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 [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
daisy dook	Posted - 2008.10.28 17:34:00 - [31] Originally by: Nexus Kinnon Edited by: Nexus Kinnon on 28/10/2008 14:26:26 Originally by: daisy dook Stuff 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. 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.
thisisnotanalt	Posted - 2008.10.28 17:45:00 - [32] A bunch of people agreeing on a wrong idea does not make it right. Maximum chance of anything happening is 100%. Think of the head-tails game.
Aleus Stygian	Posted - 2008.10.28 17:57:00 - [33] Originally by: thisisnotanalt A bunch of people agreeing on a wrong idea does not make it right. Maximum chance of anything happening is 100%. Think of the head-tails game. And how much math are you taking in high school? Either way, no one wants to propose any other changes to ECM ships in general?
Katarlia Simov Minmatar Cowboys From Hell	Posted - 2008.10.28 18:00:00 - [34] Just becuase the dudes math was a lil off doesn't mean the idea is bad. Long falloff and shorter optimal is a damn fine idea. Think about it. Falcons are ONLY uber becuase they can sit at ranges that need specific fits to threaten them. That, when you distill the arguaments down, is why people complain about them. Not becuase they are good jammers, or even really because they cloak or whatever. By forcing them to come closer to the action, you're making them more vulnerable, but not worthless. They can still operate with inpunity at long range, but for that you loose a whole heap of your effectiveness. Sounds pretty reasonable to me. Everyone else has to live with it.
Yoko Lee Caldari	Posted - 2008.10.28 18:01:00 - [35] just nerf falcon, too much falcon alt in this game, to easy to jam 2/3 bs etc etc, change ecm (i use falcon).
El Yatta Mercenary Forces	Posted - 2008.10.28 18:04:00 - [36] Superb idea, actually. REally well thought out. _______________________________________________ Mercenary Forces
darkmancer	Posted - 2008.10.28 18:50:00 - [37] Skipping past the slightly dodgy maths the idea is a good one and fits well it increased range = less strenght. Although either the bonus change needs to be restricted to the falcon, or the bonus/slot layout on the rook might need looking at (actually I can't rerember the last time i saw someone in a scorp).
The Tzar Malicious Intentions	Posted - 2008.10.28 18:51:00 - [38] Nice idea, however, if it aint broke; don't fix it. Sure you can nerf the falcon's range down to below 150km but then you HAVE to let it fit a buffer of some sort (like the other recons) so it won't get instapopped by sentry guns in lowsec. Seems only fair? All the other recons get to fit a buffer. Maybe a drone bay as well..., yes that would be more equal. Oh and whilst we're at it make the other recons fit EWAR amplifiers in their lows as well.
Yoko Lee Caldari	Posted - 2008.10.28 19:14:00 - [39] Originally by: The Tzar Nice idea, however, if it aint broke; don't fix it. Sure you can nerf the falcon's range down to below 150km but then you HAVE to let it fit a buffer of some sort (like the other recons) so it won't get instapopped by sentry guns in lowsec. Seems only fair? All the other recons get to fit a buffer. Maybe a drone bay as well..., yes that would be more equal. Oh and whilst we're at it make the other recons fit EWAR amplifiers in their lows as well. The others recon? you use pilgrim? 150km to jam too much need to be 50 no more, perma jam a bs with 1 eccm not good, need to change that (easy button actually)
Inertial The Suicide Kings	Posted - 2008.10.28 19:19:00 - [40] 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. My name is Inertial, and I approve of this message Originally by: The Tzar Nice idea, however, if it aint broke; don't fix it. Sure you can nerf the falcon's range down to below 150km but then you HAVE to let it fit a buffer of some sort (like the other recons) so it won't get instapopped by sentry guns in lowsec. Seems only fair? All the other recons get to fit a buffer. Maybe a drone bay as well..., yes that would be more equal. Oh and whilst we're at it make the other recons fit EWAR amplifiers in their lows as well. Wait? You seriously suggest that the falcon should get a buffer? You do know that it already have one? Curse sacrifices midslots for Shield Extenders, Rapier sacrifices midslots for Shield Extenders. These slots could have been used for TDs or Webs, but instead they are sacrificed for a buffer. Same thing with the falcon, you got 7 midslots, if you want a buffer, sacrifice 2 of them for it, like everyone else. And why do you want a drone bay? That got to be the worst wastage I have ever heard of, because you are sitting umptenth kilometers away from the target, by the time your drones have closed the distance the target has died, gotten insurance and bought a new ship already.
Rajere No Trademark	Posted - 2008.10.28 19:19:00 - [41] It's a decent idea, but unfortunately not new or unique, it's been suggested before. Even I suggested the exact same thing weeks ago, and I read it from someone else too. Sorry you can't take the credit :/ Quote: Eat crap. Feel good. We're losing a counter, you moron lulz yet again at this silliness. nano's a counter, haha. to be honest, with the speed changes I'd be hesistant to suggest this change to falcons until the full ramifications are seen. It's highly possible that 200km will be the new default range and so falcons will lose their power/importance even in small gangs, which is where they're overpowered currently. I do agree that falcons are too effective compared to rooks, which makes rooks useless atm, but it's entirely possible that after the speed changes we start seeing everyone fitting for long range combat, and a buff to rooks survivability @ 200km is what is needed to differentiate them from Falcons. So you have Rooks who can survive while jamming @ 200k, or falcons who can cloak but can't, so they will need to be fit to jam and recloak asap otherwise they die. So falcons become naturally less effective due to recloak/sensor recalibration mechanics compared to rooks. We'll just have to see what happens after the speed changes go into play. <---max skilled falcon alt, who's been supporting falcon nerf this whole time.
Yoko Lee Caldari	Posted - 2008.10.28 19:22:00 - [42] history : i was alone, 3 red camp a gate. i come to the system and wait. 2x bs 1 bc flag a drake i decloack perma jam them drake warp out and ecm dont need nerf? ecm kill the game actually (and i hate the falcon ALT).
Asuka SoryuLangley	Posted - 2008.10.28 19:24:00 - [43] I get a permajam EVERYTIME, every single fight, will it be a test or a real fight and no matter if i'm in a frig, a cruiser, bc or bs, i always get a permajam! That is just stupid. Your proposal could sounds good, but it is not a solution. Solution: the falcon is the only recon with all the bonus on a single thing (ecm) fix it! And make the system chance based for real, actually it is just lame.
Nexus Kinnon Neo Spartans	Posted - 2008.10.28 19:27:00 - [44] 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 - [45] 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.
Rajere No Trademark	Posted - 2008.10.28 19:51:00 - [46] 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.
Yoko Lee Caldari	Posted - 2008.10.28 19:59:00 - [47] If you dont want to nerf Falcon, then nerf Alt !
Suitonia Gallente interimo	Posted - 2008.10.28 20:18:00 - [48] Nice suggestion. Seems reasonable
EvilSpork Invicta.	Posted - 2008.10.28 20:21:00 - [49] 100% agree with the idea to change falcons to a falloff bonus. in addition i think the base range/falloff of ECM modules should be SLIGHTLY reduced. they are effective at ridiculously long ranges currently.. maybe 10% reduction to optimal and falloff.
Nexus Kinnon Neo Spartans	Posted - 2008.10.28 20:25:00 - [50] 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?
thisisnotanalt	Posted - 2008.10.28 20:32:00 - [51] You want to counter someones damage, you fit a armor, shield, active or passive or buffer tank, whatever floats your bubble. To counter range, MWD. For most things there seems to be a counter of some sort. Let's see about EWAR here... Damping - Sensor Booster Warp Scram - Warp Stabs ECM - Pick your choice of ECCM or remote sensor boosters or additional sensor strength mods (You have three options here, wow?!) Target Painting - NONE (How about we nerf Minmatar some more?) Web - NONE (Wouldn't it be nice to be able to negate this silly thing? Oh wait, theres a nerf bat coming for this one.) Go ahead and complain about a lack of target painting or web counters. But stop whining about ECM. Wasn't there a time there was some whine about warp stabs and it eventually got NERFED to the point where it made it so the user could do nothing but flee when using it. There is no such thing as permajam. To get remotely close to your so called permajam, one needs to sacrifice lots of mid slots for racials and low slots for amps. Case in point. 3 racials with strength 12 on a BS with sensor strength 22. This comes out to... drum roll... 90%. It's not a permajam. Slap a ECCM or what not and this 22 easily goes to 40 strength and the chance goes down to 65%. Seriously. Stop this whining about permajam, theres no such thing especially when you have the option to counter it.
Nexus Kinnon Neo Spartans	Posted - 2008.10.28 20:36:00 - [52] 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.
