EVE Search - Falcon, the anti-fun of eve

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Falcon, the anti-fun of eve

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Gneeznow Minmatar Cruoris Seraphim	Posted - 2009.01.13 06:03:00 - [1] out of the last 10 engagements I've had where I've been solo, in 8 of them I've faced falcons, which means either 1) disengage if you can 2) get ganked its getting pretty tedious at this stage, the most common ship I see while roaming is a falcon, everyone has one, and everyone uses them even when its not necessary, here is some good examples wandering about in a brutix, seen a deimos and ishtar in a belt, couldnt find a fight after 2 hours of roaming so went for it anyway even tho it looked like a trap, land in the belt, burn for the deimos, ishtar warps in, falcon uncloaks -> permajammed -> die docked at a station in low sec in a proph, an onyx is outside scrambling anything that undocks, it can tank the sentries with ease, as soon as aggro is got, falcon uncloakes 170 off -> jammed for 8 cycles in a row -> redock jumped into a low sec system in a proph, mega and phobos on the gate, both aggro and chase me, it takes 5 minutes of very careful piloting to seperate them, and slowly wear down the mega's HP tank, it was a very very tricky situation trying to keep distance and --> falcon uncloaks --> jammed --> all warp off now you see what I'm getting at, it is the anti-fun of eve, I would like to think I might have gotten a nice fight from the deimos and ishtar in my brutix, if I die so be it I just wanted a good scrap, falcon turned it into a gank, in the second situation, an impervious-from-sentries falcon can sit at an untouchable range and pretty much perma-jam me, and in the third situation, a deserved kill which needed skillful piloting was taken away because of trainer-wheels falcon alt Falcons make pvp almost risk free in small gang / solo situations, the new agility buff makes escaping easier, the reduced power of webs make escaping easier, while I dare not say eve is dying, it certainly seems to be becoming a lot less fun for the aggressive pvp'er(s), constantly made impotent by falcons /end ragepost
Antraxor	Posted - 2009.01.13 06:11:00 - [2] Problem is everyone who wants to solo PvP plays them. Falcon needs to be less viable, and other solo ships more viable. T3 customization may change this...
kessah The Accursed	Posted - 2009.01.13 06:21:00 - [3] Edited by: kessah on 13/01/2009 06:25:07 Ive tried to not use a falcon, my best attempts have been active tanking and dropping cap charges mid fight to my main. Its not a solution to being jammed and because your solo ECCM just isnt really an option since ur mid slots are so packed out. So theres the anti falcon, falcon fit... then even that would get abused. Its really hard to play this game solo while there so abundant in combat. Your stuck to stations and gates hoping that if theres one you can tank long enough to escape, thats the only solution to them i see as a pilot that tries not using one in a jam... bad joke... v bad joke I always felt that 20 seconds was rediculously long to be jammed for, be nice if they worked like ecm bursts and just forced you to relock again, that way more ecm / dampeners combinations would be used. Instead its just falcons, all the time. Wouldnt mind there range so much then...
RayBanJockey	Posted - 2009.01.13 06:36:00 - [4] You can bicker about honour and having good wholesome pvp fights and how falcons ruin it, but the truth is people in the end only care about their own skin and will pick the absolutely best and safest tool for surviving. If they nerf falcons (tm) people just start using what ever comes next in the flavour list. Really 100% of eve population should start flying them, would be no more whining. At elast I know I'm going to.
Uhr Zylex Ginnungagaps Rymdfarargille Blade.	Posted - 2009.01.13 06:39:00 - [5] OP is right, they are the f***ing anti-fun.
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2009.01.13 07:03:00 - [6] Meh. I've been saying this forever, and always get flamed for it. But I've given up complaining. Right now I'm busy training up my THIRD Falcon alt. You can never have too many Falcons. Hopefully CCP will nerf them into the F#CKING GROUND, but until then, it's Falcon city.
Kirtan Loor Divine Retribution Sons of Tangra	Posted - 2009.01.13 07:08:00 - [7] In all these cases the outcome would be more or less the same if the "other" ship was any other ship. You are trying to engage what seems to be 1 maybe 2 people. Any other ship that uncloaks while you engage them is not in your calculations and will tip the balance in the opponents favor. But I can understand what frustates you. You would be happy to die if the "surprise" ship was another combat ship and you died while fighting back. Right now you feel like being "executed" by your opponents while your hands are tied. Anyway It's been a while since we had a falcon rage thread. I thought people have given up on nerfing them.
Siigari Kitawa Gallente The Aduro Protocol	Posted - 2009.01.13 07:15:00 - [8] Just went up against a decent sized fleet in a Kronos, Ferox and Catalyst. The targets had a Rapier, Ishtar, Devoter, Broadsword, Curse and THREE FALCONS. With the tank both me and my corpmate had we could have probably chewed away at them, removing any real threat of DPS. It took them over 2 minutes to break the shields on the Ferox, during which time we could be smoking their fleet entirely. Unfortunately, with 3 Falcons... bleh, I don't even feel like I need to say anymore.
Napro Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.13 07:34:00 - [9] Just remove Caldari from the game entirely
Shevar Minmatar A.W.M Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2009.01.13 07:40:00 - [10] Originally by: Kirtan Loor In all these cases the outcome would be more or less the same if the "other" ship was any other ship. You are trying to engage what seems to be 1 maybe 2 people. Any other ship that uncloaks while you engage them is not in your calculations and will tip the balance in the opponents favor. But I can understand what frustates you. You would be happy to die if the "surprise" ship was another combat ship and you died while fighting back. Right now you feel like being "executed" by your opponents while your hands are tied. Anyway It's been a while since we had a falcon rage thread. I thought people have given up on nerfing them. Yes a pure tank and gank game would be sooo much more fun.

Algey The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.01.13 08:01:00 - [11] So when a decent pvp group have 17 falcons fielded against them they kill 12 of them, why is this... Oh yes, it's a multiplayer game. Falcons aren't game breaking, but this is yet another whine thread by people who want to fit for close range maximum gank with no ECCM, and beat superior numbers. I agree that there are too many falcons, but that is because gangs do not fit for range so the falcon alts can uncloak, set jams and be ignored. Try that against a gang that can shoot a decent range, and the falcon alts get farmed.
PsychoBones Jr THE INTERNET.	Posted - 2009.01.13 08:08:00 - [12] Originally by: Algey So when a decent pvp group have 17 falcons fielded against them they kill 12 of them, why is this... Oh yes, it's a multiplayer game. Falcons aren't game breaking, but this is yet another whine thread by people who want to fit for close range maximum gank with no ECCM, and beat superior numbers. I agree that there are too many falcons, but that is because gangs do not fit for range so the falcon alts can uncloak, set jams and be ignored. Try that against a gang that can shoot a decent range, and the falcon alts get farmed. No, it's yet another whine thread by people who want to be able to go out with 2 or 3 friends (or solo god help us all), and actually be able to fight. Right now this isn't an option because a Falcon can easily neutralize three or even 4 ships. Falcons in larger fights aren't as much of an issue, it's in the small gang game that Falcons are ruining it for those of us who don't want to wait for 10-15 people to x up.
burek Mercenary Forces	Posted - 2009.01.13 08:24:00 - [13] You're pretty much correct. Falcon (or ecm really) is the anti fun tool. My head starts to spin when I try to remember how many times, you end up not engaging because it's pointless. I bloody hate it. It's pretty much granted that almost no engagement will pass without a falcon appearing. And who ever says "you can't fight multiple people at once, what does it matter that it's a falcon omg...". Maybe YOU can't. Some people do it all the time. I have resorted to using my alt now as emergency neutral logistics to buy time when you get jammed back to the stone age. Witnessing the righteous nerd rage post fig... gank attempt, is very satisfying though. The entire, "lol, you're jammed" mechanic is just stupid.
Xori Ruscuv Multiversal Enterprise Inc. Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2009.01.13 08:25:00 - [14] Edited by: Xori Ruscuv on 13/01/2009 08:28:19 I was just about to make a "I'm tired of fights being predictable because you know a falcon or 5 are going to decloak when you're outnumbered in a hostile system so please make other recons as alt-inspiring" post. Thanks for saving me the trouble :D There's not a single other ship that: - keeps you from engaging so often - makes inferior numbers into superior force so often - makes a gang too lazy to undock because they don't have one (or 5)
burek Mercenary Forces	Posted - 2009.01.13 08:26:00 - [15] Originally by: Shevar Yes a pure tank and gank game would be sooo much more fun. If you want to compare it to everyone jamming, it actually is more fun.
Pytria Le'Danness Placid Reborn	Posted - 2009.01.13 08:29:00 - [16] What I dislike about ECM (not Falcons, they are just the extreme symptom right now) is that this form of EWar condemns you to inactivity. If you get nossed, damped, target painted or disrupted you can still try to act against it: fly closer to get into targetting range again, maneuver to get your transversal down, use cap boosters - you still can do something. With ECM there is nothing you can do that will increase your chance to act again, and the only thing you can do is to warp out or wait and hope that you do not die before the ECM boat misses a jam cycle. Pretty boring in my eyes. Corporation RP channel: "PlacidReborn"
Major Celine	Posted - 2009.01.13 08:48:00 - [17] Oh, another ECM whine thread? Falcon whine? How pathetic you are, seriously
Psiri	Posted - 2009.01.13 08:50:00 - [18] Nearly everything that OP's mentioned here is something that a Scorpion or even a BB could do aswell most of the time, just sit POS'ed up or in a station and warp to gang whenever they get jumped. Sure, a Falcon's better but it also costs alot more. I see OP's point however, they simply aren't fun and are just a really easy get-out-of-jail card.
Yakov Draken Minmatar Tides Of War	Posted - 2009.01.13 08:54:00 - [19] Agreed. Falcons make small gang warfare happen less - get jammed and de-aggro.
Opertone Caldari Gladiators of Rage Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.01.13 08:59:00 - [20] it's pathetic to fit ECCM, 3 of them will not be enough because falcon will jam you still. you never expect falcon, but it always is there... cloak and ECM at 170 km is overpowered. It turns fun fights into complete fails. Agreed, falcons take the fun of small fights out... they interfere too much.

Khaed Duhn Minmatar Tannhauser Gate	Posted - 2009.01.13 09:00:00 - [21] Errm if it is such a guarantee that a Falcon will turn up, then why not put together a group designed to give a Falcon pilot a headache. And the answer isn't just ECCM, or another Falcon :-D Oh yeah not that I'm pretending to be some PvP god here, far from it.
Mickey Simon Noir.	Posted - 2009.01.13 09:08:00 - [22] It's not hard to counter falcons if you have a gang together and think a little before you engage. I'll agree that if you're soloing and a gang with a falcon drops on you - it sucks. But imagine if the falcon pilot was in any other ship worth as much in terms of ISK and SP. You'd go down even quicker.
LadyLubU2 Caldari Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2009.01.13 09:10:00 - [23] Ive been trolling for a falcon nerf for a long time now...glad to see some people have brains as well actually.
Abduul Azeez Caldari THE INTERNET.	Posted - 2009.01.13 09:13:00 - [24] Nerf Lasorz. True story.
Chimii Lecto Gallente	Posted - 2009.01.13 09:14:00 - [25] Learn to adapt or follow this link [url]http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=909164[url] Is a pretty decent solution to the problem with taking a big bat and just start hammering on the falcon and leaving it a useless pile of junk.
Dibsi Dei Salamyhkaisten kilta	Posted - 2009.01.13 09:15:00 - [26] /signed
Suitonia Gallente interimo	Posted - 2009.01.13 09:17:00 - [27] Did the Falcon trolls even read the OP? It wasn't a whine, really. (I define a whine as complaining about a ship without looking at the counters/options, like "I got suicide ganked in a paperthin hauler with 300mil in mods in my cargo on autopilot". I think ECM needs to be adjusted so that it is toned down vs solo/small gangs, while remaining effective and balanced as it is now in medium/large gangs. I think I posted a suggestion of making ECM always work but reducing the max locked targets to 1 rather than 0. (You'll be crippled having to relock each next target, RR battleships have to choose damage/ewar or repping gangmates (Logistics forced to unlock/relock to rep different allies etc.), Damps become more useful, ability to fight back to some extent and limited effect if you have 20 jammers piled on you or something.) I'm sure you've probably read/ignored this already but as a mostly solo player I agree that ECCM / Snipers certainly work and are effective vs Falcons/ECM. But they are just not a viable option for small gangs/solo. Since QR Midslots have gotten even more vital with the scram changes and web strength reduction, making ECCM even harder to fit. There is just no way to fit for a Falcon when you are solo, 5 jammers vs a solo target and you're obviously jammed. When it comes down to it I'd prefer to be ganked by 3 ships and be able to fight back and enjoy myself before my ship explodes rather than vs 2 ships + Falcon and forced to deaggro or die doing nothing.
fivetide humidyear Gallente EXCESS10N	Posted - 2009.01.13 09:31:00 - [28] flacons are so popular because they are slightly overpowered and the easiest ship to use on a second account to support a pvp character. i have found that having a falcon around does make it possible to engage some of the smaller blobs with a chance of getting in and out, you just have to hope their falcon isn't as good (or lucky?)as yours.
Rennion	Posted - 2009.01.13 09:37:00 - [29] Falcons make me sad :( Whats the point of playing when playing consists of spending hours finding a fight, warp in to the fight, get jammed, twiddle thumbs, die. This is what **es solo/small gangers off, you spend *ing hours finding a decent fight and then you can't actualy have* that fight because you get jammed into the stoneage.
Cedric Diggory Perfunctory Oleaginous Laocoon Mugwumps	Posted - 2009.01.13 09:37:00 - [30] Edited by: Cedric Diggory on 13/01/2009 09:37:56 Quote: Right now I'm busy training up my THIRD Falcon alt. This is the crux of the issue: Those falcons are damned alts. I can't think of a single pilot I know who actively chooses to fly a falcon - it's all alternate characters. I don't know, but that gets alarm bells ringing in MY head that the ship isn't viable as a pilot's choice, but is essential at the same time? Quote: wandering about in a brutix, seen a deimos and ishtar in a belt, couldnt find a fight after 2 hours of roaming so went for it anyway even tho it looked like a trap, land in the belt, burn for the deimos, ishtar warps in, falcon uncloaks -> permajammed -> die The Deimos and Ishtar should be ashamed of themselves! Quote: docked at a station in low sec in a proph, an onyx is outside scrambling anything that undocks, it can tank the sentries with ease, as soon as aggro is got, falcon uncloakes 170 off -> jammed for 8 cycles in a row -> redock Now, be fair - the Onyx does precisely 3 damage per second. Quote: jumped into a low sec system in a proph, mega and phobos on the gate, both aggro and chase me, it takes 5 minutes of very careful piloting to seperate them, and slowly wear down the mega's HP tank, it was a very very tricky situation trying to keep distance and --> falcon uncloaks --> jammed --> all warp off Scratch one for the alt brigade. 20 secons cycle time is too long. ECM definitely needs rebalanced to perhaps a 5 second jam cycle?

Cryselle	Posted - 2009.01.13 09:39:00 - [31] Edited by: Cryselle on 13/01/2009 09:39:15 Originally by: Mickey Simon It's not hard to counter falcons if you have a gang together and think a little before you engage. Is that right? Sometimes, just for pure fun I jump into a low sec gate camp with my damnation - and having my maxed skilld falcon alt permanently jammed the 3-5 ships there - anti falcon strategy is to bring another falcon and hope that he is close enough to my falcon. ECM is out of whack - if you don't see it, I really don't get it.
Vabjekf	Posted - 2009.01.13 09:47:00 - [32] remove alts, one account per person. eve is suddenly a wonderful game.
Rennion	Posted - 2009.01.13 09:48:00 - [33] It wouldn't be so bad if ECCM actually worked. Anyone listing it as a counter has not actually flown on the recieving end of ECM. BS fits with two ECCM one of which overheated still get jammed by falcons. Compare to an arazu where one sebo and some decent piloting ability will do the job.
Mickey Simon Noir.	Posted - 2009.01.13 09:52:00 - [34] Originally by: Cryselle Is that right? Yeah, it is right. You don't have to use a falcon to counter a falcon either. Bit of common sense and thinking outside of the "OMG BRING DPS AND TANK" box is all you really need. Originally by: Cedric Diggory I can't think of a single pilot I know who actively chooses to fly a falcon Hi, pleased to meet you. I've been on both sides of the engagements, and to be honest I feel that while the falcon is perhaps slightly overpowered with regards to the ECM (but it's underpowered in every other area, so it's a compromise I don't mind too much) if you're not clueless or the sort of person who cannot adapt their fitting then you shouldn't have any issues countering falcons - the same as you shouldn't have any issues countering the other various forms of ewar.
daisy dook	Posted - 2009.01.13 09:57:00 - [35] Originally by: Rennion It wouldn't be so bad if ECCM actually worked. Anyone listing it as a counter has not actually flown on the recieving end of ECM. BS fits with two ECCM one of which overheated still get jammed by falcons. Compare to an arazu where one sebo and some decent piloting ability will do the job. Just how many ships was the Falcon trying to jam? I think a falcon with 8 slots (5 mids and 3 lows) and 2 rigs devoted to jamming is not over powered if it can take out one ship that has devoted just 2 slots to counter measures. If Falcons are everywhere then it is because enough people are not fitting ECCM. As for the OP, if you engage a perpared foe then you have to expect their preparations and be in a position to disengage (after all the Falcon isn't keeping you there).
HankMurphy Minmatar Pelennor Enterprises	Posted - 2009.01.13 10:00:00 - [36] i died because of a falcon tonight (damn youz amarr) to be fair, i may have died if it wasn't there, but my ego says otherwise. it is pretty antifun. if it just broke my lock it would be one thing, but to sit there through the rest of the fight permajammed.... i don't want to be 'that guy' so i'll say they aren't exactly overpowered and they fill a good role. i would just like to see eccm work a bit better (you should be pretty safe from jamming if you sacrifice a mid, maybe 25% less likely if you sacrifice a low) and i would like to see the falcon not get such obsene range (or at least drastically reduce his effectiveness past 20-30km) to answer op directly, yeah they are pretty much anti fun. but almost everything done by CCP in the past few years has done nothing but crap all over solo/small gang stuff.
Reatu Krentor Minmatar Duragon Pioneer Group GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.01.13 10:03:00 - [37] Originally by: Cedric Diggory 20 secons cycle time is too long. ECM definitely needs rebalanced to perhaps a 5 second jam cycle? a 5s cycle means you'll have 3-4 jam attempts for a 20s period, increasing the likelyhood of getting jammed drastically, including lock time, lag and player reaction time you would prolly end up with the same perma-jam as now.
Katarlia Simov Minmatar Cowboys From Hell	Posted - 2009.01.13 10:21:00 - [38] Falcons are indeed anti-fun. Combat in eve is 90% spent finding something to kill, and the more people you take with you the less chance that a target will stick around. Even fighting against unfavourable odds, people will use falcons. A few nights back some corpies and I went for a lil 0.0 fun, and went to bust up a lil camp. We had a couple of vagas, deimos, phobos. The combat ships we were looking at fighting were a rokh, a deimos and one or two t1 cruisers. We felt it'd be a good fight. Then someone spots they have two falcons. No way in hell we could engage.
Cedric Diggory Perfunctory Oleaginous Laocoon Mugwumps	Posted - 2009.01.13 10:37:00 - [39] Quote: if you're not clueless or the sort of person who cannot adapt their fitting then you shouldn't have any issues countering falcons - the same as you shouldn't have any issues countering the other various forms of ewar. As a dedicated falcon pilot, you are absolutely correct. If however you were a falcon alt, the odds are you'd either be a) hanging around a pos to refit appropriately depending on the incoming gang intel or b) sitting in station waiting to refit depending on the incoming gang intel. It's not their abilities that create the problem, but the amount of use they see. ECCM isn't exactly great, but it does reduce your chance to be jammed considerably on paper (though it doesn't feel like it when you're on the field, it genuinely does!)
Cedric Diggory Perfunctory Oleaginous Laocoon Mugwumps	Posted - 2009.01.13 10:40:00 - [40] Quote: a 5s cycle means you'll have 3-4 jam attempts for a 20s period, increasing the likelyhood of getting jammed drastically, including lock time, lag and player reaction time you would prolly end up with the same perma-jam as now. It also increases the chances of a failed cycle, and against smaller faster locking ships that's very much a double edged sword. Larger ships to my mind should have their sensor strength re-evaluated; as I see it, a fully bonused Falcon (level 4 skills) entirely T2 fitted for pure ECM should be sitting at around 50% to jam on a battleship when using the appropriate racial. Combined with a faster cycle time (5 seconds would be ideal in my mind, though the magic number might be 8 or 9 seconds the more I think about it) and I feel that balance might be restored.

Uhr Zylex Ginnungagaps Rymdfarargille Blade.	Posted - 2009.01.13 11:01:00 - [41] Originally by: Kirtan Loor In all these cases the outcome would be more or less the same if the "other" ship was any other ship. You are trying to engage what seems to be 1 maybe 2 people. Just no. Let's say I'm in my AwesomePwnShip(tm). Two small ships engage me in a belt. I start hacking away at one of the enemies. Scenario 1: A falcon arrives. I can now enjoy a slow death waiting for my capboosters to run out. Scenario 2: Pretty much any other ship arrives. I still have a chance of killing one or more enemies before I likely succumb. Which one sounds more fun to you?
Azuse Veto. Veto Corp	Posted - 2009.01.13 11:03:00 - [42] Eccm does work, it's just an equation you don't see. What i never understood about the patch though, was why they changed falcons the way they did. Since there will be people here who weren't in eve then it used to be the rook with the highest jam, blackbird at the bottom and falcon in the middle, the falcon only getting half the increase over the bb as opposed to the rook. In other words you wanted uber jam you flew a rook, you wanted cloak survivability you flew a falcon, accepting the fact you would jam less. It gave you a reason to fly both ships, in much the same way there are good reason to fly both the pilgrim and curse, huggin and rapier. Why change the falcon to jam like a rook and cloak? It's like giving the pilgrim the range of the curse, or the rapier the fire-power of the huggin but more over. Someone somewhere kew they were removing the disadvantages of the cloaker but it went through anyway. Funny thing is whenever someone suggested giving the pilgrim the range of the curse over the past, is it 15?, months they got a definitive no. Imbalance is the only balance in eve
Rennion	Posted - 2009.01.13 11:04:00 - [43] Originally by: daisy dook Originally by: Rennion It wouldn't be so bad if ECCM actually worked. Anyone listing it as a counter has not actually flown on the recieving end of ECM. BS fits with two ECCM one of which overheated still get jammed by falcons. Compare to an arazu where one sebo and some decent piloting ability will do the job. Just how many ships was the Falcon trying to jam? I think a falcon with 8 slots (5 mids and 3 lows) and 2 rigs devoted to jamming is not over powered if it can take out one ship that has devoted just 2 slots to counter measures. If Falcons are everywhere then it is because enough people are not fitting ECCM. As for the OP, if you engage a perpared foe then you have to expect their preparations and be in a position to disengage (after all the Falcon isn't keeping you there). Seriously go and look at the numbers, ECCM is pointless on anything other than recons and battleships. Even on those two ship classes it is usefull on you need 2 which means sac'ing 2 mid slots which are uber important for recons and very important for battleships. Then take into account that if your unlucky you still get jammed. So if you bring one falcon to a fight the other gang needs to have all it's battleships and recons sacrifice two slots to a ****ty underpowered module leaving it with no tackle (lol inty's insta jammed on demand) This makes ECM overpowered compared to all other ewar. The counter module is terrible in it's effectivness and provides no tertiary beniefit. I can counter an arazu with a sebo and some decent piloting and the sebo is usefull even if an arazu does not turn up. Same goes for tracking disrupters and neuts. ECM is lame :(
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.	Posted - 2009.01.13 11:06:00 - [44] Originally by: Antraxor Problem is everyone who wants to solo PvP plays them. Falcon needs to be less viable, and other solo ships more viable. T3 customization may change this... ] Actually, you have it exactly the wrong way around. The Falcon (and Rook and Scorp and Blackbird) need to be substantially boosted. The ships need to be boosted. ECM, on the other hand, needs to be completely reworked.
lebrata Hedion University	Posted - 2009.01.13 11:10:00 - [45] Edited by: lebrata on 13/01/2009 11:11:01 Originally by: Bellum Eternus Meh. I've been saying this forever, and always get flamed for it. But I've given up complaining. Right now I'm busy training up my THIRD Falcon alt. You can never have too many Falcons. Hopefully CCP will nerf them into the F#CKING GROUND, but until then, it's Falcon city. I thought you had 50 falcon alts and won eve with them last week?......twice.
Hugh Ruka Exploratio et Industria Morispatia	Posted - 2009.01.13 11:14:00 - [46] Originally by: Pytria Le'Danness What I dislike about ECM (not Falcons, they are just the extreme symptom right now) is that this form of EWar condemns you to inactivity. If you get nossed, damped, target painted or disrupted you can still try to act against it: fly closer to get into targetting range again, maneuver to get your transversal down, use cap boosters - you still can do something. With ECM there is nothing you can do that will increase your chance to act again, and the only thing you can do is to warp out or wait and hope that you do not die before the ECM boat misses a jam cycle. Pretty boring in my eyes. during the glory days of damps, I was damped to a few km and constantly bumped around ... it was soo much more fun ...
lebrata Hedion University	Posted - 2009.01.13 11:15:00 - [47] Originally by: Cryselle Edited by: Cryselle on 13/01/2009 09:39:15 Originally by: Mickey Simon It's not hard to counter falcons if you have a gang together and think a little before you engage. Is that right? Sometimes, just for pure fun I jump into a low sec gate camp with my damnation - and having my maxed skilld falcon alt permanently jammed the 3-5 ships there - anti falcon strategy is to bring another falcon and hope that he is close enough to my falcon. So your posting with a alt, about a alt, who flies a falcon with your main?. And you cannot "perma jam" 3-5 ships unless they are frigs, stop exaggerating.
daisy dook	Posted - 2009.01.13 11:16:00 - [48] Originally by: Rennion Originally by: daisy dook Originally by: Rennion It wouldn't be so bad if ECCM actually worked. Anyone listing it as a counter has not actually flown on the recieving end of ECM. BS fits with two ECCM one of which overheated still get jammed by falcons. Compare to an arazu where one sebo and some decent piloting ability will do the job. Just how many ships was the Falcon trying to jam? I think a falcon with 8 slots (5 mids and 3 lows) and 2 rigs devoted to jamming is not over powered if it can take out one ship that has devoted just 2 slots to counter measures. If Falcons are everywhere then it is because enough people are not fitting ECCM. As for the OP, if you engage a perpared foe then you have to expect their preparations and be in a position to disengage (after all the Falcon isn't keeping you there). Seriously go and look at the numbers, ECCM is pointless on anything other than recons and battleships. Even on those two ship classes it is usefull on you need 2 which means sac'ing 2 mid slots which are uber important for recons and very important for battleships. Then take into account that if your unlucky you still get jammed. So if you bring one falcon to a fight the other gang needs to have all it's battleships and recons sacrifice two slots to a **ty underpowered module leaving it with no tackle (lol inty's insta jammed on demand) This makes ECM overpowered compared to all other ewar. The counter module is terrible in it's effectivness and provides no tertiary beniefit. I can counter an arazu with a sebo and some decent piloting and the sebo is usefull even if an arazu does not turn up. Same goes for tracking disrupters and neuts. ECM is lame :( Well if ECCM is not worth fitting then you are not encountering enough Falcons ergo Falcons and ECM are not a problem.** You fit ECCM, you get unlucky and get jammed. This is most likely not bad luck but the Falcon pilot devoting multiple jammers to you; which frees up the rest of your gang to do its thing hence the ECCM has acheived its purpose. ECM is the most powerful ewar in isolation; however once you take into account the the weakness of the Caldari ship line, its uselessness on non-specialised ships and the fact that specialised ECM ships can't do anything other than ECM then I believe that ECM is infact balanced.
Rennion	Posted - 2009.01.13 11:19:00 - [49] Originally by: daisy dook Well if ECCM is not worth fitting then you are not encountering enough Falcons ergo Falcons and ECM are not a problem. Go and look at the numbers. ECCM is not worth fitting because it is based on a %. When that % is low like it is on anything that isn't a BS or a recon then it is pointless because you sacrifice a slot for a module that has miniscule impact on your chance to get jammed. Even battleships and recons, with the highest sensor strengths going need two to have any reasonable impact. That is why ECCM is pointless, on top of the fact that it has no benifet outside of fighting falcons. As I said compare to all other ewar in the game where one module and some piloting skill does the job. Piloting skill has no impact on ECM at all, you are at the mercy of a dice roll that renders you useless for 20 seconds.
lebrata Hedion University	Posted - 2009.01.13 11:20:00 - [50] Originally by: Cedric Diggory 20 secons cycle time is too long. ECM definitely needs rebalanced to perhaps a 5 second jam cycle? LOL NUB CAKES. With a 20 second cycle time if the falcon misse4s a jam on a BS the BS can lock in 10ish secs and with good skills get off at least 2 if not 3 volleys before the next cycle. With a 5 second cycle time the falcon has 2 chances to jam him before he has finished locking it and altogether 4 chances over all. Another fine example of a nerf hound without a clue blaming random stuff for his total suckage at eve....

Confessor ANZAC ALLIANCE Southern Cross Alliance	Posted - 2009.01.13 11:26:00 - [51] your a friggin crybaby, and you need to friggin quit eve. POOOORR ME, I fought a falcon that couldnt do dps, couldnt web or scram me, couldnt put drones on me, and I LOST WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH please nerf the falcon, cause im a friggin cry baby, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH
Uhr Zylex Ginnungagaps Rymdfarargille Blade.	Posted - 2009.01.13 11:27:00 - [52] Originally by: lebrata LOL NUB CAKES. With a 20 second cycle time if the falcon misse4s a jam on a BS the BS can lock in 10ish secs and with good skills get off at least 2 if not 3 volleys before the next cycle. Yeah LOLOL, cause falcons are never 190km away amirite? It is a well known fact that all falcons stay close to their targets.
Uhr Zylex Ginnungagaps Rymdfarargille Blade.	Posted - 2009.01.13 11:29:00 - [53] Originally by: Confessor your a friggin crybaby, and you need to friggin quit eve. POOOORR ME, I fought a falcon that couldnt do dps, couldnt web or scram me, couldnt put drones on me, and I LOST WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH please nerf the falcon, cause im a friggin cry baby, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH The OP is actually quite clear and not a "crybaby". Perhaps you should try adding to the discussion instead of writing like a 12 year old. Then again, what do you know about PVP? As far as I know SCA pvps in hulks.
lebrata Hedion University	Posted - 2009.01.13 11:30:00 - [54] Originally by: Uhr Zylex Originally by: lebrata LOL NUB CAKES. With a 20 second cycle time if the falcon misse4s a jam on a BS the BS can lock in 10ish secs and with good skills get off at least 2 if not 3 volleys before the next cycle. Yeah LOLOL, cause falcons are never 190km away amirite? It is a well known fact that all falcons stay close to their targets. Yea and since CCP removed rail guns and all those other systems from eve that hit out that far things have gone from bad to worse.......hey wai.... Thank for another fine example of fail gang fittings/setups at work, your a wonderful example of a sand box clown wanting everything nerfed that operates outside his preferred fitting range........
Psiri	Posted - 2009.01.13 11:31:00 - [55] Originally by: Uhr Zylex Yeah LOLOL, cause falcons are never 190km away amirite? It is a well known fact that all falcons stay close to their targets. Didn't you hear? The Falcon is the new Gankathron!
Reatu Krentor Minmatar Duragon Pioneer Group GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.01.13 11:40:00 - [56] Originally by: Cedric Diggory Quote: a 5s cycle means you'll have 3-4 jam attempts for a 20s period, increasing the likelyhood of getting jammed drastically, including lock time, lag and player reaction time you would prolly end up with the same perma-jam as now. It also increases the chances of a failed cycle, and against smaller faster locking ships that's very much a double edged sword. Larger ships to my mind should have their sensor strength re-evaluated; as I see it, a fully bonused Falcon (level 4 skills) entirely T2 fitted for pure ECM should be sitting at around 50% to jam on a battleship when using the appropriate racial. Combined with a faster cycle time (5 seconds would be ideal in my mind, though the magic number might be 8 or 9 seconds the more I think about it) and I feel that balance might be restored. that's where the lag/player reaction time comes in for smaller ships, by the time the player receives the note a cycle failed and spammed the frackin' "target this ship" to oblivion, by the time he actually gets the lock he'll be jammed again. 1s lock on time minimum, likely higher, + reaction time + lag leaves zilch time between cycles if they were 5s. A 50% jam chance means 1 every 2 cycles will be a jam on average. And that value is against a bs, which has a total locking time greater then 5s against a falcon(closer to 15s), iow the falcon will have several more cycles to attempt to reacquire jam(raspberry) before the bs has even managed to lock it, which will likely get a hit. For any smaller ships it's just downhill from there. No, shorter cycles won't "fix" ecm. An overhaul of the effect might. The method is fine(chancebased stuff). -- stuff --
daisy dook	Posted - 2009.01.13 11:46:00 - [57] Originally by: Rennion Originally by: daisy dook Well if ECCM is not worth fitting then you are not encountering enough Falcons ergo Falcons and ECM are not a problem. Go and look at the numbers. ECCM is not worth fitting because it is based on a %. When that % is low like it is on anything that isn't a BS or a recon then it is pointless because you sacrifice a slot for a module that has miniscule impact on your chance to get jammed. Even battleships and recons, with the highest sensor strengths going need two to have any reasonable impact. That is why ECCM is pointless, on top of the fact that it has no benifet outside of fighting falcons. As I said compare to all other ewar in the game where one module and some piloting skill does the job. Piloting skill has no impact on ECM at all, you are at the mercy of a dice roll that renders you useless for 20 seconds. Well if ECCM is not worth fitting then you are not encountering enough Falcons ergo Falcons and ECM are not a problem. Lets take a hypothetical cruiser with sensor strength of 12 vrs a jammer of strength 12 we have have the mythical perma-jam. Now add ECCM which has an 80% sensor strength bonus to the hypothetical crusier; it now has a sensor strength of 21.6 against the same jam strength we now have a 44.5% chance of not being jammed. So by a single ECCM module (not overheated) we have gone from a 0% chance to a 44.5% chance to not being jammed. I think that a 44.5% improvement in large enough to say that even on cruiser sized ships ECCM is effective.
Dasalt Istgut	Posted - 2009.01.13 11:46:00 - [58] Originally by: Antraxor Problem is everyone who wants to solo PvP plays them. Falcon needs to be less viable, and other solo ships more viable. T3 customization may change this... Problem is you think falcons are the reason solo PVP isn't viable. They're not. Solo PVP doesn't work in Eve. Sure you might get lucky and pop some ratters solo, or solo bubble camp (where you can see in local that they don't have allies with them when you kill them), etc. But if you're in local, can't figure out who their allies are, engage a target without realizing he has corpmates or alliance mates or blues in local and get whooped then that's not a problem with falcons. You'd have a much better argument about falcons specifically if you were talking small gang against small gang - but you'd still be wrong. Last time I engaged multiple falcons in a fight we caught them off guard and I was in an ECCM fitted scorp w/ 5 gravimetrics, kept them jammed until my gang got them targetted and popped. Wasn't a big deal at all.
Dasalt Istgut	Posted - 2009.01.13 12:01:00 - [59] Originally by: Rennion Originally by: daisy dook Well if ECCM is not worth fitting then you are not encountering enough Falcons ergo Falcons and ECM are not a problem. Go and look at the numbers. ECCM is not worth fitting because it is based on a %. When that % is low like it is on anything that isn't a BS or a recon then it is pointless because you sacrifice a slot for a module that has miniscule impact on your chance to get jammed. Even battleships and recons, with the highest sensor strengths going need two to have any reasonable impact. That is why ECCM is pointless, on top of the fact that it has no benifet outside of fighting falcons. As I said compare to all other ewar in the game where one module and some piloting skill does the job. Piloting skill has no impact on ECM at all, you are at the mercy of a dice roll that renders you useless for 20 seconds. ECCM isn't pointless. You're just bad at math. The standard roaming falcon fit is 2 grav, 1 gallente, 1 amarr, 1 minmatar, 1 sensor booster, 1 MWD (sometimes dropping the MWD for another racial). Let's make the assumption that your gang is mixed and the falcon can typically jam out 4 of your ships almost permanently. By each of you fitting ECCM you've now reduced the amount of ships he can jam in half. If you're all the same race or only composed of 2 races its even worse - you'd now reduce his chances to jamming to 0 or 1 at best. When dealing with falcons you deal with them like you deal with a sniper. If outnumbered try to get them to aggress away from gates, makes it more difficult for the falcon to get distance since it needs bookmarks. Try to get them bubbled in coming through the gate - if the falcon wants to leave and warp back then he'll have to slowboat out of the bubble, warp and return - by then you should have killed half his gang at least. Otherwise he fights at 0, so you just kill him. If you jump a prepped gate camp and you don't have any fast movers, long range jammers or anti-ECM snipe-setup ships with you then you lose. I won't feel sorry for you in that scenario because I'd have equally spanked you if I bubbled and had 3 sniper battleships at 150km.
Suitonia Gallente interimo	Posted - 2009.01.13 12:29:00 - [60] ECCM is fine and a perfectly reasonable counter for medium gangs, no-one is denying that. It's just not for Solo or smaller gangs (5 members or less) where you need the midslots for tackle. 190km Snipers just arn't feasible in such sized gangs. I don't think the Falcon is the underlying problem here, although it certainly has brought the light on ECM due to it being the biggest sub-capital force multiplyer in the game while at the same time one of the hardest to kill with ECM/Cloak/Sniper range combo. I think ECM is a horrid game mechanic for solo/small gang PvP.

Mickey Simon Noir.	Posted - 2009.01.13 12:43:00 - [61] Originally by: Suitonia I think ECM is a horrid game mechanic for solo/small gang PvP. But at the same time, the force multiplication aim of ECM means that my 4 friends who are completely new to PvP now have a fighting chance against a group of 4 hardened PvPers if said PvPers neglect to fit ECCM. Meanwhile, on the other side of town . . .
Gorefacer Caldari Resurrection Skunk-Works	Posted - 2009.01.13 12:45:00 - [62] I endorse anything that creates more fights and reduces ease of escape for people in general. Even though I'm terrible and it means I'll lose more ships. "You can't reason someone out of a belief they haven't reasoned themselves into" - Prometheus
Katarlia Simov Minmatar Cowboys From Hell	Posted - 2009.01.13 12:48:00 - [63] How things look on paper is definitely not a reflection of the game. On paper an ECCM makes you way harder to jam, but just spamming percentages doesn't show what happens in game. A 50% chance to be jammed doesn't mean you can't fight for 50% of the fight. Even assuming jam - miss - jam - miss, you have to add lock time to the jam length, meaning that instead of being jammed 40 seconds out of 80 you are likely unable to fight for 55 seconds. Also a 50% chance to jam can happily mean 3 or 4 cycles in a row. And considering how short fights in eve are, thats decisively huge. Even though a falcon can't totally disable a whole gang, most of the time there will be an obvious jam target. In a relatively small gang, by targeting the really big damage dealers, like megas and geddons, the falcon can remove potentially a half or a third of the gangs dps. The real question that needs to be asked about the falcon is that, assuming you have one decent damage dealer, and a Hictor in gang already, is there a reason to fly anything else ? A camp of a mega/rage raven, an onyx and 5 falcons... How do you combat that ?
Algey The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2009.01.13 12:50:00 - [64] Originally by: Suitonia ECCM is fine and a perfectly reasonable counter for medium gangs, no-one is denying that. It's just not for Solo or smaller gangs (5 members or less) where you need the midslots for tackle. 190km Snipers just arn't feasible in such sized gangs. I don't think the Falcon is the underlying problem here, although it certainly has brought the light on ECM due to it being the biggest sub-capital force multiplyer in the game while at the same time one of the hardest to kill with ECM/Cloak/Sniper range combo. I think ECM is a horrid game mechanic for solo/small gang PvP. Ah, a sensible post, and as a Falcon pilot I agree with the solo part. That said the falcon is a horrid ship to solo in, so we both need a gang :) I can jam 4 - 5 cruisers most of the time, if they are all different races, and if they do not fit ECCM. However if each one fits ECCM I can jam 2 - 3 of them most of the time. The biggest problem is that people know they will be getting falconed, yet they still insist in running their small gang with no ECCM. What does need to happen though is the falcon needs to be dropped to a 10% bonus, and the rook maybe upped slightly from where it is currently (a little too weak). I'm pretty sure that would balance them, but only if people learn that ECCM is needed.
Pac SubCom A.W.M	Posted - 2009.01.13 13:09:00 - [65] Originally by: Katarlia Simov A camp of a mega/rage raven, an onyx and 5 falcons... How do you combat that ? 3 Lachesis plus 3 hacs. --------------- ∞ TQFE
SLIM Slacker Industries	Posted - 2009.01.13 13:10:00 - [66] Of course falcons are overpowered. I love how half the solutions here are "omg bring more friends" or "learn to not suck, I kill falcons all the time!". Fact is, if a skilled pvp force has falcons, they are about 10x harder to kill. I'm not whining because I think falcons are mean, heck I have a falcon alt. Fact remains its unbalancing. The solution is actually really simple. Why isn't the curse overpowered? Because it can't fit large neuts. Make ECM size based. BS size mods current strength, cruiser halved, frigate quartered, since CCP loves that sort of simplistic stuff. Now the scorp and widow are ECM monsters, rook and falcon less so, and griffins are good for frigate gangs. Also then maybe people would use widows... While we're at it, remove the falcon's range bonus. Range and strength on a cloaked ship? Get out of here. Replace it with a missile bonus and give it another launcher or so.
Ka'loor Amarr Die Argonen	Posted - 2009.01.13 13:40:00 - [67] While i think that Solo pvp is something i could care less about. EVE isnt dominated by huge alliances and corps for nothing. War is dirty and anyone who expects a fair fight is simply in the wrong game. And im saying that as someone with practically no pvp background and 99% empire high sec preference. Im not starting to whine because pvprs are targeting mining corps.....i try to bring superior numbers anway. If you dont agree, well read up on history. Or check the Gaza strip on asymmetrical warfare.... To the underlying matter, the cloak ship should simply retain the Strength bonus and lose the range bonus. Make it like the Curse/Pilgrim. Attack without mercy, until blood is gone, until life is gone, until the light is gone, unto the shadow itself. Better to die with honor, than to live in shame.
Cohkka Celestial Apocalypse	Posted - 2009.01.13 14:52:00 - [68] Originally by: Ka'loor While i think that Solo pvp is something i could care less about. EVE isnt dominated by huge alliances and corps for nothing. War is dirty and anyone who expects a fair fight is simply in the wrong game. And im saying that as someone with practically no pvp background and 99% empire high sec preference. Im not starting to whine because pvprs are targeting mining corps.....i try to bring superior numbers anway. If you dont agree, well read up on history. Or check the Gaza strip on asymmetrical warfare.... To the underlying matter, the cloak ship should simply retain the Strength bonus and lose the range bonus. Make it like the Curse/Pilgrim. This ain't real life and eve used to be diffrent. Maybe you missed out on it (actually you did), but 2-3 years ago soloing was perfectly viable for skilled PvPers. The reason why soloing/small warfare went down the drain is because people are lazy and CCP invented lazy mechanics to adopt to that playstyle. I'd say the whole BS began with the cloak and introduction of probes. There could be a way better gamemechanic in a more skillfull way to track down people in a system, but CCP choose to go the lazy way and just lets you klick a few times - tada work is done... So it practicaly became a game of numbers. Large scale PvP has been buffed for years already, time to unnerf small scale PvP.
Hatt0ri Hanz0	Posted - 2009.01.13 14:53:00 - [69] I agree. When i think of an eve without ecm, or at least falcons, I get giddy with the prospect of fun fights. There has to be an alternative we can give the caldari.
Uhr Zylex Ginnungagaps Rymdfarargille Blade.	Posted - 2009.01.13 15:04:00 - [70] Originally by: lebrata Yea and since CCP removed rail guns and all those other systems from eve that hit out that far things have gone from bad to worse.......hey wai.... Thank for another fine example of fail gang fittings/setups at work, your a wonderful example of a sand box clown wanting everything nerfed that operates outside his preferred fitting range........ I think you are the sandbox clown if you suggest a roaming gang of snipereagles or fleet battleships. I mean seriously, have you ever PVPed in this game?

Inir Ishtori The Guardian Agency Guardian Federation	Posted - 2009.01.13 15:27:00 - [71] how about making dampening ships a direct counter to falcon/ECM? give them a significant bonus to dampening range and a bit better sensor strength. now you can dampen a falcon/ECM so that it no longer will be able to jam you from 170 km away and will have to move closer giving a smaller gang a chance to reach it with a more reasonable weapon system than that of a sniper battleship. as a bonus dampening ships now have a better role in a fleet too. good or bad idea?
Shate Def The Order of Chivalry Nex Eternus	Posted - 2009.01.13 15:34:00 - [72] Edited by: Shate Def on 13/01/2009 15:36:17 they really need to nerf the range and/or cycle time on those ecm ships, altho jamming itself is fine. and maybe even introduce scripts for ecm for either strength, range or cycle time.
lebrata Hedion University	Posted - 2009.01.13 16:07:00 - [73] Originally by: Uhr Zylex Originally by: lebrata Yea and since CCP removed rail guns and all those other systems from eve that hit out that far things have gone from bad to worse.......hey wai.... Thank for another fine example of fail gang fittings/setups at work, your a wonderful example of a sand box clown wanting everything nerfed that operates outside his preferred fitting range........ I think you are the sandbox clown if you suggest a roaming gang of snipereagles or fleet battleships. I mean seriously, have you ever PVPed in this game? I am quite sure i suggested no such thing, i only commented that they were available and that having a non versatile close range and immobile gang is limiting. A gang full of long range ships in a roaming gang would be as ineffective against certain types of ships as having a close range gang is against falcons and other long range fits. You should try to less emotional about this and read a little better pal your frustration at eve players not lining up to fight exactly they way you want them to is rather juvenile.
Faife Federation of Freedom Fighters	Posted - 2009.01.13 16:38:00 - [74] and that's the very definition of force multiplier: people freak out completely when falcons uncloak, and start making bad decisions you can bring an unfit one and still wreak havoc on a small gang battlefield
Kil2 Club Bear	Posted - 2009.01.13 16:52:00 - [75] im on board for this whine now as well. its really out of control. when i was flying in 5 man gangs and seeing falcons every 4th or 5th fight i was willing to deal with it. they CAN be killed with some coordination and enough people. but now its like 1 falcon for every 2 combat ships in opposing gangs so even if we have 5 and we try to engage 6-8 we are talking 2-3 falcons and theres just nothing you can do thats reasonable. and soloing is next to impossible. i mean gneez can solo in a god damn prophecy before this craziness and now look!
Esmenet Gallente	Posted - 2009.01.13 17:02:00 - [76] Face facts solo pvp is dead and its got nothing to do with falcons. Most people claiming to solo is in fact running two or more accounts.
Terianna Eri Amarr Scrutari	Posted - 2009.01.13 17:02:00 - [77] The only thing fun about falcons is when they decloak 40km from my Zealot and give me a free killmail due to being idiotic, really. ECM destroys small gangs, removing ships from the fight much better than any other form of EWAR can manage, and while still being the best (and due to range, ONLY) EWAR that can operate in fleets. I'm with Malcanis on this one. Rework ECM completely into the ground, redo the Caldari recons. The falcon is pretty much the pinnacle of min-maxing ewar: No tank? Doesn't matter, is out of range anyway No defense v. light ships? Put an ECM on them, warp off No highs for weapons? doesn't matter, nothing to shoot with them anyway It has a number of "disadvantages" that, when using the ship properly, are just meaningless. Plus, it can jam people and then cloak for 15 seconds, leaving them jammed and by the time the jam cycle is over the falcon has just about locked new targets again. I wish I could perform my primary role while cloaked or warping :( tl;dr: The falcon is overspecialized, too strong in its role and utterly worthless for anything else - but the latter does not excuse the former. It's like giving a race the best HACs by far and justifying it with "well the t1 frigates are bad." ECM is a frustrating mechanic to fight against, ECCM isn't effective enough on small ships, and ECM boats say "you must have at least THIS many people in order for your gang to do anything." It's incondusive to small gang combat. All game balance aside, ECM is not fun. It is, as Gneez said, the anti-fun, and that's the real problem. __________________________________ Originally by: Arthur Frayn How much to ruin all your holes, luv?
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.13 17:11:00 - [78] I perma jam people all the time. It's real easy and I can do it from 250km range. Yes, I am overpowered.
Camilo Cienfuegos Earned In Blood	Posted - 2009.01.13 17:13:00 - [79] You know, nothing is solved by just whining about it on the forums. Head on over the appropriate link in my signature and add some suggestions on how we can make ECM better. Hardpoint Rigs ECM Balancing
Rennion	Posted - 2009.01.13 17:20:00 - [80] Seriosuly, fit a small gang up in your corp, all cruisers and get everyone to put one ECCM in a mid. First problem you have is your chronic lack of tackle. Second problem you have is that you still haven't countered the falcons because ECM does not stack on the target. 2 falcons turn up and your gang is toast as 4 of your guys (which in a small gang is a huge portion of your dps) are removed from the fight, tough ****, shoulda fit more ECCM and honour tackled amirite? ECCM is crap.

