Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Derek Sigres
|
Posted - 2008.12.15 18:32:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Cristl
Originally by: FreddyCheeseman Ged Satti, you deserve a cookie Why dont people believe in ECCM as an effective counter?
Well, an ECCM takes up a midslot, and has no other benefits to the ship besides reducing the effect of a module that *may* be used against it.
Imagine there was a midslot module that gave you increased immunity to enemy target painters or remote sensor dampeners (but with no native bonus like decrease sig or increased scan res) would many people fit it?
Midslots are at a premium; it's definitely hard to justify devoting one to a module whose sole purpose is to reduce (not even negate) the effect of one ewar module that may possibly be used against you.
I can fly falcons (currently with recon 5, ewar skills at 4) and they are are *too* focused on what they do. I can pretty much permajam 5 enemy HACs from about 220km away for example. That's too big an effect for a single ship tbh.
I believe a LOT of the problems people have with ECCM is because of a misconception regarding the purpose of the module along with the limited utility outside of its anti-ecm focus.
If ECCM were powerful enough to warrent general use on all ships in a fleet, I would argue that it would utterly destroy ECM ships ability to influence the battle. Afterall, until jam chances are lower than about 25% a battleship being jammed will have little direct impact in a fight, once you consider relock times.
ECCM instead is best used on ships built around the concept of disrupting enemy ECM activities. On such ships, ECCM is used in the same fashion as an armor plate of a shield hardner - it provides a margin of defense. Unfortuantely, there is only ONE race that really has strong candidates for anti ECM duties is the very race that fields ECM ships in the first place. Caldari ships are a perfect marriage of high native sensor strength (they field the only HAC's that can't literally be permajammed for example), and the ability to engage at the native ranges of ECM ships easily. In this case, you'll find that an anti-ecm Raven for example can handily achieve over 100k EHP, a sensor strength that can easily exceed 100 points and the ability to project 2k effective alpha strikes out to falcon ranges.
|
FreddyCheeseman
|
Posted - 2008.12.15 18:58:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Cristl
Well, an ECCM takes up a midslot, and has no other benefits to the ship besides reducing the effect of a module that *may* be used against it.
Imagine there was a midslot module that gave you increased immunity to enemy target painters or remote sensor dampeners (but with no native bonus like decrease sig or increased scan res) would many people fit it?
Midslots are at a premium; it's definitely hard to justify devoting one to a module whose sole purpose is to reduce (not even negate) the effect of one ewar module that may possibly be used against you.
I can fly falcons (currently with recon 5, ewar skills at 4) and they are are *too* focused on what they do. I can pretty much permajam 5 enemy HACs from about 220km away for example. That's too big an effect for a single ship tbh.
But from all the consistent whines about falcons, it seems like these modules would be worth every bit of that midslot, since there is a "falcon plague" going round. Most engagements now rely on ECM, and this is entirely down to the fact that people cant, sorry wont, prepare effective counters. It only means dropping that sensor booster of yours, or letting one member of your gang scramble while one webs, freeing up a mid each. Midslots are at a premium, and its up to you how you use them, thats the beauty of eve. If you choose not to use an ECCM mod, dont cry about being jammed on the forums....
|
Wardeneo
DEATHFUNK Doctrine.
|
Posted - 2008.12.15 19:02:00 -
[63]
apoc with tachs n ECCM = dead falcon/falcon having to run :)
wardeneo :)
*SIG*
Real Pro's Fly Minmitar!
Y? - Coz We Look Awsome! |
Ged Satti
Satti Research and Development Gunboat Diplomacy
|
Posted - 2008.12.15 19:07:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Derek Sigres
If ECCM were powerful enough to warrent general use on all ships in a fleet, I would argue that it would utterly destroy ECM ships ability to influence the battle. Afterall, until jam chances are lower than about 25% a battleship being jammed will have little direct impact in a fight, once you consider relock times.
I am not suggesting all ships in a fleet fit ECCM, but perhaps 5-10% of ships that can hit from long range fit them. Falcons are fragile. The only defenses they have are range, jamming, and cloak. If they can't jam you and you have them targeted they can't cloak. That leaves range. If you can hit them at their range they don't have much choice but to warp off. That removes them from the fight for a minute or so while the ship that was dealing with them can go back to shooting other targets. It seems to me that just by planning ahead a little and having a couple of people fitted in a way that can chase off a falcon you effectively remove a person from the opposing fleet entirely. All you lose is 1-2 mid slots for the entire fleet, plus whatever you need to do some damage at range.
|
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.
|
Posted - 2008.12.15 19:42:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Cristl
Originally by: FreddyCheeseman Ged Satti, you deserve a cookie Why dont people believe in ECCM as an effective counter?
Well, an ECCM takes up a midslot, and has no other benefits to the ship besides reducing the effect of a module that *may* be used against it.
Imagine there was a midslot module that gave you increased immunity to enemy target painters or remote sensor dampeners (but with no native bonus like decrease sig or increased scan res) would many people fit it?
Midslots are at a premium; it's definitely hard to justify devoting one to a module whose sole purpose is to reduce (not even negate) the effect of one ewar module that may possibly be used against you.
I can fly falcons (currently with recon 5, ewar skills at 4) and they are are *too* focused on what they do. I can pretty much permajam 5 enemy HACs from about 220km away for example. That's too big an effect for a single ship tbh.
If not one of those HACs is an ECCM sniper cerb then they deserve to be ECM'd to death tbh.
|
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.
|
Posted - 2008.12.15 19:57:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Ged Satti
Originally by: Derek Sigres
If ECCM were powerful enough to warrent general use on all ships in a fleet, I would argue that it would utterly destroy ECM ships ability to influence the battle. Afterall, until jam chances are lower than about 25% a battleship being jammed will have little direct impact in a fight, once you consider relock times.
I am not suggesting all ships in a fleet fit ECCM, but perhaps 5-10% of ships that can hit from long range fit them. Falcons are fragile. The only defenses they have are range, jamming, and cloak. If they can't jam you and you have them targeted they can't cloak. That leaves range. If you can hit them at their range they don't have much choice but to warp off. That removes them from the fight for a minute or so while the ship that was dealing with them can go back to shooting other targets. It seems to me that just by planning ahead a little and having a couple of people fitted in a way that can chase off a falcon you effectively remove a person from the opposing fleet entirely. All you lose is 1-2 mid slots for the entire fleet, plus whatever you need to do some damage at range.
You're entirely correct, of course. And the thing is about a falcon that's been hit by 6 CN Paradise, or a full volley of Aurora Tachs is that it has no shield left. Yeah, if the pilot knows his stuff, he's warped off with some armour damage. Great. Now what?
(1) Wait 5+ minutes for shields to regen to 75% or so (fight is likely long over)
(2) Return to the battlefield knowing that there is a ship there that can one-volley your remaining hitpoints, and that is specifically looking to kill you personally, and knows roughly where you'll be warping back to..
|
Yakov Draken
Minmatar Tides Of War
|
Posted - 2008.12.15 20:17:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Stefan F It's not the falcon that is the problem, it is your unwillingness to fit ECCM.
You need 2x ECCM to have a meaningful chance of surviving a fight where a Falcon or two uncloaks. One ECCM doesn't do much at all.
We fit 2x ECCM where ever possible, we use our own Falcons, and still Falcons are incredibly useful against us. Falcons arn't over powered they are insanely uber.
It is the age of ECCM now. The trick is being able to tackle and hold anything despite all the ECCM mods needed in mids.
|
AleRiperKilt
|
Posted - 2008.12.15 20:32:00 -
[68]
Imho, turning on ECCM should reset your sensors so you can turn it on after getting jammed and you have a chance to get sensors back mid-cycle.
how about suicide frigates orbiting falcon at 500m with smartbombs?
--- "I live in Los Angeles, where driving is non-consensual pvp" - Arric Rohr |
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.
|
Posted - 2008.12.15 20:34:00 -
[69]
Originally by: AleRiperKilt
how about suicide frigates orbiting falcon at 500m with smartbombs?
That's one of the more... innovative suggestions I've seen, but really there are so many ways to counter falcons it's silly. People just don't actually fckn do them
|
Dr Caligo
|
Posted - 2008.12.15 20:35:00 -
[70]
I'm not really of the opinion that falcon is omfg overpowered and needs a nerf. But I think it would be fair if racial ECM modules had no effect on the other 3 racial sensor types. AKA a caldari racial jammer would have zero chance of jamming anything but caldari.
|
|
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.
|
Posted - 2008.12.15 20:37:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Yakov Draken
Originally by: Stefan F It's not the falcon that is the problem, it is your unwillingness to fit ECCM.
You need 2x ECCM to have a meaningful chance of surviving a fight where a Falcon or two uncloaks. One ECCM doesn't do much at all.
We fit 2x ECCM where ever possible, we use our own Falcons, and still Falcons are incredibly useful against us. Falcons arn't over powered they are insanely uber.
It is the age of ECCM now. The trick is being able to tackle and hold anything despite all the ECCM mods needed in mids.
2 BS with 1 ECCM are a lot more effective than 1 ship with 2. Just saying
|
Yakov Draken
Minmatar Tides Of War
|
Posted - 2008.12.15 20:52:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Yakov Draken We fit 2x ECCM where ever possible
2 BS with 1 ECCM are a lot more effective than 1 ship with 2. Just saying
Er - what? One ECCM is not adequate defense against Falcons sorry so I'll take 2 BS's with 2x ECCM because in our experience 1x ECCM is just not enough. You guys can go on saying "just fit an ECCM" all you want but it is nonsense. We started fitting 1x ECCM along time ago and have enough experience with that setup to know it doesn't work unless you can jam their Falcons with your own.
We have had enough fights where 1 Falcons jammed 3 1x ECCM BS's out of the fight to realize 1x ECCM is a bit of a joke. Even with 2x ECCM the Falcons are still getting jams it is just we are getting to fight back. Oddly enough we play this game for fights and when every gang that we fight has EW that means fitting **** loads of ECCM or not getting to fight.
|
Myrkala
Minmatar Aurora Acclivitous
|
Posted - 2008.12.15 21:18:00 -
[73]
Edited by: Myrkala on 15/12/2008 21:18:29 One might think CCP created the falcon to get more paying subscriptions, but there was ghost training so people didn't pay much for caldari cruiser 5 so they got got rid of the ghost training.
So now because a lot of people are using a falcon-punch-alt a lot of people are going to get second subscription to be able to compete. This is win for CCP!
So I imagine in the future, when everyone has gotten their hands on a falcon alt and bored themselves to death using it. The playerbase will file a declaration of falcon-independence effectively suggesting:
A. "This is enough, we are tired of multi-tasking our falcon we have all agreed to just not use falcons because the game is more fun to play that way, in addition we have all canceled our falconpunch-alt subscriptions.
(This is where CCP nerf falcons, and make them fun again.
B. Create a separate server for falcon alts, where they can play with each other jamming all day long for that small PPM of the player-base to actually finds this activity fun.
/Lockthread 947656
"Ruppie ain't no puppie." |
Donna Maria
Amarr
|
Posted - 2008.12.15 21:21:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Stefan F It's not the falcon that is the problem, it is your unwillingness to fit ECCM. Because you rather have a second sensorbooster instead. It is all about choices as it should be. Just learn to play the game instead of whining on the forums.
/signed.
Raven with Eccm/Passive targeter - Lock fire away the Falcon will leave or die.
Im the girl momma warned you about..
|
Aleus Stygian
Failed Diplomacy
|
Posted - 2008.12.15 21:28:00 -
[75]
Edited by: Aleus Stygian on 15/12/2008 21:31:04
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Yakov Draken
Originally by: Stefan F It's not the falcon that is the problem, it is your unwillingness to fit ECCM.
You need 2x ECCM to have a meaningful chance of surviving a fight where a Falcon or two uncloaks. One ECCM doesn't do much at all.
We fit 2x ECCM where ever possible, we use our own Falcons, and still Falcons are incredibly useful against us. Falcons arn't over powered they are insanely uber.
It is the age of ECCM now. The trick is being able to tackle and hold anything despite all the ECCM mods needed in mids.
2 BS with 1 ECCM are a lot more effective than 1 ship with 2. Just saying
Actually, the real deal is that you shouldn't have to always have battleships or Recons. Right now, me and my associates are fighting the Molotov Coalition, a vastly numerically superior foe whose chief strategy appears to be to come at us in battleships outside stations as much as possible, as many as possible. Do you know just how bored I am with this?
Yes, ECCM has quite sufficient strength, especially on the ships that are viable counters for the Falcon, but that's not the problem here. People have never complained about the Pilgrim or the Rapier, and nowadays they hardly complain about the Arazu, in spite of those ships possibly being just as debilitating, if not more so, than the Falcon when up against the right targets. Why? Well, it does have to do with the fact that ECM jams and debilitates everything, but it actually has less to do with the sheer effectiveness of the EWAR, and more about the possibility for counters and tackling.
Here's an example; If I want to I can put four tracking disruptors on my Pilgrim and turn two of the enemy's battleships pretty much useless. I've done this before. It gimps my performance, but it's great for fleet battles. And if I want to keep an enemy from warping off, there's nothing like a Rapier with double webs against a busy target to keep him still while someone moves in with a point. An Arazu doesn't interrupt people from doing most things - it just slows them terribly in doing so, especially battleships, and keeps them from warping off while your teammates exploit the extra time gap. In all these cases, all these ships can be just as effective, if not more so than the Falcon, because they give distinct advantages that can be maintained even while you are under fire and have great flexibility to them.
The trick though, is this; the Falcon can employ its one more singularly powerful advantage with a much, much lesser degree of risk. Because its range of operation is twice to four times that of the other Recons - ten times in the case of an anti-MWD/stab Arazu. And at the same time it can both cloak and break locks to shake off eventual points. Which means that it is essentially impossible for a lone target or even two or three to hold. Which combined with its very, very specific counters and the way it can liberally tip the scales of a battle completely makes for a very exploitable, badly thought-out advantage that in an overwhelming amount of the cases costs nothing to employ.
In short, the problem isn't ECM or ECCM or any other core mechanics of the game. It's just that the Falcon is such a cheap, badly designed ship.
_________________________________________________________
|
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.
|
Posted - 2008.12.15 21:39:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Aleus Stygian Edited by: Aleus Stygian on 15/12/2008 21:31:04
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Yakov Draken
Originally by: Stefan F It's not the falcon that is the problem, it is your unwillingness to fit ECCM.
You need 2x ECCM to have a meaningful chance of surviving a fight where a Falcon or two uncloaks. One ECCM doesn't do much at all.
We fit 2x ECCM where ever possible, we use our own Falcons, and still Falcons are incredibly useful against us. Falcons arn't over powered they are insanely uber.
It is the age of ECCM now. The trick is being able to tackle and hold anything despite all the ECCM mods needed in mids.
2 BS with 1 ECCM are a lot more effective than 1 ship with 2. Just saying
Actually, the real deal is that you shouldn't have to always have battleships or Recons. Right now, me and my associates are fighting the Molotov Coalition, a vastly numerically superior foe whose chief strategy appears to be to come at us in battleships outside stations as much as possible, as many as possible. Do you know just how bored I am with this?
Yes, ECCM has quite sufficient strength, especially on the ships that are viable counters for the Falcon, but that's not the problem here. People have never complained about the Pilgrim or the Rapier, and nowadays they hardly complain about the Arazu, in spite of those ships possibly being just as debilitating, if not more so, than the Falcon when up against the right targets. Why? Well, it does have to do with the fact that ECM jams and debilitates everything, but it actually has less to do with the sheer effectiveness of the EWAR, and more about the possibility for counters and tackling.
Here's an example; If I want to I can put four tracking disruptors on my Pilgrim and turn two of the enemy's battleships pretty much useless. I've done this before. It gimps my performance, but it's great for fleet battles. And if I want to keep an enemy from warping off, there's nothing like a Rapier with double webs against a busy target to keep him still while someone moves in with a point. An Arazu doesn't interrupt people from doing most things - it just slows them terribly in doing so, especially battleships, and keeps them from warping off while your teammates exploit the extra time gap. In all these cases, all these ships can be just as effective, if not more so than the Falcon, because they give distinct advantages that can be maintained even while you are under fire and have great flexibility to them.
The trick though, is this; the Falcon can employ its one more singularly powerful advantage with a much, much lesser degree of risk. Because its range of operation is twice to four times that of the other Recons - ten times in the case of an anti-MWD/stab Arazu. And at the same time it can both cloak and break locks to shake off eventual points. Which means that it is essentially impossible for a lone target or even two or three to hold. Which combined with its very, very specific counters and the way it can liberally tip the scales of a battle completely makes for a very exploitable, badly thought-out advantage that in an overwhelming amount of the cases costs nothing to employ.
In short, the problem isn't ECM or ECCM or any other core mechanics of the game. It's just that the Falcon is such a cheap, badly designed ship.
If you don't like the Falcon/Rook operating at 170Km, give them something useful to do at 50Km - and the means to do so. I've lost count of the number of times I've asked people to suggest something remotely viable for the Caldari Recons to do at mid range, but I've never received anything good yet. Because simply reducing ECM range by 2/3-3/4 is not a reasonable suggestion.
|
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.
|
Posted - 2008.12.15 21:43:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Aleus Stygian
Actually, the real deal is that you shouldn't have to always have battleships or Recons.
Or HACs ( ECCM Cerb/Eagle). Or Stealthbombers. Or Covops.
You know, when there are almost 20 different ships that can be sensibly fitted as falcon-killers/counters (notice that I am not even including interceptors), it's a little disingenious to make the claim that options are limited.
|
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.
|
Posted - 2008.12.15 21:47:00 -
[78]
Bring some support that can deal with hostile support, I fly my vagabond a lot lately and it handles falcons well.
They have a tendency to get away in structure if you try to solo them due to the pitiful sensors of the vaga, but they wont come back for a while.
|
FreddyCheeseman
|
Posted - 2008.12.15 23:43:00 -
[79]
Lilith you enjoy that smack in local, youve actually earned it without crying for the nerf bat to swing
If you hammered my falcon with a vaga you'd get a "gf, been waiting for someone to do that"
As of yet, nobody has, and I swear its not that hard...
|
EinaruS
Euphoria Released
|
Posted - 2008.12.15 23:50:00 -
[80]
i don't fly falcons, i don't like to encounter them, but tbh they are fine. That is not my opinion that is a fact. I won't bother going into detail why because i'm afraid those of you who disagree won't understand. -
A finger...especially the middle one, is worth more than any amount of isk |
|
Billy Merc
Amarr Born-2-Kill Eradication Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.12.15 23:59:00 -
[81]
Originally by: daisy dook
Originally by: Billy Merc CCP really do need to address the ECM plague...its becomming a joke really.
...even if ure sensor strength is higher than the falcons jam strength (and its not hard...most larger ships have this right out the door with no eccm) you really have little chance of escapong a jam cycle...as they are so long...all a falcon needs is 2-3 cycles and most ships are dead.
I wish my falcon killed ships after 2-3 jam cycles, oh the KMs I would be proud to boast...
Seriously, ECM can only be used in a balanced group - so in your balanced group fit counter measures (the easiest is to have a group flying all the same race).
Seriously...are u that dumb ???
No falcon pilot goes solo....so u obviously missed the point..
i dont mean the falcon will kill u...i mean its game over once he does and his mates start getting into you....the falcon needs only hold cycle for 2-3 jam cycles and ure gorne..u can try and run..if u cant get those tacklers off you...u cant dictate distance...nothing.
Their are effctive...(working) counters / tactics to damps, tracking disruptors, and cap warefare.....there is for ECM as well...but most are way under par in comparison (besides blobs)..those that arent..are just dumb. Yes ECCM gives u some playroom...but rarely has it been a saving factor.
i dont see why ECCM boost would be such a problem...its not a free pass...nor do i want it to be...but the option to sacrifice a single slot + cap usage (if needs be) would be a great option to have...as i have stated..ECM is fine as is.
Another disturbing factor is why is the falcon recieving the same bonus as its combat brother (in relation to is ECM strength bonus)..this is totally wrong...tho if falcons jam range where to be nerfed i feel the current strength bonus would be fine...force them to play @ around the 100km range.
the fact that is has so much stopping power at such an incredible range...and there be no "effective" counter is quite disturbing.
anyways...posting in eve-o is WOFTAM so im out..o/
|
The Tzar
Malicious Intentions The Church.
|
Posted - 2008.12.16 13:36:00 -
[82]
The quickest fix to the 'falcon plague' (which is all peoples imagination tbh) is to change your opinions of this 'impossible to beat' gang member and fit to combat against it.
If the plague is as virulent as you describe as you and others have done with significant anguish then surely knowing that EVERY gang will have AT LEAST one falcon (whinge in italics) then fit ECCM and bring an anti falcon ship.
Their have been many ideas about anti-falcon platforms but none as easy as asking CCP just to nerf the ship. Petition for auto-killmails whenever an enemy falcon appears on overview?
If your opposing gang are relying on this falcon to perform then you have seriously screwed up their chance of success whilst boosting your own.
Or we can balance the falcon, spend the next few months whinging about the lack of balance in the balanacing and come full circle. __________________________________________
'Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear intelligent until they speak' __________________________________________ |
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.12.16 13:58:00 -
[83]
The falcon whiners are the type of players that will never be happy until eve combat is nerfed to a point of pure tank and spank where numbers always wins.
|
MITSUK0
|
Posted - 2008.12.16 14:16:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Esmenet The falcon whiners are the type of players that will never be happy until eve combat is nerfed to a point of pure tank and spank where numbers always wins.
This is an EFT warriors wet dream. They might even log-in and pvp.
|
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.
|
Posted - 2008.12.16 15:01:00 -
[85]
Originally by: The Tzar The quickest fix to the 'falcon plague' (which is all peoples imagination tbh) is to change your opinions of this 'impossible to beat' gang member and fit to combat against it.
If the plague is as virulent as you describe as you and others have done with significant anguish then surely knowing that EVERY gang will have AT LEAST one falcon (whinge in italics) then fit ECCM and bring an anti falcon ship.
Their have been many ideas about anti-falcon platforms but none as easy as asking CCP just to nerf the ship. Petition for auto-killmails whenever an enemy falcon appears on overview?
If your opposing gang are relying on this falcon to perform then you have seriously screwed up their chance of success whilst boosting your own.
Or we can balance the falcon, spend the next few months whinging about the lack of balance in the balanacing and come full circle.
Or simpler yet: the whines will transfer to (my prediction: Amarr recons. OMG tracking disruptors aren't even chance-based!!!!111
|
baltec1
R.U.S.T. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.12.16 15:26:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: The Tzar The quickest fix to the 'falcon plague' (which is all peoples imagination tbh) is to change your opinions of this 'impossible to beat' gang member and fit to combat against it.
If the plague is as virulent as you describe as you and others have done with significant anguish then surely knowing that EVERY gang will have AT LEAST one falcon (whinge in italics) then fit ECCM and bring an anti falcon ship.
Their have been many ideas about anti-falcon platforms but none as easy as asking CCP just to nerf the ship. Petition for auto-killmails whenever an enemy falcon appears on overview?
If your opposing gang are relying on this falcon to perform then you have seriously screwed up their chance of success whilst boosting your own.
Or we can balance the falcon, spend the next few months whinging about the lack of balance in the balanacing and come full circle.
Or simpler yet: the whines will transfer to (my prediction: Amarr recons. OMG tracking disruptors aren't even chance-based!!!!111
That is why I am in a desperate rush to get recon 5 so I can have my fun while it lasts.
I also expect a nerf to my bomber when people realise its not a bad ship.
|
daisy dook
|
Posted - 2008.12.16 19:44:00 -
[87]
Edited by: daisy dook on 16/12/2008 19:45:05
Originally by: Billy Merc
Originally by: daisy dook
Originally by: Billy Merc
Stuff...all a falcon needs is 2-3 cycles and most ships are dead.
I wish my falcon killed ships after 2-3 jam cycles, oh the KMs I would be proud to boast...
Seriously, ECM can only be used in a balanced group - so in your balanced group fit counter measures (the easiest is to have a group flying all the same race).
Seriously...are u that dumb ???
No falcon pilot goes solo....so u obviously missed the point..
I'm pretty sure I got the point.
Back on topic, what would you consider par for a counter tactic? Would it be 100% effective?, if not how effective would it be 80% 50%?
An ECCM II module gives a 96% increase to sensor strength. So for a caracal (native sensor strength 15) against a jam of 12 strength we have an 80% jam chance; add the racial ECCM II module this gives a 40.8% jam chance.
So rather than being jam free 20% of the time it is jam free 59.2% of the time; almost a 200% increase in native 'anti-jam' effectiveness.
This effect is more pronounced for T1 cruiser hulls than BS's but the principle stands.
---
btw,
I think the ECCM'd cerb is an excellent counter tactic and love the idea of disco frigates (how ever impractical).
|
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Gunship Diplomacy
|
Posted - 2008.12.16 19:59:00 -
[88]
Maybe fix ecm in general like this: Make it more fun ----------------------------------------- [Video] The Neverending Story |
Trebor Notlimah
Lone Star EVE Group Veni Vidi Vici
|
Posted - 2008.12.16 21:37:00 -
[89]
Edited by: Trebor Notlimah on 16/12/2008 21:41:12
Originally by: Derek Sigres
Originally by: Cristl
Originally by: FreddyCheeseman Ged Satti, you deserve a cookie Why dont people believe in ECCM as an effective counter?
Well, an ECCM takes up a midslot, and has no other benefits to the ship besides reducing the effect of a module that *may* be used against it.
Imagine there was a midslot module that gave you increased immunity to enemy target painters or remote sensor dampeners (but with no native bonus like decrease sig or increased scan res) would many people fit it?
Midslots are at a premium; it's definitely hard to justify devoting one to a module whose sole purpose is to reduce (not even negate) the effect of one ewar module that may possibly be used against you.
I can fly falcons (currently with recon 5, ewar skills at 4) and they are are *too* focused on what they do. I can pretty much permajam 5 enemy HACs from about 220km away for example. That's too big an effect for a single ship tbh.
I believe a LOT of the problems people have with ECCM is because of a misconception regarding the purpose of the module along with the limited utility outside of its anti-ecm focus.
If ECCM were powerful enough to warrent general use on all ships in a fleet, I would argue that it would utterly destroy ECM ships ability to influence the battle. Afterall, until jam chances are lower than about 25% a battleship being jammed will have little direct impact in a fight, once you consider relock times.
ECCM instead is best used on ships built around the concept of disrupting enemy ECM activities. On such ships, ECCM is used in the same fashion as an armor plate of a shield hardner - it provides a margin of defense. Unfortuantely, there is only ONE race that really has strong candidates for anti ECM duties is the very race that fields ECM ships in the first place. Caldari ships are a perfect marriage of high native sensor strength (they field the only HAC's that can't literally be permajammed for example), and the ability to engage at the native ranges of ECM ships easily. In this case, you'll find that an anti-ecm Raven for example can handily achieve over 100k EHP, a sensor strength that can easily exceed 100 points and the ability to project 2k effective alpha strikes out to falcon ranges.
I'm sorry, but what happened to remote sensor dampers again? They got the crap nerfed out of them and with the combination of sensor boosters becoming very very common, especially with battleships, so lets rewrite your statement -- "If Sensor Boosters were powerful enough to warrent general use on most ships in a fleet, I would argue that it would utterly destroy damp ships ability to influence the battle." -- so why shouldn't the falcon experience the same thing that Arazus & Lachesis have to deal with.
A solution that I thought up -- Give sensor boosters a ECCM script.
|
Trebor Notlimah
Lone Star EVE Group Veni Vidi Vici
|
Posted - 2008.12.16 21:39:00 -
[90]
Edited by: Trebor Notlimah on 16/12/2008 21:39:23 DOUBLE POST
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |