Originally by: Merin Ryskin

---

Inties do not need a boost.

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

Interceptors are not really suited for an antifalcon role. Speed is not now nor was it ever a particularly good counter.

The ship you are looking for is here.

---

Originally by: tarin adur

---

Oh? Falcon's greatest strenght is range, and a ceptor has the means to close that distance quickly, far faster then a cov ops can i'd think.

---

Originally by: Merin Ryskin

---

Originally by: tarin adur

---

Oh? Falcon's greatest strenght is range, and a ceptor has the means to close that distance quickly, far faster then a cov ops can i'd think.

---

You're not thinking about it hard enough. An interceptor at 5km/s (somewhat optimistic, post-nerf) will take 40 seconds to reach a Falcon at 200km. A covops will take approximately 30 seconds to reach it with as many ships as you like.

---

Originally by: Adaera

---

(Eagle/Rokh?)

---

Originally by: Tronjay

---

Carriernerf, Speednerf (Vaga and the lot), Missilenerf (Torps/Caldari and the lot) and now a Falconnerf?? Com'mon deal with the mechanics Bro. You know what they can do, so use the ingame mechanics to counter.

---

Originally by: Tronjay

---

Carriernerf, Speednerf (Vaga and the lot), Missilenerf (Torps/Caldari and the lot) and now a Falconnerf?? Com'mon deal with the mechanics Bro. You know what they can do, so use the ingame mechanics to counter.

---

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.

---

Originally by: Rajere

---

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.

---

look at that clueless post!

switch the falcon's optimal bonus for a falloff bonus, or remove it completely and give them some secondary tackle/ewar bonus.

---

Originally by: Merin Ryskin

---

Inties do not need a boost.

---

Originally by: daisy dook

---

Edited by: daisy dook on 14/12/2008 16:36:14

Originally by: Rajere

---

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.

---

look at that clueless post!

switch the falcon's optimal bonus for a falloff bonus, or remove it completely and give them some secondary tackle/ewar bonus.

---

I like it, nerf the ship rather than fit counter measures.

Maybe CCP will nerf DPS because I can't, sorry, won't fit tank.

---

Originally by: Righteous Deeds

---

Originally by: Tronjay

---

Carriernerf, Speednerf (Vaga and the lot), Missilenerf (Torps/Caldari and the lot) and now a Falconnerf?? Com'mon deal with the mechanics Bro. You know what they can do, so use the ingame mechanics to counter.

---

Seconded. You guys need to break free of the CCP nerf/buff culture. Learn to deal with the tech as it is. The nerfs/buffs never fix anything, they just make new problems and generate their own complaints.

Soon this game will be so vanilla it won't matter what you fly, the only thing different will be the graphics model.

---

Originally by: Captator

---

Edited by: Captator on 14/12/2008 16:55:54
[Apocalypse, antifalcon]
Damage Control II
Heat Sink II
Heat Sink II
Tracking Enhancer II
1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I
True Sansha Adaptive Nano Plating
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II

100MN MicroWarpdrive II
Sensor Booster II, Scan Resolution
Sensor Booster II, Scan Resolution
Conjunctive Radar ECCM Scanning Array I

Mega Beam Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L
Mega Beam Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L
Mega Beam Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L
Mega Beam Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L
Mega Beam Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L
Mega Beam Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L
Mega Beam Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L
Mega Beam Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L

Energy Locus Coordinator I
Ancillary Current Router I
Trimark Armor Pump I

Hammerhead II x5

~700 dps at 50km, 1.7k alpha with 330 dps at 193km, 87k EHP in gang

Doesn't lose too much performance over a standard plated close range fleet BS, and can switch out quickly to force a falcon off.

edit: needs 3% grid implant to fit

---

Originally by: Hyveres

---

Edited by: Hyveres on 14/12/2008 18:51:53
A properly fit Cerberus with 73 gravmetric sensor strength is kinda efficient as well.

If done right we are talking 10s flight time out to 200km.

High enough sensor strenght to require multiple jammers for any reasonable chance of success and afaik most falcons dont fit multiple gravmetric jammers these days :)

---

Originally by: Hyveres

---

Edited by: Hyveres on 14/12/2008 18:51:53
A properly fit Cerberus with 73 gravmetric sensor strength is kinda efficient as well.

If done right we are talking 10s flight time out to 200km.

High enough sensor strenght to require multiple jammers for any reasonable chance of success and afaik most falcons dont fit multiple gravmetric jammers these days :)

---

Originally by: Pr1ncess Alia

---

i think the best solution would be to buff arties and give the tempest +200% sensor strength

---

Originally by: Poena Loveless

---

Falcon isn't overpowered. It dies just as much, if not more than any other force recon. Compared to other recons they actually have a huge disadvantage when they are the ones jumping into a camp/bubble so its all balanced. (edit: to clarify, all the other recons are made for 25-40km range so they are utilizing their greatest potential even if they don't like the situation, the falcon's range bonus is worthless when all your targets are 20-40km from you)

A major thing people forget to mention is that a falcon at < 100km is instapopped by 90% of the hacs on market and it takes time (if cloaked) and/or great risk (if uncloaked and mwd'ing) to get out to 200km in a fight that isnt a staged camp.

---

Originally by: Captator

---

Edited by: Captator on 14/12/2008 16:55:54
[Apocalypse, antifalcon]
Damage Control II
Heat Sink II
Heat Sink II
Tracking Enhancer II
1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I
True Sansha Adaptive Nano Plating
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II

100MN MicroWarpdrive II
Sensor Booster II, Scan Resolution
Sensor Booster II, Scan Resolution
Conjunctive Radar ECCM Scanning Array I

Mega Beam Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L
Mega Beam Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L
Mega Beam Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L
Mega Beam Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L
Mega Beam Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L
Mega Beam Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L
Mega Beam Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L
Mega Beam Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L

Energy Locus Coordinator I
Ancillary Current Router I
Trimark Armor Pump I

Hammerhead II x5

~700 dps at 50km, 1.7k alpha with 330 dps at 193km, 87k EHP in gang

Doesn't lose too much performance over a standard plated close range fleet BS, and can switch out quickly to force a falcon off.

edit: needs 3% grid implant to fit

---

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.

---

Originally by: Gabriel Karade

---

Edited by: Gabriel Karade on 15/12/2008 12:49:57

Well, you could always change ECM so that you don't loose your target locks, but can't activate any modules on the target, i.e. all your target locks go back to the 'acquiring' stage of the cycle (flashing brackets) while your jammed, but are restored as soon as the jam cycle fails.

Other than that, a range boost to remote ECCM would be nice; 24km is a bit low.

---

Originally by: Billy Merc

---

CCP really do need to address the ECM plague...its becomming a joke really.

But i think the solution lies not in nerfing ECM, as this is pretty much all falcons have got...they dont do no damage, have no drone bays...unlike the arazu, pilgrim, rapier u would be flat out killing yourself in a falcon let alone anything else.

I propose that ECM remains the way it is, and the ECCM gets the boost. If u are willing to sacrifice a mid slot...u deserve an element of immunity to ECM...what some dont realize now is...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.

ECCM NEEDS a boost bad, in its current form, u are still not immune...jam cycles are WAY to *****in long, ECCM needs to provide better protection than it does now + shorten successful jam cycles....i for one would even be happy if this new kind of eccm cost more cap / fitting req's on top of the addition sacrifice of a med slot.

---

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.

---

Originally by: Seishi Maru

---

Edited by: Seishi Maru on 15/12/2008 14:56:51

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.

---

really so the speed Issue was also unwillingness of people to fly rapiers? The nos nerf was unwillingness of people to Fly AC ships with plates? The Dual MWD Raven issues as unwillingness of people to fly faster than torps could reach? The cyno activated DD was unwillingnes of predicting the future?

Shut up!

Unbalanced things MUST be nerfed, or counters MUst be added. that is fundamental to game BALANCE.

No ship, not a single sub capital ship is even remotely as powerful or game breaking as the falcon. Not even 20 km/s vagas were.

---

Originally by: tarin adur

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

Interceptors are not really suited for an antifalcon role. Speed is not now nor was it ever a particularly good counter.

The ship you are looking for is here.

---

Oh? Falcon's greatest strenght is range, and a ceptor has the means to close that distance quickly, far faster then a cov ops can i'd think.

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

So suggest some god damb counters then. And no, a single midslot item that makes everything bad go away for ever is not a "counter". It's just a lazy way to pretend that the whole ECM class doesn't exist. No; just no.
Every ship should be "overpowered" versus at least one class of ships. Every ship should be vulnerable to at least one other class. The main problem with the falcon seems to be the
perception that it's countering ships need work. That's why I suggested that Stealthbombers and Gallante Recons - both of which are generally accepted as needing some love - be boosted. Both of these ships should be very deadly as anti-Falcon ships (particularly in tandmem), and with some minor tweaks, they would be.
Then instead of 2 broken and one freshly nerfed (and we all know that when CCP nerf something, they nerf it to the point of uselessness for at least 18 months) ship types, we have 3 awesome shiptypes. Surely that's a better outcome? Doesn't that seem a better outcome to you?

tl;dr: Don't nerf Falcons: let Falcons be awesome.

But let Arazu/Lachesis/Stealthbombers be awesome too.

---

Originally by: Seishi Maru

---

really so the speed Issue was also unwillingness of people to fly rapiers? The nos nerf was unwillingness of people to Fly AC ships with plates? The Dual MWD Raven issues as unwillingness of people to fly faster than torps could reach? The cyno activated DD was unwillingnes of predicting the future?

Shut up!

---

Originally by: Derek Sigres

---

While I concur with most everything you say here, I am forced to wonder why people rally so hard against the idea of bringing anti-ecm ship. Everyone KNOWS there will be falcons in larger engagments. Everyone knows of at least ONE counter (another falcon). Yet, rarely do you see ECM cover on both sides of an engagement, and it's even LESS frequent that you see a dedicated anti-falcon ship on the field.

The Raven for example is inarguably incredibly well suited to drive falcons from the field. Even without BCS in an armor tanked ship you can deliver enough alpha to kill a non plated falcon in a handful of shots, and with a high native sensor strength the effectiveness of ECCM cannot be denied. The Rokh is another solid choice, with the same basic strengths as the raven though it achieves it's end through rapid ROF rather than high alpha strikes.

The problem isn't that counters don't exist, it seems that people are simply unwilling to use them. I can sympathize to an extent - taking a battleship and reducing it's tank or damage capabilities just to counter a single ship class can be bothersome, especially when you happen to be on an op where the opposition doesn't field the very thing you're trying to counter. But, given just how many falcons are on the field these days, to bring no counter of your own is just plain silly. Falcons aren't brutally effective just because they are inheritly powerful - it's largely because the players in the game allow them to be by routinely bringing nothing to counter them.

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

Interceptors are not really suited for an antifalcon role. Speed is not now nor was it ever a particularly good counter.

The ship you are looking for is here.

---

Originally by: FreddyCheeseman

---

Ged Satti, you deserve a cookie Why dont people believe in ECCM as an effective counter?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

Originally by: Stefan F

---

It's not the falcon that is the problem, it is your unwillingness to fit ECCM.

---

Originally by: AleRiperKilt

---

how about suicide frigates orbiting falcon at 500m with smartbombs?

---

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.

---

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

---

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.

---

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

---

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.

---

Originally by: Aleus Stygian

---

Actually, the real deal is that you shouldn't have to always have battleships or Recons.

---

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).

---

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.

---

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.

---

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

---

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..

---

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.

---

Originally by: baltec1

---

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.

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

Curse + Recon V = like being given a day pass in a convent school.



Oh yeah I said it. You know what I meant.

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

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.

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

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.

---

Originally by: Aleus Stygian

---

Edited by: Aleus Stygian on 17/12/2008 01:09:31

Originally by: Malcanis

---

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.

---

I do believe that I already have before, and I would again if I didn't expect someone like you to be such a **** about it.

They should take away one of the range bonuses and replace it with a heavy missile bonus or a bonus to ship scanners or what have you; personally I'm more for the weapon bonus. Then you re-work the stats a bit to allow for a better shield tank and at least some survivability up close. That's what should be done. The result will be a ship that still serves the same function, but is better in line with the other Force Recons, has better suvivability and more than just one function, is not so bloody hard and overspecialization-requiring to counter, and is to the Rook what all other blasted Force Recons are to their Combat Recon equivalents.

---

Originally by: Jesum

---

Remove the ecm strength bonus from the Falcon. It was balanced when the Rook was useful and the Falcon was not as useful. Ask yourselves, why did you boost the Falcon?

---

Originally by: tarin adur

---

Edited by: tarin adur on 14/12/2008 08:49:34
Probably posted this in the wrong forum, but this gets more reads anyways =D

Was reading another thread and someone said that Falcons will permnanently jam Ceptors/Frigs that have a sensor strenght lower then the jam strenght of the falcon.

Anyways, i was thinking you could actually give ceptors a massive boost to sensor strenght. Such that even a max skilled falcon would have a hard time jamming one. Assuming this happens, now ceptors can perform the roles they were made for(Tackling and holding) and the gang can warp to the ceptor, the falcon is no longer as invincible as it was since now, a ceptor is a real threat to it.

Anyways, i dunno if i worded that right, but this way, instead of nerfing ecm, we actually boost something(for once) and get some results.

Flame away...

---

Originally by: Trebor Notlimah

---

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.

---

Originally by: rey ayanami

---

I do agree falcons are fine in fleet warefare, but what about small gang stuff (i'm talking gangs of 3 - 10), pvp at sizes where a single falocn can take half a gang out of the fight, it makes the situation unwinnable.

And God help you if someone brings 2 or 3 falcons at that size (which many seem to like doing).

Falcons ruin solo and small gang pvp (and yes, alot of people do enjoy this, eve isn't all fleet fights you know).

Yeah sure ECCM can work sometimes but requiring every ship in a gang to fit 2 mid slot mods that have no other purpose (notice how other counters have other uses, damps are countered by sensor boosters... plenty of other uses, same for tracking computers and cap boosters) is stupid, hell some ships don't even have the mislots to spare (i.e. any pvp ship with only 3 mids).

And don't say bring a falcon of your own, a ship who's only sensible counter is itself is even more broken.

Bottom line something needs to be done, give ECCM another use, problem solved.

I personally think this is the best bet, or even give us personal ECCM that comes in low, med or high varieties so all ships can fit at least one, preferably 2 modules.

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

Your small gang can also be worked over by TD ships just as efficiently. But you'll have the illusion of effectiveness because you'll be able to lock.

I've posted that SBs and Gallante recons should be appropriately boosted because these ships need fixing anyway, and their current underperformance is problematic because they should be 2 of the most effective counters to Falcons, especially under-attended falcon alts, which seem to be the main problem.
I think that there's a pretty universal consensus that these ships need some love, so let's try a postive approach. Nerfing is negative, and it's nearly always the wrong thing to do. If your three legged dog can't catch rabbits, that doesn't mean rabbits are overpowered.

Lets fix all the ships that are meant to counter falcons and THEN see if they're quite so uber. At the very worst this process will fix ships that currently need help. There's no downside, and it will be a lot less divisive

---

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.

---

Originally by: Dong Ninja

---

The only current counter to ECM is more ECM.

---

Originally by: Dong Ninja

---

The only current counter to nano***s ECM is more nano***s ECM. The only thing is, jamming counters EVERYTHING but propulsion, while webbers only counter propulsion, TDs only turret tracking/optimal, dampeners only targeting range or lock time. ECM has the effective counter-abilities of 2/3 the other recons. This doesn't make the other recons useless, but why bring an arazu or curse for their ewar ability? The only reason I'd bring an arazu over a falcon is for the long range scram (disruptors go out far enough really), and the curse, well the curse is just good with cap warfare, but TDs aren't super. In this sense, with each recon having their abilities it's nice and balanced. The falcon has it's superior range though, but coupled with it's cloak, high jamming strenght and range it is nigh invulnerable.

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

Your small gang can also be worked over by TD ships just as efficiently. But you'll have the illusion of effectiveness because you'll be able to lock.

I've posted that SBs and Gallante recons should be appropriately boosted because these ships need fixing anyway, and their current underperformance is problematic because they should be 2 of the most effective counters to Falcons, especially under-attended falcon alts, which seem to be the main problem.
I think that there's a pretty universal consensus that these ships need some love, so let's try a postive approach. Nerfing is negative, and it's nearly always the wrong thing to do. If your three legged dog can't catch rabbits, that doesn't mean rabbits are overpowered.

Lets fix all the ships that are meant to counter falcons and THEN see if they're quite so uber. At the very worst this process will fix ships that currently need help. There's no downside, and it will be a lot less divisive

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

So ship scanning and a bonus to it's mighty pair of missile slots... you, you're right. I would be a **** about that. Because it's a awful proposal. Ship scanning Hey, I've got an even better one: why not give it a bonus to asteroid scanning too! Then it would have a reason to get even closer!

Come on man, you can do better than that. You want the falcon to work at engagement ranges, what the eff is it doing there? Adding the same DPS as a T1 fit Caracal and reporting that "that hostile mega has blasters and an armour tank guys!"? Be serious.

I refer you to my post above. If the Falcon's natural counters aren't working, fix the counters, don't break the ship that is working.

Or you know what? Just whine until yet another ship type gets nerfed into uselessness. Whatever. I don't care any more.

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

Your small gang can also be worked over by TD ships just as efficiently. But you'll have the illusion of effectiveness because you'll be able to lock.

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

Lets fix all the ships that are meant to counter falcons and THEN see if they're quite so uber. At the very worst this process will fix ships that currently need help. There's no downside, and it will be a lot less divisive

---

Originally by: Aleus Stygian

---

Yeah. That'll be a nice and easy thing to do. You know, without making them overpowered against other targets. Apart from the ECCM, that would be marvelous...

---

Originally by: Aleus Stygian

---

You know, it would be interesting to see, in the case they do change just it and not all of ECM, whether if people like you would stick with the Falcon or switch to the still 180 km-capable Rook out of sheer cowardice.

---

Originally by: Megan Maynard

---

You know, i use to think this.

But a carrier, with ECCM fitted, even two fitted, can still be perma-jammed by a good falcon pilot.

The only way is to have EVERYONE fit ECCM in your gang, or don't fit it at all.

---

Originally by: Megan Maynard

---

But a carrier, with ECCM fitted, even two fitted, can still be perma-jammed by a good falcon pilot.

---

Originally by: Omarvelous

---

Why do people find it necessary to KILL a Falcon to make it useless?

If you forced it to warp off - its not exactly Jamming your guys now is it?

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

By the way, if you're going to sling accusations of ad hominems, you should watch your own. I've made no secret of the fact that I greatly prefer the Curse now.

Because it's EW against turret ships is even more effective, and because it can tackle, disable and kill stuff.

---

Originally by: Aleus Stygian

---

Originally by: Omarvelous

---

Why do people find it necessary to KILL a Falcon to make it useless?

If you forced it to warp off - its not exactly Jamming your guys now is it?

---

No, but it's turning around and coming back. And if you have two or three of them they often won't even have to do that.

We want a firm, unyielding deterrent. One that will drive Falcon pilots back into station, just like ECM drives us back into station now.

Originally by: Malcanis

---

By the way, if you're going to sling accusations of ad hominems, you should watch your own. I've made no secret of the fact that I greatly prefer the Curse now.

Because it's EW against turret ships is even more effective, and because it can tackle, disable and kill stuff.

---

That was in direct response to your own slander, since you didn't get that at first... And you just admitted that now that people are finally managing to develop some extreme enough tactics to deal with long-distance ECM or choosing to log of, you've chosen to go with another vessel that is, so far, somewhat underestimated, for a nice little advantage...

I will give you credit for your proposed changes to Stealth Bombers though. But those are necessary from the very start, when you think about it. And you still have the travel time of missiles - something that the other Force Recons have in their favor to a far lesser degree. Not to mention that Falcons can reduce cruise damage seriously by AB-tanking nowadays.

---

Originally by: Ephemeron

---

wah

---

Originally by: Yoko Lee

---

falcon just the easy button now, you can see 2/3 falcon now gang of 6, i hate ecm (i have falcon) just too easy.

---

Originally by: darkmancer

---

Originally by: Yoko Lee

---

falcon just the easy button now, you can see 2/3 falcon now gang of 6, i hate ecm (i have falcon) just too easy.

---

- Really? Could you post some kill mails this 6 man gang got, i'd be interested what they managed to kill/catch.

---

Originally by: Aleus Stygian

---

Originally by: Omarvelous

---

Why do people find it necessary to KILL a Falcon to make it useless?

If you forced it to warp off - its not exactly Jamming your guys now is it?

---

No, but it's turning around and coming back. And if you have two or three of them they often won't even have to do that.

Originally by: Malcanis

---

By the way, if you're going to sling accusations of ad hominems, you should watch your own. I've made no secret of the fact that I greatly prefer the Curse now.

Because it's EW against turret ships is even more effective, and because it can tackle, disable and kill stuff.

---

That was in direct response to your own slander, since you didn't get that at first... And you just admitted that now that people are finally managing to develop some extreme enough tactics to deal with long-distance ECM or choosing to log of, you've chosen to go with another vessel that is, so far, somewhat underestimated, for a nice little advantage...

I will give you credit for your proposed changes to Stealth Bombers though. But those are necessary from the very start, when you think about it. And you still have the travel time of missiles - something that the other Force Recons have in their favor to a far lesser degree. Not to mention that Falcons can reduce cruise damage seriously by AB-tanking nowadays.

---

Originally by: darkmancer

---

ECM is a vital part of the game, especially in medium scale fights regards to disrupting spider tanks.

The falcons abit ott with it's range and cloak abilities. The best solution i've seen so far is the optimal -> falloff change talked about in the other nearby falcon post.

Another was to change ecm mods from a mid to a high slot item, change the slot layout & bonus's on the falcon/rook, and lose the sig amps. This would allow the ships the slight tank + speed mods to operate in the short @ mid range and have a hope of survival.

But more important is what has been said else where - changing the counters, stealth bombers need higher cpu & pg they are far to tight to fit sensibly.

Sensor damps were slightly over nerfed (although they got a bit riculous before). Change the t2 strength 17 -> 20% and change the scripts to + 100% x - 50% y to make them more rounded items. Boosts to the falloff range might make people people start to use sensor damps as falcon counters too.

---

Originally by: Ephemeron

---

I want to ask people this:

Why did we allow sensor damps to be nerfed 50%, yet we boost falcon jammers 25% ?

If you are one of those who believes that the falcon is fine. Then surely pre-nerf Arazu is fine also. And if it is all fine, lets start some threads demanding the unnerfing of Gallente recons

And while we at it, there's absolutely no reason to nerf tracking disruptors by 50%. And no reason to make Nos completely useless.. maybe nerf nos 50%, but not all 100%!

---

Originally by: Derek Sigres

---

Are you aware of what a red herring is?

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

I'm interested to learn that the Curse is "underestimated. But in fact I made the switch some time ago. I just got bored of flying Falcons. It sounds banal but it's a truism that many seem to overlook: all they can do is jam. I wanted a ship that can actually, you know, do something.

As for Falcon AB tanking... Afterburners are midslot modules, if memory serves. If Falcons start fitting ABs as standard, that's one less slot for ECM, no? The the mere prospect of a viable counter has had the effect of significantly reducing the jamming power of ECM recons.

No nerf required. See how that works? Isn't it great?

---

Originally by: Ephemeron

---

I want to ask people this:

Why did we allow sensor damps to be nerfed 50%, yet we boost falcon jammers 25% ?

If you are one of those who believes that the falcon is fine. Then surely pre-nerf Arazu is fine also. And if it is all fine, lets start some threads demanding the unnerfing of Gallente recons

And while we at it, there's absolutely no reason to nerf tracking disruptors by 50%. And no reason to make Nos completely useless.. maybe nerf nos 50%, but not all 100%!

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

Your small gang can also be worked over by TD ships just as efficiently. But you'll have the illusion of effectiveness because you'll be able to lock.

I've posted that SBs and Gallante recons should be appropriately boosted because these ships need fixing anyway, and their current underperformance is problematic because they should be 2 of the most effective counters to Falcons, especially under-attended falcon alts, which seem to be the main problem.
I think that there's a pretty universal consensus that these ships need some love, so let's try a postive approach. Nerfing is negative, and it's nearly always the wrong thing to do. If your three legged dog can't catch rabbits, that doesn't mean rabbits are overpowered.

Lets fix all the ships that are meant to counter falcons and THEN see if they're quite so uber. At the very worst this process will fix ships that currently need help. There's no downside, and it will be a lot less divisive

---

Originally by: Righteous Deeds

---

Originally by: Tronjay

---

Carriernerf, Speednerf (Vaga and the lot), Missilenerf (Torps/Caldari and the lot) and now a Falconnerf?? Com'mon deal with the mechanics Bro. You know what they can do, so use the ingame mechanics to counter.

---

Seconded. You guys need to break free of the CCP nerf/buff culture. Learn to deal with the tech as it is. The nerfs/buffs never fix anything, they just make new problems and generate their own complaints.

Soon this game will be so vanilla it won't matter what you fly, the only thing different will be the graphics model.

---

Originally by: Wannabehero

---

ECCM's have more than one use, just an FYI. Aside from making you harder to jam, ECCM also reduces the chances of you been probed down.

Don't go saying ECCM is only useful to combat jamming

---

Originally by: arbalesttom

---

In my opinion, either:

Give sensorboosters eccm scripts (and make the scripts slightly better than the current eccm) and make ecm strength based on sig radius, so, less effective against smaller ships, more effective against larger ships (larger sships mostly has more midslots, wich means it can fit a sensorbooster with eccm script a little easier). This would rightout balance amarr in line with the other races as well, as amarr have the least midslots.

---

Originally by: Aleus Stygian

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

I'm interested to learn that the Curse is "underestimated. But in fact I made the switch some time ago. I just got bored of flying Falcons. It sounds banal but it's a truism that many seem to overlook: all they can do is jam. I wanted a ship that can actually, you know, do something.

As for Falcon AB tanking... Afterburners are midslot modules, if memory serves. If Falcons start fitting ABs as standard, that's one less slot for ECM, no? The the mere prospect of a viable counter has had the effect of significantly reducing the jamming power of ECM recons.

No nerf required. See how that works? Isn't it great?

---

The Curse and the Pilgrim have both been underestimated for a whole long time. And most people don't seem to be able to operate them well in gangs.

Oh, and yeah, the loss of one mid slot out of seven to avoid the few missiles that can actually reach you really is a punch in the groin...

---

Originally by: rey ayanami

---

Originally by: Wannabehero

---

ECCM's have more than one use, just an FYI. Aside from making you harder to jam, ECCM also reduces the chances of you been probed down.

Don't go saying ECCM is only useful to combat jamming

---

Hmm didn't know that, all the same they need a decent in combat use.

Originally by: arbalesttom

---

In my opinion, either:

Give sensorboosters eccm scripts (and make the scripts slightly better than the current eccm) and make ecm strength based on sig radius, so, less effective against smaller ships, more effective against larger ships (larger sships mostly has more midslots, wich means it can fit a sensorbooster with eccm script a little easier). This would rightout balance amarr in line with the other races as well, as amarr have the least midslots.

---

This is actually something i hadn't thought of and i think it's a damn good idea, a kind of re-calibrating your sensors to cut through whatever EW is thrown at you.

It would still take time to change the script making surprise falcon attacks more important (being able to get a jam off before the enemy can swap scripts).

---

Originally by: rey ayanami

---

I do agree with you that other ships need to be fixed, SB and gal recons definatly, i just feel that there should be mroe than 2 ship types in the game that can counter a falcon with any degree of reliability.

---

Originally by: E Vile

---

FoF missles

---

Originally by: Merin Ryskin

---

Pretending crippling the Falcon's range would be "balance" and not just killing the ship is pure stupidity. We already have an ECM ship with no range bonuses, it's called the Widow. And guess what, it's one of the most useless ships in the game because of that lack of range. Nerf the Falcon's range, and it joins the Widow on the trash pile.

---

Originally by: Ephemeron

---

I want to ask people this:

Why did we allow sensor damps to be nerfed 50%, yet we boost falcon jammers 25% ?

If you are one of those who believes that the falcon is fine. Then surely pre-nerf Arazu is fine also. And if it is all fine, lets start some threads demanding the unnerfing of Gallente recons

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

It's a suggestion I made 6 months ago - it's a pretty obvious one, after all.

But apparently asking people to fit sensor boosters is also too much. It seems that "having" to fit a sensor booster is "gimping" fits. If it's not tank, tackle or a damage mod, then it's "gimp". That's how it works, apparently.

I made a CSM proposal to rework ECM counter measures when the falcon debates were raging this autumn, including changing ECCM to a Sensor booster Script. I think about 3 people posted in the thread.

---

Originally by: BiggestT

---

Id be stoked to see a falcon nerf if all rail guns got a boost.

We gotta have something ressembling an op ship :P

Even though i dont think its op, i definately agree its fotm.

---

Originally by: sdthujfg

---

Originally by: BiggestT

---

Id be stoked to see a falcon nerf if all rail guns got a boost.

We gotta have something ressembling an op ship :P

Even though i dont think its op, i definately agree its fotm.

---

What the heck is wrong with rail guns all of a sudden? Does the whine never end?

---

Originally by: Hyveres

---

Why not simply boost the other forms of ewar.

Heck double the range of the other 3 and make the ships intended to perform those roles hardier so it can be utilized.

All I see is "my gang flies all short range brute force ships" and we die to the last vestige of Ewar style whines.

If ECM is the only type of ewar that can tip the scales this way then obviously the others are not powerfull enough , a brute force gang should never be autowin vs a similarly sized and valued gang that has support vessels in it. Though I am not saying it should be autoloose either.

---

Originally by: Hyveres

---

Why not simply boost the other forms of ewar.

Heck double the range of the other 3 and make the ships intended to perform those roles hardier so it can be utilized.

All I see is "my gang flies all short range brute force ships" and we die to the last vestige of Ewar style whines.

If ECM is the only type of ewar that can tip the scales this way then obviously the others are not powerfull enough , a brute force gang should never be autowin vs a similarly sized and valued gang that has support vessels in it. Though I am not saying it should be autoloose either.

---

Originally by: rey ayanami

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

It's a suggestion I made 6 months ago - it's a pretty obvious one, after all.

But apparently asking people to fit sensor boosters is also too much. It seems that "having" to fit a sensor booster is "gimping" fits. If it's not tank, tackle or a damage mod, then it's "gimp". That's how it works, apparently.

I made a CSM proposal to rework ECM counter measures when the falcon debates were raging this autumn, including changing ECCM to a Sensor booster Script. I think about 3 people posted in the thread.

---

If people refuse to mount sensor boosters then quite frankly that's their fault, it's a solution that could work.

I still think ECM counters should come in hi, med and low varieties so people don't have to 'gimp their setups' to fit them, and so ships like the maller or thorax whicn can't really spare a midslot can afford to fir somekind of counter, after all counters to both TD's and SD's come in at least med and low varities

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

Originally by: rey ayanami

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

It's a suggestion I made 6 months ago - it's a pretty obvious one, after all.

But apparently asking people to fit sensor boosters is also too much. It seems that "having" to fit a sensor booster is "gimping" fits. If it's not tank, tackle or a damage mod, then it's "gimp". That's how it works, apparently.

I made a CSM proposal to rework ECM counter measures when the falcon debates were raging this autumn, including changing ECCM to a Sensor booster Script. I think about 3 people posted in the thread.

---

If people refuse to mount sensor boosters then quite frankly that's their fault, it's a solution that could work.

I still think ECM counters should come in hi, med and low varieties so people don't have to 'gimp their setups' to fit them, and so ships like the maller or thorax whicn can't really spare a midslot can afford to fir somekind of counter, after all counters to both TD's and SD's come in at least med and low varities

---

To be frank, after repeatedly wasting my time in threads like these, I've come to the conclusion that what these people actually want is either

(1) Simply delete the Falcon, Rook, Scorpion, Kitsune, Griffon, Blackbird & Widow, plus all ECM modules and distortion amps from the database

(2) Change ECCM so that it reactively sends a 3000hp EM attack to anyone attemtping a jam your ship


As you can see demonstrated in this thread, any effort to constructively engage in any kind of positive debate is useless. They're completely locked in to OMG NERF mindsets. No form of mendacity or propaganda is below them. You can list half a dozen ships which are more or less effective as counters to falcons and in the very next post, you'll see the same "only falcons can counter falcons" lie repeated.
It's exactly like trying to argue with fundamentalists about evolution. All your logic, and common sense and helpful links and most definitely your filthy, heathen facts are useless because they KNOW they're right. They have truthiness on their side. Praise Jesus and pass the nerfbat.

---

Originally by: Tentakale

---

I jump for joy if ECM got removed from the game, getting tracking disrupted aint so bad, you can mostly counter it by the way you pilot your ship (zero out trans or get closer) same goes for damps and with cap warfare you can micro the cap booster etc..

With ECM you just sit there and die, wooooo. People hate sitting there and dying without fighting back and in a game that has very little "random chance" it sticks out like a sore thumb.

People have hated "stuns" in every MMO ever made and this one is no different.

---

Originally by: Tentakale

---

I jump for joy if ECM got removed from the game, getting tracking disrupted aint so bad, you can mostly counter it by the way you pilot your ship (zero out trans or get closer) same goes for damps and with cap warfare you can micro the cap booster etc..

With ECM you just sit there and die, wooooo. People hate sitting there and dying without fighting back and in a game that has very little "random chance" it sticks out like a sore thumb.

People have hated "stuns" in every MMO ever made and this one is no different.

---

Originally by: Malcanis

---

So suggest something different for Caldari EW.

---

Originally by: Derek Sigres

---

Originally by: sdthujfg

---

Originally by: BiggestT

---

Id be stoked to see a falcon nerf if all rail guns got a boost.

We gotta have something ressembling an op ship :P

Even though i dont think its op, i definately agree its fotm.

---

What the heck is wrong with rail guns all of a sudden? Does the whine never end?

---

Well, they DO have lowish DPS.

---