Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Xequecal
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 12:00:00 -
[181]
Aramendel: It's not THAT clear cut. It's not like now everyone who can fly command ships is ditching them and boarding a Myrmidon instead, unless they want to spend less.
|
Xeronn
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 12:16:00 -
[182]
ok...just my .02 isk...from a noob`s perspective
how about an imunity cycle after a dampning cycle..i mean damps would work 100% of the times , but , say if you damped the target for 60 secs , he gets 30 secs of damp imunity after that
This would , imho , still make dampning a very powerful tool , but not a battle wining one , yes i`m old fashion , i belive guns and armor win or lose a fight , EW is there to suport it
Stacking multiple damps would still be usefull , for dampning several targets at the same time...this would allso encourage planing fights as oposed to simply spaming some key on the same target , keeping the target efectively useless...
make it rough? using a damp on an allready imune target would only prolongue it`s imunity . IMHO this would allso encourage usage of alternate EW mods , as the target is damp imune , one could try to ECM it , till it`s damp imunity wears off , as well as making usage of EW different from spamming gun shortcuts , as someone posted , it would require special profesional gangs to succesfully distribute EW on the enemy fleet , and this way 1v1 or small scale fight , EW won`t be a wining weapon (it shouldn`t be) , but rather a means of cripling the enemy till you can escape
ok TQ is up...
|
Mammirammer
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 14:59:00 -
[183]
I've never used FOF missles but would they launch against being dampened? Or do they only work against jamming ecm?
|
Azur Tzesaeia
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 16:38:00 -
[184]
Edited by: Azur Tzesaeia on 28/09/2007 16:50:53
Originally by: Mammirammer I've never used FOF missles but would they launch against being dampened? Or do they only work against jamming ecm?
Yes they do as long as no other target is closer than the damp ship.
Quote: In a gang fight there will be more than a lachesis/arazu. For example a dps ship. Uups..there goes your gangmate down. Or a dictor/tackler. Uups, you cannot warp. Or another dampener. Upps, you cannot do anything either.
Eh ok i see. i mean there could be a Titan shooting a doomsday on your gang...Why don't you take along a Arazu, too and damp the enemy dmg dealer? A mixed gang is ought to be better than a gang that only does dmg.
But I see your point a gang with SDs on every ship possible, would in 80 of 100 fights win against one that has less dampeners in gang. Thats what your saying and what is to some degree true but not only cause Sds are imba but also cause the players are often not careful enough and don't plan things good enough.
Quote: And a well equipped enemy gang will have a cloaked dictor waiting at the gate. Where do you want to warp again?
Another thing is the fact of gate camps and that they are difficult to overcome. If a enemy dictor is cloaked on a gate it is most likely that the incomming gang will die if they are not a lot more than the ones who are camping.
Imagine the enemy gang had a dictor or 2 and 2 huginns as well as 2dmg dealers they would easily overcome every equally sized gang except for a gang with at least 2 arazus though i still believe the dmg dealer would shoot one of them down so the other huginn can lock again and than the incomming gang still would die. So SDs are one of the few counters against gate camps for sure they can be used to form very good gate camps but they aren't necessary for a gate camp to work. If SDs would be nerfed even more ppl would start flyin the huggin and all the other Recons would slowly die out. So you now go on and nerf the Huginn(not actuall the huggin but the webby since it kills ca.90% of your speed it is, speedwise, the same as sds are for targeting range) he would die out, too.
Counter tactis to gate camps are eihter try killing the dictor getting him to jump into your system where you wait for him and gang him. This can be done with frigs(inties afs) who jump through first when the scout saw that a lot of enemy activity is in local and suspects a cloaked dictor. Or to use Capital Jump Drives to move instead of gates though those can be camped, too it is much more difficult to get a gang to one of those quick and there won't be a possibility for the dictor to flee anymore(no gate). And you can open several in a system so you force your enemy to either decide which one to camp or to split his forces slightly increasing your chance to overcome the first camp.
I hope that the game develops towards the use of capital jump drives instead of gates so gate camps get more and more pointless.
Quote: Something you apparently do not know is that people make sniperspots not inline with warpable objects. So that won't work.
Ah yeah so you had to make bms towards those directions 6 bms n-s-w-e-above-beneath of each gate should serve this so far. If the sniper warps out nobody wins what is perfectly balanced
I more and more agree that SDs for standart ships should be nerfed. What do you think about a falloff decrease to 10km so everything under 10kms will be effective very slightly by damps? How would it be if they could still damp you down like they do now but have a standart fall off of max 10km? Only the Arazu should get a bonus to there falloff since he should be able to switch of 2 ships cause he has no tank at all and no dmg at all and otherwise would be useless. This would make them a bit more like webbys but for ew instead of speed.
|
Aramendel
Amarr Coreli Corporation Exuro Mortis
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 17:41:00 -
[185]
Edited by: Aramendel on 28/09/2007 17:40:57
Originally by: Azur Tzesaeia Eh ok i see. i mean there could be a Titan shooting a doomsday on your gang...Why don't you take along a Arazu, too and damp the enemy dmg dealer? A mixed gang is ought to be better than a gang that only does dmg.
Don't be obstrusive.
The point is that your "solutions" all ignore the other gang ships.
And, yes, a mixed gang should be better. However a gang with 1 ECM ship, 1 TD ships, 1 damp ship + 3 damage dealers is WORSE than a gang with 3 damps and 3 damage dealers.
Damps are as module imblanced.
Quote: But I see your point a gang with SDs on every ship possible, would in 80 of 100 fights win against one that has less dampeners in gang. Thats what your saying and what is to some degree true but not only cause Sds are imba but also cause the players are often not careful enough and don't plan things good enough.
No really. SDs are not really more difficult to use than other modules. They are no special "if you just think you can counter them" module.
Quote: ...So SDs are one of the few counters against gate camps for sure they can be used to form very good gate camps but they aren't necessary for a gate camp to work. If SDs would be nerfed even more ppl would start flyin the huggin and all the other Recons would slowly die out. ...
Not really. The point is to balance damps, not to make them useless. Right now their performance is plain out too good. They are no magic required module to break gatecamps.
Quote: Counter tactis to gate camps are eihter try killing the dictor getting him to jump into your system where you wait for him and gang him. This can be done with frigs(inties afs) who jump through first when the scout saw that a lot of enemy activity is in local and suspects a cloaked dictor.
Do you have ANY combat experience at all? The dictor will not sit in the middle of the gate. It will be cloaked 150k+ from the gate. When local rises he will uncloak, warp to the gate and drop its bubble.
YOu cannot scout him out, nor will he jump to the other side when your fleet is waiting there unless he is a complete moron.
Quote: Or to use Capital Jump Drives to move instead of gates though those can be camped, too it is much more difficult to get a gang to one of those quick and there won't be a possibility for the dictor to flee anymore(no gate).
What? Which game are you playing?? Seriously. Have you just started?
Quote: And you can open several in a system so you force your enemy to either decide which one to camp or to split his forces slightly increasing your chance to overcome the first camp.
Newsflash: people usually camp chockpoints.
Quote: Ah yeah so you had to make bms towards those directions 6 bms n-s-w-e-above-beneath of each gate should serve this so far. If the sniper warps out nobody wins what is perfectly balanced
Snipercamps work with bubbles, otherwise they are utterly pointless.
Quote: I more and more agree that SDs for standart ships should be nerfed. What do you think about a falloff decrease to 10km so everything under 10kms will be effective very slightly by damps?
Learn how falloff works.
|
Jodi Knight
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 18:00:00 -
[186]
OMG FFS all you you whiners out there complaining about SH__ because you get your arse kicked all the time STFU!!! I am so damn sick and tired of hearing people complain about DAMPS/JAMMERS/NOS and so many other GOOD and USEFUL mods! I killed a rapier that had 3 damps on it... IN MY VAGABOND! If the damps were nerfed then where would the pride in that kill be huh?? FGS people if you get your arse kicked by something DONT CRY LIKE A BABY GIRL and figure out a way to FKIN BEAT IT!!! DEATH TO ALL WHINY A553D CAREBEARS!
|
SoftRevolution
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 18:34:00 -
[187]
Was this even an issue before Oveur made that comment?
Why not wait and see what the proposed change (which sounds fairly reasonable and incremental to me) does to balance when it goes live before deciding kneejerk nerfstouseless are the way forward?
|
Allestin Villimar
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 22:21:00 -
[188]
Oveur made the comment because a lot of people were having problems with it.
|
Rex Luthor
|
Posted - 2007.09.29 02:12:00 -
[189]
ECM nerf was well balanced, and now it is the Damp turn to be balanced. The need is obvious...
I use both of them (recon spe gallente and caldari) and my opinion is that the current bonus could be the same if the succesful effect was based on a resistance. Same as the ECM, you could use racial and multispec Damps, with improvements in low slots. Each Damp module will work only if it beats the sensor strenght : hard against spe EWar ships and big ships, and easier against other ships. Then ECCM will be greatly useful because they would work against Damps and ECM in improving your resist to them.
Considering Target painters and Tracking disruptors, I feel they work good as they are, not obviously powerful and far not useless.
Ewar support should remain a support to "tank and gank", a specific war that have to be won but not the main war. Nerfing the damps the same way they nerfed the ECM is a good way to rise mix tactics (ECM+Damp) and not a focus "all damps" tactics that is too often seen. |
Hurricane
|
Posted - 2007.09.29 11:10:00 -
[190]
I'm a little dissapointed in this nerf. I was hoping for some low slot strength mods for damps like they did for ECM, bastards can still tank or nano up .
|
|
Azur Tzesaeia
|
Posted - 2007.09.29 11:19:00 -
[191]
I think if you base them on sensor strength eccm would become too useful.
|
Benn Helmsman
Caldari Helmsman Engineering Company
|
Posted - 2007.09.29 13:29:00 -
[192]
Originally by: Azur Tzesaeia
I think if you base them on sensor strength eccm would become too useful.
Why?
|
Bendit
|
Posted - 2007.09.29 15:18:00 -
[193]
Quote: Do you have ANY combat experience at all? The dictor will not sit in the middle of the gate. It will be cloaked 150k+ from the gate. When local rises he will uncloak, warp to the gate and drop its bubble.
Stop pretending to be the all knowing pvp knowhow. Multiple groups cloak dictors on the gate. Just because you dont use it or havent seen it doesnt mean it it`s not used.
Other arguing for making damps chancebased... I cant see that ever happen. Why would you do that if you could use another chancebased module (Jammer) and completely lock their sensors down???
And taking sensorstrength... that means every small ship will be hit harder on top of that they have the shortest sensor range.
Then you have sensortype... ladar, gravi etc, that would mean they would need to use the same towards tracking disruptors. One for rails, one for lasers and one for projectiles.
And nuking the damps as hard as they did with jamemrs... If that happens we can all just go and play counterstrike or something.
Fine and dandy that you dont like damps/jammers. But dont turn this game into more blob game then it already is.
|
Rex Luthor
|
Posted - 2007.09.29 16:34:00 -
[194]
Edited by: Rex Luthor on 29/09/2007 16:35:27
Originally by: Bendit
Other arguing for making damps chancebased... I cant see that ever happen. Why would you do that if you could use another chancebased module (Jammer) and completely lock their sensors down??? And taking sensorstrength... that means every small ship will be hit harder on top of that they have the shortest sensor range. Then you have sensortype... ladar, gravi etc, that would mean they would need to use the same towards tracking disruptors. One for rails, one for lasers and one for projectiles. And nuking the damps as hard as they did with jamemrs... If that happens we can all just go and play counterstrike or something. Fine and dandy that you dont like damps/jammers. But dont turn this game into more blob game then it already is.
Good first point, I would say the balance can be done on the % chance to resist. ECM hard to success and Damps easier.
For small ships you will agree they are fast and have good scan res so they can move to close range, not a real pb for them. And for ECM it is already easy to jam small ships and harder for big targets. If it was only me, there would be only multispectral modules for all... I see no use for racial sensor systems...
The logic for tracking speed is not same, racial sensors systems make no difference : if you use gravimetric or ladar that does not affect you scan resolution or locking range. Tracking speed is specific to each turret, so a module affecting hybrid or projectile would not make sense for me. If you make that choice you have to be more specific and go for a spe tracking hybrid railgun / hybrid blaster : that would be horrible.
Another way is to specialize the Sensor linking and Electronic warfare skills (yeah, I know more skills ^^). ECM and Damp would affect all ships the same way with a single type module (like multispectral), and you could have a bonus with a specialize skill : Electronic Warfare 5 > Caldari Ships specialization, Sensor linking 5 > Minmatar ships specialization. Note that it can be also a Tracking disruptor specialization (3 turrets types). Maybe by disabling more easier turrets you will see more launchers on battlefields...
What the difference between actual blobs with damp overpower, and the next blobs with damps nerfed ? I mean I see no impact on blobs.
|
Bendit
|
Posted - 2007.09.29 17:21:00 -
[195]
TBH, I dont care what CCP does. The day I dont enjoy this game anymore I`ll just move on.
But I do like this game alot. And the reason for this is the "sandbox mode". Noone tells you what to do, what you can fit and what you cant fit.
Some setups are really clever and and work really well, until someone comes with a specific counter to that setup and wipes the floor with them. That be a certain tactic, trap or just better skills.
CCP can "nerf" the damps, but I would still want a way of getting their effectiveness up to a point where they could be effective on a non-spec ship. That being more skills to train, rigs, or modules.
Some people have many million SP in gunnery, well over 10mil. And they get frustrated when a ship worth 4 mil shuts their effective range down to less then 30%. Or in some cases jams them out and makes them unable to do anything. And that is understandable... But what about the guy in a jamming ship? If he is really unlucky all his jammer fails and his life ends as soon as someone gets a lock on him.
Other argument I see tossed around is: "OMG he only need x amount of SP to lock me down NERF NERF" Would you feel better if he had the same amount of SP as you in his specced area?
Personally I would love if we got some advanced skills to our ew modules. CCP could nerf them a little and then add some skills for the really dedicated people to still have the option to spec in them.
But in the end, you will never be able to satisfy everyone... And the way things are going it looks like CCP are looking on satisfying the whiners...
|
Queen Hopy
Your Friendly Booster Company
|
Posted - 2007.09.29 17:44:00 -
[196]
One day, when a pilot fitting his ship has to think twice which ew to fit (damp, ecm, td, tp(?)) is the day ewar is balanced. Now there is no reason to choose any other ewar besides damps. Thats unbalanced.
Possible fixes: Racial damps Different damp for lock range and scan resolution Reduced efficiency of damps + a low slot mod to boost efficiency Make 1 sensor booster counter 1-2 damps Keep the damps as they are but move them into chance based system
|
Laboratus
Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen
|
Posted - 2007.09.29 20:03:00 -
[197]
The difference between ECM and damps is, that damps do not disable a ship, like ECM did, it changes the rules of engagements, so you either need to go inside the new targeting range, or outside the effective range of damps. Hence a whole different ballgame.
Making them racial, or chance based doesn't work. It didn't work for damps. Randomness will still leave the unlucky amongst us permajammed, and the lucky ones still never get hit with it. The original system for ECM was a lot better than the one we had now, but still a lot of ppl whined, and we got the system we have now.
All this nerfing of EW is moving the game more and more into a direction, where you can effectively just ignore EW. ECM is not strong enough or common enough these days that anyone would need to fit a countermodule. Number of ECM ships is too low due to the nerf, and the str is pathetic. So you can win by ignoring it. We are moving too fast and too certainly to the direction of carebearland. If this cycle of nerfing continues, it will be possible to just ignore damage, since it can no longer cause you inconvenience. Not to mention, that the focus of forum ZOMG is completely in the wrong place. What are the two modules that have become mandatory in each and every fit during the last year? MWD and Webs. Both with their overeffectiveness make eachother mandatory. With the exception of capitals, pretty much every ship is fitting them these days, and even they have been seen on a few occations... ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats |
Queen Hopy
Your Friendly Booster Company
|
Posted - 2007.09.29 20:28:00 -
[198]
Originally by: Laboratus The difference between ECM and damps is, that damps do not disable a ship, like ECM did, it changes the rules of engagements, so you either need to go inside the new targeting range, or outside the effective range of damps. Hence a whole different ballgame.
Making them racial, or chance based doesn't work. It didn't work for damps. Randomness will still leave the unlucky amongst us permajammed, and the lucky ones still never get hit with it. The original system for ECM was a lot better than the one we had now, but still a lot of ppl whined, and we got the system we have now.
All this nerfing of EW is moving the game more and more into a direction, where you can effectively just ignore EW. ECM is not strong enough or common enough these days that anyone would need to fit a countermodule. Number of ECM ships is too low due to the nerf, and the str is pathetic. So you can win by ignoring it. We are moving too fast and too certainly to the direction of carebearland. If this cycle of nerfing continues, it will be possible to just ignore damage, since it can no longer cause you inconvenience. Not to mention, that the focus of forum ZOMG is completely in the wrong place. What are the two modules that have become mandatory in each and every fit during the last year? MWD and Webs. Both with their overeffectiveness make eachother mandatory. With the exception of capitals, pretty much every ship is fitting them these days, and even they have been seen on a few occations...
Except that getting inside your new targeting range still leaves you with such long lock times that u are most of the time as good as dead. So you dont agree with me on the point that different ewar systems would be in balance when a non dedicated ship had to think about which to fit instead of going with damps? There are two ways to go, either bring the damps in line with the rest or boost ECM and TD's. Personally I think the best way to go would be to have 2 different damps, one for range and one for sig resolution and along with that nerf the effectiveness to a lvl they can be countered with sensor boosters. Then also introduce the low slot str mod for damps and possibly even boost the damp specced ships abit.
|
Laboratus
Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen
|
Posted - 2007.09.29 21:30:00 -
[199]
Even at this moment, I feel that EW is a bit too weak to what it should be in these settings.
If you look at the performance of EW specialised ships: T1 frig has the ability to have a significant effect on one ship (yet not disable) T1 cruiser has the ability to have a significant effect on two ships (yet not disable) T2 cruiser has the ability to have a significant effect three ships (yet not disable)
Now, an unspecialised BC or BS usually has the ability to effect one ship effectively. The high end ships performing with the effectiveness of a T1 frigate on a secondary role? Seems ok. Ships in eve are modular so that all ships can perform most roles. Some ships are just better at what they do. Hence specialised ships.
By cutting the effectiveness to two different modules you would get the following T1 frig ability to effect 0 ships effectively T1 cruiser ability to effect 1 ship effectively T2 cruiser ability to effect 2 ships effectively
Here we would have what you call a "broken game mechanic" since one of those ships could not perform their role at all... It would effectively end EW as a valid strategy.
On the other hand boosting ECM str by 50% or going back to the determenistic point system would rebalance the different EW, while still keeping EW as a valid strategy. ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats |
MiIitary Genius
|
Posted - 2007.09.29 22:42:00 -
[200]
Originally by: Queen Hopy One day, when a pilot fitting his ship has to think twice which ew to fit (damp, ecm, td, tp(?)) is the day ewar is balanced. Now there is no reason to choose any other ewar besides damps. Thats unbalanced.
Possible fixes: Racial damps Different damp for lock range and scan resolution Reduced efficiency of damps + a low slot mod to boost efficiency Make 1 sensor booster counter 1-2 damps Keep the damps as they are but move them into chance based system
This is 100% correct. If someone has a mid slot free and they dont know what to put there out of the 3 ewar types, then we have balance. Right now it is an absolute certainty that if someone has a slot free they will fit a dampner.
The fix for them is obviously to do the exact same as they did with ECM (except without chance coming into it), specialised ships, both T1 and T2, should work as good as they do now (properly trained and fitted), but it pretty much should suck on anything else.
Also in favour of this nerf is the fact that they are Burn Edens favourite mod (cruise ravens with mids stuffed with dampners, with a cloaked dictor on the gate), and if the risk averse people in Burn Eden fit them, you can be sure they are as close to an i-win button as you can get. |
|
Queen Hopy
Your Friendly Booster Company
|
Posted - 2007.09.29 23:19:00 -
[201]
Originally by: Laboratus Even at this moment, I feel that EW is a bit too weak to what it should be in these settings.
If you look at the performance of EW specialised ships: T1 frig has the ability to have a significant effect on one ship (yet not disable) T1 cruiser has the ability to have a significant effect on two ships (yet not disable) T2 cruiser has the ability to have a significant effect three ships (yet not disable)
Now, an unspecialised BC or BS usually has the ability to effect one ship effectively. The high end ships performing with the effectiveness of a T1 frigate on a secondary role? Seems ok. Ships in eve are modular so that all ships can perform most roles. Some ships are just better at what they do. Hence specialised ships.
By cutting the effectiveness to two different modules you would get the following T1 frig ability to effect 0 ships effectively T1 cruiser ability to effect 1 ship effectively T2 cruiser ability to effect 2 ships effectively
Here we would have what you call a "broken game mechanic" since one of those ships could not perform their role at all... It would effectively end EW as a valid strategy.
On the other hand boosting ECM str by 50% or going back to the determenistic point system would rebalance the different EW, while still keeping EW as a valid strategy.
Did you read what I said? The specced ships (maulus, celestis etc) could even be boosted to perform as they do now. Or even a bit better. As long as damps wouldnt be an I-win on non specced ships.
|
Bendit
|
Posted - 2007.09.29 23:59:00 -
[202]
Quote: should work as good as they do now (properly trained and fitted), but it pretty much should suck on anything else.
So what you mean is that every EW specced ship should have damage as a wet towel and every ship capable dealing some damage should suck in EW?
What would the point of flying a EW ship in small groups be then? With the stupid tanking ability you have in game now, loss of dps in a small group is very noticable. You would maybe trade much needed dps for a ship that can MAYBE neutralise one or two ships.
So the only groups gaining on this would be the big groups. Since losing 1 or 2 damage dealers in a group of 5 and get ew ships will hurt alot more then loosing 5 damage dealers and getting 5 ew ships in a group of 20.
On top of that add the "must have" huginn/rapier to slow down the nanofags and you dont have much firepower to break a good tank before one of your weaker friends are dead.
|
Laboratus
Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen
|
Posted - 2007.09.30 07:55:00 -
[203]
That performance comparison was made with 2 damps counting as effective before the split into two modules. After the split you would need 2+1 to be effective. If the specialised ship boni are boosted enough that 1+1 is enough, they will be a bit too overpowered with just one module. ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats |
Aramendel
Amarr Coreli Corporation Exuro Mortis
|
Posted - 2007.10.01 01:52:00 -
[204]
Originally by: Laboratus And damps are not an I-win button atm. They just change the rules of engagement. You either need to move closer, or move out.
Exept this does not work.
Move closer = minute long targeting timers. By the time you get lock the battle is over. Move out = damps still work fine even at 100k ranges.
If they would a) make damps reduce range OR sig resolution and b) nerf their falloff then out or underranging will become viable counters. Right now they aren't.
|
MITSUK0
|
Posted - 2007.10.01 02:08:00 -
[205]
I dont really like playing at being a dev but *shrug* my 2iskies:
If it was me I would split into two seperate modules. One to reduce range which gallente keep as racial ewar. The new module increases lock time and replaces lolpainters as the minmatar ewar.
Two birds with one stone.
|
Tessikhet
|
Posted - 2007.10.01 04:42:00 -
[206]
It's a pity that CCP goes to all the trouble of making such a wide variety of specialized ships...and then has to go back and neuter more than half of them to the point that noone seriously cares to fly them anymore.
Blackbird Falcon Rook Blockade Runners All AFs aside from the Ishkur etc..
But what the hell, let's just add all the rest of the force recons and EWar cruisers to the list too. When everyone is flying the same 2-3 ships and using the same 1-2 fittings for each, the game is much easier to balance, amiright?
|
shinsushi
|
Posted - 2007.10.01 05:16:00 -
[207]
Originally by: Tessikhet It's a pity that CCP goes to all the trouble of making such a wide variety of specialized ships...and then has to go back and neuter more than half of them to the point that noone seriously cares to fly them anymore.
Blackbird Falcon Rook Blockade Runners All AFs aside from the Ishkur etc..
But what the hell, let's just add all the rest of the force recons and EWar cruisers to the list too. When everyone is flying the same 2-3 ships and using the same 1-2 fittings for each, the game is much easier to balance, amiright?
This is the the new, "its over-powered and I love it that way" party line isn't it?
Time and time again has proven that a balance between ships increases variety, while overpowered modules decrease it. All the ships mentioned above are fine and fill their roles. Unfortunately its stupid to use them when you can just use an overpowered ship/setup instead... like everyone else. Friends don't let friends be trolls.
|
Laboratus
Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen
|
Posted - 2007.10.01 06:53:00 -
[208]
Originally by: Aramendel ...
Assuming you did not lock first, pack an SB, or be smart enough to warp in at close range. A bold assumption I might add... ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats |
shinsushi
|
Posted - 2007.10.01 08:12:00 -
[209]
Originally by: Laboratus Edited by: Laboratus on 01/10/2007 06:56:41
Originally by: Aramendel ...
Assuming you did not lock first, pack an SB, target is not TPd, or you were smart enough to warp in at close range. A bold assumption I might add... One must fail on quite a few levels to achieve the needed circumstances.
@shin EW is supposed to be effective, and at the moment that is true with damps. ECM got spanked too hard, and TP and TD suffer from real limits in use. To get them to be purposeful TP and TDs should get boosted...
Your right, TDs should get boosted (to effect fall-off aswell.) ECM works wonderfully on specialized ships, like EW should. RSDs are too effective on non-EW ships, thats whats wrong here. Its the new multi-spec of doom, just not as bad.
Target painters are flawed by design. I have no solution to it though. Personally I would just give minmatar (the jack of all trades) ships that can use any type of EW (RSDs, TDs, and ECMs) but with 1/2 the bonus amount of the dedicated EW ships that amarr/gal/caldari have. I would make target painters stronger than they are now, and relegate them to Tracking computer status (race neutral.)
|
Laboratus
Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen
|
Posted - 2007.10.01 08:17:00 -
[210]
IMHO EW should be a valid strategy, since the whole consept of eve is modularity, and lack of true specialisation. That is why we don't have restricting clases etc. Hence restricting EW, or any other form of game play to specialised platforms only is really against the basic concept of eve. ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |