Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Suitonia
Gallente interimo
|
Posted - 2008.10.29 17:42:00 -
[91]
Originally by: VoiceInTheDesert Edited by: VoiceInTheDesert on 29/10/2008 17:39:06 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. The "wiggle room" as someone else put it, is simply too small. You will either never get in range in time, he will get a cycle in before you can lock (decloak delay) or he will get out of range and jam you.
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.
this.
|
Rajere
No Trademark
|
Posted - 2008.10.29 17:46:00 -
[92]
Quote: Bolded part that is just a little bit iffy.
Let me know if this doesn't clarify things for you -------------------------- NOTR How to Fail at Eve
|
Wannabehero
Caldari Absolutely No Retreat
|
Posted - 2008.10.29 18:14:00 -
[93]
Originally by: Rajere
Quote: Bolded part that is just a little bit iffy.
Let me know if this doesn't clarify things for you
Let me know if that ever works for you. It is an interesting approach. The 60 sec delay and failure if falcon is cloaked/warped seems to hamper this option, but I do like it for being unorthodox. --
Don't harsh my mellow |
Mag's
MASS
|
Posted - 2008.10.29 18:23:00 -
[94]
Wasn't going to read this thread, just thought omg another whine, but.....
Wow, great idea, I too am a Falcon pilot and I approve of your idea.
Mag's
Originally by: Avernus One of these days, the realization that MASS is no longer significant will catch up with you. |
Rajere
No Trademark
|
Posted - 2008.10.29 19:23:00 -
[95]
Quote: So...your logic is that the falcon is going to, first of all, in a combat situation, stay in one place perfectly still for a full minute while you probe.
No, my logic is that scan probes provide a snapshot of their scan area at the moment the scan finishes, not when it was begun. This combined with the fact that the falcon does not decloak immediately at the onset of the engagement, but rather holds for a few moments while the initial flurry of calls are made, is why it works so well. It takes about 5 seconds to warp btw, as soon as you initiate it you decloak so that your sensor recalibration timer is up, and by the time the falcon sees you he's tackled. -------------------------- NOTR How to Fail at Eve
|
Nexus Kinnon
Neo Spartans
|
Posted - 2008.10.29 21:20:00 -
[96]
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.
|
Wannabehero
Caldari Absolutely No Retreat
|
Posted - 2008.10.29 21:41:00 -
[97]
Originally by: Nexus Kinnon 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.
With max skills and 40% per level bonus to falloff, you are looking at a max falloff of 121.5km for tech 2 racial ECM
optimal of 81km
If you had a 50% per level bonus to falloff, the max falloff would be 141.75km If you had a 60% per level bonus to falloff, the max falloff would be 162km --
Don't harsh my mellow |
|
CCP Mitnal
C C P
|
Posted - 2008.10.30 00:38:00 -
[98]
Moved to Features & Ideas.
Mitnal Community Representative CCP Games, EVE Online Email / Netfang |
|
Nexus Kinnon
Neo Spartans
|
Posted - 2008.10.30 11:05:00 -
[99]
Cheers mitnal, updating the OP with numbers now
|
Nexus Kinnon
Neo Spartans
|
Posted - 2008.10.30 16:42:00 -
[100]
ba-da-bump, this forum moves fast
|
|
VoiceInTheDesert
Gallente Diplomatic Disruption
|
Posted - 2008.10.30 18:44:00 -
[101]
Originally by: Rajere
Quote: So...your logic is that the falcon is going to, first of all, in a combat situation, stay in one place perfectly still for a full minute while you probe.
No, my logic is that scan probes provide a snapshot of their scan area at the moment the scan finishes, not when it was begun. This combined with the fact that the falcon does not decloak immediately at the onset of the engagement, but rather holds for a few moments while the initial flurry of calls are made, is why it works so well. It takes about 5 seconds to warp btw, as soon as you initiate it you decloak so that your sensor recalibration timer is up, and by the time the falcon sees you he's tackled.
Ok, my mistake. But...if you can actually start and get of warp in 5 seconds, I want to know what ship you're using. You couldn't employ this strategy from within the fight without getting killed, which means you'd be warping in from the nearest celestial object in the best case scenario. I don't think the Falcon will be sitting still long enough even in a few seconds to keep your little window of 41-48 km open.
This also assumes he wont just move...or get a jam in first. It can happen really easily due to lag or other factors when you're coming out of warp even if you have a faster lock time.
This is all beside the point though.
The point is that this is a good, fair idea that CCP should give considerable thought to. It keeps Falcons useful while making them vulnerable to enemy fire and keeps 1 or 2 of them from turning a whole engagement that has 3 billion worth of ships in it.
|
Akiba Penrose
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2008.10.30 19:29:00 -
[102]
Well presented and elegant solution that got my vote.
The Falcon is a important "diversity force", without it small gang warfare would probably just be RR-BS's (specially now after nano nerf). It might get royaly screwed if you forced it within sentry drone range to be effective though.
Originally by: Lisento Slaven
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.
I agree Lisento.
|
Nexus Kinnon
Neo Spartans
|
Posted - 2008.10.31 13:58:00 -
[103]
vaguely hopin' someone will see this post
|
Mark Interiis
Gallente equilibrium corperation
|
Posted - 2008.10.31 15:32:00 -
[104]
Originally by: Akiba Penrose Edited by: Akiba Penrose on 30/10/2008 20:08:50 Well presented and elegant solution that got my vote.
The Falcon is a important "diversity force", without it small gang warfare would probably just be RR-BS's (specially now after nano nerf). However, it might get royally screwed if you force it within sentry drone range to be effective.
I think rather than abbandoning the ship you'll see people starting to field support for their support, two logistics ships and two recons > four recons in my book
|
Akiba Penrose
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2008.10.31 17:07:00 -
[105]
Originally by: Mark Interiis I think rather than abbandoning the ship you'll see people starting to field support for their support, two logistics ships and two recons > four recons in my book
Good point. How it should be imo, and it kinda would give the gallente recons a role again.
|
Big Zulu
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2008.10.31 21:29:00 -
[106]
Love it.
Falcon should have a risk vs reward option. The less faloff the more jamming with higher risk of getting killed due to range, while further into falloff gives less jamming but more safety (range).
_________
I has bree.. |
Cailais
Amarr VITOC
|
Posted - 2008.10.31 22:53:00 -
[107]
Simple, elegant, effective. I like this proposal - signed :)
C.
Originally by: Tarminic Your continued whining is somewhat diminished by your continued willingness to give your money to CCP.
|
Nexus Kinnon
Neo Spartans
|
Posted - 2008.11.01 22:35:00 -
[108]
aaannnd up.
|
Darth Skorpius
Crystalline INC
|
Posted - 2008.11.02 01:41:00 -
[109]
i have a better idea, give jammers scripts, so you could have a range script, or an effectiveness script. problem solved
|
Aaspa
Echolalia. Shangri-La.
|
Posted - 2008.11.02 02:37:00 -
[110]
Out of the blue: I thought that when a ship come very close to a FAlcon/Rook any ECM ship, this ship is not able to jam permanently because of the fall-off? I tried to kill a Falcon while flying at......10m lol and I just had short windows to shoot him.....but not long enough to kill it....
|
|
Akiba Penrose
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2008.11.02 03:10:00 -
[111]
Edited by: Akiba Penrose on 02/11/2008 03:11:25
Originally by: Aaspa Out of the blue: I thought that when a ship come very close to a FAlcon/Rook any ECM ship, this ship is not able to jam permanently because of the fall-off? I tried to kill a Falcon while flying at......10m lol and I just had short windows to shoot him.....but not long enough to kill it....
If you only consider the distance between the ships, optimal and falloff work like this;
Between 1m and optimal -> you will hit every time. At optimal + falloff -> you will miss 50% of the time. At optimal + 2*falloff -> you will miss 100% of the time.
Here is a pdf document (36MB) that explains pretty much everything about ECM; http://dl.eve-files.com/media/0806/ecm-t2_1final.pdf
|
Odessima
Caldari The Black Rabbits The Gurlstas Associates
|
Posted - 2008.11.02 04:06:00 -
[112]
I would actually prefer to see ECCM modules boosted, than a nerf to Falcons, that way its your choice if you want to fit a counter to ECM. THat withstanding the OP idea is okay |
Xailz
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
|
Posted - 2008.11.02 04:44:00 -
[113]
Hey i like it
Simple, easy to remember
Xailz
Furthermore,
this is actually apart of my signature ------
|
Nexus Kinnon
Neo Spartans
|
Posted - 2008.11.02 14:55:00 -
[114]
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.
|
bldyannoyed
Killed In Action
|
Posted - 2008.11.02 15:21:00 -
[115]
Sounds perfect TBH.
Boiled down to the basics you you get a Falcon which trades jam effectiveness at extreme ranges for a cloak compared t0 the Rook which has maximum ECM strength at all ranges but no cloak.
Actually gives you a reason to fly the Rook over tha Falcon, and makes the Falcon think jsut a little bit harder about what it's going to instead of the bog standard double warp to 200km, engage, align, then wait for the overview to show something closing at high speed, cloak, warp rinse and repeat.
There is no excuse for losing a Falcon in a fight except lag, and lag is not a factot that is considered when balancing ships.
|
Suitonia
Gallente interimo
|
Posted - 2008.11.03 10:26:00 -
[116]
Bumping a great idea.
|
Nexus Kinnon
Neo Spartans
|
Posted - 2008.11.03 17:55:00 -
[117]
keepin' dis on the front page
|
Laechyd Eldgorn
Caldari Art of War Exalted.
|
Posted - 2008.11.03 18:52:00 -
[118]
Just posting in case no one noticed this is a pretty dumb suggestion.
|
Wrangler Al
Caldari Shadow's Hunters Arcane Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.11.03 18:57:00 -
[119]
I think making the falcon more tactical would be beneficial.
|
Nexus Kinnon
Neo Spartans
|
Posted - 2008.11.03 21:22:00 -
[120]
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
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |