EVE Search - Force Recon Balancing: Falcons

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Force Recon Balancing: Falcons

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Rajere No Trademark Notoriety Alliance	Posted - 2008.12.29 16:44:00 - [1] Edited by: Rajere on 29/12/2008 16:52:27 caveats: #1 I am a max skilled falcon pilot. I hate the ship, it's blatantly overpowered and well, its cheap. I'm not talking about isk. #2 I spend a good bit of time doing recon style gangs, and more importantly blackops gangs. I know the value of warping while cloaked better than most, I also know the limitations of it. Theoretically ecm is one of the key ways in which smaller gangs stand a modi**of a chance when fighting numerically superior opponents. Now we all know that's b#ll** and anyone defending falcons using that as an excuse is conning you. There is no mechanic which limits when you can field falcons so 99.9% of the time they simply allow the already overwhelming larger gang to obliterate the smaller gang without taking any losses. Force recons have always been solo/small gang style ships, they have many names from cloaky recon gangs, afk/cloak gangs, cloakf#@ging gangs, etc to even more derogatory names, but the falcon has always been the exception to this. The falcon favors larger gangs and the rook, the rook has no reason to exist at all. To balance things out, the rook should replace the falcon in the situations falcons are favored and the falcon in turn should be given a role in force recon gangs. To accomplish this I'd like to suggest the following: Falcon: slot layout 4/7/3 (no change) CC bonuses: 20% Multispec ECM cap use, 10% Multispec ECM Optimal RC Bonuses: 25% Multispec ECM Strength, -96%-100% Cov Ops cloak Role bonus -80% liquid ozone use, -50% cyno duration, can fit covert cynos. At max skills this produces an 81km Optimal on either multispec ecm or racials, with 2x ecm range rigs approx 110km. It provides approx a 11 point jam strength on multispec jammers only, and only when fitting 3x SDA in the lows, racial jammers only have approx a 7 point strength and therefore become rather useless given they have the same range. That alone simply nerfs falcons from being a long range high jam strength ship, to give it a role in recon gangs I'd add the following new module that only falcons can fit: Drone Link Suppressor High Slot Module -50,000km to the targets drone control range 40km activation/optimal range, 10 sec cycle, 30 cap per cycle. Against an opponent with max drone skills, this reduces their drone control range to 10km. Against the average opponent this reduces their control range to 1-4km. This allows the falcon to fulfill a role in force recon gangs, and shutdown one of the few remaining defenses that force recon gangs encounter. The counter to this module is drone ships with range bonuses as well as drone link augmentors. This fits in the lolrp sense that caldari would develop a counter to the weapons of their rivals the gallente and their drone swarms. To use this module, it forces the falcon into standard force recon engagement range despite his longer ecm range. The pilgrim/curse for example has a 60km optimal on his tracking disruptors, but both are required to move in closer (much closer in the case of the pilgrim) to use their full range of abilities against an opponent, the falcon would need to do the same. Since the falcon is forced into a much closer range it will need to use some of it's slots for tanking, like all force recons do, but since it's using multispecs it can use less mids for jammers and more for tanking. So you'd have arazu's for long range point/scram and damps, rapiers for LR webs and target painting, pilgrims for TD and neuts, and falcons to jam and disrupt the enemies drones. In a recon gang the pilgrim deals the most damage yet faces the most risk, mainly from the opponents drones, and this would allow the falcon to alleviate that. Players who insist upon using the falcon as they have in the past would be within 100km with 3 less strength on their jammers. To get that they'd have no tank and even with 6 multispecs they'd be far more counterable than they are currently. A good falcon pilot will still shine, falcon alts will just die. -------------------------- NOTR nsfw
maralt Minmatar The seers of truth	Posted - 2008.12.29 16:48:00 - [2] tldr But meh another "waa i gots jammed nerf nerf" thread.
GateScout	Posted - 2008.12.29 17:07:00 - [3] Interesting idea, and better than the usual "nerf the falcon so we don't have to change our fits to counter the falcon" posts. If implementing your suggestions, I would add a bit of a speed and/or agility buff to the falcon. Persoanlly, I want to see an ECCM buff. Make ECCM modules a bit more powerful and perhaps add a second, small bonus to scan res or something similar. Perhaps a script for ECM modules: range/power? I attest that the falcon is not over-powerd, but people don't want to alter their fits to counter it. Even if you give them a perfect counter to the falcon, it won't be used.
Akiba Penrose	Posted - 2008.12.29 17:17:00 - [4] Very nice. Best solution so far.
MRKWA Minmatar Most Wanted INC G00DFELLAS	Posted - 2008.12.29 17:39:00 - [5] Finaly some normal solution. Nice !
arbalesttom Rulers Of Mankind	Posted - 2008.12.29 17:46:00 - [6] I definately like the idea *Sig*
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2008.12.29 17:47:00 - [7] Why should the falcons single effect be reduced in range and usefulness as well as being chance based, while all the others have multiple effects that all work perfectly as long as the ship is in range?. The falcon fits a role, the other recons fit a role, the roles are not the same, deal with it.
NoNah	Posted - 2008.12.29 17:54:00 - [8] I'm still not quite convinced. I still think the Falcon may very well have it's range. Possibly with slight tweaks, 15% rather than 20% or so. In my humble opinion there's nothing wrong with it staying at range, it just shouldn't be alone about it. If damps would effectively counter falcons(IE have higher hit rates, but just cripple not eliminate - it would all be fine. Target painters may very well have their optimals increased aswell, it's just not AS important as damps. As for tracking disruptors it would cause a problem. If you stay at 150km with something not chancebased that can pretty much eliminate a gunship from battle it's quickly overpowered yet again - especially seeing how it is potent even when they get close. And even at 100km it won't change much about the falcons who warp around and cloak up between cycles. Such a fix wouldn't really interfere with your solution however. Parrots, commence! Postcount: 425094
Wannabehero Absolutely No Retreat	Posted - 2008.12.29 17:57:00 - [9] Edited by: Wannabehero on 29/12/2008 17:58:50 Convoluted and unnecessary. Lol at 'Drone Link Suppressor' Much more sensible suggestions have been made, such as Reduction of strength bonus to 15% per level Reduction of optimal bonus Switch optimal bonus for a falloff bonus Reduction of ship targeting range to require multiple sensor boosters to achieve magical 200+ km range Increase of ECCM sensor strength bonus (or a larger increase in overheat bonus, or through skills to increase ECCM bonus) As well as many others. While I do not necessarily support any one of the above, each of these addresses the issue of Falcon jamming power/range in a far more practical way than the OP. Edit: This thread also belongs in "Features and Ideas" -- Don't harsh my mellow
dojocan81	Posted - 2008.12.29 18:02:00 - [10] oh geesh ... another falcon thread ...

lecrotta lecrotta Corp	Posted - 2008.12.29 18:03:00 - [11] Originally by: dojocan81 oh geesh ... another falcon thread ... Spam of threads to give weak arguments a perception of more support than they actually have F.T.L.
Captator Universal Securities Pirate Coalition	Posted - 2008.12.29 18:35:00 - [12] Originally by: maralt tldr But meh another "waa i gots jammed nerf nerf" thread. You made that eminently clear... @ Rajere, why not just remove/weaken the falcon's optimal bonus instead?
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Gunship Diplomacy	Posted - 2008.12.29 18:45:00 - [13] It's a good idea. Tbh ANY change to the falcon is good. It's really redicilous right now and I don't see how ccp can still go blind for the hordes of falcon alts out there. ----------------------------------------- [Video] The Neverending Story
Rajere No Trademark Notoriety Alliance	Posted - 2008.12.29 18:59:00 - [14] Originally by: Captator Originally by: maralt tldr But meh another "waa i gots jammed nerf nerf" thread. You made that eminently clear... @ Rajere, why not just remove/weaken the falcon's optimal bonus instead? What's the point? Either it's range is long enough that it's out of range of most counters, or it's not. Statistically the Rook is equal to or superior to the Falcon in every single aspect, except that it cannot fit a covert ops cloak, and nobody cares about the rook or thinks it's overpowered. 14 strength racial 228km Jam optimal is fine. Warping while cloaked (as well as all the other ancillary benefits such as positioning, pre-aligning, etc) is also fine. Combined together it's not fine. The covert Ops cloak is worth more than all of the rest. If you nerfed the falcons strength to 15% from 20% people would still use falcons. If you nerfed it's range to 150-180 instead of 228 people would still use falcons. The only way you can nerf the falcon enough to prevent people from choosing it over a rook is to nerf its range to the point where it's a flying coffin, well within range to be countered by any small to mid sized gang. And then people will simply use rooks+ bookmarks and nobody will fly the falcon, which accomplishes the goal of nerfing the falcon, but leaves us with the opposite of what we have today and we still have a useless ship. My solution is to simply change the circumstances where people field falcons so that it doesn't need to be a long range ecm platform. mid sized gang fights people use rooks, cloaky recon gank squads people use falcons, each is superior to the other in their niches. Blackbirds still hold their niche as training and suicide ecm ship, scorpions still for insurable battleship fleets. -------------------------- NOTR nsfw
VoiceInTheDesert Gallente Diplomatic Disruption	Posted - 2008.12.29 19:40:00 - [15] Edited by: VoiceInTheDesert on 29/12/2008 19:40:51 A very similar idea to this was proposed a bit ago. Voice your support for it here. Solution to Falcons EDIT: To make it a link
0mnipotenceX	Posted - 2008.12.29 20:09:00 - [16] I've noticed on a lot of these falcon threads that a popular arguement for them, is that they can be countered if you fit your ship specifically Anti-Falcon. This of course is true. A lot of fights would have unforseen outcomes if one of the ships was fit specifically for countering the other. For example: 1v1 Zealot vs Rapier If the rapier had a rack of amarr specific jammers and ECM and thermal specific hardeners on, it will probably win right? This point im TRYING to make here (despite the fact that my illustration probably isn't the best) is: the arguement that the falcon is not overpowered and that people just need to start fitting their ships to counter them is childish at best. Every time I leave the station in any ship should I be sacrificing my tank or my utility slots (webs, points, - whatever) on the chance I will face a falcon? Even if I put say 2x ECCM IIs on my sleipnir would that prevent me from getting jammed? I doubt it. People need to stop makign the arguement that everyone should be loaded to the **** with ECCM because of the mere existence of falcon, while simultaneously making the claim that they aren't overpowered! The way I see it, simply by aruging they people need to be constantly fitting anti-falcon setups suggests to me that an imbalance exists. If everyone started fitting anti-falcon, people would be sudenly be quite vulnerable to DPS ships. Whether you believe there is a problem with the falcon or not, I think it can be said that constantly fitting ECCM isn't the solution, nor is it a reasonable arguement for the falcon.
baltec1 R.U.S.T. Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2008.12.29 20:18:00 - [17] Originally by: 0mnipotenceX I've noticed on a lot of these falcon threads that a popular arguement for them, is that they can be countered if you fit your ship specifically Anti-Falcon. This of course is true. A lot of fights would have unforseen outcomes if one of the ships was fit specifically for countering the other. For example: 1v1 Zealot vs Rapier If the rapier had a rack of amarr specific jammers and ECM and thermal specific hardeners on, it will probably win right? This point im TRYING to make here (despite the fact that my illustration probably isn't the best) is: the arguement that the falcon is not overpowered and that people just need to start fitting their ships to counter them is childish at best. Every time I leave the station in any ship should I be sacrificing my tank or my utility slots (webs, points, - whatever) on the chance I will face a falcon? Even if I put say 2x ECCM IIs on my sleipnir would that prevent me from getting jammed? I doubt it. People need to stop makign the arguement that everyone should be loaded to the **** with ECCM because of the mere existence of falcon, while simultaneously making the claim that they aren't overpowered! The way I see it, simply by aruging they people need to be constantly fitting anti-falcon setups suggests to me that an imbalance exists. If everyone started fitting anti-falcon, people would be sudenly be quite vulnerable to DPS ships. Whether you believe there is a problem with the falcon or not, I think it can be said that constantly fitting ECCM isn't the solution, nor is it a reasonable arguement for the falcon. A single ECCM is enough. People just want to be immune to ECM which is why they are kicking up such a fuss. Me, I dont even need to fit ECCM in order to tear a falcon a new one. Not only do I have a unique tactic but I pull it off in what alot say is a useless ship. Perhaps that is why it works so well, afterall, who would think a bomber could be deadly to a 200 mil recon?
Ay'Not Sivad Minmatar BI2uTa1 I2ap3	Posted - 2008.12.29 21:14:00 - [18] Originally by: baltec1 Originally by: 0mnipotenceX I've noticed on a lot of these falcon threads that a popular arguement for them, is that they can be countered if you fit your ship specifically Anti-Falcon. This of course is true. A lot of fights would have unforseen outcomes if one of the ships was fit specifically for countering the other. For example: 1v1 Zealot vs Rapier If the rapier had a rack of amarr specific jammers and ECM and thermal specific hardeners on, it will probably win right? This point im TRYING to make here (despite the fact that my illustration probably isn't the best) is: the arguement that the falcon is not overpowered and that people just need to start fitting their ships to counter them is childish at best. Every time I leave the station in any ship should I be sacrificing my tank or my utility slots (webs, points, - whatever) on the chance I will face a falcon? Even if I put say 2x ECCM IIs on my sleipnir would that prevent me from getting jammed? I doubt it. People need to stop makign the arguement that everyone should be loaded to the **** with ECCM because of the mere existence of falcon, while simultaneously making the claim that they aren't overpowered! The way I see it, simply by aruging they people need to be constantly fitting anti-falcon setups suggests to me that an imbalance exists. If everyone started fitting anti-falcon, people would be sudenly be quite vulnerable to DPS ships. Whether you believe there is a problem with the falcon or not, I think it can be said that constantly fitting ECCM isn't the solution, nor is it a reasonable arguement for the falcon. A single ECCM is enough. People just want to be immune to ECM which is why they are kicking up such a fuss. Me, I dont even need to fit ECCM in order to tear a falcon a new one. Not only do I have a unique tactic but I pull it off in what alot say is a useless ship. Perhaps that is why it works so well, afterall, who would think a bomber could be deadly to a 200 mil recon? You might as well be falling into the ''fit for this'' group, as you're flying your ship for the solo purpose of destroying falcons... If every gang came to the fight fit to counter the other, we're no longer playing eve. A falcon is becoming a staple to almost every single gang, are you saying we need to bring an artillery tempest with us, and have him hold up the rear in a safespot while the rest of the gang fights and waits for a warp-in on the falcon? Are you saying we need to fit multiples of a single module, just to decrease our CHANCE of being jammed, and when there's not a falcon we're wasting mid-slots? A pilot may fit a sensor booster to help counter an arazu, but if there's not arazu, at least the pilot doesn't have an ''empty midslot''(he's still getting the bonus of faster locking). I don't think there's a 1v1 in the game, barring capital ships, where fitting to counter your opponent won't make you win 90% of the time, so quit using those fail excuses.
XxHey BabyxX Gallente University of Caille	Posted - 2008.12.29 21:17:00 - [19] Adapt or die CAREBEAR GTFO to Hello Kitty Online
baltec1 R.U.S.T. Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2008.12.29 21:24:00 - [20] Originally by: Ay'Not Sivad Originally by: baltec1 Originally by: 0mnipotenceX I've noticed on a lot of these falcon threads that a popular arguement for them, is that they can be countered if you fit your ship specifically Anti-Falcon. This of course is true. A lot of fights would have unforseen outcomes if one of the ships was fit specifically for countering the other. For example: 1v1 Zealot vs Rapier If the rapier had a rack of amarr specific jammers and ECM and thermal specific hardeners on, it will probably win right? This point im TRYING to make here (despite the fact that my illustration probably isn't the best) is: the arguement that the falcon is not overpowered and that people just need to start fitting their ships to counter them is childish at best. Every time I leave the station in any ship should I be sacrificing my tank or my utility slots (webs, points, - whatever) on the chance I will face a falcon? Even if I put say 2x ECCM IIs on my sleipnir would that prevent me from getting jammed? I doubt it. People need to stop makign the arguement that everyone should be loaded to the **** with ECCM because of the mere existence of falcon, while simultaneously making the claim that they aren't overpowered! The way I see it, simply by aruging they people need to be constantly fitting anti-falcon setups suggests to me that an imbalance exists. If everyone started fitting anti-falcon, people would be sudenly be quite vulnerable to DPS ships. Whether you believe there is a problem with the falcon or not, I think it can be said that constantly fitting ECCM isn't the solution, nor is it a reasonable arguement for the falcon. A single ECCM is enough. People just want to be immune to ECM which is why they are kicking up such a fuss. Me, I dont even need to fit ECCM in order to tear a falcon a new one. Not only do I have a unique tactic but I pull it off in what alot say is a useless ship. Perhaps that is why it works so well, afterall, who would think a bomber could be deadly to a 200 mil recon? You might as well be falling into the ''fit for this'' group, as you're flying your ship for the solo purpose of destroying falcons... If every gang came to the fight fit to counter the other, we're no longer playing eve. A falcon is becoming a staple to almost every single gang, are you saying we need to bring an artillery tempest with us, and have him hold up the rear in a safespot while the rest of the gang fights and waits for a warp-in on the falcon? Are you saying we need to fit multiples of a single module, just to decrease our CHANCE of being jammed, and when there's not a falcon we're wasting mid-slots? A pilot may fit a sensor booster to help counter an arazu, but if there's not arazu, at least the pilot doesn't have an ''empty midslot''(he's still getting the bonus of faster locking). I don't think there's a 1v1 in the game, barring capital ships, where fitting to counter your opponent won't make you win 90% of the time, so quit using those fail excuses. Actualy the falcon is just one of my targets, other tasks include all cruiser sized support, cyno frigs, haulers, miners, extra damage on stubburn BS, disabling the lock of snipers, reducing the rage of hard hitters, advanced scouting and making warp in points for the rest of the fleet. And yes, you sacrifice the mid for a ECCM. Its a bit of a contradiction to say falcons are overpowered but then also say that fitting counters for them is no good because its a waste of a slot. Either they are powerfull of they are not, it cannot be both.

Myrfrost	Posted - 2008.12.29 21:38:00 - [21] Edited by: Myrfrost on 29/12/2008 21:39:56 Perhaps there should be some modules that better reduce the effect of the Falcon? Maybe, there are in the real world. This was the solution to the warp disrupters ext. If you want you're ship to properly counter the Falcon then CCP needs to add modules that make you trade something else for that advantage. Don't nerf Falcons, make people who want to be immune to them pay for that immunity with slots.
ShadowGod56	Posted - 2008.12.29 22:08:00 - [22] really good idea i like it this way it gives the rook an actual use, and still makes the falcon not useless
Mouji AlMefel	Posted - 2008.12.29 22:14:00 - [23] Doesn't allowing a "cheap" ship shutdown Carriers fly in the face of you're entire argument? Wouldn't this actually make the Falcon more dangerous not less? I understand why so many Gank and Tankers want the Falcon closer. It makes them just a slight distraction rather than a force on the battlefield. But in my opinion it's just a cry to restore the balance to big ships with lots of big guns. It deminishes the game. BTW nice effect to tell us that you're a Falcon pilot. It adds a bit of umph to the discussion. Anyway we don't need Falcons to be able to shut down Carriers. How does that in anyway address this issue? Oh wait it does. It allows Battleships to deal with Falcons they don't like while allowing Falcons they do like to shutdown they're arch enemy in Fleet and large Gang conflicts. It's a win win for Battle Ships and Gang Bangers but no one else. If you really want to make Eve better than these changes will provide more bang for the buck and stop far more rabidly unfair practices. Don't allow anyone to linger at Stargate or space stations unless they are within 25K or greater than 200K away. Thus the days of ruthless gate campers would be over. I'm sure Gate Campers have contributed to far more people leaving EVE or having terrible nights than Falcons being viable combat platforms have. I don't think anyone should be able to come closer than 5K to another persons container. Thus ends the days of Piracy. Holy cow wouldn't these 2 changes make far more people happy than nerfing Falcons and Carriers at the same time would? I was also wondering if the ship you're flying is really a Falcon? I mean you suggested that it was intended as a solo combat machine? I'm thinking maybe you're wanting to nerf the wrong ship? How exactly does a ship that Jams you beyound it's combat range actually kill you solo? Isn't it already possible to rig a ship so it's not as vulnerable to Falcons? Don't Stealth Bombers offer a viable solution? Don't Sniper Ships offer a counter to Falcons? The only things that don't offer a counter to Falcons are the other ships in the family. They should be buffed. Then if you want to reduce the range of a Falcon set a Arazu on it. Range reduced, problem solved. No messy changes or Carrier Nerfs slipped in like Pork in Washington.
Serena Mira'ht	Posted - 2008.12.29 22:15:00 - [24] Alts are customers to
P'uck	Posted - 2008.12.29 22:27:00 - [25] Recons should be more in line with each other. If somebody wants to fly recons, they should be able to do so in the race they trained for, and not have another race that is tons more useful. Ships dont need to be samey, but if you compare races, they should offer comparable usefulnessishness. Otherwise it just looks like ccp wants you to crosstrain so you have to spend more money on subscriptions til you get what you want.
Lilith Velkor Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.	Posted - 2008.12.29 22:29:00 - [26] Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 29/12/2008 22:31:10 People will jump into their rooks (some will fit cloaks as well) and the masses cry about the next long-range ecm boat. Not really a solution I'm afraid. Edit: also with stronger bonus to multispecs you're increasing the small gang vs falcon and the falcon alt problem.
Myrfrost	Posted - 2008.12.29 22:29:00 - [27] Originally by: P'uck Otherwise it just looks like ccp wants you to crosstrain so you have to spend more money on subscriptions til you get what you want. Don't they? They are in this to make money? This is a valid concern but it doesn't mean Falcons should be nerfed. It Could mean the other ships should get buffed.
Elora Danzik Caldari Ward-Tech Industries	Posted - 2008.12.29 22:34:00 - [28] Originally by: Mouji AlMefel Isn't it already possible to rig a ship so it's not as vulnerable to Falcons? Don't Stealth Bombers offer a viable solution? Don't Sniper Ships offer a counter to Falcons? The only things that don't offer a counter to Falcons are the other ships in the family. They should be buffed. Then if you want to reduce the range of a Falcon set a Arazu on it. Range reduced, problem solved. No messy changes or Carrier Nerfs slipped in like Pork in Washington. That's why I suggested in Feature to buff the Arazu by dropping the warp distruptor range and boosting the range of the senor dampners. That could provide a handy counter to the falcon.
P'uck	Posted - 2008.12.29 22:40:00 - [29] Edited by: P''uck on 29/12/2008 22:40:56 Originally by: Myrfrost Originally by: P'uck Otherwise it just looks like ccp wants you to crosstrain so you have to spend more money on subscriptions til you get what you want. Don't they? They are in this to make money? This is a valid concern but it doesn't mean Falcons should be nerfed. It Could mean the other ships should get buffed. Fine by me. (altough the falcon maybe is a tad bit too strong) Also I dont object to ccp making money. I object to them being sleazeballs about it. (remember the initial explanation of why they took ghosttraining away?)
Eternum Praetorian Tupperware Party	Posted - 2008.12.29 22:57:00 - [30] Wow....a genuinely well though out solution from someone who knows something about it? Is this the eve online forums or did I accidentally log on to some other forum by accident?? If ideas and objections were submitted like this more often we might actually get somewhere and fast. It's a great idea man, best I have heard.



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 :: 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.