EVE Search - Propulsion Jamming

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Skill Discussions

Propulsion Jamming

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Teutobod	Posted - 2004.12.05 22:23:00 - [1] "Skill at using propulsion/warpdrive jammers. 5% Bonus to warp scrambler and stasis web duration." The current bonus for training this skill is useless. I suggest it is changed to an increase in the range of propulsion/wardprive jammers or if that is too "overpowered" a decrease in the cap usage. I can't think of anything else, but the two above is more usefull than the current one.
Teutobod	Posted - 2004.12.05 22:23:00 - [2] "Skill at using propulsion/warpdrive jammers. 5% Bonus to warp scrambler and stasis web duration." The current bonus for training this skill is useless. I suggest it is changed to an increase in the range of propulsion/wardprive jammers or if that is too "overpowered" a decrease in the cap usage. I can't think of anything else, but the two above is more usefull than the current one.
Scerenity	Posted - 2004.12.06 09:21:00 - [3] This has been argued many times, along with similar bonuses for jammers\mwd's etc, where in some or most situations a longer duration doesn't help. I'm not sure if CCP will listen though as it's been around for so long and also argued against for so long, yet nothing has changed so far . And you'd think that if they were going to change it they'd have done it along with the release of Exodus . ------ Scerenity Selling Me!
Scerenity	Posted - 2004.12.06 09:21:00 - [4] This has been argued many times, along with similar bonuses for jammers\mwd's etc, where in some or most situations a longer duration doesn't help. I'm not sure if CCP will listen though as it's been around for so long and also argued against for so long, yet nothing has changed so far . And you'd think that if they were going to change it they'd have done it along with the release of Exodus . ------ Scerenity Selling Me!
Teutobod	Posted - 2004.12.06 10:30:00 - [5] Originally by: Scerenity This has been argued many times, along with similar bonuses for jammers\mwd's etc, where in some or most situations a longer duration doesn't help. I'm not sure if CCP will listen though as it's been around for so long and also argued against for so long, yet nothing has changed so far . And you'd think that if they were going to change it they'd have done it along with the release of Exodus . I'd like to hear the arguments against it. There is absolutly no reason to train this skill beyond level 1 unless tech 2 requires it, wich they will no doubt. And even then I think a lot of ppl will ignore the tech 2 because training this skill higher means teh cool down is also longer and that is bacially what ppl wanna avoid. Longer range would be usefull. 5% per level would make a 20 into 25 and a 7,5 into 9,375. That is not too shabby. Reduced cap usage will not mean much for cruisers but for frigates/interceptors it can mean a bit, espc. with 20km ones. Level 5 at this skill, with a 5% reductrion, puts a 20km down to 37,5 cap/10 sec. Would be more doable I think.
Teutobod	Posted - 2004.12.06 10:30:00 - [6] Originally by: Scerenity This has been argued many times, along with similar bonuses for jammers\mwd's etc, where in some or most situations a longer duration doesn't help. I'm not sure if CCP will listen though as it's been around for so long and also argued against for so long, yet nothing has changed so far . And you'd think that if they were going to change it they'd have done it along with the release of Exodus . I'd like to hear the arguments against it. There is absolutly no reason to train this skill beyond level 1 unless tech 2 requires it, wich they will no doubt. And even then I think a lot of ppl will ignore the tech 2 because training this skill higher means teh cool down is also longer and that is bacially what ppl wanna avoid. Longer range would be usefull. 5% per level would make a 20 into 25 and a 7,5 into 9,375. That is not too shabby. Reduced cap usage will not mean much for cruisers but for frigates/interceptors it can mean a bit, espc. with 20km ones. Level 5 at this skill, with a 5% reductrion, puts a 20km down to 37,5 cap/10 sec. Would be more doable I think.
MrRookie	Posted - 2004.12.06 14:21:00 - [7] I realy dont want the skill beyond lvl 1. I usaly kill the target before the it starts over and the longer it lasts slower i can kill fast frigs. +5% to range would be nice but that would gimp frigs :\| _____________________________________________ \o/ I got a siggy... WTB 3x Medium Modulated Pulse Energy Beams http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=139877
MrRookie	Posted - 2004.12.06 14:21:00 - [8] I realy dont want the skill beyond lvl 1. I usaly kill the target before the it starts over and the longer it lasts slower i can kill fast frigs. +5% to range would be nice but that would gimp frigs :\| _____________________________________________ \o/ I got a siggy... WTB 3x Medium Modulated Pulse Energy Beams http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=139877
Eyeshadow	Posted - 2004.12.06 15:07:00 - [9] the skill itself doesnt need changing. 5% to duration would actually be useful IF webbers + scramblers, and jammers for that fact, would deactivate once the target has been destroyed. As it is, u are quite correct that the skill beyond lvl1 is actually a hinderance if fighting multiple targets Forums: Sharks - MC
Eyeshadow	Posted - 2004.12.06 15:07:00 - [10] the skill itself doesnt need changing. 5% to duration would actually be useful IF webbers + scramblers, and jammers for that fact, would deactivate once the target has been destroyed. As it is, u are quite correct that the skill beyond lvl1 is actually a hinderance if fighting multiple targets Forums: Sharks - MC

Teutobod	Posted - 2004.12.06 16:08:00 - [11] Originally by: MrRookie I realy dont want the skill beyond lvl 1. I usaly kill the target before the it starts over and the longer it lasts slower i can kill fast frigs. +5% to range would be nice but that would gimp frigs :\| How would it gimp frigates? I guess you are referring to webbers that will have a range of 12,5 km with maxed out skill. Even today a frigate must be within the range of webbers to use a 7,5km one so it wont make a difference.
Teutobod	Posted - 2004.12.06 16:08:00 - [12] Originally by: MrRookie I realy dont want the skill beyond lvl 1. I usaly kill the target before the it starts over and the longer it lasts slower i can kill fast frigs. +5% to range would be nice but that would gimp frigs :\| How would it gimp frigates? I guess you are referring to webbers that will have a range of 12,5 km with maxed out skill. Even today a frigate must be within the range of webbers to use a 7,5km one so it wont make a difference.
Jorak Falconstar	Posted - 2004.12.09 10:26:00 - [13] How about making the webber able to affect more targets per skill level? or give it an area effect as well f.ex. at level 1 it will only effect the single target, level 2 gives you one target at full range and an Aof of 1km radius around the ship, with the radius increasing per level. basically so that any ship within the AOF get slowed maybe not by the full amount but by a percentage? --------------------- What was that noise?
Jorak Falconstar	Posted - 2004.12.09 10:26:00 - [14] How about making the webber able to affect more targets per skill level? or give it an area effect as well f.ex. at level 1 it will only effect the single target, level 2 gives you one target at full range and an Aof of 1km radius around the ship, with the radius increasing per level. basically so that any ship within the AOF get slowed maybe not by the full amount but by a percentage? --------------------- What was that noise?
KingsGambit	Posted - 2004.12.09 14:12:00 - [15] The easier solution, which would encourage training of the skills to higher lvls, is to simply make the bonus save cap directly, instead of indirectly. As it is at the moment, the "bonus" is meant to save cap usage on these modules, by extending the cycle, whilst the cap/cycle stays the same, thus cap/sec goes down. However, doing it this way, as has been said here and argued many times in the past, also incurrs the inadvertant penalty of making the modules "less" effective the higher the lvl skill, because they will take longer before they can be used again. Instead of messing with the cycle times, why not just change the bonus to a simple -5% cap usage/lvl. Keep the cycle the same, and decrease the usage, rather than the opposite "penalty" people now get for every lvl above 1. This would have the intended direct effect of saving cap, without the penalty of extended module duration. ------------- BYOC Crow Interceptor Deals
KingsGambit	Posted - 2004.12.09 14:12:00 - [16] The easier solution, which would encourage training of the skills to higher lvls, is to simply make the bonus save cap directly, instead of indirectly. As it is at the moment, the "bonus" is meant to save cap usage on these modules, by extending the cycle, whilst the cap/cycle stays the same, thus cap/sec goes down. However, doing it this way, as has been said here and argued many times in the past, also incurrs the inadvertant penalty of making the modules "less" effective the higher the lvl skill, because they will take longer before they can be used again. Instead of messing with the cycle times, why not just change the bonus to a simple -5% cap usage/lvl. Keep the cycle the same, and decrease the usage, rather than the opposite "penalty" people now get for every lvl above 1. This would have the intended direct effect of saving cap, without the penalty of extended module duration. ------------- BYOC Crow Interceptor Deals
Jonas Bane	Posted - 2004.12.10 13:01:00 - [17] Edited by: Jonas Bane on 10/12/2004 13:03:54 Personally, I think the cap usage for webbers and jammers is pretty balanced at level 1. If you did have the skill directly decrease the cap requirements, you'd need to increase the base cap demands to make it worthwhile. I can't see myself training the skill otherwise, as the demand is pretty small for cruisers and battleships. One advantage to the current system is that its reasonably easy for a new player to get the skills to become an effective frigate tackler. And the sooner you get a new player into fleet battles, the better. =)
Jonas Bane	Posted - 2004.12.10 13:01:00 - [18] Edited by: Jonas Bane on 10/12/2004 13:03:54 Personally, I think the cap usage for webbers and jammers is pretty balanced at level 1. If you did have the skill directly decrease the cap requirements, you'd need to increase the base cap demands to make it worthwhile. I can't see myself training the skill otherwise, as the demand is pretty small for cruisers and battleships. One advantage to the current system is that its reasonably easy for a new player to get the skills to become an effective frigate tackler. And the sooner you get a new player into fleet battles, the better. =)
Zinjan	Posted - 2004.12.11 12:21:00 - [19] There is one advantage to the prolonged duration - if you move out of range it will keep the target jammed/webbed longer before you can move in again.
Zinjan	Posted - 2004.12.11 12:21:00 - [20] There is one advantage to the prolonged duration - if you move out of range it will keep the target jammed/webbed longer before you can move in again.

Spungwa	Posted - 2005.01.01 16:48:00 - [21] Originally by: Teutobod "Skill at using propulsion/warpdrive jammers. 5% Bonus to warp scrambler and stasis web duration." The current bonus for training this skill is useless. I suggest it is changed to an increase in the range of propulsion/wardprive jammers or if that is too "overpowered" a decrease in the cap usage. I can't think of anything else, but the two above is more usefull than the current one. forgive me if im being dense here but what do you think the main advantage is of prolonged duration? its the cap..... i have all the improved duration skills trained to a minimum l4, the only module that this isnt good for is emc burst, all the others it is a 5% cap bonus every level. and once the target is destroyed the modules unlock very quickly normally within 5 seconds maximum every time. altho this can be a problem when chasing the pod "Retarded Trophy Hunter With a Blackend Soul" Thank you for that......
Larno	Posted - 2005.01.01 17:44:00 - [22] Originally by: KingsGambit The easier solution, which would encourage training of the skills to higher lvls, is to simply make the bonus save cap directly, instead of indirectly. As it is at the moment, the "bonus" is meant to save cap usage on these modules, by extending the cycle, whilst the cap/cycle stays the same, thus cap/sec goes down. However, doing it this way, as has been said here and argued many times in the past, also incurrs the inadvertant penalty of making the modules "less" effective the higher the lvl skill, because they will take longer before they can be used again. Instead of messing with the cycle times, why not just change the bonus to a simple -5% cap usage/lvl. Keep the cycle the same, and decrease the usage, rather than the opposite "penalty" people now get for every lvl above 1. This would have the intended direct effect of saving cap, without the penalty of extended module duration. Agree 100%, was thinking the same thing myself.
Deepeh	Posted - 2005.01.01 23:55:00 - [23] Originally by: KingsGambit The easier solution... You got it dude.
Neon Genesis	Posted - 2005.01.02 15:54:00 - [24] Same with ECM, these skills need to be addressed just like when torps had blast radius. I regretted training lvl 2 __ There, i just contributed nothing to your thread
dabster	Posted - 2005.01.03 14:35:00 - [25] Pity you need prop jamming trained a couple of levels in order to anchor larger bubbles. ___________________________ Chicks dig Brutor's


Pages: [1] :: 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.