Yoko Lee Caldari	Posted - 2008.10.28 20:39:00 - [53] Edited by: Yoko Lee on 28/10/2008 20:39:06 i use amarr ship and eccm can be difficult to fit, gueddon 1 maybe no more (1 eccm is not enough), need rigs eccm maybe... 50km range ecm for falcon no more.
thisisnotanalt	Posted - 2008.10.28 20:39:00 - [54] Originally by: Nexus Kinnon 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. How about this for constructive criticism. It ain't broke. It don't need to be fixed. /post
Rajere No Trademark	Posted - 2008.10.28 20:40:00 - [55] Edited by: Rajere on 28/10/2008 20:48:45 Quote: 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? If you want to calculate chance to jam over time, sure you can just multiply the two together, rounding the strength down to 100% However, how it actually works, you have a 56% chance to have a 122% chance to jam, that means 56% of the time, the jammer works, and you jam him. If the first calculation produces a failure (the falloff calculation) then it doesn't matter what your chance to jam is, because the module simply fails to work. You can round the 122% down to 100% and get the "over time" value, but remember that you rounded down. If the opponent fits an ECCM module, that affects his original chance to be jammed, ie the 122% gets modified. The new value is then compared with the falloff calculation to get the new "over time" chance to be jammed value. The game mechanics do not combine these two figures at all, only the player guide that you are using does. The game mechanics themselves check to see if the module works, if it works, it uses the real value for jam chance calculation, 122%, not the rounded down 100%. Quote: i use amarr ship and eccm can be difficult to fit, gueddon 1 maybe no more (1 eccm is not enough), need rigs eccm maybe... 50km range ecm for falcon no more. Yep that's right. Amarr have very weak sensor strengths, geddon has the weakest of all battleships. And unlike Minmatar (the other race with weak sensor strengths), Amarr has virtually no mids available to improve this. Been saying this for a while now, people are whining about nano-nerf going to gimp minmatar and gallente ships, and amarr lazers pewpew will be the only viable ship, blah blah blah. Yet these same people are the ones calling for not just a falcon nerf, but a nerf to ECM as well. Hi2u, it's all interconnected brosef. Chillax on the cries for ECM nerfs. falcon / rook needs to be balanced so that rooks are viable ships compared to a falcon, and eccm itself needs a boost, but stfu about ECM. It's the one thing that will keep gallente/minmatar ships competitive against amarr in the post nano-age. Guess how much dps all those geddon FOTM pilots are going to be doing while spending 90% of their time permajammed? Embrace your gallente natures brosefs.
Yoko Lee Caldari	Posted - 2008.10.28 20:42:00 - [56] Originally by: Rajere Quote: 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? If you want to calculate chance to jam over time, sure you can just multiply the two together, rounding the strength down to 100% However, how it actually works, you have a 56% chance to have a 122% chance to jam, that means 56% of the time, the jammer works, and you jam him. If the first calculation produces a failure (the falloff calculation) then it doesn't matter what your chance to jam is, because the module simply fails to work. You can round the 122% down to 100% and get the "over time" value, but remember that you rounded down. If the opponent fits an ECCM module, that affects his original chance to be jammed, ie the 122% gets modified. The new value is then compared with the falloff calculation to get the new "over time" chance to be jammed value. The game mechanics do not combine these two figures at all, only the player guide that you are using does. The game mechanics themselves check to see if the module works, if it works, it uses the real value for jam chance calculation, 122%, not the rounded down 100%. stop to use theorie, play and see...
Foruman Minmatar	Posted - 2008.10.28 20:45:00 - [57] FU, I just got my falcon alt
Nexus Kinnon Neo Spartans	Posted - 2008.10.28 20:50:00 - [58] 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.
Mark Interiis Gallente equilibrium corperation	Posted - 2008.10.28 20:56:00 - [59] I support the enforcement of "risk vs reward" on falcons as for the idiot talking about buffer, give the damps a strength enhancement module and see how many plates the arazu will fit.
Rajere No Trademark	Posted - 2008.10.28 21:01:00 - [60] Quote: 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. doesn't matter what order you roll them in. if you have a 300% chance to jam, you can still only succeed or fail, obviously you succeed. If it then checks to see if it worked or not, it's still only got a 56% chance to remain a "success," otherwise it gets turned into a fail. Basically you just treat the falloff calculation as a ceiling on jam chance. at Optimal + Falloff, you have a 50% chance for the module to activate at all, therefore, you're chance to jam is at most 50%.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 :: 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.