Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Rajere
No Trademark
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 21:02:00 -
[61]
Edited by: Rajere on 28/10/2008 21:03:21 wtf double post. |
Elendor Xanadaph
Amarr Redwind Trading Facility
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 21:05:00 -
[62]
I would suggest you request a mod to move this to the ideas and features section, so the dev's will actually read this good idea.
|
Wannabehero
Caldari Absolutely No Retreat
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 21:10:00 -
[63]
I like this idea
I agree with the above poster, this thread should be in 'features and ideas' so there is at least a chance a dev will notice.
Also, I would love to see a similar application of increased falloff range to damps, reducing the optimal and dramatically increasing the falloff, so that damps can reach out an touch someone at 200 km as well, but be forced to do so in deep falloff. |
LoKesh
Amarr InQuest Ascension Skunk-Works
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 21:21:00 -
[64]
Forget alts - I AM a falcon pilot and I like this. Force me into range to be really effective.
xFoundation, xVC, xRISE Proudly serving Skunk-Works |
Rajere
No Trademark
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 21:24:00 -
[65]
Quote: Edited by: Wannabehero on 28/10/2008 21:10:55 I like this idea
I agree with the above poster, this thread should be in 'features and ideas' so there is at least a chance a dev will notice.
Also, I would love to see a similar application of increased falloff range to damps, reducing the optimal and dramatically increasing the falloff, so that damps can reach out an touch someone at 250 km as well, but be forced to do so at approx. 20% success from falloff. --
god no. damps are already nerfed enough. If anything they could use a bit more optimal in exchange for a bit less falloff. Right now damp optimal is balanced enough for an arazu to be the perfect anti-falcon ship. That nobody uses them for this purpose, instead they just whine about falcons, is because the playerbase in general are lazy, mouthbreathing unwashed masses. Screw up this balance and then falcons would really be too powerful.
-------------------------- NOTR How to Fail at Eve
|
Fafnir Drake
Gallente Boob Heads Bionic Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 22:48:00 -
[66]
I agree with the others. This is an elegant solution. It might just work to limit the falcon, without gimping it entirely....
Sir... /salute /yarr /big hug ------ "Tell a man there are 300 billion stars in the universe and he'll believe you. Tell him a bench has wet paint on it and he'll have to touch to be sure." |
Gootz Servantson
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 23:04:00 -
[67]
I will be ok with reducing the falcons range as long as they don't do the same to rooks. The rook should have the 200km range.
|
Rudy Metallo
Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 23:05:00 -
[68]
Edited by: Rudy Metallo on 28/10/2008 23:06:36
Originally by: The Tzar
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.
Novel idea: Use a rook, then you don't have to come within 150.
@OP: /signed
|
Chaos Incarnate
Faceless Logistics
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 23:43:00 -
[69]
Edited by: Chaos Incarnate on 28/10/2008 23:43:39 Couple things to point out:
-Falcon bonus to optimal is on the caldari cruisers skill, not recons. You can swap the bonuses around, but you didn't mention it.
-Bonuses like these aren't calculated exponentially, they're added together (the 41k max optimal from lvl5 skills isn't multiplied by 140% 5 times, 200% is added once). This means your bonus should gives a falloff of 121.5k, not 220.5k. You can boost the bonus to 80% falloff per level, which will give a falloff of 205k for racials and 135k for multispecs. _____________________
The unofficial faceless Achura alt of EVE Online
|
Lisento Slaven
Amarr The Drekla Consortium
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 23:48:00 -
[70]
Is it the range or how often they actually succeed in jamming that is a problem?
Most the time I encounter a falcon I get jammed regardless of what range it's at. It pretty much stops the fight (everyone starts docking up).
I'm more in favor of the proposed change in this thread than the others I've seen. At the same time I still believe how ECM works should be changed entirely. Something about turning off all offensive capabilities (excluding FOF and drones already deployed as well as smartbombs) just seems a bit silly. ---
Put in space whales!
|
|
FT Diomedes
Gallente Ductus Exemplo
|
Posted - 2008.10.29 00:23:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Lisento Slaven Is it the range or how often they actually succeed in jamming that is a problem?
Most the time I encounter a falcon I get jammed regardless of what range it's at. It pretty much stops the fight (everyone starts docking up).
I'm more in favor of the proposed change in this thread than the others I've seen. At the same time I still believe how ECM works should be changed entirely. Something about turning off all offensive capabilities (excluding FOF and drones already deployed as well as smartbombs) just seems a bit silly.
This sort of post tells me all I need to know about Falcon whines (not that this post is a whine). People really are not annoyed that Falcons are so good at what they do, it's the effect it has on them. The fact that they cannot lock at all is what annoys them in a way that being tracking disrupted, dampened or webbed (I won't mention target painted) just doesn't achieve.
What this post is essentially suggesting is simply reducing the chance of being jammed at long range for a weapon that is already chance based. It isn't going to make the person who gets totally jammed any happier. They'll continue to ***** and moan until all ECM ships are useless. I guess I'll have to hurry up and start enjoying my Falcon while I can (just finished skilling it up).
I'm all in favor of changes that make sub-par ship classes or sub-par ships better, but I am not in favor of gutting an existing ship simply because it does its intended job well when fitted exclusively for the job. And I think that's what a lot of anti-Falcon players want. They hate that it does the job it was designed to do well. ------------
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. |
Rita Zechs
|
Posted - 2008.10.29 00:24:00 -
[72]
Originally by: thisisnotanalt 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.
What about you explain basic probabilities to CCP and not us... And when you are done you could also teach them "Non comicbooks physics 101", among other subjects that could interest them.
When a jammer "hits" (as in 100% of case within optimal, usual hit formula applying outside of optimal, taking falloff in account) the formula is
P_jam = Jamming_strength / Sensor_strength
Which, guess what, is well over 100% when jamming low sensor strength ship with high jamming power. (if you never heard of a percentage over 100%, well, get back to school)
Taking falloff in account, the op likely used the formula
P_jam = P_hit * (Jamming_strength / Sensor_strength)
which is wrong in the case of low sensor strength ships.
He should have used
P_jam = P_hit * max(1, Jamming_strength / Sensor_strength)
However his numbers should be good for all ships but the Tristan.
|
Malcanis
RuffRyders Eradication Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.10.29 00:51:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Rita Zechs
Originally by: thisisnotanalt 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.
What about you explain basic probabilities to CCP and not us... And when you are done you could also teach them "Non comicbooks physics 101", among other subjects that could interest them.
When a jammer "hits" (as in 100% of case within optimal, usual hit formula applying outside of optimal, taking falloff in account) the formula is
P_jam = Jamming_strength / Sensor_strength
Which, guess what, is well over 100% when jamming low sensor strength ship with high jamming power. (if you never heard of a percentage over 100%, well, get back to school)
Taking falloff in account, the op likely used the formula
P_jam = P_hit * (Jamming_strength / Sensor_strength)
which is wrong in the case of low sensor strength ships.
He should have used
P_jam = P_hit * max(1, Jamming_strength / Sensor_strength)
However his numbers should be good for all ships but the Tristan.
Sensor strength is not a static variable.
|
Captator
Universal Securities
|
Posted - 2008.10.29 01:03:00 -
[74]
Isn't another of the complains about falcons that if you are in a larger vessel, it takes ages to relock your targets, giving a further likelihood of you being completely out of the fight, rather than (potential solution concept) if the falcon merely prevented you activating/controlling any offensive module/drone/w/e, so when the cycle was finished you could resume where you left off, basically having an auto-generated instalock on your previous targets (assuming they are still there).
If it were changed to be as described, it might also engender more fitting for the fight, with less of the 2 caldari 2 gallente 1 amarr 1 minmatar (or swap amarr and gallente around, these are the 2 standard configs), and more 5 amarr 1 caldari 1 minmatar (example), as it would require more luck and more jammers dedicated to effectively permajam a single or group of targets.
|
Rob Z0mbie
|
Posted - 2008.10.29 01:40:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Elendor Xanadaph 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.
this
|
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2008.10.29 02:24:00 -
[76]
Loving this idea, and I fly with falcon pilots a lot. --
http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html
|
Jurgen Cartis
Caldari Interstellar Corporation of Exploration
|
Posted - 2008.10.29 07:44:00 -
[77]
Nice. Gimps the Falcon a bit but doesn't make it a complete suicide ship once it uncloaks.
I might recheck the OP's numbers when it's not 4 AM. However, I do agree with the previous poster that stated that the psychological effects of ECM are far stronger than those of any other EW (except prenerf bonused ~70% damps, perhaps). -------------------- Originally by: Crumplecorn
I prefer launching bathtubs of antimatter at my opponents over pointing an open DVD player at them, even if the bathtubs do miss a lot. So no.
|
Foulque
|
Posted - 2008.10.29 08:18:00 -
[78]
Very nice solution
|
Cogswin Iannyen
Caldari Minmatar Mafia
|
Posted - 2008.10.29 12:11:00 -
[79]
<--- Falcon pilot.
Signed.
|
BiggestT
Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana
|
Posted - 2008.10.29 13:42:00 -
[80]
Although i dont think the falcon is overpowered, this change wldnt effect it too much but shld stop the whine posts. Plus it disguinshes the rook.
Not a bad idea EVE history
Missiles post-nerf |
|
Centra Spike
Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture
|
Posted - 2008.10.29 14:24:00 -
[81]
Meh, I'd just bring more Falcons and still come in at range. Personally getting into sentry drone range so I have a slightly higher chance of jamming isn't worth it.
My Falcon main will have a Falcon alt while my DPS alt just warps to zero and F1-F8s. OMG PVP IS SO HARD.
------
|
Hooded Person
Amarr
|
Posted - 2008.10.29 15:25:00 -
[82]
very nice idea, yeah.
|
Wannabehero
Caldari Absolutely No Retreat
|
Posted - 2008.10.29 15:51:00 -
[83]
Originally by: Rajere
Quote: Edited by: Wannabehero on 28/10/2008 21:10:55 I like this idea
I agree with the above poster, this thread should be in 'features and ideas' so there is at least a chance a dev will notice.
Also, I would love to see a similar application of increased falloff range to damps, reducing the optimal and dramatically increasing the falloff, so that damps can reach out an touch someone at 250 km as well, but be forced to do so at approx. 20% success from falloff. --
god no. damps are already nerfed enough. If anything they could use a bit more optimal in exchange for a bit less falloff. Right now damp optimal is balanced enough for an arazu to be the perfect anti-falcon ship. That nobody uses them for this purpose, instead they just whine about falcons, is because the playerbase in general are lazy, mouthbreathing unwashed masses. Screw up this balance and then falcons would really be too powerful.
Not to derail this thread, but I would like to set this straight. Knee-jerk reactions FTL.
Current Damps
Optimal = 30km (Max skills + 2x Dispersion projector rigs = 63.4km) Falloff = 60km (Max skills = 90km)
Dampening chance at ranges
63km = 100% 100km = ~87% 150km = ~52% 200 km = ~20% 225 km = ~10% 250 km = ~6%
My proposed change to damps to increase falloff for a reduction in optimal
Optimal = 20km (Max skills + 2x Dispersion projector rigs = 42.26km) Falloff = 90km (Max skills = 135km)
Dampening chance at ranges
42km = 100% 100km = ~90% 150km = ~65% 200km = ~37% 225km = ~29% 250km = ~20%
You say nerf? I say buff at all ranges in excess of 100km.
Personally I would love to see all EW work on chance based mechanics, be it intrinsically (like ECM), through falloff (like the proposed damps), or by possessing random effectiveness. Tracking disruptors and target painters would benefit from having a random variable effectiveness each cycle IMO, so that sometimes to paint your target only 20%, but sometimes you might paint them 50%, or likewise for tracking disruption (sometimes it would only be -15% range, other times -50%, random each cycle). That way there is always a chance that you may be completely screwed, or there is a chance that you might not.
Anyway, I'm done going off topic.
I still support the OP idea and hope it gets some Dev love. --
Don't harsh my mellow |
Rajere
No Trademark
|
Posted - 2008.10.29 16:12:00 -
[84]
Warp Disruptor II Range = 48km Damp Optimal w/ 1 PDP rig = 54km Damp Effectiveness w/ 1 Inverted Signal Field projector rig = -55.78%
Lock range of SB'd Falcon fit for max range 2 PDP rigs = 249km Lock range after arazu applies 3x Damps = 41km wiggle room = 7km. from 41km to 48km the falcon can neither warp out or jam the arazu (or anyone else for that matter, unless they are within 41km)
-------------------------- NOTR How to Fail at Eve
|
Wannabehero
Caldari Absolutely No Retreat
|
Posted - 2008.10.29 16:33:00 -
[85]
Originally by: Rajere Warp Disruptor II Range = 48km
Likelyhood to close to within 48km range on falcon before it warps out?
I agree with you, the arazu makes a wonderful anti-falcon ship for the exact reason you sighted, however, it requires that the arazu be able to close the distance to the 110-150km+ where the falcon will be jamming from. Doing so under cloak is not an option. Warping to a fleet mate is possible, but smart falcon pilots warp-out once a hostile is close enough to provide their gang with a warp target. You may get lucky and have the falcon between your gang and a celestial, so you may be able to warp out and warp back in on him within range, but that is not something to rely on. --
Don't harsh my mellow |
Malcanis
RuffRyders Eradication Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.10.29 16:45:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Rajere Warp Disruptor II Range = 48km Damp Optimal w/ 1 PDP rig = 54km Damp Effectiveness w/ 1 Inverted Signal Field projector rig = -55.78%
Lock range of SB'd Falcon fit for max range 2 PDP rigs = 249km Lock range after arazu applies 3x Damps = 41km wiggle room = 7km. from 41km to 48km the falcon can neither warp out or jam the arazu (or anyone else for that matter, unless they are within 41km)
Not that it's difficult or uncommon for arazus to be able to warp-scram at considerably higher ranges than 48Km.
|
Rajere
No Trademark
|
Posted - 2008.10.29 17:21:00 -
[87]
Quote: Likelyhood to close to within 48km range on falcon before it warps out?
I agree with you, the arazu makes a wonderful anti-falcon ship for the exact reason you sighted, however, it requires that the arazu be able to close the distance to the 110-150km+ where the falcon will be jamming from. Doing so under cloak is not an option. Warping to a fleet mate is possible, but smart falcon pilots warp-out once a hostile is close enough to provide their gang with a warp target. You may get lucky and have the falcon between your gang and a celestial, so you may be able to warp out and warp back in on him within range, but that is not something to rely on.
100% give or take?
Warp to 50, overload point, slowboat 2,000m. Fin.
-------------------------- NOTR How to Fail at Eve
|
VoiceInTheDesert
Gallente Diplomatic Disruption
|
Posted - 2008.10.29 17:31:00 -
[88]
I strongly agree with this proposal. Forcing Falcons into range means that if they miss a cycle, they might actually be in trouble. Right now, they miss and it's no big deal cause there is 200km between them and their target anyway.
Also, to whoever said that Arazu's "perfectly counter falcons" I used to believe this as well. Simple fact is that since the Arazu suffers from low optimal and high falloff, the odds of damping a falcon to a short enough range to keep damped long enough to kill it....very low. I've tried it (I fly a rigged, t2 fitted Razu with Recon IV) and it's just not feasible. A well skilled Falcon simply out-ranges you too easily.
Forcing Falcons to deal with the same lower optimal's as every other race would do all of the following, which I approve of:
+Make them harder to use offensively, since they could not sit outside sentry range while remaining fully effective. +Force Falcon's to make choices about staying in the fight since missed cycles can now result in a MWDing BC or cruiser getting right on top of it. +Make the Rook a decent option and the Gallente recons usable since they COULD counter Falcons with these suggestions in place +Make fights more interesting with Falcons being less effective the safer range they keep. +Makes ECM harder to use on capitals (which I've always thought was kinda stupid since a 200mil isk ship can nullify a multi-billion isk ship and render it useless). Carriers especially would be hard to jam since they could lock and send fighters at these ranges.
|
Wannabehero
Caldari Absolutely No Retreat
|
Posted - 2008.10.29 17:35:00 -
[89]
Edited by: Wannabehero on 29/10/2008 17:35:35
Originally by: Rajere 100% give or take?
Warp to 50, overload point, slowboat 2,000m (keep at range 45,000m). gg, no re
Bolded part that is just a little bit iffy. --
Don't harsh my mellow |
Lili Lu
Purveyors of Uber Research Valuables and Ships
|
Posted - 2008.10.29 17:37:00 -
[90]
Edited by: Lili Lu on 29/10/2008 17:38:15
Originally by: FT Diomedes
Originally by: Lisento Slaven Is it the range or how often they actually succeed in jamming that is a problem?
Most the time I encounter a falcon I get jammed regardless of what range it's at. It pretty much stops the fight (everyone starts docking up).
I'm more in favor of the proposed change in this thread than the others I've seen. At the same time I still believe how ECM works should be changed entirely. Something about turning off all offensive capabilities (excluding FOF and drones already deployed as well as smartbombs) just seems a bit silly.
This sort of post tells me all I need to know about Falcon whines (not that this post is a whine). People really are not annoyed that Falcons are so good at what they do, it's the effect it has on them. The fact that they cannot lock at all is what annoys them in a way that being tracking disrupted, dampened or webbed (I won't mention target painted) just doesn't achieve.
What this post is essentially suggesting is simply reducing the chance of being jammed at long range for a weapon that is already chance based. It isn't going to make the person who gets totally jammed any happier. They'll continue to ***** and moan until all ECM ships are useless. I guess I'll have to hurry up and start enjoying my Falcon while I can (just finished skilling it up).
I'm all in favor of changes that make sub-par ship classes or sub-par ships better, but I am not in favor of gutting an existing ship simply because it does its intended job well when fitted exclusively for the job. And I think that's what a lot of anti-Falcon players want. They hate that it does the job it was designed to do well.
Welcome to the current Pilgrim and Arazu. Interesting thing about those ships is they never took multiple ships out of a fight even at their heights.
Well the proposed change is actually somewhat acceptible to this Falcon whiner (still leaves Falcon op, but not rediculously op as it is now) but the change should be placed on the Blackbird. Then it would affect the Rook and Falcon both. Other fixes could be done to differentiate the Rook.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |