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* |
|
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%. |
|
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.
|
|
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
|
|
Nexus Kinnon
Neo Spartans
|
Posted - 2008.11.04 13:53:00 -
[121]
I wish this was back in ships and modules, some interesting discussion actually happened there ¼_¼
|
Nemtar Nataal
Demonic Retribution G00DFELLAS
|
Posted - 2008.11.04 15:46:00 -
[122]
Its a excelent idear for a nearf i will give you that. The thing is that i dont aprove of nerfing the falcon at all.
Problem isnt as much just with range but in general people dont like bieng jammed - Thus we get a lot of whins about people who was not able to firre the guns at some random target.
This will reduce the Falcons power but you will still see a lot of people complaining about the falcon and its awesome power
So yes the falcon is a good support ship but it made from tin foil. If you force falcons into the optimal range of any ship (more specifically BS's in this case). If you miss a Jam you are dead.
The falcon works so well only cause its out side the normal optimal range (even with optimal range scripts) of who ever its trying to jam.
I see to solutions to this "problem".
- First one have already been mentioned, it was to buff the sensor damps slightly, so they had a bether chance as working as a counter for Falcons.
Its a excelent idear and would bring Damps back into the pictur and lets face it they are not really bieng used any more.
- Second solution is to give people a insentive to fit a ECCM Backup array rather then what they would normally fit.
Back when Damps wore the ultimate EW of the univers, people alwayes fittet a sensor booster which was a coutner measure for the Damp on a normal ship. People might have used it for something else but it sill worked as a countermeasure for the damps and it still does. So now the solution is to give people a insentive to fit a ECCM backup array. Solution is to give ECCM backup array a additional bonus more then just the boost to sensor strength, let it affect more then one stat. Then people will not be as likely to be jammed and it will solve a lot of problem.
You can argue to reduce the falcons optimal range bonus to 15% rather then 20% which would reduce it from the current 185 to about 140. I know your idear was to force falcons closer so they wouldnt go into there fall of range but lets face it, the falcon only does one thing (compared to its sister recons in the other races) and thats jamming, it doesnt deal damage, and it cant use drones. So forcing this ships into about 80km to be at optimal range will kill the role of the ship unless you give it a new secondary ability.
And lets face it, the secondari abileties havnt worked out that well for recons (just take a Arazu, Lacheeses and pilgrim).
I do however forsee the gallente recons getting a second genesis as there bonus also applies to the new Warp Scramblers, giving a effective point a range of
|
Nexus Kinnon
Neo Spartans
|
Posted - 2008.11.06 09:40:00 -
[123]
...
|
Gartel Reiman
Civis Romanus Sum TRUST Coalition
|
Posted - 2008.11.06 13:18:00 -
[124]
I'm liking this a lot. The Falcon still retains the covops cloak and the tactical advantages that come with it, but now gets an element of risk vs reward rather than jamming from 200km where it can only be hit be sniper battleships. Coming to 81km (or ~100km with optimal rigs) for full effectiveness means it needs to really be aware of long-range enemy ships, and likewise it's a lot more feasible to have ships that can fire out to these ranges than to the Falcon's current optimal.
It also gives the Rook some relevance, as it exchanges long-range jamming power for the element of surprise.
Signed.
|
Nexus Kinnon
Neo Spartans
|
Posted - 2008.11.06 22:57:00 -
[125]
~~
|
Adaera
|
Posted - 2008.11.06 23:27:00 -
[126]
Originally by: Nexus Kinnon
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.
That pretty much sold it for me. A good tradeoff for an excellent defensive module. /supported
|
Dibsi Dei
Salamyhkaisten kilta
|
Posted - 2008.11.07 12:41:00 -
[127]
[APPROVED]
When can we expect implemention?
|
ezraniel
Caldari 0ccam's Razor UNLeashed Legion
|
Posted - 2008.11.07 13:09:00 -
[128]
Originally by: Dibsi Dei [APPROVED]
When can we expect implemention?
Hopefully never.
I'm a full fledged main falcon pilot and this idea will pretty much kill the Falcon as a ship if you just cut down its range like this.
As someone before me on the other page said, people just don't like being jammed, and that's probably what causes all this feedback against the falcon.
Forcing a falcon to engage at aproxx. 80KM of a target will put it in range of everyone and its mother(Eagle, Cerberus, BS's, Arazu, Rapier, ....) which makes it go *POP* everytime you don't get a lock.
All the other recons/ships have a (small?) buffer to mitigate any possible damage, while a falcon if it loses a cycle, or has to many targets up against it just goes *POP* in 2 seconds of fire.
I really don't see any point at all in nerfing the falcon unless your sole intent is to completely render the ship useless. (at 80Km's flying blackbirds with T2 fitting'd prolly be cheaper and almost as affective...)
|
Dibsi Dei
Salamyhkaisten kilta
|
Posted - 2008.11.07 21:37:00 -
[129]
Edited by: Dibsi Dei on 07/11/2008 21:40:02
Originally by: ezraniel
Originally by: Dibsi Dei [APPROVED]
When can we expect implemention?
Hopefully never.
I'm a full fledged main falcon pilot and this idea will pretty much kill the Falcon as a ship if you just cut down its range like this.
As someone before me on the other page said, people just don't like being jammed, and that's probably what causes all this feedback against the falcon.
Forcing a falcon to engage at aproxx. 80KM of a target will put it in range of everyone and its mother(Eagle, Cerberus, BS's, Arazu, Rapier, ....) which makes it go *POP* everytime you don't get a lock.
All the other recons/ships have a (small?) buffer to mitigate any possible damage, while a falcon if it loses a cycle, or has to many targets up against it just goes *POP* in 2 seconds of fire.
I really don't see any point at all in nerfing the falcon unless your sole intent is to completely render the ship useless. (at 80Km's flying blackbirds with T2 fitting'd prolly be cheaper and almost as affective...)
Fit LSE and stay aligned.
Also observe the grid, see what range you can start jamming people from. If it's too hot, go a little further away and you can still work in falloff, even if the efficiency isn't 100%. Just like the Minmatar do.
Edit: Also note the op's calculations are on Gallente ships, other ships have lower sensor strength so the figures are actually higher.
|
Korovyov
Luminous Love Brewery
|
Posted - 2008.11.07 21:53:00 -
[130]
Originally by: Nexus Kinnon Win.
I want it, and I want it now.
--=--=-- end of post --=--=--
got booze? |
|
quisno
|
Posted - 2008.11.07 23:22:00 -
[131]
hey y nerf it put afew more books in there to muddy the waters . let make books to make veladors into jammers.
|
Nexus Kinnon
Neo Spartans
|
Posted - 2008.11.10 15:51:00 -
[132]
Thanks for the support vOv
|
Nexus Kinnon
Neo Spartans
|
Posted - 2008.11.13 22:53:00 -
[133]
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 -
[134]
may as well +1 this
|
Ancy Denaries
Caldari Solaris Operations
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 19:18:00 -
[135]
I'm baffled really. This is actually a very good and sensible solution! Many thumbs up dude!
Balance is important, but you will always adapt to changing circumstances and you don't whine about stuff you can't change. |
Mikhale Romanov
Black Hats Delta
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 20:07:00 -
[136]
Two flaws I see:
Quote: Caldari Cruiser Skill Bonus: 10% reduction in ECM Target Jammer capacitor use and -96% to -100% reduction in Cloaking Device CPU use per level
The CPU reduction should still be on the recon ships side of the equation as it makes fitting the ship (for newer players without max skills) a bit more difficult until they achieve Recon IV/V (this is going off EFT.. as I cannot fly a falcon). Even with Recon ships IV the Cov ops cloaker still uses 100CPU and the 25ish day (with average stats) would prevent a lot of people from maxing their falcons CPU efficiency. You do mention this in your post I just thought I would reiterate it.
The second issue I see is The Blackbird will somewhat replace the falcon Due to the Opti bonus on the Blackbird that would remain. It is 20%/Lvl and MUCH cheaper/easier to fly. Existing falcon pilots would just flip to the BB and not care about losing them as they would all have Max bonus from the ship. Thoughts?
ZOMG Communism! |
Elsebeth Rhiannon
Minmatar Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.11.26 09:36:00 -
[137]
I like this.
// low sec Falcon pilot (no idea on Falcons in 0.0) -- Help us defend the Republic; join Gradient today. |
Nikunai
|
Posted - 2008.11.26 10:38:00 -
[138]
Hey if ccp can squeeze this nerf in before the new year, between this and missiles, we can call this the "Great Caldari Nerf of 2008"
|
VoiceInTheDesert
Gallente Diplomatic Disruption
|
Posted - 2008.12.16 22:19:00 -
[139]
Bumpz.
Old topic, great idea, ccp plz :)
|
Karrade Krise
Galatic P0RN Starz
|
Posted - 2008.12.16 22:38:00 -
[140]
I fly falcons occasionally. I support this falloff risk/reward trade off.
Voluntold, New Webcomic
|
|
My'kel An'jelo
Amarr Synthetic Frontiers
|
Posted - 2008.12.17 15:17:00 -
[141]
~sneaky alt bump~
|
agroculture two
|
Posted - 2008.12.17 15:27:00 -
[142]
signed, that's the only good caldari ship u forgot to nerf. should i start to train for blasters and megathron now?
|
Gantor Tesla
|
Posted - 2008.12.17 16:32:00 -
[143]
I thought the total lack of a tank and no DPS was a good trade off. The Falcon is fine, you just don't want to fit ECCM. IF the Falcon has to get in close, it needs HAC resistances, o wait, then it'd be a ROOK!
|
Blood Titan
|
Posted - 2008.12.17 17:58:00 -
[144]
/signed
*bump*
|
VoiceInTheDesert
Gallente Diplomatic Disruption
|
Posted - 2008.12.18 17:48:00 -
[145]
Originally by: Gantor Tesla I thought the total lack of a tank and no DPS was a good trade off. The Falcon is fine, you just don't want to fit ECCM. IF the Falcon has to get in close, it needs HAC resistances, o wait, then it'd be a ROOK!
My only point is that every other ewar in the game has short range. I don't see why the best ewar in the game, by far, (ecm) has triple the range of everything else.
I don't see why Falcons/Rooks are the only recons in game that can still be 100% effective outside of gate gun range.
And just for the record, ECCM makes it harder to jam, you, but even with one fitted, it's just a little more difficult to jam you...you will still be jammed for several 20 second cycles (an eternity in pvp).
|
Akiba Penrose
|
Posted - 2008.12.23 11:35:00 -
[146]
Originally by: VoiceInTheDesert
I don't see why Falcons/Rooks are the only recons in game that can still be 100% effective outside of gate gun range.
I guess its because CCP wants ECM to be an option in fleet fights.
For all i know ECM and ECCM is working in perfect harmony in big fleet fights, but they do not in small gang action.
|
Grumber1
Caldari Bambooule
|
Posted - 2008.12.23 11:59:00 -
[147]
this idea is the best ive ever heard :)
|
Wannabehero
Absolutely No Retreat
|
Posted - 2008.12.29 19:54:00 -
[148]
Still a decent Idea. Cheers Nexus Kinnon, I referenced your idea here, though sadly I didn't give you credit for it --
Don't harsh my mellow |
Sean Faust
Gallente Point of No Return Eradication Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.12.29 21:14:00 -
[149]
Please for the love of god implement this change! Best idea heard all year!
|
Irida Mershkov
Gallente Noir.
|
Posted - 2008.12.30 00:15:00 -
[150]
Really good idea OP. lovin the sig too.
|
|
Robin Hoode
Galactic Defence Syndicate Eradication Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.01.08 08:47:00 -
[151]
This is actually a brilliant idea.
the only [minimal] problem i can see with this is that you may see the falcon pilots jamming the ship they want to jam, instead of jamming the ships the FC is telling them to jam..
however, if this is the case, a] the falcon pilot shouldn't even be in the gang if he isn't going to listen to the FC and b] a good FC will know that falcons are a valuble asset in gangs, and will switch primaries to help look after his falcon filots. [long range ships may be bumped up the primary list below EW instead of high dps, low tank ships like the deimos etc..]
/end babble.. |
Camilo Cienfuegos
Earned In Blood
|
Posted - 2009.01.08 09:59:00 -
[152]
As a pirate who regularly exploits the fact that the Falcon can save my ass by sitting outside range of the sentry guns and jamming ships that are scrambling/jamming me when I bite off more than I can chew, I approve this idea. Why?
Quote: Falcons/Rooks are the only recons in game that can still be 100% effective outside of gate gun range.
This.
Perhaps the falcon should be made to be a little lighter and faster to compensate for the loss of effective range, but I definitely agree with the fact that in it's current incarnation it's definitely easy-mode if you've got a falcon alt when you're gate camping or indeed roaming. Hardpoint Rigs |
RedSplat
Suddenly Ninjas
|
Posted - 2009.01.08 16:17:00 -
[153]
Do want.
Of course anyone that flys Minmatar is still shafted, so this is in-linewith CCP design ethics as well!
|
Nexus Kinnon
Genos Occidere
|
Posted - 2009.01.08 19:51:00 -
[154]
what an awesome idea you own op
oops worng alt!!!!
|
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
|
Posted - 2009.01.13 23:27:00 -
[155]
I had a similar idea, only change ecm to reduce jam time in fall off rather than take another dice roll to see if the jam works or not. so at 50km, ecm is full strength, and will diminish till at 200km it disrupts lock, and has no duration time. |
spuge
|
Posted - 2009.01.14 19:12:00 -
[156]
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
|
Nexus Kinnon
Genos Occidere
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 23:09:00 -
[157]
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 |
croou
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.01.15 23:43:00 -
[158]
A good solid suggestion, probably the best i've seen to date. However there's another thing that could be done to, how about adding a skill that increases sensor strength by 5%/lvl, coupled w the Sensor Integrity ganglink it would confer a 47.5% increase(asuming maxxed skills ofc, even more when used on a Eos) in sensor strength, wich could be more then enough to bring caladri ew boats in line with the others imo. Add to that the already used counter of eccm mods and greater balance could be achieved.
*flame away* |
Lexon D'Remal
CEBEPHblE BETPA POCCUU
|
Posted - 2009.01.19 21:45:00 -
[159]
Quote: Falcons/Rooks are the only recons in game that can still be 100% effective outside of gate gun range.
So, that is only for low secs. Increase range of gate guns, but don't touch the falcon! if you encounter more, then 3 enemy ship, falcon at 80 km is dead (in best case - useless). One not jam cycle, and 2-3 shoots + drones. If you want anti-falcon - get another falcon...
|
Cletus Graeme
Caldari Duty.
|
Posted - 2009.01.20 14:29:00 -
[160]
Edited by: Cletus Graeme on 20/01/2009 14:29:30 Sometimes simple ideas work best. I like it. It makes the Freq Mod skill more useful. It differentiates the Falcon from the Rook thus making them BOTH useful, It doesn't imbalance either ship. Very nice idea!
/signed
|
|
Tyson Gallane
Caldari 22nd Black Rise Defensive Unit
|
Posted - 2009.01.20 16:12:00 -
[161]
I like it. :)
T.
|
Dlightfull
Ministry of War
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 14:22:00 -
[162]
/SIGNED. AWESOME IDEA MATE!!111ELEVENTYONE!!!
We can pwn you if we want to! |
Terianna Eri
Amarr Scrutari
|
Posted - 2009.01.30 14:22:00 -
[163]
Originally by: ezraniel All the other recons/ships have a (small?) buffer to mitigate any possible damage, while a falcon if it loses a cycle, or has to many targets up against it just goes *POP* in 2 seconds of fire.
Gee mate it's not my fault you didn't fit any shield buffer in your seven midslots, like every other recon in the game has to do if you want to live, cause the rest of us don't have wtflol 200km optimal.
I flew the Zealot with the 3x TE, 2x range rig before they fixed it and had like 62km optimal which was pretty much out of range of most stuff. Then they nerfed my range so I dropped the TEs and fit a buffer instead. Whoa! The ship is still good!
The falcon would STILL have more range than every other force recon and you have the most slots for buffer. Also, you could fly a rook instead.
What even hits out to 80km anyway, aside from sniper boats and cerbs? :-/ __________________________________
Originally by: Arthur Frayn How much to ruin all your holes, luv?
|
Nexus Kinnon
Genos Occidere
|
Posted - 2009.02.19 01:07:00 -
[164]
..
|
Mike C
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.02.19 01:12:00 -
[165]
Originally by: Nexus Kinnon ..
Way to up an old thread. Was a bad idea, still is a bad idea.
__________________________________________________
Originally by: Mike C Trolls - We keep Humanity alive... and kicking...
|
Karrade Krise
Galatic P0RN Starz
|
Posted - 2009.02.19 06:49:00 -
[166]
I was going to troll this thread. But then I saw it was Nexus. So I decided that I was going to go ahead and Troll it anyways.
SILENCE! I TROLL U!
|
AshtarDJ
Filthy Scum Scum Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.02.19 12:46:00 -
[167]
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.
|
Legionos McGuiros
|
Posted - 2009.02.19 13:26:00 -
[168]
Nice idea, atm falcons just ruin small gang pvp
But we dont want to nerf em too much, ecm is only thing that us caldari are gd for
|
Marco Ragnos
eXceed Inc. Minor Threat.
|
Posted - 2009.02.19 16:25:00 -
[169]
You people need to invest in some eccms. Complaining that the falcon can jam at 200 is getting lame. It does **** dmg and can't point you.
To tank dmg, you put on resistance and armor, to "tank" ecm, you use eccm.
Falcons will become useless if they need to be that close to make an impact. As of now, snipe bs's may usually be able to shoot a falcon, with your changes, it would put a falcon in range of sniper hacs.
If anything should be done, raise the sensor strength of all ships a little so that falcons would be forced to use str rigs instead of range.
Also boost arazu!!!! Wtb 100km damps
|
Lee Dalton
Privateers Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.02.19 21:38:00 -
[170]
This looks like it might be a sane nerf.
Supported.
|
|
Nexus Kinnon
Genos Occidere
|
Posted - 2009.02.21 02:17:00 -
[171]
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 -
[172]
j/k that'll never happen lmao
|
Nexus Kinnon
Genos Occidere
|
Posted - 2009.02.22 16:40:00 -
[173]
Originally by: Mike C
Originally by: Nexus Kinnon ..
Way to up an old thread. Was a bad idea, still is a bad idea.
Why?
|
Galan Amarias
Amarr The Drekla Consortium Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2009.02.23 07:44:00 -
[174]
Edited by: Galan Amarias on 23/02/2009 07:44:52 I don't normally support nerf falcon threads, however it does burn my rump a little that my poor Pilgrim has to close to 12km while these buggers get 200.. and it's not that awful of a nerf thus, I support.
-Galan
Oh and pirate guy, your falcon only needs to be within 60km of their falcon so if theirs is at 80 you are still out of sentry range.. Edit, damn it's late 60+80 = 140... well we plated our falcon, that works too..
|
lecrotta
Minmatar lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2009.02.23 10:59:00 -
[175]
Originally by: Galan Amarias Edit, damn it's late 60+80 = 140... well we plated our falcon, that works too..
Have you tried actually thinking of ways to kill them instead of making excusses and thinking of ways that you cannot even before you even try....
|
Galan Amarias
Amarr The Drekla Consortium Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 07:43:00 -
[176]
Originally by: lecrotta
Originally by: Galan Amarias Edit, damn it's late 60+80 = 140... well we plated our falcon, that works too..
Have you tried actually thinking of ways to kill them instead of making excusses and thinking of ways that you cannot even before you even try....
I have killed my fair share of falcons. Doesn't mean they couldn't use a little tweaking. Tell you what though, you can keep your Falcon as is, if I can have range and drain bonuses on my Pilgrim. I'll even give up my bonus to turret disrupters :P
|
lecrotta
Minmatar lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 14:23:00 -
[177]
Edited by: lecrotta on 24/02/2009 14:26:27
Originally by: Galan Amarias
Originally by: lecrotta
Originally by: Galan Amarias Edit, damn it's late 60+80 = 140... well we plated our falcon, that works too..
Have you tried actually thinking of ways to kill them instead of making excusses and thinking of ways that you cannot even before you even try....
I have killed my fair share of falcons. Doesn't mean they couldn't use a little tweaking. Tell you what though, you can keep your Falcon as is, if I can have range and drain bonuses on my Pilgrim. I'll even give up my bonus to turret disrupters :P
No need to give up anything just use the heavy nuet fit on it....you can even fit a mwd and mods in your mid and rig slots if you need to....
|
Sun Clausewitz
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 17:52:00 -
[178]
I didn't go through all 6 pages... but here's an awesome idea....
Kill the Falcon and he can't jam you anymore.
Wait, you mean we might have to actually go shoot a ship? Oh NOES!!!!!elevntyone!!!
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2009.02.24 18:31:00 -
[179]
Similar to the idea of swapping optimal/falloff on the ECM modules themselves. Should be same ball-park results in regard to the Falcon with the addition of bringing the other three ECM ships a little closer to the action.
The cop-out would be to gimp the base lock range so you require 2 sensor boosters to make full use of the ECM range bonus.
The comedy addition: All the cloaked should only be able to use their primary eWar close to web range like the Pilgrim and its neuts!
|
Fullmetal Jackass
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 09:01:00 -
[180]
Bring a sniper, or bring your own ecm. It doesn't take a falcon to hit a falcon, there are plenty of ships that can reach out and touch one.
Or make use of ECCM, sensor backup arrays, or have someone fit some remote eccm.
I've come up against remote rep gangs making use of an "unjammable" scorp. Works nicely for making a falcon useless.
Maybe you should make use of the tools availible and stop crying nerf.
|
|
Nexus Kinnon
Genos Occidere
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 19:26:00 -
[181]
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.
|
Fullmetal Jackass
|
Posted - 2009.02.26 06:21:00 -
[182]
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?
|
AshtarDJ
Filthy Scum Scum Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.02.26 08:44:00 -
[183]
Originally by: Fullmetal Jackass So why do they need to be changed?
Falcons are no problem in big blob parties, but a huge problem for small gang engagements. One falcon can easily keep 4 ppl jammed for pretty much an entire fight and in small gangs you rly can't afford to have specific "anti-falcon" ppl. ECCM as they are today aren't really very helpful.
No one is complaining about Rooks or Scorpions, since they often need to fit other stuff then ECM (like a bit of tank, mwd, etc) they are not as powerful as falcons, that can use all mids, lows and rig slots for ECM + have the stealh element.
I myself fly falcons a LOT, but I will he honest and say that I hate it. The only reason I do it is because it is the only effective counter to our enemies falcons in small gang engagements. Falcons need a nerf bat hit, not a big one, but still something needs to be done.
|
Nexus Kinnon
Genos Occidere
|
Posted - 2009.02.26 13:44:00 -
[184]
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 -
[185]
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.
|
Fullmetal Jackass
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 11:43:00 -
[186]
Edited by: Fullmetal Jackass on 01/03/2009 11:44:16
Originally by: Nexus Kinnon For example, the way that we kill falcons just wouldn't work in empire war, or versus gatecamps without risking the battleships too much.
A sniper BS can't throw in even a single ECCM mod?
No one in said sniper BS's gang could possibly fit a remote ECCM or two?
|
Cohkka
Celestial Apocalypse
|
Posted - 2009.03.01 12:38:00 -
[187]
Originally by: Fullmetal Jackass Bring a sniper, or bring your own ecm. It doesn't take a falcon to hit a falcon, there are plenty of ships that can reach out and touch one.
Sniper BS doesn't work. It'll just warp away (or in case it has the gate BMed it'll just warp to the next 200km spot) and jam your gang again, and again. You'll have to have several sniper fitted BS to bring it down.
The "bring your own Falcon" crap doesn't need further comments, it speaks volumes of the problem itself.
Don't speak english, just F5, F5, F5... |
Fullmetal Jackass
|
Posted - 2009.03.02 09:48:00 -
[188]
Originally by: Cohkka Sniper BS doesn't work. It'll just warp away (or in case it has the gate BMed it'll just warp to the next 200km spot) and jam your gang again, and again. You'll have to have several sniper fitted BS to bring it down.
The "bring your own Falcon" crap doesn't need further comments, it speaks volumes of the problem itself.
If the falcon warps off, he's not jamming you is he.
Sniper battleships, have the same range as falcons. If he can jam you, you can hit him.
Bring a scorp then, or a rook, even a blackbird can be fitted for that kind of range.
The Lachesis or Arazu, if fit correctly, can chace off or even kill long range ecm ships.
If they have bookmarks, then good for them. Home court advantage. You can make bookmarks ahead of time as well. If they don't have bookmarks then they probably wont be hitting you from thier max range will they? You all act like every falcon out there engages from exactly the edge of thier optimal.
Caldari ships, for the most part, suck balls at pvp. Missiles blow. Range isn't usually useful. Rails aren't exactly powerful. Shield tanking and tackle don't work together. Neither does e-war and shield tanking.
One ship comes out as effective with a combination of caldari strong points and you all wanna nerf it to hell.
|
Easley Thames
The Maverick Navy PuPPet MasTers
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 10:38:00 -
[189]
This is brilliant. I really feel this is the best way to balance the falcon without crippling it. As a bonus it makes the rook finally shine like it should.
This is a delicate approach that I honestly think will improve the game.
|
Robert Caldera
|
Posted - 2009.03.26 12:45:00 -
[190]
Originally by: Cohkka Sniper BS doesn't work. It'll just warp away (or in case it has the gate BMed it'll just warp to the next 200km spot) and jam your gang again, and again. You'll have to have several sniper fitted BS to bring it down.
sounds like he was doing his job well.
What special efforts to take him down allow you to claim the right to kill a long range ECM ship easily??
If he is jumping between 200km spots you just shoot him again.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: [one page] |