| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jim Raynor
   |
Posted - 2005.02.16 07:22:00 -
[1]
Okay so I'm on the test server trying out the new EW changes. I dust off my trusty Raven and fly into battle with Alowishus' Tempest.
Short range fight, me with torpedoes and him with autocannons.
His Tempest is not rigged for ECCM at all, standard 800mm autocannon/armor tank setup..
My Raven is packing 2 medium blasters, 6 siege launchers, 5 multispectral ecm, a warp jammer, and ballistics.. max damage + EW.
Fight starts, we start ripping each other apart very very quickly obviously, it ends in a near draw (i crashed at the very end). My Raven blows up and he's left with 29 HP of structure.
Problem? My multispectrals did NOTHING, they simply didn't work. What am I not understanding here? Five slots dedicated to jamming and nothing to show for it? I didn't jam him once, I didn't break his lock once, they were useless. This is really really stupid.
So am I using these modules incorrectly or what? I would think 5 multispectral would do something.
I know it's very early to tell how this will be when it winds up on tranquility but first impression is pretty bad on these changes right now..
------
ROBBLE ROBBLE |
Selim
|
Posted - 2005.02.16 07:29:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Selim on 16/02/2005 07:31:08
So you're upset because you lost?
The problem was (and is) that fitting jammers made you automatically win in a fight. Because you can't do anything when you are jammed except just... sit there. Although its that way on the test server too (unless there is something broken), because with multiple jammers the chance is so high to jam someone for pretty much 100% of the time if you stagger your jammers, that its pretty much the same way.
I am suprised that 5 jammers don't do anything, maybe you just got REALLY unlucky. Since 5 multispecs have such a high chance of jamming someone they might as well just be 100% each.
I'm hoping that it is alot less common to get jammed by a jammer, since even getting jammed once you are pretty much screwed. As it is now, especially with a short cycle time as multispecs have (or do they still have that, logging onto test server now), its inevitable that you'll jam someone and they wont be unjammed for more than 10 seconds.
At least that is what I calculated probability wise from what oveur posted, as I said I'm logging on now.
|
Shamis Orzoz
|
Posted - 2005.02.16 07:31:00 -
[3]
Jim,
I guess you didn't hear that CCP has decided that whoever has the most gunnery skillpoints wins...there will be no manuevering, and there will be no jamming.
Shamis
|
Face Lifter
|
Posted - 2005.02.16 07:34:00 -
[4]
since EW changes are fresh on the test server, I wouldn't be surprised if many of the modules are badly bugged. Ranting here about it is bad style.. go in patch forum and try more calmly. Remember.. it's in testing, it's new
|
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2005.02.16 07:38:00 -
[5]
 Originally by: Selim
Edited by: Selim on 16/02/2005 07:31:08
So you're upset because you lost?
Yes I am upset that I fitted my ship to jam another ship and the ship which had zero ECCM was not effected by my jammers what so ever.
Quote:
The problem was (and is) that fitting jammers made you automatically win in a fight. Because you can't do anything when you are jammed except just... sit there. Although its that way on the test server too (unless there is something broken), because with multiple jammers the chance is so high to jam someone for pretty much 100% of the time if you stagger your jammers, that its pretty much the same way.
Translation:
Hope you get lucky and manage to jam a ship or just go be smart and set your ship up for maximum tanking and/or damage and ignore EW entirely because you don't even need ECCM to avoid it.. congrats EVE now officially sucks.
Quote:
I am suprised that 5 jammers don't do anything, maybe you just got REALLY unlucky. Since 5 multispecs have such a high chance of jamming someone they might as well just be 100% each.
Yes they did nothing, it was nothing more than a battle of his armor tanking with 800mm scouts pounding me to death while I pounded him to death with torpedoes while running useless EW modules that did not do a god damn thing.
Please tell me EW is not working correctly because if this is how CCP wants it you might as well go recycle your Scorpion right now folks.
------
ROBBLE ROBBLE |
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2005.02.16 07:40:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Face Lifter
since EW changes are fresh on the test server, I wouldn't be surprised if many of the modules are badly bugged. Ranting here about it is bad style.. go in patch forum and try more calmly. Remember.. it's in testing, it's new
I'm not ranting I just found my intial results with the EW changes very disturbing, the modules could be broken or something for all I know.
Still I can't help but wonder if EW has been nerfed to uselessness, as most players in EVE flying around in their gankageddons would want.
------
ROBBLE ROBBLE |
Selim
|
Posted - 2005.02.16 07:45:00 -
[7]
Well its probably broken, did you try it a second time? (on another ship I mean)
It should be noted however that they don't want it to work every time, but with the stats they changed it should still work pretty much nonstop with 5 multispecs. So yeah, probably broken. But I dont think its should work every time considering how easy they are to use
|
Shin Ra
|
Posted - 2005.02.16 07:46:00 -
[8]
Raven with 1 t2 seonsor booster and 5 dampners needs to within 27k (depends on type of dampners used) to actiavte the dampners and if your fighting say a gankageddon with 2 sensor boosters, this will not break its lock. So yes the test server unofficial rules, best tank/damage wins the fight will be heading to tranquility soon. You are effectivly going to need to EW gank someone in order to jam/break their lock. Why would you bother when you can just set up a couple of gankageddons to do the same but damage them instead.
