish this was back in ships and modules, some interesting discussion actually happened there ¼_¼
Nexus Kinnon Neo Spartans	Posted - 2008.11.06 09:40:00 - [20] ...
Nexus Kinnon Neo Spartans	Posted - 2008.11.06 22:57:00 - [21] ~~
Nexus Kinnon Neo Spartans	Posted - 2008.11.10 15:51:00 - [22] Thanks for the support vOv
Nexus Kinnon Neo Spartans	Posted - 2008.11.13 22:53:00 - [23] Originally by: quisno hey y nerf it put afew more books in there to muddy the waters . let make books to make veladors into jammers. wat
Nexus Kinnon Genos Occidere Heretic Nation	Posted - 2008.11.23 03:05:00 - [24] may as well +1 this
Nexus Kinnon Genos Occidere	Posted - 2009.01.08 19:51:00 - [25] what an awesome idea you own op oops worng alt!!!!
Nexus Kinnon Genos Occidere	Posted - 2009.01.15 23:09:00 - [26] Originally by: spuge agein one cry for noting Nexus Kinnon. fit your ships eccm and calculate you jam changes agein yes falcon have 50%+- change jam you whan you have no resistance vs ecm it is near 20% when you have one eccm 2 eccm it is <10% when you fit your next ship keep it in mind sensor str is you resistance vs ecm if you dont tank it dont cry if you get killed that way congrats for being unable to A. read B. write C. do maths
Nexus Kinnon Genos Occidere	Posted - 2009.02.19 01:07:00 - [27] ..
Nexus Kinnon Genos Occidere	Posted - 2009.02.21 02:17:00 - [28] Originally by: AshtarDJ Good idea. But from a pirate's perspective I have to disagree. Our enemies usually brings falcons to fight us and the only thing we have to counter them with are our own falcons (since we can't have small and fast ships because of sentry guns). If their falcons can sit at 80k from the fight with twice as good jaming as our falcons that need to be at least 150km from the fight (again, because of sentry guns), it will be unfair. I agree that falcons are a big problem for small fleet engagements, but tbh, I think the best solution would be to revert it's strength bonus from 20% back to 10% as it was about a year ago. Come back when your corp isn't **** at PvP and we can talk
Nexus Kinnon Genos Occidere	Posted - 2009.02.21 02:18:00 - [29] j/k that'll never happen lmao
Nexus Kinnon Genos Occidere	Posted - 2009.02.22 16:40:00 - [30] Originally by: Mike C Originally by: Nexus Kinnon .. Way to up an old thread. Was a bad idea, still is a bad idea. Why?
Nexus Kinnon Genos Occidere	Posted - 2009.02.25 19:26:00 - [31] WOAH IT'S ALMOST LIKE NONE OF YOU READ THE **ING OP I have no problem killing Falcons, I've killed four falcons in the past four days. Originally by:** Sol'Kanar I am the spermicidal cream to your semen of lies.
Nexus Kinnon Genos Occidere	Posted - 2009.02.26 13:44:00 - [32] Originally by: Fullmetal Jackass Originally by: Nexus Kinnon I have no problem killing Falcons, I've killed four falcons in the past four days. So why do they need to be changed? I see: "The Idea", The bonuses", "The numbers", and "The edits" but I don't see "The why". Where's the why if you can kill them just fine? Because my play style allows me and the guys I fly with to kill them easily, since we mostly fly interceptors/AFs/frigates. The people who specialise in battleships have no such flexibility or speed. Originally by: Sol'Kanar I am the spermicidal cream to your semen of lies.
Nexus Kinnon Genos Occidere	Posted - 2009.02.26 13:45:00 - [33] For example, the way that we kill falcons just wouldn't work in empire war, or versus gatecamps without risking the battleships too much. Originally by: Sol'Kanar I am the spermicidal cream to your semen of lies.

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.