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)
Bosco Minmatar Altruism. Avarice.	Posted - 2009.01.25 10:46:00 - [1] 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.
5yndr0m3 Caldari Letiferi Praedones	Posted - 2009.01.25 10:56:00 - [2] 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. eccm.
Joss Sparq Caldari ANZAC ALLIANCE Southern Cross Alliance	Posted - 2009.01.25 11:02:00 - [3] 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?
Unknown Killer	Posted - 2009.01.25 11:03:00 - [4] Use ECCM or best would be go back to WOW.
Kaahles n0thing Inc.	Posted - 2009.01.25 11:05:00 - [5] Use ECCM. If it isn't enough get some information warfare links to boost your sensor strength. Problem solved. ----------------------------- OMG THE SKY IS FALLING! Contract me all your stuff so I can save it!
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2009.01.25 11:05:00 - [6] 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. Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. Death of Virtue is Recruiting
ry ry	Posted - 2009.01.25 11:05:00 - [7] 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?
Silent Ceremony	Posted - 2009.01.25 11:13:00 - [8] 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? why would you use a crusader when you can use a Crow which has much higher sensor strength? this Crow then tackles the falcon using a warp disruptor module
Sky Marshal IMpAct Corp Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2009.01.25 11:28:00 - [9] There is no Falcon "problem". Just adapt. Curiously, there are so much whines against Falcon since the release of QR... So since the nerf of missiles. I guess the real problem is that CCP nerfed missiles so much than now a good amount of Caldari players moved to Falcons because it is all we have.
Feilamya Minmatar	Posted - 2009.01.25 11:30:00 - [10] stopped reading at "world of"

Franga Gristle Industries	Posted - 2009.01.25 11:36:00 - [11] 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. Quoting this because I'm down with it. Real issue with ECM is the fact it's chance based.
Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Ursa Stellar Initiative	Posted - 2009.01.25 11:36:00 - [12] Supported. Make ECM work 100% of the time on initial activation, and with a halflife of one minute. So at one minute, each module has 50% chance of jamming. Thus a falcon can take out 5-6 targets for the first minute of the fight, 2-3 the second, etc. Very balanced, yes? Me be smart!
Bosco Minmatar Altruism. Avarice.	Posted - 2009.01.25 11:59:00 - [13] 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. Lets take the standard "nerf falcons" response from people that fly falcons. ECCM. Well ECCMs dont always work.. infact they seem to be over come quite quickly. Wouldn't make sense that the ECCM or defence mechanism's computer would be constantly modulating it's targeting and sensor frequencys to avoid being jammed? Maybe the dimishing return should be only applied when you have such a defensive module equipped. Less of a chance to be jammed the more... you are jammed. This would also apply to any ship not equipped with jam defence. The ships normal computers should be activly trying to compensate for the jam, cycling frequencies etc to overcome it. Once it does, and the jam is broken (i.e. the diminishing returns have taken effect) that ship is free from jams from that paticular ship that is jamming it. The falcon pilot or whatever must stop his jam and wait a set periord for his own jammers to reset and modulate frequencies to begin jamming that same target again. The cycle starts over. Thoughts?
FarosWarrior Amarr Sonnema	Posted - 2009.01.25 12:19:00 - [14] this is not WoW/WAR/LoTRO/whatevergameyoumightthinkoff THIS IS SPART.... ohwai.. THIS IS EVE, GET OVER IT Cheers, Faros YES I am a CareBear YES I also post on C&P PROOF or STFU
Digital Solaris	Posted - 2009.01.25 13:13:00 - [15] Having diminishing returns affecting mechanics in EVE leads only to disaster for the game, because should CCP implement these changes because of people's current popular whine trend, it won't take long before you got people drumming for diminishing 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'll leave that decision to CCP to make instead of some asinine suggestion made by someone random tool that thinks he had a solution because he thought of World of Warcraft.
Digital Solaris	Posted - 2009.01.25 13:14:00 - [16] Originally by: Digital Solaris Having diminishing returns affecting mechanics in EVE leads only to disaster for the game, because should CCP implement these changes because of people's current popular whine trend, it won't take long before you got people drumming for diminishing 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'll leave that decision to CCP to make instead of some asinine suggestion made by some random tool that thinks he had a solution because he thought of World of Warcraft.
P'uck	Posted - 2009.01.25 13:17:00 - [17] Originally by: Sky Marshal Curiously, there are so much whines against Falcon since the release of QR... So since the nerf of missiles. Here's a little hint for you: it was not the missile "nerf" that made the falcon considerably stronger.
lebrata Hedion University	Posted - 2009.01.25 13:36:00 - [18] 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 carrier does not get jammed often with that sort of str, and if it was totally immune to being jammed cos of eccm then eccm would need fixing.
Hatt0ri Hanz0	Posted - 2009.01.25 13:38:00 - [19] Originally by: Digital Solaris Having diminishing returns affecting mechanics in EVE leads only to disaster for the game, because should CCP implement these changes because of people's current popular whine trend, it won't take long before you got people drumming for diminishing 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'll leave that decision to CCP to make instead of some asinine suggestion made by someone random tool that thinks he had a solution because he thought of World of Warcraft. moron. I actually agree with the op. Falcons need a change, and it aint eccm, unless its to make them actually stronger. eccm only works if the falcon has umpteen ships he's trying to jam. I've lost more then one ship, some even large ships, to an assault frigate and a falcon. One or even two eccms would not have helped.
lecrotta lecrotta Corp	Posted - 2009.01.25 13:44:00 - [20] 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.

Terianna Eri Amarr Scrutari	Posted - 2009.01.25 13:56:00 - [21] 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.
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N.	Posted - 2009.01.25 13:58:00 - [22] 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. Failure to understand that chance based means that unlikely things happen. Go back to maths class.
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N.	Posted - 2009.01.25 14:00:00 - [23] 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. Who cares that they can fire 20Km if you're at 24Km?
lecrotta lecrotta Corp	Posted - 2009.01.25 14:06:00 - [24] Originally by: Terianna Eri [ 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. 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. Your right but ECM does not have a fully cumulative effect (or stacking effect if you prefer), a ECM jammer that fails does not take away x amount of sig str from the target making it easier for the next jammer to fail.
Sky Marshal IMpAct Corp Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2009.01.25 14:07:00 - [25] Originally by: P'uck Here's a little hint for you: it was not the missile "nerf" that made the falcon considerably stronger. Here's a little hint for you: read a post entirely before create a response who is out of context So read a new time my post. In my case, I will move to a ship with guns or a Falcon, as the missile nerf make my Cerberus less efficient.
Sidus Isaacs Gallente	Posted - 2009.01.25 14:13:00 - [26] Edited by: Sidus Isaacs on 25/01/2009 14:13:30 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. Bad idea. If anything the systems jamming would become more effective with time, no less. This may work in a happy magic world of faries and such, but makes no sense in EVE.
Cedric Diggory Perfunctory Oleaginous Laocoon Mugwumps	Posted - 2009.01.25 14:15:00 - [27] Boost Rook, nerf Falcon. Problem solved.
Monticore D'Muertos Caldari Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire	Posted - 2009.01.25 14:41:00 - [28] these are the same people that whined for the speed nerf and at that time i told them nerf speed all you want but just guess what ship all those rapier pilots are going to fly now and its not gonna any more fun than all those rapiers. so guess which ships gets more flying time my falcon or rapier. monti
Joss Sparq Caldari ANZAC ALLIANCE Southern Cross Alliance	Posted - 2009.01.25 16:00:00 - [29] Originally by: Cedric Diggory Boost Rook, nerf Falcon. Problem solved. I could almost endorse this. That way, I could stop imagining the fear in the hearts of my enemies as I decloak beyond their immediate reach and can instead imagine their even greater fear when an even more powerful ECM boat is simply on scan.
Taylor timenenzi	Posted - 2009.01.25 16:27:00 - [30] I say bring back the old way ECM worked. You know when someone could fit the multi spectrms and perma jam any 6 ships with a scorpion. That was fun.

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!!!!

Rordan D'Kherr	Posted - 2009.01.26 10:50:00 - [61] I'm curious how the diminishing return thingy would take effect to weapons. I mean, they disable a player to do anything (by destroying one's ship).
TZeer BURN EDEN	Posted - 2009.01.26 11:22:00 - [62] Quote: 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. In other words you wanna make ECM useless. I`m not sure you have been around long enough but ECM has already been through multiple changes, mostly nerfs. Ontop of having chance based activation you want them to loose effectiveness over time during the fight. Quote: 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) Why would I fly a ECM boat if all I wanna do is escape with it? And quite a few fights your engagement depends on the falcons ability to take a certain ship out of the fight, until the gang can deal with it. If the target suddenly appears to have ECCM fitted, the fight can suddenly take a very different turn. And ECCM works, I have lost count on how many times people whine about eccm, when they actually forgot to either turn it on or just fitted the wrong type. One more thing. Quote: Other games provide a system called "diminishing returns." Meaning, the more you apply a strategy, the more that strategy weakens or becomes less effective. Well, this is not another game, this is eve. And you already have this mechanic by default. But it's up to the players to do it. They adapt to the world around them. If they fight people who use ECM alot, Fit ECCM and use ganglink and tactics to counter the ECM... Yeah, I can see that the falcon have made the rook obsolete, but no need to absolutely trash the whole gamemechanic. Is the scorp overpowered? Is the widow overpowered? Kitsune? Blackbird?
Psiri	Posted - 2009.01.26 12:59:00 - [63] Edited by: Psiri on 26/01/2009 12:59:46 Originally by: TZeer In other words you wanna make ECM useless. I`m not sure you have been around long enough but ECM has already been through multiple changes, mostly nerfs. Ontop of having chance based activation you want them to loose effectiveness over time during the fight. Been around since 2003, atm I think the current ECM mechanic is the worst rendition of it we've ever seen. My suggestion would make it loose effectiveness over the fight on the jammed targets, ie if you're only jamming 1-2 people then yes you would be out of things to jam after not very long, how long exactly would depend on wether you jammed the targets simultaneously, their sensor strength and wether or not they've fitted ECM. ECM wouldn't be useless, an ECM boat would be able to keep at least one big hostile ship down at any given moment in most situations and it'd still be the best rescue-ship ever. The ship is virtually a no-risk boat and the rewards for flying it should be in line with that. I think that alot of people would appriciate a non-chance based system aswell as it'd leave more in control of the pilot himself, rather than just dumb luck. I don't see why one player should be able to neutralize 2-3 others or more, at near zer risk to his ship. Sure an ECM boat won't do much if any damage at all, then again the ability of breaking locks has its certain advantages. Quote: Why would I fly a ECM boat if all I wanna do is escape with it? You don't have to, the ability to render any single ship useless for 60-80 seconds (before then jamming multiple targets pherhaps, as the fight would probably be almost over anyway) can equate to a 1000EHP/sec remote rep or free people from other forms of EW like tracking disruption or sensor dampening. Falcons would still carry their weight in a fight except maybe a frigate battle or sniper heavy engagement, and frankly a Falcon shouldn't be in either of those places. Quote: And quite a few fights your engagement depends on the falcons ability to take a certain ship out of the fight, until the gang can deal with it. If the target suddenly appears to have ECCM fitted, the fight can suddenly take a very different turn. I think way too many people are dismissing ECCM as rubbish, whilst it can be really useful on some ships. In any case, a Falcon would still be able to do the same thing after my proposed changes, it's just that eventually the jam would break and the Falcon would need to jam something else. But sure, you would have a time limit of sorts but I see absolutely nothing wrong with that, it just adds pressure on you aswell which is fun. Currently there's absolutely nothing fun about ECM.
Leiara Knight Gallente The Oblivion Guard	Posted - 2009.01.26 13:00:00 - [64] I cleanly suggest making ECCM modules offensive. When the jamming ship attempts to use ECM on an ECCM-equipped vessel it creates a feedback loop which destroys the jamming ship and 17 random members of their corporation, instantly. To maintain balance, in the event of such a feedback effect the ECCM-equipped vessel would glow brightly and therefore become a more appealing target for any remaining enemies. I believe this is the high-stakes ECM action we've always wanted.
Major Celine	Posted - 2009.01.26 13:20:00 - [65] Originally by: Leiara Knight I cleanly suggest making ECCM modules offensive. When the jamming ship attempts to use ECM on an ECCM-equipped vessel it creates a feedback loop which destroys the jamming ship and 17 random members of their corporation, instantly. Haha, nice. Or just make ECM module instantly ban the account of its user and give any1 who have whined about ECM 1 bil extra cash!
jimfix	Posted - 2009.01.26 13:39:00 - [66] Or just be jamming good with weird and gilly And the spiders from mars........
Leiara Knight Gallente The Oblivion Guard	Posted - 2009.01.26 14:17:00 - [67] You are quite right, and they can be licked by smiling.
Tzar'rim	Posted - 2009.01.26 14:33:00 - [68] REAL solution? Drop the range bonus and lower the locking range. Dropping the range bonus makes it more dangerous for the Falcon pilot, which in turn means he has to put more effort into survival, which then means he'll (have to) be less effective. The shorter range makes him easier to catch for the opponents, he can be sensor damped and fast ships can more easily overwhelm it. He just lost his 98% safety and can be countered. It's also more inline with the Amarr Recons where the cloaky one doesn't get range bonuses. Leave the range bonus and long locking range on the Rook, that gives it a purpose and then you actually have to make choices; cloak or range. And yes, I have a Falcon alt.
Major Celine	Posted - 2009.01.26 15:35:00 - [69] Originally by: Tzar'rim And yes, I have a Falcon alt. Killer argument, haha. So you are repeating ideas. What compensation should the Falcon get if it loses his tank?
Deschenus Maximus Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades	Posted - 2009.01.26 21:34:00 - [70] Originally by: Major Celine Originally by: Tzar'rim And yes, I have a Falcon alt. Killer argument, haha. So you are repeating ideas. What compensation should the Falcon get if it loses his tank? What compensation did the Arazu get for nerfed-to-hell damps? Or the Rapier for nerfed-to-hell webs?

Major Celine	Posted - 2009.01.26 21:41:00 - [71] Originally by: Deschenus Maximus What compensation did the Arazu get for nerfed-to-hell damps? Or the Rapier for nerfed-to-hell webs? Hmm, Rapier for sure is not a long range ship without any tank abilities. Not sure about the Arazu.
Takeshi Yamato	Posted - 2009.01.26 21:43:00 - [72] Quote: Drop the range bonus and lower the locking range. +20% ECM falloff per level instead of +20% ECM optimal imho. Still allows them to jam from 200+ km but at low effectiveness which is more in line with the insignificant risk they're taking.
Murina Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2009.01.26 21:52:00 - [73] Originally by: Deschenus Maximus What compensation did the Arazu get for nerfed-to-hell damps? Or the Rapier for nerfed-to-hell webs? None but then just cos they need a range boost is no reason to nerf ecm ships, in fact i bet most ppl would support a buff to the other ewar ships i know i would.
Deschenus Maximus Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades	Posted - 2009.01.26 21:54:00 - [74] Originally by: Major Celine Hmm, Rapier for sure is not a long range ship without any tank abilities. If you want to get some kind of tank on a Rapier, you have to give up some of your E-War. Just like you'd need to do on a Falcon. Originally by: Major Celine Not sure about the Arazu. Same deal, only worse because the 'Zu doesn't have as many mids as the Falcon, nor good base resists like the Rapier.
Deschenus Maximus Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades	Posted - 2009.01.26 21:59:00 - [75] Originally by: Murina None but then just cos they need a range boost is no reason to nerf ecm ships, in fact i bet most ppl would support a buff to the other ewar ships i know i would. They don't need a range boost, the Falcon just needs to get its range nerfed. I, too, have a Falcon alt, you know. BTW, for those saying that the abundance of Falcons around is because of the missile nerf: that only part of the answer. The other reason is that Falcons were balanced when they had to watch out for 9km/s Vagas and inties hunting them. Now their list of natural enemies has been reduced to ECCM sniper BS.
Major Celine	Posted - 2009.01.26 22:03:00 - [76] Originally by: Deschenus Maximus If you want to get some kind of tank on a Rapier, you have to give up some of your E-War. Just like you'd need to do on a Falcon. Hmm, I do not need any slots as I can speed up my Rapier. Speed is Minmatars friend, you know? Even after the speed nerf which obviously the majority of players wanted.
Deschenus Maximus Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades	Posted - 2009.01.26 22:08:00 - [77] Originally by: Major Celine Originally by: Deschenus Maximus If you want to get some kind of tank on a Rapier, you have to give up some of your E-War. Just like you'd need to do on a Falcon. Hmm, I do not need any slots as I can speed up my Rapier. Speed is Minmatars friend, you know? Even after the speed nerf which obviously the majority of players wanted. 2.2 km/s is painfully slow, and that's the fastest you'll go without fancy implants. The "standard" Rapier fit has 2 LSE II, because speedtanking is dead except in very rare cases.
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.01.26 22:10:00 - [78] Edited by: Omara Otawan on 26/01/2009 22:14:53 Edited by: Omara Otawan on 26/01/2009 22:11:30 Originally by: Deschenus Maximus What compensation did the Arazu get for nerfed-to-hell damps? Bonused MWD-disabling scramblers. Quote: Or the Rapier for nerfed-to-hell webs? TPs that are remotely useful now. Quote: The "standard" Rapier fit has 2 LSE II, because speedtanking is dead except in very rare cases. Rubbish. Rapiers always fit dual LSE tank, unless flown by noobs.
lecrotta lecrotta Corp	Posted - 2009.01.26 22:13:00 - [79] Originally by: Deschenus Maximus Originally by: Murina None but then just cos they need a range boost is no reason to nerf ecm ships, in fact i bet most ppl would support a buff to the other ewar ships i know i would. They don't need a range boost, the Falcon just needs to get its range nerfed. So you wanna reduce range and make ecm 100% jam guaranteed like the effects of the other systems?. It will certainly kill falcons as every ship will have ecm fitted in their mids.
Opertone Caldari Gladiators of Rage Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.01.26 22:20:00 - [80] In eve it is called stacking penalty... and ECCM is underpowered... somehow falcons get past 40 sensor strength, perhaps ECM/ECCM curve needs to be more steep. ECCM must be more effective with every point gained, change the equation and this will fix the game.

Deschenus Maximus Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades	Posted - 2009.01.26 22:21:00 - [81] Originally by: Omara Otawan Bonused MWD-disabling scramblers. Good point. Originally by: Omara Otawan TPs that are remotely useful now. TPs were always useful, they are just more so now that missiles have been nerfed. But that is **ing weak compensation for having webs take such a massive hit. Originally by:** Omara Otawan Rubbish. Rapiers always fit dual LSE tank, unless flown by noobs. I never needed dual LSE on my 5 km/s Rapier. So no, dual LSE wasn't standard.
Deschenus Maximus Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades	Posted - 2009.01.26 22:23:00 - [82] Originally by: lecrotta So you wanna reduce range and make ecm 100% jam guaranteed like the effects of the other systems?. No. Just leave it as is. ECM will still be by far the most powerful EW, but at least the Falcons will have to be more careful in fights.
lecrotta lecrotta Corp	Posted - 2009.01.26 22:25:00 - [83] Originally by: Deschenus Maximus Originally by: lecrotta So you wanna reduce range and make ecm 100% jam guaranteed like the effects of the other systems?. No. Just leave it as is. ECM will still be by far the most powerful EW, but at least the Falcons will have to be more careful in fights. It will be the worst by far as the others are not chance based and as such can be predicted at close range.
Deschenus Maximus Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades	Posted - 2009.01.26 22:29:00 - [84] Originally by: lecrotta It will be the worst by far as the others are not chance based and as such can be predicted at close range. Don't be silly. People used Falcons aplenty back when you could reach them in 5 seconds in an inty, people will still used them now.
Tzar'rim	Posted - 2009.01.26 22:45:00 - [85] Edited by: Tzar''rim on 26/01/2009 22:45:53 I'm standing by my ideas, drop the huge range on the Falcon, both for jamming range as locking range. Thus making it more susceptable to damage, other forms of EW and inties. Have it actually THINK about wether it's smart to uncloak and do it's job or not. Same thing for the blackbird really. It'll still be as powerful but now it's range will be some 60-80km. If you don't like the shorter range there's the Rook, and swap the cloak for range. Right now it's silly since there's no reason to take a Rook over a Falcon unless you have grandeurs of doing dps. Right now a cloaker can uncloak at 180km and be AS effective as a Rook in it's purpose. Thing is ofcourse that people can not debate anything that might jeopardise their advantage, hence the rabid replies here. As stated, I have a Falcon alt and he's used a LOT (gets on more km's than me damnit) but that doesn't stop me from looking at it unbiased. The obvious replyers in this thread frantically try to hold the status quo, and the more their try their best, the more laughable it becomes.
Opertone Caldari Gladiators of Rage Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.01.26 22:47:00 - [86] best way to scare off a falcon is a stealth bomber which uncloaks after falcon's appearance and fires one volley before falcon can get a lock and spare a jammer. Another possible way is a crow with F.o.F. standard missiles, not enough to kill a falcon, but the longer it tries to jam the crow the more missiles are going to hit. If falcon warps, it's a win, if he drops jam he is scrammed. A very viable way is fast moving smart bombing ship with a set of bookmarks, doesn't take much to fend falcon off and can work without lock. A perhaps the simplest way -> another falcon, play the cards right. And also a swarm of interceptors will always succeed.
Tzar'rim	Posted - 2009.01.26 22:50:00 - [87] Originally by: Opertone best way to scare off a falcon is a stealth bomber which uncloaks after falcon's appearance and fires one volley before falcon can get a lock and spare a jammer. Another possible way is a crow with F.o.F. standard missiles, not enough to kill a falcon, but the longer it tries to jam the crow the more missiles are going to hit. If falcon warps, it's a win, if he drops jam he is scrammed. A very viable way is fast moving smart bombing ship with a set of bookmarks, doesn't take much to fend falcon off and can work without lock. A perhaps the simplest way -> another falcon, play the cards right. And also a swarm of interceptors will always succeed. A lot of those tactics work in theory but not in practise, there is a VERY easy counter to a Falcon; get a Rokh/Apoc, sniperfit with ECCM coming out of it's ears. I'm sure people who have a fleet can spare 1-2 BS for anti ECM support.
lecrotta lecrotta Corp	Posted - 2009.01.26 23:04:00 - [88] Edited by: lecrotta on 26/01/2009 23:13:21 Originally by: Deschenus Maximus Originally by: lecrotta It will be the worst by far as the others are not chance based and as such can be predicted at close range. Don't be silly. People used Falcons aplenty back when you could reach them in 5 seconds in an inty, people will still used them now. Like ppl still fly nano BS?. Reaching them and just being able to lock and kill them in a single volley are totally different and you know it. It is a bad idea.
Deschenus Maximus Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades	Posted - 2009.01.26 23:19:00 - [89] Originally by: lecrotta Like ppl still fly nano BS?. Reaching them and just being able to lock and kill them in a single volley are totally different and you know it. It is a bad idea. Well, it's that or losing the strength bonus. Your pick.
lecrotta lecrotta Corp	Posted - 2009.01.26 23:21:00 - [90] Edited by: lecrotta on 26/01/2009 23:23:15 Originally by: Deschenus Maximus Originally by: lecrotta Like ppl still fly nano BS?. Reaching them and just being able to lock and kill them in a single volley are totally different and you know it. It is a bad idea. Well, it's that or losing the strength bonus. Your pick. Erm no there is no pick cos their is no nerf coming, as falcons are fine and close range gank/tank ( proly in amarr BS) online is not fun or particularly interesting. So they are not just fine they are essential to the game.

Deschenus Maximus Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades	Posted - 2009.01.26 23:23:00 - [91] Originally by: lecrotta Erm no there is no pick cos their is no nerf coming, as falcons are fine and close range gank/tank online is not fun or particularly interesting. That's what we said about nanoHACs. Look where we are.
lecrotta lecrotta Corp	Posted - 2009.01.26 23:26:00 - [92] Originally by: Deschenus Maximus Originally by: lecrotta Erm no there is no pick cos their is no nerf coming, as falcons are fine and close range gank/tank online is not fun or particularly interesting. That's what we said about nanoHACs. Look where we are. PPl say the same about carriers and cloakers and just about anything that just coincidentally kicks their silly skilless ass, but like most of the whines they get ignored especially if nothing is wrong with them like ECM.
Deschenus Maximus Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades	Posted - 2009.01.26 23:27:00 - [93] Originally by: lecrotta PPl say the same about carriers and cloakers and just about anything that just coincidentally kicks their silly skilless ass, but like most of the whines they get ignored especially if nothing is wrong with them like ECM. Then would you be willing to bet on it, my friend?
lecrotta lecrotta Corp	Posted - 2009.01.26 23:30:00 - [94] Originally by: Deschenus Maximus Originally by: lecrotta PPl say the same about carriers and cloakers and just about anything that just coincidentally kicks their silly skilless ass, but like most of the whines they get ignored especially if nothing is wrong with them like ECM. Then would you be willing to bet on it, my friend? 100000000000000000000 BILLION. Now all you need do is remember what game we are playing and how often ppl get loled at for expecting bets to be honored.
Deschenus Maximus Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades	Posted - 2009.01.26 23:33:00 - [95] Originally by: lecrotta 100000000000000000000 BILLION. Now all you need do is remember what game we are playing and how often ppl get loled at for expecting bets to be honored. Sadly, I do not have 100000000000000000000 BILLION. How about 100M? And I will honour this bet. I am a man of my word.
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.01.26 23:35:00 - [96] Edited by: Omara Otawan on 26/01/2009 23:38:52 Edited by: Omara Otawan on 26/01/2009 23:36:27 Originally by: Deschenus Maximus Originally by: lecrotta PPl say the same about carriers and cloakers and just about anything that just coincidentally kicks their silly skilless ass, but like most of the whines they get ignored especially if nothing is wrong with them like ECM. Then would you be willing to bet on it, my friend? I'd not bet on it tbh, the falcon just got boosted recently, I'd expect it at least 1-1.5 years until a dev bothers to even look at it again. The recent surge in whine threads wont change that, as for CCP it is a matter of maybe 2 SQL calls to find out 75% of posters are the same persons alts... And apart from that, there is a difference to the nano 'issue', CCP stated nano was broken because the physics engine couldnt handle it properly, that was the reason it got changed, not whines.
Deschenus Maximus Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades	Posted - 2009.01.26 23:36:00 - [97] Originally by: Omara Otawan Originally by: Deschenus Maximus Originally by: lecrotta PPl say the same about carriers and cloakers and just about anything that just coincidentally kicks their silly skilless ass, but like most of the whines they get ignored especially if nothing is wrong with them like ECM. Then would you be willing to bet on it, my friend? I'd not bet on it tbh, the falcon just got boosted recently, I'd expect it at least 1-1.5 years until a dev bothers to even look at it again. I was going to suggest a year, yeah. It takes so much ****ing time for CCP to get anything done, I'd be shooting myself in the foot if I went with anything shorter.
Zxenis Caldari M. Corp Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2009.01.26 23:37:00 - [98] if you cloak, enter warp, or deactivate the module, does your jamming goes away immediately? if not then it should. If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared. Niccolo Machiavelli (1469 - 1527)
Deschenus Maximus Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades	Posted - 2009.01.26 23:39:00 - [99] Originally by: Zxenis if you cloak, enter warp, or deactivate the module, does your jamming goes away immediately? if not then it should. IIRC, the ECM will finish its cycle first.
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.01.26 23:40:00 - [100] Edited by: Omara Otawan on 26/01/2009 23:40:45 Originally by: Zxenis if you cloak, enter warp, or deactivate the module, does your jamming goes away immediately? if not then it should. No, jamming cycle will complete first. For deactivating the module this is 100% correct as it is the same for every single mod in eve, however for the warping and cloaking it should be changed imo. *Especially for cloaking.*

Tzar'rim	Posted - 2009.01.26 23:41:00 - [101] Originally by: Zxenis if you cloak, enter warp, or deactivate the module, does your jamming goes away immediately? if not then it should. It doesn't. You can uncloak, jam a target and cloak again. The jam will completely run it's full cycle.
Etho Demerzel Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone	Posted - 2009.01.26 23:50:00 - [102] Originally by: Tzar'rim Originally by: Zxenis if you cloak, enter warp, or deactivate the module, does your jamming goes away immediately? if not then it should. It doesn't. You can uncloak, jam a target and cloak again. The jam will completely run it's full cycle. I agree that this is a problem, but it is not a problem restricted to ECM. I think the simpler solution would be to prevent the user from cloaking and/or warping as long as any EW module in his ship is at cooldown. That would apply to ECMs, Tracking Disruptors, Sensor Dampeners, Webs, Painters, Warp Disruptors and Warp Scramblers. Any ship that has activated one of those should be prevented from cloaking and from warping until the current cycle is finished.
Acumental	Posted - 2009.01.26 23:51:00 - [103] I'm really new to EVE, but would a missle boat like the Drake be able to take the falcon out using Heavy FoF's? Or are these missles intended for some other use?
lecrotta lecrotta Corp	Posted - 2009.01.26 23:57:00 - [104] Originally by: Deschenus Maximus Originally by: lecrotta 100000000000000000000 BILLION. Now all you need do is remember what game we are playing and how often ppl get loled at for expecting bets to be honored. Sadly, I do not have 100000000000000000000 BILLION. How about 100M? And I will honour this bet. I am a man of my word. No point betting with me pal id never pay up if i lost.
Deschenus Maximus Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades	Posted - 2009.01.26 23:58:00 - [105] Originally by: Acumental I'm really new to EVE, but would a missle boat like the Drake be able to take the falcon out using Heavy FoF's? Or are these missles intended for some other use? No. Not unless the Falcon pilot is ******ed.
Deschenus Maximus Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades	Posted - 2009.01.26 23:59:00 - [106] Originally by: lecrotta Originally by: Deschenus Maximus Originally by: lecrotta 100000000000000000000 BILLION. Now all you need do is remember what game we are playing and how often ppl get loled at for expecting bets to be honored. Sadly, I do not have 100000000000000000000 BILLION. How about 100M? And I will honour this bet. I am a man of my word. No point betting with me pal id never pay up if i lost. Fair enough. Is anyone else willing to step up?
Spaztick Canadian Imperial Armaments Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2009.01.26 23:59:00 - [107] You can't pick which target FoFs go to; it hits the closest target available IIRC.
Etho Demerzel Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone	Posted - 2009.01.27 00:09:00 - [108] Originally by: Deschenus Maximus Fair enough. Is anyone else willing to step up? Anyone who bets on the whims of the devs in this game is a fool. Anything can happen. What can be debatable is IF it should happen or not. Debating if it WILL happen or not is utterly pointless. ===== "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...
Cambarus The Baros Syndicate Ministry Of Amarrian Secret Service	Posted - 2009.01.27 00:26:00 - [109] Originally by: Omara Otawan I'd not bet on it tbh, the falcon just got boosted recently, I'd expect it at least 1-1.5 years until a dev bothers to even look at it again. The recent surge in whine threads wont change that, as for CCP it is a matter of maybe 2 SQL calls to find out 75% of posters are the same persons alts... And apart from that, there is a difference to the nano 'issue', CCP stated nano was broken because the physics engine couldnt handle it properly, that was the reason it got changed, not whines. I disagree entirely. You can't honestly believe that when this many people whine about something CCP's just going to completely ignore them do you? As I've stated before, the EXACT same accusation was made of nano-whiners, that it was just a handful of people with alts. As for nanos having been nerfed only because they were gamebreaking in the technical sense, care to explain why the nerf went down the way it did? They didn't just slow everything down across the board. HACs and recons were slowed down by a greater percentage then the frigates (an inty can still go 10+km/s). It is most definitely not unreasonable to say that the nerf was done because the playerbase had been asking for it. Had it just been a physics thing (which is what CCP claimed) they would have simply put in a hard cap on how fast ships could go. Or they would have slowed all ships equally. They didn't. They nerfed nanoHACs specifically, reducing them to speeds far below what the server could handle (and as proof we have current inty speeds to compare. If the speeds were ruining the physics engine or w/e we'd have seen inty speeds dropped way down as well) People complained about nanoHACs, the nanoHacs got nerfed. They did not complain about ceptors hitting crazy speeds, ceptors remained for the most part untouched. People are complaining about falcons, and I'd bet that CCP will nerf them, within 2 major patches of apocrypha (depending on how much of a stink people are making about them after getting their tech III ships, and assuming tIII doesn't provide a kickass counter to falcons of their own) I doubt ECM will be nerfed though, for the same reasons ceptors were left alone.
Deschenus Maximus Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades	Posted - 2009.01.27 00:26:00 - [110] Originally by: Etho Demerzel Anyone who bets on the whims of the devs in this game is a fool. Anything can happen. What can be debatable is IF it should happen or not. Debating if it WILL happen or not is utterly pointless. Wether we like it or not, get enough whinning going, and it will get nerfed. If we all started whinning that artillery were OP, I'd be again willing to bet that it would get nerfed.

Etho Demerzel Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone	Posted - 2009.01.27 00:37:00 - [111] Originally by: Deschenus Maximus Wether we like it or not, get enough whinning going, and it will get nerfed. If we all started whinning that artillery were OP, I'd be again willing to bet that it would get nerfed. Maybe you are right, but sometimes it takes years to happen. ===== "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...
Deschenus Maximus Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades	Posted - 2009.01.27 00:38:00 - [112] Originally by: Etho Demerzel Maybe you are right, but it takes years to happen. Fixed. **** CCP are slow.
Omara Otawan	Posted - 2009.01.27 00:40:00 - [113] Edited by: Omara Otawan on 27/01/2009 00:45:00 Originally by: Cambarus You can't honestly believe that when this many people whine about something CCP's just going to completely ignore them do you? As I've stated before, the EXACT same accusation was made of nano-whiners, that it was just a handful of people with alts. Yes, I honestly believe this. Read some of the whine threads a bit more carefully, you'll notice quite a few people 'messing up' while trying to alt-post and 'signing' their own ideas... Quote: As for nanos having been nerfed only because they were gamebreaking in the technical sense, care to explain why the nerf went down the way it did? They didn't just slow everything down across the board. HACs and recons were slowed down by a greater percentage then the frigates (an inty can still go 10+km/s). Uhm, you dont understand what they did I guess. Notice how the 'new' nano cruisers are even more invulnerable than before, while people did exactly complain about them being hard to kill? And at ceptors going 10km+, really Quote: It is most definitely not unreasonable to say that the nerf was done because the playerbase had been asking for it. Had it just been a physics thing (which is what CCP claimed) they would have simply put in a hard cap on how fast ships could go. See, this is where you are wrong. If they had responded to requests from players, it'd have been simply a hard cap as people wanted the untouchable ships gone. But look what they did, they found a way to reduce speed and boost fast ships. I rest my case.
Bosco Minmatar Altruism. Avarice.	Posted - 2009.01.27 04:06:00 - [114] I'd like to clarify some things from my orginal post that seem to have been torn apart bit by bit. I fly jammers. I like jammers. I see the need and the tactical advantage of jammers. However, there are some balancing issues. Other posters have complained that a "nerf" and other changes would make it carebear or that it wouldn't fit in the game universe. Let me again shed some light on other "nerfs" that make sense in the EVE universe. Stacking Nanos. Lets pretend there was never a stack nerf and you have a full low rack of 5 nanos, overdrives... etc. You have basicly reduced your ship to a flying toothpick. But hey its fast right? This simply wouldn't be viable if this game and ships were real. Why? flying at high velocitys with your shields repelling space debris, cosmic rays, centrigul force etc... your ship would fall apart even with the advantage of structural integrity fields to "bind" the structure together. It makes more sense that continued "abuse" of your ships structure via multiple nano modules can only give you so much benefit due to the fact that for your ship to even make a turn you need a minimum amount of structural integrity to keep the ship together. How does this example apply to ECMs!!!!! Simple, and i will state it again. Electronic counter measures used modulated frequencies and "noise" distortion to reak havoc on a ships targeting computer. It is processing and modulating to constantly to keep a ship jammed. So why does a ship become unjammed??? and they do right? It is because your ships computer has compensated for the jamming equipments frequency modulation etc and "matched" it toe to toe breaking through. Keep this in mind. Now, as it stands with enough skill, ship skills, upgrades and such you can keep a ship perma jammed easily. Namely the Falcon. My suggestion, again, is that repeated jamming is slowly or moderatly overcome by the ships computer, or aided by ECCM etc to expedite the process. Once the ship over comes a jam, the Jammer ship it self must wait a set period before applying the jam again, while its own ships computers re-scramble, and choose new frequencies algorithms and such. (no im not talking minutes....) After that, the jammer ship can now re-jam the same ship and the process starts over. Zomg! thats a horrible nerf! I cant keep somone perma jammed? ... not nessicarly.(SP) Now add to the mix more jammer ships. they have a fresh set of jam frequencies not used on the previous jammed ship. Then can start at step one and freely begin to jam a ship with all normal rules applying... this means that multiple jam ships would have to cycle targets etc which would envolve.... SKILL. So as you can hopefully see, the diminishing returns effect can nicely fit into the EVE universe, invite more thinking and skill, and still ensure jam ships are effective.


Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [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.