EVE Search - Force Recon Balancing: Falcons

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)
Morrigu Storm D'tael Contracts	Posted - 2008.12.31 00:05:00 - [91] All EW mods should have the same range on the repective races ships that have bonus's for them. Multispecs should have the same range as racials but keep the same strength as they are now. ie. Damps and tracking disruptors etc should be able to work on targets 200km plus on ships like Pilgrims and Arazus. Obviously I don't count webs and scrams as the same type of EW the range with the recons is allready good as it is.
Aleus Stygian Failed Diplomacy Collidable Objects	Posted - 2008.12.31 00:16:00 - [92] Edited by: Aleus Stygian on 31/12/2008 00:17:13 Originally by: Murina So?..your the one bleating about falcons at 160-200+ pal, and you can also warp in at 100km range to a ship 200km away if you need to land at 100km noob. Ah, yes. Disregarding the slow-down and lock times, it's way often that this happens to be perfectly close enough to scram the Falcon. Now I just have to find a way to keep fighting and not to expose myself while providing a line-up for whatever ship is going to point, and I'm set! Originally by: Murina If its inconvenient for your gang to make them its the same for falcons....and naming/sorting positions of BM's is easy, also the falcon has warp and lock times to consider as well as a uncloaking delay. And obviously a falcon warping away is a useless falcon noob. I suggest you learn how to pvp as most of your pitiful excuses like warp, align and lock times apply to the falcon as well as a opposing gangs ships noob. Tip: The Falcon has a cloak and range to fall back on. This means that it has to create far, far, far fewer bookmarks than those other ships would have to. Another tip: The Falcon is a Caldari Recon, with powerful sensors. This means that by comparison, it has very slow lock times. A third tip: It's an engagement, and the Falcon is a ship, so of course it means that it has to take regards to warp, align, range and lock times. It's just that it has to do it so little in comparison to all other ships, and that this and a lack of close-up usefulness makes it only fit and use ECM, multiplying its effectiveness, which is the problem in the first place. Since your response indicated the failure to understand this, it seems you either do not comprehend the argument, or you are in some form of denial about it. Last tip: Even the slow-witted get over name-calling in middle school. _________________________________________________________
Dred 'Morte New European Regiment R.U.R.	Posted - 2008.12.31 00:33:00 - [93] As much as I hate Falcons like the next guy, I like to fit 2x ECCM - Radar II on my 'geddon. 60 sensor strenght. It does help. Though I'd like ECCM to be more powerful.
Rajere No Trademark Notoriety Alliance	Posted - 2008.12.31 03:52:00 - [94] Wow you guys are bored huh, 4 pages. Thanks for the support for those who gave it. Thanks for 1-2 bits of the constructive criticism from those who disagreed with my solution. I would say thanks for the good arguments from those who are opposed to a falcon nerf, but there was no good arguments there. -------------------------- NOTR nsfw
Trader20	Posted - 2008.12.31 04:42:00 - [95] Edited by: Trader20 on 31/12/2008 04:42:24
Colonel Xaven Decadence. RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.12.31 10:01:00 - [96] Originally by: Morrigu Storm All EW mods should have the same range on the repective races ships that have bonus's for them. Multispecs should have the same range as racials but keep the same strength as they are now. Following your logic all weapon types should have the same ranges (same optimal, same falloff). Missiles, railguns, blasters, lasers, projectile weapons. Proud member of RZR - Decadence.
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2008.12.31 12:05:00 - [97] Originally by: Aleus Stygian Tip: The Falcon has a cloak and range to fall back on. This means that it has to create far, far, far fewer bookmarks than those other ships would have to. Another tip: The Falcon is a Caldari Recon, with powerful sensors. This means that by comparison, it has very quick lock times, and ample lock range. So what?..if its cloaked or warping it cannot jam... Less BM's means less points you need to mark to catch it... So you falcon does not get a locking delay when it uncloaks?.... Originally by: Aleus Stygian All other Force Recons are 100-million isk uninsurable investments with mostly only two or three slots of EWAR, who often find themselves having to warp out even from a small engagement, because they get primaried, being fragile and expensive and capable of doing things to a gang's primary firepower. Why should the Falcon be any different? Because a falcons jams are chance based while the others work perfectly in their available ranges. So another recon can damp or disrupt a target at a closer range in relative safety due to its ewar being unable to fail, while the falcons ewar can and does fail regularly.
Mysteriax Scoopex	Posted - 2008.12.31 12:44:00 - [98] Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 31/12/2008 12:28:17 Because a falcons jams are chance based while the others work perfectly in their available ranges. So another recon can damp or disrupt a target at a closer range in relative safety due to its ewar being unable to fail, while the falcons ewar can and does fail regularly. Ah sure Murina Rapiers are perfectly safe when they trow there webs on at about 38km. Any ship with long range weapons will kill the rapier, it has a paper tank, speed got nerfed etc etc. Unlike a falcon a rapier only reduces DPS of ships with close range weapons, even then most can fit long range ammo and kill the rapier. The rapier cant be insured for much and when a gang sees a rapier it will try to kill it asap since its expensive and cant do anything about it. Ships with an MWD still go fast enough even when double webbed. You cant kill a falcon, most you can do is have them warp off. because before anyone gets into warp disrupt range and can actually lock, the falcon warps off. Oh and please dont mention a rapiers pitiful dps. They can remove all the dps of that ship if they buff the range of webs to 200km. Even then I'd rather fly a falcon because you can only web 2 ships with a rapier and you can jam allot more with a falcon. Plus the fleet snipers in the gang can still lock and kill you in a rapier at 200km, with a falcon you just jam them.
Colonel Xaven Decadence. RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.12.31 13:18:00 - [99] So basically you want every force recon either close range or long range? Every race with the same optimals? Think about it twice. Every ship has a role. The role of a Rapier is to tackle and slow down. But hey, you can fit your Rapier with target painters (yeah, it has bonus for it) and act from a distance. Proud member of RZR - Decadence.
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2008.12.31 13:25:00 - [100] Originally by: Mysteriax Ah sure Murina Rapiers ................. If i want to catch fast ships or go solo ganking do you think i should choose a falcon?.
Miarss Onaplate Freelancing Corp	Posted - 2008.12.31 13:54:00 - [101] From another perspective Looking at all the ECM ships, the bonuses all flow quite well (I have omitted the 'off topic' bonuses) Griffin 15% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength Kitsune 10% bonus to ECM target jammer optimal range 20% bonus to ECM target jammer strength Blackbird 20% bonus to ECM Target Jammer optimal range 15% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength Rook/Falcon 20% bonus to ECM Target Jammer optimal range 20% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength Scorpion 20% bonus to ECM Target Jammer optimal range 15% bonus to ECM Target Jammer strength Widow 20% bonus to ECM target jammer strength BUT Maximum Targeting Range Rook - 150 Km Falcon - 120 Km Blackbird - 75km Why not drop the Maximum Targeting Range to 80-90Km ? Same for all the Force Recons possibly as they do (can) not operate at the extremes. Forced then to use more sensor boosters/sig amps (inc. of stacking penalties) to get longer ranges, but no where near the native range of the Rook. This can happen without 'nerfing' ECM as a whole etc etc, and keeping within the spirit of an ECM specialised ship, by making only one change to one ship (type) Yes, I am a maxed ECM pilot etc etc etc
Colonel Xaven Decadence. RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.12.31 14:11:00 - [102] If you lower the range, you have to boost any tank abilities. Either you have a tank or you have range. Falcon has range. My guess even lowering the targeting range (by 30 or 50 or something) wont stop the whining (because I'm still able to act from 150+ with SB scripts). ECM is ECM (and it won't be changed in it's way of working, CCP stated that) and for the whiners it's not a difference if an ECM ship sits at 100 or 200 km. They are jammed and that's bad. Noone is willing to fit ECCM. Proud member of RZR - Decadence.
General Coochie The Bastards The Bastards.	Posted - 2008.12.31 14:40:00 - [103] Edited by: General Coochie on 31/12/2008 14:40:07 Originally by: Colonel Xaven If you lower the range, you have to boost any tank abilities. Either you have a tank or you have range. Falcon has range. Tell that to the arazu and lachesis? The Vigil and The Caracal (duo PvP movie)
Colonel Xaven Decadence. RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.12.31 14:44:00 - [104] I have no idea about Gallente ships, but that might be the reason why people neither want to fly it nor see them in gang. Proud member of RZR - Decadence.
Christari Zuborov Amarr Ore Mongers	Posted - 2008.12.31 14:47:00 - [105] Originally by: General Coochie Edited by: General Coochie on 31/12/2008 14:40:07 Originally by: Colonel Xaven If you lower the range, you have to boost any tank abilities. Either you have a tank or you have range. Falcon has range. Tell that to the arazu and lachesis? They BROKE them - both ships would be VERY useful vs. a Falcon as their former selves.
Opertone Caldari SIEGE. The Border Patrol	Posted - 2008.12.31 15:02:00 - [106] i do not agree with the ideas, but some thoughts are okay ECCM modules need to be boosted, so they actually do what they should, because they don't do much. FoF missiles need to be finally fixed, they are a good idea gone wrong... let them go after aggressing targets, not drones, not structures, not gang mates, let them fire continuously, let them attack one target at a time, they will have use stop fixing falcons please, i know how devastating they can be, but there is nothing like another falcon/stealth bomber which can jam and scare this falcon off.
Derek Sigres	Posted - 2008.12.31 16:36:00 - [107] Originally by: Opertone i do not agree with the ideas, but some thoughts are okay ECCM modules need to be boosted, so they actually do what they should, because they don't do much. FoF missiles need to be finally fixed, they are a good idea gone wrong... let them go after aggressing targets, not drones, not structures, not gang mates, let them fire continuously, let them attack one target at a time, they will have use stop fixing falcons please, i know how devastating they can be, but there is nothing like another falcon/stealth bomber which can jam and scare this falcon off. ECCM does work as it should - it indisputably increases your sensor strength, reducing your chances of being jammed. The problem is, even with ECCM you will get jammed (even with copious amounts of ECCM you still have a chance of being jammed) - and this for some reason is unacceptable to people. I can sympathize with their lamentations - on many ships sacrificing a mid slot means losing the ability to tackle or tank or do any number of things that is always useful. ECCM is only situationally useful and often you have no real idea if you're doing any good or not. To be honest, unless ECCM was boosted into absurd levels (say 500% or so) it would still be a rarely fitted module. That's why, it makes perfect sense to me that it becomes a function of sensor boosters - at least sensor boosters have an "always useful" quality to them and would provide a one stop module for protection against sensor dampening and ECM. Of course, if we still must have a module that is utterly dedicated towards ECCM duties, why not have it work on an 1 for 1 ratio? Each ECCM module insulates you from one ECM module (eccm protecting against the weakest jammer applied obviously). With such a system ECCM would have two seperate flavors - one type that is designed around being used on an anti-support ship (the true ECCM version) and another type that is designed to give your average fleet bruiser some insulation against the problem. Sacrifices still have to be made by the countering parties but the countermeasures would be undeniably more effective.
Sean Faust Gallente Point of No Return Eradication Alliance	Posted - 2008.12.31 17:08:00 - [108] an opinion idea but overall i think that the big thread currently on features & ideas about changing its falloff bonus to an optimal bonus is better. First off, there is NOTHING WRONG with ECM is a mechanic. In fact I would say it is the only form of EWAR that works as all EWAR should. The falcon itself needs to be brought back to what it was before they bumped its jamming strength up to the Rook, because now there's no reason whatsoever to bring a Rook over a falcon. The Rook USED to be better at jamming and able to do it from further away, but not anymore because the falcon got buffed. There are some arguments people who defend the falcon make that are stupid, however. 1. The falcon is allowed to have its overpowered form of EWAR because it has no tank or damage dealing capabilities -All of the other force recons have tanks just as weak as the falcon (okay, except the pilgrim). The difference is that because their forms of EWAR require them to get within 40km of the enemies to perform their jobs, they need to devote 2 mids to LSEs to get some sort of buffer, which gimps their EWAR capabilities. The falcon has the option of doing this too, it just doesn't need to because it can do its thing from 200km away. Their damage dealing capabilities might be a LITTLE bit better but that is only because they get a damage bonus that is completely totally useless in performing their role, and most people who fly them would gladly trade that for an ability to function as a better pure EWAR platform. 2. You can fit ECCM to counter it. -Wrong. unless you are in a ship that already has a base sensor strength of a battleship or recon or something along those lines, fitting an ECCM module won't make one single bit of difference because one racial jammer from ship with doubled jamming strength bonus will still be able to keep you out of the fight. 3. You should use another falcon to counter a falcon. - I shouldn't even need to explain how ******ed this concept is in a game where you're supposed to diversify your pvp gangs. 4. There are ships you could bring along in your gang to specifically counter falcons, such as sniper BS's. - So when I go on a roam we need to stop in every system along every gate and station so that we can make optimal bookmarks for the slow moving sniper BS's in our gang that have no business going on fast moving roams anyway. And finally (drumroll please) 5. (in response to "falcons kill solo/small gang pvp") Solo/small gang pvp is dead. Get over it. - It's very much alive and it's the most fun kind there is. It's when I have to force myself to rely on people who I don't personally know and consider friends to watch my back in this game that it ceases to be fun and enjoyable. As someone said in another post, all MMOs were designed to cater to 3 aspects of human psychology: 1. The desire to be challenged and to overcome that challenge in a test of skill 2. The desire to be cruel to other people 3. The desire to accumulate wealth and assets EVE caters to 2 and to 3 but not to 1, which is evidenced by the existence of ships such as the falcon. But, despite all of this, I stand by the fact that falcons ARE NOT overpowered, and that all other recons should be given the capability to do their thing from that far out as well. An arazu, curse, rapier, huginn, etc wouldn't have to waste valuable EWAR slots on a crappy shield buffer if their crappy range didn't require them to be in the thick of the fight to do their thing.
Bart Starr	Posted - 2008.12.31 18:42:00 - [109] 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.
Hugh Ruka Exploratio et Industria Morispatia	Posted - 2008.12.31 19:03:00 - [110] Originally by: Calvin Roh my cheap 2 cents is that nothing needs changing for the falcon. The falcon is filling a purpose, and that is to break the one-dimesional stagnation that combat was becoming - that is to say, pvp was almost exclusively about close range combat and highly specialized fittings that supported this style (leaving many a ship and mod as completely un-necessary). This specialized fitting/style i talk about is that of close range speed and/or close range max-dps with max-buffer to try and out last the opponents. The Falcon is forcing everyone to start thinking outside of the 50km bubble in a serious way and forcing more variation to combat. I think this is a good thing, because despite the multitude of combat options available for play, there are really only a few in use TO ANY GREATER EXTENT. Along comes a ship that forces slots to be allocated to other things than max dps or buffer, and forces some of the fleet to be prepared for range combat and all of a sudden the battle field takes on a different look and feel. Once ranged combat is part of the norm, and once there is more to a fleet than tackle or buff-tank, then the Falcon as the "uber" weapon starts to come apart very quickly and becomes the paper tiger that it really is. As was always the case in RL and EVE, most battles are won or lost before the first shot is fired, if your on the loosing side then its clear that you did not come adequately prepared - no matter how much you flame about it in the forums. Cheers. here have a cookie for a very good summary ... I can only agree ... anyway I trained recon 5 for falcons when they still had only 10%/level to ECM strength. I was calling for a buff to 15% and stating that 20% would be too much ... Devs obviously do not listen to their players ... --- SIG --- CSM: your support is needed !
Coriander Rinne Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2009.01.01 00:20:00 - [111] I like how people dismiss fitting a counter to something as impractical. Virtually everything you fit exists to counter something else, and the playerbase's inability to adapt, while fascinating, does not warrant a change of game mechanics or balancing. Quit simplifying the game, and freakin' adapt to the current fotm tactics. You people talk as if ships already come with modules glued to them. Ships have slot layouts and the ability to fit modules for a reason. Make use of them (and your heads), and quit whining. Would hate to see the game dumbed down because you guys don't like being on the receiving end of EW. Coddling people that can't succeed at the game is more the realm of WoW. I agree with what was said earlier in the thread: "adapt or die".
Aleus Stygian Failed Diplomacy Collidable Objects	Posted - 2009.01.02 02:00:00 - [112] Originally by: Murina So what?..if its cloaked or warping it cannot jam... You have not read what I have said, evidently. As long as chasing the Falcon can only drive it off the field, and mostly forces you to divert yourself and thus expose weaknesses in your formation or to simply waste time chasing around with the (always more or less expensive powerful) multiple ships required to scare the Falcon off which could have been devoted toward more useful tasks, you will always be the loser. Combat in EvE is about money, and in the end the expenses are the deciding factor as to whether if you win the battle or not. Originally by: Murina Originally by: Aleus Stygian All other Force Recons are 100-million isk uninsurable investments with mostly only two or three slots of EWAR, who often find themselves having to warp out even from a small engagement, because they get primaried, being fragile and expensive and capable of doing things to a gang's primary firepower. Why should the Falcon be any different? Because a falcons jams are chance based while the others work perfectly in their available ranges. So another recon can damp or disrupt a target at a closer range in relative safety due to its ewar being unable to fail, while the falcons ewar can and does fail regularly. Hardly. The element of chance is there to keep ECM from replicating sensor dampeners in function and from being overpowered. There's no other reason. All the other types of EWAR have effective counters, many of which do not even require any special fittings or the mounting or omission of modules. And then there's the fact that you forget to account for the presence of multiple ships, so that if there are none that are safe from the EWAR directed at them then there are, in a majority of the cases, sufficiently many for the Recon in question to be able to go about its business without retaliation. Originally by: Murina What is noticeable in yours and the others ranting is a severe lack of aggression and initiative in the combat you describe, the anti-falcon posters scenarios are always about hugging a stations and under attack and all your scenarios are defensive/reactive instead of aggressive/proactive, and you should know that in all combat giving the initiative to your opposition always puts you at a disadvantage. You yourself point out that you hate station hugging and preferred to be elsewhere and actively hunting and taking the initiative instead of being a static lump waiting to react to others actions. Its not the falcons that were broken it was your corps/alliances insistence on sitting in a lump of ships near a docking port/gate and letting the opposition dictate the terms and the ranges of the engagement, thus giving the falcon a perfect canvas to do their work. Again with the presumptions. Here was the thing; this mostly took place in high-sec, and we were highly outnumbered. They had the advantage of initiative simply as a result of overwhelming numbers. There really was little alternative, presuming that we wanted to be able to get a fleet actually moving around. That they chose to Falcon things up was only a worsening of this. Not that this is really relevant, when you put it into perspective and observe how all other single ships are possible to counter using only one ship on the opposing side, presuming it is the right ship. This applies to all ships but the Falcon... _________________________________________________________
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.01.02 12:14:00 - [113] Originally by: Aleus Stygian You have not read what I have said, evidently. As long as chasing the Falcon can only drive it off the field, and mostly forces you to divert yourself and thus expose weaknesses in your formation or to simply waste time chasing around with the (always more or less expensive powerful) multiple ships required to scare the Falcon off which could have been devoted toward more useful tasks, you will always be the loser. Combat in EvE is about money, and in the end the expenses are the deciding factor as to whether if you win the battle or not. You can apply that logic to any fight as some ships will always be called primary and you will need to assign ships to kill it, what you gonna do nerf sniper fits cos they can be aligned and warp if summat comes close??????. Originally by: Aleus Stygian The element of chance is there to keep ECM from replicating sensor dampeners in function and from being overpowered. There's no other reason. Originally by: Aleus Stygian If jammers worked like damps and 100% jammed everything within their effective range then i would agree that they need a rather hefty range reduction but they do not. Originally by: Aleus Stygian They had the advantage of initiative simply as a result of overwhelming numbers. Their you go again talking rubbish and showing your pvp inexperience, if your fighting greater numbers your main and best advantage is mobility plain and simple, hit and run tactics are perfectly designed for those situations. I know good pvp corps who would have envied your position and actually roam eve looking for those kind of situations.
FoulBeast Gallente Malum Crusis Malcula Templum	Posted - 2009.01.02 12:39:00 - [114] The falcon is a awesome and horrible ship But it should be nerf'd I think but to more being able to be a solo recon like all the other recons, eg; pilgrim, rapier (not so much anymore with the speed nerf) or the arazu. atm it's a very gang based ship, maybe while nerfing the range so it's closer by a tad also give it more PG and CPU including maybe another mid if needed and a missle or hybrid turret bounus in replace of strenth? Just an Idea flame away
Colonel Xaven Decadence. RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2009.01.02 13:50:00 - [115] Originally by: FoulBeast The falcon is a awesome and horrible ship But it should be nerf'd I think but to more being able to be a solo recon like all the other recons, eg; pilgrim, rapier (not so much anymore with the speed nerf) or the arazu. atm it's a very gang based ship, maybe while nerfing the range so it's closer by a tad also give it more PG and CPU including maybe another mid if needed and a missle or hybrid turret bounus in replace of strenth? Just an Idea flame away CCP won't re-balance a ship to be useful for solo pvp aswell as they won't design a designated solo-ship. Proud member of RZR - Decadence.
Zaruda Minmatar Tribal Liberation Force	Posted - 2009.01.02 17:11:00 - [116] Short of thinking the whole ewar concept was poorly planned from the start (see the thread http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=962386 ) , it becomes hard to restore the balance of a ship that is technically doing what it is designed to do. However, making it have the same bonuses as the Rook was totally uncalled for and anyone not seeing it completely replacing the Rook must have been completely blind. My former main was an ewar specialist and I often did large skirmish or fleet engagements from a Falcon. I could direct people from a distance and do my own scouting so I could better coordinate strikes while throwing in a jam cycle where needed. And this was even before it was made to be the same as a Rook. However, I still feel it is way too strong. I also find it unlikely introduce a new module specifically for a non-capital ship that only affects drones. Note that the OP's original proposal would also heavily affect a carrier's fighters too. In a designer's role using what is available on hand by just tweaking some numbers and existing modules, I would look at reducing the jamming strength bonus to 15% - 17.5% per level and perhaps only going with 10% - 15% per level for range. Then leave the Rook the way it is. But at the same time, I'd go one step further. Since it is unlikely to do a complete overhaul which would turn the Eve universe on its ear and cause much whinage, I'd slightly buff some of the other ewar ships since they are sorely lagging behind the Caldari. Increase sensor dampener effectiveness to 6 or 7%. Note I'm not sold on the whole multiple of 5s rule anymore. I'd also increase the range of sensor dampeners themselves by anywhere between 50% to 100% but not as a ship bonus. Tracking Disruptors should get a similiar range bonus and should include a missile rate of fire increase so they are not useless against the very common missile ships of the caldari. Although the name of the module would likely have to be changed to weapon disruptors or something similiar.
Wannabehero Absolutely No Retreat	Posted - 2009.01.02 17:41:00 - [117] The most reasonable options I have read so far anywhere have been: Reduce the jamming strength bonus to 15% per level Reduce the base targeting range of the hull to 75km. -- Don't harsh my mellow
Cade Morrigan Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.02 17:56:00 - [118] Originally by: Zaruda Tracking Disruptors should get a similiar range bonus and should include a missile rate of fire increase so they are not useless against the very common missile ships of the caldari. Dude, come on, missiles can now be speed tanked by a target driving STRAIGHT AT (or away from) their source, unlike turrets. Give the missile nerfs a rest already; they have plenty of disadvantages. Do you honestly think improving tracking disruptors on ewar boats would cause everyone to switch from guns to missiles for the uberness of not being disruptable? Let missile ships keep some dps ffs.
Cade Morrigan Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.02 18:07:00 - [119] Originally by: Miarss Onaplate Why not drop the Maximum Targeting Range to 80-90Km ? Same for all the Force Recons possibly as they do (can) not operate at the extremes. Forced then to use more sensor boosters/sig amps (inc. of stacking penalties) to get longer ranges,... Seems reasonable... naysayers, why wouldn't this work?
EgoMan	Posted - 2009.01.02 18:11:00 - [120] theres nothing wrong with it the way it is, quit crying. These threads just ruin the game.

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.