-----------------------------------------
Heinky> Dont mix eve with rl it can be bad for your health |
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2005.02.16 07:50:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Selim
Well its probably broken, did you try it a second time? (on another ship I mean)
It should be noted however that they don't want it to work every time, but with the stats they changed it should still work pretty much nonstop with 5 multispecs. So yeah, probably broken. But I dont think its should work every time considering how easy they are to use
Just tried 5 multispec on another Tempest and it did nothing, no fighting or anything I just sat 24KM away with 5 on him and waiting let them cycle a few times, the lock was never broken, not once.
Must be broken or severely gimped..
------
ROBBLE ROBBLE |
Selim
|
Posted - 2005.02.16 08:06:00 -
[10]
Okay I just tried it with racials against a scorp. It seems like they don't kill an existing lock, but they do prevent one from forming. Even just one prevented him from locking at all, but all 5 of them didn't kill his lock at all.
So basically they don't to crap against someone who already has a lock, but work all the time on preventing a lock.
|
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2005.02.16 08:11:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Selim
Okay I just tried it with racials against a scorp. It seems like they don't kill an existing lock, but they do prevent one from forming. Even just one prevented him from locking at all, but all 5 of them didn't kill his lock at all.
So basically they don't to crap against someone who already has a lock, but work all the time on preventing a lock.
Considering the lock times of Caldari ships, the Scorpion in particular, we can all agree ECM modules are now garbage. Hooray! \o\
------
ROBBLE ROBBLE |
Juan Andalusian
|
Posted - 2005.02.16 08:17:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Selim
I am suprised that 5 jammers don't do anything, maybe you just got REALLY unlucky
You should go work for CCP, missions, agents and research department specifically... they are the only ones that could have given such an #$%@$ responce.
**Pain is meant to be felt** |
siim
|
Posted - 2005.02.16 08:40:00 -
[13]
He Alow owned you
PWNED
|
mahhy
|
Posted - 2005.02.16 08:43:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Selim
Okay I just tried it with racials against a scorp. It seems like they don't kill an existing lock, but they do prevent one from forming. Even just one prevented him from locking at all, but all 5 of them didn't kill his lock at all.
So basically they don't to crap against someone who already has a lock, but work all the time on preventing a lock.
Thats no good at all. There needs to be the "break lock" feature. Why would anyone ever both with EW if you can't break a few targets lock (in a fleet battle as an example), or if you're a solo player and you use EW defensively?
I like the ideas behind what CCP is doing, but so far the implementation needs to be rethought it seems...
|
Matthew
|
Posted - 2005.02.16 08:50:00 -
[15]
Originally by: mahhy
I like the ideas behind what CCP is doing, but so far the implementation needs to be rethought it seems...
Or maybe, just maybe, the implementation on the test server is still a bit buggy, and this isn't the intended effect at all?
|
fras
|
Posted - 2005.02.16 08:54:00 -
[16]
there must be something wrong with the coding cuz this sucks.
Even if 5 multi's do break lock say 1 in 5 wont that mean the enemy will be able to re-lock almost straight away when the next cycle goes through and fails?
Or am i missing something?
|
Selim
|
Posted - 2005.02.16 08:57:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Matthew
Originally by: mahhy
I like the ideas behind what CCP is doing, but so far the implementation needs to be rethought it seems...
Or maybe, just maybe, the implementation on the test server is still a bit buggy, and this isn't the intended effect at all?
What he said...
|
Mr Wales
|
Posted - 2005.02.16 09:01:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Jim Raynor
Considering the lock times of Caldari ships, the Scorpion in particular, we can all agree ECM modules are now garbage. Hooray! \o\
ffs don't be such a kid Jim! tomb clearly stated that these changes would be tested for atleast a month and a half before getting ported to tranq. I know your a good pilot so instead of pulling a fit like some little girl give some constructive feedback and help ccp with this new change...there are a lot of hard working people at ccp that don't deserve your crap. They are only human and more than likely short on manpower.
|
Rod Blaine
|
Posted - 2005.02.16 09:01:00 -
[19]
Jim, you know as well as I do that that is a bug, not how its meant to be.
5 multi's should at least end up jamming one eccm-less BS for about 100% of the time or two both for about 50% of the time If I was to make a rough guess at how effective they should be on the test server with the stats TomB threw at us.
So if 5 didnt do diddly squat and alowishus didnt screw around with his setup  , it can only be a bug.
Some things ccp does don't seem too smart occasionally. But I've yet to see them do something so obviously stupid as bringing in a whole specialisation tree and new mod stats and mechanics for something thats not going to do anything.
Wait, report the ****, and see.
_______________________________________________
Yes yes, blogging is passÚ I know.
Rod's Ramblingz on Eve-Online
Solutions to your issues. |
mahhy
|
Posted - 2005.02.16 09:02:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Selim
Originally by: Matthew
Originally by: mahhy
I like the ideas behind what CCP is doing, but so far the implementation needs to be rethought it seems...
Or maybe, just maybe, the implementation on the test server is still a bit buggy, and this isn't the intended effect at all?
What he said...
Like I said "but so far..." implying that the implementation being talked about (the one on the test server) is no good. Yet. I.e. could be fixed.
Got it guys?
|
Matthew
|
Posted - 2005.02.16 09:38:00 -
[21]
Originally by: mahhy
Like I said "but so far..." implying that the implementation being talked about (the one on the test server) is no good. Yet. I.e. could be fixed.
Got it guys?
Well, if the test server is currently performing as described here, it is not performing according to the specs of the implementation TomB etc are talking about.
So, does test need fixing? Yes.
Do current problems with test invalidate the proposed ideas? No.
|
Gaius Kador
|
Posted - 2005.02.16 09:46:00 -
[22]
I was on Singularity trying out some of the EW changes earlier, and well...
I hope something is borked atm, for example the falloff range does not seem to matter at all.
I guess trying to test it on the FFA arena in gank-club wasnt the brightest of ideas either, but at least I got confirmed its crap ;)
----------------------------------------------
|
mahhy
|
Posted - 2005.02.16 10:45:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Matthew
Originally by: mahhy
Like I said "but so far..." implying that the implementation being talked about (the one on the test server) is no good. Yet. I.e. could be fixed.
Got it guys?
Well, if the test server is currently performing as described here, it is not performing according to the specs of the implementation TomB etc are talking about.
So, does test need fixing? Yes.
Do current problems with test invalidate the proposed ideas? No.
Never said the the problems invalidated the ideas proposed. I said the implementation seems screwy. 
|
j0rz
|
Posted - 2005.02.16 11:36:00 -
[24]
I'm not being funney but if u need more gunnery skill pionts to jam some one that kinda makes it useless for new players and whats more its even worse is the fact that u dont train gunnery on scorpions and ravens and scorpions are mainly for EW how i see it they made ECCM useless also
If you dont want to be jammed you should have a ECCM Full stop "." they should make ECCM give like +6 instead of +3 meaning its alot harder to jam... to make ECCM usefull and if u dont fit one u deserve to die full stop... 
|
Jim Steele
|
Posted - 2005.02.16 11:42:00 -
[25]
if its not breaking the lock then it sounds like a bug to me, i have my aprehensions about these changes, as if the combat system isnt buggy enough, but i do think it will be nice to have specialised jamming ships.
I doubt ravens will be useing as sensor dampers anymore but with tanks leaving the jamming to ships like the scorp and BB to jam, it will make solo pvp a thing of the past.
Death to the Galante |
Sassi
|
Posted - 2005.02.16 11:54:00 -
[26]
Edited by: Sassi on 16/02/2005 11:54:09
I always thought Jammers are supposed to prevent one from locking, not brake a lock. If so, then WTF are you complaining about Jim Ray, you were just too damn slow to lock the Temp and jam the s++t out of him before he could get a lock on you.
|
Latex Mistress
|
Posted - 2005.02.16 12:01:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Sassi
Edited by: Sassi on 16/02/2005 11:54:09
I always thought Jammers are supposed to prevent one from locking, not brake a lock. If so, then WTF are you complaining about Jim Ray, you were just too damn slow to lock the Temp and jam the s++t out of him before he could get a lock on you.
So just because you thought something, it invalidates the legitimate experience of an established pilot and his post on public forums?
Jamming works both ways (prevents locks and breaks them) - just because you didn't think about that doesn't mean he's wrong, only that you're caustic, arrogant, and haven't put much thought into your posts.
If ECM is an act of aggression, why am I not on kill mails?
|
Dred 'Morte
|
Posted - 2005.02.16 12:08:00 -
[28]
I have an idea, why dont we just remove jamming, except warp scrmble/stasis all together from the game? or just leave it as it is? I never saw a problem with it, and im not a scorpion/bb pilot.
|
Arthur Guinness
|
Posted - 2005.02.16 12:20:00 -
[29]
I got me a copy of wow yesterday.
Just to get used to dice...... |
Nafri
|
Posted - 2005.02.16 12:20:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Latex Mistress
Originally by: Sassi
Edited by: Sassi on 16/02/2005 11:54:09
I always thought Jammers are supposed to prevent one from locking, not brake a lock. If so, then WTF are you complaining about Jim Ray, you were just too damn slow to lock the Temp and jam the s++t out of him before he could get a lock on you.
So just because you thought something, it invalidates the legitimate experience of an established pilot and his post on public forums?
Jamming works both ways (prevents locks and breaks them) - just because you didn't think about that doesn't mean he's wrong, only that you're caustic, arrogant, and haven't put much thought into your posts.
one word: hes just clueless about this game 
Wanna fly with me?
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |