EVE Search - What's u'r opinion about Falcons?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

What's u'r opinion about Falcons?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Hysteresis	Posted - 2008.12.29 15:48:00 - [121] Edited by: Hysteresis on 29/12/2008 15:49:44 Originally by: maralt Maybe you would be a better pvper if you paid better attention to details. Did I, at any point say anything about my pvp skills? How did you come to this conclusion? What is it about my pvp skills that lack? That's what I thought - you have no idea how good or bad I am, you just wanted to make a personal attack because you wanted your view to look better. Maybe you should heed you own advice
Christari Zuborov Amarr Ore Mongers	Posted - 2008.12.29 15:51:00 - [122] Originally by: Merdaneth If the cost of fitting against ECM is high, if the effect of being immune to ECM still not garantueed, and if actually encountering ECM is not garantueed, yes, then the counter sucks. I have had Armageddons fit with multiple ECCM being dead in the water against a Falcon. There are only so many midslots to go about before you turn your ship into a vessel fit for little else but not being jammed. Fitting WCS are high, you're not immune to being scrammed, and you WILL encounter hictors... So your point is that you want something that grants total immunity, because a) You can't be arsed to fit something that will make you 3x more resistant. b) Can't stand the thought that your Armageddon (which I love as well) might have to lose a couple HS3 in place of some backup array sensors. c) Won't switch to Apoc which turns Falcon's into Barn-Swallows. Originally by: Merdaneth You are making more wrong assumptions. I'm in fact well known for innovative fittings, rarely use cookie-cutter setup. Please stay on topic and attack the arguments, not the person writing them. I've seen all kinds of innovative fittings, and they usually just get laughed at on our killboard. Your issue is that you refuse to fit vs. ECM, you'll do everything but that and cry. Originally by: Merdaneth No, it means if that nearly nobody fits for specific resistances, because they might never know what they will encounter. Oh bloody leave.. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. If you don't have at least an idea of the ship types your enemies field, then you are an idiot when it comes to PVP.
maralt Minmatar The seers of truth	Posted - 2008.12.29 15:54:00 - [123] Originally by: Hysteresis Originally by: maralt Maybe you would be a better pvper if you paid better attention to details. Did I, at any point say anything about my pvp skills? How did you come to this conclusion? What is it about my pvp skills that lack? That's what I thought - you have no idea how good or bad I am, you just wanted to make a personal attack because you wanted your view to look better. Maybe you should heed you own advice Ok here is the thing pal, making attacks on my character after you have lied about details (1300 str lol) as well as having made accusations against me for making comments i did not actually make (cruiser perma jam) is a weak defense at best.
Gaia Thorn Villains	Posted - 2008.12.29 15:55:00 - [124] Tbh i dont want to be immune i want a fighting chance which atm i dont when a falcon enters the grid. You know that maybe you will be lucky him missing a jam cycle and get a 20 second atttack windows with todays super tanks isnt gonna even come near to break anyone
Colonel Xaven Decadence. RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.12.29 15:58:00 - [125] Originally by: Hysteresis I'm still waiting to hear your thoughts on having it be 115 and still getting jammed the WHOLE time, not about my previously said made up number of 1300. Focus on the facts I gave not the speculation I already said was made up. Here are teh facts, now discuss having 115 str and getting perma-jammed. Exactly what I thought, I have proof and all you can do is say "let's forget the fact and make fun of random figures" Come on guys, stick to the topic. Ok, random figures: A Raven with 3 ECCM mods = gravimetric sensor strength of 122. A Spatial Destabilizer II on a Falcon for me = 5.1193 Gravimetric strength. Now let's do the maths. Formula inside optimal ECM range. 5.1193 / 122 * 100 = 4.196 % chance of being jammed (means 4 hits in 100 attempts). 4% chance. An Apoc with 1 ECCM (Radar fyi) has 39,2 str. I have 5.1193 with racial t2 jammer. 5.1193/39.2 * 100 = 13,06 % chance. An Apoc with ECCM against a Falcon at 200km (optimal 151.2): (5.1193/39.2) * 100 * (37.82 - (200-151.2))/37.82)) = 4.68% chance. Oh well, no wonder that all people on a gang are always perma-jammed by 1 falcon. Proud member of RZR - Decadence.
Hysteresis	Posted - 2008.12.29 16:04:00 - [126] Originally by: maralt Ok here is the thing pal, making attacks on my character after you have lied about details (1300 str lol) as well as having made accusations against me for making comments i did not actually make (cruiser perma jam) is a weak defense at best. I already said I made up the 1300 str, actually I said "some random number" when infact this was rpeceded by in the hundreds which 115 is... so the point is moot as I dismissed myself in the post as saying it was random and not actually useful. As for the cruisers, that was an honest mistake as reading the posts and flipping through windows I had the wrong person on my mental clipboard. I still ask, from the post above about your inside knowledge on my pvp skills that let's you asess them in the way that you did. You're just mad because you made a post with an accusation about my pvp skills that isn't related and you got caught looking stupid. Oh well **** happens, you just can't admit to that fact. So quit with the personal attacks and stick to the facts. Again I show a fraps of 3x ECCM II's and the guy still stays jammed the whole time. Obviously adding 3 of these modules is not a viable defense yet the post above me says it is...
Christari Zuborov Amarr Ore Mongers	Posted - 2008.12.29 16:36:00 - [127] Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 29/12/2008 16:44:27 Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 29/12/2008 16:40:28 Originally by: maralt Xaven, with good ecm skills you should be around 9 not 5.1, also on the falcon where are your signal distortion amplifiers? I mean if you are going to say that a raven has 3 eccm's on it AT LEAST give a NORMAL fit for a falcon. It's possible to get a strength of over 14... leading to over a 33% chance to jam. Since you can have up to 7 ECM's on a falcon... you could jam with over a 33% (1 in 3 chance) on each module... since you have 7... I would suspect that you could jam AT LEAST 2 BS's... It should be in the neighborhood of 13-14 at a skilled pure ECM fit - that's not how everyone fits them. Some people actually like their Falcon to be survivable. Also, he was stating that the Raven has 122 Sensory strength with 3 ECCMs. 14/122 = .11475 or 11.475% chance of being jammed per jammer inside optimal. Two successful jams in a row being .11475 * .11475 = .0131 or 1.31%.
Colonel Xaven Decadence. RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.12.29 16:38:00 - [128] Edited by: Colonel Xaven on 29/12/2008 16:46:10 Edited by: Colonel Xaven on 29/12/2008 16:39:18 Yeah I can't get in game now so I used EFT figures. /edit: Which was horribly wrong. But you can do the maths each for yourselves. For everyone who wants to know a bit more about ECM besides the "Perma-jammed" phrases, read that guide (including formulas 'n stuff). Proud member of RZR - Decadence.
Hysteresis	Posted - 2008.12.29 16:58:00 - [129] Originally by: Christari Zuborov It should be in the neighborhood of 13-14 at a skilled pure ECM fit - that's not how everyone fits them. Some people actually like their Falcon to be survivable. Also, he was stating that the Raven has 122 Sensory strength with 3 ECCMs. 14/122 = .11475 or 11.475% chance of being jammed per jammer inside optimal. Two successful jams in a row being .11475 * .11475 = .0131 or 1.31%. Falcons are survivable with that fit - it's hard to die when you jam out the other person... Also the math is wrong it would still be 11.5% for the second jam, just not with the SAME module as you have... well... multiple ones. Falcon pilot with 1 ecm module isn't much of a falcon pilot. Also, please give me a raven setup that is survivable with 3x ECCM II's...
maralt Minmatar The seers of truth	Posted - 2008.12.29 17:02:00 - [130] Originally by: Hysteresis Also, please give me a raven setup that is survivable with 3x ECCM II's... Screw eccm, Burn Eden use damp fitted ravens to great effect against all types of gangs in eve, be they falcon heavy or not.

Christari Zuborov Amarr Ore Mongers	Posted - 2008.12.29 17:08:00 - [131] Originally by: Hysteresis Originally by: Christari Zuborov It should be in the neighborhood of 13-14 at a skilled pure ECM fit - that's not how everyone fits them. Some people actually like their Falcon to be survivable. Also, he was stating that the Raven has 122 Sensory strength with 3 ECCMs. 14/122 = .11475 or 11.475% chance of being jammed per jammer inside optimal. Two successful jams in a row being .11475 * .11475 = .0131 or 1.31%. Falcons are survivable with that fit - it's hard to die when you jam out the other person... Also the math is wrong it would still be 11.5% for the second jam, just not with the SAME module as you have... well... multiple ones. Falcon pilot with 1 ecm module isn't much of a falcon pilot. Also, please give me a raven setup that is survivable with 3x ECCM II's... The math is right... whether you use the same jammer or another jammer, each individual attempt is 11.5%, but two sucessful hits in a row is 1.31%. So, that would mean that for 2 jam cycles in a row you're looking to use at least 3 jammers to raise your odds up from 1.31% to a more reasonable 12% chance to jam in succession.
Hysteresis	Posted - 2008.12.29 17:17:00 - [132] Originally by: Christari Zuborov Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 29/12/2008 17:10:47 Originally by: Hysteresis Originally by: Christari Zuborov It should be in the neighborhood of 13-14 at a skilled pure ECM fit - that's not how everyone fits them. Some people actually like their Falcon to be survivable. Also, he was stating that the Raven has 122 Sensory strength with 3 ECCMs. 14/122 = .11475 or 11.475% chance of being jammed per jammer inside optimal. Two successful jams in a row being .11475 * .11475 = .0131 or 1.31%. Falcons are survivable with that fit - it's hard to die when you jam out the other person... Also the math is wrong it would still be 11.5% for the second jam, just not with the SAME module as you have... well... multiple ones. Falcon pilot with 1 ecm module isn't much of a falcon pilot. Also, please give me a raven setup that is survivable with 3x ECCM II's... The math is right... whether you use the same jammer or another jammer, each individual attempt is 11.5%, but two sucessful hits in a row is 1.31%. This means that you have a 98ish% fail rate to have 2 hits in a row either on 1 jammer, or by using 2. The above is completely incorrect when it comes to multiple jamming sessions. If the above were true, a person could (by your math) only have a 1% chance to jam someone 4 times in a row with a 33% initial chance (I could make a fraps of me getting jammed 10 times in a row which would be a 0.00001531578985264449% chance of that happening following your incorrect math which is very IMPROBABLE)... You aren't taking into account multiple jammers. For a single jammer you are correct.
Christari Zuborov Amarr Ore Mongers	Posted - 2008.12.29 17:24:00 - [133] Edited by: Christari Zuborov on 29/12/2008 17:24:38 see above
Wannabehero Absolutely No Retreat	Posted - 2008.12.29 17:27:00 - [134] Originally by: Hysteresis Also, please give me a raven setup that is survivable with 3x ECCM II's... [Raven, Anti-Falcon RR gang] 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Damage Control II Ballistic Control System II 100MN MicroWarpdrive II ECCM - Gravimetric II ECCM - Gravimetric II ECCM - Gravimetric II Sensor Booster II, Targeting Range Heavy Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 800 Cruise Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Paradise Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Paradise Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Paradise Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Paradise Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Paradise Cruise Missile Cruise Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Paradise Cruise Missile Large Remote Armor Repair System II [empty high slot] Ionic Field Projector I Ionic Field Projector I Hydraulic Bay Thrusters I Warrior II x5 Vespa EC-600 x5 -- Don't harsh my mellow
maralt Minmatar The seers of truth	Posted - 2008.12.29 17:28:00 - [135] Your both kinda correct but the fact is that ppl use a "infinite time frame" to work out the % of ability jammers get, that is why "perma jamming" is imposable against ships with certain sig str and also why jammers can be either highly effective or crap depending on sheer luck tbh. A ship that gets jammed dies within the first 20 seconds of the fight could be considered "perma jammed" relative to its life span in the fight, while on the other side of the coin a falcon that misses a jam on a ship that then melts one of his buddies cos its not jammed makes the jam ship/falcon equally as useless as the first scenario falcon was useful.
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Gunship Diplomacy	Posted - 2008.12.29 18:35:00 - [136] Originally by: Sidus Isaacs Originally by: Burning Horizon ECM does need a nerf tbh "adapt or die" ECM as a mechanism is fine. We have, we all trained a falcon alt with recon 5 in 4 months. ----------------------------------------- [Video] The Neverending Story
VoiceInTheDesert Gallente Diplomatic Disruption	Posted - 2008.12.29 19:52:00 - [137] u'r People get the apostrophe wrong on abbreviations now too :(
Merdaneth Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2008.12.29 20:26:00 - [138] Originally by: Christari Zuborov Oh bloody leave.. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. If you don't have at least an idea of the ship types your enemies field, then you are an idiot when it comes to PVP. Once again I ask you stop with the personal attacks. You don't know me, and you don't know my PvP style. Concentrate on your arguments ok? You are not doing anyone any favors with this. ____ The Illusion of Freedom \| The Truth about Slavery
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2008.12.29 20:36:00 - [139] Originally by: Merdaneth Originally by: Christari Zuborov Oh bloody leave.. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. If you don't have at least an idea of the ship types your enemies field, then you are an idiot when it comes to PVP. Once again I ask you stop with the personal attacks. You don't know me, and you don't know my PvP style. Concentrate on your arguments ok? You are not doing anyone any favors with this. You seem to fly a lot of ceptors tbh, in fact almost exclusively looking at you losses. Interceptors are quite susceptible to jamming so its understandable that you would have a dislike for them, although they are good for getting a position on sniper ships for more useful ships like drone boats or those with FOF/high sig str.
Leeluvv Federation of Freedom Fighters Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2008.12.29 21:12:00 - [140] Edited by: Leeluvv on 29/12/2008 21:12:52 There are multiple ways to fit a falcon. 1. You can fit a falcon for maximum ECM strength (no tank, 3 SDAa and ECM str rigs). 2. You can fit a Falcon for maximum range (ECM range rigs) 3. You can fit a Falcon with a tank (LSE or 1600mm plates) YOU CAN MIX THEM ABOUT BUT YOU CAN'T DO ALL 3 AT ONCE. A Falcon may have 7 mids, but one will be a MWD and one will be a sensor booster if it is operating at max range or IT CANT EVEN TARGET YOU. Generally, pilots fit a mix of the races ECM, only doubling up on one or two. If you are moaning about being jammed from 200+ Km, then the Falcon does not have max jam strength, so you won't be perma jammed and it only has 5 ECMs, so they may only have 1 of your race fitted. If you are moaning about being perma-jammed, then the Falcon is 150 Km away at the most and may have no tank at all, so just fly to it or shoot it with another ship. If the Falcon has a tank and doesn't die getting shot, then it doesn't have a full fit of ECMs. QUIT TREATING THE THREE BUILDS AS ONE AND LEARN HOW TO KILL THE DAMNED THINGS. I have a Cerb fit with 73 sensor stregnth and 246 Km range. Guess what, it makes Falcons run away and because I have 5 launchers I can fire at 5 Falcons at once (most tend to run when they get shot at rather than waiting to get hit). Nerf Cerbs as they remove 5 ships from 1 fight! SAME TWISTED LOGIC AS ASKING FOR FALCONS TO BE NERFED! /end rant Lee == Sig to follow

Colonel Xaven Decadence. RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.12.29 22:57:00 - [141] Hey Lee, I know you speak the truth and that's why I don't like you, lol. See you in space . Proud member of RZR - Decadence.
daisy dook	Posted - 2008.12.29 23:33:00 - [142] Woot 3 Falcon threads on the first page. Fit ECCM guys.... or hang on I've got an idea - remove the scan res bonus from the sensor boost and add it to the ECCM so it now has a dual purpose - is this a large enough bone for all you ECM lovers?
Zantrei Kordisin FinFleet Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.12.29 23:37:00 - [143] Originally by: Hysteresis Also, please give me a raven setup that is survivable with 3x ECCM II's... Hahahaha, wait, you are complaining that you have to fit maybe 2 modules to counter jamming? You are terrible at playing EVE. I'm serious, you are awful. By your logic, a ship should be able to prevent taking damage with a couple of slots. Hahaha, terrible eve player. _________________________________________________________
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Gunship Diplomacy	Posted - 2008.12.30 16:01:00 - [144] Originally by: maralt Originally by: Hysteresis Also, please give me a raven setup that is survivable with 3x ECCM II's... Screw eccm, Burn Eden use damp fitted ravens to great effect against all types of gangs in eve, be they falcon heavy or not. Right, because you can damp out to 240km range? No one cares about made up stuff about leet burn eden. ----------------------------------------- [Video] The Neverending Story
Centra Spike Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture	Posted - 2008.12.30 16:07:00 - [145] YOUR DENIAL OF MY VICTIMHOOD IS HURTING MY SELF-ESTEEM! ------
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2008.12.30 16:09:00 - [146] Edited by: Murina on 30/12/2008 16:10:23 Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Right, because you can damp out to 240km range? No one cares about made up stuff about leet burn eden. Go troll a amarr pulse fix thread clown. Anybody (including BE who certainly do so) can make multiple BM's around a gate and close down or destroy falcons, your problem is that your preferred mode of combat is too either lazy or you are too stupid to do so. "WAAAA falcons can warp to bookmarked points around a gate!!!!".....well so can you muppet so i suggest you chase them down and kill or run them off, instead of crying to ccp to move them closer for your inadequate gangs and tactics.
Beltantis Torrence Steel Soldier's NEXUS ALLIANCE	Posted - 2008.12.30 16:16:00 - [147] Edited by: Beltantis Torrence on 30/12/2008 16:25:59 Almost everyone whining about the falcon is actually whining about ECM. Falcon is just the best ECM ship - if it got nerfed we'd all be flying rooks or scorpions or blackbirds instead. I personally think ECM is fine - it adds a significant dynamic to PVP. I do think, however, that cloaking should unjam anyone who is jammed. One thing that'd be nice though is if the celestis, arazu/lachesis and keres had a much higher base targetting range. An increase in RSD range would also be nice - as stands you can set up a decent RSD keres but you're so crippled by your targetting range that the only use for that ship is as a poor man's interceptor.
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Gunship Diplomacy	Posted - 2008.12.30 16:42:00 - [148] Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 30/12/2008 16:10:23 Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Right, because you can damp out to 240km range? No one cares about made up stuff about leet burn eden. Go troll a amarr pulse fix thread clown. Anybody (including BE who certainly do so) can make multiple BM's around a gate and close down or destroy falcons, your problem is that your preferred mode of combat is too either lazy or you are too stupid to do so. "WAAAA falcons can warp to bookmarked points around a gate!!!!".....well so can you muppet so i suggest you chase them down and kill or run them off, instead of crying to ccp to move them closer for your inadequate gangs and tactics. Well it doesn't work like that for small gangs or solo. You know why? Because you cannot warp to that bookmark close to the falcon that is perma jamming you. You know why? Because you will be scrambled. We already know that fleets and larger gangs can deal with falcons. YOU go troll elsewhere mkay, kkthxbai. ----------------------------------------- [Video] The Neverending Story
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2008.12.30 16:49:00 - [149] Edited by: Murina on 30/12/2008 16:50:22 Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Well it doesn't work like that for small gangs or solo. You know why? Because you cannot warp to that bookmark close to the falcon that is perma jamming you. You know why? Because you will be scrambled. We already know that fleets and larger gangs can deal with falcons. YOU go troll elsewhere mkay, kkthxbai. So you wanna nerf falcons cos: When your solo and out numbered they help the guys your fighting beat you?. If your outnumbered in small gang fighting they also help the ppl your fighting beat you?. Ok i do not wanna hurt you feelings but you do not just deserve to win the fights you get into, and trying to nerf everything that does not allow your idea of "amarr biased combat styles" to beat everything you come across is rather obvious tbh. Like i said go troll the amarr pulse fix threads for a while....
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2008.12.30 17:22:00 - [150] Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 30/12/2008 17:24:11 Originally by: MacGrowler III Originally by: Pan Crastus Now do the math for a full rack of ECM. No matter how many ECM modules you have you cannot have a 100% chance of jamming a ship. Mathematically speaking you cannot just add up 2 x 50% to equal 100% when it comes to chance calculations. It's a bit like calculating resists, no matter what modules you add you can't get to 100% EM resists on any (non dev) ships. For example, You activate your first ECM module with a 50% chance of jamming and it fails, your second module still only has a 50% chance of jamming. If that fails, then guess what? Your third module will only have a 50% chance at jamming also. Eventually you can reduce the odds, but you can NEVER 100% guarantee a jam. This is true but you can still add the probability of an event occurring with multiple chances. Your post makes it sound like you never have better than a 50% chance of getting a jam which is wrong. To add probabilities you need to turn it around. So, if you have a 5% chance of "X" occurring then you have a 95% chance of it not occurring. If you press your 5% button 3x you do: .95 * .95 * .95 = 0.857. 100 - 85.7 = 14.3% (chance of "X" occurring when you press your 5% button three times) So let's do it three times with a 50% button: .5 * .5 * .5 = 0.125 100 - 12.5 = 87.5% (chance of a jam occurring with three 50% shots) Just saying so people here can figure probabilities when assessing these things. -------------------------------------------------- "Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"



Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.