Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Dyaven
The Tuskers
|
Posted - 2008.12.03 02:03:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Dyaven on 03/12/2008 02:16:37 It seems to me, that with QR's arrival Target Painters received quite a big indirect "buff", and that moves Sensor Dampeners down to the bottom of the EWAR list. A Target Range scripted Arazu/Lachesis would be lucky to dampen a target down to ~13km lock range, and a Scan Resolution scripted would bring down a Battleship to around 50mm resolution. If ECM didn't exist, maybe dampeners would be used more often. But when you can use a Falcon or Rook and effectively remove 2 or 3 ships from a fight completely at any range, up to past 200km in some cases, why would you? Dampeners are essentially useless against multiple targets, their effects almost unnoticeable if they're not all concentrated on a single target. The vast majority of fights take place beneath 15km, where Dampeners can not function as '100% success ECM' as some people claim they do.
TLDR Version: At their best, Dampeners can make a single Battleship take ~50 seconds to lock a frigate, or reduce his lock range to ~13km. At ECM's best, they can make up to three or sometimes even more Battleships unable to lock anything at almost any range for a minimum of 20 seconds, usually more.
===== * Your signature file is broken. Please use an image that will display - Fallout
|
UD549
|
Posted - 2008.12.03 02:05:00 -
[2]
Ecm=chance based Damps=100% tldr version: NO
|
Dyaven
The Tuskers
|
Posted - 2008.12.03 02:06:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Dyaven on 03/12/2008 02:06:28
Originally by: UD549 Ecm=chance based Damps=100% tldr version: NO
Did you even read my post? With damps as they are now, a Blackbird is a more viable addition to a fleet than an Arazu or Lachesis. ===== * Your signature file is broken. Please use an image that will display - Fallout
|
Raniss
|
Posted - 2008.12.03 02:10:00 -
[4]
Did it took you a lachesis and celestis thread to find out that damps suck?
|
Dyaven
The Tuskers
|
Posted - 2008.12.03 02:15:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Raniss Did it took you a lachesis and celestis thread to find out that damps suck?
No, it took me actually trying out the Celestis. ===== * Your signature file is broken. Please use an image that will display - Fallout
|
humungos
Warp to Desktop
|
Posted - 2008.12.03 02:19:00 -
[6]
You say buff damps. I do not know if you played long enough, but not to long ago damps use to be way over powered and needed a big nerf. I am sure the last thing that people that played during this time is damps getting a buff.
|
Dyaven
The Tuskers
|
Posted - 2008.12.03 02:22:00 -
[7]
Originally by: humungos You say buff damps. I do not know if you played long enough, but not to long ago damps use to be way over powered and needed a big nerf. I am sure the last thing that people that played during this time is damps getting a buff.
I was a new player during this time, so I was here to hear about it on the forums but I never actually saw the overpowered dampeners in action. We obviously don't want them as powerful as they used to be, but they're just pathetic now. ===== * Your signature file is broken. Please use an image that will display - Fallout
|
Lancard
|
Posted - 2008.12.03 03:54:00 -
[8]
I agree with op. Remote Sensor Dampeners are broken.
They seems almost completely unreliable in combat situations. Remote sensor dampeners's optimal range, strength, or the formula for calculating overall strength need an overhaul.
Tracking disruptors optimal range seems a bit off, too. But that's a whole other topic.
|
Atari Sakura
Minmatar INTERNET HARBLRAGE
|
Posted - 2008.12.03 04:45:00 -
[9]
In their current form, they are a semi viable module and preformed a good niche role, that was damping Nano ships and forcing them to either fly into 13km which is in web range, or disengage. However now that Nano is less viable, I think they need to be re looked at. The reason they were so overpowered in the past was because you could put them on a ship un bonused for damps and still have them rock everything. They shouldn't be super powerful on ships without a bonus to them, but on the Celestis/arazu/lachesis, they should get a greater bonus.
TL;DR They were useful, post QR they aren't boost the celestis/arazu/lachesis, to get a better bonus to them and make them viable in PvP. --- This forum is problematic.
Desu Sigs
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue
|
Posted - 2008.12.03 04:55:00 -
[10]
Originally by: humungos You say buff damps. I do not know if you played long enough, but not to long ago damps use to be way over powered and needed a big nerf. I am sure the last thing that people that played during this time is damps getting a buff.
They were only 'overpowered' because ECM (which everyone used instead of damps) were nerfed (rightly so) and then damps were the next best thing.
This was due to the fact that ECM was nerfed on *non bonused* ships. ECM ships all got a big buff in ECM strength, putting ECM back as a top performer when fitted to proper ECM ships.
When damps were nerfed, the damp ships didn't get an increase in their damp strength bonuses (or any strength bonus at all) to correspond with the reduced damp effectiveness, and as a result they're very ineffective for most general PVP situations.
Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Death of Virtue is Recruiting
|
|
NoNah
|
Posted - 2008.12.03 07:32:00 -
[11]
Swap ECM and Damp optimal range, voila - problem solved you have 2 viable ships for different tasks. Parrots, commence!
Postcount: 672551
|
Max Hardcase
Art of War Exalted.
|
Posted - 2008.12.03 07:55:00 -
[12]
The other part of the problem is that the oppertunity cost of fitting the RSD counter ( = sensor booster ) is much much much less than fitting an ECCM mod. The sensor booster is very usefull in its own right, if you are not damped. The ECCM mod is deadweight if you not the target of ECM.
Add to that the problem of actually making an RSD stronger than a sensor booster and RSD's do not look that good.
|
NoNah
|
Posted - 2008.12.03 08:00:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Max Hardcase
Add to that the problem of actually making an RSD stronger than a sensor booster and RSD's do not look that good.
Huh? They're stronger out of the box? You don't even need a specialized ship for it? Parrots, commence!
Postcount: 357472
|
Mag's
MASS
|
Posted - 2008.12.03 08:10:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Originally by: humungos You say buff damps. I do not know if you played long enough, but not to long ago damps use to be way over powered and needed a big nerf. I am sure the last thing that people that played during this time is damps getting a buff.
They were only 'overpowered' because ECM (which everyone used instead of damps) were nerfed (rightly so) and then damps were the next best thing.
This was due to the fact that ECM was nerfed on *non bonused* ships. ECM ships all got a big buff in ECM strength, putting ECM back as a top performer when fitted to proper ECM ships.
When damps were nerfed, the damp ships didn't get an increase in their damp strength bonuses (or any strength bonus at all) to correspond with the reduced damp effectiveness, and as a result they're very ineffective for most general PVP situations.
This.
Buff the spec ships, not the modules.
Mag's
Originally by: Avernus One of these days, the realization that MASS is no longer significant will catch up with you. |
Nomakai Delateriel
Amarr Shadow Company Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.12.03 08:22:00 -
[15]
Originally by: NoNah Swap ECM and Damp optimal range, voila - problem solved you have 2 viable ships for different tasks.
You got to be kidding. If that was the case a lachesis or Arazu could knock out maybe 4-6 battleships out of the fight in a sniper battle. With 100% certainty.
I agree though that Dampeners DO need more range as it is, but IMHO it would be better to switch the damps optimal and falloff (60km optimal, 75km with max skills, and 30-40km falloff wouldn't be too much to ask). ______________________________________________ -My respect can not be won, only lost. It's given freely and only grudgingly withdrawn. |
NoNah
|
Posted - 2008.12.03 08:24:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Nomakai Delateriel
Originally by: NoNah Swap ECM and Damp optimal range, voila - problem solved you have 2 viable ships for different tasks.
You got to be kidding. If that was the case a lachesis or Arazu could knock out maybe 4-6 battleships out of the fight in a sniper battle. With 100% certainty.
I agree though that Dampeners DO need more range as it is, but IMHO it would be better to switch the damps optimal and falloff (60km optimal, 75km with max skills, and 30-40km falloff wouldn't be too much to ask).
Ironicly, swapping their ranges would mean a lachesis gets a 81km optimal with their damps, with max skills. Parrots, commence!
Postcount: 659707
|
vostok
Minmatar Shadow of xXDEATHXx
|
Posted - 2008.12.03 08:25:00 -
[17]
Originally by: UD549 Ecm=chance based
So's gambling but we all know the house always wins - Adaptation is not an excuse for lack of ballance! -
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.12.03 08:32:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Alex Harumichi on 03/12/2008 08:32:36
Originally by: UD549 Ecm=chance based Damps=100% tldr version: NO
The above is a common myth.
Damps are actually 100% only inside their optimal (which is in the 45km ballpark). They become chance-based after that. The damper specialist ships do not get a range bonus.
Yes, damps are pretty weak right now, even on the "specialist" ships. A full rack of damps, with rigs and maxed skills, can (maybe) take one ship out of the fight. Unless it's a close-range ship, in which case even that's not possible. Compare to Rook/Falcon. Laugh.
|
The Tzar
Malicious Intentions
|
Posted - 2008.12.03 13:19:00 -
[19]
Does any of the 're-balancing' that CCP do make the net situation better for the EvE populus?
Judging by the forums, i would say a definate no. Unfortunately CCP seem to listen to the wrong whinging, i.e. situations where the players lack of skill or experience achieved the loss rather than the numbers behind the module/ship.
These same players then whinge about the next FOTM, there will always be an FOTM! The best way to counter ANY FOTM is to fly in a balanced gang, you know..., a bit of dps, a bit of speed, a bit of EW and some tank.
So, a whine is posted; CCP try to re-balance and end up screwing it up more than before.
The best way I can see to halt this degredation of this fantastic game is TO STOP WHINING!
Fortunately losses will happen. Without the fear of loss this game would be rubbish.
That is all, thankyou. __________________________________________
'Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear intelligent until they speak' __________________________________________ |
maralt
Minmatar The seers of truth
|
Posted - 2008.12.03 13:39:00 -
[20]
Actually damps work great on carriers when used on any ship even those without bonuses to the damps, while ecm is better in small-med sized gang combat when used on ships with bonuses to it.
|
|
TimMc
Gallente Brutal Deliverance OWN Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.12.03 14:13:00 -
[21]
Buff the spec ships and increase optimal range of damps.
|
Dyaven
The Tuskers
|
Posted - 2008.12.03 14:15:00 -
[22]
Originally by: maralt Actually damps work great on carriers when used on any ship even those without bonuses to the damps, while ecm is better in small-med sized gang combat when used on ships with bonuses to it.
I remember seeing a thread where a Falcon with a rack of Gallente racial jammers had a Thanatos with a full rack of ECCM permajammed. ===== * Your signature file is broken. Please use an image that will display - Fallout
|
Omarvelous
Caldari Destry's Lounge
|
Posted - 2008.12.03 14:46:00 -
[23]
Make signal distortion amps work on damps.
Problem solved.
You want yoru arazu/lach to damp?
Cool - no dps for you - just like a falcon/rook.
|
Cambarus
The Baros Syndicate Ministry Of Amarrian Secret Service
|
Posted - 2008.12.03 15:06:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Omarvelous Make signal distortion amps work on damps.
Problem solved.
You want yoru arazu/lach to damp?
Cool - no dps for you - just like a falcon/rook.
I actually like this idea, bringing damps inline with ECM without too much of a buff. /signed |
Dyaven
The Tuskers
|
Posted - 2008.12.03 15:25:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Cambarus
Originally by: Omarvelous Make signal distortion amps work on damps.
Problem solved.
You want yoru arazu/lach to damp?
Cool - no dps for you - just like a falcon/rook.
I actually like this idea, bringing damps inline with ECM without too much of a buff. /signed
This, and give Celestis/Arazu/Lachesis +10% bonus per level instead of +5%. ===== * Your signature file is broken. Please use an image that will display - Fallout
|
NoNah
|
Posted - 2008.12.03 15:40:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Omarvelous Make signal distortion amps work on damps.
Problem solved.
You want yoru arazu/lach to damp?
Cool - no dps for you - just like a falcon/rook.
Fixed it for you.
Really, the issue with damps is not their effectiveness, it's the range. We discussed this a tad last night, and I do have to agree. The main issue for falcons right now is sniper ships, they need to stay at decent range or they're pretty much two-volleyed by any sniper, they can keep them jammed most of the time - but - once one ship gets two volleys off the falcons can very well be done for, or atleast scared off, which pretty much is the same thing.
Now this would mean reducing range can be a bit of an issue, if the falcons would have to be up close and personal they won't really be pulling their own weight, atleast not for their pricetag. Compare them with rooks, blackbirds etc. One of them is not used at all, the other is disposable(Nothing bad about that).
However, now suppose the Celestis/Arazus/lachesis got a 20% range per level, rather than hybrid damage. Also, give the damps 20km extra range. This would mean you will have an optimal range of 50km, base. 75km with skills and 150km with max skills in a lachesis/arazu. Also, reduce falloff to 30km. This means, your arazu/Lachesis will have a max range of 150km * 140.88%(2x t1 rigs) = 211km + 30km falloff.
So how does this relate to a falcon? Well, a falcon with t2 jams, 2x optimal rigs and max skills will have an optimal of 228km and 41 km falloff. This means a Lachesis would have about 70% chance to dampen a falcon at max range. In turn the Falcon only gets 45% chance to jam the Lachesis. Moving this out to 249km the Falcon and lachesis would be about equal in chances of jamming eachother.
So what would this turn the Arazu Lachesis into? Pretty much an anti-sniper, anti-falcon boat that while in close range still can put points and deal - laughable - but still deal damage. It will however be rather pointless at close range ships and anything fitting counters(as in sensor boosters).
Another alternative, or even addition, is removing ECCM as we know it and simply make it another script for sensor boosters. You know.. let... sensor boosters boost the sensors? Parrots, commence!
Postcount: 104517
|
Malcanis
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.12.03 15:41:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Dyaven
Originally by: Cambarus
Originally by: Omarvelous Make signal distortion amps work on damps.
Problem solved.
You want yoru arazu/lach to damp?
Cool - no dps for you - just like a falcon/rook.
I actually like this idea, bringing damps inline with ECM without too much of a buff. /signed
This, and give Celestis/Arazu/Lachesis +10% bonus per level instead of +5%.
Agreed. In fact I'd say +10% for the Celestis, +12.5% for the Arazu, +15% for the lachesis.
|
Ignatious Mei
|
Posted - 2008.12.03 15:46:00 -
[28]
A couple different things they could do and it would go a LONG way to decreasing the amount of falcon whines because lets face it, if tweaked gal recons would make GREAT anti falcon/rook platforms.
1. Give the arazu/lach a 5 percent bonus per level to RSD falloff.
2. Create a low slot mod like ECM has that increases strength by a decent amount.
This would give gal recons a nice role as anti falcon support. Gal recons have their uses now but the overall problem is that those uses are so few and far between that they just arent generally worth bringing to a fight.
|
NoNah
|
Posted - 2008.12.03 15:46:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Dyaven
Originally by: Cambarus
Originally by: Omarvelous Make signal distortion amps work on damps.
Problem solved.
You want yoru arazu/lach to damp?
Cool - no dps for you - just like a falcon/rook.
I actually like this idea, bringing damps inline with ECM without too much of a buff. /signed
This, and give Celestis/Arazu/Lachesis +10% bonus per level instead of +5%.
Agreed. In fact I'd say +10% for the Celestis, +12.5% for the Arazu, +15% for the lachesis.
Not to be annoying or anything but...
A damp is 42.5% base, this means 74.375% with Recon 5 on a lachesis. Now add the distortion amps, each giving 20%, stacking penalized to a maximum of 4. Hence - 20%, 17.4%, 11.4%, 5.4% 74.375 * 1.2 = 89.25% 89.25 * 1.174 = 104.7795%
I won't evne bother continuing. This is per damp.
Now, please tell me you thought your suggestions over? Or are you asking them to redo the bonus system? Parrots, commence!
Postcount: 738070
|
Dyaven
The Tuskers
|
Posted - 2008.12.03 15:51:00 -
[30]
Falcon & Rook both get 20% bonus to jam strength per level. With Recons V, the effective strength of each jammer is doubled, not counting in distortion amps. How would the dampening Recons getting a similar bonus be overpowered in comparison? ===== * Your signature file is broken. Please use an image that will display - Fallout
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |