EVE Search - Remote Sensor Dampener Change Proposal

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Remote Sensor Dampener Change Proposal

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Nietarr	Posted - 2007.08.05 02:01:00 - [1] The Problem: Currently, RSD's do not have an effective counter. Sensor boosters are limited by the 250 KM targetting range limitation and we've seen the math on how one RSD II against one ship with a Sensor Booster II still reduces the defending ship's abilities even without considering signal suppression skill or ship bonuses. This is particularly annoying for capital ship pilots who can be dampened to complete uselessness by one tech I frigate. Proposed change: Make the effectiveness of remote sensor dampeners dependent on the sensor strengths of the attacking and defending ship. If the attacking ship's sensor strength is greater than that of the defending ship, RSD's operate at full strength. If the attacking ship's sensor strength is less than that of the defending ship, RSD's are reduced in strength by 100 * (x/y)%, where x is the attacker's signal strength and y is the defender's. So if a ship with 10 sensor strength hits a ship with 20 sensor strength, their RSD's are only 50% effective. An RSD II that normally reduces the target's lock range and scan resolution by 48% instead only reduces it by 24%. What does all this mean in general? Using RSD's on tech I ships smaller than your own will be largely unaffected, with exceptions of course. It will be much harder for smaller ships to use RSD effectively on larger targets and on many tech II ships. Capitals in particular will be difficult to dampen without fitting changes (more on that later). Overall it should reduce the all-purpose electronic warfare role that RSD has assumed now that ECM has been nerfed. I don't have all the numbers crunched and I'm sure there may be tweaking needed, but I figured I'd show my thought process through a series of Question/Answer segments... Great, why are you trying to make gallente RSD ships useless? The sensor strengths for the Maulus, Celestis, Arazu, and Lachesis are 16, 18, 26, and 30, respectively. The Maulus and Celestis will still be able to dampen anything in the tech I frig to BS range quite effectively and most tech II ships as well. The Arazu and Lachesis will be even less affected. Doesn't this mean that ECCM will also counter RSD's? Yes, ECCM will then become a secondary means of countering RSD's by increasing your ship's sensor strength relative to your enemies. Doesn't that make ECCM stupidly overpowered? I don't think so myself. Remember, ECCM is a module that does absolutely nothing for your ship UNLESS you are being hit with ECM currently, unlike sensor boosters. Making it more useful adds more variety and flavor to ship setups. An ECCM may be as effective in countering RSD's as a sensor booster but offers no other benefits, and to truly immunize yourself from RSD's would require numerous midslots to fit both sensor boosters and ECCMs. Doesn't this make capitals immune to RSD's? On the opposite side of this, it also means that if you have a fleet hunting carriers you will now need ships specifically fitted with ECCMs for RSD usage on those capitals, which I think is fair. The attacking ships with fitted ECCMs would then have the sensor strength to match or exceed the sensor strength of the carriers, making their RSD's fully effective. Just like you need to fit Neuts to hunt MoMs and Titans, I don't think it's ridiculous to ask a few ships in the fleet to use ECCM to dampen carriers effectively. Well, capitals can then also fit ECCMs to make them immune to RSD's again Yes, this is true, but remember capitals live and die by their cap recharge. By fitting an ECCM or two they are reducing their cap recharge considerably (and consequently their tank). It's a significant trade-off in my opinion.
Nietarr	Posted - 2007.08.05 02:01:00 - [2] Won't this be the death knell for RSD's? I don't agree. Numerous ships will be unaffected by this change and in the grand scheme of things I believe the effects will be fairly minimal. I think it accomplishes what I intended (nerfing frigates using RSD on carriers) without severely nerfing RSD's or affecting too many ship setups while at the same time adding just a bit more flavor to the chess match that's involved when fitting your ships. Obviously work needs to be done on ironing out the exact numbers but I believe the idea is sound. Your thoughts and flames are welcome, I anticipate much of both. I'm sure there may be some things I haven't thought of that might make the whole idea stupid.
Dr Fighter	Posted - 2007.08.05 02:05:00 - [3] damps are fine, you need 3-4 on a target to shut it down... imagine if that was ecm. really they are fine.
Blowy Gallente Shadow Company FreeFall Securities	Posted - 2007.08.05 02:16:00 - [4] I kind of agree that e-war mods, especially damps on ships that don't have bonuses for them is a bit too strong. Maybe reduce the effectiveness of the mods themselves and increase the bonus on e-war ships. Damp drake anyone? -----
Hannobaal Gallente Dragonfire Intergalactic Crusaders of Krom Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2007.08.05 02:32:00 - [5] Originally by: Blowy I kind of agree that e-war mods, especially damps on ships that don't have bonuses for them is a bit too strong. Maybe reduce the effectiveness of the mods themselves and increase the bonus on e-war ships. Damp drake anyone? Let's also, while we're at it, reduce the effectiveness of armor repairers and increase the bonus on the ships that have bonus for them. Just because some ships have a bonus for an item doesn't mean they are the only ones meant to use it. ------------------
Benn Helmsman Caldari Helmsman Engineering Company	Posted - 2007.08.05 02:36:00 - [6] Originally by: Hannobaal Originally by: Blowy I kind of agree that e-war mods, especially damps on ships that don't have bonuses for them is a bit too strong. Maybe reduce the effectiveness of the mods themselves and increase the bonus on e-war ships. Damp drake anyone? Let's also, while we're at it, reduce the effectiveness of armor repairers and increase the bonus on the ships that have bonus for them. Just because some ships have a bonus for an item doesn't mean they are the only ones meant to use it. ECM for everyone?
Blowy Gallente Shadow Company FreeFall Securities	Posted - 2007.08.05 02:50:00 - [7] Edited by: Blowy on 05/08/2007 02:51:30 It's just that I'd rather take out my damp drake (with insurance) over my paper thin arazu or lachesis and achieve almost the same effect in terms of damping (shutdown 1-2 ships), not to mention more dps and better tank with the drake. It just seems like damps are the new ecm and we all know what happened to ecm. -----
Hannobaal Gallente Dragonfire Intergalactic Crusaders of Krom Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2007.08.05 03:33:00 - [8] Seem to me more like a lot of people who hate electronic warfare and similar modules in the game in general would like to see all reduced to uselessnes and are going down the list in their whining from module to module. It seems to you people "effective counter" = rendering the particular for of Ewar being used completely ineffective and preferably without having to use more than one fitting slot to do so, if that. ------------------
Cyan Nuevo The Blackguard Wolves	Posted - 2007.08.05 03:41:00 - [9] Originally by: Hannobaal Let's also, while we're at it, reduce the effectiveness of armor repairers and increase the bonus on the ships that have bonus for them. Just because some ships have a bonus for an item doesn't mean they are the only ones meant to use it. Wow, you're quite the proponent of RSDs it seems. Have you spent the entire day today replying to RSD threads? Anyway, to the point, of course armor repairers are a basic module that can and should be used by everybody. EW, on the other hand, is racial and when a ship with a bonus to tracking disruption (curse/pilgrim) typically has RSDs instead, you know something's up. Don't be so recalcitrant. --- Proud Amarr pilot.
Mr Krosis The humble Crew Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.08.05 03:48:00 - [10] This is almost the same as the solution I proposed except I suggested adding an "EW Resist" stat to the omni ECCM modules which would effectively do a very similar thing. I did run some numbers for it, so I'll contribute I suggested adding an EW Resist stat of maybe 10-25% or so (too much and it's just too powerful alone) to the ECCM, that would do the same reduction method as your sensor strength ratio. One nice thing about this method, is it is more effective the harder you are dampened. In fact, if you are dampened less than -50% (as in 0% to -49.9%), you get more out of +range% than you do out of +EWResist%. Lets say you are getting dampened by a T2 dampener with no spec skill (-48% or 52% of your original range). If 3 dampeners are stacked, that goes down to 22% of your original range. If we give the target ship +10% EW Resist (or in your example, if target ship has 10% higher sensor strength) those numbers change to 56.8% and 26.7%. Not a huge difference, but the important thing to notice here, is the situation with only one damp, you effectively got +9.2% range back from your +10% resistance. With the stronger 3 damp situation, you got a 21.4% range increase. This is a very important point to recognize, as it illustrates the difference between simple "booster style" counters and "resist style" counters as you mention here. I strongly think that dampeners themselves should not be nerfed, but I don't disagree that there should be some kind of counter to them. Sensor booster is NOT the counter. Approaching it from the viewpoint that boosters can effectively counter dampeners if we make the boosters strong enough or the dampeners weak enough is simply the wrong way to go. Lets look at the most extreme example, of a fully skilled specialist dampener ship with dual rigs and L5 skills. This ship will have a damp strength of -76.3075% per dampener. That means with 1 and 3 stacked dampeners it will bring your targeting range down to 23.7% and 4.5%. Ouch! If we give the target ship 10% EW resistance, those numbers change to 31.3% and 7.7%. That's an improvement of 32% and 71% respectively, all from 10% resistance! How about if we up it to 20% EW Resist? Those dampened ranges change to 39% and 11.9%. This gives an improvement from unresisted dampening of 65% and 164% respectively. Now we're talking! If we stacked (3) 20% resistance bonuses (stack penalized) for +57% resist, that changes our 1/3 dampened numbers to 67.1% and 38.9%. Throw a single T2 sensor booster in with those, and we're look at at 107.4% and 62.3% of original targeting range for 1 and 3 maxed out dampeners. The more I reread your idea, the more I dislike the idea of using sensor strength directly. While I see you did this to allow normal ECCMs to provide resistance, I think the boost ECCMs give now is way too powerful. Doubling your sensor strength gives makes you half as likely to get jammed by ECM, but halving dampener strength has a much more potent effect. I also don't like the idea of using the sensor strength of the attacking ship. ECM frigates are no worse at jamming then an ECM battleship. Larger ships just have higher sensor strength as a natural resistance, similar to larger ships having a longer targeting range. Also, this would make it just as easy for the attacker to fit an ECCM to pierce anyone attempting to counter. Some people might like that idea, and say hey they have to give up a mid slot to do it too, but how lame is it for the guy in a battleship with only 4 mids who gave one of them up to resist dampeners, only to have this attempt completely bypassed by an attacker who did the same. If we make ECCM a dampener counter, it should be effective in some way whenever you have it fitted. Main points I like about having a specific EW Resist stat: It doesn't nerf dampeners themselves in any way. It gives a true counter, but forces a pilot to make a sacrifice if they want that counter. -- Mr Krosis The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge.
Mr Krosis The humble Crew Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.08.05 03:48:00 - [11] A short follow up... If we could get this type of EW Resist stat in game, it could be applied to more than just an ECCM module. Imagine carriers with a built in +5-10% EW Resist per level or just a built in +30% static bonus or similar. It's always bugged me that carriers have a sensor strength several times that of a battleship making them ECM resistant, but only slightly higher targeting range. It's obvious to me that they couldn't simply give them a 300km base targeting range, so there existed no clear method to make them dampener resistant as they are ECM resistant. This could be a way to do it without giving them the arguably overpowered EW immunity of super capitals (I know siege/triage gives this too but with clear drawbacks). Our maxed out skilled/rigged setup would be unable to bring a skilled/ganged carrier with a single sensor booster and +30% EW resist down to less than 30km range even with 6 dampeners. Skilled T2 dampeners from non specialized ships wouldn't be able to bring their lock range under about 50-60km. A small update for those of you that have used my sensor dampener calculator, there is an ôundocumentedö parameter you can pass to the script to simulate EW Resistance as described here, simply add &ewresist=xx to the URL where xx is some number between 0 and 100. It's not a full feature yet so you'll have to re-add it every time you hit the calculate button for now. As an example, here is the ômax skill thanatosö vs ômax skill dampenerö setup I used above, with 30% EW Resistance: Thanatos vs Arazu (+30% EW Resist) -- Mr Krosis The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge.
Hannobaal Gallente Dragonfire Intergalactic Crusaders of Krom Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2007.08.05 03:51:00 - [12] Originally by: Cyan Nuevo Originally by: Hannobaal Let's also, while we're at it, reduce the effectiveness of armor repairers and increase the bonus on the ships that have bonus for them. Just because some ships have a bonus for an item doesn't mean they are the only ones meant to use it. Wow, you're quite the proponent of RSDs it seems. Have you spent the entire day today replying to RSD threads? Anyway, to the point, of course armor repairers are a basic module that can and should be used by everybody. EW, on the other hand, is racial and when a ship with a bonus to tracking disruption (curse/pilgrim) typically has RSDs instead, you know something's up. Don't be so recalcitrant. I'm not a proponent of Remote Sensor Dampeners. I'm a proponent of not turning the Eve combat system into super boring damage versus ship defense static crap. Basically, I'd like there to be a room for tactics in the game instead of turning combat into a virtual spreadsheet and nothing else. And by your logic (which is wrong to begin, because the whole fitting system is clearly based on any ship being able to fit whatever modules it has slots and the power grid and cpu for), then tanking is also racial. So, only Amarr and Gallente should be able to fit armor modules, right? And what does even mean, "it's a basic module"? Sensor dampeners are a basic module no different than armor repairers. ------------------
murder one Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2007.08.05 03:59:00 - [13] In response to the OP: No, no and no. The 'solution' is to simply reduce the strength of the damps themselves slightly, and increase the damp ship bonuses to keep the effectiveness of the dedicated damp ships the same. If people want increased damp performance for their non-damp ships, they can fit damp rigs. [07:13:55] doctorstupid2 > what do i train now? [07:14:05] Trista Rotnor > little boys to 2 Fleet Combat Ships
Mr Krosis The humble Crew Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.08.05 04:00:00 - [14] Come on guys. There's already a 10 page rabble rabble nerf! rabble rabble don't nerf! thread about dampeners. If you have a comment or suggestion on some of the ideas presented here, lets hear them. If you want rabble rabble back and forth with each other about armor reps or whatever, do it somwhere else. -- Mr Krosis The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge.
Terianna Eri Amarr STK Scientific M. PIRE	Posted - 2007.08.05 04:50:00 - [15] I actually like this idea, and it makes sense that ships with high sensor strengths would be more difficult to dampen. And it's sort of the opposite of the upcoming nos-nerf - Nos only function if the target has more cap than you, RSDs only function (at full effect) if your sensor strength is higher than the target's. Mostly though I like the fact that it makes ECCM more useful, because i hate seeing modules go almost entirely unused. __________________________________
Benn Helmsman Caldari Helmsman Engineering Company	Posted - 2007.08.05 04:59:00 - [16] Make remote sensor damps racial... dampening radar signals is obviously different to gravimetric signals, if you fit the right damps, you are fine, if you have the wrong damps, well you get only like 33% effect.
Ezekial Crow Gallente Dark Star LTD	Posted - 2007.08.05 06:22:00 - [17] Originally by: Benn Helmsman Make remote sensor damps racial... dampening radar signals is obviously different to gravimetric signals, if you fit the right damps, you are fine, if you have the wrong damps, well you get only like 33% effect. But damps ARE not like jammers...they do not operate on sensor strength, its lock range/scan resolution. Plus it takes three damps to take out a ship, and thats on a ship that dosent get a bonus. Stop nerfing the damn game into oblivion.
William Hamilton Caldari THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.08.05 08:40:00 - [18] I agree with the OP, the problem isn't that a few damps can reduce a ship to inefectiveness, the problem is that a few damps can reduce ANY ship to ineffictiveness. A maulus, a techI frigate, loaded with dampners can make a carrier completely useless, this is absolute madness, no other e-war can affect all ship sizes as well as damps do, they all se preformance drop-offs against the big ones....
Laboratus Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen	Posted - 2007.08.05 08:55:00 - [19] Originally by: William Hamilton I agree with the OP, the problem isn't that a few damps can reduce a ship to inefectiveness, the problem is that a few damps can reduce ANY ship to ineffictiveness. A maulus, a techI frigate, loaded with dampners can make a carrier completely useless, this is absolute madness, no other e-war can affect all ship sizes as well as damps do, they all se preformance drop-offs against the big ones.... Blatantly untrue. Try damping a carrier with it's fighters out, and pop, 15s later you are toast. drones autoaggro. Same with fofs. Damp ships are like paper and even the slightest bit of dps rips them to shreads. Not to mention that significantly reducing enemy dps is the intended role of EW. Hence all these "zomg op, this module does what it is supposed to do, zomg op" are unneccecary... ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats
n0thing omen.	Posted - 2007.08.05 09:02:00 - [20] Damps dont need nerf, its ECM that needs boost for their native boats. Tbh, if drakes and scorps fit damps, they fit em for a reason ECM doesnt cut it for them. And thats where it needs to be looked at. ---
Aramendel Amarr Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2007.08.05 09:57:00 - [21] Edited by: Aramendel on 05/08/2007 09:59:59 Originally by: n0thing Damps dont need nerf, its ECM that needs boost for their native boats. Tbh, if drakes and scorps fit damps, they fit em for a reason ECM doesnt cut it for them. And thats where it needs to be looked at. Exept those are not the only EW. Take a look at TDs and (haha) TPs. Its like saying that a mega cannot kill an (current) nosdomi and is because of that underpowered and needs to be boosted at that lvl for 1v1. If you have 1 thing which is better than everything else it is usually a better idea to nerf this thing than too boost everything. ECM is right now the happy medium, damps need to get nerfed at that lvl, TDs need to get boosted at that lvl and painters replaced by something actually useful for a recon. Drakes fit damps because they get no ECM bonus A scorpion fits (sometimes) damps because their range performance is way too strong, 3 EW range rigs and it has with damps a better chance to efficiently disable a 2 SB2 sniper BS (= dampened to 85-110 targeting range with a single damp) with them (and can also fit a full 4 slot armortank) than with racial ECM and 4 SDA2 in the lows.
achoura	Posted - 2007.08.05 10:33:00 - [22] Edited by: achoura on 05/08/2007 10:35:35 Edited by: achoura on 05/08/2007 10:33:46 My arazu currently requires 3 damps + 2 rigs to bring a sensor boosting bs below 20km. Fortunately you don't know what you're talking about, in fact the basis of your argument is allot of hot air and we're all the better for it. Sensor boosters targeting range is not to 250km, i'm taking it as a given that 250km is/was the basis for your calculations meaning that they're all off. When ccp introduced the Rokh they capped max targeting at 249km, you can still buff your dread up to 460km range you just can't utilise it however that is the range used in damp calculation. If you had done any research or applied any real though to your argument before starting a thread (in the wrong forum section btw) you would know this,a s this stands all you are effectively doing is handing us your opinion that ecm like dampeners is overpowered as one damp ship can disable one carrier, the fact that this is exactly what ecm is supposed to do seemingly irrelevant. Incidently, sensor strength is tied to ecm, not rsd, more interestingly, while my arqazu can successfully cripple one capital class vessel a rook if similar skill will simultaneously cripple 6 capital class vessels. Your numbers don't need tweaking m8, they arn't there to be tweaked .
Laboratus Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen	Posted - 2007.08.05 10:36:00 - [23] When was the last time you got ECMd? I haven't been succesfully ECMd after the ECM gimp. They are seriously underpowered atm and need a serious boost so that they could perform up to specifications. Same goes with TDs. The point to why EW should not be nerfed any more is simple. It would remove EW as a viable strategy altogether. The idea that only bonused ships should be able to use EW is as redicilous as only having bonused ships use tanking modules, or fit weapons. It brings us closer to a simple class approach system and reduces unpredictability. Even at the moment there are practically only 2 or 3 effective fits for all ships (less for frigates) and gimping the EW strategy further will only leave the playing field even more predictible, and more uninspiring. ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats
Imaos	Posted - 2007.08.05 10:56:00 - [24] Originally by: William Hamilton I agree with the OP, the problem isn't that a few damps can reduce a ship to inefectiveness, the problem is that a few damps can reduce ANY ship to ineffictiveness. A maulus, a techI frigate, loaded with dampners can make a carrier completely useless, this is absolute madness, no other e-war can affect all ship sizes as well as damps do, they all se preformance drop-offs against the big ones.... Sure a maulus has enough cap to fire enough dampners to do that. We have almost the same problem here that we got with the nano everything times. Bigger ships can fit any module that is designed for smaller ships without problems and without drawbacks if the needed performance is the same. (Unlike smaller reps/booster). The dedicated ships need a cap use bonus for damps and the modules need more cap usage so not every combat ship (especially larger and not paper thin ship) can use it that easily. At the moment using 3 damps on a dominix isnt a drain at all on the cap, but using 3 on an arazu AND trying to use t2 guns to bring down an enemy 1v1 is pretty hard on the cap of the recon. I still think cap balancing them is the best way to go. Oh. And using carriers as an example is silly. The lockrange of carriers needs to be boosted anyways. It is shorter than most battleships. (And no solo ship either) Imaos ------------------------------------------ Originally by: General Apocalypse Idiots need a serious nerf Say NO to the NOS nerf Whiners need a serious nerf or show up in-game.
Aramendel Amarr Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2007.08.05 11:05:00 - [25] Edited by: Aramendel on 05/08/2007 11:11:43 Originally by: achoura My arazu currently requires 3 damps + 2 rigs to bring a sensor boosting bs below 20km. Only if it fits 3 sensorboosters. Or 2 sensorboosters for 2 ships: scorpion and rokh. Quote: Incidently, sensor strength is tied to ecm, not rsd, more interestingly, while my arqazu can successfully cripple one capital class vessel a rook if similar skill will simultaneously cripple 6 capital class vessels. Right. You are accusing the OP of not doing his research (which is true, though) and then you bring THAT? Rook has with racial jammers up to 13 jamming strength. A carrier has on average 74 sensorstrength. This means it has per jammer a 17.6% chance to succeed. Succeeding with those stats with 6 targets at once is a 0.003% probability. Or in other words, will happen in one out of 34000 jamming cycles. Or, again, in other words: if you would jam continuously for 8 days it would happen once on average. With 3 sensorboosters the carrier with the longest locking range (chimera) has 449k there. 3 damps of the arazu with your fitting will reduce that below 20k. They chance for the rook to disable that carrier (if it fits the right racials and fills his lows with SDAs and uses ECM strength rigs) with 3 jammers is 41%.
Rigsta Gallente Raddick Explorations Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2007.08.05 11:21:00 - [26] Edited by: Rigsta on 05/08/2007 11:21:32 Originally by: Nietarr The Problem: Currently, RSD's do not have an effective counter. Bzzzzt. The counter to a ship dampening a carrier is to blow the ship up. Everyone else either gets closer, uses a sensor booster (minimal skill requirement), or blasts the dampening ship. You do make an intriguing suggestion that sounds like it could work, though it would obsolete the celestis and maulus somewhat. Originally by: Jim McGregor I felt the disturbance... it was like a million voices suddenly stopped whining for a second. Unfortunantly it then continued.
Imaos	Posted - 2007.08.05 11:27:00 - [27] Originally by: Aramendel Originally by: Imaos Oh. And using carriers as an example is silly. The lockrange of carriers needs to be boosted anyways. It is shorter than most battleships. (And no solo ship either) Boosted? Maybe. "shorter than most battleships"? Not really. The only carrier which has locking ranges which are below that of 2 battleships is the nidhoggur: 87k vs the scorps and rokhs 90k. Archon is 90k, thanatos 100k and chimera 110k. Sorry. Actually haven't looked at the item database for carriers, but was basing it on one of the other nerf dampening threads where someone claimed a base range of 50km. Btw. Can't the carrier delegate the fighter to an undamped ship and nuke the recon? Imaos ------------------------------------------ Originally by: General Apocalypse Idiots need a serious nerf Say NO to the NOS nerf Whiners need a serious nerf or show up in-game.
Stakhanov Katana's Edge	Posted - 2007.08.05 12:08:00 - [28] /me flings poo at the OP Seriously , damps are more used because ECM and ECM burst were overly nerfed. Next you guys are going to ask for a nerf to ewar drones I'm all for boosting ECCM , but this is silly. As you pointed it out , T1 damp ships have a much lower sensor strength than T2 , their entire point is to be cheap and accessible to allow new players to give significant support to their gang. Do you see lots of them around ? I don't. With that nerf they'd be just good for shield tanking ratters. Capital Ships Online is bad enough as is. There's already a class of EW invulnerable carriers , they're called motherships. Fighter drones can aggro through ewar , let's not make it even easier. Oh , and guess who has lots of mid slots and higher sensor strength than everyone else ? That's right , caldari. This suggestion does nothing to address damp ravens and the like. You'd see more caldari dampeners and more gallente ECM users. So much for racial ewar
Alex SOKOLOFF 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.08.05 12:41:00 - [29] Dampeners are ok. All nerfs comes cause ppl whine that something overpowered. Dampeners dont need to be nerfed.
n0thing omen.	Posted - 2007.08.05 13:11:00 - [30] Originally by: Alex SOKOLOFF Dampeners are ok. All nerfs comes cause ppl whine that something overpowered. Dampeners dont need to be nerfed. Exactly, Arazu and Lanchesis are only T2 cruisers and recons that can be soloed by T1 cruiser. ---
William Hamilton Caldari THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.08.06 01:45:00 - [31] I'l agree with what some people are saying, in that dampers aren't overpowered by themselves, but rather overpowered compared to other EW. Boosting other EW is a possibility, it's just sometyhing you would have to be carefull about or you'l make the game an EW-fest...
Dr Fighter	Posted - 2007.08.06 02:41:00 - [32] i dont think they are overpowered. 3-4 slots to reduce a targets lock range and speed by upto 90%. 3-4 ecm multis im sure will ruin a targets day (im not smart enough to run exact numbers) 3-4 nos or neuts ruins a targets cap. 3-4 painters makes a target as big as a moon. 3-4 tracking disrupters make turrets worthless. 3-4 webs freezes a ship where it stands. (tho 2 would work pretty damned well anyway) notice a theme? also add to this, that a second ship damping will hav little to no effect on the already heavily damped target. if they didnt work so well, theyd be usless. ofc ourse one idea would be to lessen the stacking penelty and recuce the effect per mod (increasing damp specifc ships bonus at the same time ofc)
VanNostrum Cataphract Securities	Posted - 2007.08.06 03:07:00 - [33] Originally by: Dr Fighter i dont think they are overpowered. 3-4 slots to reduce a targets lock range and speed by upto 90%. 3-4 ecm multis im sure will ruin a targets day (im not smart enough to run exact numbers) 3-4 nos or neuts ruins a targets cap. 3-4 painters makes a target as big as a moon. 3-4 tracking disrupters make turrets worthless. 3-4 webs freezes a ship where it stands. (tho 2 would work pretty damned well anyway) notice a theme? also add to this, that a second ship damping will hav little to no effect on the already heavily damped target. if they didnt work so well, theyd be usless. ofc ourse one idea would be to lessen the stacking penelty and recuce the effect per mod (increasing damp specifc ships bonus at the same time ofc) a webbed target can still fight a nossed target can still fight (unless amarr) tracking disrupters useless vs missile & drone ships 3 target painters increases sig radius by around 100% (hardly a big moon) ecm are chance based and if not 3-4 of them are used they're useless
Hannobaal Gallente Dragonfire Intergalactic Crusaders of Krom Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2007.08.06 03:38:00 - [34] Originally by: VanNostrum a webbed target can still fight a nossed target can still fight (unless amarr) tracking disrupters useless vs missile & drone ships 3 target painters increases sig radius by around 100% (hardly a big moon) ecm are chance based and if not 3-4 of them are used they're useless And dampeners are near useless unless you can dictate range. You forgot that one. ------------------
VanNostrum Cataphract Securities	Posted - 2007.08.06 04:03:00 - [35] Originally by: Hannobaal Originally by: VanNostrum a webbed target can still fight a nossed target can still fight (unless amarr) tracking disrupters useless vs missile & drone ships 3 target painters increases sig radius by around 100% (hardly a big moon) ecm are chance based and if not 3-4 of them are used they're useless And dampeners are near useless unless you can dictate range. You forgot that one. that is nonsense, as it is not related to the suggestion in original post a frig with a rsd can increase lock time of a BS which already would have long time to lock suggestion in OP is that sensor dampeners power should be related to sensor strength of the ship that is using it, so a simple frig would not be immune to a BS for such a long time so dictating range is unrelated
Hannobaal Gallente Dragonfire Intergalactic Crusaders of Krom Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2007.08.06 04:09:00 - [36] Originally by: VanNostrum that is nonsense, as it is not related to the suggestion in original post Neither was your post. I wasn't replying to the original post. I was replying to your reply to Dr. Fighter's post. ------------------
VanNostrum Cataphract Securities	Posted - 2007.08.06 04:12:00 - [37] 2 wrongs don't make a right
Dr Fighter	Posted - 2007.08.06 04:13:00 - [38] Edited by: Dr Fighter on 06/08/2007 04:14:00 Originally by: VanNostrum Originally by: Hannobaal Originally by: VanNostrum a webbed target can still fight a nossed target can still fight (unless amarr) tracking disrupters useless vs missile & drone ships 3 target painters increases sig radius by around 100% (hardly a big moon) ecm are chance based and if not 3-4 of them are used they're useless And dampeners are near useless unless you can dictate range. You forgot that one. that is nonsense, as it is not related to the suggestion in original post a frig with a rsd can increase lock time of a BS which already would have long time to lock suggestion in OP is that sensor dampeners power should be related to sensor strength of the ship that is using it, so a simple frig would not be immune to a BS for such a long time so dictating range is unrelated dude, the module in question reduces targeting range, how the hell can dictating range not be a main part of it. damps actually need twice as many to be as effective as the other types. If damps get nerffed so that its no more than 75% less range at max, people would either still use them just stay further away, or mix EW types. 2x tracking disrupters and two ECM isnt uncommon. messing with damps will just lead to people using other EW all together, and i thikn the main piont for them not to be touched is the amount of slots a player gives up for that. EDIT: anyone else having to log in a few times in a row before actually being able to post, the forum monster ate my text first time round!
Hannobaal Gallente Dragonfire Intergalactic Crusaders of Krom Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2007.08.06 04:20:00 - [39] Originally by: VanNostrum 2 wrongs don't make a right ? ------------------
VanNostrum Cataphract Securities	Posted - 2007.08.06 04:24:00 - [40] Originally by: Dr Fighter Edited by: Dr Fighter on 06/08/2007 04:14:00 Originally by: VanNostrum Originally by: Hannobaal Originally by: VanNostrum a webbed target can still fight a nossed target can still fight (unless amarr) tracking disrupters useless vs missile & drone ships 3 target painters increases sig radius by around 100% (hardly a big moon) ecm are chance based and if not 3-4 of them are used they're useless And dampeners are near useless unless you can dictate range. You forgot that one. that is nonsense, as it is not related to the suggestion in original post a frig with a rsd can increase lock time of a BS which already would have long time to lock suggestion in OP is that sensor dampeners power should be related to sensor strength of the ship that is using it, so a simple frig would not be immune to a BS for such a long time so dictating range is unrelated dude, the module in question reduces targeting range, how the hell can dictating range not be a main part of it. damps actually need twice as many to be as effective as the other types. If damps get nerffed so that its no more than 75% less range at max, people would either still use them just stay further away, or mix EW types. 2x tracking disrupters and two ECM isnt uncommon. messing with damps will just lead to people using other EW all together, and i thikn the main piont for them not to be touched is the amount of slots a player gives up for that. EDIT: anyone else having to log in a few times in a row before actually being able to post, the forum monster ate my text first time round! dude, will you please read the OP!? it is about a frig with 3-4 RSD rendering a capital ship useless it is about making RSD strength related to ship's sensor strength so smaller ships don't be that adventageous with this module over bigger ships
ForumPosterAlt HERRO KITTY	Posted - 2007.08.06 07:36:00 - [41] Heres my rationalization for ewar. Use strategy. If the enemy brings ewar frigates, that means they're brining that many fewer capitals/dps/logistics. If you're outnumbered, you're outnumbered, make more friends. Counter-ewar = smart fleet support. A few tech 1 destroyers (interdictors get primaried) can take care of those annoying ewar frigates fast as hell. A few battlecruisers can take out all the the Recons and tech 1 cruisers. Strategy people, strategy. Because posting on the forums is serious business.
Dr Fighter	Posted - 2007.08.06 07:49:00 - [42] Originally by: VanNostrum it is about a frig with 3-4 RSD rendering a capital ship useless it is about making RSD strength related to ship's sensor strength so smaller ships don't be that adventageous with this module over bigger ships i dont see how the size of ship has any place in an argument about the effectiveness of the module. a griffin with 4 racial ECM rigs and low slot ecm boosters would jam a carrier now and again, zomes nerf ecm more. bring a frig with 4 remote sensor boosters to boost your capital, or an inty to blow up the frig, you do hav friends dont you?
Shevar Minmatar A.W.M Ka-Tet	Posted - 2007.08.06 08:01:00 - [43] Meh why can't people just live with the fact that for PvP you need diffrent modules then for PvE? The more the PvP modules get nerfed the more purely tank/gank the game becomes, is that really what you want to accomplish ? All these nerf requests start to sound like the following request; ZOMG my salvage ship with 8 salvagers can't compete with a DPS fitted ship NERF TURRETS! --- -The only real drug problem is scoring real good drugs
William Hamilton Caldari THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.08.06 08:26:00 - [44] Originally by: Dr Fighter If damps get nerffed so that its no more than 75% less range at max, people would either still use them just stay further away, or mix EW types. 2x tracking disrupters and two ECM isnt uncommon. I think that's the whole point, to make all E-war systems equaly viable and none too overpowering. As is, if you want to fit ewar in your mids you put in damps, never ECM, never painters (lol) and never tracking disruptors. This si with the exception of specialised ship[s of course. I like the OP's suggestion becasue it keeps the damps to their strength (deadly when focused on a singal target) while somwaht helping make it a less "catch-all" item....
Dr Fighter	Posted - 2007.08.06 09:28:00 - [45] Edited by: Dr Fighter on 06/08/2007 09:32:24 my point was that is damps were nerfed so you couldnt get a reliable low lock range, damps wouldnt just be used less - theyd be ditched all together for other ew. as it stands now, a BS with a sensor booster can already lock upto max scram range with 4 damps on it (any more than 4 having zero extra effect), if you reduce the amount even more BS without sensor boosters would be able to lock that far. This might make damps practicly pointless, and we are back to 'everyone fit a few multi ECMs'. i cant see CCP reducing the damp amount AND the stacking penalty, besides if they got it wrong and it then took 6 damps to get the effect of 4 current damps, they would still be used alot. EDIT: i forgot to mention, capitals should hav a near max lock range anyway, looking at their sensor strength (3 times that of a recon) and their currect lock range (10-20% LESS) than recons - they should hav near double what they do atm. As for bigger ship slower lock time, i know it makes sense from a ballence perspective, but a big ass ship crammed with all that high tech gear and not being able to lock fast makes me laugh. [dont pick me up on this im just saying its odd not that anythig should change]
Shevar Minmatar A.W.M Ka-Tet	Posted - 2007.08.06 09:32:00 - [46] Quote: i cant see CCP reducing the damp amount AND the stacking penalty, besides if they got it wrong and it then took 6 damps to get the effect of 4 current damps, they would still be used alot. What a great reasoning. Just because a module is used more then another module doesn't make it overpowered. Turrets and misslelaunchers are used infinitly more often then salvage/tractor beams in PvP so nerf turrets and missle launchers so that people will finally equip salvage/tracktor beams in PvP? --- -The only real drug problem is scoring real good drugs
Pan Crastus	Posted - 2007.08.06 10:01:00 - [47] I don't like the OP's suggestion. The EW resist stat would be good, but not a good answert to RSD, more like a fix to everything ... I propose: - RSD only reduce lock range, not scan res. Alternatively, split RSD into 2 different types for lock range and scan res. - Sensor Boosters get new skills to increase to lock range and scan res bonus (similar to signal suppresstion / long distance jamming, but opposite). Alternatively, split Sensor Boosters into 2 types for lock range / scan res. this is a free post provided to you by a member of the EVE community.
Ashaz Mindstar Technology United Confederation of Corporations	Posted - 2007.08.06 10:35:00 - [48] (sarcasm) Nerf tanks please! My dampner ship can't break most ships who fit a strong tank. Therefor i think they need to be nerfed. (/Sarcasm) Would you people stop whining already? Damps are fine! There are many many ways to counter them. you just need to think a bit to figure it out. Most simple way? FOF missiles. a lachesis can't tank ****. iDrone
Ashaz Mindstar Technology United Confederation of Corporations	Posted - 2007.08.06 10:46:00 - [49] Originally by: VanNostrum dude, will you please read the OP!? it is about a frig with 3-4 RSD rendering a capital ship useless it is about making RSD strength related to ship's sensor strength so smaller ships don't be that adventageous with this module over bigger ships please enlighten me. What frig can fit 4 RSDs? What frig can run even 2 RSDs more then one cycle? WHat use would a dampening frig be if it can't keep them running? And how damn hard can it be for your support to pop a frig anyway? The problem is not in RSDs. the problem is carriers and dreads beeing a bit too easy to disable. However, bring some friends and the problem is solved. iDrone
Aramendel Amarr Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2007.08.06 10:54:00 - [50] Originally by: Dr Fighter as it stands now, a BS with a sensor booster can already lock upto max scram range with 4 damps on it (any more than 4 having zero extra effect) 4 t2 damps on an unspecced ship with skills without rigs -> reduction to 0.099% targeting range. In order to have a lockrange of 24k with LRT5 and an SB2 after THAT you would need a base lockrange of over 120k (over 222k if that are 4 damps on a specced ship without rigs). Not even carriers have that, let alone BSs.
Dr Fighter	Posted - 2007.08.06 11:05:00 - [51] Edited by: Dr Fighter on 06/08/2007 11:06:47 i use 4 t2 damps on my curse and i need to stay right at the edge of my scram range and even then BS DO occasionally lock m, which is im sure down to thier skills BS lock range 80km + sensor booster II = 128km. 4 T2 sensor damps on a target does not lead to a 0.099% lock range, thats bull, is more like 10% of original and 4 t2 damps on a damp bonus ship with 2 damp rigs gives less than 5% of original lock range (no sensor boosters on target) and bare in mind a ship setup like that has hardly any tank at all, a lachesis if you must know. also if i had two lachasis' with max skills and rigs and 4 t2 damps, the second ship wont do anything more to the targets range. I hav actually tested this, and i use them alot, and i fight people who use them, and id rather fight a ship with a few damps than one with tracking disrupts and ecm/ecm drones thats for sure. So dont rant to me about damps if you dont hav a clue yourself.
Azirapheal Amarr Ore Mongers R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.08.06 11:09:00 - [52] fundamental principle of the game - ADAPT OR DIE wish the ***** whiners would start doing it. Originally by:** CCP Wrangler you're not supposed to feel like you're logging in to a happy, happy, fluffy, fluffy lala land filled with fun and adventures, that's what hello kitty online is for.
Vox'Dei	Posted - 2007.08.06 11:12:00 - [53] I think RSD's are cruel for one reason and that is that you can completly stop a target from targeting you while you can warp scramble them, thus making you invulnerable to any ship you can outrun. My (possible) fix(s): Split the module into two seperate modules, one that decreases scan resolution and one that decreases targeting range. This way you can lock much faster and web if you do manage to get into range briefly before a mwd can be fired up or warp out can be initiated. OR A highslot module that is an "alternative" targeting system. The targetting system would be naturally much worse then the normal one (were talking max lock range of 25km and 20-40 second lock times on EVERYTHING on a large sized one) but it would be completly immune to jamming/sensor dampening, activated module that would have a reactivation time of 60 seconds to 2 minutes. OR Change optimal to 10KM increase falloff by 20km. OR make carriers EWAR immune or give them instalocking/grid wide range. It's not like youll see carriers running around with warp disruptors. To the dude who posted above about the other ewar: Targetpainters dont do diddly, maybe if rage torps were about 2x the explosion radius and 2x the damage they might. ECM doesnt dampen you as well and its chance based Not all ships fit turrets but all ships do have targetting systems. Can also easily sick drones after a ship you can target.
kessah Blood Corsair's	Posted - 2007.08.06 11:18:00 - [54] The point is, at least with ECM you had the chance it would fail. With RSD you do not, your damped, your fcked. Drones arent a counter most of the time, Sensor boosters neither. Risk Vs Reward, its what keeps most playing eve and its brutal environment. I get alittle agitated by some people's completely biased and close minded views on nerfs tbh, generally they are the ones using the mods and ships in question- They're nerfed becus you use a setup that are completely infallible in most pvp situations - you know it and CCP does. CCP doesnt cave in to whine, they are the ones looking at it from an outside perspective, prolly why most dont play the game. -------------------------------------------------------- [Video] Forever Pirate 3
Dr Fighter	Posted - 2007.08.06 11:26:00 - [55] when im out in a gang and im packing 4 damps on my curse, the other guys im flying with (and it changes alot) dont usually hav damps them selfs. now when we get into a fight my damps are on one guy, the primary (initially) at that time im completely vulnerable to attack from his gang mates. im actually surprised people think damps are so overpowered and overused, i dont counter them all that often. Say you had a gang of 5 and 3 were packing 3 or more damps, they could hav a racial each, a multi each, a tracking disrupter each then they could spread out the EW on each target as necessary (TD the turrets jam the missiles etc). Good job people dont know how to play as a team, they just all 'fit damps' apparently... LOL!
d026 THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.08.06 11:40:00 - [56] Originally by: William Hamilton I agree with the OP, the problem isn't that a few damps can reduce a ship to inefectiveness, the problem is that a few damps can reduce ANY ship to ineffictiveness. A maulus, a techI frigate, loaded with dampners can make a carrier completely useless, this is absolute madness, no other e-war can affect all ship sizes as well as damps do, they all se preformance drop-offs against the big ones.... /AGREED
Kendon Riddick	Posted - 2007.08.06 11:46:00 - [57] Originally by: Dr Fighter capitals should hav a near max lock range anyway, looking at their sensor strength (3 times that of a recon) and their currect lock range (10-20% LESS) than recons - they should hav near double what they do atm. thats a bit wierd, carriers are 3 times less likely to be jammed but only just get more than a BS and less than the average recon ships, basically more open to dampener attack. just give them more lock range? is targeting time a problem too? maybe more targeting range and a capital sized scan res boost
Imaos	Posted - 2007.08.06 11:46:00 - [58] Originally by: VanNostrum dude, will you please read the OP!? it is about a frig with 3-4 RSD rendering a capital ship useless it is about making RSD strength related to ship's sensor strength so smaller ships don't be that adventageous with this module over bigger ships 3-4 damps on a frig is all mid slots they have and barely cap stable (with best named (all other have higher cap consumption)). It is slow or has no tank. Any ant-frig support will shred it in half a volley. Auto aggro from drones will also shred it. Originally by: Aramendel 4 t2 damps on an unspecced ship with skills without rigs -> reduction to 0.099% targeting range. Math says it leads to a factor of 0.099. In percent it is 9.9%. Imaos ------------------------------------------ Originally by: General Apocalypse Idiots need a serious nerf Say NO to the NOS nerf Whiners need a serious nerf or show up in-game.
Aramendel Amarr Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2007.08.06 12:15:00 - [59] Edited by: Aramendel on 06/08/2007 12:21:34 Originally by: Dr Fighter i use 4 t2 damps on my curse and i need to stay right at the edge of my scram range and even then BS DO occasionally lock m, which is im sure down to thier skills Maybe they have more than 1 SB2 or your damp skills plain out suck? Quote: BS lock range 80km + sensor booster II = 128km. Little detail: only 3 BS have targeting ranges of 80k or above: abaddon, scorp, rokh. Average BS base lock range is more in the 72 area. Quote: 4 T2 sensor damps on a target does not lead to a 0.099% lock range, thats bull, is more like 10% of original and 4 t2 damps on a damp bonus ship with 2 damp rigs gives less than 5% of original lock range (no sensor boosters on target) and bare in mind a ship setup like that has hardly any tank at all, a lachesis if you must know. also if i had two lachasis' with max skills and rigs and 4 t2 damps, the second ship wont do anything more to the targets range. My error, typo, I meant 0.099 of the original range, aka 9.9%. To repeat on a ship WITHOUT a damp bonus and WITHOUT rigs. So, essentially, a ship needs over 240k targeting range to avoid getting dampened below 24k. Remove from that LRT skill (/ 1.25) and SB2 (/ 1.6) and you get 120k base locking range (aka WITHOU skills or SB2. Just what is listed in the ship stats). Just as I said. A damp ship with 2 damp rigs will reduce a target with 4 damps to 3.538% of its old targeting range. In order to get at least 24k locking range after THAT you need even if you fit 5 SB2 and have LRT5 a base locking range of at least 134k (which no dampable ship has). SO there a 2nd ship won't do much more vs the other ships targeting range does not matter in the least because the target cannot counter it in either case. Quote: I hav actually tested this, and i use them alot, and i fight people who use them, and id rather fight a ship with a few damps than one with tracking disrupts and ecm/ecm drones thats for sure. So dont rant to me about damps if you dont hav a clue yourself. See above. And if you rather fight a ship with TDs and ECM drones than one with damps, why are you not using them yourself? The curse (which I am flying as main PvP ship myself) has a bonus for TDs and room for ECM drones. Originally by: Imaos Math says it leads to a factor of 0.099. In percent it is 9.9%. As said, typo. If I would have used that as percentage and not as factor the end result would not be 120k but 12000k.
Dr Fighter	Posted - 2007.08.06 12:21:00 - [60] Originally by: Aramendel See above. And if you rather fight a ship with TDs and ECM drones than one with damps, why are you not using them yourself? i hav gang mates, i damp they do other nasty EW type stuff, we do it all, rather than a fleet of everyone using damps like people are totally blowing out of all proportion. Originally by: Aramendel The curse (which I am flying as main PvP ship myself) has a bonus for TDs and room for ECM drones. yeah i like to be able to add some dmg into the mix, besides like i sed i gang freinds, im not a solo killer whining about his precious damps, also i do use other setup and other ships and other EW.
Aramendel Amarr Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2007.08.06 12:24:00 - [61] Edited by: Aramendel on 06/08/2007 12:26:14 Originally by: Dr Fighter i hav gang mates, i damp they do other nasty EW type stuff, we do it all, rather than a fleet of everyone using damps like people are totally blowing out of all proportion. The curse has a bonus for TDs, wouldn't it make with that argumentation more sense then to use TDs than damps if you want to use multiple forms of EW? Quote: yeah i like to be able to add some dmg into the mix, besides like i sed i gang freinds, im not a solo killer whining about his precious damps, also i do use other setup and other ships and other EW. If you have gangmates why do you need damage?
Dr Fighter	Posted - 2007.08.06 12:32:00 - [62] more than one curse perhaps? anyway im not planning to go into to much detail of my gangs etc. its the fact that damps are fine as they are, except against capitals - that much i do agree with, i even offered some solutions unlike you whos more intent on picking apart my posts peice by peice
MaidMarion FarCry Inc Curse Alliance	Posted - 2007.08.06 12:45:00 - [63] yes, please nerf RSDs, I almost lost my falcon to a nano curse =)
Aramendel Amarr Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2007.08.06 12:45:00 - [64] Edited by: Aramendel on 06/08/2007 12:45:21 Exept, that as shown already, its counter does not work. No amount of SB2, skills or rigs will bring a target back to at least 24k locking range against 4 damps from a maxxed damp spec ship. Neither will, contrary what you claim, 1 SB2 help you against 4 damps from a nondampspecced ship without rigs. Or that it works better on nonspecced ships than ECM on specced ships at sniper ranges.
Laboratus Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen	Posted - 2007.08.06 13:41:00 - [65] Then, it would seem the problem is in the new rigs, that make it now possible to damp more than ever before. Solution is simple, remove the EW efficiency rigs. ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats
Aramendel Amarr Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2007.08.06 13:57:00 - [66] Still does not work. Without damp rigs we have instead 134k base range needed to "counter" (in terms of getting 24k locking range) 4 damps of a specced ship with 5 t2 sensorboosters 88k base locking range. To repeat: base. Yay, the scorp and the rokh can still lock targets within 24k if they fit 5 of their meds with sensorboosters.
welsh wizard 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.08.06 14:03:00 - [67] Originally by: Dr Fighter damps are fine, you need 3-4 on a target to shut it down... imagine if that was ecm. really they are fine. Your point is? 3-4 Damps are significantly more effective than 3-4 ECM modules at shutting a target down. I think its a great idea personally. It isn't a particuarly severe nerf. The Gallente dampening platforms could be excluded from its effect..
Jonny Magellan Amarr Edyta Enterprises	Posted - 2007.08.06 14:22:00 - [68] I would just increase the stacking penalty a bunch if I was balancing this since the problem is people using a full hand of damps.
maarud Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2007.08.06 14:31:00 - [69] If you want to do anything, reduce the optimal, but increase the falloff. Damps are not 100% in falloff, so it gives it that "chance" factor. But otherwise there is nothing wrong with damps imho, 4 damp for 1 ship. ECM only needs 1 per ship, but it has the chance factor. Maarud. Proudly a Ex-BYDI member
Ashaz Mindstar Technology United Confederation of Corporations	Posted - 2007.08.06 14:32:00 - [70] Originally by: Aramendel Edited by: Aramendel on 06/08/2007 12:45:21 Exept, that as shown already, its counter does not work. No amount of SB2, skills or rigs will bring a target back to at least 24k locking range against 4 damps from a maxxed damp spec ship. Neither will, contrary what you claim, 1 SB2 help you against 4 damps from a nondampspecced ship without rigs. Or that it works better on nonspecced ships than ECM on specced ships at sniper ranges. Completely pointless arguments since the dampner speced ships have a bonus to scrambler range. But for all non dampner speced ships, it's a totaly different matter. I have almost maxed dampner skills (lvl 4) and a boosted BS will target me at 23 km. Tested VS a Domi FYI. iDrone
Aramendel Amarr Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2007.08.06 17:16:00 - [71] Originally by: maarud If you want to do anything, reduce the optimal, but increase the falloff. Damps are not 100% in falloff, so it gives it that "chance" factor. That would work, too. Quote: But otherwise there is nothing wrong with damps imho, 4 damp for 1 ship. ECM only needs 1 per ship, but it has the chance factor. The thing is you do not really need 4. 2 damps on an unspecced ship will reduce any BS but the scorp and rokh without booster to below 20k (scrop and rokh will be at 20.5k). 3 will reduce again all with 1 SB2 but the scorp and rokh (which will be at 21.5k) to below 20k (again). You only need 4 when a target is using 2 SB2 which is rare outside sniper fittings. And a damp specced ship need 2 damps for 0 and 1 SB BSs, 3 for 2 SB2 BS and 4 against 3+ SB2 BS. ECM does not "need" one, it has the chance to need one. This is a significant difference. Considering you have about a 50% chance with the right racial you need per BS on average 2, which is not different what a damp ship needs.
goomba freehand A Black Knight Corp FREGE Alliance	Posted - 2007.08.06 23:31:00 - [72] do you people no tunderstand that there are many ways to counter rsds. you can mwd away cause trust me a rsd ship is going to stay far away or you can launch your drones or if you are in low sec or 0.0 have freinds around. stop crying and man up and learn it is a game so adapt and over come instead of crying and killing the game for the rest of us. I fly a celestis with max skills and it takes 3 damps to shut down a ship so guess what the other enemies can still pod me do i get mad and say nerf guns no i adapt and go well thats the game. if you are in a gang and get primaried guess what you will go pop so dont cry get a new ship and have fun
LvxOccvlta	Posted - 2007.08.07 00:40:00 - [73] Edited by: LvxOccvlta on 07/08/2007 00:41:04 The obvious solution here, is to apply CCP's Nos approach to RSD's. If the attacking ship has a weaker on-board sensor than the victim ship, ie, Frigate engages Battleship, the Frigate's RSD module will average the ranges and lock-times of the Frigate and Battleship together. This will weaken the Battleship's sensors and strengthen the Frigate's. If the attacking ship has a stronger on-board sensor than the victim ship, ie, Battleship engages Frigate, the RSD will be ineffective. did i do this rite
Captain Sonata	Posted - 2007.08.07 01:25:00 - [74] Edited by: Captain Sonata on 07/08/2007 01:26:30 The **** am I gonna do with a Carcal now? No seriously, it has nothing going for it if the RSD go away. I like the idea anyways.
Dr Fighter	Posted - 2007.08.07 01:34:00 - [75] Lvx, i dont like that idea at all the nos nerf makes some sense in a game technical way and also ballence. a damp is a peice of kit that interfears with the sensors reducing their effectiveness by a percentage, now if anything a bigger ship with more power should be able to damp more effectivly if anything.
General Coochie New Justice Molotov Coalition	Posted - 2007.08.07 10:46:00 - [76] Originally by: LvxOccvlta Edited by: LvxOccvlta on 07/08/2007 00:41:04 The obvious solution here, is to apply CCP's Nos approach to RSD's. If the attacking ship has a weaker on-board sensor than the victim ship, ie, Frigate engages Battleship, the Frigate's RSD module will average the ranges and lock-times of the Frigate and Battleship together. This will weaken the Battleship's sensors and strengthen the Frigate's. If the attacking ship has a stronger on-board sensor than the victim ship, ie, Battleship engages Frigate, the RSD will be ineffective. did i do this rite No because that would make the specialized gallente recons useless Signature removed - please reduce your signature graphic height to less than 120 pixels - Jacques([email protected])
Vardemis Confederation of Red Moon Red Moon Federation	Posted - 2007.08.07 11:05:00 - [77] Originally by: Nietarr The Problem: Currently, RSD's do not have an effective counter. Sensor boosters are limited by the 250 KM targetting range limitation and we've seen the math on how one RSD II against one ship with a Sensor Booster II still reduces the defending ship's abilities even without considering signal suppression skill or ship bonuses. This is particularly annoying for capital ship pilots who can be dampened to complete uselessness by one tech I frigate. RSDs have effective countermeasures, Sensor Booster and Remote Sensor Booster and with a limited effectiveness even Signal Amplifier. The 250km targeting range is an overall cap, you can still use the above mentioned countermeasures to reduce the effectiveness of damps. You have skills to increase targeting speed (signature analysis) and targeting range (long range targeting) so there is nothing wrong with signal suppression to increase the effectiveness of RSDs. One frigate cannot shut down a carrier with remote sensor damps if the carrier pilot knows how to fit the ship. If the frigate fits RSDs only it will not have the targeting range to be out of your targeting range if you are boosted at least a bit, if the frigate does use other modules in the medium slots it will be even less efficient interfering with your sensors. It is your fault if you do not prepare yourself for possible electronic warfare. It is just as stupid as saying: 'I don't need a warp disruptor, my opponent will fight to his death for sure.' If you are not prepared or cannot adapt, you die, whining will not help even the slightest bit. I am willing to bet that if RSDs get nerfed you will be here on the same forum whining about something else you cannot handle and so on and so forth. Originally by: Nietarr [...]but remember capitals live and die by their cap recharge.[..] And this just shows how little you know.
Cleric JohnPreston	Posted - 2007.08.07 11:12:00 - [78] im awesomely sick of these types of threads, can you guys ( OP ) just get on with and stop ******* whinging about every aspect of the game.WTF is next after Damps. Soon eve will be soo dumbed down it`ll be like WOW.
Stelteck Minmatar Section XIII Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2007.08.07 11:36:00 - [79] The problem is not that the RSD is two powerfull, the problem is that there is no effective counter measure. I once do a test in a tempest with 4 SB T2, and be damped by an arazu with 3 RSD. Lock range reduced to 21km..... Sensor booster do not work as counter. A way to protect a ship from RSB is needed, like ECCM protect a ship from ECM. Stelteck.
Shevar Minmatar A.W.M Ka-Tet	Posted - 2007.08.07 11:41:00 - [80] Edited by: Shevar on 07/08/2007 11:43:34 Originally by: Stelteck The problem is not that the RSD is two powerfull, the problem is that there is no effective counter measure. I once do a test in a tempest with 4 SB T2, and be damped by an arazu with 3 RSD. Lock range reduced to 21km..... Sensor booster do not work as counter. A way to protect a ship from RSB is needed, like ECCM protect a ship from ECM. Stelteck. This I can agree with a lot more then just outright nerfing sensor damps. For example fitting 3 unbonussed sensorboosters should give you enough bonusses to counter the negative effects of 3 unbonused damps. Another option would be ofcourse to revamp ECM again so it is as good as sensordamps currently are. --- -The only real drug problem is scoring real good drugs
Ashaz Mindstar Technology United Confederation of Corporations	Posted - 2007.08.07 11:42:00 - [81] Originally by: Cleric JohnPreston im awesomely sick of these types of threads, can you guys ( OP ) just get on with and stop ******* whinging about every aspect of the game.WTF is next after Damps. Soon eve will be soo dumbed down it`ll be like WOW. Quoted for truth. all these people should just try running a dampner fit themselves, and i will gladly show them how to counter it. I bet they cried "Ners paper" when they played rock paper cissors. iDrone
Ahro Thariori	Posted - 2007.08.07 12:39:00 - [82] One more observation I would like to share without getting to much entangled in this NERF/DONT NERF thread: Yes, there are skills and rigs that make RSD ridiculously strong - but also as many skills and rigs to counter! Of course, if you want to use your rig slots for tanking you become vulnerable to someone investing these slots into dampener strength. But guess what, he is now more vulnerable to gank than you are! Now, he might kill your ship (if he can break the tank) because you have no friends nearby nor FOF missiles with you. But around the next corner he dies horribly to someone else who has. I understand that the module itself might be unbalanced, but please, please, please, dont mix in the skills just to fancy your numbers!
Sirius Problem Darkness Inc.	Posted - 2007.08.07 14:44:00 - [83] Edited by: Sirius Problem on 07/08/2007 14:45:14 Originally by: Cleric JohnPreston im awesomely sick of these types of threads, can you guys ( OP ) just get on with and stop ***** whining about every aspect of the game.WTF is next after Damps. What's next? Well, warp scrams/disruptors of course. The group known as Nullify Everything to Restore Fairness (NERF)**, is systematically going down the list of mods, in alphabetical order, to determine which ones are "overpowered". ECM, NOS, RSD, Warp Scrams, etc. NERF's agenda is to find all the modules in Eve that make PvP fun and interesting, oops... I mean difficult and dangerous, and "balance" them so that no matter what ship you fly and what ship you encounter, you both have a 50-50 shot at winning the battle. In NERF's view, this will make the game much more enjoyable for everyone, and in the long run, will actually reduce forum whining. Personally, I do not support NERF's views nor agenda because they often attempt to bolster their arguments with unrealistic scenarios, flawed suppositions, misrepresentation, and falsehoods. PS. Damps are fine. Learn to play. ---- Some people say I have a bad attitude. Those people are stupid.
Dr Fighter	Posted - 2007.08.07 15:51:00 - [84] Originally by: Stelteck The problem is not that the RSD is two powerfull, the problem is that there is no effective counter measure. I once do a test in a tempest with 4 SB T2, and be damped by an arazu with 3 RSD. Lock range reduced to 21km..... Sensor booster do not work as counter. A way to protect a ship from RSB is needed, like ECCM protect a ship from ECM. Stelteck. oh this is just getting silly. The RSD is being countered you hava 21km lock range not a 5km lock range. Take for example the Crucifier and its bonus to tracking disrupters, its uses two tracking disrupters on you and you hav a tracking computer or two on a cruiser. But oh noes he can disrupt your weapons and then OMG FLY TOO FAST FOR YOUR GUNS TO TRACK! erm guys WORKING AS INTENTED holy hell are you completely stupid or waht?!?!? nerf tracking disrupters, he can disrupt me and then use hes supiror spped to out run my turrets tracking speed, nerf the TDs and the speed of ships that use then my gunzors are teh usless ness! /o\ grow up people and get some gang mates!
Trojanman190 Caldari Murder-Death-Kill Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.08.07 16:08:00 - [85] This is kind of a cool idea, but couldn't a damp ship fit an eccm to boost its own damp strength? I do like the idea of finding another use for sensor strength / eccms. Right now eccms are a wasted slot unless you just happen to find a dude with ecm, which after the crazy nerf hammer, not many people fit. maybe take it a step further and say that ECCM boosts ALL offsenive ewar, but also protects against ALL ewar. I guess target painters would be an exception since they have nothing to do with sensors anyways. So... eccm makes jammers, damps, and trackings disruptors more powerful, but ships can fit them to be better protected against them. So.. the eccm is still an ewar module with no use outside of ewar... but it would make more sense to fit one because a situation it would be used in would be more likely to arise.
PathetiQ Gallente The Rat Pack	Posted - 2007.08.07 17:46:00 - [86] And another useless nerf thread! RSD are fine, k thx!
Max Hardcase Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.08.07 18:31:00 - [87] Edited by: Max Hardcase on 07/08/2007 18:33:29 Originally by: VanNostrum Originally by: Dr Fighter Edited by: Dr Fighter on 06/08/2007 04:14:00 Originally by: VanNostrum Originally by: Hannobaal Originally by: VanNostrum a webbed target can still fight a nossed target can still fight (unless amarr) tracking disrupters useless vs missile & drone ships 3 target painters increases sig radius by around 100% (hardly a big moon) ecm are chance based and if not 3-4 of them are used they're useless And dampeners are near useless unless you can dictate range. You forgot that one. that is nonsense, as it is not related to the suggestion in original post a frig with a rsd can increase lock time of a BS which already would have long time to lock suggestion in OP is that sensor dampeners power should be related to sensor strength of the ship that is using it, so a simple frig would not be immune to a BS for such a long time so dictating range is unrelated dude, the module in question reduces targeting range, how the hell can dictating range not be a main part of it. damps actually need twice as many to be as effective as the other types. If damps get nerffed so that its no more than 75% less range at max, people would either still use them just stay further away, or mix EW types. 2x tracking disrupters and two ECM isnt uncommon. messing with damps will just lead to people using other EW all together, and i thikn the main piont for them not to be touched is the amount of slots a player gives up for that. EDIT: anyone else having to log in a few times in a row before actually being able to post, the forum monster ate my text first time round! dude, will you please read the OP!? it is about a frig with 3-4 RSD rendering a capital ship useless it is about making RSD strength related to ship's sensor strength so smaller ships don't be that adventageous with this module over bigger ships Its a nutty line of reasoning ,said frigate gets the same damp bonus as the T1/T2 cruisers that damp. And be really carefull what you ask for : T2 ships have high sensor str and frigs just need to fit 1 ECCM to be dangerous again. Also I bet I'm gonna hear the turret users scream as every1 scrambles for TD once RSD been nerfedas well.
Hamurabi	Posted - 2007.08.07 19:07:00 - [88] Originally by: Sirius Problem Edited by: Sirius Problem on 07/08/2007 14:45:14 Originally by: Cleric JohnPreston im awesomely sick of these types of threads, can you guys ( OP ) just get on with and stop ***** whining about every aspect of the game.WTF is next after Damps. What's next? Well, warp scrams/disruptors of course. The group known as Nullify Everything to Restore Fairness (NERF)**, is systematically going down the list of mods, in alphabetical order, to determine which ones are "overpowered". ECM, NOS, RSD, Warp Scrams, etc. NERF's agenda is to find all the modules in Eve that make PvP fun and interesting, oops... I mean difficult and dangerous, and "balance" them so that no matter what ship you fly and what ship you encounter, you both have a 50-50 shot at winning the battle. In NERF's view, this will make the game much more enjoyable for everyone, and in the long run, will actually reduce forum whining. Personally, I do not support NERF's views nor agenda because they often attempt to bolster their arguments with unrealistic scenarios, flawed suppositions, misrepresentation, and falsehoods. PS. Damps are fine. Learn to play. this will however lead to less forum whining as it is directly related to number of people playing
Spenz Gallente Dark Knights of Deneb Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2007.08.07 19:21:00 - [89] NERF will never reduce forum whining because they will be stepping on the feet of the LTP (Learn to Play) community. The LTP community will whine about something (Caldari atm since they were nerfed later than most races thus way more ppl play them) and the great cycle of forum whining begins anew. Quite frankly stfu about RSD's. They do not nullify your ability to fight back like ECM does, and the counter skills and modules you need are basically REQUIRED for PvP REGARDLESS if your damped or not, so RSD's have a disadvantage in that field as well. I have never seen less than 3-4 damps do anything significant to a battle, and MOST ships (there ARE more ships than the curse/pilgrim) require those mid slots for other things. aka stfu about rsd's just because Mr. NOS in his whinewagon curse (whinewagon in that it is constantly part of someones whine, directly or indirectly...kind of like the dominix and myrmidon) killed your ship in a gatecamp. If I had an Alt I would probably post with it...
Tu Madre	Posted - 2007.08.07 21:28:00 - [90] Realise that you cant win all fights and there is not always a counter to everything that comes against you - and that no one can possibly fit a counter to all situations - heres a novel idea, why dont you just fly away and find another fight if you find yourself damped to hell? found yourself set upon by multiple opponents? well you could always bring some guys of your own to help out. the risks of flying solo are that you can only fit counters for a very limited number of situations and we all know that the best counter is to stay out of said situation. whats the counter for a dictor bubble? scanning/scouting speed and getting the hell out. whats the counter for getting damped to all oblivion? speed and intel and perhaps just getting the hell out of there. bringing a few friends with you helps too. Also realise that those fitting dampers cant damp everyone at the same time and that juast by being damped you are taking up all of that persons resources and that your gang members are not having the same problem (i do however think that its not unreasonable to to have a message "Cronose sage begins to sensor damp Nietarr" i think this would help the situation al lot just knowing who was doing it would counter a lot) as a manticore pilot i am primarily concerend with taking out frigs/inties. the only way i can get an inti close enough to web - which is currently the only way to down one with cruise missiles - is to use a damper or two to either get him close or convince him to F off. i would be saddened if dampers were nerfed just because certain players could not employ the counters already in the game . the counter to RSD's is not another module or a nerf but in preparedness and strategy - in an area where you come up agianst the same pilots over and over you get an idea of how they fit from previous engagments - live and learn lads live and learn. you may go down one day to the unexpected but if you go down the same way twice well i think that says a bit more about you than it does the game. adapt and survive.
Vicious Phoenix	Posted - 2007.08.07 23:58:00 - [91] Originally by: Dr Fighter damps are fine, you need 3-4 on a target to shut it down... imagine if that was ecm. really they are fine. Problem is that 3-4 on a frigate are sustainable and can shut down a carrier. Neither is true of ECM. CFW (Certified Forum Warrior) I kill people ingame too. Originally by: CCP Tuxford I prefer dew over pepsi. I prefer beer over most things. Damn now I want beer.
WildSide Infinitus Odium The Church.	Posted - 2007.08.08 00:24:00 - [92] leave the damps as their are plz....my arazu isnt just paperthin....its so papirthin that if I get attacked by a singel t1 frig while damping and holding down a bs..im screwed. Vids produced by me
Dr Fighter	Posted - 2007.08.08 00:44:00 - [93] Originally by: Vicious Phoenix Originally by: Dr Fighter damps are fine, you need 3-4 on a target to shut it down... imagine if that was ecm. really they are fine. Problem is that 3-4 on a frigate are sustainable and can shut down a carrier. Neither is true of ECM. ive sed it before a few times, so what the hell i'll say it again. its carriers that need adjusting for this NOT the damps. ccp knew that a BB or griffin jamming a carrier would suck, so they gave carriers 3-4 times the sensor strength, yet lock range is little more than BS - ergo change carriers if thats the only ship thats out of ballance, no the flaming damps. aaaarrgghhhhh!!!!! /me goes to find a wall to bash his head against
goomba freehand A Black Knight Corp FREGE Alliance	Posted - 2007.08.08 00:47:00 - [94] /joins dr fighter
Maeltstome Minmatar Caldari Navy Raiders Praesidium Libertatis	Posted - 2007.08.08 04:01:00 - [95] Originally by: Hannobaal Seem to me more like a lot of people who hate electronic warfare and similar modules in the game in general would like to see all reduced to uselessnes and are going down the list in their whining from module to module. It seems to you people "effective counter" = rendering the particular for of Ewar being used completely ineffective and preferably without having to use more than one fitting slot to do so, if that. It seems you've never been in a 5bil isk fitted capital and been rendered completely useless by an Arazu worth less than 1 smartbomb.
murder one Gallente Death of Virtue Axiom Empire	Posted - 2007.08.08 04:15:00 - [96] Originally by: Maeltstome Originally by: Hannobaal Seem to me more like a lot of people who hate electronic warfare and similar modules in the game in general would like to see all reduced to uselessnes and are going down the list in their whining from module to module. It seems to you people "effective counter" = rendering the particular for of Ewar being used completely ineffective and preferably without having to use more than one fitting slot to do so, if that. It seems you've never been in a 5bil isk fitted capital and been rendered completely useless by an Arazu worth less than 1 smartbomb. That's it's job. There isn't anything wrong what so ever with that. The mistake was that someone (you probably) made a horrible horrible mistake and undocked without support. Go die in a fire. [07:13:55] doctorstupid2 > what do i train now? [07:14:05] Trista Rotnor > little boys to 2 Fleet Combat Ships
Xa'ar Kun Filthy Wyrm Chaos Incarnate.	Posted - 2007.08.08 21:43:00 - [97] Edited by: Xa''ar Kun on 08/08/2007 21:47:46 i personally thing this is a Great proposal it does not make them worthless by any measure but it also puts limits to how far u can go with them and gives reasons to use mods that currently are thrown around like trash it wont stop it but its a fair and totally reasonable nerf that does not by any measure go overbored. Personally i think it should be nerfed a little more but ehh whatever this is fair for the time being For all those people who are complaining about arazu's and other recon ships and how they will be nerfed need to relook at what the post said and realize there is a SINGLE mid slot or Low slot module that can nearly double your signal strength. it will not by any measure hurt ships designed to do it but on the otherhand will stop T1 frigates that all together are worth 1mil from rendering a 1b ship ineffective. It is quite apparent no one has seen the terrible effectiveness of sensor damps
pandymen Caldari Red Dwarf Mining Corporation space weaponry and trade	Posted - 2007.08.09 00:21:00 - [98] Seriously, people need to stop whining. Everyone is looking here and saying hey, a t1 frig can render a carrier useless. Guess what....that t1 frig won't be able to do any dmg to that carrier. What? You're assuming he has a gang with him to back him up? Well, then it is only logical to assume that the carrier will have a gang with him as well. Dampeners may be powerful, but one ship cannot handle multiple targets at the same time with the exception of maybe the recons. All you have to do is put some of your gangmates on the dampers, and surprise, you wont be damped anymore. This is combined with the fact that all these RSD's still put you out of web range means that you should be able to mwd away in most any ship. And fyi, if you are alone in a capital and get tackled by a few frigs and cannot attack them, then you are really the one to blame, not RSD's. BTW, I run almost strictly ECM ships. I use RSDs on certain setups, but I like my ECM dedicated ships. It would be nice to not be forced to use ECM's on specialized ships to make them effective, but, the result of ECM's is awesome enough that I don't mind. ---------------------------------------------> Red Dwarf is currently recruiting missioners, miners, and 0.0 ratters. Please contact me in-game for details or join channel Red Dwarf Recruitment.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one 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.