EVE Search - Solving the Falcon "problem" Solution inside

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Solving the Falcon "problem" Solution inside

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
ShadowMaiden Amarr Metal Machine	Posted - 2009.01.25 16:52:00 - [31] or simply change the Falcon's bonus from optimal to fall-off.
Noisrevbus Caldari Breams Gone Wild	Posted - 2009.01.25 18:39:00 - [32] I think mentioning diminishing returns is a fair approach. Who gives a smack about other games using it? It do however relate to a much more important side of ECM, chance. In a chance-based system the chance is, per generalization, never 100% and never 0%. It's mind boggling to see people still argue in such terms. ---- Diminishing returns generally do not apply to chance. It applies to things which are at the very least, not primarily chance-based, while ECM is. I think everyone in EVE would be happier with a good more direct ECM-system, that is easier to predict and control. If ECM was not primarily chance-based (instead, usually just worked without compromise when turning it on), but had a much steeper marginal between time of effect and cooldown (which are two other terms usually coupled with diminishing returns). Then you would have a more interesting strategy revolving around ECM. ---- ie,. once a ship has been jammed for duration X it can not [for whatever token RP-related reason] be jammed again within duration Y. The ECM pilot will thus be forced to cycle his ECM through different targets, which is a nice strategic addition (more micromanagement of targets) to flying ECM and not as frustrating for each player when facing ECM. In such a situation you could adapt diminishing returns during extended fights, where duration X decrease and duration Y increase. Simple, and with a potential to more fun and less frustration on both ends of an ECM module. ---- It's at least an option well worth discussing, just because it ends up on these forums doesn't mean it's getting implemented. Just because you may think it's not the best solution, doesn't mean it's not a suggestion worth discussing. Also once again, many changes to ECM require the ECM-specialized ships to be rolled in with the changes. These ships' entire design today rests upon their bonuses and the way ECM works. Changing ECM requires adaption of the ECM-ships (let's not repeat past mistakes).
Hugh Ruka Exploratio et Industria Morispatia	Posted - 2009.01.25 19:48:00 - [33] Originally by: Bosco Other games provide a system called "diminishing returns." Meaning, the more you apply a strategy, the more that strategy weakens or becomes less effective. An example would be the Ice Shock spell from world of warcraft. This spell has a "snare" affect on its target and slows the target's movement. The more you try to apply this spell in a certain timeframe, the less effective it becomes. This prevents a perma-state of being snared. My suggestion is simply this: Place timers on the jammers. The longer the person is repeat jammed, the less effective it becomes and the less chance the jammer has of jamming until a timer is reset on that target when jammers become 100% effective again. I believe this would end stalemates, keep falconeers and others cycling targets, and giving folks a chance to have some fast and furious fights. Discuss. I did not get past the initial post, maybe somebody already showed the OP how dumb he is. ECM is an on or off effect, you cannot be jammed LESS or MORE. This means there is nothing to stack. Stacking applies to about 90% of the modules/effects in the game where it has a point (web, tracking, resists, speed etc.). But feel free to some up with a better idea. And please take note that is you nerf the best ship of any given type to "acceptable" level, you royaly screw over the lesser ships of that type, so take care ... --- SIG --- CSM: your support is needed !
Psiri	Posted - 2009.01.25 20:08:00 - [34] I think OP is on the right track, however I just don't think that it'd be enough unless the diminishing effect on the jamming strength is very strong. I'd like to instead see it combined with a jamming strength penalty for jamming multiple targets, this would make it impossible for a powerful ECM boat to keep a jam on multiple targets for maybe more than one cycle (which is plenty enough for escape in most situations) and the ECM boat would have to swap targets medium sized engagements, making no ship permanently shut down. Multiple snipers would also quickly force away Falcons, giving them a counter.
Heloise ChateauBriande	Posted - 2009.01.25 20:16:00 - [35] Originally by: Joss Sparq Originally by: Bosco An example would be the Ice Shock spell from world of warcraft. I don't normally say this, but: It has to be a flamebait, surely? LOL my EXACT thoughts!! Get out of my mind!!!!
Krystal Demishy	Posted - 2009.01.25 20:21:00 - [36] To all the noobs stupidly saying "use eccm": you have to use at least 3 eccm II and you will still be jammed and sometime permajammed. That is not f*ing normal.
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.01.25 20:27:00 - [37] Originally by: Krystal Demishy To all the noobs stupidly saying "use eccm": you have to use at least 3 eccm II and you will still be jammed and sometime permajammed. That is not f*ing normal. You cannot "perma jam" any ship that has higher sig str than you have jam str. So please go ahead and keep exaggerating so ridiculously it helps show that their really are no arguments for nerfing falcons.
Colonel Xaven Decadence. RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2009.01.25 20:52:00 - [38] *Hey look, another falcon needs a fix* thread. Originally by:** ry ry Originally by: Unknown Killer Use ECCM or best would be go back to WOW. okay, say a crusader or claw fits eccm for a fleet fight. how does it tackle the falcon? You fail. Grab a shuttle. Originally by: lecrotta EVE has diminishing returns it is called stacking and ECM is chance based and does not stack with itself. 4 jammers with a 50% chance to jam each do not have a 200% chance to jam, they do actually get a natural diminishing return. Another mechanic, same result. People won't get it, mate. Sad, but true. And the pathetic story of "wah wah overpowered needs fix" and bad ideas goes on. Originally by: Cedric Diggory Boost Rook, nerf Falcon. Problem solved. Predicting incoming rook needs a fix whines then.
Abram Enroch	Posted - 2009.01.25 21:37:00 - [39] How about making jammers actually jam? So the signal is insufficient to aim a weapon systems at? You don't lose your lock. You just cannot shoot or set drones to your target. Because I think that the biggest issue with jamming is losing your lock for the time of the jam AND the time it takes to recapture you lock. Although my biggest issue is that matar EW is weaksause WTB a system that jams your ship CPU and takes random modules offline please!
Digital Solaris	Posted - 2009.01.25 22:15:00 - [40] Having dimishing returns affecting mechanics in EVE leads only to disaster for the game, because should CCP implement these changes because of people's *****ing and moaning, it won't take long before you got people drumming for dimishing returns affecting warp scrambling, webifiers and probably cyno jammers as well. And (why not) mining while we are at it because Chribba's Veldnaught is so unfair and overpowered! OMGWTFQQ Do I think the current mechanics needs a look? Maybe, but I leave that decision to CCP to make instead of asinine suggestion made by someone random that thinks he has a clue because he thought of World of Warcraft. -god made me a cannibal to end problems like you-

chrisss0r	Posted - 2009.01.25 22:33:00 - [41] Originally by: Krystal Demishy To all the noobs stupidly saying "use eccm": you have to use at least 3 eccm II and you will still be jammed and sometime permajammed. That is not f*ing normal. That's not true. An earlier thread clearly stated how effective eccm is in a fight over a few circles
Chainsaw Plankton IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE	Posted - 2009.01.26 01:09:00 - [42] Originally by: Terianna Eri Edited by: Terianna Eri on 25/01/2009 13:56:56 Originally by: lecrotta Originally by: Bosco I only cited WoW because it was the first game that came to mind. Essentially, many MMO's use diminishing returns to balance crowd control spells, abilities, etc. Let's face it: Jamming ships is a form of crowd control. Also, applying diminishing returns could fit into the game world quite easily. EVE has diminishing returns it is called stacking and ECM is chance based and does not stack with itself. 4 jammers with a 50% chance to jam each do not have a 200% chance to jam, they do actually get a natural diminishing return. No they don't. Every jammer you try to put on the target is exactly as effective as the first in that it has the same chance of jamming. If I want to nerf someone's range into oblivion with a TD, and I'm at 10km, and they've got 250km range, each additional TD is less effective than the one before it. In contrast, if I want to jam the ship into oblivion, all I need to do is throw more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more jammers at it, and if I can devote enough jammers to it, it'll get jammed, and stay jammed. Incidentally, 5x max skilled TDs won't get a target to below 20km optimal if it's got 250km range; neat. nuke their tracking and move. if they are hitting at 250km they have **** for tracking... or hit them with 1td and they can no longer hit your snipers, and probably cant hit you if you are moving either.
Grendelsbane	Posted - 2009.01.26 01:43:00 - [43] The Falcon was always there. The difference now is that a bunch of people had their other toys nerfed or taken away, so they move on to something else. Making the problem worse in this case is the fact that the Falcon, by nature of its cloak, makes a perfect ship for those who spend all day in their grandma's basement running 3 accounts at once. This is simply what happens when you play whack-a-mole with the nerfbat.
Th0rG0d Caldari	Posted - 2009.01.26 03:56:00 - [44] Originally by: Grendelsbane Making the problem worse in this case is the fact that the Falcon, by nature of its cloak, makes a perfect ship for those who spend all day in their grandma's basement running 3 accounts at once. I thought that was all of us?? South Park episode comes to mind!
Terianna Eri Amarr Scrutari	Posted - 2009.01.26 05:13:00 - [45] Originally by: Chainsaw Plankton nuke their tracking and move. if they are hitting at 250km they have **** for tracking... or hit them with 1td and they can no longer hit your snipers, and probably cant hit you if you are moving either. That wasn't the point (and the fact that nobody uses TDs or damps in fleet fights is a different issue entirely). The point was that if you want something jammed you can always (if not immune to all EWAR like sieged dreads / MS / titans) throw more jammers at it, whereas other forms of EWAR have a limit to the amount that they can be applied.
Blake Zacary Volatile Nature Frontal Impact	Posted - 2009.01.26 05:26:00 - [46] ECCM seems to work fine on my basilisk,I get the feeling people expect ECCM to make them jam proof ,it doesn't and it's not supposed to.Also people need to start actually thinking when they're dealing with falcons. e.g. yes a falcon will probably jam a ceptor running for him but the ceptor still gives a warp in for other people to kill it . set you drones to guard each other when jammed,FOFS etc,etc there's loads of options just think and plan.
Suitonia Gallente interimo End of The Line.	Posted - 2009.01.26 05:47:00 - [47] ECCM needs to be more effective on smaller ships, my Taranis gets jammed at a 82% rate with a ECCM fitted.
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.01.26 06:00:00 - [48] Originally by: Suitonia ECCM needs to be more effective on smaller ships, my Taranis gets jammed at a 82% rate with a ECCM fitted. Given that without eccm you would be jammed 100%, I'd say thats an improvement. Not sure as I'm not a math genius, but wouldnt that even mean eccm efficiency in your example does approach positive infinity?
Suitonia Gallente interimo End of The Line.	Posted - 2009.01.26 06:39:00 - [49] Well, as has been mentioned countless times, Falcons can operate within 200km. What ships do we have that can do a reasonable amount of dps (enough to kill the Falcon in 20-30 seconds) and do over 3km/s (so they can close the range gap in 20-30 seconds). Taranis, Claw, Vagabond, Stabber, Wolf, Crusader, Crow (a little on the low dps side but lets go with it). What these ships also have in common is that they are all perma jammed by a single racial jammer. Since these ships obviously need to fit a microwarpdrive and a warp scrambler, it means that the Claw, Crusader, and Wolf are out! Since they cannot fit an ECCM after these modules due to limited mid slots. They can try and fit a lowslot ECCM but these are very ineffective and even with one of these they still get permajammed in the Claw and Crusaders case. This leaves us with the Taranis, Vagabond, Stabber and Crow. Which now have an ECCM fitted. The Taranis is jammed 80.1% of the time with a SINGLE racial even with an ECCM module fitted, giving up what should be a stasis webifier considering it's a blaster fitted ship for only a 19.9% chance to kill the Falcon, and thats assuming that the Falcon doesn't put it's other racial jammers on the taranis in a hurry to get it off. (94.4% jammed with 4 non-racials on it, + the racial). The crow is the same only it does half the dps for about 5-7% less chance of being jammed.... The stabber fairs a little better, but its still jammed more than half the time with a single racial jammer, this is a little silly considering it sacrificed all it's tank to counter a single ship and is still shutdown more than half the time. Vagabond fairs the same only it can fit a LSE with an eccm and is marginally faster than the stabber with better dps. Now of course, the Falcon can always warp before these ships can get into range, and thats ok... Basically. I think ECCM should give a flat boost in sensor strength, i.e. +30/25/20 or w/e number is balanced, rather than the % amount. This way the fast, small ships that are meant to be able to close gaps quickly can actually kill/chase off the falcons, instead of being a "oh.... damn..... looks like I gotta lose 1/5th of my jamming potential to keep this guy thats coming towards me perma jammed"
GatoBasque	Posted - 2009.01.26 06:46:00 - [50] Zzzzzzzzzz......ZZzzzzzzzzzz

Scarlet Pimpdaddy Minmatar	Posted - 2009.01.26 07:49:00 - [51] Originally by: Bellum Eternus Originally by: Unknown Killer Use ECCM or best would be go back to WOW. Carrier with 2x ECCM = 270+ sensor strength, and it still gets jammed. Go back to WoW. A decent/good Falcon havs a jamming dtrength of around 12-14. If your carrier has a sensor strength of 270 it can be jammed but not very often. Why does noone get jamming?
Jukhta Mein Domini Umbrus R.U.R.	Posted - 2009.01.26 08:11:00 - [52] Pluck some feathers from the falcons.
Kayosoni Caldari Arcane Technologies The Five	Posted - 2009.01.26 08:15:00 - [53] Jesus what is this now, Falcon nerf thread #9001? ---
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.01.26 08:19:00 - [54] Edited by: Omara Otawan on 26/01/2009 08:20:32 Originally by: Scarlet Pimpdaddy A decent/good Falcon havs a jamming dtrength of around 12-14. If your carrier has a sensor strength of 270 it can be jammed but not very often. Why does noone get jamming? It involves basic maths, not many people are able to get it right. I blame it on ever decreasing funds for public schools really. Ofc not all people are dumb, some are just deliberately lying to justify game changes in their favor.
Kayosoni Caldari Arcane Technologies The Five	Posted - 2009.01.26 08:21:00 - [55] Originally by: Omara Otawan Originally by: Scarlet Pimpdaddy A decent/good Falcon havs a jamming dtrength of around 12-14. If your carrier has a sensor strength of 270 it can be jammed but not very often. Why does noone get jamming? It involves basic maths, not many people are able to get it right. I blame it on ever decreasing funds for public schools really. School funding has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of education. This has been proven. The amount spent per child on education in overseas schools is FAR less than the amount spent in the US, and they recieve a much better education, with bigger classes. Teachers/Teachers' unions are what's killing our schools.
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.01.26 08:25:00 - [56] Edited by: Omara Otawan on 26/01/2009 08:25:56 Originally by: Kayosoni School funding has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of education. This has been proven. The amount spent per child on education in overseas schools is FAR less than the amount spent in the US, and they recieve a much better education, with bigger classes. Well, I happen to live 'oversea', and I can assure you there is a relation. In the last 10 years education funds were constantly lowered, and the average teen IQ dropped at about the same rate. We might have a certain advantage in education quality over the US, but sadly our govs are working on getting that leveled out In fact, the average teenager in europe has difficulty speaking their own language properly.
TZeer BURN EDEN	Posted - 2009.01.26 08:52:00 - [57] Originally by: Suitonia Well, as has been mentioned countless times, Falcons can operate within 200km. What ships do we have that can do a reasonable amount of dps (enough to kill the Falcon in 20-30 seconds) and do over 3km/s (so they can close the range gap in 20-30 seconds). Taranis, Claw, Vagabond, Stabber, Wolf, Crusader, Crow (a little on the low dps side but lets go with it). What these ships also have in common is that they are all perma jammed by a single racial jammer. Since these ships obviously need to fit a microwarpdrive and a warp scrambler, it means that the Claw, Crusader, and Wolf are out! Since they cannot fit an ECCM after these modules due to limited mid slots. They can try and fit a lowslot ECCM but these are very ineffective and even with one of these they still get permajammed in the Claw and Crusaders case. This leaves us with the Taranis, Vagabond, Stabber and Crow. Which now have an ECCM fitted. The Taranis is jammed 80.1% of the time with a SINGLE racial even with an ECCM module fitted, giving up what should be a stasis webifier considering it's a blaster fitted ship for only a 19.9% chance to kill the Falcon, and thats assuming that the Falcon doesn't put it's other racial jammers on the taranis in a hurry to get it off. (94.4% jammed with 4 non-racials on it, + the racial). The crow is the same only it does half the dps for about 5-7% less chance of being jammed.... The stabber fairs a little better, but its still jammed more than half the time with a single racial jammer, this is a little silly considering it sacrificed all it's tank to counter a single ship and is still shutdown more than half the time. Vagabond fairs the same only it can fit a LSE with an eccm and is marginally faster than the stabber with better dps. Now of course, the Falcon can always warp before these ships can get into range, and thats ok... Basically. I think ECCM should give a flat boost in sensor strength, i.e. +30/25/20 or w/e number is balanced, rather than the % amount. This way the fast, small ships that are meant to be able to close gaps quickly can actually kill/chase off the falcons, instead of being a "oh.... damn..... looks like I gotta lose 1/5th of my jamming potential to keep this guy thats coming towards me perma jammed" If thats the only way you come up with to counter the falcon you are kinda dumb, sorry, but you are. 1: Rush towards the falcon in a fast ships and hope to grab him. (Hardly works, and if the falcon sit still he is dumb) 2: ECCM snipers 3: Probe his position and gangwarp a dictor or HIC on it`s position, or warp to the covert op who is sitting cloaked next to it. You can also fit ECCM on the covert op and a warp disruptor. Before you decloak your peeps should already be ready to warp to you or just initiated warp. 4: Get an arazu within 40km and damp/scram his ass
Kell Braugh Dawn of a new Empire The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.01.26 09:40:00 - [58] Edited by: Kell Braugh on 26/01/2009 09:50:47 Edited by: Kell Braugh on 26/01/2009 09:47:06 Originally by: Sky Marshal ... CCP nerfed missiles so much than now a good amount of Caldari players moved to Falcons because it is all we have. this.. The missile/speed nerf made me wanna spec out for falcon cause it was my quickest, be effective in gang option. Just finished recon V and am loving it. and secondly, about the balance of low sensor strength on ships that can burn 200km. think of it this way: once you get there -- you are the only one who can put out any kind of damage. all the falcon can do is hope he doesn't get shafted by our chance-based ewar and is able to warp out. I'm not like they are solopwn mobiles. They are just good at what they do. - In essence, any combat related activity involving damage has been 'speed nerfed' to just take 6 times longer with a predetermined outcome coined balance by CCP.
Ancy Denaries Caldari Solaris Operations	Posted - 2009.01.26 10:06:00 - [59] Actually not a half bad idea. Don't listen to the clueless naysayers. They stopped reading at "World of". The Diminishing returns solutions (together with the Falloff one) are two of the most sensible solutions I've seen to the Falcon spam. There's nothing really inherently wrong with the Falcon, but it's being horridly overused and completely shuts some people out of a fight. If it could still do that, but shut DIFFERENT people out of the fight, I think it would still be effective, yet not ruin the fun for the same people over and over again. Props for some out of the box thinking. Could even be RP explained with that the targets sensors adapt to the jamming, making it less efficient with prolonged use. Not a half bad idea.
Ancy Denaries Caldari Solaris Operations	Posted - 2009.01.26 10:13:00 - [60] Originally by: Kayosoni Jesus what is this now, Falcon nerf thread #9001? Sorry, I can't resist....It's over 9000!!!!



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

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