Recon Three Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2009.01.13 18:10:00 - [81] I recently sold my Falcon after a few months of ownership. That ship made the game insanely boring.
Jonas Barcal Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.13 18:14:00 - [82] Originally by: Recon Three I recently sold my Falcon after a few months of ownership. That ship made the game insanely boring. I sold my blaster boats as they made the game seem boring also, strange that.
Zoey Rapture DeathTek Industries Slammers	Posted - 2009.01.13 18:16:00 - [83] Edited by: Zoey Rapture on 13/01/2009 18:16:52 Weird, I sold my Falcon to fly blaster boats, lol. I guess after being 200km+ out for every single fight made me want to get up close and personal for once. So far I'm having fun, despite losing almost every ship I've built within a week, ha! Whatever though, I'm having a blast. No pun intended. Edit: Argh, stupid alt posting. </Recon Three> _____ You reap what you sow.
lecrotta lecrotta Corp	Posted - 2009.01.13 18:17:00 - [84] Originally by: Recon Three I recently sold my Falcon after a few months of ownership. That ship made the game insanely boring. Sold my eagles, vultures, sniper BS, falcons, cerbs...................
3MH	Posted - 2009.01.13 19:04:00 - [85] people need to understand that if they start nerfing stuff like this soon eve will come down to who has a bigger and better tank and more damage than the other in which case fleet ops would requier no tactics and new player would be screwed in the game besides there are ways to take ecm boats np
Endless Subversion The Accursed	Posted - 2009.01.13 19:49:00 - [86] Originally by: Kil2 im on board for this whine now as well. its really out of control. when i was flying in 5 man gangs and seeing falcons every 4th or 5th fight i was willing to deal with it. they CAN be killed with some coordination and enough people. but now its like 1 falcon for every 2 combat ships in opposing gangs so even if we have 5 and we try to engage 6-8 we are talking 2-3 falcons and theres just nothing you can do thats reasonable. and soloing is next to impossible. i mean gneez can solo in a god damn prophecy before this craziness and now look! I've been watching this trend and posting about it for nearly a full YEAR now. It just takes players a little time to adapt due to skill-lag and realizing, "hey, this is super strong, I need to be doing that!" ECM as a whole (don't forget jam drones) and falcons in particular need to be balanced. I'm so sick of seeing this garbage in combat.
Lilith Velkor Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.	Posted - 2009.01.13 20:17:00 - [87] Cba to read the OP, somebody tried to solo a gang and failed I take it?
Euriti Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.01.13 20:31:00 - [88] ECM is gay as hell, especially when your enemy brings tons of them and you see 3 Falcons and 2 Kitsunes on your lossmail.
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.13 20:48:00 - [89] Originally by: 3MH people need to understand that if they start nerfing stuff like this soon eve will come down to who has a bigger and better tank and more damage than the other in which case fleet ops would requier no tactics and new player would be screwed in the game besides there are ways to take ecm boats np No it won't. That is just some idiotic argument some moron invented to justify overpowered tactics. You know what, einstein? If ccp hadn't nerfed anything in eve there would still be 8xHS gankageddons flying around everywhere wich is a world of gank only and nothing else. You find that nerf bad aswell?
Cohkka Celestial Apocalypse	Posted - 2009.01.13 20:51:00 - [90] Originally by: 3MH people need to understand that if they start nerfing stuff like this soon eve will come down to who has a bigger and better tank and more damage than the other in which case fleet ops would requier no tactics and new player would be screwed in the game besides there are ways to take ecm boats np It never has been that way. Even when ECM was used as light support on Scorpions. Or as all the ignorant ECM lovers tend to say: learn to play...

fivetide humidyear Gallente EXCESS10N	Posted - 2009.01.13 21:06:00 - [91] ECM needs to be scripted, maybe make it so the falcon can jam at range but lose significant jamming strength, or keep the strength but lose the range to under 100km.
Compendium	Posted - 2009.01.13 21:11:00 - [92] Unfortunately, ECM will still be used way too much in the alliance tournament. ECM and logistics will pretty much determine who wins again.
Vrikshaka 0ff-Peak Esoteric Cutthroats	Posted - 2009.01.13 21:12:00 - [93] Originally by: Azuse What i never understood about the patch though, was why they changed falcons the way they did. Since there will be people here who weren't in eve then it used to be the rook with the highest jam, blackbird at the bottom and falcon in the middle, the falcon only getting half the increase over the bb as opposed to the rook. In other words you wanted uber jam you flew a rook, you wanted cloak survivability you flew a falcon, accepting the fact you would jam less. It gave you a reason to fly both ships, in much the same way there are good reason to fly both the pilgrim and curse, huggin and rapier. Why change the falcon to jam like a rook and cloak? It's like giving the pilgrim the range of the curse, or the rapier the fire-power of the huggin but more over. Someone somewhere kew they were removing the disadvantages of the cloaker but it went through anyway. Funny thing is whenever someone suggested giving the pilgrim the range of the curse over the past, is it 15?, months they got a definitive no. This. It's a freaking mystery. Was anyone complaining about their Falcons being too weak? Nope. It may have been that the Arazu was the total FOTM for dedicated defence measures at the time, but we all know what a nerfbat that poor ship took up it's crotch anyway, so no reason there either to make the Falcon more powerful. Reset the ship to how it was before it got buffed, and things might start to get a bit more balanced.
Benedic The Aftermath	Posted - 2009.01.13 21:13:00 - [94] Edited by: Benedic on 13/01/2009 21:14:01 The only fun falcons are the ones that are dumb enough to sit in their own bubble camping then die to my heavy drones while I'm permajammed. I do love jumping into a group of 7 people who would all die if not for the 2 falcons that uncloak. But by FAR the best thing is when said falcon gang gets jumped by russians... then they start complaining about falcons >.>
daisy dook	Posted - 2009.01.13 21:26:00 - [95] Originally by: fivetide humidyear ECM needs to be scripted, maybe make it so the falcon can jam at range but lose significant jamming strength, or keep the strength but lose the range to under 100km. Only if they remove the hardwired scripting of racial modules.
Sola Sun Jita Trade Services	Posted - 2009.01.13 21:51:00 - [96] Quote: Only if they remove the hardwired scripting of racial modules. Racial ECM modules should have "other race" strength reduced to 0, like it was done with ships' sensors long ago.
Lilith Velkor Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.	Posted - 2009.01.13 22:01:00 - [97] Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 13/01/2009 22:02:50 Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 13/01/2009 22:01:26 Originally by: Sola Sun Quote: Only if they remove the hardwired scripting of racial modules. Racial ECM modules should have "other race" strength reduced to 0, like it was done with ships' sensors long ago. This is actually an interesting suggestion. Maybe increase racial strength a tad bit and remove the non-racial strength completely. That would make the 200km falcon fit rather vulnerable to ceptor tackle, sounds not bad. As it stands you can pretty much jam any ceptor with a wrong racial with a bit of luck, no need to free a proper racial.
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.13 22:08:00 - [98] Originally by: Lilith Velkor This is actually an interesting suggestion. Maybe increase racial strength a tad bit and remove the non-racial strength completely. That would make the 200km falcon fit rather vulnerable to ceptor tackle, sounds not bad. As it stands you can pretty much jam any ceptor with a wrong racial with a bit of luck, no need to free a proper racial. No, this is a plain boost to most falcons fits and situations.
General Coochie The Bastards The Bastards.	Posted - 2009.01.13 22:12:00 - [99] Originally by: Compendium Unfortunately, ECM will still be used way too much in the alliance tournament. ECM and logistics will pretty much determine who wins again. as logistics isn't allowed I doubt it.
Vall Kor Minmatar	Posted - 2009.01.13 22:15:00 - [100] Simple fix instead of nerfing the Falcon. Is make the jammed targets immune to warp scrams/distruptors and webbers. Easy fix

Jonas Barcal Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.13 22:17:00 - [101] Originally by: Vall Kor Simple fix instead of nerfing the Falcon. Is make the jammed targets immune to warp scrams/distruptors and webbers. Easy fix You'd get a cheap alt to jam yourself to get an 'expensive' ship out of trouble..
Dray Caldari Clowns with Downs	Posted - 2009.01.13 22:30:00 - [102] Tbh where does this end, I fly falcons as well as almost every other ship, solo pvp is hard and yes you see a lot of falcons but ultimately if I'm in a fair fight I'm asking myself the question "what did i do wrong?", you kill the other guy/guys as quickly as possible whilst giving yourself every possible advantage and reducing his. I used to like solo pvp but the game has changed, I used to like nanos but they got nerfed, which incidently were great at bum rushing falcons, check old Priory killboard to see how many gangs flying with "over powered falcons" we took down. You have to say enough is enough with the nerfs otherwise ambulation will be all that's left and every fight will come down to a game of Tic Tac Toe, fair you say, balanced you say, and a fking load of bollox. CCP is making it abundantly clear what they want us to do ingame now when it comes to pvp, solo and nano isn't welcome anymore, so get used to it and get yourselves some falcons in gangs and get busy fking up the other guy. True story.....
Lilith Velkor Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.	Posted - 2009.01.13 22:36:00 - [103] Originally by: Amira Shadowsong Originally by: Lilith Velkor This is actually an interesting suggestion. Maybe increase racial strength a tad bit and remove the non-racial strength completely. That would make the 200km falcon fit rather vulnerable to ceptor tackle, sounds not bad. As it stands you can pretty much jam any ceptor with a wrong racial with a bit of luck, no need to free a proper racial. No, this is a plain boost to most falcons fits and situations. Now you have my attention, please explain how reducing the wrong race ecm strength to 0 on racial ecm is a boost to the falcon.
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.13 22:39:00 - [104] Originally by: Lilith Velkor Now you have my attention, please explain how reducing the wrong race ecm strength to 0 on racial ecm is a boost to the falcon. Because you said it should be done at the, even if small, gain of the other "right" strength.
Jonas Barcal Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.13 22:39:00 - [105] Originally by: Lilith Velkor Originally by: Amira Shadowsong Originally by: Lilith Velkor This is actually an interesting suggestion. Maybe increase racial strength a tad bit and remove the non-racial strength completely. That would make the 200km falcon fit rather vulnerable to ceptor tackle, sounds not bad. As it stands you can pretty much jam any ceptor with a wrong racial with a bit of luck, no need to free a proper racial. No, this is a plain boost to most falcons fits and situations. Now you have my attention, please explain how reducing the wrong race ecm strength to 0 on racial ecm is a boost to the falcon. There is a bit about increasing racial strength also.
Lilith Velkor Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.	Posted - 2009.01.13 22:45:00 - [106] Originally by: Amira Shadowsong Originally by: Lilith Velkor Now you have my attention, please explain how reducing the wrong race ecm strength to 0 on racial ecm is a boost to the falcon. Because you said it should be done at the, even if small, gain of the other "right" strength. Notice I said 'maybe' increase the strength a 'tad bit'. I could have wrote something like "maybe the racial strength would need looking at to compensate for the loss, maybe it is fine". So I take it you would be fine with removal of non-racial strength and keeping the racial strength as it is?
Krystal Demishy	Posted - 2009.01.13 22:47:00 - [107] 100% agree with the op, you could make infinite examples where falcons ruin the game. The most annoying thing is that CCP never say a word about this ** and never try to explain why they **ing nerfed the arazu to death and never touched the damn falcon.
Karentaki Gallente Oberon Incorporated Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.01.13 22:48:00 - [108] Originally by: Confessor your a friggin crybaby, and you need to friggin quit eve. POOOORR ME, I fought a falcon that couldnt do dps, couldnt web or scram me, couldnt put drones on me, and I LOST WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH please nerf the falcon, cause im a friggin cry baby, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH Right, by your logic it would be ok for me to have a ship that could... say... prevent your entire fleet from targeting anything for the entire fight, as long as it couldn't do anything else. This is clearly balanced since as long as the ship is solo, it can't kill anything, but can't be killed either. Afterall, nobody would EVER fly in groups right? NO! Your logic is TERRIBLE, since whether or not the falcon can tank, do DPS, or tackle, the rest of the fleet will be able to make up for that deficit, while the falcon disables up to 4 enemy ships for most of the battle. The falcon isn't a solo ship, but it's an immensely powerful force-multiplier, especially in smaller scale combat. People are complaining that the falcon is too powerful when it is in gangs, not when it's solo. LEARN TO READ! NOTE: In pre-emptive response to those who don't bother to read, I am not suggesting a falcon can disable an entire fleet for any length of time.
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.13 22:48:00 - [109] Originally by: Lilith Velkor Notice I said 'maybe' increase the strength a 'tad bit'. Wich means you wouldnt have objected if that were the change made by ccp. THAT is what I objected again because it IS a plain boost for the general ecm ship. Just admit it, you are biased.
Lilith Velkor Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.	Posted - 2009.01.13 22:48:00 - [110] They did buff the falcons ecm bonus from 15% to 20% not so long ago iirc, which can be argued if it was a necessary/good thing.

Burn Mac Minmatar The Tuskers	Posted - 2009.01.13 22:50:00 - [111] Only allow falcons in 0.0 :)
Krystal Demishy	Posted - 2009.01.13 22:52:00 - [112] Originally by: Burn Mac Only allow falcons in 0.0 :) why should that stupid idea solve the problem?
Lilith Velkor Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.	Posted - 2009.01.13 22:57:00 - [113] Originally by: Amira Shadowsong Originally by: Lilith Velkor Notice I said 'maybe' increase the strength a 'tad bit'. Wich means you wouldnt have objected if that were the change made by ccp. THAT is what I objected again because it IS a plain boost for the general ecm ship. Just admit it, you are biased. Huh, biased how? I merely mentioned that one might want to re-evaluate the strength given the module is changed, I'd guess thats something the devs will do anyway when changing a module without some forum post needing to mention it specifically. Given that a vague statement like that gets you all agitated I'm thinking you're the one that is biased here.
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.13 23:00:00 - [114] Originally by: Lilith Velkor Huh, biased how? I merely mentioned that one might want to re-evaluate the strength given the module is changed, I'd guess thats something the devs will do anyway when changing a module without some forum post needing to mention it specifically. Given that a vague statement like that gets you all agitated I'm thinking you're the one that is biased here. Unless you don't understand that a racial of (now made up numbers) 14/3 is worse then a 17/0 then there is no other way to interpret your desire of making a 14/3 jammer to a 17/0 instead of a 14/0. That is biased.
Dray Caldari Clowns with Downs	Posted - 2009.01.13 23:04:00 - [115] Edited by: Dray on 13/01/2009 23:06:54 Originally by: Lilith Velkor This is actually an interesting suggestion. Maybe increase racial strength a tad bit and remove the non-racial strength completely. That would make the 200km falcon fit rather vulnerable to ceptor tackle, sounds not bad. Most falcon pilots would then revert to a multispec setup across his mids and take the hit on max strength, or maybe a couple of caldari and multispecs, wouldn't really change much in my opinion. Either way asking for nerfs/changes isn't the answer, as I said in my previous post CCP don't care about solo pvp afaic, just get more of your own falcons. Also its worth looking at the performance of the falcon pilot as well, I would argue a good falcon pilot is a skilled pilot, a lot of people seem to think that locking targets and cycling your jammers is all you have to do, it isn't always that simple. Is it over powered, in the right hands yes, but most ships are, should it be nerfed, maybe but its not that difficult to counter, tho the speed nerf removed one of the best. For me its just the endless cycle of nerf nerf nerf that's game breaking not any one ship. (except for titans )
Lilith Velkor Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.	Posted - 2009.01.13 23:06:00 - [116] Originally by: Amira Shadowsong Unless you don't understand that a racial of (now made up numbers) 14/3 is worse then a 17/0 then there is no other way to interpret your desire of making a 14/3 jammer to a 17/0 instead of a 14/0. That is biased. Dont you realize you are constantly dodging the point? Forget for a moment I ever said something about increasing strength, do you like the idea now? Damn I was merely trying to avoid getting flames like "bah you nerf my module I want something back", and what do I get in return, flames like "wah this is a boost". And btw, there are scenarios where a 17/0 jammer is worthless while you are golden with a 14/3 one. If you really are a dedicated falcon pilot like you say you know that, and you also know it happens quite a bit more frequently than every year and a half.
Lilith Velkor Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.	Posted - 2009.01.13 23:10:00 - [117] Originally by: Dray Edited by: Dray on 13/01/2009 23:06:54 Originally by: Lilith Velkor This is actually an interesting suggestion. Maybe increase racial strength a tad bit and remove the non-racial strength completely. That would make the 200km falcon fit rather vulnerable to ceptor tackle, sounds not bad. Most falcon pilots would then revert to a multispec setup across his mids and take the hit on max strength, or maybe a couple of caldari and multispecs, wouldn't really change much in my opinion. If people change to multispec setups they'll have to trade in their range, notice how half the falcon whines are about range. If they do not, they have to accept the increased vulnerability to ceptors. Could be a step in the right direction.
Opertone Caldari Gladiators of Rage Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.01.13 23:13:00 - [118] jamming mechanic needs to be reworked, we don't know the exact formula. ECCM seems to be not working, some tweaks are needed. an entire gang with 2 ECCM modules on every ship got jammed by a solo falcon, this proves that ECCM doesn't offer enough protection, or is broken. Falcons may be not so bad if ECCM worked as intended, then every gang ship would use a few counter jam modules.
Dray Caldari Clowns with Downs	Posted - 2009.01.13 23:22:00 - [119] Originally by: Lilith Velkor Originally by: Dray If people change to multispec setups they'll have to trade in their range, notice how half the falcon whines are about range. If they do not, they have to accept the increased vulnerability to ceptors. Could be a step in the right direction. With good skills your still looking at decent range, but I'm be honest here when I say its a rare day when I warp in at 200km and start cycling, but to be fair most people doing that are fighting on the ground of there choosing so the people they're fighting have to choose how do deal with this, no longer a falcon issue but a tactics issue. But certainly a change like this wouldn't affect how I fly the ship, only what mids I'm fitting, and we both know that probably wont be enough for some people. The game is made up of 2 camps now, "those who try" and "those who cry", for the sake of my sanity, all of you, try to be the 1st, please.
Dray Caldari Clowns with Downs	Posted - 2009.01.13 23:28:00 - [120] Originally by: Opertone jamming mechanic needs to be reworked, we don't know the exact formula. ECCM seems to be not working, some tweaks are needed. an entire gang with 2 ECCM modules on every ship got jammed by a solo falcon, this proves that ECCM doesn't offer enough protection, or is broken. Falcons may be not so bad if ECCM worked as intended, then every gang ship would use a few counter jam modules. I agree that ECCM is poor, but it needs to be balanced carefully otherwise people will stop flying EW ships and fights will revert to slug fests, which in big fights EW or not is usually what happens, the more heavy handed nerfs we get the less diversity we get, and there can be no doubt that history has proven that when it comes to nerfs CCP doesn't f**k around. Just to add to the ECCM situation for a while in another corp we were heavily into RR gangs and we did notice a difference when we all fitted them.

JohnPaulJones Caldari Ceptacemia Systematic-Chaos	Posted - 2009.01.13 23:44:00 - [121] In small group of 5 or less indeed the Falcon is a freaking killjoy. However if there is just one Falcon on the targets side you can easily counter it with a Gallente recon and with much better effect. Wait for Falcon to decloak and pop him with a sensor dampener that wont fail to cycle.He cant lock anything untill he closes his gap thus making him vulnerable to sentries(depending on which side of the law he's on) or your own team mates. That just means you trade a damage dealer for a pilot who can dampen scan signature and targeting range 100% of the time. Its not so bad.
David Devant Gallente Solarflare Heavy Industries	Posted - 2009.01.13 23:47:00 - [122] \signed
Lilith Velkor Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.	Posted - 2009.01.14 00:05:00 - [123] Originally by: Opertone an entire gang with 2 ECCM modules on every ship got jammed by a solo falcon, this proves that ECCM doesn't offer enough protection, or is broken. I had it one time when I put 5 gallente racials on a Mega without ECCM and failed a cycle. This proves ecm is underpowered and blackbirds need a boost, or the Megas sensor strength is broken. Fakeedit: it actually proves nothing apart from anecdotical evidence being worth a bag of mud.
Shate Def The Order of Chivalry Nex Eternus	Posted - 2009.01.14 00:06:00 - [124] Originally by: JohnPaulJones In small group of 5 or less indeed the Falcon is a freaking killjoy. However if there is just one Falcon on the targets side you can easily counter it with a Gallente recon and with much better effect. Wait for Falcon to decloak and pop him with a sensor dampener that wont fail to cycle.He cant lock anything untill he closes his gap thus making him vulnerable to sentries(depending on which side of the law he's on) or your own team mates. That just means you trade a damage dealer for a pilot who can dampen scan signature and targeting range 100% of the time. Its not so bad. the optimal on damps would have to be doubled for this to be sumwhat effetive.
Lilith Velkor Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.	Posted - 2009.01.14 00:14:00 - [125] Originally by: Shate Def the optimal on damps would have to be doubled for this to be sumwhat effetive. If we're going down that road buffing falloff instead of optimal on RSDs would be the way to go.
Kurunto	Posted - 2009.01.14 09:38:00 - [126] I believe all ECM ships and just ECM in general should get balanced. Not nerfed to heck like the Arazu/Damps were but balanced.
Pac SubCom A.W.M	Posted - 2009.01.14 09:58:00 - [127] Originally by: Shate Def Originally by: JohnPaulJones In small group of 5 or less indeed the Falcon is a freaking killjoy. However if there is just one Falcon on the targets side you can easily counter it with a Gallente recon and with much better effect. Wait for Falcon to decloak and pop him with a sensor dampener that wont fail to cycle.He cant lock anything untill he closes his gap thus making him vulnerable to sentries(depending on which side of the law he's on) or your own team mates. That just means you trade a damage dealer for a pilot who can dampen scan signature and targeting range 100% of the time. Its not so bad. the optimal on damps would have to be doubled for this to be sumwhat effetive. Myth.
DjLowballer Amarr FLASHTROOPER CORP	Posted - 2009.01.14 10:56:00 - [128] So I see one glaring problem with the plan to add Racial Strength while removing other strengths to give an interceptor a chance: I am 200k away I see Interceptor coming At like 150k I turn on a Multispectral Jammer OR Divert one racial. I fly the falcon because I love cloakships and being clandestine. However I can admit that it seems a bit overpowered as I am jamming multiple targets. The way I see it as working better is that Falcon has a big jar of Jam. When all of this Jam is poured on one target, it is near permajammed. This makes sense as a ship that is entirely skilled, rigged, and equipped for jamming should be able to jam a ship that is not. Now when the Jam is spread out over multiple targets there is obviously less Jam to go around so they might break free more often, or be harder to jam. So a falcon on 1 target = Owned 2-3= Little harder but can still work 3-4= Still doable but much less of a chance 5+ = Waste of time This does nothing if people bring multiple falcons to the party, but at the same time a fleet who brings 30% ECM to a fight against a fleet with none deserves to kick ass at ECM
TimMc Gallente Brutal Deliverance OWN Alliance	Posted - 2009.01.14 11:16:00 - [129] Edited by: TimMc on 14/01/2009 11:18:18 Originally by: Uhr Zylex OP is right, they are the f*ing anti-fun. A hostile gang roamed into my space yesturday. It was composed of 2 munnin, 1 sac, 1 curse (I think) and 4 FALCONS**. Seriously... wtf... Edit: I support the idea of making the jam cycle last 5 seconds, or even none (more like ECM burst). This would at least give interceptors the ability to quickly relock and stop them, while making larger ships disabled without sensor boosters/eccm.
Balendin	Posted - 2009.01.14 11:29:00 - [130] waaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh CRY ME A RIVER!!!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH a Falcont hat cant shoot, cant use drones, cant use missles, does so little damage it cant kill a pod is to powerful, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH PLease CCP nerf it cause im so scared.... WAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Balendin	Posted - 2009.01.14 11:33:00 - [131] Edited by: Balendin on 14/01/2009 11:33:33 CCP, the pooor little pilgrim was to powerful, please nerf it, no wait, the arazu was to powerful, please nerf it, no the rapier can web at 50 km!!! wtf, nerf it. NO wait,t he falcon can only jam, has crap for damage and pops like a ballon when hit is just to powerful, please nerf it so NEWBIE IDIOT CRAPPY PHAGNASTY NUBS CAN fight a better equipped opponent.
Gunner Hankus	Posted - 2009.01.14 12:32:00 - [132] General, The falcon is overpowered, please have the United Nations nerf it. Adapt and Overcome. Its part of the game.. Find the falcon solution, then use it.
Garia666 Amarr T.H.U.G L.I.F.E White Core	Posted - 2009.01.14 12:50:00 - [133] Edited by: Garia666 on 14/01/2009 12:50:39 i see small roaming gangs with 4 or even more falcons per gang.. its getting redicule the only way to counter is to have your own falcons or go and snipe..
Dotard Minmatar Suddenly Ninjas Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service	Posted - 2009.01.14 12:50:00 - [134] RAMMING SPEED! (Shame it will do squat, but it's fun to yell.)
SirMoric Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2009.01.14 13:49:00 - [135] Look mom, I'm in another Falcon thread, come on guys, be a little more creative and use counters. Creativity prevails!! Information Warfare Link - Sensor Integrity Ship Equipment: Electronic Warfare: ECCM Ship Equipment: Electronic Warfare: Projected ECCM Ship Equipment: Electronic Warfare: Sensor Backup Arrays rgds
lebrata Hedion University	Posted - 2009.01.14 13:53:00 - [136] Originally by: SirMoric Look mom, I'm in another Falcon thread, come on guys, be a little more creative and use counters. Creativity prevails!! Information Warfare Link - Sensor Integrity Ship Equipment: Electronic Warfare: ECCM Ship Equipment: Electronic Warfare: Projected ECCM Ship Equipment: Electronic Warfare: Sensor Backup Arrays rgds Nice list of modules dude, although versatile fittings, mobility and having our own BM's is the main tactic my guys tend to use against falcons, its very effective.
alpha charlie Minmatar North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.01.14 14:06:00 - [137] lol another gneez falcon thread
spuge	Posted - 2009.01.14 18:57:00 - [138] why everyone cry falcon perma jam me when i dont do anyting to block it. sensor str is your resistance vs ecm!!! yes falcon can jam 1-4 boat if no one have eccm, if you do if maybe drop you lock one or 2 time in combat but not perma jam why you cry ecm is too poferful when you dont get any resistance vs it why you dont cry my batleship is too weak when i dont fit resistances, plates or armor reps you you maybe notice it alredy im falcon pilot and maybe 1/100 ships use eccm. now someone cry eccm use my med / low slots. yea your eanm resistance booster use too slots you need find balance between or choose what you tank. think it why falcon is "too poferful" when 1/100 ships use eccm
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.14 20:40:00 - [139] Originally by: Gunner Hankus General, The falcon is overpowered, please have the United Nations nerf it. Adapt and Overcome. Its part of the game.. Find the falcon solution, then use it. The falcon solution is the falcon itself, just like the solution to nanos was a nano fleet. See where I'm getting at? ...The definition of OVERPOWERED.
Dominik Miethling	Posted - 2009.01.14 20:47:00 - [140] If there are that many Falcons out there, why people still not fitting ECCM? There will obvouisly be a falcon in the next camp, so fitting an eccm is like fitting a web/mwd/whatever :P Also from a Falcon-Pilot: Its quite hard to jam BS with even one ECCM, multiple targets of the same type screw you (no, iam not sitting in station, getting intel and fitting...). I dont even think, ECM is overpowered, but the falcon is slightly(less range or strenght would be ok). I would also love to see something, which removes the falcon from alt-chars :)

Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.14 20:52:00 - [141] Originally by: Dominik Miethling If there are that many Falcons out there, why people still not fitting ECCM? Hahahahaha, why do you think?! Because ECCM SUCKS, plain and simple!
Major Celine	Posted - 2009.01.14 20:54:00 - [142] Originally by: Dominik Miethling If there are that many Falcons out there, why people still not fitting ECCM? Hahaha, because people are dumb by default! Simple
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.14 20:55:00 - [143] Originally by: Major Celine Originally by: Dominik Miethling If there are that many Falcons out there, why people still not fitting ECCM? Hahaha, because people are dumb by default! Simple No...ECCM sucks. Plain and simple. Some people might be too dumb to actually understand THAT.
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.01.14 20:56:00 - [144] Originally by: Amira Shadowsong WWAAAA do not wanna use a slot better to cry to ccp for a nerf nerf.... Fixed.
Stalina Gallente Deep Space Exploration Squad	Posted - 2009.01.14 20:58:00 - [145] Originally by: Balendin NO wait,t he falcon can only jam, has crap for damage and pops like a ballon when hit is just to powerful, please nerf it so NEWBIE IDIOT CRAPPY PHAGNASTY NUBS CAN fight a better equipped opponent. So all the recons do crap damage and pop like balloons, whats your point MR."37 million sp Industrialist" ?
lordbalan Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.01.14 21:07:00 - [146] Originally by: Stalina Originally by: Balendin NO wait,t he falcon can only jam, has crap for damage and pops like a ballon when hit is just to powerful, please nerf it so NEWBIE IDIOT CRAPPY PHAGNASTY NUBS CAN fight a better equipped opponent. So all the recons do crap damage and pop like balloons, whats your point MR."37 million sp Industrialist" ? All the other recons need to be boosted.....
Major Celine	Posted - 2009.01.14 21:09:00 - [147] Hey, are "homo falconfailenseis" the missing link between new players and PvPers?
Stab Wounds Caldari State Protectorate	Posted - 2009.01.14 21:12:00 - [148] Waa waaa learn2pvp. should try umm getting some friends? maybe a buddy that can snipe and another falcon? try again.
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.14 21:13:00 - [149] Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 14/01/2009 20:58:00 Originally by: Amira Shadowsong WWAAAA do not wanna use a slot better to cry to ccp for a nerf nerf.... Fixed. Even a thorax with a eccm fitted has 30ish str that DOUBLE the str of a falcons jammer on a t1 cruiser.... ECCM sucks. End of story. I'm sorry you are not capable to understand it.
Etho Demerzel Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone	Posted - 2009.01.14 21:16:00 - [150] Originally by: Amira Shadowsong I suck. End of story. I'm sorry you are not capable to understand it. You made a mistake while typing, but I corrected it for you. No need to tahnk me ===== "If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron...

Stalina Gallente Deep Space Exploration Squad	Posted - 2009.01.14 21:17:00 - [151] Originally by: lordbalan All the other recons need to be boosted..... And I thought there was a reason for nerfing them. Originally by: Stab Wounds and another falcon? Tbh we need moar failcons.
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.14 21:18:00 - [152] Originally by: Etho Demerzel Originally by: Amira Shadowsong I suck. End of story. I'm sorry you are not capable to understand it. I r stupid There, I fixed it for you aswell.
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.01.14 21:19:00 - [153] Originally by: Amira Shadowsong Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 14/01/2009 20:58:00 Originally by: Amira Shadowsong WWAAAA do not wanna use a slot better to cry to ccp for a nerf nerf.... Fixed. Even a thorax with a eccm fitted has 30ish str that DOUBLE the str of a falcons jammer on a t1 cruiser.... ECCM sucks. End of story. I'm sorry you are not capable to understand it. ECM adds a measure of unpredictability to combat in eve, im sorry if you suck and need for it to be predictable and are unable to adapt during combat.
Major Celine	Posted - 2009.01.14 21:21:00 - [154] Originally by: Stalina Tbh we need moar failcons. Success of being outnumbered at all. With or without falcons.
chrisss0r	Posted - 2009.01.14 21:21:00 - [155] i want a shuttle-based ship with a module that can shut off every tank module of targetted ships. (3-4) from 200km it wouldn't be overpowered for the ship would not be able to tank, deal damage or do anything else.
Endless Subversion The Accursed	Posted - 2009.01.14 21:22:00 - [156] Originally by: Murina ECM adds a measure of unpredictability to combat in eve, im sorry if you suck and need for it to be predictable and are unable to adapt during combat. Oh yes, I'm jammed, how unpredictable! Waves hands around
Etho Demerzel Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone	Posted - 2009.01.14 21:23:00 - [157] Originally by: Amira Shadowsong Originally by: Etho Demerzel Originally by: Amira Shadowsong I suck. End of story. I'm sorry you are not capable to understand it. I r stupid There, I fixed it for you aswell. Oh my, your "fix" has "a few"grammatical problems, my dear. And I see you don't object to mine as you quoted it too. Self awereness is a beautiful thing.
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.14 21:24:00 - [158] Originally by: Murina ECM adds a measure of unpredictability to combat in eve, im sorry if you suck and need for it to be predictable and are unable to adapt during combat. It adds nothing. It is boring. It requires LESS skill. It makes the game dull for everyone involved except the few noobs that desperately need overpowered mechanics to get a kill in eve because of lack of mental capabilities.
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.14 21:25:00 - [159] Originally by: Etho Demerzel Self awereness is a beautiful thing. Oh the irony...
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.01.14 21:27:00 - [160] Originally by: Endless Subversion Originally by: Murina ECM adds a measure of unpredictability to combat in eve, im sorry if you suck and need for it to be predictable and are unable to adapt during combat. Oh yes, I'm jammed, how unpredictable! Waves hands around You obviously know nothing about the ecm mechanic, either that or you fly t1 frigs....

Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.01.14 21:29:00 - [161] Originally by: Amira Shadowsong Originally by: Murina ECM adds a measure of unpredictability to combat in eve, im sorry if you suck and need for it to be predictable and are unable to adapt during combat. It adds nothing. It is boring. It requires LESS skill. It makes the game dull for everyone involved except the few noobs that desperately need overpowered mechanics to get a kill in eve because of lack of mental capabilities. You have no clue about gang pvp unless it involves predictable fights with predictable out comes, IE: BORING.
chrisss0r	Posted - 2009.01.14 21:29:00 - [162] Originally by: chrisss0r i want a shuttle-based ship with a module that can shut off every tank module of targetted ships. (3-4) from 200km it wouldn't be overpowered for the ship would not be able to tank, deal damage or do anything else. oh yes and i want a 95% chance to be successfull. for nothing that is chance based can ever be overpowered!
Stalina Gallente Deep Space Exploration Squad	Posted - 2009.01.14 21:30:00 - [163] Edited by: Stalina on 14/01/2009 21:31:20 Originally by: Major Celine Originally by: Stalina Tbh we need moar failcons. Success of being outnumbered at all. With or without falcons. You know the killboard only tells you who managed to get on the one killmail the "smaller fleet" achieved, it doesnt tell you how many of them escaped as they simply didn't manage to end up on any killmail. But anyway, a 20 man bs-heavy fleet achieving one kill over a 10 minute period has nothing to do with the number of falcons, but with being outnumbered.
Jonas Barcal Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.14 21:32:00 - [164] Originally by: chrisss0r oh yes and i want a 95% chance to be successfull. for nothing that is chance based can ever be overpowered! Chance is underpowered, I don't like losing!!
Etho Demerzel Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone	Posted - 2009.01.14 21:35:00 - [165] Originally by: Stalina You know the killboard only tells you who managed to get on the one killmail the "smaller fleet" achieved, it doesnt tell you how many of them escaped as they simply didn't manage to end up on any killmail. But anyway, a 20 man bs-heavy fleet achieving one kill over a 10 minute period has nothing to do with the number of falcons, but with being outnumbered. A 20 man short range bs-heavy fleet, when faced with its natural counter, dies. Oh my, so imbalanced! ===== "If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron...
Stalina Gallente Deep Space Exploration Squad	Posted - 2009.01.14 21:37:00 - [166] Edited by: Stalina on 14/01/2009 21:38:02 Originally by: Etho Demerzel A 20 man short range bs-heavy fleet, when faced with its natural counter, dies. Oh my, so imbalanced! You didn't quite get it. There might have been even more people, but if they didn't get on any killmail or lossmail they wont be showing up on the killboard. In actual combat, if you get jammed you warp out and wont appear there. But i thought you would come up with a counter against a Falcon blob.
Jonas Barcal Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.14 21:40:00 - [167] Originally by: Stalina But i thought you would come up with a counter against a Falcon blob. Don't need to counter a falcon blob as they don't do any damage.
Stalina Gallente Deep Space Exploration Squad	Posted - 2009.01.14 21:41:00 - [168] Originally by: Jonas Barcal Originally by: Stalina But i thought you would come up with a counter against a Falcon blob. Don't need to counter a falcon blob as they don't do any damage. You mean you didn't fit for any damage?
Major Celine	Posted - 2009.01.14 21:42:00 - [169] Originally by: Stalina Edited by: Stalina on 14/01/2009 21:38:02 Originally by: Etho Demerzel A 20 man short range bs-heavy fleet, when faced with its natural counter, dies. Oh my, so imbalanced! You didn't quite get it. There might have been even more people, but if they didn't get on any killmail or lossmail they wont be showing up on the killboard. In actual combat, if you get jammed you warp out and wont appear there. But i thought you would come up with a counter against a Falcon blob. As I can see, none of your ships (losses at least) had any kind of eccm fitted. Hell, even 3-4 Drakes with one eccm each could wipe out all the falcons (or at least make them warping out).
Lilith Velkor Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.	Posted - 2009.01.14 21:45:00 - [170] Originally by: Stab Wounds Waa waaa learn2pvp. should try umm getting some friends? maybe a buddy that can snipe and another falcon? try again. Holy **** lmao, my irony meter just got vaporized

Jonas Barcal Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.14 21:45:00 - [171] Originally by: Stalina You mean you didn't fit for any damage? Of course not I'm sitting at 200km like every other falcon pilot with unlimited number of strategic bookmarks of systems I've never even visited (the bookmarks come with the ship)
Stalina Gallente Deep Space Exploration Squad	Posted - 2009.01.14 21:46:00 - [172] Edited by: Stalina on 14/01/2009 21:45:55 Originally by: Major Celine As I can see, none of your ships (losses at least) had any kind of eccm fitted. Hell, even 3-4 Drakes with one eccm each could wipe out all the falcons (or at least make them warping out). Yes and if the Faclons pilots suck, dont use Voicecoms and only put one of them possible 66 jammers on 1 of the drakes.
Jonas Barcal Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.14 21:57:00 - [173] Originally by: Stalina So if a blob of falcons would fit like actually "missiles bays and a turret" and get a little closer they might DO damage? Besides the other 20 people that dont take any damage, thanks to them falcons. I can just imagine 20 falcons with missiles gettting blown up by a disco domi saying but I had him jammed WTF. Falcons are one dimensioned like all Caldari ships, if you want to change ECM better get CCP to redesign the rules for Caldari from the ground up first as 'different' isn't good enough.
Stalina Gallente Deep Space Exploration Squad	Posted - 2009.01.14 22:02:00 - [174] Originally by: Jonas Barcal I can just imagine 20 falcons with missiles gettting blown up by a disco domi saying but I had him jammed WTF. You mean the missiles get blown up and you just wait until the domi runs out of cap while staying out of smarty range. Originally by: Jonas Barcal Falcons are one dimensioned like all Caldari ships, if you want to change ECM better get CCP to redesign the rules for Caldari from the ground up first as 'different' isn't good enough. Well adding scripts to ECm would be the deal for me, nothing big to change.
Lilith Velkor Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.	Posted - 2009.01.14 22:02:00 - [175] Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 14/01/2009 22:03:26 Originally by: Stalina Originally by: lordbalan All the other recons need to be boosted..... And I thought there was a reason for nerfing them. Originally by: Stab Wounds and another falcon? Tbh we need moar failcons. Learn, Adapt, Overcome. Next time you fight these guys you know they roll heavy on ecm, bring some eccm'ed snipers, have eccm on every ship bigger than a cruiser, bring projected eccm whereever you have a free slot, have an Eos as fleet booster if possible. Then shoot down a billion isk in recon ships in less than a minute. Decloak your own ewar at this point. While panic gets the better part of your enemy, spread points, overload guns and melt what doesnt run away.
Stalina Gallente Deep Space Exploration Squad	Posted - 2009.01.14 22:06:00 - [176] Originally by: Lilith Velkor Next time you fight these guys you know they roll heavy on ecm, bring some eccm'ed snipers, have eccm on every ship bigger than a cruiser, bring projected eccm whereever you have a free slot, have an Eos as fleet booster if possible. Then shoot down a billion isk in recon ships in less than a minute. While panic gets the better part of your enemy, spread points, overload guns and melt what doesnt run away. And what prevents your eccm snipers from being blown up in seconds? ah yes moar ships... I mean my blob is bigger than yours.
Major Celine	Posted - 2009.01.14 22:08:00 - [177] Originally by: Stalina And what prevents your eccm snipers from being blown up in seconds? ah yes moar ships... I mean my blob is bigger than yours. Meh, your RR BS are blown up in seconds, too. What are you looking for, a balancing that makes you win?
Stalina Gallente Deep Space Exploration Squad	Posted - 2009.01.14 22:12:00 - [178] Edited by: Stalina on 14/01/2009 22:16:03 Originally by: Major Celine Originally by: Stalina And what prevents your eccm snipers from being blown up in seconds? ah yes moar ships... I mean my blob is bigger than yours. Meh, your RR BS are blown up in seconds, too. What are you looking for, a balancing that makes you win? I didn't come up with the idea of ECCM-Snipers in a RR fleet as a counter to a falcon blob, but afaik RR bs have way more hitpoints than sniper bs and can withstand more damage. As I wrote, scripted ECM would surely do the trick. you either take the longer range or the better jamming strength. Sounds balanced to me. You would still be able to jam over the same distance, you would just need to activate more than 1 jammer.
Major Celine	Posted - 2009.01.14 22:15:00 - [179] Originally by: Stalina I didn't come up with the idea of ECCM-Snipers in a RR fleet as a counter to a falcon blob, but afaik RR bs have way more hitpoints than sniper bs and can withstand more damage. Yes, and an ECCM fitted on a RR BS won't change that fact. You are correct.
Lilith Velkor Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.	Posted - 2009.01.14 22:15:00 - [180] Originally by: Stalina And what prevents your eccm snipers from being blown up in seconds? ah yes moar ships... I mean my blob is bigger than yours. ECCM'ed sniper BS come with the same amount of prepared 200km bookmarks as falcons do, dont see why they should get popped.

Camilo Cienfuegos Earned In Blood	Posted - 2009.01.14 22:15:00 - [181] If ECM were massively overpowered, we would see more ECM than we do. In fact, we'd see Caldari pilots flying nothing else just as once upon a time we saw nothing but WCS fitted nanophoons and vagabonds from minmatar pilots, eight heatsink gankageddons from the amarr and the power of RSD isn't too distant a memory. The bottom line is that whilst ECM is immensely frustrating, in principle it's doing exactly what it was always designed to do and has itself eaten a nerf in the past to get us where we are today. As such any radical changes to ECM should really be discouraged, but some minor changes to the way it functions might actually be able to reverse some of the damage done to ECM in the past, yet simultaneously reduce it's overall effectiveness in line with changes to other EW in the past. See my signature for more details, and thank you for your time. Hardpoint Rigs ECM Balancing
Stalina Gallente Deep Space Exploration Squad	Posted - 2009.01.14 22:18:00 - [182] Originally by: Major Celine Yes, and an ECCM fitted on a RR BS won't change that fact. You are correct. 1 ECCM, haha. Originally by: Lilith Velkor ECCM'ed sniper BS come with the same amount of prepared 200km bookmarks as falcons do, dont see why they should get popped. 1/10 for trolling.
Lilith Velkor Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.	Posted - 2009.01.14 22:31:00 - [183] Originally by: Stalina Originally by: Lilith Velkor ECCM'ed sniper BS come with the same amount of prepared 200km bookmarks as falcons do, dont see why they should get popped. 1/10 for trolling. That was meant serious btw.
Stalina Gallente Deep Space Exploration Squad	Posted - 2009.01.14 22:32:00 - [184] Serious troll?
Lilith Velkor Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.	Posted - 2009.01.14 22:40:00 - [185] Originally by: Stalina Serious troll? What I was trying to say is, your snipers can do the same thing the ebil hax0rz do in their falcons, stay outside range of anything that can hit them. Setup a few bookmarks to warp around so you dont get caught that fast and there you go. Whats so hard to grasp?
Etho Demerzel Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone	Posted - 2009.01.14 22:44:00 - [186] Originally by: Stalina 1 ECCM, haha. One ECCM is quite a lot. There is no other anti-EW madule taht is as effective as ECCM, mind you. Quote: 1/10 for trolling. I have to call you to reality, my friend. The troll here is you. ===== "If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron...
Stalina Gallente Deep Space Exploration Squad	Posted - 2009.01.14 22:52:00 - [187] Edited by: Stalina on 14/01/2009 22:55:36 Originally by: Lilith Velkor What I was trying to say is, your snipers can do the same thing the ebil hax0rz do in their falcons, stay outside range of anything that can hit them. Setup a few bookmarks to warp around so you dont get caught that fast and there you go. Whats so hard to grasp? But this kinda limits you to a few systems. Or your roaming might take a little longer as your covops need to make spots around every gate. Originally by: Etho Demerzel Originally by: Stalina 1 ECCM, haha. One ECCM is quite a lot. There is no other anti-EW madule taht is as effective as ECCM, mind you. Actually it is effective if you look at the numbers. Indeed, its great! Though you still get jammed until you either die or warp out. I mean "ingame", not on forums. Originally by: Etho Demerzel Quote: 1/10 for trolling. I have to call you to reality, my friend. The troll here is you. Im not sure what makes you think that, but I actually use my falcon char and Im not bitter about dying to falcon blobs, as this did not happen to me. Still I hate being jammed for 60 seconds+ in Hacs, CS, BS while having ECCM fitted. I finally unfitted ECCM and got another Sensor Booster for faster locking once a cycle fails, if that happens. How about you? Do you use ECCM effectively with your main? Anyway if you tell me I should get ECCM snipers and other ECCM ships into gang to effectively fight (a) Falcon(s), the OP is right.
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.14 22:52:00 - [188] Edited by: Amira Shadowsong on 14/01/2009 22:52:34 Originally by: Etho Demerzel One ECCM is quite a lot. There is no other anti-EW madule taht is as effective as ECCM, mind you. Wait are you kidding me? One ECCM does jack **** on my malediction. And tell me exactly why I shouldnt have the option on my tackling ceptor to be a falcon tackler and therefor use eccm in one of my mids. It should be viable on all ships, it is not. ECM IS OVERPOWERED.
Lilith Velkor Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.	Posted - 2009.01.14 22:57:00 - [189] Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 14/01/2009 22:58:28 Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 14/01/2009 22:57:44 Originally by: Stalina But this kinda limits you to a few systems. Or your roaming might take a little longer as your covops need to make spots around every gate. But the other guys have that very same issue, thats the price you pay when going with long-range tactics. I cant see a problem there honestly, besides 100km will do just fine for general purpose. Originally by: Stalina How about you? Do you use ECCM effectively with your main? I actually fit it on anything bigger than a cruiser. It is well worth the slot imo, but then again I'm not expecting to be immune to jamming either. (Only worth it in gangs tho, solo vs ecm you are always screwed.)
chrisss0r	Posted - 2009.01.14 22:58:00 - [190] ECM is not overpowered since falcon alts equal cash for ccp. no way they gonna nerf them anytime soon

Major Celine	Posted - 2009.01.14 22:58:00 - [191] Hmm, I have ECCM on my logistics and get jammed maybe once a week. ECCM works, what do I right and you guys wrong? Yeah, I actually fit it.
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.14 22:59:00 - [192] Originally by: Major Celine Hmm, I have ECCM on my logistics and get jammed maybe once a week. ECCM works, what do I right and you guys wrong? Yeah, I actually fit it. Good for your oneiros. Not every ship is an oneiros that can burn several mids for ECCM.
Lilith Velkor Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.	Posted - 2009.01.14 23:00:00 - [193] Originally by: Major Celine Hmm, I have ECCM on my logistics and get jammed maybe once a week. ECCM works, what do I right and you guys wrong? Yeah, I actually fit it. LOL NOOB IT DOESNT WORK YOU STILL GET JAMMED!!!!ONEELEVEN
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.14 23:03:00 - [194] Originally by: Lilith Velkor Originally by: Major Celine Hmm, I have ECCM on my logistics and get jammed maybe once a week. ECCM works, what do I right and you guys wrong? Yeah, I actually fit it. LOL NOOB IT DOESNT WORK YOU STILL GET JAMMED!!!!ONEELEVEN How come a stiletto can fit 2 SBs and tackle a gallente recon but it cant fit 2 eccm and viably tackle a falcon? Why do you think this is ok? Just admit it, eccm sucks and is broken.
Stalina Gallente Deep Space Exploration Squad	Posted - 2009.01.14 23:12:00 - [195] Edited by: Stalina on 14/01/2009 23:13:13 Originally by: Lilith Velkor But the other guys have that very same issue, thats the price you pay when going with long-range tactics. I cant see a problem there honestly, besides 100km will do just fine for general purpose. So If you go out in a small gang, you need to get some specialized eccm ships and even some ships with remote eccm, while you still need tacklers ( med slots / tackle gear / eccm, i think you get it ) around. This is what the op was saying. Your small gang becomes a bigger gang, just to counter ecm. Solo is impossible when a ecm ship is around, as you stated yourself, small gangs need more numbers to counter ecm. Either fit eccm and get more people to compensate for the lost med slots/damage/whatever or run away without a fight, thats how it is. Forgot, bring your own falcon.
Lilith Velkor Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.	Posted - 2009.01.14 23:15:00 - [196] Originally by: Amira Shadowsong How come a stiletto can fit 2 SBs and tackle a gallente recon but it cant fit 2 eccm and viably tackle a falcon? Why do you think this is ok? Just admit it, eccm sucks and is broken. ECCM vs ECM is different from SB vs RSD, basically one SB counters one SB while one ECCM reduces the jamming chance for every ECM module on Tranquility by 50%. Actually a Stiletto with 32.4 sensor strength doesnt look that bad to me against a falcon, 43% chance to get jammed by a ladar ecm, and they are not the most popular ecm modules either, he'll have maximum one. Wrong racial is 14% chance, multispec is 30%, your idea could even work.
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.14 23:16:00 - [197] Originally by: Lilith Velkor Wrong racial is 14% chance, multispec is 30%, your idea could even work. So why is it ok that the counters for ecm are so much worse then the other types of ew?
Jonas Barcal Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.14 23:16:00 - [198] Originally by: Amira Shadowsong Originally by: Lilith Velkor Wrong racial is 14% chance, multispec is 30%, your idea could even work. So why is it ok that the counters for ecm are so much worse then the other types of ew? It's not ok.. Nerf the other counters.
Lilith Velkor Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.	Posted - 2009.01.14 23:21:00 - [199] Originally by: Stalina So If you go out in a small gang, you need to get some specialized eccm ships and even some ships with remote eccm, while you still need tacklers ( med slots / tackle gear / eccm, i think you get it ) around. This is what the op was saying. Your small gang becomes a bigger gang, just to counter ecm. Solo is impossible when a ecm ship is around, as you stated yourself, small gangs need more numbers to counter ecm. Either fit eccm and get more people to compensate for the lost med slots/damage/whatever or run away without a fight, thats how it is. Forgot, bring your own falcon. So what, if they decide to bring TDs I'll need to fly only missile boats or bring more people to compensate for lost dps. If they bring remote reps, I need more people to break the turtle tank, or I need ECM... If they bring neuts my active tanks are worth crap, sucks for small gangs -> bring more people. They drop a carrier on your small gang -> sucks, bring more people. I see a pattern there, its not an ecm issue, its a blob issue.
Lilith Velkor Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.	Posted - 2009.01.14 23:25:00 - [200] Originally by: Amira Shadowsong Originally by: Lilith Velkor Wrong racial is 14% chance, multispec is 30%, your idea could even work. So why is it ok that the counters for ecm are so much worse then the other types of ew? It is just different not worse. In some respect it is the best of all the counters because its effect works equally well on an infinite amount of hostile modules, not just one. And talking about counters, there isnt even any counter for TDs as there is no module to boost falloff. Why is that ok again?

Major Celine	Posted - 2009.01.14 23:30:00 - [201] Edited by: Major Celine on 14/01/2009 23:31:24 Originally by: Amira Shadowsong Originally by: Major Celine Hmm, I have ECCM on my logistics and get jammed maybe once a week. ECCM works, what do I right and you guys wrong? Yeah, I actually fit it. Good for your oneiros. Not every ship is an oneiros that can burn several mids for ECCM. 1x ECCM and it is not an Oneiros. Works very well. And its not a burned slot because I counter ECM.
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.14 23:30:00 - [202] Originally by: Lilith Velkor In some respect it is the best of all the counters because its effect works equally well on an infinite amount of hostile modules, not just one. What!? Wait did you just now say that ECCM works equally well on an infinite amount of hostile modules? You do know it is exactly the opposite. Since ECM is not stacking nerfed a group of ECM modules will totally perma jam you ECCM or not. If you on the other hand have 3 SBs to counter Damps your opponents can put 100 damps on you and you will still be able to counter it fairly well with 3 SBs. Really, do you even play this game or have any basic knowlege of the game mechanics? You are starting to sound just as ignorant as murina.
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.14 23:32:00 - [203] Originally by: Major Celine 1x ECCM and it is not an Oneiros. Works very well. Don't lie. My standard fit falcon can perma jam any subcapital ship with 1 single ECCM. People in this thread actually play the game.
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.01.14 23:34:00 - [204] Originally by: Amira Shadowsong Originally by: Major Celine 1x ECCM and it is not an Oneiros. Works very well. Don't lie. My standard fit falcon can perma jam any subcapital ship with 1 single ECCM. People in this thread actually play the game. Any ship with over 14ish str CANNOT be "perma jammed" its simply imposable cos that roughly the max str of jammers, you are a liar.
Jonas Barcal Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.14 23:34:00 - [205] Originally by: Amira Shadowsong Originally by: Major Celine 1x ECCM and it is not an Oneiros. Works very well. Don't lie. My standard fit falcon can perma jam any subcapital ship with 1 single ECCM. People in this thread actually play the game. I love my 2 x Onerios alts :D
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.14 23:35:00 - [206] Originally by: Murina Any ship with over 14ish str CANNOT be "perma jammed" its simply imposable cos that roughly the max str of jammers, you are a liar. Actually it can.
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.01.14 23:39:00 - [207] Originally by: Amira Shadowsong Originally by: Murina Any ship with over 14ish str CANNOT be "perma jammed" its simply imposable cos that roughly the max str of jammers, you are a liar. Actually it can. For somebody who preaches about the mechanics of the game you do talk a lot of rubbish, to permanently jam a ship with higher str than the jammer trying to jam it is imposable. But by all means proof of stfu i believe is the expression...
Major Celine	Posted - 2009.01.14 23:39:00 - [208] Originally by: Amira Shadowsong Originally by: Major Celine 1x ECCM and it is not an Oneiros. Works very well. Don't lie. My standard fit falcon can perma jam any subcapital ship with 1 single ECCM. People in this thread actually play the game. Seriously, stop posting, you make yourself looking stupid...
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.14 23:41:00 - [209] Originally by: Major Celine Seriously, stop posting, you make yourself looking stupid... Do you see the irony here?
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.14 23:42:00 - [210] Originally by: Murina But by all means proof of stfu i believe is the expression... Wait, where is YOUR proof of these impossible perma jams? Oh the irony again.

Lilith Velkor Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.	Posted - 2009.01.14 23:42:00 - [211] Originally by: Amira Shadowsong What!? Wait did you just now say that ECCM works equally well on an infinite amount of hostile modules? You do know it is exactly the opposite. Yes it does, lets look at an example: Lets say we have a Stiletto with 2x ECCM, giving him a sensor strength of 32,4. We now apply a ladar eccm, which at 14.2 has roughly 45% chance to jam. We now apply another ladar eccm, at 14.2 it has roughly 45% chance to jam. We now apply a third ladar eccm, ... You can try as many jammers as you like, nothing changes regarding the eccm effect. Originally by: Amira Shadowsong Since ECM is not stacking nerfed a group of ECM modules will totally perma jam you ECCM or not. ECM is naturally stacking nerfed since it is chance based. Do the math. You get nearly 100% reliably jammed when dropping 50 racial ecms on you, but you get nearly 100% reliably instapopped if 40 BS open up on you too. Quote: Really, do you even play this game or have any basic knowlege of the game mechanics? You are starting to sound just as ignorant as murina. We're playing the same game, and I guess I have some rudimentary knowledge of game mechanics by now. Btw you dodged my other question: Why is it ok that TDs have no counter?
Major Celine	Posted - 2009.01.14 23:44:00 - [212] Originally by: Amira Shadowsong Originally by: Major Celine Seriously, stop posting, you make yourself looking stupid... Do you see the irony here? Re-read your posts and you will be illuminated. You call me a liar because I say ECCM works on my ship? It does. I have it fitted. It is active. Always. It doesn't have an effect on your ship? Then you are a single snowflake and shoult write down a bug report.
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.01.14 23:45:00 - [213] Originally by: Amira Shadowsong Originally by: Murina But by all means proof of stfu i believe is the expression... Wait, where is YOUR proof of these impossible perma jams?. 14 jam str vs 28 sig str = 50% chance to jam, in a infinite time frame(as that what perma means btw) it is imposable. If you do not understand that its no wonder your looking for another game to screw with..
Lilith Velkor Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.	Posted - 2009.01.14 23:46:00 - [214] Originally by: Amira Shadowsong Originally by: Murina But by all means proof of stfu i believe is the expression... Wait, where is YOUR proof of these impossible perma jams? Oh the irony again. Its in the bloody math, permajamming something above 14.2 is impossible. Actually the way the ecm formula works even below that you'll never be truly permajammed as far as I can recall.
Camilo Cienfuegos Earned In Blood	Posted - 2009.01.14 23:48:00 - [215] Edited by: Camilo Cienfuegos on 14/01/2009 23:48:37 Originally by: Lilith Velkor Yes it does, lets look at an example: Lets say we have a Stiletto with 2x ECCM, giving him a sensor strength of 32,4. We now apply a ladar eccm, which at 14.2 has roughly 45% chance to jam. We now apply another ladar eccm, at 14.2 it has roughly 45% chance to jam. We now apply a third ladar eccm, ... You can try as many jammers as you like, nothing changes regarding the eccm effect. Accurate, but misleading. 3 jammers applied on a single target with a 45% chance to jam on each: (1-0.45^3)100 = (1-0.09)100 = 0.91100 = 91% (chance over 20 seconds) With that in mind, 3 jams in a row using 3 jammers cycled would be: (0.910.910.91)100 = 0.75100 = 75% (chance over 60 seconds) That's a rather high probability of jamming a ship that's using multiples of the supposed counter module. Quote:* Why is it ok that TDs have no counter? Always wondered that myself. Tracking Computers? Hardpoint Rigs ECM Balancing
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.14 23:49:00 - [216] Originally by: Camilo Cienfuegos Originally by: Lilith Velkor Yes it does, lets look at an example: Lets say we have a Stiletto with 2x ECCM, giving him a sensor strength of 32,4. We now apply a ladar eccm, which at 14.2 has roughly 45% chance to jam. We now apply another ladar eccm, at 14.2 it has roughly 45% chance to jam. We now apply a third ladar eccm, ... You can try as many jammers as you like, nothing changes regarding the eccm effect. Accurate, but misleading. 3 jammers applied on a single target with a 45% chance to jam on each: (1-0.45^3)100 = (1-0.09)100 = 0.91100 = 91% (chance over 20 seconds) With that in mind, 3 jams in a row using 3 jammers cycled would be: (0.910.910.91)100 = 0.75*100 = 75% (chance over 60 seconds) That's a rather high probability of jamming a ship that's using multiples of the supposed counter module. This. Thx. Pwnd.
Colonel Xaven Decadence. RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2009.01.14 23:49:00 - [217] The other 30 threads contain the maths very detailed and it is proven that a perma-jam only exists in recalls of pilots. They "feel" perma-jammed in their ships without any counters. Proud member of RZR - Decadence.
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.14 23:50:00 - [218] Originally by: Lilith Velkor Yes it does, lets look at an example: Your example is bogus. How about you explain to me why 3 sensor boosters can counter 100 damps while 3 ECCM cant counter 100 ECM modules. You have the guts to blatantly lie and say that ECM is stacking nerfed? Really, there are limits. Thats just a disgusting lie. Plain and simple.
Lilith Velkor Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.	Posted - 2009.01.14 23:51:00 - [219] Originally by: Camilo Cienfuegos That's a rather high probability of jamming a ship that's using multiples of the supposed counter module. I'm assuming realistic falcon fits which have 1x each racial and either a multispec or another gravimetric. I mean its not like those ecm modules magically change to all minmatar just because he is trying to jam me. Quote: Quote: Why is it ok that TDs have no counter? Always wondered that myself. Tracking Computers? No, TC and TE dont affect falloff, only optimal so they do not work as a counter.
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.01.14 23:51:00 - [220] Originally by: Amira Shadowsong Originally by: Camilo Cienfuegos Originally by: Lilith Velkor Yes it does, lets look at an example: Lets say we have a Stiletto with 2x ECCM, giving him a sensor strength of 32,4. We now apply a ladar eccm, which at 14.2 has roughly 45% chance to jam. We now apply another ladar eccm, at 14.2 it has roughly 45% chance to jam. We now apply a third ladar eccm, ... You can try as many jammers as you like, nothing changes regarding the eccm effect. Accurate, but misleading. 3 jammers applied on a single target with a 45% chance to jam on each: (1-0.45^3)100 = (1-0.09)100 = 0.91100 = 91% (chance over 20 seconds) With that in mind, 3 jams in a row using 3 jammers cycled would be: (0.910.910.91)100 = 0.75*100 = 75% (chance over 60 seconds) That's a rather high probability of jamming a ship that's using multiples of the supposed counter module. This. Thx. Pwnd. 3 racial's on the same target and only a "high" chance to jam, not "perma" then?... PWND...

Jonas Barcal Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.14 23:51:00 - [221] Originally by: Amira Shadowsong Originally by: Lilith Velkor Yes it does, lets look at an example: Your example is bogus. How about you explain to me why 3 sensor boosters can counter 100 damps while 3 ECCM cant counter 100 ECM modules. You have the guts to blatantly lie and say that ECM is stacking nerfed? Really, there are limits. Thats just a disgusting lie. Plain and simple. Told you before because sensor boosters need nerfing.
Etho Demerzel Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone	Posted - 2009.01.14 23:53:00 - [222] Originally by: Amira Shadowsong [ Wait are you kidding me? One ECCM does jack **** on my malediction. And tell me exactly why I shouldnt have the option on my tackling ceptor to be a falcon tackler and therefor use eccm in one of my mids. It should be viable on all ships, it is not. ECM IS OVERPOWERED. One ECCM does for your malediction more than a sensor booster will do if you are dampened by an Arazu, or a cap injetor (lol) will do if you are neuted by a Curse or even the MWD will do if you are tripple webbed AND painted by a huggin. Now how about using as an example ships that are not designed to be totally screwed by EW? ===== "If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron...
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.01.14 23:53:00 - [223] Edited by: Murina on 14/01/2009 23:54:15 Originally by: Amira Shadowsong Originally by: Lilith Velkor Yes it does, lets look at an example: Your example is bogus. How about you explain to me why 3 sensor boosters can counter 100 damps So if my sniper has 3 scripted range SB on and i get hit with 100 damps can i still hit at snipe range?..
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.14 23:53:00 - [224] Originally by: Jonas Barcal Told you before because sensor boosters need nerfing. Uhm they are fine. You are making things up because you ran out of arguments.
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.14 23:54:00 - [225] Originally by: Etho Demerzel One ECCM does for your malediction more than a sensor booster will do if you are dampened by an Arazu, This is not even true.
Etho Demerzel Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone	Posted - 2009.01.14 23:58:00 - [226] Originally by: Amira Shadowsong Originally by: Etho Demerzel One ECCM does for your malediction more than a sensor booster will do if you are dampened by an Arazu, This is not even true. Oh yes, it is, and the Arazu is severily underpowered atm, but it can easily damp you to oblivion unless you fit a whole rack of sensor boosters, which would make your interceptor an interceptor without tackle
Lilith Velkor Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.	Posted - 2009.01.14 23:58:00 - [227] Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 15/01/2009 00:00:26 Originally by: Amira Shadowsong Your example is bogus. How about you explain to me why 3 sensor boosters can counter 100 damps while 3 ECCM cant counter 100 ECM modules. You have the guts to blatantly lie and say that ECM is stacking nerfed? Really, there are limits. Thats just a disgusting lie. Plain and simple. You are a tool tbh, lets look at the Stiletto with 2x SB fitted, applying 4x RSD 2 from Lachesis its locking range is 10km, read it doesnt lock ****. 100 RSDs? Not even 5... About ecm being stacking nerfed, try to do the math for 5 jammers at any strength you like to choose, then do it with 15 jammers, then with 25 jammers. Look at what the gain per jammer is, you'll realize it makes absolutely no sense to put more than like 20 on a single target. And again, why have TDs no counter?
Camilo Cienfuegos Earned In Blood	Posted - 2009.01.15 00:00:00 - [228] Originally by: Lilith Velkor I'm assuming realistic falcon fits which have 1x each racial and either a multispec or another gravimetric. I mean its not like those ecm modules magically change to all minmatar just because he is trying to jam me. If I had my way, they would. If RSD is scripted, so should ECM be: A single ECM module with scripts for each racial sensor type to basically turn it into a racial jammer just as RSD can be turned from lock time to lock range. Combined with the proposal in my thread (linked in my signature) it would allow the Falcon absolute superiority in single target jamming, but reduce it's effectiveness in multiple ship encounters dramatically. I might be wrong, but I've always taken Recon ships to be small gang ships first and foremost and such a change would tie in perfectly with this role, would hopefully reduce the number of these mad threads that keep popping up and would render the Falcon as feasible a solo ship as any other Recon. Quote: No, TC and TE dont affect falloff, only optimal so they do not work as a counter. Right enough. Not that it's much of an issue of course, as you seldom run into TD out on TQ as ECM and RSD are better alternatives in at least 75% of situations.
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.15 00:01:00 - [229] Originally by: Lilith Velkor Look at what the gain per jammer is, you'll realize it makes absolutely no sense to put more than like 20 on a single target. Ok I'm gonna take this REAL slow because you're so special (to me): 1. I said THREE SBs, not TWO. 3 SBs can easily fend off 100 damps no matter on what ship you fit it on. 2. The problem with ECCM is that if you fir 3 of them you will still get permajammed by even 20 ECM modules, forget the 100. 3. ECM IS NOT STACKING NERFED. Get that into your skull please.
Jonas Barcal Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.15 00:02:00 - [230] Originally by: Amira Shadowsong Originally by: Jonas Barcal Told you before because sensor boosters need nerfing. Uhm they are fine. You are making things up because you ran out of arguments. Erm no actually I want Caldari to be given back the range they should have. Csldari the range race able to fight at ranges beyond everyone slse only problem with the exception of the minmatar everyones snipers generally are in the same ball park. The grid system makes the Caldari bonus to range on almost every ship pointless so everyone elses ships need there range nerfed and that includes sensor boosters.

Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.01.15 00:05:00 - [231] Originally by: Amira Shadowsong 3. ECM IS NOT STACKING NERFED. ECM is not stacking nerfed as such but then damps are not racial's as they work on everybody, and MF jammers suck.
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.15 00:06:00 - [232] Originally by: Murina Originally by: Amira Shadowsong 3. ECM IS NOT STACKING NERFED. ECM is not stacking nerfed as such but then damps are not racial's as they work on everybody, and MF jammers suck. No, I don't think so.
Lilith Velkor Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.	Posted - 2009.01.15 00:07:00 - [233] Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 15/01/2009 00:07:08 Originally by: Amira Shadowsong 1. I said THREE SBs, not TWO. 3 SBs can easily fend off 100 damps no matter on what ship you fit it on. 3 SBs on my Stiletto barely counter 5 damps, if I want to tackle inside web range with a ceptor that has a disruptor bonus. Oh wait, I dont even have room for a disruptor... Quote: 2. The problem with ECCM is that if you fir 3 of them you will still get permajammed by even 20 ECM modules, forget the 100. Not if you are in anything above a cruiser, in fact 3 ECCM are a pretty decent protection against a falcon that is focusing only on your ship. Quote: 3. ECM IS NOT STACKING NERFED. Get that into your skull please. ECM IS NATURALLY STACKING NERFED. Get that into your skull please.
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.01.15 00:08:00 - [234] Originally by: Amira Shadowsong Originally by: Murina Originally by: Amira Shadowsong 3. ECM IS NOT STACKING NERFED. ECM is not stacking nerfed as such but then damps are not racial's as they work on everybody, and MF jammers suck. No, I don't think so. Damps are racial?... MF jammers do not suck?.... Is it past your bed time?.
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.15 00:09:00 - [235] Originally by: Lilith Velkor ECM IS NATURALLY STACKING NERFED. Get that into your skull please. You are making up words because you are running out of arguments. There is no such thing as naturally stacking nerfed. Damps, Tds, webs etc are stacking nerfed. ECM IS NOT STACKING NERFED. Dammit I need bigger letters for this to go through lilith's skull.
Lilith Velkor Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.	Posted - 2009.01.15 00:10:00 - [236] Originally by: Amira Shadowsong Originally by: Lilith Velkor ECM IS NATURALLY STACKING NERFED. Get that into your skull please. You are making up words because you are running out of arguments. There is no such thing as naturally stacking nerfed. Damps, Tds, webs etc are stacking nerfed. ECM IS NOT STACKING NERFED. Dammit I need bigger letters for this to go through lilith's skull. Just do the maths for 1 jammer, 2 jammers, 3 jammers and so on. Notice the diminishing returns in added success rate.
Major Celine	Posted - 2009.01.15 00:11:00 - [237] Originally by: Amira Shadowsong Originally by: Lilith Velkor ECM IS NATURALLY STACKING NERFED. Get that into your skull please. You are making up words because you are running out of arguments. There is no such thing as naturally stacking nerfed. Damps, Tds, webs etc are stacking nerfed. ECM IS NOT STACKING NERFED. Dammit I need bigger letters for this to go through lilith's skull. Not stacking nerfed by default, sure. But if you did the maths (if you did it really and would actually understand how to compute chances at all) you would get what Lilith wants to say.
Lilith Velkor Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.	Posted - 2009.01.15 00:13:00 - [238] Originally by: Major Celine Not stacking nerfed by default, sure. But if you did the maths (if you did it really and would actually understand how to compute chances at all) you would get what Lilith wants to say. Thanks for restoring my faith in humanity <3
Camilo Cienfuegos Earned In Blood	Posted - 2009.01.15 00:15:00 - [239] If ECM were not naturally "stacking nerfed", then 3 jammers with a 45% chance to jam each would have a 135% chance to jam the target, when in reality they have 91% chance. It's not nearly as drastic as the artifical stacking nerf applied to damage mods, RSD and the like, but it's still important to realise that there is an inbuilt stacking penalty with ECM. It is however not enough, and a serious rethink of ECM is required. In my opinion a single scripted ECM module is the first step, boosting overall ECM strength the second and penalising the falcon in terms of the probability of jamming multiple targets compared to individuals the final step. With these three small changes ECM would not only fall in line with other EW, but would excel in the role it seems to be intended for: locking out key targets.
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.01.15 00:16:00 - [240] Originally by: Camilo Cienfuegos If ECM were not naturally "stacking nerfed", then 3 jammers with a 45% chance to jam each would have a 135% chance to jam the target, when in reality they have 91% chance. DING we have a winner.

chrisss0r	Posted - 2009.01.15 00:59:00 - [241] Edited by: chrisss0r on 15/01/2009 01:01:04 Edited by: chrisss0r on 15/01/2009 01:00:29 What people always miss out and what really makes the computing of permajamchances difficult (and no i don't mean difficult in like people cannot compute chances....) is the fact that you can try a single jammer and if you don't succeed you can add another. This has 2 major effects: 1. If the falcon misses a cycle on you you don' get a full cycle of not beeing jamed. You earn the second of not beeing jammed till more jammers are applied which is why there are many more "permajams" experienced than on paper. 2. To compute the jamming chances for every single jammer u add you need the bayesian probability calculus. it's a bit complicated to explain it to such fools as you are but i'll try: The moment you put a jammer on a ship and get a success or a fail u have gathered information. This results in not adding a second jammer in the moment of success or adding a second jammer in the moment of fail. The fact that you don't add your space jammers in a moment of success leads to the higher propabilities of permajamming This game has as many stages as a falcon has jammers free and together with (1) it is why so many more permajams occur than the (1-jamchance)^number of jammers fumula returns The formula is still true but only after you have all your jammers applied. So to speak the chance of jamming someone if highly biased into the beginning of a fight, and most of eves fights don't last long enough So please shut the **** up if you have no clue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability
Removal Tool Eternal Perseverance	Posted - 2009.01.15 02:34:00 - [242] Edited by: Removal Tool on 15/01/2009 02:35:10 Quote: it's a bit complicated to explain it to such fools as you are but i'll try: : High quality abuse has my respect
SasRipper DIE WITH HONOUR	Posted - 2009.01.15 03:05:00 - [243] Edited by: SasRipper on 15/01/2009 03:18:24 In my time in the game ive always went for the flavour of the month Torp ravens Gank geddons Nos domis Nano domi Plated gank mega Hotdropping :P But the falcon was the one I left out & its been the flavour of the year I agree with Gneeznow that solo/small gang pvp has become a falcon feast And the fact why it has become so is not the ship itself but the mechanics be hide it. Now traditionally when soloing or going around in a small gang in lowsec / 0.0 the gang has been comprised of tank , gank & tackle with everyone fit s for under scam range. Now to each of the above FOTM there has been a simple addition to any small gang to give them a chance. Add : damps Tracking disrupting Passive tank Captor/ rapier damps Kiting Cyno /mwd These counters could easy be added to a gang or the fight avoided though scouts & scanners. The falcon however due to its ability to cloak makes avoidance while roaming extremely difficult. Another factor which makes the falcon so effective vs small gangs is range unlike the above examples of FOTM they all sat around scam range giving the small gang a chance to counter. However I know of no small gang (until falcons) that carry a specific ship to counter e.g. sniper apoc or nano based damp ship. Even with a counter due to the falcons range it makes no commitment to a fight thus making it very hard to kill. Its risk outweighs the reward! ThereÆs very little risk in flying a falcon vs say a scorp. Moving on with range no other recon which is effective at 150k+ the rest requires around 45k drones webs scams etc. Yet they all have an obscene base range of 100k + probably someoneÆs idea of balance. This base lock range + the falcons optimal range bonus means a single sensor booster is more than enough & with there high scan res, theirs only a need for 1 sensor booster leaving 6 slots free for jammers just as strong as the rooks at the same range! this makes the rook obsolete. Now the simplest solution is to bring the falcon to the same range as the other recons ie 45k scrap its optimal bonus. Bring into a range where a gang can shoot back at it & giving the rook a role. Alternatively the jamming system itself could be revised as it is majorly flawed chrisss0r pointed out one major flaw it in. However there is one much more major flaw the 30sec unbreakable timer 30sec is more than enough for a carrier to align & warp. Add in locking time vs a bs or bc & they will have fully reped an active tank by the time you get a lock. Now most small fights only last 30 secs to 1min so 1 jam cycle and you have lost anyway. My proposal to the whole jamming system would be possibly be the most radical change suggested to jamming. The ECM burst in my opinion a great idea breaks there lock gives you enough time to warp out. If projected ecm was to follow the same example ie no 20sec cycle just the lock time with an appropriate countdown on the module. This would mean a skilled falcon pilot could still disrupt a gang enough to severely reduce their dps or allow there gang m8s to warp off or if coupled with damps could surely disrupt any gang.
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.15 04:52:00 - [244] Originally by: chrisss0r Edited by: chrisss0r on 15/01/2009 01:01:04 Edited by: chrisss0r on 15/01/2009 01:00:29 What people always miss out and what really makes the computing of permajamchances difficult (and no i don't mean difficult in like people cannot compute chances....) is the fact that you can try a single jammer and if you don't succeed you can add another. This has 2 major effects: 1. If the falcon misses a cycle on you you don' get a full cycle of not beeing jamed. You earn the second of not beeing jammed till more jammers are applied which is why there are many more "permajams" experienced than on paper. 2. To compute the jamming chances for every single jammer u add you need the bayesian probability calculus. it's a bit complicated to explain it to such fools as you are but i'll try: The moment you put a jammer on a ship and get a success or a fail u have gathered information. This results in not adding a second jammer in the moment of success or adding a second jammer in the moment of fail. The fact that you don't add your space jammers in a moment of success leads to the higher propabilities of permajamming This game has as many stages as a falcon has jammers free and together with (1) it is why so many more permajams occur than the (1-jamchance)^number of jammers fumula returns The formula is still true but only after you have all your jammers applied. So to speak the chance of jamming someone if highly biased into the beginning of a fight, and most of eves fights don't last long enough So please shut the **** up if you have no clue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability This. I've been trying to explain but people just don't listen. They think their 1st grade math is enough for this thread. I guess a pwnt is in order here.
Gneeznow Minmatar Cruoris Seraphim	Posted - 2009.01.15 05:35:00 - [245] Originally by: chrisss0r This has 2 major effects: 1. If the falcon misses a cycle on you you don' get a full cycle of not beeing jamed. You earn the second of not beeing jammed till more jammers are applied which is why there are many more "permajams" experienced than on paper. 2. To compute the jamming chances for every single jammer u add you need the bayesian probability calculus. it's a bit complicated to explain it to such fools as you are but i'll try: The moment you put a jammer on a ship and get a success or a fail u have gathered information. This results in not adding a second jammer in the moment of success or adding a second jammer in the moment of fail. The fact that you don't add your space jammers in a moment of success leads to the higher propabilities of permajamming This game has as many stages as a falcon has jammers free and together with (1) it is why so many more permajams occur than the (1-jamchance)^number of jammers fumula returns The formula is still true but only after you have all your jammers applied. So to speak the chance of jamming someone if highly biased into the beginning of a fight, and most of eves fights don't last long enough So please shut the **** up if you have no clue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability this is a very good post and it hits the nail on the head, when you cycle your jammers like this you can easily take 3 targets out of a fight, by having autorepeat off, and manually applying ecm to each target and awaiting the result, and if it doesnt work you can add another ecm until success, the practical ramifications of this in small gang or solo pvp is 1 falcon, can cycle anywhere between 2 to 4 ships into submission at any given time. This is crippling for solo / skirmish warfare pvp, when its just you and your mates roaming around in cheap ships like cruisers, battlecruisers or frigates / assault ship fit for standard close range fighting sub 30km, there is no counter to a falcon at 120 to 170km, when one appears at range its time to bail.
Jack Farseer Gallente	Posted - 2009.01.15 08:10:00 - [246] Having read through the thread I notice a few things: - People wanting a change to ECM (And/or Falcons) are generally very constructive, willing to discuss alternatives, tries to be reasonable even though they are not always right or their ideas functional. - People who oppose a change to ECM and/or Falcons tend to generally move directly to name-calling, hair-pulling, ridicule of others, petty attempts to flame and troll and little else. - Many are asking for a new way of thinking entirely when it comes to ECM, allowing it to be equally balanced and functional on all levels of PvP battles from small gangs to large fleets. They get accused for crying nerf. - Many are asking for ECCM to be looked at to make it more viable as a way to balance gameplay. They get accused for crying nerf. - Constructive ideas with well defined problem analysis and suggestions on possible fixes are met with "whaaaaaaambulance"-remarks instead of constructive feedback and arguments. - The two most popular power-tools seem to be to accuse another of being a nerf-cryer and for wanting to change the game to change to fit the individual's prefered game style. Whether or not such remarks are true or not seem less important than the fact that the accusations primarily seems to be used in order to take away the worth of the accused opinions because they don't fit with the accuser's own. Conclusion: If enough players thinks there is a problem with something, there is a problem. That doesn't mean it has to change or is a problem in the eyes of the developers, but the right to express it and discuss it and to have an opinion on it should be every player's right. To attack the player on a personal level for having an opinion is merely bullying and the kind of behaviour one can only expect in sandboxes among four year olds, and on Internet forums. However, those who actually have a say on the matter, game developers for instance, will only even bother to read the posts made by constructive and respectful members and completely ignore the myriad of trolls who roam the forums. Also: This post may be considered trolling by many as well. Well then, so be it. At least I didn't tell you you were an idiot. If you felt targeted, however, maybe there is a reason. About my own opinion on the subject? I think looking at slightly increasing the effectiveness of ECCM:s will increase their use and automatically balance things. No nerf needed. ----------------------------------------------- It's just a game - But so is life!
Rordan D'Kherr	Posted - 2009.01.15 08:21:00 - [247] Originally by: Jack Farseer Conclusion: If enough players thinks there is a problem with something, there is a problem. That doesn't mean it has to change or is a problem in the eyes of the developers, but the right to express it and discuss it and to have an opinion on it should be every player's right. Agreed. But you have to force every player to read this forum and participate then. Otherwise you have a small group of people claiming they are "all". The right to express opinions is abused here by making 1000 threads about the same topic just to simulate majority (=lobbyism, spin doctoring, whatever).
Jack Farseer Gallente	Posted - 2009.01.15 08:29:00 - [248] Originally by: Rordan D'Kherr Originally by: Jack Farseer Conclusion: If enough players thinks there is a problem with something, there is a problem. That doesn't mean it has to change or is a problem in the eyes of the developers, but the right to express it and discuss it and to have an opinion on it should be every player's right. Agreed. But you have to force every player to read this forum and participate then. Otherwise you have a small group of people claiming they are "all". The right to express opinions is abused here by making 1000 threads about the same topic just to simulate majority (=lobbyism, spin doctoring, whatever). Yes and no. Developers are not ignorant to this effect. No matter how many posts or how many opinions are aired, this is still no voting democracy. Game developers do whatever they want. Whether they follow their own vision or listen to their players is up to them, but they know exactly how many of the players (or rather how extremely few) who are active on the forum. What they CAN get from the forum, however, are good ideas. That is why constructive posting is so important. It only takes ONE really good and thought through, well posted, idea to change the game in a way that ten thousands of "STFU you nerf lowing fracktard" will ever do. Posting the same subject over and over and over is not as much a method to create change as it is a symptom of a problem not being adressed. ----------------------------------------------- It's just a game - But so is life!
burek Mercenary Forces	Posted - 2009.01.15 09:23:00 - [249] Originally by: chrisss0r Edited by: chrisss0r on 15/01/2009 01:01:04 Edited by: chrisss0r on 15/01/2009 01:00:29 What people always miss out and what really makes the computing of permajamchances difficult (and no i don't mean difficult in like people cannot compute chances....) is the fact that you can try a single jammer and if you don't succeed you can add another. This has 2 major effects: 1. If the falcon misses a cycle on you you don' get a full cycle of not beeing jamed. You earn the second of not beeing jammed till more jammers are applied which is why there are many more "permajams" experienced than on paper. 2. To compute the jamming chances for every single jammer u add you need the bayesian probability calculus. it's a bit complicated to explain it to such fools as you are but i'll try: The moment you put a jammer on a ship and get a success or a fail u have gathered information. This results in not adding a second jammer in the moment of success or adding a second jammer in the moment of fail. The fact that you don't add your space jammers in a moment of success leads to the higher propabilities of permajamming This game has as many stages as a falcon has jammers free and together with (1) it is why so many more permajams occur than the (1-jamchance)^number of jammers fumula returns The formula is still true but only after you have all your jammers applied. So to speak the chance of jamming someone if highly biased into the beginning of a fight, and most of eves fights don't last long enough So please shut the **** up if you have no clue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability Very good post my man. I don't see how anyone could refute this. With logic of course. There is always memes and name calling available. Most of the ecm/falcon defenders seem to be the blobbers who have never been out of their "small" gang of 40+ (lol) or God forbid, solo. They just don't get it. Just like they also don't see the current agility problem... but that's for another thread.
Pac SubCom A.W.M	Posted - 2009.01.15 09:41:00 - [250] Originally by: burek I don't see how anyone could refute this. With logic of course. There is always memes and name calling available. The meme I would use are facts. Please give some numbers and the reason why they change anything in jamming probability. I can't see the point. Is there one?

Jonas Barcal Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.15 10:34:00 - [251] Originally by: chrisss0r Edited by: chrisss0r on 15/01/2009 01:01:04 Edited by: chrisss0r on 15/01/2009 01:00:29 What people always miss out and what really makes the computing of permajamchances difficult (and no i don't mean difficult in like people cannot compute chances....) is the fact that you can try a single jammer and if you don't succeed you can add another. This has 2 major effects: 1. If the falcon misses a cycle on you you don' get a full cycle of not beeing jamed. You earn the second of not beeing jammed till more jammers are applied which is why there are many more "permajams" experienced than on paper. 2. To compute the jamming chances for every single jammer u add you need the bayesian probability calculus. it's a bit complicated to explain it to such fools as you are but i'll try: The moment you put a jammer on a ship and get a success or a fail u have gathered information. This results in not adding a second jammer in the moment of success or adding a second jammer in the moment of fail. The fact that you don't add your space jammers in a moment of success leads to the higher propabilities of permajamming This game has as many stages as a falcon has jammers free and together with (1) it is why so many more permajams occur than the (1-jamchance)^number of jammers fumula returns The formula is still true but only after you have all your jammers applied. So to speak the chance of jamming someone if highly biased into the beginning of a fight, and most of eves fights don't last long enough So please shut the **** up if you have no clue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability The number of free Jammers is really the key, the smaller the scale of the fight the more powerful a falcon becomes. I suppose CCP could make the duration of a jam stick to the target whether or not it was successful preventing other Jam attempts until it's expired but the ECM ships really would need a proper tank in return.
Camilo Cienfuegos Earned In Blood	Posted - 2009.01.15 11:11:00 - [252] Edited by: Camilo Cienfuegos on 15/01/2009 11:12:24 Originally by: chrisss0r What people always miss out and what really makes the computing of permajamchances difficult (and no i don't mean difficult in like people cannot compute chances....) is the fact that you can try a single jammer and if you don't succeed you can add another. This has 2 major effects: 1. If the falcon misses a cycle on you you don' get a full cycle of not beeing jamed. You earn the second of not beeing jammed till more jammers are applied which is why there are many more "permajams" experienced than on paper. 2. To compute the jamming chances for every single jammer u add you need the bayesian probability calculus. it's a bit complicated to explain it to such fools as you are but i'll try: The moment you put a jammer on a ship and get a success or a fail u have gathered information. This results in not adding a second jammer in the moment of success or adding a second jammer in the moment of fail. The fact that you don't add your space jammers in a moment of success leads to the higher propabilities of permajamming This game has as many stages as a falcon has jammers free and together with (1) it is why so many more permajams occur than the (1-jamchance)^number of jammers fumula returns The formula is still true but only after you have all your jammers applied. So to speak the chance of jamming someone if highly biased into the beginning of a fight, and most of eves fights don't last long enough So please shut the ** up if you have no clue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability Very true. A further calculation is required to calculate the chances of locking someone down for a certain amount of time, but to get accurate figures to work from would require that someone record accurate statistics for jamming attempts over the course of several minutes at least, preferably several days to get the most accurate results. If anyone wishes to, these figures would prove incredibly useful in discussions surrounding ECM. Quote:** The meme I would use are facts. Please give some numbers and the reason why they change anything in jamming probability. There's a reason why the calculations haven't been done - see above. - ECM Balancing Proposal - 50% increase in effectiveness!
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.01.15 11:17:00 - [253] Edited by: Murina on 15/01/2009 11:26:04 Originally by: chrisss0r it's a bit complicated to explain it to such fools as you are but i'll try: So please shut the **** up if you have no clue Do try to chill a little, ppl do actually know how jammers work. Do you really think ppl do not understand that if a falcon has Multiple gallente jammers on it that it can jam gallente ship better?. Of course a falcon with say 5 or 6 gallente jammers will get more activations against a gallente ship or ships due to it being specialized, but that also makes the falcon very limited in its ability against all the other races. But if i can just nudge you back to reality the fact is that most falcons/ecm ships have only 1 of each racial fitted or maybe 2 of a certain race, so while the math is obvious the reality in eve makes it as worthless as lyrias ideas about thousands of solo gallente BS charging around TQ....
Pac SubCom A.W.M	Posted - 2009.01.15 11:23:00 - [254] Originally by: Camilo Cienfuegos There's a reason why the calculations haven't been done - see above. No numbers - no point. Nice try though, everyone.
Dracira Dracc	Posted - 2009.01.15 11:27:00 - [255] Originally by: Rennion Falcons make me sad :( Whats the point of playing when playing consists of spending hours finding a fight, warp in to the fight, get jammed, twiddle thumbs, die. This is what **es solo/small gangers off, you spend *ing hours finding a decent fight and then you can't actualy have* that fight because you get jammed into the stoneage. Oh, thats PvP and you just want a "i win button" - have you tried a missile boat with Fire and Forget Missiles?
Camilo Cienfuegos Earned In Blood	Posted - 2009.01.15 11:50:00 - [256] Edited by: Camilo Cienfuegos on 15/01/2009 11:50:36 Quote: No numbers - no point. Nice try though, everyone. The numbers on pure jam chance are posted further back in this thread, but the true statistical probability of jam attempts over a period of time (say 60 or 120 seconds) cannot be calculated accurately using simple averages and require the bayesian method as one poster stated. To apply the bayesian method, we would require detailed statistics of jamming attempts over several hours of combat - data we do not have, so calculations that we cannot currently do. Go away and bring me back records of your jamming success/failure rate for a sample ship type and we can further this line of conversation. Until then, it's a moot point. Quote: The method to not waste jammers on already jammed ships does not prove ECM is overpowered in any way. Nor does it magically enhance jamming chances, something you guys are obviously suggesting. Noone (sane) is suggesting anything of the sort, but until we have all the data required we cannot give accurate figures, only anecdotal evidence.
Anvalor Gallente Germania Inc. D0GMA	Posted - 2009.01.15 11:58:00 - [257] First all these falcons got on my nerves but then i realized i had to adapt. So now i do not really have problems with falcons anymore ( i fly one myself now ) . And if we see a gang with 3-5 falcons incoming we either just do not fight them or we play the station huging game. It is funny how those gangs start whining about docking games when they bring 3 or more falcons. The only way to change things in eve is when many people are flying the same ships or use the same gameplay like with nanoships, nosdomis, multispectral and dampener mods fitted on each ship. all these things got changed after many people used them. So do not resist anymore and train for falcons.
Jonas Barcal Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.15 12:01:00 - [258] Originally by: Anvalor The only way to change things in eve is when many people are flying the same ships or use the same gameplay like with nanoships, nosdomis, multispectral and dampener mods fitted on each ship. all these things got changed after many people used them. So do not resist anymore and train for falcons. And what do we change when eventually all we have left is people flying simple tank and spank setups?
Anvalor Gallente Germania Inc. D0GMA	Posted - 2009.01.15 12:05:00 - [259] Jonas i think you should read harder. I did not say i want to change anything. I fly falcons myself now. I just gave an advice to the guys who want to change anything.
Camilo Cienfuegos Earned In Blood	Posted - 2009.01.15 12:07:00 - [260] Quote: And what do we change when eventually all we have left is people flying simple tank and spank setups? That was already addressed: Reduction in resistance levels & stacking penalties on resistances modules, tracking modules, damage modules etc. - ECM Balancing Proposal - 50% increase in effectiveness!

Pac SubCom A.W.M	Posted - 2009.01.15 12:09:00 - [261] Originally by: Camilo Cienfuegos Until then, it's a moot point. The "Bayesian method" doesn't influence the final outcome. It's still (1-p)^n, no matter which timeframe your calculations are based on. The real moot point is the pretension that wasting half of your jammers is what CCP created their balance around. For instance, if the jamming probability of a single jammer is 30%, the Bayesian method does not convert this into 100% on one ship + 30% on a second with two jammers, and this is what I suspect he wants to say. If I win the lottery, this doesn't mean the probability to win is 100%. --------------- ∞ TQFE
Jonas Barcal Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.15 12:12:00 - [262] Originally by: Anvalor Jonas i think you should read harder. I did not say i want to change anything. I fly falcons myself now. I just gave an advice to the guys who want to change anything. And equally I think you need to read harder as I don't believe I stated you wanted to change anything. I just asked a question.
Camilo Cienfuegos Earned In Blood	Posted - 2009.01.15 12:18:00 - [263] Quote: The "Bayesian method" doesn't influence the final outcome. It's still (1-p)^n, no matter which timeframe your calculations are based on. The real moot point is the pretension that wasting half of your jammers is what CCP created their balance around. Indeed, the point here being that you can't calculate the chance to jam someone for three cycles by taking the cube of the chance to jam for a single cycle, especially given that this is not how most people use ECM jammers. It's here that the bayesian method is required to give accurate probabilities, and the idea being put forward is that it would demonstrate a higher probability than a simple averages calculation would. I don't have the data and nor do I have the inclination to do the maths even if I did, and so I'm forced to take that assesment at face value until someone does the leg work. Either way, I still think that changing ECM to a single scriptable module, boosting the overall strength by 50% and reducing it's efficacy in multiple target situations as per my post linked below is the simplest, cleanest and easiest "solution" to implement.
Anvalor Gallente Germania Inc. D0GMA	Posted - 2009.01.15 12:26:00 - [264] Originally by: Jonas Barcal Originally by: Anvalor Jonas i think you should read harder. I did not say i want to change anything. I fly falcons myself now. I just gave an advice to the guys who want to change anything. And equally I think you need to read harder as I don't believe I stated you wanted to change anything. I just asked a question. Well then you asked the wrong person. When you ask me what do we change it looks like you asume i want to change something. I do not care what we do change i will just adapt like allways. And now let the nerds continue with their math discussion.
Vampasha	Posted - 2009.01.15 12:43:00 - [265] Falcon beats Falcon btw. -------------- I am Zsa Zsa of Borg. Prepare to be assimilated dahling
Balendin	Posted - 2009.01.15 12:46:00 - [266] wwwwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh, Falcon's are sooo unfair, WAAAAHHHHH, mommy the falcon jammed me, NO FAIR. It cant shoot me, cant use drones, missles, its guns suck, and it has no tank, but it jams me, so its unballanced, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH CCP nerf it please it's so unfair thayt I suck and I want players that trained for months to have good jamming skills to not use them, WAAAAAAAAAAHHH CCP NERF IZT!!!
Balendin	Posted - 2009.01.15 12:47:00 - [267] LOSERS... Friggin LOSERS. YOU KNOW the big "L" whiners whiners whiners, LOSERS.
Anvalor Gallente Germania Inc. D0GMA	Posted - 2009.01.15 12:51:00 - [268] Originally by: Balendin wwwwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh, Falcon's are sooo unfair, WAAAAHHHHH, mommy the falcon jammed me, NO FAIR. It cant shoot me, cant use drones, missles, its guns suck, and it has no tank, but it jams me, so its unballanced, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH CCP nerf it please it's so unfair thayt I suck and I want players that trained for months to have good jamming skills to not use them, WAAAAAAAAAAHHH CCP NERF IZT!!! See what all you guys just did ? I told you not to talk to loud or the baby will wake up. Now you have done it. Where are my earplugs ...
Camilo Cienfuegos Earned In Blood	Posted - 2009.01.15 12:54:00 - [269] Quote: wwwwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh, Falcon's are sooo unfair, WAAAAHHHHH, mommy the falcon jammed me, NO FAIR. It cant shoot me, cant use drones, missles, its guns suck, and it has no tank, but it jams me, so its unballanced, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH CCP nerf it please it's so unfair thayt I suck and I want players that trained for months to have good jamming skills to not use them, WAAAAAAAAAAHHH CCP NERF IZT!!! Good sir, I think you might just have got a little sand stuck in your vagina.
Colonel Xaven Decadence. RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2009.01.15 13:00:00 - [270] Quote: wwwwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh, Falcon's are sooo unfair, WAAAAHHHHH, mommy the falcon jammed me, NO FAIR. It cant shoot me, cant use drones, missles, its guns suck, and it has no tank, but it jams me, so its unballanced, WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH CCP nerf it please it's so unfair thayt I suck and I want players that trained for months to have good jamming skills to not use them, WAAAAAAAAAAHHH CCP NERF IZT!!! Actually this is a good summary of all 30 (?) ECM / Falcon threads in the last days... You could modifiy it a bit and use it to sum up Amarr threads aswell. Or Missile threads. Or "insert whine topic here. Proud member of RZR - Decadence.*

Balendin	Posted - 2009.01.15 13:01:00 - [271] Edited by: Balendin on 15/01/2009 13:00:59 No, we should clarify: I have just scratched the Vagina of a thread this is, with the cry baby vaginas being called out for being just what they are.
Anvalor Gallente Germania Inc. D0GMA	Posted - 2009.01.15 13:09:00 - [272] Edited by: Anvalor on 15/01/2009 13:09:52 Originally by: Balendin Edited by: Balendin on 15/01/2009 13:00:59 No, we should clarify: I have just scratched the Vagina of a thread this is, with the cry baby vaginas being called out for being just what they are. There is no need to explain what you are. Noone is perfect and we like you how you are as a small little cute crybaby.
Sung Mina	Posted - 2009.01.15 13:26:00 - [273] my corp has no problem with falcons, we have our own falcons to jam thier falcons
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.01.15 13:35:00 - [274] Edited by: Murina on 15/01/2009 13:36:39 Originally by: Sung Mina my corp has no problem with falcons, we have our own falcons to jam their falcons Most ppl who fly in adaptable, versatile and maneuverable gangs have very little problem with falcons whether they have some themselves or not. In fact falcons tend not to be the best choice to combat other falcons due to the high sig str of recons, if you have a falcon in your gang your much better off assigning your jams elsewhere and letting other ships deal with the hostile ECM ships.
chrisss0r	Posted - 2009.01.15 13:40:00 - [275] Originally by: Pac SubCom Originally by: Camilo Cienfuegos Until then, it's a moot point. The "Bayesian method" doesn't influence the final outcome. It's still (1-p)^n, no matter which timeframe your calculations are based on. The real moot point is the pretension that wasting half of your jammers is what CCP created their balance around. For instance, if the jamming probability of a single jammer is 30%, the Bayesian method does not convert this into 100% on one ship + 30% on a second with two jammers, and this is what I suspect he wants to say. If I win the lottery, this doesn't mean the probability to win is 100%. This is indeed true. As i stated above the formula is still true once u won't add more jammers. CCP calculated the chances of beeing jammed or not jammed around the simple formula and it would be the right formula to us if u could only decide in the beginning of the fight how many jammers to apply to a target and could only apply them all at once. The fact that u can add the jammer one after another converts jamming from a fix chance like it's calculated by all the people here into a staged one and on each stage u can use the information gathered (yes/no) for your decision to deploy another jammer or not. The result is, that you always have the "maximum" number of jammers free (depending on the outcome of the jammers you have already applied) to break a lock when your deployed jammers fail. Resulting in ALOT more "permajams" than the usually used formula would suggest. On more than one target the outcome is even more drastic since the falcon can supply the optimal number of jammers on each target instead of, and only in that case the simple formula would be correct. Deciding in the beginning of the fight who to apply how many jammers to and not beeing able to change that decision. I know the difference is not easy to get but it's a large impact on the question whether or nor someone will be able to lock anything the first maybe 120 seconds after a falcon arrives. Numbers will not be provided. Not because i talk some blubberish that does not change anything but because calculating this pile of crap is a huge pile of work i don't wanna invest. We are talking about dozens of working hours..
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.01.15 13:56:00 - [276] Edited by: Murina on 15/01/2009 14:02:47 Originally by: chrisss0r The fact that u can add the jammer one after another converts jamming from a fix chance like it's calculated by all the people here into a staged one and on each stage u can use the information gathered (yes/no) for your decision to deploy another jammer or not. The result is, that you always have the "maximum" number of jammers free (depending on the outcome of the jammers you have already applied) to break a lock when your deployed jammers fail. Resulting in ALOT more "permajams" than the usually used formula would suggest. On more than one target the outcome is even more drastic since the falcon can supply the optimal number of jammers on each target instead of, and only in that case the simple formula would be correct. Deciding in the beginning of the fight who to apply how many jammers to and not beeing able to change that decision. How do you reconcile the fact that your ideas about the falcon "perma" jamming more frequently that you think ppl understand relies on it being fitted with a rack of one type of racial and facing the correct racial ships. After all most falcons only have 1 racial per race or maybe 2 of a single race depending on the fit... Lets be honest if i have 1 of each racial and i miss with my gallente jammer on a gallente ship the amarr, caldari and mini jammers are only gonna have a minor and marginal chance to get a successful jam against it and only raise the odds very slightly.
Yarissia	Posted - 2009.01.15 14:36:00 - [277] Originally by: Murina Lets be honest if i have 1 of each racial and i miss with my gallente jammer on a gallente ship the amarr, caldari and mini jammers are only gonna have a minor and marginal chance to get a successful jam against it and as such only raise the odds very slightly of a "perma" jam. Ehm no. An off racial still has between 4 and 5 strength on the other races. That comes down to around 25% chance to jam a battleship (sensorstrength between 20-23). With 3 wrong racial this means that the chance of the bs not being jammed is 0.75^3=0.42. That means that you still have a chance of 58% of jamming a battleship with 3 wrong racials, thats not a slight effect on the odds. It gets even worse for things like cruiser,hacs,bcs,cs so the numbers i used here are actually a little bit in favor of the falcon since it has to jam a pretty hard target.
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.01.15 14:45:00 - [278] Originally by: Yarissia Originally by: Murina Lets be honest if i have 1 of each racial and i miss with my gallente jammer on a gallente ship the amarr, caldari and mini jammers are only gonna have a minor and marginal chance to get a successful jam against it and as such only raise the odds very slightly of a "perma" jam. Ehm no. An off racial still has between 4 and 5 strength on the other races. That comes down to around 25% chance to jam a battleship (sensorstrength between 20-23). With 3 wrong racial this means that the chance of the bs not being jammed is 0.75^3=0.42. That means that you still have a chance of 58% of jamming a battleship with 3 wrong racials, thats not a slight effect on the odds. It gets even worse for things like cruiser,hacs,bcs,cs so the numbers i used here are actually a little bit in favor of the falcon since it has to jam a pretty hard target. The figures may or may not be right but even so you need 3 jammers for a roughly 50% chance to jam a battleship with no counter fitted.
Yarissia	Posted - 2009.01.15 14:47:00 - [279] Originally by: chrisss0r The fact that u can add the jammer one after another converts jamming from a fix chance like it's calculated by all the people here into a staged one and on each stage u can use the information gathered (yes/no) for your decision to deploy another jammer or not. The result is, that you always have the "maximum" number of jammers free (depending on the outcome of the jammers you have already applied) to break a lock when your deployed jammers fail. Resulting in ALOT more "permajams" than the usually used formula would suggest. Only against multiple targets. If you only jam one target it doesnt matter for the chance of being jammed if you turn on one jammer after the other or all at the same time. This is because the chances of jamming are not correlated to each other. In other words your off-racials jammers dont mind if your racial got a jam or not they will still jam with the same chance. The only thing you will get if you jam-look if jam worked-turn on next jammer is more cap and obviously a couple of free jammers. Against one target this doesnt really matter. But i agree with you that on multiple targets it does play a major roll if you do that or not, and also that this is kinda hard to calculate(there are lots of different situations and outcomes to think of here).
chrisss0r	Posted - 2009.01.15 14:53:00 - [280] Edited by: chrisss0r on 15/01/2009 14:55:06 Edited by: chrisss0r on 15/01/2009 14:53:12 Originally by: Yarissia Originally by: chrisss0r The fact that u can add the jammer one after another converts jamming from a fix chance like it's calculated by all the people here into a staged one and on each stage u can use the information gathered (yes/no) for your decision to deploy another jammer or not. The result is, that you always have the "maximum" number of jammers free (depending on the outcome of the jammers you have already applied) to break a lock when your deployed jammers fail. Resulting in ALOT more "permajams" than the usually used formula would suggest. Only against multiple targets. If you only jam one target it doesnt matter for the chance of being jammed if you turn on one jammer after the other or all at the same time. This is because the chances of jamming are not correlated to each other. In other words your off-racials jammers dont mind if your racial got a jam or not they will still jam with the same chance. The only thing you will get if you jam-look if jam worked-turn on next jammer is more cap and obviously a couple of free jammers. Against one target this doesnt really matter. This is not correct. Against a single target it is an advantage to have jammers free in the event of having the applied jammers to target miss a cycle so u can jam him again before he can get a lock. By adding one jammer after another you can determine the exact number of jammers needed to jam a target and thus keep the maximum number of jammers free. As i stated before this biases the likelehood of jamming a target into the period the first cycles of jams occur. Murina: My argument is not simply that more jammers are better. You miss the point completely and should just shut up instead of showing off your lack of understanding. If the falcon has 6 jammers, faces 6 opponents and puts 1 jammer on each of them the bayesian calculus is not needed at all, so the usual formula applies. one more reason why falcons kill small gangfights. The less targets the bigger shift of permajamming propability into the period till all jammers are applied

Yarissia	Posted - 2009.01.15 14:56:00 - [281] Originally by: Murina The figures may or may not be right but even so you need 3 jammers for a roughly 50% chance to jam a battleship with no counter fitted. Its actually closer to 60% and usually you should have a racial for that bs in the first place(which already has a 60 to 70% chance to jam a bs), the off racials only come into play if your racial misses and you REALLY need that guy jammed. And normally a falcon has 5(4 of each race+joker) racials which means that even in a worst case situation you still have 4 jammers to absolutly jam that one ship(in this case the chance to jam is pretty close to 70%). And yes these numbers are against a battleship with no counter fitted, but you wont always encounter eccmed bs. I heard sometimes people also came in ships like frigs,cruiser,bcs and their t2 variants and these are all easier to jam. Another thing i didnt mention here (and this also counts in favour off the falcon) is the relock time of bs, which actually also plays a roll if you wanna know the time your opponent cant lock.
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.01.15 15:00:00 - [282] Originally by: chrisss0r Murina: My argument is not simply that more jammers are better. You miss the point completely and should just shut up instead of showing off your lack of understanding. I understand plenty pal its your lack of real time experience and reliance on sheer numbers that is letting you down. 1. against a single target having jammers free makes no difference and no sense at all as you will either get a jam or not and holding a jammer back just in case you do not is pointless. 2. Against multiple ships it makes sense to put racial jams on the ships they will effect most in order of threat levels of the said ships.
chrisss0r	Posted - 2009.01.15 15:02:00 - [283] Edited by: chrisss0r on 15/01/2009 15:03:01 Originally by: Murina 1. against a single target having jammers free makes no difference and no sense at all as you will either get a jam or not and holding a jammer back just in case you do not is pointless. Well now i really know why you think the falcon is balanced. You just suck at getting everything out of ecm. And please stop pretending to understand what i'm saying everyone with better knowledge in statistic calculus just laughs at your counter arguments
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.01.15 15:05:00 - [284] Originally by: Yarissia And normally a falcon has 5(4 of each race+joker) racials which means that even in a worst case situation you still have 4 jammers to absolutly jam that one ship(in this case the chance to jam is pretty close to 70%). And yes these numbers are against a battleship with no counter fitted, but you wont always encounter eccmed bs. 70% chance to jam a non-counter fitted BS?, that is 4 mid slots on a bonused ECM ship btw... Originally by: Yarissia Another thing i didnt mention here (and this also counts in favour off the falcon) is the relock time of bs, which actually also plays a roll if you wanna know the time your opponent cant lock. Jam cycle = 20 seconds, lock time a BS gets on a cruiser is around 10 seconds giving the BS (depending on race) upto 3 volleys.
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.01.15 15:09:00 - [285] Edited by: Murina on 15/01/2009 15:12:16 Originally by: Murina 1. against a single target having jammers free makes no difference and no sense at all as you will either get a jam or not and holding a jammer back just in case you do not is pointless. Originally by: chrisss0r Well now i really know why you think the falcon is balanced. You just suck at getting everything out of ecm. Leaving jammers free against a single target helps get more out of ECM how?. A target is either jammed or its not pal waiting to find out and then activating your "saved" jammers has no greater chance of jamming a single ship than just throwing them all on in the first place. If your math does not tell you that i suggest you start using your fingers when you count. Originally by: chrisss0r And please stop pretending to understand what i'm saying everyone with better knowledge in statistic calculus just laughs at your counter arguments And ppl who actually play eve are laughing at your stupid paper tiger arguments.
Camilo Cienfuegos Earned In Blood	Posted - 2009.01.15 15:12:00 - [286] Edited by: Camilo Cienfuegos on 15/01/2009 15:12:46 Using 3 non racial jammers to jam a tier 3 battleship: (1-(1-4.708/23)^3)100 = (1-(1-0.205)^3)100 = (1-0.795^3)100 = (1-0.502)100 = 0.498100 = 49.8% or 50%* That's just linear as well, the real probability would work out slightly higher. Quote: Leaving jammers free against a single target helps get more out of ECM how? The principle is exactly the same as ensuring your jammers are not set to auto repeat. - ECM Balancing Proposal - 50% increase in effectiveness!
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.01.15 15:19:00 - [287] Edited by: Murina on 15/01/2009 15:20:09 Originally by: Camilo Cienfuegos Quote: Leaving jammers free against a single target helps get more out of ECM how? The principle is exactly the same as ensuring your jammers are not set to auto repeat. It makes no sense against a single target not to just put all your jams in it in he first place as its not like theirs any other ships around to save any for. In fact if you click one and wait a few secs to see if it hits then another then another it could give the target ship a chance to lock one of your ships thats within range and fire or assign drones ect ect before you get through your entire rack, especially if its the last jam you assign that gets him. While if you just sling them all on him str8 away the odds are exactly the same for a jam but if one does activate he does not have a chance to lock and shoot ect ect one of your gangs ships. How hard is that to understand?.
chrisss0r	Posted - 2009.01.15 17:02:00 - [288] Originally by: Murina It makes no sense against a single target not to just put all your jams in it in he first place as its not like theirs any other ships around to save any for. In fact if you click one and wait a few secs to see if it hits then another then another it could give the target ship a chance to lock one of your ships thats within range and fire or assign drones ect ect before you get through your entire rack, especially if its the last jam you assign that gets him. While if you just sling them all on him str8 away the odds are exactly the same for a jam but if one does activate he does not have a chance to lock and shoot ect ect one of your gangs ships. How hard is that to understand?. This is indeed true but only viable as long as you can be sure the fight won't last longer than 20 seconds. For every next jam cycles you will have wasted free jammers u would have had in many cases thus increasing the probability of your target to get a lock. This post again shows that you did not understand what i'm talking about. Bayesian probaility calculus is not about changing chances. The jam chances for The single jammer are still the very same but it's about gathering information. instead of wasting all your jammers on the single target and allowing him a 20 seconds logspan in case they all should fail you just apply as many as needed. Jamming is not a single point event when u deploy your jammers 1 by 1. It get's staged and every new stage allows you to chose if you should apply another jammer and this is resulting in alot more permajams until all jammers are applied. Read the wikipedia article and freaking try to understand it. Statistic calculus does not use the bayesian formula just for the simple joy it brings while havin the same results as your simple calculus.
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.01.15 17:09:00 - [289] Edited by: Murina on 15/01/2009 17:16:14 Originally by: chrisss0r Originally by: Murina It makes no sense against a single target not to just put all your jams in it in he first place as its not like theirs any other ships around to save any for. In fact if you click one and wait a few secs to see if it hits then another then another it could give the target ship a chance to lock one of your ships thats within range and fire or assign drones ect ect before you get through your entire rack, especially if its the last jam you assign that gets him. While if you just sling them all on him str8 away the odds are exactly the same for a jam but if one does activate he does not have a chance to lock and shoot ect ect one of your gangs ships. How hard is that to understand?. This is indeed true but only viable as long as you can be sure the fight won't last longer than 20 seconds. For every next jam cycles you will have wasted free jammers u would have had in many cases thus increasing the probability of your target to get a lock. No matter the odds of jamming if i have 5 jammers all activated at the same time or every 4 seconds (over a 16 second period) the odds of each jammer actually jamming him is exactly the same. Now
uzumoreru	Posted - 2009.01.15 17:20:00 - [290] Originally by: Murina No matter the odds of jamming if i have 5 jammers all activated at the same time or every 4 seconds (over a 16 second period) the odds of each jammer actually jamming him is exactly the same. Now Wrong, your odds of jamming him over time (ie, beyond a 20 second period as chriss0r said) are worse. The ideal is 100% time spent jammed, your method of applying jams is, over time, the worst way possible; the best way is to stagger them.

Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.01.15 17:26:00 - [291] Originally by: uzumoreru Originally by: Murina No matter the odds of jamming if i have 5 jammers all activated at the same time or every 4 seconds (over a 16 second period) the odds of each jammer actually jamming him is exactly the same. Now Wrong, your odds of jamming him over time (ie, beyond a 20 second period as chriss0r said) are worse. The ideal is 100% time spent jammed, your method of applying jams is, over time, the worst way possible; the best way is to stagger them. So if your first cycle of jams miss and in the second cycle its the last jammer you activate that nails him it could be upto 30-40 seconds into the fight... You seem to think im arguing the math but im not im pointing out the impracticality of it cos its a classic on paper vs practical application argument.
Lilith Velkor Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.	Posted - 2009.01.15 18:09:00 - [292] Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 15/01/2009 18:14:15 Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 15/01/2009 18:10:24 Originally by: chrisss0r Numbers will not be provided. Not because i talk some blubberish that does not change anything but because calculating this pile of crap is a huge pile of work i don't wanna invest. We are talking about dozens of working hours.. What about a simulation x jammers vs 1+y targets, generate a few 100k samples over 120sec period and be done with that. Could be the best way to answer the question since there are quite many factors to include like target lock time which can have a huge impact, user reaction time on side of the jammer and the target, target fleet composition vs jammer loadout, overlapping jamming cycles and I bet there are more. And then, I think there is the whole issue with the discussion having some people talking about time jammed or not, and the others about 'can shoot' or cant shoot'.
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.15 20:07:00 - [293] Originally by: Lilith Velkor Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 15/01/2009 18:14:15 Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 15/01/2009 18:10:24 Originally by: chrisss0r Numbers will not be provided. Not because i talk some blubberish that does not change anything but because calculating this pile of crap is a huge pile of work i don't wanna invest. We are talking about dozens of working hours.. What about a simulation x jammers vs 1+y targets, generate a few 100k samples over 120sec period and be done with that. Could be the best way to answer the question since there are quite many factors to include like target lock time which can have a huge impact, user reaction time on side of the jammer and the target, target fleet composition vs jammer loadout, overlapping jamming cycles and I bet there are more. And then, I think there is the whole issue with the discussion having some people talking about time jammed or not, and the others about 'can shoot' or cant shoot'. Why are you still debating with chrisssor? You know he is right. You don't need a simulation.
Grendelsbane	Posted - 2009.01.16 02:25:00 - [294] Originally by: Gorefacer I endorse anything that creates more fights and reduces ease of escape for people in general. Even though I'm terrible and it means I'll lose more ships. You have it bass-ackwards. What EVE needs is a reason for people to stand and fight, not a mechanism to prevent them from leaving (which is the brute-force, unenlightened method CCP has pursued for years, which simply doesn't work and leads to all sorts of unintended problems).
Dray Caldari Clowns with Downs	Posted - 2009.01.16 02:34:00 - [295] Way to much recall here for my liking, in my experience I can live with falcons, using them and fighting against them, it's too easy to think your perma-jammed a whole fight, there's so many things happening and people dont keep track of whats going on and bias is always natural. I've done it myself but luckily enough I've been playing the game a long time and with some good people who also recall the same fights in different ways and from the different viewpoints a whole different picture can emerge. I'm not saying you weren't perma-jammed I've had fight where I might as well have been but that's what an EW ship does, I really dont see the problem, for me the main thing in a fight is not to panic and pay attention, I know this sounds like pvp 101 but seriously in the time I've played this game I've seen it a million times from the best to the worst. Just remember anecdotal evidence is worth nothing, numbers aren't worth much more, i fly falcons sometimes and sometimes i don't but falcons do not and never have scared me you work around it and get on with it. I really don't care what the numbers say or some ones perception of the overpowered falcon ruining their game experience, that's what they do. What will ultimately break this game is the constant cries for nerfs, maybe eccm needs a boost but I've flown in rr bs gangs and we've always fit eccm and it did make a difference, that's not rose tinted sunglasses telling you this, that's on the job experience. In skilled hands the falcon should be a pain in the arse, and rightly so, its an ecm boat. Stop crying, start fking trying, or play something else, its not about fair its about ruining the other guys day and using the right tools for the job. If I'm in a fair fight I want to know what I did wrong so I can avoid doing it again.** Eve in a nutshell.
Lilith Velkor Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.	Posted - 2009.01.16 02:43:00 - [296] Originally by: Amira Shadowsong Why are you still debating with chrisssor? You know he is right. You don't need a simulation. If you did care to read, he is unable to provide any result at all. So, he is right about what? His objections have however, in contrast to yours, a ground to stand on. Since he provides no result, we are left to speculate about the actual impact. This is where a simulation comes into play, it can, without doing much analysis, provide just a heap of data that takes into account the many variables we have to consider to find out if you are right and there is an issue with 'permajamming'.
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.16 03:09:00 - [297] Originally by: Lilith Velkor If you did care to read, he is unable to provide any result at all. So, he is right about what? The result is quite obvious. There just is no point in explaining college physics to monkeys. Therefor he can't be arsed to waste hours to calculate the result of something quite obvious. A result you will ignore and troll. That's why.
Lilith Velkor Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.	Posted - 2009.01.16 03:11:00 - [298] Originally by: Amira Shadowsong Originally by: Lilith Velkor If you did care to read, he is unable to provide any result at all. So, he is right about what? The result is quite obvious. There just is no point in explaining college physics to monkeys. Therefor he can't be arsed to waste hours to calculate the result of something quite obvious. A result you will ignore and troll. That's why. Honestly, I seriously doubt you even understand a fraction of the 'college physics' involved
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.16 03:12:00 - [299] Originally by: Lilith Velkor Honestly, I seriously doubt you even understand a fraction of the 'college physics' involved Try me...shall we start talking about fourier transforms dear? Shall we?
arbiter reformed Minmatar Darkstorm Command Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2009.01.16 04:05:00 - [300] yep this has happend to me no matter what i fly, people dont care anymore, falcons and ecm as a whole needs to change its fuking rediculos

Etho Demerzel Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone	Posted - 2009.01.16 04:19:00 - [301] Edited by: Etho Demerzel on 16/01/2009 04:30:04 Originally by: Amira Shadowsong Originally by: Lilith Velkor Honestly, I seriously doubt you even understand a fraction of the 'college physics' involved Try me...shall we start talking about fourier transforms dear? Shall we? Cute. He knows the name of a mathematical tool. I see you payed attention at least on the tittle of some lectures you attended to. How about Discrete Time Fourier transforms? Would you mind to calculate me the general formula for the resistence between any two given points on am infinite mesh of 1 ohm resistors. Come on it is one of the classic examples. I will be eagerly waiting for the demonstration of your mathematical skills. But then again, when you fail, maybe you keep your mouth shut about the comprehension of others, considering yours is null, that much is easy to infer from your lack of understandment about simple probabilities. ===== "If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron...
Etho Demerzel Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone	Posted - 2009.01.16 04:29:00 - [302] Originally by: chrisss0r This is indeed true but only viable as long as you can be sure the fight won't last longer than 20 seconds. For every next jam cycles you will have wasted free jammers u would have had in many cases thus increasing the probability of your target to get a lock. This post again shows that you did not understand what i'm talking about. Bayesian probaility calculus is not about changing chances. The jam chances for The single jammer are still the very same but it's about gathering information. instead of wasting all your jammers on the single target and allowing him a 20 seconds logspan in case they all should fail you just apply as many as needed. Jamming is not a single point event when u deploy your jammers 1 by 1. It get's staged and every new stage allows you to chose if you should apply another jammer and this is resulting in alot more permajams until all jammers are applied. Read the wikipedia article and freaking try to understand it. Statistic calculus does not use the bayesian formula just for the simple joy it brings while havin the same results as your simple calculus. You fail to quantificate the chances in a way to prove anything in your statements. Actually you fail to provide a conclusion or any objective claim at all. What is your claim? ECM is overpowered? If so, define overpowered, describe the situations where this is the case and why, and quantificate the chances in order to back your claims. This way if you are right you can prove it beyond doubt, and if you are not your mistakes can be pointed. As it is you only wrote vague statements about Bayesian Statistics that aren't even enough to prove that you know anything about it besides the name, and to define how it could be applied here to generate any results that can't be reached otherwise. If you can't bother to do it, do us a favoir and don't bother to write your vague statements as well. ===== "If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron...
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.16 06:13:00 - [303] Originally by: Etho Demerzel Cute. He knows the name of a mathematical tool. I see you payed attention at least on the tittle of some lectures you attended to. How about Discrete Time Fourier transforms? Would you mind to calculate me the general formula for the resistence between any two given points on am infinite mesh of 1 ohm resistors. Come on it is one of the classic examples. I will be eagerly waiting for the demonstration of your mathematical skills. But then again, when you fail, maybe you keep your mouth shut about the comprehension of others, considering yours is null, that much is easy to infer from your lack of understandment about simple probabilities. Cute, how about you calculate the integral of 1/(1+x^4) Should be simple enough. I can't be arsed to calculate something you dont understand yourself.
Etho Demerzel Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone	Posted - 2009.01.16 07:06:00 - [304] Originally by: Amira Shadowsong Cute, how about you calculate the integral of 1/(1+x^4) Should be simple enough. I can't be arsed to calculate something you dont understand yourself. Lol, do you consider a simple integral a difficult problem, kid? I feel I am helping you with your homework. But here we goes. Basically you factorate your integrantive into 2 parts: 1/(1+x^4) = (Ax + B) /(x¦ +√2x +1) + (Cx + D) /(x¦ -√2x +1) From here you calculate A, B, C and D and split into 4 integrals, one for the term that contains A, one for the one that contains B and so on. The final result is: (-2ArcTan[1 - Sqrt[2]x] + 2ArcTan[1 + Sqrt[2]x] - Log[-1 + Sqrt[2]x - x^2] + Log[1 + Sqrt[2]x + x^2])/(4*Sqrt[2]) This is a very simple math, which I learned in the first year of my engineering course. Even so it is of the same level of complexity of basic statistics, which you fail to comprehend. By asking me to do your homework here, you prove your inability with probabilities extends to calculus as well. Now please go back to your hole. ===== "If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron...
Pac SubCom A.W.M	Posted - 2009.01.16 08:10:00 - [305] Edited by: Pac SubCom on 16/01/2009 08:12:56 Originally by: Lilith Velkor If you did care to read, he is unable to provide any result at all. So, he is right about what? His point is that that "a high efficiency jamming method results in more permajams than you think." With "than you think" being the core (non-)argument. It has no further descriptive power as regards the discussion. Nonetheless it can be a useful tactic. But it doesn't change the jamming probabilities, therefore it doesn't change permajamming probabilities.
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.16 09:42:00 - [306] Originally by: Etho Demerzel Lol, do you consider a simple integral a difficult problem, kid? I feel I am helping you with your homework. But here we go. Basically you factorate your integrative into 2 parts: 1/(1+x^4) = (Ax + B) /(x¦ +√2x +1) + (Cx + D) /(x¦ -√2x +1) From here you calculate A, B, C and D and make some rearrangement, which demand a lot of work, given, but are simple enough. The final result is: (-2ArcTan[1 - Sqrt[2]x] + 2ArcTan[1 + Sqrt[2]x] - Log[-1 + Sqrt[2]x - x^2] + Log[1 + Sqrt[2]x + x^2])/(4*Sqrt[2]) This is a very simple math, which I learned in the first year of my engineering course. Even so it is of the same level of complexity than basic statistics, which you fail to comprehend. By asking me to do your homework here, you prove your inability with probabilities extends to calculus as well. Now please go back to your hole. You used maple to solve that. That is not how you solve it on paper. You need to use complex analysis to solve it, eventhough intrestingly enough the integral in the end actually has an imaginary part of zero.
chrisss0r	Posted - 2009.01.16 10:03:00 - [307] Originally by: Pac SubCom Edited by: Pac SubCom on 16/01/2009 08:12:56 His point is that that "a high efficiency jamming method results in more permajams than you think." With "than you think" being the core (non-)argument. It has no further descriptive power as regards the discussion. Nonetheless it can be a useful tactic. But it doesn't change the jamming probabilities, therefore it doesn't change permajamming probabilities. This is not Correct. People mix up absolute probabilities and conditioned probabilities. If it did not change anything why would it be a theory used? I dont provide numbers cause it's a **ing **load of work and i don't feel urged to invest so much time so u guys have a number. I'm not saying "bayesian calculation proves falcon is overpowered" how could it? i have no idea how big the influence is (hard to calculate), i'm just stating you guys compute permajamming chances the wrong way. i personally feal the falcon is overpowered but that's nothing pure to numbers. let's say you have a situation where u compute a permajamming chance of 40% while the real permajamming chance (in the beginning of the fight and while more jammers free to deploy) is 43%. would that prove falcons are overpowered? no. Would it prove falcons were overpowered if it was 69% ? No. That's why i don't put the effort in calculating it. it would neither prove if falcons are overpowered nor if they are not. My statement is all the peeps who want to bring math arguments for or against the falcon fail cause they calculate the jamchances wrong. I will once again try to explain it on a simple example. You have a falcon with 6 jammers and 2 target ships. jaming chance is 50% relock time is set to the amount of player reaction time on the falcon to make calculation easy, which means if a ship trys to lock and the falcon has a jammer free i can throw it into before the ship got a lock. this is restrictive but if you fu.ck around you can come op with a more realistic model yourself. So: Classical Calculation Falcon deploys 3 jammers to each target at once Chance target 1 is jammed: 1-(o.5^3)=0.875 Chance target 2 is jammed is equally= 0.875 BAyesian calculation: Falcon put's one jammer on each target and waits the result: Well and now it's where things get complicated: Given target 1 is jammed by the first jammer, the Falcon has 5 jammers free and the jamming chance of target 2 becomes (1-0.5^5)=0.96875. (the falcon flame brigade: don't use this number, you will use it wrong. It does not say falcons have 100% jamchance on ship 1 and 96.875% on ship 2...) I'm pretty sure you may have noticed that while jamming the second ship with a higher probability you have only 50% on the first ship. Thats indeed true and is the reason why overall jamming chances don't change (since the jammers are uncorrelated) but it does not matter. stage one of the game (1 jammer applied to each ship) is played and done. Ship one beeing jammed is not a stochastic event anymore but a given condition in this stage of the game. The whole thing is staged (if the first jammer fails on ship one and you apply another one which succeeds you have another 4 to deploy to ship 2) the whole thing can be looked at from both sides. If the first jammers on both ships fail the game is reset with the falcon now having 4 jammers and starting again. The fact that you can gather information by staging your jammers is why you have to use baysian calculus. i kno this will result in missunderstandings and flames since people don't get the concept at all ( JAM CHANCES DON'T CHANGE; FAAAAIL) or just missinterpret it like sayying it's the proof that ecm is not stacking nerfed (lolwhat?) or will demand NUUUUUUMBERS. Here i have to say FUC:K YOU again. i will not create a dynamic probability model just to find out how high the probabilty of a blinky thing in an online game is. Gimme the money that is common for dynamic statistic calcs and i'll reconsider
chrisss0r	Posted - 2009.01.16 10:06:00 - [308] sorry amira but he's right. You can't fool people who who a topic well into believing you also know it well. it is kinda obvious that you and murina have not the slightest idea what the hell i'm talking about so please give in.
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.01.16 10:12:00 - [309] Edited by: Murina on 16/01/2009 10:15:16 Originally by: chrisss0r sorry amira but he's right. You can't fool people who who a topic well into believing you also know it well. it is kinda obvious that you and murina have not the slightest idea what the hell i'm talking about so please give in. Actually we both know exactly what your talking about, but its practical applications in eve are limited and cause other issues like a significantly delayed jam.
Camilo Cienfuegos Earned In Blood	Posted - 2009.01.16 10:15:00 - [310] Edited by: Camilo Cienfuegos on 16/01/2009 10:15:38 Originally by: chrisss0r sorry amira but he's right. You can't fool people who who a topic well into believing you also know it well. it is kinda obvious that you and murina have not the slightest idea what the hell i'm talking about so please give in. I'm convinced that Amira is Murina and that the person behind the keyboard is cackling and laughing away. That or it's a Jekyll and Hyde scenario, where one is unaware of the other's presence... Either way, [/thread] (please!) - ECM Balancing Proposal - 50% increase in effectiveness!

Burn Mac Minmatar The Tuskers	Posted - 2009.01.16 10:16:00 - [311] ECM is the killer for small gang pvp for 0.0 fleet battles im sure its balanced.
Pac SubCom A.W.M	Posted - 2009.01.16 10:32:00 - [312] Edited by: Pac SubCom on 16/01/2009 10:32:58 Originally by: chrisss0r FUC:K YOU I feel sorry that you have to spend so much time writing such long posts defending a hopeless (or at best meaningless) position. Those "free jammers" aren't free to make a jamming attempt on another ship. This does increase permajamming chances for a primary or secondary target, but not for all of them. At the receiving end the permachances don't change overall, because it isn't guaranteed that any given target ship will be chosen as primary. You get the same efficiency by just spreading n jammers over n targets, if you wouldn't weigh target selection for importance. But important targets could have ECCM, which lets you end up piling the jammers on it. Another consideration is the scarceness of the correct jammer type - isn't it better to put that "free" radar jammer on the Amarrian ship now than to wait whether your magneto jammer does its job on the Brutix? The "Bayesian method" is a fanciful name for business as usual. Your days long data processing work would only confirm this. --------------- ∞ TQFE
Leyalor Esperence DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.	Posted - 2009.01.16 10:36:00 - [313] Originally by: chrisss0r This is not Correct. People......(well presented argument continuation) ^agree. I should not have to field a standby falcon alt just for a solo roam or small gate camp, changes need to be made. Also stop with the trolling in this thread; keep it to EVE. Pies are tasty.
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.01.16 10:39:00 - [314] Originally by: Leyalor Esperence I should not have to field a standby falcon alt just for a solo roam or small gate camp, changes need to be made. So your predictable solo pvp in your i-win vs X ships is no longer as easy as it was before?. Suck it up.
Dray Caldari Clowns with Downs	Posted - 2009.01.16 11:02:00 - [315] Originally by: Leyalor Esperence Originally by: chrisss0r This is not Correct. People......(well presented argument continuation) ^agree. I should not have to field a standby falcon alt just for a solo roam or small gate camp, changes need to be made. Also stop with the trolling in this thread; keep it to EVE. Actually you should, your roaming solo and guess what, people want you gone whether its killing you or scaring you off and to do that they will use whatever tools at their disposal be it a falcon or a blob, you want to solo then go ahead but remember its only become harder as time has gone on and it wont get easier anytime soon, suck it up your solo roaming isn't hard because of falcons, its hard because you're on your own. True story....
chrisss0r	Posted - 2009.01.16 11:57:00 - [316] Edited by: chrisss0r on 16/01/2009 11:59:06 Originally by: Pac SubCom Edited by: Pac SubCom on 16/01/2009 10:45:49 Originally by: chrisss0r FUC:K YOU You get the same efficiency by just spreading n jammers over n targets, Sorry this is bull****. You did not get it at all. And this is not some "fancy numbers" i came up with but scientific reality. "bayes yields around 2.5m google hit's. Alot of people who like to do complex calculations that come to the same effect as simple calcs. Just for the fun of it, you know
Durzel The Xenodus Initiative.	Posted - 2009.01.16 12:03:00 - [317] This thread has turned into a forumised version of that bar scene in Good Will Hunting.
Pac SubCom A.W.M	Posted - 2009.01.16 12:19:00 - [318] Edited by: Pac SubCom on 16/01/2009 12:21:24 Originally by: chrisss0r Edited by: chrisss0r on 16/01/2009 11:59:06 Originally by: Pac SubCom Edited by: Pac SubCom on 16/01/2009 10:45:49 Originally by: chrisss0r FUC:K YOU You get the same efficiency by just spreading n jammers over n targets, Sorry this is bull****. You did not get it at all. And this is not some "fancy numbers" i came up with but scientific reality. "bayes yields around 2.5m google hit's. Alot of people who like to do complex calculations that come to the same effect as simple calcs. Just for the fun of it, you know You describe is a method to avoid the waste of jammers. Good job, but it doesn't change the probabilities of the Falcon permajamming me a single bit because of the chances that he will not primary me and use his [yes/no] algorithm on me. Should he spread jammers equally, my gang will lose the same damage over time than if he made sure to permajam one or two targets. Spreading jammers might be even more effective because a relocking period of many ships can reduce gang dps more than permajamming few. If you would provide numbers to prove your point or some mathematical proof, I would reconsider. I suspect you see the whole thing narrowly, ie the permajamming of primaries as a psychological effort to drive them to the forums to whine, while I look at ECM as a whole (damage reduction of the whole enemy gang), and that is why we diverge. You are correct, just as I am. --------------- ∞ TQFE
chrisss0r	Posted - 2009.01.16 12:29:00 - [319] Originally by: Pac SubCom Edited by: Pac SubCom on 16/01/2009 12:21:24 Originally by: chrisss0r Edited by: chrisss0r on 16/01/2009 11:59:06 Originally by: Pac SubCom Edited by: Pac SubCom on 16/01/2009 10:45:49 Originally by: chrisss0r FUC:K YOU You get the same efficiency by just spreading n jammers over n targets, Sorry this is bull****. You did not get it at all. And this is not some "fancy numbers" i came up with but scientific reality. "bayes yields around 2.5m google hit's. Alot of people who like to do complex calculations that come to the same effect as simple calcs. Just for the fun of it, you know You describe is a method to avoid the waste of jammers. Good job, but it doesn't change the probabilities of the Falcon permajamming me a single bit because of the chances that he will not primary me and use his [yes/no] algorithm on me. Should he spread jammers equally, my gang will lose the same damage over time than if he made sure to permajam one or two targets. Spreading jammers might be even more effective because a relocking period of many ships can reduce gang dps more than permajamming few. If you would provide numbers to prove your point or some mathematical proof, I would reconsider. I suspect you see the whole thing narrowly, ie the permajamming of primaries as a psychological effort to drive them to the forums to whine, while I look at ECM as a whole (damage reduction of the whole enemy gang), and that is why we diverge. You are correct, just as I am. because you calculate from a point of view where a falcon ahs no free jammers anyways. The bayesian calc comes into account when there are many more jammers than targets. if there is as many targets as jammers the simple formula accounts or, as you noticed correctly the fail/notfail method will provide a more probable jam on a few targets while the falcon does not try to jam the rest and gets toasted. Now consider solo/small gangs and you'll see why it is important to factor the real jamming probabilities instead of the simple ones which are wrong in that case for as long the falcon has free jammers to apply
Cohkka Celestial Apocalypse	Posted - 2009.01.16 12:35:00 - [320] And you are just speaking of engagements of 40 people on each side and more. Medium and large scale battles are not up to debate. Don't speak english, just F5, F5, F5...

burek Mercenary Forces	Posted - 2009.01.16 13:38:00 - [321] Ok, let me break it down for you blobber geniuses. No actual math needed. Just logic. The less people in gang, the more of a difference being jammed makes. Larger percentage of your gang is not doing ****, when you get jammed. The less people the falcon has to concentrate on jamming, probability of him having greater impact rises. "But omg why, I'm a math professor and the probability to jam formula doesn't change, wtf newb, learn to math..." Well, duh genius, but having 2 ships jammed in a gang of 120 is hardly comparable to how much of an impact there is having 2 people jammed (lol if you're lucky only 2) in a gang of 5. "But you newb, learn to play like us blobbers, bring snipers fit eccm, do this do that." Hello, 5 people. Mids are needed for necessary modules to make pvp happen. ECCM is a rarely affordable luxury. Snipers? Don't make me laugh. A liability in a small gang. Would fold like a paper plane, coz it isn't all that hard to spot in a small gang. Getting it yet? ECM/Falcon is a small gang/solo issue. Why is it that always someone that has never experienced it, lectures those that have?
Major Celine	Posted - 2009.01.16 14:10:00 - [322] Originally by: burek ECCM is a rarely affordable luxury. If you really mean that, do not complain about being jammed. No maths needed. Let me break it down for you whiners: There are the PvP ways to deal with ECM (many of them often enough explained in various threads which nobody seems to read) or, like you do, the forums way and the begging for strengthen tank and gank games. It's not the issue that you can't handle ECM, it's just because you do not want to.
Etho Demerzel Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone	Posted - 2009.01.16 14:39:00 - [323] Originally by: Amira Shadowsong You used maple to solve that. That is not how you solve it on paper. You need to use complex analysis to solve it, eventhough intrestingly enough the integral in the end actually has an imaginary part of zero. I see you insist in embarassing yourself further. No I didn't use any of the myriad of offline or online tools to solve it, although I did use Wolfram Research Online Integrator to check the resuts. Now I shouldn't be helping you further, but if you want to know how it is done here is a link to the step by step well explained solution, which uses only single variable calculus and algebra: Explained solution As you see no complex analysis or anything else needed. I really should charge you for the class... ===== "If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron...
Etho Demerzel Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone	Posted - 2009.01.16 14:44:00 - [324] Originally by: Major Celine Originally by: burek ECCM is a rarely affordable luxury. If you really mean that, do not complain about being jammed. No maths needed. Let me break it down for you whiners: There are the PvP ways to deal with ECM (many of them often enough explained in various threads which nobody seems to read) or, like you do, the forums way and the begging for strengthen tank and gank games. It's not the issue that you can't handle ECM, it's just because you do not want to. Celine is right, if you can't bother about using ECCM it means you don't consider ECM dangerous enough, so it must be fine. ===== "If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron...
Lilith Velkor Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.	Posted - 2009.01.16 18:23:00 - [325] Originally by: chrisss0r because you calculate from a point of view where a falcon ahs no free jammers anyways. The bayesian calc comes into account when there are many more jammers than targets. if there is as many targets as jammers the simple formula accounts or, as you noticed correctly the fail/notfail method will provide a more probable jam on a few targets while the falcon does not try to jam the rest and gets toasted. This ffs. His point isnt if the falcon can 'permajam' (I'll just use this term, bare with me) or not, it is how many other ships the falcon might take out after 'permajamming' the primary target. Now you dont need any fancy calculations, just a programming language of your choice (Excel prolly can do with macros), a few dozen lines of code and you get a pretty good approximation (in about 1 hours work). For those too lazy to do it themselves, in short: falcon with all caldari racials vs only caldari BSs will take one out of the fight almost entirely, and severely hamper a second one. That is a scenario that gives all good cards in the game to the falcon pilot though...
Lilith Velkor Minmatar DEATH'S LEGION Red Box.	Posted - 2009.01.16 18:32:00 - [326] Originally by: burek Getting it yet? ECM/Falcon is a small gang/solo issue. Why is it that always someone that has never experienced it, lectures those that have? Well, the thing is every ewar (bar TPs and RSDs to some extend) is a solo issue. Try to fight against someone who does put TDs on your turret ship, and that guy can do it with an unbonused ship even. ECM is fine.
chrisss0r	Posted - 2009.01.16 18:33:00 - [327] Originally by: Lilith Velkor Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 16/01/2009 18:32:13 Originally by: chrisss0r because you calculate from a point of view where a falcon ahs no free jammers anyways. The bayesian calc comes into account when there are many more jammers than targets. if there is as many targets as jammers the simple formula accounts or, as you noticed correctly the fail/notfail method will provide a more probable jam on a few targets while the falcon does not try to jam the rest and gets toasted. This ffs. His point isnt if the falcon can 'permajam' (I'll just use this term, bare with me) or not, it is how many other ships the falcon might take out after 'permajamming' the primary target. Now you dont need any fancy calculations, just a programming language of your choice (Excel prolly can do with macros), a few dozen lines of code and you get a pretty good approximation (in about 1 hours work). For those too lazy to do it themselves, in short: falcon with all caldari racials vs only caldari BSs will take one out of the fight almost entirely, and severely hamper a second one. That is a scenario that gives all good cards in the game to the falcon pilot though... while I still think the actual result is balanced. asked a friend to code it for me. see the other thread
Vrikshaka 0ff-Peak Esoteric Cutthroats	Posted - 2009.01.17 17:52:00 - [328] Originally by: Durzel This thread has turned into a forumised version of that bar scene in Good Will Hunting. Yup, and boy does it make for good entertainment!! passes on the bucket of popcorn Keep up the good work guys! (oh, and nerf falcons!!) V
Major Celine	Posted - 2009.01.17 19:16:00 - [329] So all in all, after all formulas and math lessons, there is no logical argument that either Falcon or ECM are "overpowered" because ECM is unique and cannot be compared with something else really (i.e. stacking penalized stuff). Bottom line: It is still a bad feeling people have who are unable or unwilling to deal with ECM at all. This thread is based on opinions. Let's see if and what CCP is going to do (and how many threads will follow now and after a possible re-design of that ecm / eccm / ecm-ships thingy).


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: [one page]

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