EVE Search - [Issue] Arazu/Lachesis/Celestis/Maulus/Keres need a boost

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[Issue] Arazu/Lachesis/Celestis/Maulus/Keres need a boost

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
The Editor	Posted - 2008.07.15 21:20:00 - [61] Supported
Kelron Queldine Beyond Divinity Inc	Posted - 2008.07.15 21:32:00 - [62] Definitely needs to be looked at. Damps currently have very limited use, and only seem to be effective in the 30-70km range which very few fights take place at, in my experience.
Kalintos Tyl	Posted - 2008.07.16 09:57:00 - [63] hwo about target painters :D They are completly useless in most situations.
Suitonia interimo	Posted - 2008.07.16 09:57:00 - [64] support
Inertial The Python Cartel	Posted - 2008.07.16 11:56:00 - [65] Edited by: Inertial on 16/07/2008 11:56:38 Wanted to train for the Arazu, however CCP nerfed my ship before I ever got the chance, now all I do is sit and cry in the shower. we are recruiting!
Zikka Hematite Rose Bionic Dawn	Posted - 2008.07.16 12:12:00 - [66] Originally by: Gaogan The weakness of damps though is not the only problem with the Arazu; it also suffers from identity crisis ( as does the Lachesis ). Is it supposed to sit back and damp, or is it supposed to get in close and tackle? It gets bonuses to both, but they are mutually exclusive, so which does it go with? Erm? What? Are we even looking at the same ship? My arazu tackles from 40+km away, why would it ever want to get in close?
isAzmodeus Low Security Military Excursions	Posted - 2008.07.16 17:07:00 - [67] Change the Lach and Arazu to focus on different Roles Arazu: Fleet support and anti-sniper 20% Scram range 10% Damp Falloff 5% Damp Effectiveness Cloak fitting bonus Lach: Small Gang 5% Hybrid Damage 5% Missile ROF (please stop making me use missiles, but thats a different complaint) 10% Damp effectiveness 20% Scram. One ship gets much longer ranged Damps, but they operate in falloff so at decreased efficiency. This is nice for anti-sniper roles. The other gets much greater damp effectiveness and damage, but is focused on close range, more small-gang or low-sec oriented fighting. --------------------------------- The Seven- Blowing up someone near you.
Ajurna Jakar Dark Sun Collective	Posted - 2008.07.16 17:21:00 - [68] /signed
Dierdra Vaal	Posted - 2008.07.16 18:09:00 - [69] As an EWAR enthusiast, I like seeing these ships used, and since the damp nerf I have felt that damps might have been nerfed too much. In peparation for bringing this issue to the next CSM meeting I was doing research on the subject, and I have to admit at first it actually doesn't seem like the RSD's need to be boosted. Arazu's and Lachesis' can still dampen most players to less than 60km while scrambling them with a 60km faction scrambler like they could before. It seemed people were upset because their I Win button was removed. However, after talking more with gallente EWAR pilots, it becomes apparent that although the damps might not be bad in their current form, there isnt a real need for them. ECM can prevent people from getting target locks, and an often heard complaint is that in low range combat the dampening doesn't really matter anyway. The warp jammer range bonus is nice, but many pilots feel it doesnt compete with the recently introduced HICs and various warp disruption bubbles. In short, the gallente ewar doesn't really have a purpose or role. I dont quite feel comfortable bringing this issue to the CSM in its current form because in my opinion, too many people are simply asking for too big a boost to RSD (returning to pre nerf strength, simply adding range bonuses like ECM, etc) that would overpower gallente EWAR. That said, I do think its a valid point to discuss, and I think we should focus more on what seems to be the root of the problem with remote sensor dampeners: what is the role or purpose of gallente EWAR? Only once we determine what the role or purpose of gallente ewar should be can we start thinking about possible changes/fixes/solutions. As it stands, this question seems to be unanswered. Keep in mind that the role shouldn't be "all overpowering I win explosions", we're looking for a role that sets the gallente EWAR ships appart, isnt easily covered by other ships and is not overpowered: there has to be a counter. I'll give an example below. One solution I found that I did find interesting was the following: Make gallente EWAR anti-sniper ewar. The role of gallente EWAR ships would be anti-sniper. Being able to force snipers to give up or come closer seems to fit with the gallente preference for close range combat. In order to achieve this, dampner strength would be reduced further. Yes, I know, this sounds like complete fail doesn't it. It wouldnt be reduced much, only a few percentages at most. This will prevent RSD being overpowered on short to mid range. To compensate gallente EWAR ships (celestis, arazu and lachesis) would receive a range bonus similar to their caldari counterparts. A fully skilled and rigged arazu or lachesis pilot should be able to succesfully dampen targets at 200km, with a few dozen KM in falloff. This should be a severe problem for sniper ships, while still allowing them to counter long range damps by fitting several sensor boosters. The result of this change would be that gallente EWAR would be very useful in countering snipers, but not be all overpowering like it used to be. Ultimately ofcourse, this is just A possible solution - one which I suspect wont be liked by everyone. I hope however that it will help get a bit more discussion for a real solution going here, instead of simply trying to revert the RSD rebalance. Training Director :: EVE University CSM Representative
Chi Quan Perkone	Posted - 2008.07.16 19:11:00 - [70] Edited by: Chi Quan on 16/07/2008 19:13:01 Originally by: Dierdra Vaal ... thanks for your thorough reply. let me get streight to the point(s): - should it be mandatory to fit a faction point on the recons? (imho, no) - the recons have the option of a second ewar, the celestis does not - dampeners don't have the necessary range to reach the snipers (optimal 45, falloff 90 with all 5 skills). compared to ecm, it has a much greater chance to fail assuming a 110km sniper standoff. plus, due to their shorter cycle time, the effect is much more likely to be statistical (closer to the projected probability). racial ecm has a range of 162/42 almost TWICE as far, multispecs reach 108/27 (assuming t2, all 5 and a caldari recon) the damps are already beyond falloff when the ecm is barely stating. - as long range supression vessels, the gallente recons have a slightly shorter locking range ---- You don't have to like it - I don't blame you for not liking it.

Manfred Rickenbocker The Elliance Delta.Green	Posted - 2008.07.16 20:17:00 - [71] Originally by: Dierdra Vaal ... Keen reply, you are the first to really mention sensor boosters in this entire thread. Why would RSDs not be overpowered if they were given a massive strength bonus? Because any sniper that intends to do any sort of ranged combat (around 150+) will be using multiple sensor boosters. Guess what EWar gets stacking nerfed against sensor boosters? You guessed it, RSDs. Sensor boosters, even though they are scripted, are a must fit module even when not considering the availability of RSDs on the battlefield because they become a null issue. Either A) need to have stacking removed or B) need a massive strength boost to overcome it and maintain effectiveness. You are right, Gallente Recon is anti-sniper since Gallente combat is primarily short range (drone travel time + blasters). RSDs should force them to engage in mid to short range combat (around 50km) so in order to do that it needs the optimal (150km after bonus + skills) to reach that far and strength to do so. Needs the math required to reasonably affect a dual sensor boosted Rokh. ------------------------ Peace through superior firepower: a guiding principle for uncertain times.
James Lyrus Lyrus Associates The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.07.16 20:53:00 - [72] Edited by: James Lyrus on 16/07/2008 20:52:57 I will support this issue, because it requests that these ships are reviewed. I agree, they need revisiting. However I don't think the fix is necessarily in the RSDs. At the moment, it's possible to damp _any_ T1 ship, to below a T2 warp disruptor range on an Arazu, with ONE damp. Albeit only just, for the extreme cases. But what's often missed, is that dampening ships don't _just_ do dampening. An Arazu does ... what, 200dps? and tackles, and tanks. It's actually quite dangerously close to being overpowered if it can 'ECM tank + Nano + do damage'. (It's already pretty deadly as a solo ratter slayer, but that's a bit of a poor combat niche to be occupying) Personally, I think the fix might be something like investigating increasing the dronebay on these ships, or looking at what _else_ they do. I mean, 'bad ewar' doesn't make a bad ship - just ask a Minmatar pilot what they think of target painters, especially in reference to the Huginn/Rapier/Hyena. So yes, tacitly supported, since the issue is 'revisiting' RSD ships, not necessarily the RSDs themselves. -- Crane needs more grid 249km locking?
James Lyrus Lyrus Associates The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.07.16 21:04:00 - [73] Edited by: James Lyrus on 16/07/2008 21:07:03 Originally by: Chi Quan Edited by: Chi Quan on 16/07/2008 19:13:01 Originally by: Dierdra Vaal ... thanks for your thorough reply. let me get streight to the point(s): - should it be mandatory to fit a faction point on the recons? (imho, no) With recon 5, a T2 warp disruptor II, will do 48km. With two of those effectiveness rigs, an RSD II will put the longest range locking ship t1 ship (the Rokh) to a locking range of 46.61km. Quote: - the recons have the option of a second ewar, the celestis does not Neither does the Bellicose. Nor the Arbitrator. Nor actually the Blackbird. But hey, the Celestis _does_ have turret damager bonus _and_ 40m3 of dronebay. Quote: - dampeners don't have the necessary range to reach the snipers (optimal 45, falloff 90 with all 5 skills). compared to ecm, it has a much greater chance to fail assuming a 110km sniper standoff. plus, due to their shorter cycle time, the effect is much more likely to be statistical (closer to the projected probability). racial ecm has a range of 162/42 almost TWICE as far, multispecs reach 108/27 (assuming t2, all 5 and a caldari recon) Actually Multispec ECM optimal is 54 + 27km. On a 100% range bonused ship, that's 108+27 - your 1 falloff is therefore 135km, where on an RSD it's ... 45+90km, which comes out at exactly he same number. It's just your second falloff is 3x as long. (So an upper edge of 225km) You're trading 50% chance of halving their range with the RSD (and thus probably dropping their lock) for a 50% chance, of having a chance of jamming them for 20s. (6 vs. sensor strength means 60% chance against a frigate, and 30% chance or so against a BS. Unless we're talking about fitting Signal Distortion amplifiers here, which in turn means using up lowslots as well) Now, I agree that racial jammers do have a longer range, but ... well, they're racial jammers - that means they're not all that effective against off race ships. That's very definitely a tradeoff, and one I can't see being good for damps - damp ships aren't _just_ damp ships, so they'd be really hurting if you _had_ to fit 4 to be effective against any race of ships. Quote: the damps are already beyond falloff when the ecm is barely stating. - as long range supression vessels, the gallente recons have a slightly shorter locking range There's a racial skew on locking ranges vs. scan resolution. Gallente recons have a shorter locking range, but in turn a higher scan resolution. Either way, neither Arazu nor Falcon can lock to it's maximal ranges, and thus needs to rig or sensor boost. Issue supported regardless, but as I say, the answer I feel, is _NOT_ in the RSDs, but looking to what else these ships do. -- Crane needs more grid 249km locking?
Inertial The Python Cartel	Posted - 2008.07.16 21:53:00 - [74] I don't think the resulution is making the Arazu a anti sniper. That would limit it to 0.0. I'd rather give the RSD ships a slight bonus to dampning strenght and otherwise keep them as is. we are recruiting!
Xaen Caritas.	Posted - 2008.07.16 21:57:00 - [75] No kidding. I trained for an Arazu. Realized how worthless it is, and sold it in Jita. But at least I can fly an Ishtar now. - Support fixing the UI\|Suggest Jita fixes\|Compact logs
Xaen Caldari Caritas.	Posted - 2008.07.16 21:58:00 - [76] Originally by: James Lyrus Edited by: James Lyrus on 16/07/2008 21:07:03 Originally by: Chi Quan Edited by: Chi Quan on 16/07/2008 19:13:01 Originally by: Dierdra Vaal ... thanks for your thorough reply. let me get streight to the point(s): - should it be mandatory to fit a faction point on the recons? (imho, no) With recon 5, a T2 warp disruptor II, will do 48km. With two of those effectiveness rigs, an RSD II will put the longest range locking ship t1 ship (the Rokh) to a locking range of 46.61km. Quote: - the recons have the option of a second ewar, the celestis does not Neither does the Bellicose. Nor the Arbitrator. Nor actually the Blackbird. But hey, the Celestis _does_ have turret damager bonus _and_ 40m3 of dronebay. Quote: - dampeners don't have the necessary range to reach the snipers (optimal 45, falloff 90 with all 5 skills). compared to ecm, it has a much greater chance to fail assuming a 110km sniper standoff. plus, due to their shorter cycle time, the effect is much more likely to be statistical (closer to the projected probability). racial ecm has a range of 162/42 almost TWICE as far, multispecs reach 108/27 (assuming t2, all 5 and a caldari recon) Actually Multispec ECM optimal is 54 + 27km. On a 100% range bonused ship, that's 108+27 - your 1 falloff is therefore 135km, where on an RSD it's ... 45+90km, which comes out at exactly he same number. It's just your second falloff is 3x as long. (So an upper edge of 225km) You're trading 50% chance of halving their range with the RSD (and thus probably dropping their lock) for a 50% chance, of having a chance of jamming them for 20s. (6 vs. sensor strength means 60% chance against a frigate, and 30% chance or so against a BS. Unless we're talking about fitting Signal Distortion amplifiers here, which in turn means using up lowslots as well) Now, I agree that racial jammers do have a longer range, but ... well, they're racial jammers - that means they're not all that effective against off race ships. That's very definitely a tradeoff, and one I can't see being good for damps - damp ships aren't _just_ damp ships, so they'd be really hurting if you _had_ to fit 4 to be effective against any race of ships. Quote: the damps are already beyond falloff when the ecm is barely stating. - as long range supression vessels, the gallente recons have a slightly shorter locking range There's a racial skew on locking ranges vs. scan resolution. Gallente recons have a shorter locking range, but in turn a higher scan resolution. Either way, neither Arazu nor Falcon can lock to it's maximal ranges, and thus needs to rig or sensor boost. Issue supported regardless, but as I say, the answer I feel, is _NOT_ in the RSDs, but looking to what else these ships do. You didn't support it in this post. - Support fixing the UI\|Suggest Jita fixes\|Compact logs
James Lyrus Lyrus Associates The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.07.16 23:05:00 - [77] Originally by: Xaen Issue supported regardless, but as I say, the answer I feel, is _NOT_ in the RSDs, but looking to what else these ships do. You didn't support it in this post. See: Post above. -- Crane needs more grid 249km locking?
Dierdra Vaal	Posted - 2008.07.16 23:07:00 - [78] Edited by: Dierdra Vaal on 16/07/2008 23:08:19 new question then: Because of the dampener change, what has changed in how you use gallente EWAR - both on the gallente EWAR ships, and on 'regular' ships? Please be as specific and detailed as possible - what could you do before that you can't do (or not as well) now, etc. I can see merit in supporting a re-evaluation of remote sensor dampeners, but I want to make sure we can tell CCP something better than "please change it back thx". :) Training Director :: EVE University CSM Representative
Abel Tasman GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.07.17 05:58:00 - [79] Edited by: Abel Tasman on 17/07/2008 05:58:40 support
Jasmine Dixon	Posted - 2008.07.18 13:42:00 - [80] Quote: new question then: Because of the dampener change, what has changed in how you use gallente EWAR - both on the gallente EWAR ships, and on 'regular' ships? The Problem of the pre-changed dampeners was that you could fit them on almost every ship to have a good portion of ewar with you. They were in my opinion just to strong on non specialized ships. However after the change they are fine on regular ships imho. But the Gallente Recons and the EAS are suffering badly from that. Lets do what have many people done before and compare it to the Falcon. A single Falcon on the Battlefield means in any case that at least (!) one of you ships is completely out of the game. In some cases this could of couse also mean 2 or 3 ships..... The Falcon is sitting at 200 km while doing that, a range where noone in a usual roaming gang can lock it. Ok, back to the Gallente Ships. With an Gallente Recon you have to be in med or close range combat to get the full effectivenes of your damps. A single damp in this combat range is mor the less useless, so you have to spend all your damps (lets asume 3) on one single ship. After that (because of th weakness of the damps, stacking and so on...) most ships will still have a locking range of 10 to 20 km. If you now think of all the close range ships out there in small gang Warfare which have to get closer then 10 km to shoot anyway, and also all the speedships which could come in closer in almost no time to tackle you again. this isn't very nice at all. Some of you guys will now say, hey the Gallente ships have those cool scram range bonuses as well..... yeah and they are right...this was one of the features of these ships because of which i have trainied them.....but novadays you have Interceptors with their new scram range bonuses and their speed, as well as their small signature radius they are the much better tacklers in my personal opinion. So the conclusion of this is as follows....there is atm no reason to bring one of those formerly so nice gallente ewar ships. If you want a tackler, you take a much cheaper ceptor if you want ewar.... a falcon obviously is the better choice. So what to do about that issue. Thats of couse not easy, because a gallente recon should'nt be an i-win button. I personal favor a dampener strength bonus increase on those ships, so that you can take out one (but not more) ships out of the combat, which means for me lockrange around 5km. If this seems to overpowered in a 1 vs 1 situation, then i would think of giving up the damage bonus of the recons and maybe a smaller drone bay......these ships are for nasty ewar stuff not for damage. A second possibility would be to give an optimal (!) range bonus to those ships, so that they can sit at 150 km while dampening their targets. This would make them usefull in some anti sniper situations but of couse the cool scram range bonus would be useless ... and @topic supporting this

Corduroy Rab Xenocidal Uprising	Posted - 2008.07.18 20:58:00 - [81] support
Cosy Porandor	Posted - 2008.07.18 21:37:00 - [82] Originally by: CCP Mitnal Any complaints can be directed towards our Music Director
Chi Quan Perkone	Posted - 2008.07.18 21:55:00 - [83] i would like to add to the above that currently heavy interdictors with their focused infinipoint can scram at t1-scramrange-on-a-gal-recon and do not need to sacrifice any of their other options to achieve this. also, once RSDs start having a chance to fail, they tecnically become ECM modules lacking the ability to effect close range targets. ecm also does not suffer from stacking penalies, 2 ecms are twice as effective. Quote: Neither does the Bellicose. Nor the Arbitrator. Nor actually the Blackbird. But hey, the Celestis _does_ have turret damager bonus _and_ 40m3 of dronebay. i hope you are not suggesting using a celestis as a combat vessel, the weaponry on the celestis only suffices to scare off an unexperienced tackler pilot in frigate sized craft (which, imho is ok, since it is not a combat ship) Quote: ... and tanks... please notice that mentioning a tank in conjuction with celestis class ships (that fit their medslots according to the bonuses) is a bit weird. once the enemy comes below dampener range, the ship is lost with a 100% probability. the ecms on the blackbird class or the cap neutralization from arbitrator class vesels have higher chances to prevent destruction. you can not nano and tank and ewar it. it makes a bad nano due to insufficient cap and low top speed, a buffer tank is possible, but it is a weak one. it can not gank, because even with bonuses, it does very little dps. 60% of those mentioned 200 (which is only true if you use close range antimatter) come from hammerhead t2 drones which have to enter close range an can be destroyed. plus the ships have cap issues. Quote: At the moment, it's possible to damp _any_ T1 ship, to below a T2 warp disruptor range on an Arazu, with ONE damp. Albeit only just, for the extreme cases. this is not true, a single t2 dampener will take ~45% off your targeting range (using an arazu with all skills at 5 and a range dampening script). a hurricane can lock ~25km (skills at 3) under this condition (~45km for a ferrox). if you ment a disruptor on an arazu/lachesis ok. yes, i took the race with the lowest locking range, note however that exactly this race can close the lock-out zone very fast and also often uses explosive damage. ---- You don't have to like it - I don't blame you for not liking it.
Roger Douglas Infinite Improbability Inc Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2008.07.18 22:02:00 - [84] Edited by: Roger Douglas on 18/07/2008 22:04:23 Signed. Specialized RSD ships should actually function close to what existed pre-nerf... Edit: To answer the CSM quesiton, the point of gallente EWAR ships should be to force their opponents to get up close and personal. That fits right in the whole Gallente fighting doctrine (Blasters anyone?).
Yon Andon	Posted - 2008.07.19 00:00:00 - [85] Originally by: Roger Douglas Edited by: Roger Douglas on 18/07/2008 22:04:23 Signed. Specialized RSD ships should actually function close to what existed pre-nerf... Edit: To answer the CSM quesiton, the point of gallente EWAR ships should be to force their opponents to get up close and personal. That fits right in the whole Gallente fighting doctrine (Blasters anyone?). agreed, to force the enemy into close combat. The damps themselves should stay the same to prevent the old problem with them, everyone using them. If the ship bonuses are increased to much they may make one damp on an Arazu too powerful enabling the pilot to lock-break many enemies, after all damps are 100% certain to damp. So how about this, Give the gallente ewar ships the bonus of not applying stacking penalties for RSDs. RSDs from two Celestises on one target would be stacked though with one ship doing ~80% damping even though it does 100% damping from two or more of it's damps.
WishBlade League of Disgruntled Fast Food Employees	Posted - 2008.07.19 14:42:00 - [86] /... Signature
Dierdra Vaal	Posted - 2008.07.19 14:44:00 - [87] I have requested this issue to be added to tomorrows CSM meeting :) Training Director :: EVE University CSM Representative
Eternal Error Exitus Acta Probant	Posted - 2008.07.19 16:41:00 - [88] Signed.... should be obvious why.
Aneroi VIRTUAL LIFE VANGUARD Sylph Alliance	Posted - 2008.07.20 11:54:00 - [89] /signed
Dierdra Vaal	Posted - 2008.07.20 19:27:00 - [90] this issue will be submitted to CCP :) Training Director :: EVE University CSM Representative



Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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