Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Neutrino Sunset
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse The ENTITY.
|
Posted - 2009.01.06 16:35:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Colonel Xaven ECCM scripts: You need 2 parameters being affected. For SB it's range and scan resolution which you can tweak with range / scan scripts. ECCM modules only have 1 parameter - the improvement of sensor strength. So which one should be decreased if sensor strength is increased?
Just make ECCM a script for sensor boosters. so now you have three sensor booster scripts.
1. Increases sig res. 2. Increases lock range. 3. Increases sensor strength.
The script that increases sensor strength could possibly reduce sig res, so you will still be able to lock, but it will just take a little longer.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.06 16:43:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Neutrino Sunset
Originally by: Colonel Xaven ECCM scripts: You need 2 parameters being affected. For SB it's range and scan resolution which you can tweak with range / scan scripts. ECCM modules only have 1 parameter - the improvement of sensor strength. So which one should be decreased if sensor strength is increased?
Just make ECCM a script for sensor boosters. so now you have three sensor booster scripts.
1. Increases sig res. 2. Increases lock range. 3. Increases sensor strength.
The script that increases sensor strength could possibly reduce sig res, so you will still be able to lock, but it will just take a little longer.
Nice simple and elegant idea dude.
This is quite possibly the most reasonable and productive idea i have seen in all the many whine threads.....
Are you lost?.
|
GateScout
|
Posted - 2009.01.06 17:10:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Xiozor I propose the Falcon is brought in line with these, left its strength bounus, but stripped of its range and capacitor bounus, given a damage bounus, and perhaps a new type of EWar to compensate.
So it becomes a cruiser sized kitsune...but slower and less agile.
Another "nerf the falcon so I don't have to change my fitting" whine.
You don't want balance. You don't want to have to do anything different to counter a falcon.
|
GateScout
|
Posted - 2009.01.06 17:11:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Neutrino Sunset Just make ECCM a script for sensor boosters. so now you have three sensor booster scripts.
I like this idea, a lot!
|
dojocan81
|
Posted - 2009.01.06 17:21:00 -
[65]
ECCM: Activation time /duration 1.00 sec
Can not activated after 45.00 sec after the last activation
Can Not Auto Repeat 1
Description: Interrupts ECM effects
simple eccm fix ...
|
Neesa Corrinne
Ore Mongers
|
Posted - 2009.01.06 17:31:00 -
[66]
ECCM is completely useless.
I took two mid slots and put two 96% ECCM on my Myrmidon. This raises my signal strength to 64% or 84% if I overheat the modules.
I was solo roaming in 0.0, I attacked a zealot, his buddy uncloaks in a Falcon. Perma Jammed. Even overheating for the 84% didn't help.
If you have 84% resists and can still get perma jammed for two minutes, then either the Falcon is way too OP or ECCM needs to be buffed. ---------------------------------
|
Deus Letus
Chooch Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.01.06 17:35:00 -
[67]
First it's Nerf the Nano, now it is Nerf the Falcon what is next Nerf the Titan cause the doomsday isnt fair.
Really where were all these Falcons when the nanos were running rampid. They would have been pretty damn effective against them had anyone put the thought into it to use them.
So lets say they nerf the Falcon what is going to be the new unbalanced ship that everyone would want to nerf next? Personaly I am tired of nerfs, the game mechanics are what they are we either learn to adapt and change with them or we get owned.
I understand that a group of Falcon's are tough but not impossible, there are fof missles, drones set to agressive, all will attack enemies without needing a lock. The Falcon at over 100km from you is not dealing damage. Also if what I beleive to be correct is, a Falcon's jamming loses stregnth the farther away it is from you. Thus making it easier to counter.
I don't fly a Falcon but let it be. Lets have a thread on how to best counter the Falcon where everyone can tell what they have done or are doing.
|
Zhula Guixgrixks
Increasing Success by Lowering Expectations Vanguard.
|
Posted - 2009.01.06 17:39:00 -
[68]
THIS: "ECCM isn't meant to be able to make a single ship immune to a whole Falcon/Rook; it's meant to make a Falcon/Rook have to dedicate all it's jammers onto a single ship."
No hardener rack (even deadspace) provides 100% immunity from REAL dmg. Why ECCM should work this way ?
"I have repeatedly suggested that ECCM should be a sensor booster script. By your own account (and mine), sensor boosters are useful."
Intriguing idea Malcanis. I wouldn't give ECCM scripts full strength of a dedicated ECCM module, but 40-50% (similar to low-slot modules). It would provide average ECM security combined with sensor booster potential.
|
GateScout
|
Posted - 2009.01.06 17:55:00 -
[69]
Edited by: GateScout on 06/01/2009 17:58:17
Originally by: Neesa Corrinne
I took two mid slots and put two 96% ECCM on my Myrmidon. This raises my signal strength to 64% or 84% if I overheat the modules.
lol. You have no idea what you're talking about.
1. Figure out what sensor strength means. 2. Try to understand what ECCM does. 3. Calculate the odds of "perma-jamming" a myrm with 2x ECCM rigs with a typical falcon fitting (assume a perfect skilled pilot) and let's call "perma-jamming" 6 cycles (two minutes...from your definition).
...then get back to us.
edit: changed to 'perma-jamming definition to 6 cycles (two minutes to match Nessa's comment).
|
Zhula Guixgrixks
Increasing Success by Lowering Expectations Vanguard.
|
Posted - 2009.01.06 17:57:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Neesa Corrinne ECCM is completely useless.
I took two mid slots and put two 96% ECCM on my Myrmidon. This raises my signal strength to 64% or 84% if I overheat the modules.
I was solo roaming in 0.0, I attacked a zealot, his buddy uncloaks in a Falcon. Perma Jammed. Even overheating for the 84% didn't help.
If you have 84% resists and can still get perma jammed for two minutes, then either the Falcon is way too OP or ECCM needs to be buffed.
The nerf-falcon "balancing-expert" crew shows a high degree of cluelessness posting such "proofs".
|
|
Spaztick
Canadian Imperial Armaments Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2009.01.06 17:59:00 -
[71]
Edited by: Spaztick on 06/01/2009 18:01:18
Originally by: Deus Letus First it's Nerf the Nano, now it is Nerf the Falcon what is next Nerf the Titan cause the doomsday isnt fair.
Really where were all these Falcons when the nanos were running rampid. They would have been pretty damn effective against them had anyone put the thought into it to use them.
So lets say they nerf the Falcon what is going to be the new unbalanced ship that everyone would want to nerf next? Personaly I am tired of nerfs, the game mechanics are what they are we either learn to adapt and change with them or we get owned.
I understand that a group of Falcon's are tough but not impossible, there are fof missles, drones set to agressive, all will attack enemies without needing a lock. The Falcon at over 100km from you is not dealing damage. Also if what I beleive to be correct is, a Falcon's jamming loses stregnth the farther away it is from you. Thus making it easier to counter.
I don't fly a Falcon but let it be. Lets have a thread on how to best counter the Falcon where everyone can tell what they have done or are doing.
I see someone has never flown or flown against a falcon. A falcon's effective range when rigged and fit with 3 SBAs are well over 200km+ on racials and 120km on multispecs. If you throw in an Eos (rare but it happens) that extends to 270km for racials - well over maximum lock range - and 150km+ on multispecs. I don't care if you're in an interceptor, you're not going to catch that falcon before he cloaks or warps off unless the pilot is absolutely ******ed, and while I'm all for winning by exploiting a pilot's weakness, I'm not for winning by relying on his stupidity.
My rapier's TPs have a 45km optimal and 90km falloff, which is good but I promise you people would be crying nerf if my webs could be used from 150km. For the record, domination webs with a mindlinked claymore can get to 83km without overheating, 108km with, but this is expensive to do and only effects 1 ship, 2 at the most. I consider it unfair to use EFT in a falcon argument, but with my skills (no ECM at all, can't fly a falcon) I could hop into a falcon and hit with racials further than most ships' engagement range. If someone gets within 50km of me, I'll just warp to another point on grid and do it all over again.
Rant over.
Edit: Oh, you wanted the best way to counter nano ships falcons? The best way is more nano ships falcons. ...but on a serious note, more people should have some type of spacer in their sigs to show it's not part of the post.
|
GateScout
|
Posted - 2009.01.06 18:10:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Spaztick My rapier's TPs have a 45km optimal and 90km falloff, which is good but I promise you people would be crying nerf if my webs could be used from 150km. For the record, domination webs with a mindlinked claymore can get to 83km without overheating, 108km with, but this is expensive to do and only effects 1 ship, 2 at the most. I consider it unfair to use EFT in a falcon argument, but with my skills (no ECM at all, can't fly a falcon) I could hop into a falcon and hit with racials further than most ships' engagement range. If someone gets within 50km of me, I'll just warp to another point on grid and do it all over again.
Rant over.
Fine. Shorten the range, remove the racial aspect and make ECM mods effective 100% of the time?
While you're at it, make the falcon as agile and fast as the other recons and allow the low slots to be used for things like nanos rather than boosting sensor strength.
Sound good? I'm all for it.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.06 18:12:00 -
[73]
Originally by: GateScout changed to 'perma-jamming definition to 6 cycles (two minutes to match Nessa's comment).
Actually lets call "pera-jamming" being perma-jammed as in no chance of breaking the jam cycles.
Although having spots around the gate and warping to them breaks the lock and as such ends the "perma-jam" until you are relocked again and in a lot of casses the falcon re-acquires a new target by then....
|
Neesa Corrinne
Ore Mongers
|
Posted - 2009.01.06 18:16:00 -
[74]
Originally by: GateScout Edited by: GateScout on 06/01/2009 17:58:17
Originally by: Neesa Corrinne
I took two mid slots and put two 96% ECCM on my Myrmidon. This raises my signal strength to 64% or 84% if I overheat the modules.
lol. You have no idea what you're talking about.
1. Figure out what sensor strength means. 2. Try to understand what ECCM does. 3. Calculate the odds of "perma-jamming" a myrm with 2x ECCM rigs with a typical falcon fitting (assume a perfect skilled pilot) and let's call "perma-jamming" 6 cycles (two minutes...from your definition).
...then get back to us.
edit: changed to 'perma-jamming definition to 6 cycles (two minutes to match Nessa's comment).
Baiting someone into proving why Falcons are overpowered proved a bit too easy for me. Thanks for the help! ---------------------------------
|
GateScout
|
Posted - 2009.01.06 18:16:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Murina Actually lets call "pera-jamming" being perma-jammed as in no chance of breaking the jam cycles.
If you do that, the chance of it happening is essentially 0. As you increase the time, the probability of "perma-jamming" a ship (assuming the ship has a sensor strength greater than the ECM module) approaches zero.
|
GateScout
|
Posted - 2009.01.06 18:19:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Neesa Corrinne Baiting someone into proving why Falcons are overpowered proved a bit too easy for me. Thanks for the help!
I'm not baiting anyone. I'm only pointing out you don't have the first clue what you're talking about, Mr. 68% Sensor Strength.
|
Lt Angus
Caldari End Game.
|
Posted - 2009.01.06 18:19:00 -
[77]
Find eccm very usefull, my rr gang fitted a few and probably what won the fight for us, sure it doesnt stop focus fire ecm on 1 target but frees up the rest of the gang to take out the threat, yea its no good solo in a 2-1 but what is?
Shhhh, Im hunting Badgers |
Letifer Deus
A Astroid Belt Lotto Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.01.06 18:21:00 -
[78]
Edited by: Letifer Deus on 06/01/2009 18:26:12
Originally by: Bronson Hughes
This currently is the reason why Falcons are generally superior to the other Recon ships. Caldari only have one type of racial-flavored EWar so their recon ships can specialize in it but every other race has two so they split their bonuses up.
Simply change the largely useless dmg/rof bonuses on the other force recons to +20% td/damp/tp range bonuses (opti for TD, falloff for SDs and TPs) and they would be greatly improved at this role. Arazu probably needs it's damp effectiveness bonus upped to 7.5% per lvl as well, especially if damps themselves aren't fixed (which they need to be).
On top of this I also believe eccm is lacking. It needs a significant boost in its sig str increase (say, 25%) and I would also like to see a skill implemented that increases the sig str bonus of eccm by 5% per lvl meaning at lvl 4 skill your eccm would be ~50% better than it is now. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Brought to you by the letter ARRR!" |
GateScout
|
Posted - 2009.01.06 18:36:00 -
[79]
Edited by: GateScout on 06/01/2009 18:37:16
Originally by: Letifer Deus I also believe eccm is lacking. It needs a significant boost in its sig str increase (say, 25%).
Ahhhhh...? ECCMs give between a 96% and 98% bonus. You want to decrease it? ...or you want it to go to something like 125%? Sounds like a good idea. It won't change the issue though...
Originally by: Letifer Deus and I would also like to see a skill implemented that increases the sig str bonus of eccm by 5% per lvl meaning at lvl 4 skill your eccm would be ~50% better than it is now.
I like this idea. Although even if you made ECCM perfect against ECM (on subcapitals, at least) few people would fit it....minus the RR gangs and such... It's not about finding a counter to falcons...it's about countering falcons without gimping the current fit of any ship....or so it seems.
|
Zhula Guixgrixks
Increasing Success by Lowering Expectations Vanguard.
|
Posted - 2009.01.06 18:38:00 -
[80]
Originally by: Spaztick 200km+ on racials and 120km on multispecs. If you throw in an Eos (rare but it happens) that extends to 270km for racials - well over maximum lock range - and 150km+ on multispecs. .. My rapier's .... 45km optimal and 90km falloff....
200km argument: good one if you choose to fight on terms of your enemy (bookmarks). He is prepared, you are not.
stupidity argument: true for both sides.
"My Rapier" aka. comparing different recons : recons are not equal, thats a good thing. And best of all, recons are not even similar. Variability 4tw! Comparing apples and oranges leads to nothing. But if you insist, let's take a sample: you can counter ECM. It works very good for BC+ size ships (high basic sensor strength, plenty of med/low slots). Than again look at your Rapiers EW capability: Web+TP. Both uncountable for all ship sizes. I hope this little example shows how difficult such one dimensional compartments really are.
|
|
Trader20
|
Posted - 2009.01.06 18:39:00 -
[81]
Range=tank. Falcon has worst dps and tank of recon ships. Stop complaining and learn2play.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.06 18:45:00 -
[82]
Originally by: GateScout
Originally by: Murina Actually lets call "pera-jamming" being perma-jammed as in no chance of breaking the jam cycles.
If you do that, the chance of it happening is essentially 0. As you increase the time, the probability of "perma-jamming" a ship (assuming the ship has a sensor strength greater than the ECM module) approaches zero.
Actually the chance of it happening is 100% against ships with lower str than the str of the jammers, and the same jammer against a ship with higher str has a exact and measurable % chance.
|
Max Hardcase
Art of War Exalted.
|
Posted - 2009.01.06 18:46:00 -
[83]
I don't care one iota about the 6/6 cycle odds, 5/6 or 4/6 is bad enough. Lock time kills the cycle yer not jammed anyway.
|
Tuncan
Minmatar Arbitrary Freedom
|
Posted - 2009.01.06 19:17:00 -
[84]
I think the real problem is being not able to lock back again instantaneously, so you can be permajammed.
With ECCM modules, lock back time should decline.
+
If your ecm is successful,the next ecm should suffer a stacking penalty, reducing its effectiveness.
OR
Change all other 3 races recon ships. Make all ewars chance based but %100 affective. For example a rapier should stop anything ( i mean "0" km/s) An Arazu should scram from 100km with infinite points A pilgrim should instantaneously drain anythings cap to 0 from 100km.
All %100 affective and chance based. sounds fair?
|
GateScout
|
Posted - 2009.01.06 19:21:00 -
[85]
Edited by: GateScout on 06/01/2009 19:22:12
Originally by: Murina Actually the chance of it happening is 100% against ships with lower str than the str of the jammers,
Hence my use of the following conditional statement: "assuming the ship has a sensor strength greater than the ECM module."
Originally by: Murina and the same jammer against a ship with higher str has a exact and measurable % chance.
Of course, and the chance for "perma-jamming" (i.e. continuous, uninterrupted jam) approaches zero as the number of cycles (i.e. time) increases.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.06 19:28:00 -
[86]
Edited by: Murina on 06/01/2009 19:29:36
Originally by: GateScout
Originally by: Murina and the same jammer against a ship with higher str has a exact and measurable % chance.
Of course, and the chance for "perma-jamming" (i.e. continuous, uninterrupted jam) approaches zero as the number of cycles (i.e. time) increases.
The chance of perma jamming is exactly the same as perma-failing to jam as soon as the str of the target ship is double the str of the jammers and jammers max out at just over 14.
As such trying to jam a ship with a str of 28 has the exact same chance to perma-fail as it does to perma jam no matter how many cycles you consider "perma" to be (Giving the word "perma" a limited number is a total contradiction btw).
|
GateScout
|
Posted - 2009.01.06 19:34:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Murina
As such trying to jam a ship with a str of 28 has the exact same chance to perma-fail as it does to perma jam no matter how many cycles you consider "perma" to be (Giving the word "perma" a limited number is a total contradiction btw).
No. This is totally incorrect.
The chance is the same each CYCLE. It is not the same over multiple cycles. The chance of jamming a ship for 1 cycle is NOT the same as jamming a ship in 2 or more consecutive cycles.
Again....
The chance each CYCLE is the same. The chance for consecutive cycles is not. Basic probability.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.06 19:41:00 -
[88]
Edited by: Murina on 06/01/2009 19:44:47
Originally by: GateScout
Originally by: Murina
As such trying to jam a ship with a str of 28 has the exact same chance to perma-fail as it does to perma jam no matter how many cycles you consider "perma" to be (Giving the word "perma" a limited number is a total contradiction btw).
No. This is totally incorrect.
The chance is the same each CYCLE. It is not the same over multiple cycles. The chance of jamming a ship for 1 cycle is NOT the same as jamming a ship in 2 or more consecutive cycles.
Again....
The chance each CYCLE is the same. The chance for consecutive cycles is not. Basic probability.
14 jam str vs 28 sig str gives the target ship the exact same chance to be consecutively jammed or consecutively missed, its basic math.
|
GateScout
|
Posted - 2009.01.06 19:47:00 -
[89]
Originally by: Murina the fact is that with a falcon with 14 jam str a target ship with 28 str has the exact same chance per cycle to be jammed or not and as such has the exact same chance to be perma-jammed or perma-failed.
No. You are incorrect. Do you really think it's as easy to jam a ship once as it is to jam a ship 1000 times in a row? Let me put it another way....If you flip a balanced coin once, you have a 50% chance of it landing heads. If you continue flipping it, what's the chance it lands heads 10 time in a row? Hint: it's not 50%.
That is what you're stating...and you are 100% wrong.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.01.06 19:50:00 -
[90]
Edited by: Murina on 06/01/2009 19:52:59
Originally by: GateScout
Originally by: Murina the fact is that with a falcon with 14 jam str a target ship with 28 str has the exact same chance per cycle to be jammed or not and as such has the exact same chance to be perma-jammed or perma-failed.
No. You are incorrect. Do you really think it's as easy to jam a ship once as it is to jam a ship 1000 times in a row? Let me put it another way....If you flip a balanced coin once, you have a 50% chance of it landing heads. If you continue flipping it, what's the chance it lands heads 10 time in a row? Hint: it's not 50%.
That is what you're stating...and you are 100% wrong.
You do not understand what i am saying...... the percentages are irrelevant as with a 14 vs 28 scenario they are equal for and against NO MATTER THE EXACT NUMBERS OR PERCENTAGES THEY WILL ALWAYS BE EQUAL FOR OR AGAINST AS THE STR OF THE JAM AND SIG STR OF THE TARGET SHIP ARE CONSTANT.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |