EVE Search - Falcons: Better Than Ever

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Falcons: Better Than Ever

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Vitrael Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture	Posted - 2008.12.22 01:15:00 - [1] There were plenty of complaints that Falcons were imbalanced a year ago, but with the balancing of the last year Falcons have become only more troublesome in terms of balance. A high skilled Falcon with 2 signal distortion amplifiers and a signal distortion projector rig on has a jam strength of about 12.6 and an optimal of 194km using racial jammers. There are very few ships that can do damage at 194km. In the last year, the introduction of scripts cut the effectiveness of both tracking computers and sensor boosters in half, making it increasingly difficult to reach ranges like 200km. More recently, Locus rigs have been given a stacking penalty, which further reduced the optimal range of turrets using these fittings. Suffice to say there are very few ships that can attack a Falcon at its jam range, and those that can still have jammers working against them. Nanoships were a popular counter to Falcons because very fast ships (8km/s easily done on a Vagabond before Quantum Rise) could very quickly close distance on Falcons and kill them or, at the very least, force them off of the field temporarily. Now, with the average HAC and Recon ship going far less than 3km/s, it could take cruisers well over a minute to reach Falcons far from the battlefield, giving the Falcon adequate time to escape. Perhaps the only ships that can make a reasonably quick pounce on Falcons are interceptors, whose sensor strengths are very much within the "permajam" range of Falcons using racial jammers. Sensor dampeners do not reach an optimal ranges sufficient to dampen well-placed Falcons, and as such the most popular and effective electronic warfare counter to Falcons is more Falcons. We have entered an era where many small-to-mid sized gangs, particularly battleships, fit ECCM (or even multiple ECCM) in anticipation of Falcons. However, even a battleship dedicating a mid slot to ECCM is vulnerable to Falcons. An Armageddon with an ECCM has a sensor strength of 33, with a relative chance of being jammed of 37.8% per jammer against our model Falcon. Without an ECCM, the Armageddon has a 74.1% chance of being jammed. All of these factors and more lead me to believe that Falcons are more effective than ever and require counterbalancing. Being so excessively effective for so long, Falcons have become an integral part of every well equipped gang, and superior numbers of Falcons can virtually guarantee victory for even hugely outnumbered forces. There are many ways that we could handle this problem using either direct or indirect changes to game balance. 1. Obviously Falcon jamming range or effectiveness could be reduced. This was the case in the past, when its jamming strength was inferior to the Rook's, which I think is a fitting price to pay for having a covert ops cloak. 2. ECCM modules could be increased in effectiveness to give a ship using the module a relatively high chance that it will not be jammed by a single racial jammer. 3. Any number of counters to the Falcon could be re-introduced (ie. long range sniper ships, fast cruisers, etc) Zulupark on Falcon balance: "Nothing planned right now but we need to look at it at some point." Please let that point be right now! -----
Arkady Sadik Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2008.12.22 01:58:00 - [2] The Zulupark thread also mentions (IIRC) that they are looking at ECCM to make it a more viable counter - basically, they think Falcons are fine, but the counters are bad. My main problem with Falcons is that they are too strong in small gang combat. No other ship kills the balance of a 3vs3 (or even 5vs5) as much as a Falcon on one side. And yes, the only effective counter is "bring your own Falcon," which is sad. We also reguarly see fleets of 20+ ships where a third or so are Falcons, which is quite a sign of something being wrong. If ECCM will be a real counter to ECM, this will change. Otherwise, my favorite solution would be to make it just more difficult to "perma-jam" some other ship - each successful jam makes it more difficult to jam the same ship (by any ECM ship) in a certain period after that. This would retain the Falcon's effectiveness in larger fleets, but doesn't give it its small gang killer ability. I disagree with Zulupark that Falcons are fine, though - the main problem is that there is no reason to bring a Rook or even a Scorpion. Falcons jam as well as a Rook and can also cloak (and no, I don't think that the dps output of a Rook balances that out), while the cloak is a better tank than a Scorpion ever can achieve with a useful jam ability. So the balance within ECM specialist ships needs to be looked at as well. There should be a definitive and good reason to fly the other ECM specialist ships as well.
PeachesAndCream	Posted - 2008.12.22 03:40:00 - [3] The last boost didn't make Falcons so amazing that everyone trained up for them. Nor did it make them incredibly powerful. But they are still overpowered in relation to other ECM ships. So all the people who would've preferred to use a Scorpion or Rook before are now in Falcons. It tipped the scales and ruined the balance and diversity brought about by choice. So now the Rook is suffering from the same disinterest plaguing the Lachesis. It's slightly different in some areas, but not really better at anything. And half the people who end up using them are doing so for the cost advantages, which is one of the worst ways to measure the "balance" of a ship. Nice of you to make a Falcon thread long after it stopped being cool to complain about Falcons, but there's a bigger problem and it's development cycles. Their last move was an obvious mistake and probably recognized shortly after it went live, but it takes one or two expansions to correct it. There is no rapid turnover for game balance, because its tied to expansions. No rapid turnover means no chance of polished gameplay.
MalVortex Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture	Posted - 2008.12.22 03:58:00 - [4] Just reduce their ECM bonus to 10%/level, making them the weakest dedicated ECM ship in terms of raw jammer power. This creates a nice opportunity cost with the Covert-Ops cloak compared to the far more visible Rook and Scorpion. The ability to decloak (and warp while cloaked, and jam/cloak, etc) is extremely potent when coupled with the Falcon's range: this doesn't change by reducing its jamming power to 10%. It does give a reason to bring something other than a Falcon though. Reducing the Falcon's range simply kills the ship class. Decloaking at 50-75km is simply too close: somebody is going to lock you and fire. Zealots could be in optimal firing range in mere seconds, Cerbs would hit within seconds, etc. etc. It is true that no other Recon can operate at Caldari Recon ranges, but frankly thats the price of specialization: they have no tank, DPS, or tackle ability worth mentioning when fit for their role. 10% jam strength solves the opportunity cost problem. A Falcon uncloaking can still be decisive, but it wont 100% jam every non-Caldari HAC just by virtue of locking them. The other, far more potent jamming ships can be scouted and far more directly attacked: a fair compromise for their monstrous ECM potential.
Laechyd Eldgorn Caldari Art of War Exalted.	Posted - 2008.12.22 07:18:00 - [5] yay another ecm troll, i almost could keep myself not poasting.
Vitrael Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture	Posted - 2008.12.22 07:56:00 - [6] Originally by: Laechyd Eldgorn yay another ecm troll, i almost could keep myself not poasting. It's not a troll and I'm posting with my main. Eve general is that way ---> black hole. -----
geno effort GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.12.22 10:29:00 - [7] They're only powerful if you're not packing ECCM.
Dominik Miethling	Posted - 2008.12.22 10:36:00 - [8] Originally by: geno effort They're only powerful if you're not packing ECCM. Yeah, i had quite a hard time jamming an eccm-abaddon. Though i would love to see a little buff for eccm, espacially fitting-wise.
Typhado3 Minmatar Ashen Lion Mining and Production Consortium Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.12.22 10:53:00 - [9] /signed.... I'd write a long post about it but ppl already done it in this thread and better than I could. ccp fix mining agent missions % pls
Arkady Sadik Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2008.12.22 12:37:00 - [10] Originally by: geno effort They're only powerful if you're not packing ECCM. Let's say we fit an ECCM mod on our Megathron. That hurts our fitting a lot. Which is ok, if we just fitted a good counter. Falcon has 7 mid slots, with 5-6 ECM modules. 5 multispecs give him "only" a 66% chance to jam the Megathron. And that's a ship that has a good sensor strength to begin with and gimped itself to fit a counter. Two racial jammers alone already jam that Megathron for over 50% chance. With the other three off-racials, it's up to 63%. Which is why I think that ECCM is too weak. CCP agrees, too. All is well. :-)

Keiko Saito	Posted - 2008.12.22 14:17:00 - [11] As someone who can both fly a falcon with a reasonable degree of skill and someone who has come up against a fair number of them over the years I have to laugh at the people who say there is no counter to falcons. Recently a corp mate and I were in a spider with my Cruise raven (252km range) and his guardian. Yes I know ha ha an armor tanked raven. However I gave up few mids for an ECCM and a Remote ECCM. Guess what. 3 scorpions and a falcon later we were still there repping one another. That's not including all the other fun stuff that came against us. We did loose a ship to a massive gank set up Deimos that was most impressive but the ecm didn't bother us at all. Even saying that an intelligently set up Cerberus or Eagle is already able to hit 200km. An interceptor will take around 40s to cover 200km and will be instantly warpable too at that range. Also every jam that the falcon has to pull off a primaray damage dealer to deal with a pest reduces their effectivness. I'm sorry if they upset your cookie cutter eft fits for your 4 BS gang but that's their job! They are designed to make you take them into consideration when you are setting up your ships. You have to do it for the other recons you just have to live with the fact that they will be outside your range and you are going to have to work a bit. They encourage flexible thinking and mixed capability gangs. So rather than the death of small gangs I say they encourage intelligent small scale pvp. That being said I think a small increase in the bonus from ECCM would be a good thing. Currently I'm amazed how few people use them if they are non-caldari but if it encourages people to fit them and stops the whines then that'll be ok with me
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2008.12.22 14:35:00 - [12] I like the idea of weaking the ECM they put out and maybe even increasing thier range in turn, so they are good after the ECM range nerf the year after
Deva Blackfire coracao ardente	Posted - 2008.12.22 15:04:00 - [13] Originally by: Arkady Sadik Originally by: geno effort They're only powerful if you're not packing ECCM. Let's say we fit an ECCM mod on our Megathron. That hurts our fitting a lot. Which is ok, if we just fitted a good counter. Falcon has 7 mid slots, with 5-6 ECM modules. 5 multispecs give him "only" a 66% chance to jam the Megathron. And that's a ship that has a good sensor strength to begin with and gimped itself to fit a counter. Two racial jammers alone already jam that Megathron for over 50% chance. With the other three off-racials, it's up to 63%. Which is why I think that ECCM is too weak. CCP agrees, too. All is well. :-) Id say ECCM should just give infinite (or lets say 1000) sensor str. You still need to sacrifice slots for it but at least you can be sure you are immune to randomness..
whoyoulookingat Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.12.22 15:11:00 - [14] Simplest solution to balance ECM is the have them scripted. 2 Scripts - 1 for strength, 1 for range. This is just an example: Reduce the range & strength of the mods by 50% Strength script: 50% increase ECM jam strength / 100% range reduction No more sitting @ 200km perma jamming - requires to be in the thick of it to be usefull Range script: 100% optimal range increase /50% jam strength reduction Means you can sit @ 200km but instead of taking out multiple ships, you're restricted to putting all jammers onto one just to be able to keep it jammed. That's just some random numbers - brings them more in line with tracking disruptors / damps & apart from the EMO users who cry at every ingame change still allows them to be used as a viable tactic. Just not at such extreme ranges. _____________________________________ Someone's swiped my avatar!!!
Kappas. Galaxy Punks	Posted - 2008.12.22 15:30:00 - [15] I agree that they need to be balanced a bit. Atm the only viable option if you're attacking a small gang with a falcon with another small gang is bring your own falcon. That or bring 5x as many ships as they have. It's pretty much the only ship in the game with the exception of a titan that can turn the tide in small/medium gang warfare. __________________
BiggestT Caldari Resurrection Skunk-Works	Posted - 2008.12.22 15:59:00 - [16] Edited by: BiggestT on 22/12/2008 15:59:44 Heres a great post that I saw regarding falcons, and highlights the reasons why direct nerfs e.g. reduce strength/range, are not the best idea... Originally by: Derek Sigres Here's the thing that I don't get about these nerf requests: People don't ever seem to consider just how insane they sound when you match the proposed nerf with THEIR logic. Let's take an example - a proposition to reduce jamming strength by 50% or more (see nerf requests to reduce falcon jam strength to pre-boost days). This proposition comes from people who jump up on a table and babble incoherently how ECCM is utterly useless. I guess they never stopped to realize that doubling their OWN sensor strength has very nearly the same effect as halving the ECM strength - per their logic the falcon would still "perma jam" them. Or how about the much vaunted proposal to reduce the Falcon jam range by an arbitrary amount? This proposal comes from the people who's logic regarding the falcon menace is something like "They are too difficult to counter because of their range". These very same people are the ones who are proponents of mid ranged combat - i.e. warp disruptor ranges. This means that blasters, HAM's, pulse lasers and torpedos are the order of the day. Even if the falcon's range was halved a player would still have to make tremendous sacrifices to even HOPE to reach the new 90km optimal the falcon would sport. 60km is the maximum range a close range battleship can comfortably reach (Pulse Apoc with Scorch) - reducing ECM to this range would require a range PENALTY on the falcon. There is a problem with falcons, yes, but it isn't what people talk about. They gas on about theoritical jamming percentages and the various permutations of eve PVP to keep their little bandwagon rolling. The problem is not the lack of counters, the effectiveness of counters or the power of the ECM ships. No, the problem lies ENTIRELY in this one simple fact: the apparent effectiveness of an ECM ship increases as opposing gang size decreases. Smaller gangs force more and more ships to multitask, and eventually as gang sizes get small enough you are left with a scenario where you cover the basic requirements of tank, gank and tackle, but have no room to do anything else. The problem is, in order to field a proper defense against ECM, you must have a gang large enough to meet the basic needs of any combat gang before you can meet other requirements. Falcon's are hardly the best counter to other falcons, but they are one of the most common available because their presence not only provides a legitimate defense against other falcons, they also provide a huge bonus to your gang's combat potential when there are no ECM ships opposing you. But this isn't what people want to hear. It's gas on about absolutes and theories where problems are simple and solutions are cut and dry affairs. The falcon problem, along with a great many other little issues stems from the fundamental fact that solo, small gang, large gang and fleet PVP all operate with an entirely different set of requirements and solutions. Sniper gangs for example are common in fleet engagements but people rarely bring them in any quantity to smaller gang engagments. There are solutions to the falcon problem certainly - it's just interesting how most of them that are suggested seem to have almost no interest in the second and third order of effects of their changes. EVE history t2 precisions
Deva Blackfire coracao ardente	Posted - 2008.12.22 19:27:00 - [17] Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 22/12/2008 19:26:56 Originally by: BiggestT Edited by: BiggestT on 22/12/2008 15:59:44 Heres a great post that I saw regarding falcons, and highlights the reasons why direct nerfs e.g. reduce strength/range, are not the best idea... Originally by: Derek Sigres Let's take an example - a proposition to reduce jamming strength by 50% or more (see nerf requests to reduce falcon jam strength to pre-boost days). This proposition comes from people who jump up on a table and babble incoherently how ECCM is utterly useless. I guess they never stopped to realize that doubling their OWN sensor strength has very nearly the same effect as halving the ECM strength - per their logic the falcon would still "perma jam" them. Dont have time but will respond to this one. No, reducing falcon jammers by 50% does not give same effect as putting ECCM on a ship. Why? Because if you reduce falcons str it works half-powered agains EVERY ship out there (even retribution which has hard time fitting eccm with 1 mid). Thus its like giving every ship out there +1mid filled with ECCM. And yea - falcon still would "perma" jam most ships. BUT if you include ECCM on top of 50% falcon nerf (as a module) then suddenly you are 4x harder to jam compared to todays ships on TQ. Thus ECCM gives almost-immune state for user (almost being the key word - you can still get odd jam thru but this will be rare). Result? ECCM becomes working defence.
Straight Chillen Gallente Solar Wind	Posted - 2008.12.22 20:34:00 - [18] To quote CCP, "When something becomes the Defacto way of fighting there is something wrong" Falcons have become defacto, Either have one, or lose. Just like how it was with nano's. You were either nano'd and won or not and lost. I personally think theres 2 solutions. Either 1) Greatly increase the usefullness of ECCM, or reduce the effectiveness of ECCM by introducing scripts into it. I just find it assinine that most all other forms of EWAR use them now, but ECM doesnt. If they were to go the route of implementing scripts into ECM, they would have to retool the base stats. The way i would like to see it is taht between 100-150 KM falcons have about a 50-60% chance to jam a BS. At 190+ they should have 25%-37.5% chance, and then 75km and less having a 80%+ chance to jam. On an average BS with no ECCM. This way Falcons still have their operational sweet zone. They have the option to stay further out but with much reduced efficiency to coincide with the reduced risk. And Falcon pilots with a big set of cahonnes can get in close and really shut things down. Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Typhado3 Minmatar Ashen Lion Mining and Production Consortium Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.12.22 22:12:00 - [19] Originally by: Derek Sigres Or how about the much vaunted proposal to reduce the Falcon jam range by an arbitrary amount? This proposal comes from the people who's logic regarding the falcon menace is something like "They are too difficult to counter because of their range". These very same people are the ones who are proponents of mid ranged combat - i.e. warp disruptor ranges. This means that blasters, HAM's, pulse lasers and torpedos are the order of the day. Even if the falcon's range was halved a player would still have to make tremendous sacrifices to even HOPE to reach the new 90km optimal the falcon would sport. 60km is the maximum range a close range battleship can comfortably reach (Pulse Apoc with Scorch) - reducing ECM to this range would require a range PENALTY on the falcon. well then, I'll take this one. "These very same people are the ones who are proponents of mid ranged combat". No. I think the falcons range is too much and I am fine with short, mid and long range combat with long range combat being one of my favorites. "Even if the falcon's range was halved a player would still have to make tremendous sacrifices to even HOPE to reach the new 90km optimal the falcon would sport" - 90km is a bit short I was thinking 100-150 or so and this would make them reachable by snipers, right now at their 200km range minmatar would have to fight well into falloff and would be lucky to get 50dps, meaning that falcon has a minute to warp out or jam the mael before it even gets through shields (this is before taking into account the smaller size of the falcon). ccp fix mining agent missions % pls
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2008.12.22 22:40:00 - [20] Range nerf = painful stupidity. We already have a short range ECM boat, ever hear of the Widow? I'll give you one guess as to why nobody ever uses it for ECM... -----------

Deva Blackfire coracao ardente	Posted - 2008.12.22 23:02:00 - [21] Originally by: Merin Ryskin Range nerf = painful stupidity. We already have a short range ECM boat, ever hear of the Widow? I'll give you one guess as to why nobody ever uses it for ECM... Why noone uses it as ecm? Because there is falcon which: 1. can warp cloaked compared to widow 2. has better range 3. is MUCH cheaper So there is absolutely no point of bringing widow as an ECM platform compared to falcon unless you want to look cool on killmails. Its exactly same issue as with rook (point 1 which pretty much kills it) minus coolness factor.
Laevateinn	Posted - 2008.12.23 00:57:00 - [22] Most points said above, can't add too much more, rather than a perspective. One of CCPs aims was to discourage large scale fleets, blobs and armadas. It puts strain on the server, so much so they've reworked their entire server network to cater for these scenarios. In such huge engagements, the Falcon is just another peice. Compared to its jamming capabilities, it cannot disable the entire fleet. A Falcons effivetiveness is determined by its modules. This module number determines how many ships it can jam, and this is a linear value, static in both large, and small scale engagements. Now look at small gangs. Low sec and the like. The Falcon can still jam 4-5 ships, but unlike a 50 ship engagement (max 5% jam coverage), if you have 4-5 ships, you can potentially all be jammed. 10 ships - That Falcon can still remove up to half your fleet from a fight. In short, you have a ship that: - Is able to jam at potentially up to 200km+. Very few ships can accuratly fire at this range. - Able to warp while cloaked, able to lock as soon as it uncloaks. - Can disable ships entirely. Even hardened ECCM targets. See Digression. - High inate sensor strength, hard to counter jam. I absolutely understand that there are dedicated countermeasure modules. The fact is though that for smaller engagements, the Falcon is too powerful in relation. ECM essentially shuts down a ships offensive capability. It can still warp, still move, it's signature radius is unaffected etc, but it cannot do anything to anyone else targetting it, or the ship jamming it. Say what you will about FoF missiles, I havent seen too many people use them. What missiles work at 200km? Who uses Cruise missiles? The way ECCM works either means sacrifing a slot to try it. And on ships below a battleships strength, it just is not worth it, its a % of the ships innate strength. A Falcon can jam it. Falcons struggle on other Recons and BS with ECCM. Not everyone owns or flies those however. There are tactics for dealing with them. I know, I've employed them. They require certain setups. Most people though, in small gang warfare, unless your a battleship/recon heavy gang, with your own ECM, will struggle. Instances of people defeating Falcons like this deserve praise, but don't necesarily mean the system is right. In short, ships like the Falcon scale badly on smaller gang battles; they are at their downright best here. Same for any ECM ship - its purely down to how many modules you have. Talk all you would about losing other capabilities from those mids, but at 200km, what other capabilities would you need? Disgression: We had a little war a while back with a high sec grief corp, one guy hugging station with a Falcon friend cloaked nearby. We know he had a Falcon, so we planned ahead. A corp mate with decent skills rigs a Scorpion with 2 passive ECCM and an active ECCM - he has 84 sensor strength. The Falcon, with a single jammer, jammed him 100% for the first five cycles. In return, the Scorpion, with 3 Graviton jammers strength 11, was unable to jam the Scorpion until the 4th cumelative volley (about 10 fails). A few days later, a similar engagement, and the Falcon jams the Scorpion again, 100%, 3 of 3 cycles, allowing the target to escape. In his defence, the Falcon pilot had supreme skills, but the sums just didn't add up. Some ideas - Reduce strength of racial jammers - Stacking penalty of jammers vs a target - Add time based resistance to jams - Give ECCM modules the chance to break an ECM cycle, or create a new module designed to massively increase a ships resistance to jamming for a short time, at a penalty. Akin to a MWD. - Create a module able to activate sensors of a different strength. (A system that gives your ship a different type of sensor, at a scan resolution penalty.) - Give ECCM modules an arbitary figure of points added to sensor strength.
TZeer BURN EDEN	Posted - 2008.12.23 04:29:00 - [23] Quote: Thus ECCM gives almost-immune state for user (almost being the key word - you can still get odd jam thru but this will be rare). Result? ECCM becomes working defence. Then what would be the point in using ECm, if everybody was close to immune? You would be better of just taking another damagedealer with you. And what would be the point in bringing a falcon, when 90% of it`s fittings are countered with 1 single midslot module??? 5/6 midslots, 2/3 midslots, 2 lowslots Vs 1 Midslot Yeah right...
BiggestT Caldari Resurrection Skunk-Works	Posted - 2008.12.23 05:34:00 - [24] Edited by: BiggestT on 23/12/2008 05:35:31 Originally by: Straight Chillen To quote CCP, "When something becomes the Defacto way of fighting there is something wrong" Falcons have become defacto, Either have one, or lose. Just like how it was with nano's. You were either nano'd and won or not and lost. I personally think theres 2 solutions. Either 1) Greatly increase the usefullness of ECCM, or reduce the effectiveness of ECCM by introducing scripts into it. I just find it assinine that most all other forms of EWAR use them now, but ECM doesnt. If they were to go the route of implementing scripts into ECM, they would have to retool the base stats. The way i would like to see it is taht between 100-150 KM falcons have about a 50-60% chance to jam a BS. At 190+ they should have 25%-37.5% chance, and then 75km and less having a 80%+ chance to jam. On an average BS with no ECCM. This way Falcons still have their operational sweet zone. They have the option to stay further out but with much reduced efficiency to coincide with the reduced risk. And Falcon pilots with a big set of cahonnes can get in close and really shut things down. Note that neuts, amarr bs, rr, cap injectors, mwd's, points, webs etc are also defacto (fotm). You think they need nerfing? Seriosly now, if falcons are nerfed, even a little: people will start to ignore them as a possible threat (less chance of being shut down) rr-bs gangs will be so damn common and EVERY thing will suddenly all become about close-mid range warfare. Thats why CCP have been so hesitant with a falcon nerf imo... EVE history t2 precisions
TZeer BURN EDEN	Posted - 2008.12.23 05:50:00 - [25] Originally by: BiggestT Edited by: BiggestT on 23/12/2008 05:35:31 Originally by: Straight Chillen To quote CCP, "When something becomes the Defacto way of fighting there is something wrong" Falcons have become defacto, Either have one, or lose. Just like how it was with nano's. You were either nano'd and won or not and lost. I personally think theres 2 solutions. Either 1) Greatly increase the usefullness of ECCM, or reduce the effectiveness of ECCM by introducing scripts into it. I just find it assinine that most all other forms of EWAR use them now, but ECM doesnt. If they were to go the route of implementing scripts into ECM, they would have to retool the base stats. The way i would like to see it is taht between 100-150 KM falcons have about a 50-60% chance to jam a BS. At 190+ they should have 25%-37.5% chance, and then 75km and less having a 80%+ chance to jam. On an average BS with no ECCM. This way Falcons still have their operational sweet zone. They have the option to stay further out but with much reduced efficiency to coincide with the reduced risk. And Falcon pilots with a big set of cahonnes can get in close and really shut things down. Note that neuts, amarr bs, rr, cap injectors, mwd's, points, webs etc are also defacto (fotm). You think they need nerfing? Seriosly now, if falcons are nerfed, even a little: people will start to ignore them as a possible threat (less chance of being shut down) rr-bs gangs will be so damn common and EVERY thing will suddenly all become about close-mid range warfare. Thats why CCP have been so hesitant with a falcon nerf imo... Just to spin a little more on this... Imagine RR bs, with dual ECCM modules, what could stop them? If ECM was made useless just because someone fitted ECCM (hardener against ECM) it would mean more blobs... Just thinking of a RR domi gang, with sentry drones, dual ECCM, drone modules. Now imagine if the ECM ships where shortranged... Only counter you have on breaking the RR circle would be within sentry drone range and get auto agro....
Vitrael Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture	Posted - 2008.12.23 05:55:00 - [26] So why isn't ECM an effective anti-Falcon solution? Some good points have been made. 1. Many ships, particularly sub-battleship class, do not have the mid slots to fit an ECCM. 2. Ships with low sensor strengths do not benefit as much for fitting ECCM. 3. Even high sensor strength battleships with ECCM are susceptible to jamming. So here's an idea that would radically boost ECCM, and hopefully do so with a relatively even hand. 1. Remove the bonus to sensor strength for ECCM and add a new bonus: "counterjam strength." 2. Counterjam strength will be subtracted from jam strength of incoming ECM, and the remainder is rolled against the ship's base sensor strength as usual. Ex: A ship has 20 sensor strength and 8 points [arbitrary value] of ECCM "counterjamming." A Falcon with 13 racial jam strength applies jammers to the ship. Counterjam strength of 8 is subtracted from 13, leaving 5 points of jamming to be applied against the target ship (5/20). Some notes about how this system would effect the game: Permajamming an ECCM fitting ship of any sensor strength would become an impossibility, provided the strength of ECCM counterjamming was sufficient to reduce high skilled racials effectiveness to less than the lowest possible sensor strength. I think this is a good thing, as permajamming is a very black and white situation that I don't think should be allowed to happen. As with the present, this system would scale such that ECCM fittings leave ships with innately high sensor strength less vulnerable than ships with lower sensor strength. However, some proportional calculations will show that ships with lower sensor strengths benefit more in a relative way. Present Model: Jam strength / (Sensor Strength + ECCM Sensor Strength) = Chance to jam (%) With no ECM for low (15) and high (25) sensor strength: 10/(15+0) = 66.6% 10/(25+0) = 40% With ECCM of 100%: 10/(15+15) = 33.3% 10/(25+25) = 20.0% Proposed Model: Jam strength - Counterjam strength / Sensor strength = Chance to jam (%) With no ECCM for low (15) and high (25) sensor strength: 10-0/15 = 66.6% 10-0/25 = 40% With ECCM of counterjam strength 5: 10-5/15 = 33.3% 10-5/25 = 25% Though these are arbitrary values, the normalized proportions demonstrate that the lower the ship's base sensor strength, the greater the relative benefit of using ECCM under the proposed model. I like this method because it does not compromise the benefit of ECCM for anybody (only the strength values of ECCM can do this) but it also improves ECCM's ability to do what it was designed to do: protect ships of low sensor strength from jamming! Problems 1 & 2 from above are solved! Problem 3, of course, addresses ECCM strength on the whole. I think I agree with the people in this thread that say that the solution is not just in changing ECM and ECCM but to change the Falcon as well. As has been said, jamming platforms like Scorpions and Rooks are not decried as imbalanced whereas the Falcon has been taken up as an issue. While I think ECCM changes are in order, changes to the Falcon to eliminate its rather uncompromising awesomeness should also be on the table. Liiiiike... a range nerf -----
TZeer BURN EDEN	Posted - 2008.12.23 06:14:00 - [27] Originally by: Vitrael So why isn't ECM an effective anti-Falcon solution? Some good points have been made. 1. Many ships, particularly sub-battleship class, do not have the mid slots to fit an ECCM. 2. Ships with low sensor strengths do not benefit as much for fitting ECCM. 3. Even high sensor strength battleships with ECCM are susceptible to jamming. So here's an idea that would radically boost ECCM, and hopefully do so with a relatively even hand. 1. Remove the bonus to sensor strength for ECCM and add a new bonus: "counterjam strength." 2. Counterjam strength will be subtracted from jam strength of incoming ECM, and the remainder is rolled against the ship's base sensor strength as usual. Ex: A ship has 20 sensor strength and 8 points [arbitrary value] of ECCM "counterjamming." A Falcon with 13 racial jam strength applies jammers to the ship. Counterjam strength of 8 is subtracted from 13, leaving 5 points of jamming to be applied against the target ship (5/20). Some notes about how this system would effect the game: Permajamming an ECCM fitting ship of any sensor strength would become an impossibility, provided the strength of ECCM counterjamming was sufficient to reduce high skilled racials effectiveness to less than the lowest possible sensor strength. I think this is a good thing, as permajamming is a very black and white situation that I don't think should be allowed to happen. As with the present, this system would scale such that ECCM fittings leave ships with innately high sensor strength less vulnerable than ships with lower sensor strength. However, some proportional calculations will show that ships with lower sensor strengths benefit more in a relative way. Present Model: Jam strength / (Sensor Strength + ECCM Sensor Strength) = Chance to jam (%) With no ECM for low (15) and high (25) sensor strength: 10/(15+0) = 66.6% 10/(25+0) = 40% With ECCM of 100%: 10/(15+15) = 33.3% 10/(25+25) = 20.0% Proposed Model: Jam strength - Counterjam strength / Sensor strength = Chance to jam (%) With no ECCM for low (15) and high (25) sensor strength: 10-0/15 = 66.6% 10-0/25 = 40% With ECCM of counterjam strength 5: 10-5/15 = 33.3% 10-5/25 = 25% Though these are arbitrary values, the normalized proportions demonstrate that the lower the ship's base sensor strength, the greater the relative benefit of using ECCM under the proposed model. I like this method because it does not compromise the benefit of ECCM for anybody (only the strength values of ECCM can do this) but it also improves ECCM's ability to do what it was designed to do: protect ships of low sensor strength from jamming! Problems 1 & 2 from above are solved! Problem 3, of course, addresses ECCM strength on the whole. I think I agree with the people in this thread that say that the solution is not just in changing ECM and ECCM but to change the Falcon as well. As has been said, jamming platforms like Scorpions and Rooks are not decried as imbalanced whereas the Falcon has been taken up as an issue. While I think ECCM changes are in order, changes to the Falcon to eliminate its rather uncompromising awesomeness should also be on the table. Liiiiike... a range nerf You need to give some more examples. With those examples you have the same stats, except on the BS, which is easier to jam if I understand it correctly...? People need to take a deep breath and stand back for 2 sec and think about what they are asking for... Cause everybody is using the falcon in the most extreme situations as example. I have never heard of anyone finding the scorp overpowered, or the blackbird overpowered. Anyone thinking 2 steps ahead at all? If you have problem with a ship you dont go redesigning the entire game mechanic... - My tires are broken - Get new ones - NO!! The car is ruined!!! NEW CAR, NAOW!!! You adjust the ship, then look at how it unfolds... Try multitasking with a non cloakeble while warp jamming ship and see how it turns out...
Christari Zuborov Amarr Ore Mongers	Posted - 2008.12.23 06:27:00 - [28] Nothing wrong with Falcons... A Falcon can't do anything to you, it's his friends you have to worry about, and if they have more friends you're dead anyways.
Deva Blackfire coracao ardente	Posted - 2008.12.23 06:43:00 - [29] Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 23/12/2008 06:44:45 Originally by: TZeer Edited by: TZeer on 23/12/2008 05:13:30 Quote: Thus ECCM gives almost-immune state for user (almost being the key word - you can still get odd jam thru but this will be rare). Result? ECCM becomes working defence. Then what would be the point in using ECm, if everybody was close to immune? You would be better of just taking another damagedealer with you. And what would be the point in bringing a falcon, when 90% of it`s fittings are countered with 1 single midslot module??? Its natural progression: 1. after intorducing "ultimate ECCM" still not every ship would use it but a bit more than nowadays (i guess you would see it on ceptors for example) 2. less falcons in fleets 3. people see less falcons = people stop using ECCM that often thus balance gets achieved. It is EXACTLY what happened with falcons: 1. falcons get boost 2. you see enemy bring falcon and screw you over 3. you bring your own falcon to counter their falcon Didnt it happen in like last few patches? I havent seen 1/3 of fleets composed of falcons before, nowadays i do. Surely its not because "i bring what i like to fly" but because falcons are only proper falcon counter+they are so goddamn good at their job. Quote: Imagine RR bs, with dual ECCM modules, what could stop them? Lack of their own slots to fit dual ECCM on every setup...
Straight Chillen Gallente Solar Wind	Posted - 2008.12.23 06:52:00 - [30] Originally by: TZeer good points Some fairly good points there m8. Indeed it would be unfair to totally **** over all ecm boats, beacuse the majority do suck. However i do really think the problem lies with the falcon itself, which is why i and many have singled it out. If you compare the stats of the falcon to the other force recon ships it becomes rather obvious. Its the only one that gets two bonues to its primary form of EWAR from its racial cruiser skill. All other force recons have some bonus towards their weapon system & a bonus to their ewar. It is also the only one that has such a major bonus for the racial cruiser skill. As such i would suggest swapping the racial cruiser bonus on the falcon of +20% range, with the +5% bonus to missile damage of the recon ship skill. This would put it inline with all other force recons, and i think balance everything out. People who want to jamm from 200km will have to spend the time training force recons 5. Just as people who want to max out their arazu's and rapiers must. Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint

TZeer BURN EDEN	Posted - 2008.12.23 07:20:00 - [31] Originally by: Deva Blackfire Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 23/12/2008 06:44:45 Originally by: TZeer Edited by: TZeer on 23/12/2008 05:13:30 Quote: Thus ECCM gives almost-immune state for user (almost being the key word - you can still get odd jam thru but this will be rare). Result? ECCM becomes working defence. Then what would be the point in using ECm, if everybody was close to immune? You would be better of just taking another damagedealer with you. And what would be the point in bringing a falcon, when 90% of it`s fittings are countered with 1 single midslot module??? Its natural progression: 1. after intorducing "ultimate ECCM" still not every ship would use it but a bit more than nowadays (i guess you would see it on ceptors for example) 2. less falcons in fleets 3. people see less falcons = people stop using ECCM that often thus balance gets achieved. It is EXACTLY what happened with falcons: 1. falcons get boost 2. you see enemy bring falcon and screw you over 3. you bring your own falcon to counter their falcon Didnt it happen in like last few patches? I havent seen 1/3 of fleets composed of falcons before, nowadays i do. Surely its not because "i bring what i like to fly" but because falcons are only proper falcon counter+they are so goddamn good at their job. Quote: Imagine RR bs, with dual ECCM modules, what could stop them? Lack of their own slots to fit dual ECCM on every setup... If a bit more would use ECCM nowdays as it is, and get it through their head that 1 ECCM wont make you immune against a falcon that only need to focus all his jammers on one person I think we would be a great deal further... And in all your replies you are pointing towards the falcon, you never mention the other, and that makes me think you havent really thought about what impacts this would have on the other ecm boats... You forget to mention that in between all this damps got nerfed hard also, that is also a factor up in all this. And you can counter falcons without your own falcon... I say it again, all nerf threads are using the falcon as an example. No one is saying the blackbird or scorp is overpowered. So if anything gonna be done, I suggest deal with the falcon first. Then we can talk.
Deva Blackfire coracao ardente	Posted - 2008.12.23 07:59:00 - [32] Then propose something to bring falcons in line. You are saying: "use ECCM" - doesnt it hit ALL ECM ships as much as falcons? And why you still see falcons as over 80% of ECM ships in gangs? Yes i also use falcon alt (almost max skilled - lack lvl5 of signal distortion or something, forgot its name) and i know exactly how good they are. Do i agree with this? Hell no.
TZeer BURN EDEN	Posted - 2008.12.23 08:25:00 - [33] Originally by: Deva Blackfire Then propose something to bring falcons in line. You are saying: "use ECCM" - doesnt it hit ALL ECM ships as much as falcons? And why you still see falcons as over 80% of ECM ships in gangs? Yes i also use falcon alt (almost max skilled - lack lvl5 of signal distortion or something, forgot its name) and i know exactly how good they are. Do i agree with this? Hell no. Not my job to balance stuff. But you dont need to be a rocket scientist to understand that nerfing an entire game mechanic when it's really just one ship causing these problems is wrong. I have heard multiple reasonable suggestions like: Optimal bonus changed to falloff bonus. Take away the range bonus, so it gets the range of the blackbird. Change one of the strength bonus to something else. Yes, it will hit all ecm ships, but you need to use a midslot for it, and it wont make you invulnerable against jammers. Reason you see falcons 80% is because it has everything. Stealth, range, strength. No drawbacks. Fix that before chanting for massive nerf on ecm.
Galenea Moreau Trioptimum Violent-Tendencies	Posted - 2008.12.23 10:25:00 - [34] I'd have to say that currently the problem is not the Falcon. It does exactly what it's supposed to do. If you nerf it, then it will have no perpose and you might as well remove it from the game. People will just fly Scorpions instead because that's what it'll become a more expensive scorpion with a worse tank and higher replacement cost. If you want to balance it then you need CCP to adjust either the jammer strength or, more likely, the counter strength. Both the LOW and Med slot counters would benefit from a small boost, Yes folks for the people who can't be bothered to look it up there is also a low slot ECCM. You could also move the Remote ECCM to a high slot and for many people it would be a welcome addition to the unused utility slots there Take the low to about 55% and the med back up to it's original 120% and see how that goes. Using that a Maelstrom at base str 21 will have effective str 32 with a low slot and 46 with a mid. That would give the cookie cutter falcon with str 12.6 from the OP's example a 39% chance per jammer and roughly a 78% chance of jamming you using 3 jammers on the low slot ECCM. With the Mid slot ECCM a 27% chance per jammer and a 61% chance using 3 jammers. Without the counter it's as follows 1 jammer 60% chance of a jam. 3 jammers 93.6% chance of a jam. So it'll make falcons about 22% less effective. Of course that means you'll still have to fit the counter. For those people who are going to whine about how they don't want to give up a slot to counter the Falcon remember that you have to do so for all the other EW forms. Sensor Boosters for damps, Tracking Comps for Disruptors, Cap boosters for Neuts/NOS, WCS for scrams and overdrives for webs to a lesser extent. In the end I suppose it all depends what's more important to you 5% more damage or a 15-32% better chance to be able to use 5% less damage. I know which one I'd pick
TZeer BURN EDEN	Posted - 2008.12.23 10:38:00 - [35] Originally by: Galenea Moreau I'd have to say that currently the problem is not the Falcon. It does exactly what it's supposed to do. If you nerf it, then it will have no perpose and you might as well remove it from the game. People will just fly Scorpions instead because that's what it'll become a more expensive scorpion with a worse tank and higher replacement cost. If you want to balance it then you need CCP to adjust either the jammer strength or, more likely, the counter strength. Both the LOW and Med slot counters would benefit from a small boost. No, cause it would still be able to warp while cloaked. What it could do while uncloaked is another thing, no one know because it's not nerfed/changed in any way yet. If ECCM gets boosted, I want the gangbonuses from EOS to get unnerfed. In case no one knows, if you have 3 strength modules fitted on your ecm ship, the bonus from an EOS will be stacked like ****. But when you talk about the claymore, the bonuses comes on top of the stats on the ship without any penalties...
OhNoNotAgain	Posted - 2008.12.23 11:13:00 - [36] Edited by: OhNoNotAgain on 23/12/2008 11:17:16 I don't like different damage types. Different damage types force me to fit hardeners to fill my ships weak spots. This affects my dps. Nerf damage types. Same argument for nerfing ECM because you don't want to fit ECCM, right? ECCM is effective, if you fit it right. There is midslot ECCM. There is lowslow ECCM. And - from the many laughable killmails i've seen - most people don't even realise they have to fit ECCM that suits their racial signal types. This is not ECCM's fault. This is the pilot's fault. Rock. Scissors. Paper. Nerf paper. It makes the game easier. Right?
Laevateinn	Posted - 2008.12.23 11:46:00 - [37] Quote: The Falcon, with a single jammer, jammed him 100% for the first five cycles. In return, the Scorpion, with 3 Graviton jammers strength 11, was unable to jam the Scorpion until the 4th cumelative volley (about 10 fails). I have maxed skills in EW, and flown it extensively, and I call that bull** Pure bull**! Been asleep, and unable to respond to this until the thread has matured a little. My apoligies for sending the thread back a little. How did I know he had a single jammer? The engagement was an enemy Megathron sitting at dock point. A corp Raven warps to it, and the two start slugging it out. A mix of cruisers and frigates undock too, at the same time the Scorpion arrives at the jam spot. The Falcon decloaks, and before the Scorpion can lock it, it is jammed. The Raven is also jammed. We had planned for this, and had an interceptor / stealthbomber team on standby, which we used to knock out the Falcon. The Mega got out in hull. His killmail showed 2 Gravimetric Jammers. One for the Scorpion, one for the Raven. Either incredibly lucky jamming, or incredibly dorked ecm calculation. You decide, because it happened again a few times later to a different person.
TZeer BURN EDEN	Posted - 2008.12.23 12:24:00 - [38] Originally by: Laevateinn Quote: The Falcon, with a single jammer, jammed him 100% for the first five cycles. In return, the Scorpion, with 3 Graviton jammers strength 11, was unable to jam the Scorpion until the 4th cumelative volley (about 10 fails). I have maxed skills in EW, and flown it extensively, and I call that bull** Pure bull**! Been asleep, and unable to respond to this until the thread has matured a little. My apoligies for sending the thread back a little. How did I know he had a single jammer? The engagement was an enemy Megathron sitting at dock point. A corp Raven warps to it, and the two start slugging it out. A mix of cruisers and frigates undock too, at the same time the Scorpion arrives at the jam spot. The Falcon decloaks, and before the Scorpion can lock it, it is jammed. The Raven is also jammed. We had planned for this, and had an interceptor / stealthbomber team on standby, which we used to knock out the Falcon. The Mega got out in hull. His killmail showed 2 Gravimetric Jammers. One for the Scorpion, one for the Raven. Either incredibly lucky jamming, or incredibly dorked ecm calculation. You decide, because it happened again a few times later to a different person. What did he use the rest of his jammers for? I have had situations where my racial have failed horribly, and forced me to spam my non racial ones to jam a high threat target. Also, did the raven fit ECCM? Do you know for 100% that he activated all his ECCM modules. It`s easy to forget in the middle of a fight. I think everybody have had a WTF moment in a fight where they suddenly realise they forgot to activate hardeners, sensorboosters whatever. I can tell you about a different example. We had a small camp up in a 0.0 system. Raven, widow and falcon. Single domi jumps in, great!! Easy target. It's not. Neither the falcon or the widow gets a successful jam on him. He agro the tackler and kills it. Slowboat back to the gate and jumps out. Then a few minutes after he jumps back in. Then we had a second widow. Still we where not able to permajam him before we killed him. We are talking close to 14-15 jammers in total. Checking the killmail it turned out he had 2 racial ECCM fitted, together with a dual armor rep tank. So saying ECCM doesnt work is fantasy at best.
Laevateinn	Posted - 2008.12.23 12:55:00 - [39] Quote: What did he use the rest of his jammers for? I have had situations where my racial have failed horribly, and forced me to spam my non racial ones to jam a high threat target. Also, did the raven fit ECCM? Do you know for 100% that he activated all his ECCM modules. It`s easy to forget in the middle of a fight. I think everybody have had a WTF moment in a fight where they suddenly realise they forgot to activate hardeners, sensorboosters whatever. The Falcon has the standard 2 Caldari, 2 Gallente, 2 Minmatar, 1 Amarr, with sensor booster in slot 8. The engagement had several other ships such as frigates, cruisers and stealthbombers, most of whom reported being jammed with the arrival of the Falcon. The Raven was fitted with 1x T2 Gravimetric ECCM, and it was active. Understand completely what you are saying, and everyone makes mistakes. This was a situation where we managed to break the seige on the station, had a plan that worked in taking down the Falcon and almost had his Megathron buddy. The ship exchange favoured us. What we found astounding was how easily that Falcon jammed a hardened target. Now, looking at your example, is there not another issue with the calculation of ECM vs ECCM strength? If a Falcon with a 2-2-2-1 setup can permajam a tripple ECCM fitted Scorpion for a good 30 seconds, or a Domi survive multiple jams, should the whole system be looked at in general?
TZeer BURN EDEN	Posted - 2008.12.23 13:56:00 - [40] Quote: The Falcon, with a single jammer, jammed him 100% for the first five cycles. Quote: Now, looking at your example, is there not another issue with the calculation of ECM vs ECCM strength? If a Falcon with a 2-2-2-1 setup can permajam a tripple ECCM fitted Scorpion for a good 30 seconds Last time I checked 1 cycle was 20 sec. 5 cycles = 100 sec, almost 2 minutes. 30 sec is not possible, either you are jammed 1 cycle or your not. You are giving me 2 different times here, I suspect the latter one is the more accurate one. Landing 1 cycle during the fight, and having the delay of locking again on top of that. Quote: several other ships such as frigates, cruisers and stealthbombers, most of whom reported being jammed with the arrival of the Falcon. The Raven was fitted with 1x T2 Gravimetric ECCM, and it was active. So not only is this single falcon permajamming your 2x Midslot ECCM + 1 low slot ECCM scorpion and 1 ECCM fitted raven, he is also single handedly able to shut down multiple cruisers, frigates and stealthbombers... 2 of each there, makes 6 jammers alone, then add 2 for the raven and scorp just to be nice. Already up to 8 jammers.... Only me that feels this is not quite adding up???

Laevateinn	Posted - 2008.12.23 14:29:00 - [41] sigh Most of the little ships got popped quite quickly. You are indeed correct, a cycle being 20 seconds. The Scorpion (1 mid ECCM, 2 low ECCM) was still under for a good minute. I believe the pilot was too busy swearing and screaming bloody murder to give a more accurate time, only that 84 sensor strength had done him absolutly no good against the first 3 cycles. Ironicly, if the timing was less (as you spsect), that would mean staggered ECM - The Scorpion reported at least 3 cycle timer resets, indicating at least 3 successful jams(since I know how to use it, you stagger your ECM), meaning that potentially, he was jammed by a non racial jammer. Either he was, or the Raven was? What more can be said on that? But I'm not here to prove to you what happened. It happened. A good dozen people saw it. It's part of the reason why I am posting on the forum, explaining what happened, so that I can raise questions in the minds of people about how ECM is today. You yourself even made a point of how ECM can be random, and I'm not even trying to debunk what you say. Point is, compared to the other racial e-war (Sensor Dampening, Tracking Disrupting, Target Painting) or the more generic e-wa (Warp Scrambling, Stasis Webifying, NOS/Neut), ECM seems widely variable on the one hand, yet is the only e-war for which it is completely disabling for a vessel at such giant ranges. Targeting Painting, Sensor Dampening and Tracking Disruption are the only other forms of e-war that come close to it's range, yet none nullifies a vessels direct dps quite like ECM. Look at it this way. Look at the Curses, the Rapiers, the Arazu's, and they are short range e-war. The ships are designed for combat, their fits mix in the ability to fight with the ability to tackle, evade etc. With ECM, all the ship needs is range and jamming power, and he can sit 150km+ from a fight and still be effective. Why we have a problem with the Falcon, is that its a highly effective blend of factors. It warps cloaked, no lock delay after cloaking, can jam at huge ranges. Look at small engagements. Put 5 cruisers against 5 cruisers. Then add a Falcon to one side. Game. Over. It's not to do with excuses like "Omg they should fit ECCM" (not many cruisers can, % incease in cruiser sensor strength neglegable) "Omg they shouldnt have let themselves be caught" "Omg they suck" "They should have expected it and brought a SB". You stick a Rapider, a Curse or an Azaru in there instead of the Falcon, and its more tactical. That Recon will be primaried, and action can be taken against it. With a Falcon, a cruiser would have to burn 150km+ to get close to the Falcon. Assuming it can lock. Assuming its MWD'd. And then what happens? The Falcon cloaks, moves. As I have already said, people have developed tactics for killing Falcons. Great! Props to them? Doesn't mean the system is perfect though. The Falcon is the target of so much rage these days because it is the best ship to bring to a small gang or fleet. No other ship is so effective with decreasing enemy numbers. By that logic, some would say, bring a blob. But then theres another can of worms...
Spartan dax eXceed Inc. Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2008.12.23 14:36:00 - [42] I just started a little thread with a few thoughts on ECM mechanics. Feedback is welcome. http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=954992
TZeer BURN EDEN	Posted - 2008.12.23 15:08:00 - [43] Originally by: Laevateinn Lots of stuff Ok, I was just pointing out that the way you presented the info it seemed like the falcon was jamming more targets then it had jammers. I can agree that falcon needs a look into, cause right now it has no drawbacks as some of the other ecm ships. Rook: Same strength and range, but cant warp while cloaked. Blackbird: Lesser range and strength. Scorpion: Lesser strength, but better buffer to soak damage, longer locktime. Widow: No bonus on range, and slow as hell to lock anything, even with dual sensorboosters fitted. Carriers have better lockingtime then this ship. Kitsune: Shorter lockrange and ECM range, less EHP. Griffin: Worse then Kitsune at all points, except cost When it comes to ECM, the falcon outperforms all except the Rook, but can sport a covert cloak on top of it. Difference with ECM and other EW is that with the other you know exactly what the module will do.
Christari Zuborov Amarr Ore Mongers	Posted - 2008.12.23 15:38:00 - [44] Why don't you bring an Arazu or something? Sensor Dampen the Falcon so he has to close distance...
Straight Chillen Gallente Solar Wind	Posted - 2008.12.23 15:42:00 - [45] Originally by: Christari Zuborov Why don't you bring an Arazu or something? Sensor Dampen the Falcon so he has to close distance... you've never used damps have you? they have **** effective range, and outside of that they are chance based, and by chanced based i mean good fckin luck Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Christari Zuborov Amarr Ore Mongers	Posted - 2008.12.23 16:06:00 - [46] Originally by: Straight Chillen Originally by: Christari Zuborov Why don't you bring an Arazu or something? Sensor Dampen the Falcon so he has to close distance... you've never used damps have you? they have **** effective range, and outside of that they are chance based, and by chanced based i mean good fckin luck No, I've never used damps... I'm assuming with rigs and modules that you can get them up in the same ewar range. It is the next ewar ship that I plan to train though, which leaves me one to go before I have them all :)
DelboyTrotter Trotters Independent Trading	Posted - 2008.12.23 16:35:00 - [47] There is a very simple solution to this... Leave Falcons alone, leave ECCM as is... Just reduce the optimal range of ECM, and make them less effective in faloff like damps This would be a perfect solution to the problem... Which is that since the nano-nerf, its very hard to chase down a falcon jamming at 150-200km. This simple change would force ECM ships to be used at a reasonable distance from an engagement (40-60km) if they want 100% jamming strength. And would probably make all falcon pilots actually fit them like every other races recon, i.e. with a buffer tank to protect itself in addition to its jammers.
Christari Zuborov Amarr Ore Mongers	Posted - 2008.12.23 16:55:00 - [48] Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 23/12/2008 16:56:34 Originally by: DelboyTrotter There is a very simple solution to this... Leave Falcons alone, leave ECCM as is... Just reduce the optimal range of ECM, and make them less effective in faloff like damps This would be a perfect solution to the problem... Which is that since the nano-nerf, its very hard to chase down a falcon jamming at 150-200km. This simple change would force ECM ships to be used at a reasonable distance from an engagement (40-60km) if they want 100% jamming strength. And would probably make all falcon pilots actually fit them like every other races recon, i.e. with a buffer tank to protect itself in addition to its jammers. It's the only Recon ship that needs warp in points and pre-determined uncloaking points - It is the weakest of them all that requires the most planning. If it isn't at a pre-planned battlefield, then it's not at 200k, it's at 100k. People that have home field advantage shouldn't be penalized like that.
Straight Chillen Gallente Solar Wind	Posted - 2008.12.23 17:27:00 - [49] Edited by: Straight Chillen on 23/12/2008 17:31:45 Edited by: Straight Chillen on 23/12/2008 17:30:59 Originally by: Christari Zuborov Originally by: Straight Chillen Originally by: Christari Zuborov Why don't you bring an Arazu or something? Sensor Dampen the Falcon so he has to close distance... you've never used damps have you? they have ** effective range, and outside of that they are chance based, and by chanced based i mean good fckin luck No, I've never used damps... I'm assuming with rigs and modules that you can get them up in the same ewar range. It is the next ewar ship that I plan to train though, which leaves me one to go before I have them all :) Dampners are awesome for sub 120ish KM, Outside of this range the effect really starts to die off. By the time u reach a falcons operational range your effect is pretty neglible, considering most falcon fits ive seen have targetting ranges of around 230km's. Dont get me wrong, i love damps, but their just do not have enough strength at a falcons operation range to be an effective counter. Then again ive only used the damp strength rigs, so with the optimals it may work better. But then again an arazu/lachy's job is to pin down, not sniper ewar Originally by:** Christari Zuborov If it isn't at a pre-planned battlefield, then it's not at 200k, it's at 100k. People that have home field advantage shouldn't be penalized like that. 1. warp in inty at 100km, 2. right click member warp at 100km Bang instant 200km falcon/sniper spot. This is a farily standard procedure. Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
maralt Minmatar The seers of truth	Posted - 2008.12.23 17:39:00 - [50] Edited by: maralt on 23/12/2008 17:41:49 Originally by: Straight Chillen 1. warp in inty at 100km, 2. right click member warp at 100km Bang instant 200km falcon/sniper spot. This is a farily standard procedure. I would not exactly call waiting for 2 consecutive warpins instant and this idea is also flawed if their are bubbles around as the inty gets pulled into it. Bombers with damps do work great as they can move quite fast cloaked while also being able to uncloak and lock/damp the falcon long before it has a chance to lock and jam the bomber.

BiggestT Caldari Resurrection Skunk-Works	Posted - 2008.12.23 17:40:00 - [51] Edited by: BiggestT on 23/12/2008 17:41:13 IMO a good, fair solution would be this: Only 1 ecm module can be used per locked target, any attempt at using another ecm module on the target results in nothing. This way falcons are still useful in fleets, but they arent such killers in small combat pvp, and they give ships that fit eccm a better chance of not getting jammed. There, seems ok to me (and I fly falcons). EVE history t2 precisions
Captain Vampire	Posted - 2008.12.23 19:23:00 - [52] Looking back makes me really wonder why CCP Zulupark thinks Falcons are fine. ECM modules were hit heavy by the scrip nerf around 1.5 years ago. Scrips hit tracking disruptors, damps, and their counterparts. ECM strength was cut in half, but ECM dedicated ships were given a boost, countering this effect. Rigs and signal amps were introduced, increasing the effectiveness of jamming ships. All in all a jamming boost. To compare: Arazus got hit by the script nerf, with no change in effective bonus tied to RSD, reducing the effectiveness of an Arazu considerably. Range damping was more effective pre nerf than scripts and rigs post nerf. So, CCP's balance team is far from consequent. One system has been nerfed, while the other has been buffed directly and indirectly, yet they both "seems fine". One of the systems are out of line, if not both.
darkmancer	Posted - 2008.12.23 20:30:00 - [53] Edited by: darkmancer on 23/12/2008 20:31:39 Originally by: Captain Vampire Looking back makes me really wonder why CCP Zulupark thinks Falcons are fine. ECM modules were hit heavy by the scrip nerf around 1.5 years ago. Scrips hit tracking disruptors, damps, and their counterparts. ECM strength was cut in half, but ECM dedicated ships were given a boost, countering this effect. Rigs and signal amps were introduced, increasing the effectiveness of jamming ships. All in all a jamming boost. To compare: Arazus got hit by the script nerf, with no change in effective bonus tied to RSD, reducing the effectiveness of an Arazu considerably. Range damping was more effective pre nerf than scripts and rigs post nerf. So, CCP's balance team is far from consequent. One system has been nerfed, while the other has been buffed directly and indirectly, yet they both "seems fine". One of the systems are out of line, if not both. ECM was also nerfed at the same time, sig amps and rigs we're introduced to allow you to jam at the same levels as before at the loss of low and rig slots. Tzeers got it spot on, the problem only really lays with the falcon and warping cloaked (along with avoiding the cloaking penalties). I a proponent of changing the optimal to a falloff bonus on the falcon, so it's still useable at the same ranges (although ecm range rigs won't as powerful) you get penlised with more failed jams. Changing the eccm -> +12 sensor strength, -15% sig rad +15% sensor range & resolution, will make them more of a sensible fit too. --------------------------------- There's a simple solution to every problem. It is always invariably wrong
Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Ursa Stellar Initiative	Posted - 2008.12.24 05:32:00 - [54] Originally by: Straight Chillen To quote CCP, "When something becomes the Defacto way of fighting there is something wrong" Falcons have become defacto, Either have one, or lose. Just like how it was with nano's. You were either nano'd and won or not and lost. Might also be that we have a lot of caldari in-game, but very few pew pew ships really worth flying.
Ephemeron Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2008.12.24 07:06:00 - [55] Edited by: Ephemeron on 24/12/2008 07:07:32 At the very least, they should undo the Falcon boost that changed ECM bonus from 10% to 20% per level. It still boggles the mind what the balance team was smoking to come up with that one.. and totally ignore other important issues of the time I just have no more faith in current dev team. I want old devs back.
Christari Zuborov Amarr Ore Mongers	Posted - 2008.12.24 08:20:00 - [56] Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 24/12/2008 08:21:02 I don't see why we shouldn't increase damps range and strength... Instead of nerfing, why aren't we looking to boost Gallente Recons - they're way nerfed, but they're something that we could add to reduce Falcon effectiveness. I hate nerfing, there's really no reason why we should nerf - seriously. Let's have more options, not less.
Etien Aldragoran DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.12.24 09:36:00 - [57] Originally by: Straight Chillen To quote CCP, "When something becomes the Defacto way of fighting there is something wrong" Falcons have become defacto, Either have one, or lose. Just like how it was with nano's. You were either nano'd and won or not and lost. OMG!!! Everyone is fitting guns and drones on their ships to kill with. We must find a solution for that as well!
Etien Aldragoran DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.12.24 09:37:00 - [58] Originally by: Deva Blackfire And why you still see falcons as over 80% of ECM ships in gangs? The covert ops cloak. It's the only reason you'd use a falcon over a Rook.
Deva Blackfire coracao ardente	Posted - 2008.12.24 09:41:00 - [59] Originally by: Etien Aldragoran Originally by: Deva Blackfire And why you still see falcons as over 80% of ECM ships in gangs? The covert ops cloak. It's the only reason you'd use a falcon over a Rook. It was rethorical question. Answer is obvious... And fix? Make some difference between falcon and rook - reducing falcon range would be good start. Long range no cloaky or short cloaky - hey i saw it somewhere... pilgrim and curse anyone?
Dasfry Caldari Demio's Corporation 101010 Alliance	Posted - 2008.12.24 09:41:00 - [60] Instead of trying to modify the way the game works... why not try to modify your tactics? get someone to probe out the damn falcon from off grid, warp in a small squad point blank and tear the falcon a new one... continue singling out the falcon first *********** Dasfry, Director Demio's Corporation Military Tactics

Deva Blackfire coracao ardente	Posted - 2008.12.24 10:13:00 - [61] Originally by: Dasfry Edited by: Dasfry on 24/12/2008 09:46:48 Instead of trying to modify the way the game works... why not try to modify your tactics? get someone to probe out the damn falcon from off grid, warp in a small suicide gank squad point blank and tear the falcon a new one... continue singling out the falcon first soon enough falcon pilot hates life What you are proposing is: "if someone brings falcon be sure to bring 3+ people to counter it". Yeh most people are smart enough to outblob falcon users - problem is: it doesnt give you fights. Most people will run as soon as you outblob them. Also i can modify your tactics so its way easier to pull off: "bring your own falcon". Why play "probes + suicide gang" when you can have your own falcon? Also it is EXACTLY same thing which i heard against nano battleships. "bring more people to tackle it" "bring your own nano battleship". Rings a bell?
maralt Minmatar The seers of truth	Posted - 2008.12.24 10:29:00 - [62] I could bring a bunch of arazus against a lot of the gang setups i see ppl claiming that falcons destroy on here and wipe them out, as most of them are close range fits that could be easily made impotent by damps. TBH i think falcons serve a purpose, now this may make them annoying against a solo ship or very small gang but thems the breaks when you pvp as a small squad has plenty of similarly sized gang that DO NOT include a falcon they would lose to....
Deva Blackfire coracao ardente	Posted - 2008.12.24 10:31:00 - [63] Last i heard arazus dont damp that good at 200ish km.
maralt Minmatar The seers of truth	Posted - 2008.12.24 10:41:00 - [64] Edited by: maralt on 24/12/2008 10:44:59 Originally by: Deva Blackfire Last i heard arazus dont damp that good at 200ish km. That is ok cos most of the ppl on here crying about falcons are flying short range setups anyway let alone carry multiple sensor booster with range scripts..... Falcons do not jam 100% guaranteed in their optimal range (or any range for that matter), while damps always reduce targeting range or speed in theirs..
Deva Blackfire coracao ardente	Posted - 2008.12.24 11:00:00 - [65] Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 24/12/2008 11:02:46 1. most falcons DO have 200km range fits (sensor + range rig(s)) 2. at 200km your arazu wont do anything to them. And this is NOT because you can not LOCK that far but because dampeners have SHORT range (unless you get very lucky with dampener faloff roll) 3. using lock time reduction instead of lock range reduction on 200km falcon is ******ed 4. maybe your falcon cant permajam anything. Mine does use overheat + sometimes eos so can even permajam low tier battleships. And even without eos i get nice 14 str on racials which can permajam most HACs
maralt Minmatar The seers of truth	Posted - 2008.12.24 11:09:00 - [66] Edited by: maralt on 24/12/2008 11:10:07 Originally by: Deva Blackfire 1. most falcons DO have 200km range fits (sensor + range rig(s)) I know, i never said they do not, learn how to read. Originally by: Deva Blackfire 2. at 200km your arazu wont do anything to them. I never said it would, learn how to read. Originally by: Deva Blackfire 3. using lock time reduction instead of lock range reduction on 200km falcon is ****ed I did not say anything about using lock time reduction against falcons at any range let alone 200km, learn how to read. Originally by:** Deva Blackfire 4. maybe your falcon cant permajam anything. Mine does use overheat..... You can perma-overheat? I think you and others need to look up what PERMA means and learn how to read.
Deva Blackfire coracao ardente	Posted - 2008.12.24 11:18:00 - [67] Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 24/12/2008 11:21:36 I think you are trolling like always instead posting about the subject. So gtfo back to your "i need 60km blasters" thread.
maralt Minmatar The seers of truth	Posted - 2008.12.24 11:26:00 - [68] Edited by: maralt on 24/12/2008 11:26:57 Originally by: Deva Blackfire Learn to write so people can understand what you are trying to say. Putting words in random order doesnt make proper sentence out of it. 1. Learn how to read. Originally by: Deva Blackfire You 1st imply that falcons "not always" jam 2. They do not always jam. Originally by: Deva Blackfire then you imply that dampeners "always work". And i already shown you that dampeners do not always work outside of 45km (maxskilled optimal) range. 3. I clearly mentioned i was talking about inside damp range, learn how to read. Originally by: Deva Blackfire Also if you want to bring "random useless knowledge" go to other threads. Plus i already shown you that falcons DO permajam depending on what their target is. I also never specified certain ships, so falcons cannot perma jam every ship type. Originally by: Deva Blackfire Oh yes i can overheat them too long enough for the fight to actually finish before i need to bother with module damage. Wrong, a fight lasts as long as it lasts. You cannot overheat indefinitely so in longer fights you will need to turn off over heat or burn out your mods. Stop lying. Originally by: Deva Blackfire So either you post on topic or **** off, troll. I am on topic you just a emo troll who did not read my posts properly.
Deva Blackfire coracao ardente	Posted - 2008.12.24 11:29:00 - [69] So how is your "knowledge" at all useful to someone who flies in small gangs? Back to your previous post: Quote: That is ok cos most of the ppl on here crying about falcons are flying short range setups anyway let alone carry multiple sensor booster with range scripts..... So which ships will be able to counter falcon by fitting multiple sensor boosters? And im talking SMALL ROAMING GANG stuff here. And which of those ships will be able to actually fend off 200km falcon?
maralt Minmatar The seers of truth	Posted - 2008.12.24 11:30:00 - [70] Edited by: maralt on 24/12/2008 11:30:21 Learn how to read.

Deva Blackfire coracao ardente	Posted - 2008.12.24 11:31:00 - [71] Originally by: maralt Learn how to read. Me be not understand yoo. Yoo translate. Or GTFO like i said. Asked specific question: how is your "knowledge" useful to small gangs. You fail to deliever.
maralt Minmatar The seers of truth	Posted - 2008.12.24 11:33:00 - [72] Edited by: maralt on 24/12/2008 11:36:07 Originally by: Deva Blackfire angry illiterate rant Calm down read from the start or gtfo fool, your emo is clouding your judgment and your ability to read.
Deva Blackfire coracao ardente	Posted - 2008.12.24 11:35:00 - [73] You are still trolling and STILL not replying to my question. What would you change? Or what gang fits do you propose for small roaming gangs to actively defend themselves from falcons? Or you just dont know? Then why are you still here?
maralt Minmatar The seers of truth	Posted - 2008.12.24 11:44:00 - [74] Originally by: Deva Blackfire more emo ranting I made a few very useful and clear posts earlier but your emo rage for some reason made you misread them and start ranting and even making stupid claims that i am asking for 60km blasters on another thread. Now as far as your questions are concerned i do not think its a good idea to encourage your emo rage, although i do think that a small gang without ecm that engages another small gang that not only has ecm but has it setup at long range SHOULD lose.
Deva Blackfire coracao ardente	Posted - 2008.12.24 11:48:00 - [75] Quote: i do think that a small gang without ecm that engages another small gang that not only has ecm but has it setup at long range SHOULD lose. So what you exactly are saying is: "if enemy has falcon bring your own falcon". Yup - its perfect reason for a nerf - exactly same as with nanophoons. Good to know your opinion on it tho - at least someone confirming the system is broken.
maralt Minmatar The seers of truth	Posted - 2008.12.24 11:51:00 - [76] Edited by: maralt on 24/12/2008 11:52:31 Originally by: Deva Blackfire Quote: i do think that a small gang without ecm that engages another small gang that not only has ecm but has it setup at long range SHOULD lose. More emo range and deliberate misinterpretation Fixed. See i told you it was a waste of time talking to you and replying to your questions, your emo is too strong and it clouds your reason.
Deva Blackfire coracao ardente	Posted - 2008.12.24 11:57:00 - [77] Quote: i do think that a small gang without ecm that engages another small gang that not only has ecm but has it setup at long range SHOULD lose. here - ill do interpretation for small kids - like you do in primary school: "small gang" - gang of 5-10 people "without ecm" - not bringing falcon/rook/other ECM boats "another small gang" - another gang of 5-10 people " not only has ecm but has it setup at long range" - thus falcon or rook (or maybe scorp) sitting at 200km Thus you are saying that gang without ECM should lose to gang with long range ECM. And this is broken. because its exactly "gang without nanophoon should lose to gang with nanophoon". Thus you are still confirming what was said in this thread: ECM impact on combat is TOO heavy. No other ship class/module can imbalance small gang fight on the level ECM does. You cant say "side with more webs should win" neither "side with more dampeners should win". But you said "side with more ECM should win". Why am i ignoring "long range setup ECM"? Because counter ECM is also long range. Defauls ECM boat is falcon which is long range ECM boat by itself. You want to add something else? Or only thing left is insults like you did thru half of this page?
Laevateinn	Posted - 2008.12.24 12:04:00 - [78] If the system is such that you can only fight fire with fire, then we've lost the sandbox nature of things. If there is a ship that can disable large portions of gangs, has the advantages of being cloaked with none of its drawbacks, be out of range of all but the best sniper fits yet still be effective, and if the best counter I hear is to 'bring one of your own' then ladies and gentlemen, get training those Falcons. I can think of no better way to encourage change really, when small gang warfare is determined by how good your Falcon pilot is, or how many you can bring. Because the alternative is blob warfare, which creates server load, which is something that directly affects everyone else (lag), and as such, will grab the attention of CCP.
maralt Minmatar The seers of truth	Posted - 2008.12.24 12:12:00 - [79] Edited by: maralt on 24/12/2008 12:14:12 Originally by: Deva Blackfire "small gang" - gang of 5-10 people "without ecm" - not bringing falcon/rook/other ECM boats "another small gang" - another gang of 5-10 people " not only has ecm but has it setup at long range" - thus falcon or rook (or maybe scorp) sitting at 200km Ok kiddies mr emo did ok up to here. Now as things are the gang without ewar has to be considered rather out of position (maybe just jumped into a setup camp) and rather poorly setup as a gang considering the available options in eve. Now if the non ecm gang is sniper fitted the falcon not only must jam all 5-10 (its imposable to jam 10 with 1 falcon and even jamming 5 would require the exactly correct racials) or either die/warp off. While also its true that if the falcon/ecm gang is jumping into the camp that the ewar ship must cloak (if a falcon) and spend a lot of time repositioning (by witch time a 5-10 man gang fight would be close to over tbh), or be called instantly primary and melted. The moral of the story is that its always better to be in a versatile gang and also to dictate the terms and range of the engagement to suit you, these are called basic tactics. Bombers with damps make okish scouts and are very effective at neutering falcons.
Deva Blackfire coracao ardente	Posted - 2008.12.24 12:28:00 - [80] Originally by: maralt Now as things are the gang without ewar has to be considered rather out of position (maybe just jumped into a setup camp) and rather poorly setup as a gang considering the available options in eve. I would assume that most gatecamps are badly prepared (usually with mix of this-and-that so everyone can get on killmail) and gatebreaking gangs are ones that know what to expect (especially if they are created to break particular gatecamp). But we can assume both sides are equally-well-fit. Quote: Now if the non ecm gang is sniper fitted the falcon not only must jam all 5-10 (its imposable to jam 10 with 1 falcon and even jamming 5 would require the exactly correct racials) or either die/warp off. We are still talking about small gangs. And in small gangs the ONLY 200km "snipers" are eagle, cerb and falcon. You will rarely see battleships inside 5-10 man gangs and especially sniper battleships. Even if you include them this only adds up: rokh, raven and apocalypse (mega/hyperion is just on edge of range, ill ignore em this time). And you are saying that falcon needs to jam 5-10 ships to stay on field thus enemy gang should have 5-10 "snipers". Thats the whole size of said gang (note: small gang) which means that its quite easily disposed. Snipers arent known for their resilence. Quote: While also its true that if the falcon/ecm gang is jumping into the camp that the ewar ship must cloak (if a falcon) and spend a lot of time repositioning (by witch time a 5-10 man gang fight would be close to over tbh), or be called instantly primary and melted. It is quite possible (and oten used) to jump in falcons 1st and let them prepare around gate. With new larger gates its very hard to catch them before they warp off. Quote: The moral of the story is that its always better to be in a versatile gang and also to dictate the terms and range of the engagement to suit you, these are called basic tactics. Which still doesnt say anything about why falcons are used around 80% of the time in gangs instead of other ships. And this was the point of this thread. Falcons being too good compared to other ECM boats (which turned into ECM whine - but ECM system being buggered is entirely another thing). Quote: Bombers with damps make okish scouts and are very effective at neutering falcons. They die way too fast to anything that looks at them funny and after falcon repositions they still need to crawl to new location. Thus they are one trick pony, good when you know where falcon sits or if falcon pilots lacks spots to warp around.

maralt Minmatar The seers of truth	Posted - 2008.12.24 12:52:00 - [81] Originally by: Deva Blackfire But we can assume both sides are equally-well-fit. Id say that a gang without ewar is badly setup tbh but ok. Originally by: Deva Blackfire We are still talking about small gangs. And in small gangs the ONLY 200km "snipers" are eagle, cerb and falcon. You will rarely see battleships inside 5-10 man gangs and especially sniper battleships. Even if you include them this only adds up: rokh, raven and apocalypse (mega/hyperion is just on edge of range, ill ignore em this time). And scorp. Small gangs does not necessarily mean small (non BS) ships. Originally by: Deva Blackfire It is quite possible (and often used) to jump in falcons 1st and let them prepare around gate. With new larger gates its very hard to catch them before they warp off. That applies to the bombers i mention, as well as the fact that both sides should be allowed prepared bookmarks if your giving your falcon them... Originally by: Deva Blackfire Which still doesnt say anything about why falcons are used around 80% of the time in gangs instead of other ships. Falcons are used in gangs cos they are a good and useful gang ship when flown correctly, but other ecm ships are better in certain circumstances, as well as other recons are better in certain circumstances as well. Originally by: Deva Blackfire Falcons being too good compared to other ECM boats. Horses for courses tbh, if i was in a situation against a gang that could hit at range or if i was in a RR gang id prefer a scorp as fitted correctly it could engage immediately on jumpin (instead of needing to reposition) and stay/tank and jam a lot longer in combat than the falcon.
Deva Blackfire coracao ardente	Posted - 2008.12.24 13:10:00 - [82] Originally by: maralt Originally by: Deva Blackfire Which still doesnt say anything about why falcons are used around 80% of the time in gangs instead of other ships. Falcons are used in gangs cos they are a good and useful gang ship when flown correctly, but other ecm ships are better in certain circumstances, as well as other recons are better in certain circumstances as well. So when is rook better than falcon? Scorpion is better sometimes when you play RR gangs/jump into camp but in this situation falcon will still be able to jump 1st and get to spot, wheras scorpion will be primaried and there is almost no chance for RR gangs to save scorps because to their small HP buffer. This or fleet fight jammers because they are much cheaper than falcons. But except for fleets (where jamming is mediciore/bad idea anyways) falcon is MUCH better ship than scorpion. Which is back to start: falcon is way better than other EWar ships. And where i still say what was said before: remove their range bonus. Close cloaky or long range non-cloaky (rook) exactly like pilgrim/curse duo works.
maralt Minmatar The seers of truth	Posted - 2008.12.24 13:18:00 - [83] Edited by: maralt on 24/12/2008 13:24:24 Originally by: Deva Blackfire So when is rook better than falcon? When is Lachesis better than a arazu?. Originally by: Deva Blackfire Which is back to start: falcon is way better than other EWar ships. At jamming yes..but at webbing, or putting a point on summat or nueting or just general solo pvp?. It can be considered good at its jamming, even great at jamming but it also can be considered utterly useless at everything apart from jamming.
Deva Blackfire coracao ardente	Posted - 2008.12.24 13:46:00 - [84] Quote: Which is back to start: falcon is way better than other EWar ships. At jamming yes..but at webbing, or putting a point on summat or nueting or just general solo pvp?. Yes i am talking about ECM boats and not comparing them to all EW boats. My mistake, but you perfectly knew what i meant. Playing with words doesnt make you look smart, you know?
maralt Minmatar The seers of truth	Posted - 2008.12.24 13:54:00 - [85] Edited by: maralt on 24/12/2008 13:56:08 Edited by: maralt on 24/12/2008 13:55:37 Originally by: Deva Blackfire Quote: Which is back to start: falcon is way better than other EWar ships. At jamming yes..but at webbing, or putting a point on summat or nueting or just general solo pvp?. Yes i am talking about ECM boats and not comparing them to all EW boats. My mistake, but you perfectly knew what i meant. Playing with words doesnt make you look smart, you know? Actually if you look at the bottom of post 81 you actually use the phrase "ECM ships" as the referance for them so i thought you were referring to all ewar ships when you used the term "ewar ships" and not "ECM ships" tbh. Originally by: Deva Blackfire Falcons being too good compared to other ECM boats. See... You should really be less emo, i believe i mentioned that before...
Deva Blackfire coracao ardente	Posted - 2008.12.24 14:03:00 - [86] If you were following what i said in this thread (i sure do hope you read everything instead of jumping straight to last page) you would know i was talking only about ECM ships. Thus use of EWar boats was as a synonym to ECM ship in this particular case. Its obvious to someone who reads and understands what he is reading isnt it? As for emo part - i have no clue what you are talking about. Googling for "emo" gives me pictures of some gay/homosexual looking people. Maybe you are trying just to tell me you are accustomed to this culture/subculture but you dont need to drag me down to their level. So i dont judge who you are or how ya look like, neither i care. But if you want to post make it readable instead of playing smartass which you do.
maralt Minmatar The seers of truth	Posted - 2008.12.24 14:13:00 - [87] Edited by: maralt on 24/12/2008 14:13:44 Originally by: Deva Blackfire If you were following what i said in this thread (i sure do hope you read everything instead of jumping straight to last page) you would know i was talking only about ECM ships. Thus use of EWar boats was as a synonym to ECM ship in this particular case. Its obvious to someone who reads and understands what he is reading isnt it? Maybe you should stick to one terminology when referring to ECM ships pal, as for me personally a ewar ship is a much broader reference than just falcons and ecm bonused ships. Originally by: Deva Blackfire As for emo part - i have no clue what you are talking about. Googling for "emo" gives me pictures of some gay/homosexual looking people. Really when i google "emo" it gives me this: http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22emo%22&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3DVFA_enGB240GB243&aq=t Maybe its your past use of the search engine and personal preferences that are swaying the results towards a personal inclination of yours?.
Deva Blackfire coracao ardente	Posted - 2008.12.24 14:15:00 - [88] Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 24/12/2008 14:15:28 Originally by: maralt Edited by: maralt on 24/12/2008 14:13:44 Originally by: Deva Blackfire If you were following what i said in this thread (i sure do hope you read everything instead of jumping straight to last page) you would know i was talking only about ECM ships. Thus use of EWar boats was as a synonym to ECM ship in this particular case. Its obvious to someone who reads and understands what he is reading isnt it? Maybe you should stick to one terminology when referring to ECM ships pal, as for me personally a ewar ship is a much broader reference than just falcons and ecm bonused ships.
maralt Minmatar The seers of truth	Posted - 2008.12.24 14:32:00 - [89] Originally by: Deva Blackfire And like i said earlier (actually the post you quoted): in this particular case (this thread!) im referring to ECM as EW because this is what we were discussing here. If you can not understand this there is not much i can do to help you. Does that mean that arazus are "damp ships" and are also "ewar ships" (although not ECM/ewar ships???)as they did get a mention in a post of mine earlier?. I would suggest you stick to "ECM ships" in regards to blackbirds, falcons, ect ect......and use "ewar ships" as a generalization when referring to any ship of any race with a bonus to ewar systems/modules, it will be considerably less confusing.

CCP Fallout	Posted - 2008.12.24 14:33:00 - [90] the devolution of this thread has no resulted in it being locked. please do not reopen the thread, and please... don't troll. thanks! Fallout Associate Community Manager CCP Hf, EVE Online




Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.