| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |

Artegg
|
Posted - 2004.09.20 12:54:00 -
[1]
No one really knows what the changes will be but i am 100% anti the idea of changing it at all.
All that needs to be changed IMO is Dampners i think they are over powered and there is no real way of countering them.
Jamming in my eyes is perfect the way it is, there are good counters and you have to get the correct race or use multis with suck cap.
As i said i dont think it needs changing but i would like to see what everyone else thinks.
|

Artegg
|
Posted - 2004.09.20 12:54:00 -
[2]
No one really knows what the changes will be but i am 100% anti the idea of changing it at all.
All that needs to be changed IMO is Dampners i think they are over powered and there is no real way of countering them.
Jamming in my eyes is perfect the way it is, there are good counters and you have to get the correct race or use multis with suck cap.
As i said i dont think it needs changing but i would like to see what everyone else thinks.
|

Nafri
|
Posted - 2004.09.20 12:59:00 -
[3]
dampeners are overpowerd yes, thy should decrease the range malus, so that BS can still target you, but thy take longer now
this is still good enough for frigs Wanna fly with me?
|

Nafri
|
Posted - 2004.09.20 12:59:00 -
[4]
dampeners are overpowerd yes, thy should decrease the range malus, so that BS can still target you, but thy take longer now
this is still good enough for frigs Wanna fly with me?
|

Schroni
|
Posted - 2004.09.20 13:00:00 -
[5]
i agree that most of the EW stuff is fine atm. Damps are a bit overpowered tho.
What i really hope is that CCP doesn't bring ship-class based webs/scramblers, that would make frigs useless again...
---
SNIGG Forums my videos |

Schroni
|
Posted - 2004.09.20 13:00:00 -
[6]
i agree that most of the EW stuff is fine atm. Damps are a bit overpowered tho.
What i really hope is that CCP doesn't bring ship-class based webs/scramblers, that would make frigs useless again...
---
SNIGG Forums my videos |

Dianabolic
|
Posted - 2004.09.20 14:25:00 -
[7]
Yes, EW definitely needs to be changed - it needs to have a minimum range for a number of reasons:
Primarily to match with the supposed roles of the different races and styles of combat. Caldari = EW experts, their traditional enemies are the gallente and, you would think, the gallente would have the ability to counter this by getting in up close and personal.
Secondly, in RL (yeah, not applicable, but anyway) as the jammed ships get closer to the jammer their radar "burns through" and is able to acquire a lock.
Dampers are well over-powered, they should only really increase locking time, not decrease targetting range (though I'd then assume that the same nerf should be applied to the sensor booster).
|

Dianabolic
|
Posted - 2004.09.20 14:25:00 -
[8]
Yes, EW definitely needs to be changed - it needs to have a minimum range for a number of reasons:
Primarily to match with the supposed roles of the different races and styles of combat. Caldari = EW experts, their traditional enemies are the gallente and, you would think, the gallente would have the ability to counter this by getting in up close and personal.
Secondly, in RL (yeah, not applicable, but anyway) as the jammed ships get closer to the jammer their radar "burns through" and is able to acquire a lock.
Dampers are well over-powered, they should only really increase locking time, not decrease targetting range (though I'd then assume that the same nerf should be applied to the sensor booster).
|

ProphetGuru
|
Posted - 2004.09.20 14:35:00 -
[9]
I agree with everyone that damps are overpowered.
As for ecm/eccm.
The only thing I feel that should be changed, is skill training. ECM should be more of a specialty imho, not a thing where any n00b with 15,000sp can effectively targetjam someone with 15million sp. Just add some skills that enforce more specialization in an ecm role.
Evolution..... Just when you thought you were winning.
|

ProphetGuru
|
Posted - 2004.09.20 14:35:00 -
[10]
I agree with everyone that damps are overpowered.
As for ecm/eccm.
The only thing I feel that should be changed, is skill training. ECM should be more of a specialty imho, not a thing where any n00b with 15,000sp can effectively targetjam someone with 15million sp. Just add some skills that enforce more specialization in an ecm role.
Evolution..... Just when you thought you were winning.
|

Discorporation
|
Posted - 2004.09.20 14:38:00 -
[11]
I thought I replied to this thread already.
Oh well.
The only thing that's wrong with current EW is that they work in a ships' targetting range. In my opinion, that's wrong. They should have max ranges, eprhaps even optimal and falloff ranges. Plus skills/ship abilities to increase those, of course.
[Heterocephalus glaber]
|

Discorporation
|
Posted - 2004.09.20 14:38:00 -
[12]
I thought I replied to this thread already.
Oh well.
The only thing that's wrong with current EW is that they work in a ships' targetting range. In my opinion, that's wrong. They should have max ranges, eprhaps even optimal and falloff ranges. Plus skills/ship abilities to increase those, of course.
[Heterocephalus glaber]
|

Arud
|
Posted - 2004.09.20 14:42:00 -
[13]
we only need to add a chance based hit formula like it is with turrets
so not every time you scramble someone you get full strength and not everytime you targetjam someone it works and so on
|

Arud
|
Posted - 2004.09.20 14:42:00 -
[14]
we only need to add a chance based hit formula like it is with turrets
so not every time you scramble someone you get full strength and not everytime you targetjam someone it works and so on
|

Jexter
|
Posted - 2004.09.20 14:45:00 -
[15]
Originally by: ProphetGuru I agree with everyone that damps are overpowered.
As for ecm/eccm.
The only thing I feel that should be changed, is skill training. ECM should be more of a specialty imho, not a thing where any n00b with 15,000sp can effectively targetjam someone with 15million sp. Just add some skills that enforce more specialization in an ecm role.
Seconded.
|

Jexter
|
Posted - 2004.09.20 14:45:00 -
[16]
Originally by: ProphetGuru I agree with everyone that damps are overpowered.
As for ecm/eccm.
The only thing I feel that should be changed, is skill training. ECM should be more of a specialty imho, not a thing where any n00b with 15,000sp can effectively targetjam someone with 15million sp. Just add some skills that enforce more specialization in an ecm role.
Seconded.
|

Hakera
|
Posted - 2004.09.20 14:54:00 -
[17]
I agree that EW is needs balancing, there are many modules especially damps that need the nerf.
TomB's first idea is below, part of me believes an uncertainty is welcome but defintly an optimal/falloff would be appreciated so someone with an sensor booster and damp cant screw you over.
Originally by: Tomb Changes to the Electronic Warfare System has been discussed before in a previous dev blog, two problems with the current system is the 100% effectiveness of powerful modules and stacking modules for on/off effectness, some without range and some with a limited range of usage.
The modules in the category of Electronic Warfare are: ECM Target Jammers, Jump Scramblers, Stasis Webifiers, Remote Sensor Dampeners and Tracking Disruptors. The changes wanted are dimmishing effectness by range and a random factor. The proposed change is to give these modules Optimal Range (where effectiveness of stats are 100%) and add to it Fall Off Range (where the effectivness would dimmish from max at end of Optimal Range to 0 at the end of the Fall Off Range).
Proposed changes to the Target Jamming and Jump Scrambling modules are how ever a bit more dramatic than for the other module groups, where as players stack these modules for simply on/off results. The changes would involve the modules being individuals instead of depending on more modules of same type to stack for total effectness, so that one target jammer could disrupt all current targets of the ship in question, and 2 would simply have more chance of doing the same. Here is an example of how it would work:
Ship Class: Megathron Gallente Sensor Strenght: 30
Module Attacking: Gallente Target Jammer Gallente Sensor Strenght: 10 Other Race Sensor Strenght: 3
(in this case the 10 would be chosen, since the module has to brake down Magnetometric sensors)
The calculations would simply be percentage based, i.e. 10 / 30 = 33% of jamming. This situation is how ever in the Optimal Range, if the target is in the Fall Off Range where the changes have been reduced by 50%, the total strenght of the module would become 5 --> 5 / 30 = 16,7% of jamming.
If there would be two modules activated on this Megathron, the total chance of jamming the Megathrong would be 33% + 23% = 56%, so the chance of getting jammed can in theory never be 100%.
What this solves is:
1. Usage of all types of ships in Electronic Warfare, specially frigates in PvP which would not need to stack +4 Targer Jammers to be effective.
2. Addon on skills for Electronic Warfare for specialization, increased effectness, more range, shorter duration ticks on modules.
3. Random factor in Electronic Warfare
4. Would allow Electronic Warfare in PvE.
The question currently is of course how you players would look at these changes, but also how you would want other module groups to work.
This same system could be used for all these module groups by giving base duration time of how long the target is effected, so for example if all groups have the same time:
EW Duration: 10 Seconds (target is affected by successfull EW for 20 seconds) Module Duration Base: 20 Seconds (module can not be activated again for 20 seconds) Module Duration Minimum: 10 Seconds (with maximized skills and ship bonuses)
Note that all numbers in this post came out of the blue and would surely not be used in the new system.
But we could also just let Stasis Webifiers, Remote Sensor Dampeners and Tracking Disruptors just get reduced modifiers on targets by range, but would it be the same at current date and just sound boring?
Your comments are wanted.
Dumbledore - Eve-I.com |

Hakera
|
Posted - 2004.09.20 14:54:00 -
[18]
I agree that EW is needs balancing, there are many modules especially damps that need the nerf.
TomB's first idea is below, part of me believes an uncertainty is welcome but defintly an optimal/falloff would be appreciated so someone with an sensor booster and damp cant screw you over.
Originally by: Tomb Changes to the Electronic Warfare System has been discussed before in a previous dev blog, two problems with the current system is the 100% effectiveness of powerful modules and stacking modules for on/off effectness, some without range and some with a limited range of usage.
The modules in the category of Electronic Warfare are: ECM Target Jammers, Jump Scramblers, Stasis Webifiers, Remote Sensor Dampeners and Tracking Disruptors. The changes wanted are dimmishing effectness by range and a random factor. The proposed change is to give these modules Optimal Range (where effectiveness of stats are 100%) and add to it Fall Off Range (where the effectivness would dimmish from max at end of Optimal Range to 0 at the end of the Fall Off Range).
Proposed changes to the Target Jamming and Jump Scrambling modules are how ever a bit more dramatic than for the other module groups, where as players stack these modules for simply on/off results. The changes would involve the modules being individuals instead of depending on more modules of same type to stack for total effectness, so that one target jammer could disrupt all current targets of the ship in question, and 2 would simply have more chance of doing the same. Here is an example of how it would work:
Ship Class: Megathron Gallente Sensor Strenght: 30
Module Attacking: Gallente Target Jammer Gallente Sensor Strenght: 10 Other Race Sensor Strenght: 3
(in this case the 10 would be chosen, since the module has to brake down Magnetometric sensors)
The calculations would simply be percentage based, i.e. 10 / 30 = 33% of jamming. This situation is how ever in the Optimal Range, if the target is in the Fall Off Range where the changes have been reduced by 50%, the total strenght of the module would become 5 --> 5 / 30 = 16,7% of jamming.
If there would be two modules activated on this Megathron, the total chance of jamming the Megathrong would be 33% + 23% = 56%, so the chance of getting jammed can in theory never be 100%.
What this solves is:
1. Usage of all types of ships in Electronic Warfare, specially frigates in PvP which would not need to stack +4 Targer Jammers to be effective.
2. Addon on skills for Electronic Warfare for specialization, increased effectness, more range, shorter duration ticks on modules.
3. Random factor in Electronic Warfare
4. Would allow Electronic Warfare in PvE.
The question currently is of course how you players would look at these changes, but also how you would want other module groups to work.
This same system could be used for all these module groups by giving base duration time of how long the target is effected, so for example if all groups have the same time:
EW Duration: 10 Seconds (target is affected by successfull EW for 20 seconds) Module Duration Base: 20 Seconds (module can not be activated again for 20 seconds) Module Duration Minimum: 10 Seconds (with maximized skills and ship bonuses)
Note that all numbers in this post came out of the blue and would surely not be used in the new system.
But we could also just let Stasis Webifiers, Remote Sensor Dampeners and Tracking Disruptors just get reduced modifiers on targets by range, but would it be the same at current date and just sound boring?
Your comments are wanted.
Dumbledore - Eve-I.com |

Marcus Aurelius
|
Posted - 2004.09.20 15:18:00 -
[19]
Damps could use a nerfish thing yes. Maybe increase the cycle time and reduce the range penalty they give to target to 33% ? They shouldnt be cyclable (arent very now but some still do that).
As far as the usual ecm/eccm goes, I dotn see many problems that a chance-based system would make even bigger...
However, a max range would be good to counter the uberness of long ranged ew scorp gangs which are a tad overdone imo.
If one counts nosferatus as EW i'd also like to remark that I consider nossies slightly unbalanced since they are far more effective against certain races then against others. Not every race has the same cap or recharge, making Gallente nossie food and amarr largely unworried.
|

Marcus Aurelius
|
Posted - 2004.09.20 15:18:00 -
[20]
Damps could use a nerfish thing yes. Maybe increase the cycle time and reduce the range penalty they give to target to 33% ? They shouldnt be cyclable (arent very now but some still do that).
As far as the usual ecm/eccm goes, I dotn see many problems that a chance-based system would make even bigger...
However, a max range would be good to counter the uberness of long ranged ew scorp gangs which are a tad overdone imo.
If one counts nosferatus as EW i'd also like to remark that I consider nossies slightly unbalanced since they are far more effective against certain races then against others. Not every race has the same cap or recharge, making Gallente nossie food and amarr largely unworried.
|

Dianabolic
|
Posted - 2004.09.20 15:21:00 -
[21]
Nooooo, they need to have a MINIMUM range, long range - fine, it fits, but short range we should be able to burn through it 
|

Dianabolic
|
Posted - 2004.09.20 15:21:00 -
[22]
Nooooo, they need to have a MINIMUM range, long range - fine, it fits, but short range we should be able to burn through it 
|

Bad'Boy
|
Posted - 2004.09.20 16:05:00 -
[23]
Originally by: ProphetGuru I agree with everyone that damps are overpowered.
As for ecm/eccm.
The only thing I feel that should be changed, is skill training. ECM should be more of a specialty imho, not a thing where any n00b with 15,000sp can effectively targetjam someone with 15million sp. Just add some skills that enforce more specialization in an ecm role.
just because you got 15m skpoints you must be invinssible=? ....sad...
B.A.D.B.O.Y.: Biomechanical Android Designed for Battle and Online Yelling
"Bad Boys,Bad Boys, what you gonna do, what you gonna do when WE come for yoU"
|

Bad'Boy
|
Posted - 2004.09.20 16:05:00 -
[24]
Originally by: ProphetGuru I agree with everyone that damps are overpowered.
As for ecm/eccm.
The only thing I feel that should be changed, is skill training. ECM should be more of a specialty imho, not a thing where any n00b with 15,000sp can effectively targetjam someone with 15million sp. Just add some skills that enforce more specialization in an ecm role.
just because you got 15m skpoints you must be invinssible=? ....sad...
B.A.D.B.O.Y.: Biomechanical Android Designed for Battle and Online Yelling
"Bad Boys,Bad Boys, what you gonna do, what you gonna do when WE come for yoU"
|

MaiLina KaTar
|
Posted - 2004.09.20 16:48:00 -
[25]
Edited by: MaiLina KaTar on 20/09/2004 17:26:53
Originally by: ProphetGuru I agree with everyone that damps are overpowered.
As for ecm/eccm.
The only thing I feel that should be changed, is skill training. ECM should be more of a specialty imho, not a thing where any n00b with 15,000sp can effectively targetjam someone with 15million sp. Just add some skills that enforce more specialization in an ecm role.
Yup... absolutely right.
There are only very few problems that need fixing actually:
- Sensor Boosters should have their stats adjusted so that they can effectively counter a dampener. If you use 3 dampeners on somebody who uses 3 Sensor Boosters the effect of the dampeners should be 0.
- Skills that affect ECM module durations need to be changed so that they decrease cap usage and activation time of the modules instead of increasing only the duration. This is important because training those skills to lvl 5 actually decreases your efficiency in EW atm because it takes too long for your modules to deactivate, making it very hard to properly switch targets. Someone with the skill at lvl 1 will be more effective as he has shorter module durations! That's completely inacceptable!
IMHO training Electronic Warfare should decrease both the duration and the activation cost of EW mods by at least 2.5% per level.
- There need to be more ECM jammers. People who train EW should be able to use better jammers than those who don't. EW at lvl 1 should give you jammers with a jamming strength of 3, all the way up to jamming strength 6 for those who trained to lvl5.
You can't use decent guns without decent skills, so why should you be able to use decent top of the line EW mods with the skill at lvl1 ?
Apart from these 3 point the EW-system is absolutely ok IMHO.
Mai's Idealog |

MaiLina KaTar
|
Posted - 2004.09.20 16:48:00 -
[26]
Edited by: MaiLina KaTar on 20/09/2004 17:26:53
Originally by: ProphetGuru I agree with everyone that damps are overpowered.
As for ecm/eccm.
The only thing I feel that should be changed, is skill training. ECM should be more of a specialty imho, not a thing where any n00b with 15,000sp can effectively targetjam someone with 15million sp. Just add some skills that enforce more specialization in an ecm role.
Yup... absolutely right.
There are only very few problems that need fixing actually:
- Sensor Boosters should have their stats adjusted so that they can effectively counter a dampener. If you use 3 dampeners on somebody who uses 3 Sensor Boosters the effect of the dampeners should be 0.
- Skills that affect ECM module durations need to be changed so that they decrease cap usage and activation time of the modules instead of increasing only the duration. This is important because training those skills to lvl 5 actually decreases your efficiency in EW atm because it takes too long for your modules to deactivate, making it very hard to properly switch targets. Someone with the skill at lvl 1 will be more effective as he has shorter module durations! That's completely inacceptable!
IMHO training Electronic Warfare should decrease both the duration and the activation cost of EW mods by at least 2.5% per level.
- There need to be more ECM jammers. People who train EW should be able to use better jammers than those who don't. EW at lvl 1 should give you jammers with a jamming strength of 3, all the way up to jamming strength 6 for those who trained to lvl5.
You can't use decent guns without decent skills, so why should you be able to use decent top of the line EW mods with the skill at lvl1 ?
Apart from these 3 point the EW-system is absolutely ok IMHO.
Mai's Idealog |

Grim Vandal
|
Posted - 2004.09.20 17:35:00 -
[27]
imo I think its dumb the way it works atm ... enuf said
Tomb you are our last, best hope for balance. Teh place: Bab .... ehm EVE-Online 
NERF NERF NERF  
Greetings Grim |

Grim Vandal
|
Posted - 2004.09.20 17:35:00 -
[28]
imo I think its dumb the way it works atm ... enuf said
Tomb you are our last, best hope for balance. Teh place: Bab .... ehm EVE-Online 
NERF NERF NERF  
Greetings Grim |

Earthan
|
Posted - 2004.09.20 17:41:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Earthan on 20/09/2004 17:51:28 Edited by: Earthan on 20/09/2004 17:45:16 I hate jamming overall ,lets get rid of it 
I love clean ,bloody battles with much explosions .Getting killed when jammed, without having even shot one time at the target is one of the most frustrating experiences in life.
Im ok when im killed after some fight, i feel really bad whne i get killed jammed without being able to shoot one time.Its like if you went all hot to a place where men meet women to have fun and nothing would get out of it...
Seruisly maybe jamming should just reduce dmg by affecting the turrets/missiles targeting systmes.So you still can fight when jammed but doing 30 dmg per shot instead of 150..
Stars, stars like dust, all around me.... |

Earthan
|
Posted - 2004.09.20 17:41:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Earthan on 20/09/2004 17:51:28 Edited by: Earthan on 20/09/2004 17:45:16 I hate jamming overall ,lets get rid of it 
I love clean ,bloody battles with much explosions .Getting killed when jammed, without having even shot one time at the target is one of the most frustrating experiences in life.
Im ok when im killed after some fight, i feel really bad whne i get killed jammed without being able to shoot one time.Its like if you went all hot to a place where men meet women to have fun and nothing would get out of it...
Seruisly maybe jamming should just reduce dmg by affecting the turrets/missiles targeting systmes.So you still can fight when jammed but doing 30 dmg per shot instead of 150..
Stars, stars like dust, all around me.... |

Grim Vandal
|
Posted - 2004.09.20 18:08:00 -
[31]
the idea is the following:
atm we have:
you are jammed
you are not jammed
the overall idea is fine atm ... but fine is by no way good enough in a game called eve-online right?
my point is:
eg. atm you have 15 ladar strenght if someone jams you with 14 ladar strenght nothing happens if someone jams you with 15 ladar strenght you are jammed and totally ****** up if you are a missiles user.
you see there is place for some impovement (NERF )
the idea is that someone has a "chance" to jam you if he doesnt get to 15 ladar strenght
eg. you will 90% of the time still jam your foe with -14 to ladar strenght while with 15 or more its guranteed that you jam him.
however the numbers will go up for a good reason ... it should actually be pretty hard to jam a BS therefor it should have someting like 30 sensor strenght ... YES IT ADDS A % chance if you jam or not BUT ACTUALLY THIS will make combat even more fun. so eg. a frig with 1 specialized jammer (-6) in this case vs that BS with 30 sensor strenght will have a chance of 20 % to jam the BS for one cycle. Now luck will determine if you jam or not in this case ... however a scorp with a total of -30 sensor strenght should be able to totally jam the BS for 100%!
that way jamming will get more usefull on none caldari ships while it will stay most usefull on caldari ships!!!
this will make fitting the ships even more fun cuz now 1 ecm module is worth fitting it.
so yes the current system is "fine" however this will r0xx0r!!!
keep in mind that targeting speed may has to be altered with this change.
Greetings Grim |

Grim Vandal
|
Posted - 2004.09.20 18:08:00 -
[32]
the idea is the following:
atm we have:
you are jammed
you are not jammed
the overall idea is fine atm ... but fine is by no way good enough in a game called eve-online right?
my point is:
eg. atm you have 15 ladar strenght if someone jams you with 14 ladar strenght nothing happens if someone jams you with 15 ladar strenght you are jammed and totally ****** up if you are a missiles user.
you see there is place for some impovement (NERF )
the idea is that someone has a "chance" to jam you if he doesnt get to 15 ladar strenght
eg. you will 90% of the time still jam your foe with -14 to ladar strenght while with 15 or more its guranteed that you jam him.
however the numbers will go up for a good reason ... it should actually be pretty hard to jam a BS therefor it should have someting like 30 sensor strenght ... YES IT ADDS A % chance if you jam or not BUT ACTUALLY THIS will make combat even more fun. so eg. a frig with 1 specialized jammer (-6) in this case vs that BS with 30 sensor strenght will have a chance of 20 % to jam the BS for one cycle. Now luck will determine if you jam or not in this case ... however a scorp with a total of -30 sensor strenght should be able to totally jam the BS for 100%!
that way jamming will get more usefull on none caldari ships while it will stay most usefull on caldari ships!!!
this will make fitting the ships even more fun cuz now 1 ecm module is worth fitting it.
so yes the current system is "fine" however this will r0xx0r!!!
keep in mind that targeting speed may has to be altered with this change.
Greetings Grim |

monkiboi
|
Posted - 2004.09.20 18:08:00 -
[33]
Originally by: MaiLina KaTar Edited by: MaiLina KaTar on 20/09/2004 17:26:53
There are only very few problems that need fixing actually:
- Sensor Boosters should have their stats adjusted so that they can effectively counter a dampener. If you use 3 dampeners on somebody who uses 3 Sensor Boosters the effect of the dampeners should be 0.
I don't really understand most of the arguments against dampers. Yes they could do with cap usage being on par with other EW modules but surely sensor boosters are effective against them. Dampers have a stacking nerf. Do sensor boosters? if not then 2 dampers will give 75% target damping but 2 sensor boosters will give 100% targeting range, overriding the dampers effectiveness. you'll also get double the sig resolution as well for very little cap usage.
As pointed out by others you cannot easily cycle damp either. I agree with your other points and can't wait for the more specialised EW skills.
I'm obviously missing something here as far as damping is concerned (PvP experience being one of them :)) so am quite happy to be constructively told i'm wrong.
|

monkiboi
|
Posted - 2004.09.20 18:08:00 -
[34]
Originally by: MaiLina KaTar Edited by: MaiLina KaTar on 20/09/2004 17:26:53
There are only very few problems that need fixing actually:
- Sensor Boosters should have their stats adjusted so that they can effectively counter a dampener. If you use 3 dampeners on somebody who uses 3 Sensor Boosters the effect of the dampeners should be 0.
I don't really understand most of the arguments against dampers. Yes they could do with cap usage being on par with other EW modules but surely sensor boosters are effective against them. Dampers have a stacking nerf. Do sensor boosters? if not then 2 dampers will give 75% target damping but 2 sensor boosters will give 100% targeting range, overriding the dampers effectiveness. you'll also get double the sig resolution as well for very little cap usage.
As pointed out by others you cannot easily cycle damp either. I agree with your other points and can't wait for the more specialised EW skills.
I'm obviously missing something here as far as damping is concerned (PvP experience being one of them :)) so am quite happy to be constructively told i'm wrong.
|

DHU InMe
|
Posted - 2004.09.20 18:20:00 -
[35]
Let Shiva finish, then we'll think about overload of EW.
There lot of job to do before planning and asking more features, Unix/MAC compatibility and other things that can wait. Nice links (updated 20 Dec 04): BP, bugs about them. (\_/) (O.o) (> <) This is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way. |

DHU InMe
|
Posted - 2004.09.20 18:20:00 -
[36]
Let Shiva finish, then we'll think about overload of EW.
There lot of job to do before planning and asking more features, Unix/MAC compatibility and other things that can wait. Nice links (updated 20 Dec 04): BP, bugs about them. (\_/) (O.o) (> <) This is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way. |

Selim
|
Posted - 2004.09.20 18:22:00 -
[37]
I think it needs to be changed, in many ways. First, it not being be-all-end-all jamming. But then second, have the skills provide bonuses so well skilled jammers would be great at it, but poor ones suck at it.
I like the minimum and maximum range idea. So you could decide either to get close, or to go out very, very far, to avoid the jamming.
|

Selim
|
Posted - 2004.09.20 18:22:00 -
[38]
I think it needs to be changed, in many ways. First, it not being be-all-end-all jamming. But then second, have the skills provide bonuses so well skilled jammers would be great at it, but poor ones suck at it.
I like the minimum and maximum range idea. So you could decide either to get close, or to go out very, very far, to avoid the jamming.
|

TheArtist
|
Posted - 2004.09.20 18:54:00 -
[39]
The last thing this game needs is to make character skills matter more.
|

TheArtist
|
Posted - 2004.09.20 18:54:00 -
[40]
The last thing this game needs is to make character skills matter more.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |