| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Reatu Krentor
Minmatar
Void Spiders
Fate Weavers
   |
Posted - 2007.08.07 22:54:00 -
[31]
The counter to sensor damps doesn't provide enough boost to counter the dampener.
a T1 damp(no skills) is 0.65x and a T1 sensor booster is 1.5x => 0.65 * 1.5 = 0.975.
When you consider T2 stats it becomes even worse, because the T2 damp stats get reduced by 20%(0.65 * 0.8) and the sensor booster gains 20% on the bonus(0.5 * 1.2 = 0.6)(and not on the stat, which would make it 1.5 * 1.2 = 1.8). Which is advantageous for the dampeners, the actual increase should be 20% on the penalty not the stat( T2 damp should be -42% instead of -48%).
Then there is still the addition of the Signal Suppression skill which didn't exist ingame when the stats of the dampeners were first established. Ending in the obvious advantage for anyone using dampeners against anyone, even the ones using sensor boosters( a fully skilled damp will still drastically overpower a sensor booster, 0.52(-48%) * 0.75 = 0.39(-61%) => 1.6 * 0.39 = 0.624(-37.6%), NOTE this is not even using a Celestis(or equiv.)).
In short, I do think the sensor dampeners need to be rebalanced. Currently 1 sensor booster won't counter 1 sensor dampener and it only gets worse with T2/named. On top of that there is the skill introduced with the ECM overhaul which skews the results even more in favor of dampeners. In my opinion 1 sensor booster(of same quality) should counter 1 sensor dampener(of equal quality). I also think the Signal Suppression skill should be considered in the rebalance effort.
I would suggest for T1 damp an effect of -20% scan res/targeting range, while for T2 damps an effect of -25%(and named modules spread equally between the 2 of course). With Signal Suppression IV you would regain the effect of before(without skill) with lvl 5 still available for specialising.
A secondary thing I would consider is increasing the dampener boat's bonus to 7.5% per level, creating a niche for the ships specifically designed for dampening targets.
This results in practically no change(about 2% less then before)for dampener boats but a nerf for any ship without the dampener bonus.
Crystal-Slave, that way?
|
Setana Manoro
Gallente
Firefly Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.08.07 23:19:00 -
[32]
 Originally by: Methem
2 ships fitted with RSD SHOULD be able to kill a BS with a 1 sensor booster.
In such a complex game ship is such a broad definition.
You need 3 RSD's II to take down a BS from normal range to under 20km.
2 will not do it, and you will get killed most likely - assuming Recon ship here.
This general "3 RSD" rule can be royally screwed if the BS has some skills for higher targeting range, or just one sensor booster.
If it's a gallente recon though, 3 will damp even a BS with 1 SB II, but that is because the ship has bonuses to the damn thing.
Caldari are the plague of EVE, little whiners that must be cleansed from TQ. |
Feng Schui
Minmatar
The Ninja Coalition
New Eve Order
|
Posted - 2007.08.07 23:20:00 -
[33]
so when are we going to nerf stasis webs, warp disruptors, and weapon systems 
The Beginning <-- crap quality, need to redo, sorry :( |
Setana Manoro
Gallente
Firefly Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.08.07 23:35:00 -
[34]
While you are right in the initial part - the calculation part, your suggestions for -20% for t1 rsd and -25% for t2 rsd is a bit harsh.
Signal Supression is a skill that requires Electronics 5 and Sensor Linking 4 - a rank 3 btw.
Sensor Boosters II need just Electronics 2 and Long Range Targeting 4 - rank 2, which most ppl train anyway.
Caldari are the plague of EVE, little whiners that must be cleansed from TQ. |
Setana Manoro
Gallente
Firefly Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.08.07 23:37:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Feng Schui
so when are we going to nerf stasis webs, warp disruptors, and weapon systems
Well, they already nerfed weapon systems when they did the whole HP buff.
And they are testing the "mass addition module" on SISI who's effect is not that good for speed ships.
Caldari are the plague of EVE, little whiners that must be cleansed from TQ. |
Reatu Krentor
Minmatar
Void Spiders
Fate Weavers
|
Posted - 2007.08.08 01:31:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Setana Manoro
While you are right in the initial part - the calculation part, your suggestions for -20% for t1 rsd and -25% for t2 rsd is a bit harsh.
Signal Supression is a skill that requires Electronics 5 and Sensor Linking 4 - a rank 3 btw.
Sensor Boosters II need just Electronics 2 and Long Range Targeting 4 - rank 2, which most ppl train anyway.
In my opinion, if you want to use EW with good effect you need to invest training time in it and the values I picked weren't arbitrary, I picked those values by looking at sensor boosters vs. sensor dampeners and making it so at lvl 4 of the Signal Suppression skill 1 sensor booster gets countered by 1 sensor dampener when used by a ship without a damper bonus.
It is also possible to work with slightly different values and base it from lvl 3 Signal Suppression, which would end up with approximately -23% for the T1 and -28% for T2. That means that with lvl 3 Signal Suppression a T1 would be -34.55%(-38.4% lvl 4 and -42.25% lvl 5), leaving room for further specialisation but returning to levels from before the introduction of the new EW skills.
Also, because I would also bump up the sensor damping bonus of sensor dampening boats(like the Celestis, Maulus...) to 7.5% from 5% nothing changes for them with my initially suggested values, except for the named and T2 damps which have the wrong bonus progression applied imo. A Celestis with a T1 damp would be equally effective after this change as it was before, only ships without the dampener bonus will lose on effectiveness which is intended.
The T2 damper (and named) nerf is also intended, it's either a nerf to these or boosting named and T2 sensor boosters to counter them, I prefer the nerf. Boosting the T2 sensor boosters to counter a T2 damp, in its current state, would require the T2 sensor booster to provide a 87.5% bonus to targeting range and sig resolution(again, before even contemplating the signal suppression skill).
Doing these changes would make it possible to counter damps nearly 100% by fitting an equal amount of sensor boosters as the attacker has damps active on you. I consider that a nice trade-off tbh, sacrificing mids to counter mids on a 1-on-1 basis(when damps are being used by a non-damp EW ship). The current implementation is nothing like this. 1 T2 sensor damp with max skills will still reduce a target's targeting range and speed with 37.6%(-53.2% from a Celestis or equiv.) even if the target has 1 T2 sensor booster. My suggestion would make that -10%(and -43.75% from Celestis).
Do you still believe my suggestions are overly harsh?
My thoughts on Damps.
|
Phaedruss
|
Posted - 2007.08.08 05:23:00 -
[37]
When are people going to wake up?
These nerf threads always gain popularity after something else has just been nerfed. It's a vicious circle that the nerf whiners themselves create.
I personally don't remember damps being a huge issue in the forums before the ECM nerf. There was a brief surge of nerf whines about damps immediately after the ECM nerf, which soon died down, only to come back again in full force recently after the NOS nerf and dev's willingness to screw things up again was confirmed. Did damps suddenly become 'over-powered'? Of course not, they became relatively more powerful than the last nerfed module, and thus more popular.
For every module the whiners successfully lobby to get nerfed, there will be another module targeted by them for nerfing. This ridiculous neverending and unexplained 'de-evolution' of technology in the Eve universe which rewards whining and unwillingness to help yourself, and potentially wastes months of training time and planning by many players, is short-sighted. How about a solution which encourages skill training for whiners and represents advancements in technology for a change? Some nerfs are probably valid, but its not like ECM, NOS and Damps are or were being used in ways that were unforseen by the developers. They did their job as intended.
Threads like this, the people who write them, and the developers who act on them and mess things up sh*t me to tears. I will damn well respond to stupid threads like this, because I have a right to express my opinion in support of my own vested interests as much as anyone else and because it was threads like this that created the current issue in the first place.
To the Op: Your post is the classic nerf whine. You got owned 2-1 by people using sensor damps, NOS and drones. Your take on things: Your sensor booster should have negated the half dozen damps they had on you to the point where you should have won the engagement, they were noobs, damps are too powerful and therefore you were beaten unfairly. Solution: This thread. Try to understand that EW has a purpose. The purpose of Sensor damps is to reduce a) targeting range and b) scan resolution of the target. If the damps fail to reduce targeting range below the engagement range the first effect of damps is utterly ineffective. If the target has a sensor booster, then all other things being equal, the scan resolution penalty is also completely ineffective because the targeted ship will have an initial scan resolution advantage.
From a personal perspective that I'm sure other pilots in the same boat can identify with, but few others will give a rats arse about, I've spent most of this year and a lot of isk training up Amarr recon, sensor damp skills, drone skills and buying the ships and mods specifically so that I could be effective in PvP in a certain role. Now I find that most of that time has been wasted in a sudden inexplicable de-evolution of technology in Eve, and possibly soon to get a whole lot worse because people like you had a single bad experience and lost a ship. It'll be interesting to see what the next module to be targeted by the nerfers will be.
|
Reatu Krentor
Minmatar
Void Spiders
Fate Weavers
|
Posted - 2007.08.08 10:43:00 -
[38]
Edited by: Reatu Krentor on 08/08/2007 10:43:35
Originally by: Phaedruss
When are people going to wake up?
These nerf threads always gain popularity after something else has just been nerfed. It's a vicious circle that the nerf whiners themselves create.
Well that's true of course, people will allways whine, it's our nature(you're whining about the whiners  ).
Originally by: Phaedruss
I personally don't remember damps being a huge issue in the forums before the ECM nerf. There was a brief surge of nerf whines about damps immediately after the ECM nerf, which soon died down, only to come back again in full force recently after the NOS nerf and dev's willingness to screw things up again was confirmed. Did damps suddenly become 'over-powered'? Of course not, they became relatively more powerful than the last nerfed module, and thus more popular.
Doesn't "relatively more powerfull" essentially mean the same thing as unbalanced? Shouldn't the goal of the Devs to have all mods relatively equally powerfull? And if one mod stands out, isn't it better to nerf that one mod rather then boost all the others?
Originally by: Phaedruss
For every module the whiners successfully lobby to get nerfed, there will be another module targeted by them for nerfing. This ridiculous neverending and unexplained 'de-evolution' of technology in the Eve universe which rewards whining and unwillingness to help yourself, and potentially wastes months of training time and planning by many players, is short-sighted. How about a solution which encourages skill training for whiners and represents advancements in technology for a change? Some nerfs are probably valid, but its not like ECM, NOS and Damps are or were being used in ways that were unforseen by the developers. They did their job as intended.
ECM, nos and damps are/were being used in ways that were unforeseen, ECM was being used on nosdomi to keep target jammed practically permanently, same with damps now, also in combination with nos. Nos has a dual effect, kills the targets cap and feeds your own, which is pretty powerfull. ECM and Damps are intended to be used by ships designed for them, which generally are weaker then their counterparts, but have very powerfull EW.
Originally by: Phaedruss
Threads like this, the people who write them, and the developers who act on them and mess things up sh*t me to tears. I will damn well respond to stupid threads like this, because I have a right to express my opinion in support of my own vested interests as much as anyone else and because it was threads like this that created the current issue in the first place.
well the OP might be a bit *ahem* short-sighted but I try not to be  . It was the introduction of the new EW skills that caused the dampener issue imo, indirectly related to the ECM nerf.
--continued--
My thoughts on Damps.
|
Reatu Krentor
Minmatar
Void Spiders
Fate Weavers
|
Posted - 2007.08.08 10:58:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Phaedruss
To the Op: Your post is the classic nerf whine. You got owned 2-1 by people using sensor damps, NOS and drones. Your take on things: Your sensor booster should have negated the half dozen damps they had on you to the point where you should have won the engagement, they were noobs, damps are too powerful and therefore you were beaten unfairly. Solution: This thread.
Agreed, his stance is unreasonable.
Originally by: Phaedruss
Try to understand that EW has a purpose. The purpose of Sensor damps is to reduce a) targeting range and b) scan resolution of the target. If the damps fail to reduce targeting range below the engagement range the first effect of damps is utterly ineffective. If the target has a sensor booster, then all other things being equal, the scan resolution penalty is also completely ineffective because the targeted ship will have an initial scan resolution advantage.
Pretty much, but atm 1 sensor booster doesn't counter 1 sensor dampener, not even a T1 damp is countered by a T2 sensor booster if the attacker has even a minimally acceptable level in Signal Suppression skill(lvl 2 or higher). That is the problem imo, 1 damp should be countered by 1 sensor booster of equal quality if the attacker is not using a ship designed for damps.
Originally by: Phaedruss
From a personal perspective that I'm sure other pilots in the same boat can identify with, but few others will give a rats arse about, I've spent most of this year and a lot of isk training up Amarr recon, sensor damp skills, drone skills and buying the ships and mods specifically so that I could be effective in PvP in a certain role. Now I find that most of that time has been wasted in a sudden inexplicable de-evolution of technology in Eve, and possibly soon to get a whole lot worse because people like you had a single bad experience and lost a ship. It'll be interesting to see what the next module to be targeted by the nerfers will be.
a question then, did you train Amarr recon, those damp skills because you knew nothing else would come close in effectiveness? or because you wanted to fly them for fun? Personally I'll be wanting to nerf the target painters to oblivion so the minnies can have something better instead  .
My thoughts on Damps.
|
Shevar
Minmatar
A.W.M
Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.08.08 10:59:00 -
[40]
Originally by: DMF KingBob
in last time i see in pvp that everybody is using remote sensor damper to get out of range and need no tank and making his pvp easy to win
i using an sensor booster in my pvp ship but this is not god enough against 2 noobs with Remote Sensor Damper they nosed my out an let her drones do the job
@at devs/cpp please stop this
if you like remote sensor damper fitted on your ships please dont post an reply nobody need this spam
thx
OMG I GOT KILLED BY TURRETS PLEASE DEVS NERF TURRETS SO I DON'T GET KILLED BY NOOBS FITTING TURRETS ANYMORE .
/sarcasm off
---
-The only real drug problem is scoring real good drugs
|
Edward Slain
Hell's Horsemen
|
Posted - 2007.08.08 11:17:00 -
[41]
2 noobs...
A Recon and a HAC... They(properly fitted) should be able to take out a BS, especially one piloted by a kid who probably sat there crying as he was shot at.
@ devs/ccp, yes stop this, I dont want to lose another ship, EVER!!!
|
Devian 666
Axe Gang
|
Posted - 2007.08.08 11:51:00 -
[42]
Edited by: Devian 666 on 08/08/2007 11:52:06
I agree ECM was over nerfed. RSD work fine. If you don't know how to counter them right-click and select show info on an RSD.
In a thread in C&P one person has claimed that CCP don't nerf just because of whining. I dispute that. There are adequate counters to RSD. There are counters to ECM. The pilots using RSD in ships without an RSD bonus have to fly their ships a particular way to avoid being locked or to gank as much as possible before the lock works.
Eve is a sophisticated game of paper/scissors/rock and RSD work well in one situation but perform poorly in others.
ECM is a way of avoiding locks however if you play smart by actually learning the game mechanics then you can find the scissors for the paper which has wrapped around your useless rock.
I agree I don't have the features to be a holoreel star.
Most people have missed the point that this is Mobsters Online and that carebears are at the bottom of the foodchain. |
Frances Ducoir
VEB Kombinat Robotron
|
Posted - 2007.08.08 12:16:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Frances Ducoir on 08/08/2007 12:17:04
Originally by: DMF KingBob
in last time i see in pvp that everybody is using remote sensor damper to get out of range and need no tank and making his pvp easy to win
i using an sensor booster in my pvp ship but this is not god enough against 2 noobs with Remote Sensor Damper they nosed my out an let her drones do the job
@at devs/cpp please stop this
if you like remote sensor damper fitted on your ships please dont post an reply nobody need this spam
thx
rsd are fine, they are stacking nerfed, they cant be overloaded, t2 damps need a lot cpu and the best named t1 damps are really expensive (and cant be insured).
so my advice for you:
1. learn to whine in appropriate english, yours is awful
2. get a friend... 2 guys with RSD SHOULD be able to beat you
3. gtfo of this forum and stop whining. use the testserver and fly a gallente recon with RSD... see how fragile they are.
there are enough counters. just because you are too lazy it doesn't mean RSD are overpowered.
last but not least:
Originally by: DMF KingBob
if you like remote sensor damper fitted on your ships please dont post an reply nobody need this spam
thx
mimimimimi... whaaawhaaawhaaaa...
|
DMF KingBob
|
Posted - 2007.08.08 15:43:00 -
[44]
lol
5% on topic
95%spam/nooblike -.-
the fact is
ecm works nor every time and when i fitt 4 on my ship(with out bonus and amplifier) it makes me not untouchable against an BS
RSD works every time and when i fitt 4 on my ship (with out bonus) it makes me UNTOUCHABLE and this is the problem
it is easy to see but for noobs hard to accept
that is the reason for an RSD-Nerf
and please stop your whining-spam if you like to whine(or what ever) make your own whine-thread.
thx
|
Gypsio III
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.08.08 16:06:00 -
[45]
The only thing I'd change with RSD is the huge falloff. As it is, it's more effective than ECM at long range because of the 42 km optimal (which is fine) and 84 km falloff with skills at IV.
Cut the falloff down to 25 km or so with max skills - this leaves damps with the advantage at mid range, but means that ECM is the only option for ranges above 100 km.
As it is, a Scorp with a full rack of dampers is more effective at suppressing long-range fire than it would be with ECM. That doesn't seem right...
|
Krugerrand
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.08.08 16:19:00 -
[46]
Sensor Dampners have a stacking penalty. Over 4 damps will do anymore to a ship (the 4th doing very little effect, the 3rd not much better either).
In solo situation, damps are often "the win", but not in larger gangs, dampener ships have little tank and die very quickly..
RSD were nerfed 2years+ ago, the T1 damps used to give 50% bonus. T2 were released sometime later.
|
Eleana Tomelac
Gallente
Defcon One
|
Posted - 2007.08.08 16:53:00 -
[47]
RSD is good.
ECM is good.
Tracking distuptors are half good.
Target painters are less than half good.
Maybe here is the imbalance?
I like to use a celestis with 4 damps (and it could be more on a lachesis), it gives targeting range/12 as a result (maybe more, I upgraded cruiser skill). By the way, the celestis can't do anything else, it takes much cap and there are few remaining slots.
What I like even more is flying in a gang and having a mate in blackbird.
Why? becuase the combination damp + ECM usually lets several ennemy lock in one minute and loose their lock every minute... This is no locking at all!
If ECM + RSD fails, then a guy in arbitrator will finish disabling the offensive capabilities of the hard hitting BS against a pack of cruisers...
The bad part is that all EW isn't as good.
RSD II gets -48% (before skills), it's huge, it affects eveyone.
TD II gets -46% (before skills), it's a bit lower, but it does not affect as much of the ship. It affects only half of the weaponry and is useless against other EW...
Comparing to ECM is not easy...
Also, we need to take in account the related ships, their number of medslots. The arbitrator has the least medslots...
So, you get a partial efficiency that will alwys be lower than the full efficiency of the generalist anti-locking equipement that are the ECM and RSD.
Looking at recon ships, caldari have the 'all bonus to ECM' theory, while the others have split bonuses with other EW types.
In my experience, the ECM from a recon ship will jam people quite effectively, just as RSD from recon ship will make you lock at very very short range.
I'm not sure if people use much TD on the amarr RS and of the TP are used on the minmatar RS.
Something is unbalanced between EW types.
Lower base stat on RSD would make them less dangerous, but still deadly on a gallente RS.
--
Pocket drone carriers (tm) enthousiast !
The Vexor Navy Issue is much more fun than the Myrmidon !
|
Frances Ducoir
VEB Kombinat Robotron
|
Posted - 2007.08.08 19:40:00 -
[48]
Originally by: DMF KingBob
lol
5% on topic
95%spam/nooblike -.-
the fact is
ecm works nor every time and when i fitt 4 on my ship(with out bonus and amplifier) it makes me not untouchable against an BS
RSD works every time and when i fitt 4 on my ship (with out bonus) it makes me UNTOUCHABLE and this is the problem
it is easy to see but for noobs hard to accept
that is the reason for an RSD-Nerf
and please stop your whining-spam if you like to whine(or what ever) make your own whine-thread.
thx
omg you are the only noob here... and a pathetic one!
You compare RSD and ECM... but you fail to realize that RSD has some disadvantages in comparision to ECM although RSD are more effective on the first view.
ECM = no lock if it hits you... no matter what
RSD = no lock if you dont get close enough...
so there is a simple solution: get closer to your enemy
you can't?
than you could also blame it on the speed of your ship, the nos of the enemies and a lot of other factors but you are whining about RSD because you have no clue at all.
here is a simple guide for you:
what to do against RSD/nos/droneboats
1. cap booster
2. smartbomb
3. FoF
3. use nos/drones/rsd yourself ^^
4. get some friends
5. web drones and shoot them
just because you are too stupid or lazy (or both) to search for a counter, doesn't mean that RSD are overpowered.
btw: 95% of your posts are spam/nooblike (good way to make new friends btw)
btw2: your posts make me want to kill you with loads of RSD/drones/nos.
|
Reatu Krentor
Minmatar
Void Spiders
Fate Weavers
|
Posted - 2007.08.08 20:02:00 -
[49]
Originally by: DMF KingBob
lol
5% on topic
95%spam/nooblike -.-
the fact is
ecm works nor every time and when i fitt 4 on my ship(with out bonus and amplifier) it makes me not untouchable against an BS
RSD works every time and when i fitt 4 on my ship (with out bonus) it makes me UNTOUCHABLE and this is the problem
it is easy to see but for noobs hard to accept
that is the reason for an RSD-Nerf
and please stop your whining-spam if you like to whine(or what ever) make your own whine-thread.
thx
Tbh, with your attitude I would rather agree with the others then with you  .
My thoughts on Damps.
|
Atasy Huopian
|
Posted - 2007.08.08 20:55:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Kieran Jarnush
Originally by: Methem
2 ships fitted with RSD SHOULD be able to kill a BS with a 1 sensor booster.
just curious, who the **** says that?
it would be better to take sensor strength into computation, like done for ecm or have ship sized modules for frigs, cruiser and battleships, like nos. furthermore those are offensive modules (like ecm) and should therefor be highslot modules.
tis all imo....
It is done by percentile. Battleships have larger targeting ranges so more is taken away but they also in turn have more of a range left after words. No adjustment to the mechancis of the RSD needs to be done IMO. High slots? Not sure why they would be in high slots when all other ew modules are in mids.
|
Serj Darek
Minmatar
Mentally Unstable Enterprises
|
Posted - 2007.08.09 06:53:00 -
[51]
Originally by: DMF KingBob
lol
5% on topic
95%spam/nooblike -.-
the fact is
ecm works nor every time and when i fitt 4 on my ship(with out bonus and amplifier) it makes me not untouchable against an BS
RSD works every time and when i fitt 4 on my ship (with out bonus) it makes me UNTOUCHABLE and this is the problem
it is easy to see but for noobs hard to accept
that is the reason for an RSD-Nerf
and please stop your whining-spam if you like to whine(or what ever) make your own whine-thread.
thx
100% of your whine seems to be related to this: DMF loss to noobs. So how do you define these players as noobs when they fly recons and hacs?
First!
|
Gaia Thorn
Infestation.
|
Posted - 2007.08.09 07:11:00 -
[52]
Just gotta ask, whats wrong with you?
RSD is not overpowered it's fitted 90% of the time on paper thin ships that cant take much damage.
If you want to nerf something, nerf the nano raven with 3 damps that will run you over like nothing you have ever seen.
People need to take a step back cause we are rapidly reaching the point when this game goes from sandbox to lego, everything will be a cookie cutter setups that deal equal amounts of damage and in the end only makes people wanna blob more.
|
DMF KingBob
|
Posted - 2007.08.09 07:39:00 -
[53]
Edited by: DMF KingBob on 09/08/2007 07:39:05
ECM vs RSD should be balanced but it isnt or why does the pilots use an RSD instead an ECM or TD
it easy to see that RSDs work much better then an ECM or TD
if you think an ECM is blanced to an RSD then replace all your RSD with ECM or is this not easy enough ?
here are the facts again
ECM works not every time and when its works
the enmey cant not lock the target this is 1 effect for some time(1 point for ECM)
RSD works every time (1 point for RSD)and the first effect is it decrease your lock range (2. point for RSD)and the next effect is it decrease your lock speed(3.point)
that cant be to hard to understand
ECM is not a untouchable system but RSD makes sometimes untouchable and this is a balancing problem
http://cisco211.de/eve/kms/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=132
and this is not the first contact with the problem and maybe not the last -.-
|
Murder Love
|
Posted - 2007.08.09 07:48:00 -
[54]
Originally by: DMF KingBob
Edited by: DMF KingBob on 09/08/2007 07:39:05
ECM vs RSD should be balanced but it isnt or why does the pilots use an RSD instead an ECM or TD
it easy to see that RSDs work much better then an ECM or TD
if you think an ECM is blanced to an RSD then replace all your RSD with ECM or is this not easy enough ?
here are the facts again
ECM works not every time and when its works
the enmey cant not lock the target this is 1 effect for some time(1 point for ECM)
RSD works every time (1 point for RSD)and the first effect is it decrease your lock range (2. point for RSD)and the next effect is it decrease your lock speed(3.point)
that cant be to hard to understand
ECM is not a untouchable system but RSD makes sometimes untouchable and this is a balancing problem
http://cisco211.de/eve/kms/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=132
and this is not the first contact with the problem and maybe not the last -.-
Ecm did get nerfed, but it..
works better on multiple target
works on close range targets
has an ecm dedicated bs
works decent with racials
there are a lot more points, but your arguments are biased
|
Frances Ducoir
Bounty Hunter - Dark Legion
Curse Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.08.09 07:54:00 -
[55]
your apoc was killed by a curse + vagabond. what do you exspect? even without damps they would have probably killed you. you would have had no chance if they were nano fitted...
also saw that the main damage dealer was the curse with its drones.
just fit a smartbomb ffs and get support. you are not supposed to beat a vaga + curse in one bs.
|
Gaia Thorn
Infestation.
|
Posted - 2007.08.09 08:33:00 -
[56]
Ecm is not untouchable but RSD is ???
i would probably turn that statement around.
RSD is touchable but ecm isnt.
i can atleast defend myself when being attacked by RSD whislt if i get hit by ecm im flippin toast.
|
hUssmann
Caldari
Veto.
Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2007.08.09 11:10:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Serj Darek
100% of your whine seems to be related to this: DMF loss to noobs. So how do you define these players as noobs when they fly recons and hacs?
Lol.
Ginger Magician > You are merely an effective ganker of haulers who runs at the first sign of combat. |
Max Hardcase
Art of War
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.08.10 06:49:00 -
[58]
Sensor boosters are not a true counter to RSD. A true counter would only be usefull when you are the target of an RSD attack. ( Like ECCM is vs ECM ).
Sensor boosters provide a highly usefull bonus if yer not being RSD'd thus the oppertunity cost of fitting one is much lower than fitting ECCM. This is why they cant be as powerfull as ECCM.
|
Lady Caeser
Open Fist of Castallus
|
Posted - 2007.08.10 08:08:00 -
[59]
RSDs need to have stacking penalty applied, would solve all these whines
--------------------------------------
What are you looking at?
-------------------------------------- |
Kaben
|
Posted - 2007.08.10 08:21:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Lady Caeser
RSDs need to have stacking penalty applied, would solve all these whines
Hmm, I was under the assumption that if you used more then one against the same target they were stack nerfed.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |