EVE Search - Remote sensor dampners and what is wrong with them

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Remote sensor dampners and what is wrong with them

» 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)
Kulmid New Justice Molotov Coalition	Posted - 2007.08.05 19:06:00 - [31] Originally by: Aramendel Damp scorpion as anti-sniper EW ship Vs a sniper fleet which is at 150k it does not really matter if you jam a ship or dampen it below targeting range. Targeting range of sniper fitted ships varies between 188k (pest) and 273k (rokh). A single damp with spec at 4 is -58.4%, this reduces that to 78k - 113k which works for all intents and purposes just like ECM - it won't be able to attack the other fleet. With skills damps have 45k optimal and 90k falloff. With 3 EW range rigs this is 70k optimal and 90k falloff. This gives a damp an 58% chance to work at 150k. Basically, a scorp with that damp setup has an 58% per damp to "jam" a target in fleet combat. It costs 45 mil more than an ECM scorp, but this additional cost is offset by its higher survivability since it is able to use all his lows for an anti-burst dps tank so it is likely to be able to make a warpout when it is called primary. With racial jammers and all his lows filled with SDAs and max ship and EW spec skills it has a 53% chance to jam a target with the right sensortype. So, lets see: damp scorp: - less skill intensive - higher surviviability - higher chance to jam - not limited by racial EW - more expensive ECM scorp: - needs at the very least 1.3 mil more SP - has maybe half the effective HP as the damp scorp - lower chance to jam - limited by racial EW - cheaper Yes, sounds really balanced you do realize not all PvP takes place at 150km? ofc in a fight where range is very important something that limits range is going to be very effective. this is imo a crap arguement. a Raven would do just as good a job as a scorpion so that means nothing. and why don't you try running some number for a 10vs10 engagement that takes place under 20km and tell me which setup you would rather go with then. Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes -Kreul Intentions ([email protected])
Hannobaal Gallente Dragonfire Intergalactic Crusaders of Krom Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2007.08.05 20:11:00 - [32] Edited by: Hannobaal on 05/08/2007 20:12:19 Originally by: Stelteck Yes, i want a way to be near immune to damper if i decide to use enough med slot to counter the damp effect. You're not just asking to be able to fight at normal ranges while being damped. You're asking to be able to snipe while being damped. Basically, you want to snipe without there being any possible counter to your sniping (and the only possible counters out there to sniping are dampeners and tracking disruptors). Quote: It is already the case for ECM. If i put 3/4 ECCM on my battleship, i'am quite immune to ECM. That has its own reasons and goes back to changes that apparently happened shortly before I started playing Eve. Quote: In fact, it is the fact that you are against that that is a surprise for me. you want a module without any possible counter ? Stelteck. There's countering a module and there's rendering it completely ineffective. Those are completely different things. If a ship like the Arazu/Lachesis with expensive equipment and high skill could not even manage to bring a single battleship out of sniping range (not shutting it down but just bringing it out of sniping range) and you had a choice between flying that ship and flying a battleship in a fleet battle - what possible reasons would you have to pick the Ewar ship over the battleship to fly in a fleet battle? None whatsoever. ------------------
Zubakis Bambooule TALIONIS ALLIANCE	Posted - 2007.08.05 20:37:00 - [33] Originally by: Hannobaal There's countering a module and there's rendering it completely ineffective. Those are completely different things. If a ship like the Arazu/Lachesis with expensive equipment and high skill could not even manage to bring a single battleship out of sniping range (not shutting it down but just bringing it out of sniping range) and you had a choice between flying that ship and flying a battleship in a fleet battle - what possible reasons would you have to pick the Ewar ship over the battleship to fly in a fleet battle? None whatsoever. When i fit 4 ECCM modules on a battleship, it will make your ECM completely ineffective. When i fit 4 sensor boosters, you are still very effective with your RSD's. You dont need a dedicated ship to work with them, this is a big problem. I showed in my posts how effective you can be in close range combat with non-dedicated ship. Another poster showed you that you dont need an "expensive" dedicated ship to disable sniper fleets, a Scorpion can do that too. -- Zuba
Aramendel Amarr Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2007.08.05 21:09:00 - [34] Edited by: Aramendel on 05/08/2007 21:12:53 Originally by: Kulmid you do realize not all PvP takes place at 150km? I do realize that quite nicely. However for fights which DO happen at 150k damps are plain out too strong. Changing their falloff after skills from 90 to something like 45k would solve this problem quite nicely and wouldn't effect the efficiency of damps at closer ranges at all. Quote: ofc in a fight where range is very important something that limits range is going to be very effective. this is imo a crap arguement. a Raven would do just as good a job as a scorpion so that means nothing. The important point you miss is that an ECM specialized ship which is using all its bonuses for ECM is BETTER off using damps at range than its own EW. To compare that, it would be if a megathron would be more effective with tachyon lasers at range than with rails. That is hardly a "crap argument" but a very real balance problem. Oh, and "then boost ECM" is also no solution. ECM is, while weaker than damps still stronger than TDs and (haha) TPs. ECM is right now at the happy middle. Damps need to be brought down to that and TDs up to that. The only real solution for TPs would be to replace them with a new "real" EW.
Celedris Tabula Rasa Systems The Star Fraction	Posted - 2007.08.05 22:32:00 - [35] My Lachesis has 3 free low slots open. Please advise me as to what three modules I need to fit in order to make myself "near immune" to gun damage. Apparently I should be able to just fit 3 modules on my ship in order to counter gun damage, but I just can't figure anything that works. I'm all ears.
Dr Fighter	Posted - 2007.08.05 22:48:00 - [36] what you may or may not know is that if you hav 3-4 damps on your ship and say 10 other guys hav the same setup, on one target the 4th damp does very little EVEN if the 4th damp or more is not on the same ship. The bonus is stacked as if all damps being used are on the same attacking ship. fit a sensor booster on your BS and you will always get a lock at 20km or less, sure it may take a while, but it means that say 10 ships all with 3 damps each, the target they are on wont be affected any more then a single ship with 4. they are fine as is due to the number of slots they take up and if all thise ships had multis instead or even a buch of racials the situation would be far worse (the target almost always jammed and COMPLETLY helpless. damps are not overpowerd even compared to the 'nerfed' ecm. "damps the new nos", imo 2 multis per ship is FAR more dangerous, but luckly not popular
achoura	Posted - 2007.08.05 22:59:00 - [37] Originally by: Zubakis Originally by: madaluap My hyp has: more dps, a lot more tank and can actually lock targets intime. That plate is the gheyest thing in town. Your explosive resist is very low and you only use 2 damagetypes. Also you do realise you spend 36 mil on damps and 30 mil on rigs? Thats a 66 mil investment for only those 3 meds. Celestis + setup = 8-10 mil. This is what i (and i think other people aswell) play eve for... tactics. You just outsmarted your opponent, because you dedicated 2 gangmembers for pure EW role, no damage, no tank. Just the EW. Its a low-dps crap bs. Yes you can use your uberawesome 3-4 damps setup, but it just another tactic, its not overpowered. "I dont care about your hype and what it can do." says it all. No offence m8 but if you're thick enough to try and fly any of those things solo you deserve to die (might explain why you're so miffed too) and in a gang a dedicated damp ship will be more effective hands down, oh wait thats what you're trying to stop
Aramendel Amarr Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2007.08.05 23:13:00 - [38] Originally by: Dr Fighter what you may or may not know is that if you hav 3-4 damps on your ship and say 10 other guys hav the same setup, on one target the 4th damp does very little EVEN if the 4th damp or more is not on the same ship. Exept that in the vaste majority of all situations a damps over the 4th are not needed. On a damp specced ship (without rigs) this is a reducition to 5% of the old targeting range. There are no realistic setups which have that targeting range - unless they fit additional SB2 over the initial 1-2 which are used under certain situations to counter specificalyl damps. And then you might want to compare what ECCM does vs ECM.
Dr Fighter	Posted - 2007.08.05 23:32:00 - [39] if anything should change, perhaps reduce the amount by a half to a third and increase the bonus to damp bonus ships by the same amount - like the ecm nerf. tho as i stated the actual effect (at least on damp bonus ships) should give the same reduction in range and decrease to lock speed as they do now.
Zubakis Bambooule TALIONIS ALLIANCE	Posted - 2007.08.05 23:45:00 - [40] Edited by: Zubakis on 05/08/2007 23:46:31 Originally by: achoura "I dont care about your hype and what it can do." says it all. No offence m8 but if you're thick enough to try and fly any of those things solo you deserve to die (might explain why you're so miffed too) and in a gang a dedicated damp ship will be more effective hands down, oh wait thats what you're trying to stop You should read the whole post. Solo? Who said something about soloing? And show me pls, how your Celestis (dedicated damp ship) is more effective than my Damperion. I'm not trying to nerf dedicated EW ships, they are fine. They have low DPS, weak tanks, but are strong at EW. But being able to create setups with high DPS, strong tanks and EW effectivness of a dedicated EW ship screams for balance. -- Zuba

Hannobaal Gallente Dragonfire Intergalactic Crusaders of Krom Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2007.08.06 03:16:00 - [41] Edited by: Hannobaal on 06/08/2007 03:17:02 Originally by: Aramendel The important point you miss is that an ECM specialized ship which is using all its bonuses for ECM is BETTER off using damps at range than its own EW. Apples and oranges. Sensor dampeners excell at suppressing snipers set for extreme ranges. ECM does not. What ECM can do is take away a ship's ability to fight at any range. Following your logic, a Celestis, as long as it's used against pure turret ships and at range, is more effective using tracking disruptors than sensor dampeners. So we need to "nerf" tracking disruptors. ------------------
Methem The Hand of Mortis	Posted - 2007.08.06 03:42:00 - [42] Originally by: Aakron lol another damp thread, seriously why couldnt you post in one of the other 9 threads? QFT
Aramendel Amarr Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2007.08.06 07:44:00 - [43] Originally by: Hannobaal Apples and oranges. Sensor dampeners excell at suppressing snipers set for extreme ranges. ECM does not. What ECM can do is take away a ship's ability to fight at any range. Utterly, completely wrong. Damps are fare more efficient at short-medium ranges than ECM to disable enemy ships. Damps excell there. And can be made to be as effective as ECM at extreme ranges. Quote: Following your logic, a Celestis, as long as it's used against pure turret ships and at range, is more effective using tracking disruptors than sensor dampeners. So we need to "nerf" tracking disruptors. Exept it isn't. Try to use TDs and see how "effective" you are.
Shevar Minmatar A.W.M Ka-Tet	Posted - 2007.08.06 08:12:00 - [44] Edited by: Shevar on 06/08/2007 08:13:26 Quote: People claiming that dampening dont help you in close range dont have a clue. They forget the fact that RSD's reduce your scan resolution thus increasing your lock time. You need 1 successfull jam cycle from a blackbird and your opponent is disabled for the next 1-2 minutes. ECM + Damp = WIN. 2 versus 1 = win regardless of damps.. But really do all the people whining (okok a whine packaged in what appears to be "constructive") about all kinds of PvP setups want this game to become a purely tank/spank where the only thing that matters is the ammount of DPS you can dish out and how much you can tank? Or will that call for a nerf of either tanking or DPS? Really it's just plain sad . --- -The only real drug problem is scoring real good drugs
Aramendel Amarr Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2007.08.06 08:24:00 - [45] Edited by: Aramendel on 06/08/2007 08:25:35 Even without that unspecced ships have no real problem to damp BSs below 20k, damp specced ships to damp BSs below 10k. And if you manage to get close the dampening ships has plenty of time to get range again or warp out since you will take 30sec+ to lock it. They are not that good at really close ranges, but that is no real argument - any EW is. ECM ships have no tank, getting into webrange (or even scramrange) is like a suicidewish for them. TDs do not really work well there either. The point is that damps are plain out unbalanced comapred to the other EW, it has nothing to do with "nerfing all EW". I have 3 mil in electronics (with lvl 4 spec in all real EW systems), 1.3 in missiles and 750k in gunenry, the last thing I want is EW becoming useless. I want it to become balanced. Right now the question "which EW should I use" is a no-brainer for EW ships. On my short-medrange curse which gets a TD bonus I use damps. On a fleet anti-sniper scorp you are currently more effective with damps than ECM.
Pain Bear MASS	Posted - 2007.08.06 11:36:00 - [46] My only gripe with RSD is the best standard named is WAY better fitting and same effect as the tech2. Pb
Imaos	Posted - 2007.08.06 12:03:00 - [47] Originally by: Pain Bear My only gripe with RSD is the best standard named is WAY better fitting and same effect as the tech2. Pb You might notice that that's not the only module where best named = t2 with better fittings. Maybe Signal Suppression should only work on t2 like the specs for guns. On the other hand t2 damps use to much cap for the dedicated recons. I still think the best balance would be a cap use bonus on the dedicated ships and more cap/s on the modules. 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.
Rigsta Gallente Raddick Explorations Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2007.08.06 15:49:00 - [48] OMG if you train the skills for a module and use them properly, they're effective! Who knew? Originally by: Jim McGregor I felt the disturbance... it was like a million voices suddenly stopped whining for a second. Unfortunantly it then continued.
Ivyg	Posted - 2007.08.09 05:57:00 - [49] Originally by: Stelteck The problem is not really the sensor dampeners, the problem is that you cannot counter it even if you put as many sensor booster T2 possible in all your med slots. I did the test. Arazu VS tempest with 4 SB T2. Tempest config snipe lock range : 21km ^^ Like ECCM for ECM, we need a way to counter the damp. Make ECCM works for both (ECM and damper) as example. Stelteck. Agree completely. This is the only module in the game which cannot be countered. People that are saying they are fine are the ones that rely on them for their preferred combat style. Just like the Nos nerf was due, damps will follow suit. Any module which has no downside or counter is overpowered. Any module which eliminates the possibility of someone fighting back at all is overpowered.
Dr Fighter	Posted - 2007.08.09 06:05:00 - [50] Originally by: Ivyg Originally by: Stelteck The problem is not really the sensor dampeners, the problem is that you cannot counter it even if you put as many sensor booster T2 possible in all your med slots. I did the test. Arazu VS tempest with 4 SB T2. Tempest config snipe lock range : 21km ^^ Like ECCM for ECM, we need a way to counter the damp. Make ECCM works for both (ECM and damper) as example. Stelteck. Agree completely. This is the only module in the game which cannot be countered. People that are saying they are fine are the ones that rely on them for their preferred combat style. Just like the Nos nerf was due, damps will follow suit. Any module which has no downside or counter is overpowered. Any module which eliminates the possibility of someone fighting back at all is overpowered. there are counters, they are called sensor boosters. The issue is that damps always work so all you can do is reduce the effect of them. you say ECM as a counter and its ECCM, but you can still get jammed. Well thats the same with damps, the counter works but isnt always 100% effective. EW is more ballanced now than its ever been, not so long ago a few sensor boosters would hav made 3-4 damps usless, people whined and the sensor boosters stacking was reduced, yet more whining saying the oposite way. damps work? great. Try to involve a few more modules like mwds to escape or get into range with sensor boosters. cant get round being jammed so easy and the one modules just doubles your chances. im gunna stop defending them because theres too many idiots who dont know what the are talking about because they dont know how to help themselfs so they ask the eve gods for a nerf.

Hannobaal Gallente Dragonfire Intergalactic Crusaders of Krom Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2007.08.09 06:11:00 - [51] Originally by: Aramendel Originally by: Hannobaal Apples and oranges. Sensor dampeners excell at suppressing snipers set for extreme ranges. ECM does not. What ECM can do is take away a ship's ability to fight at any range. Utterly, completely wrong. Damps are fare more efficient at short-medium ranges than ECM to disable enemy ships. Damps excell there. And can be made to be as effective as ECM at extreme ranges. No, for anything within warp disruption range, ECM are superior. Certainly on an unbonused you are not guranteed to be able to push a battleship's locking range below tech 2 warp disruption range with 3 damps. ECM will shut it down regardless of range, and even if it doesn't do it completely it will certainly do far more during a battle than the initial delay in locking time with damps. Quote: Following your logic, a Celestis, as long as it's used against pure turret ships and at range, is more effective using tracking disruptors than sensor dampeners. So we need to "nerf" tracking disruptors. Exept it isn't. Try to use TDs and see how "effective" you are. Except it is on turret ships. Why don't you try it? Three questions: How much does a tech 2 sensor booster increase locking range? How much does a tech 2 tracking computer or tracking enhancer increase optimal range on turrets? Do you see what I'm hinting at? ------------------
Benn Helmsman Caldari Helmsman Engineering Company	Posted - 2007.08.09 06:21:00 - [52] Edited by: Benn Helmsman on 09/08/2007 06:21:20 Originally by: Dr Fighter there are counters, they are called sensor boosters. The issue is that damps always work so all you can do is reduce the effect of them. you say ECM as a counter and its ECCM, but you can still get jammed. Well thats the same with damps, the counter works but isnt always 100% effective. EW is more ballanced now than its ever been, not so long ago a few sensor boosters would hav made 3-4 damps usless, people whined and the sensor boosters stacking was reduced, yet more whining saying the oposite way. damps work? great. Try to involve a few more modules like mwds to escape or get into range with sensor boosters. cant get round being jammed so easy and the one modules just doubles your chances. im gunna stop defending them because theres too many idiots who dont know what the are talking about because they dont know how to help themselfs so they ask the eve gods for a nerf. 1. Try the math of 2 sensor damps on an unbonused ship against 2 sensor booster. 2. Now try 2 RACIAL ECM on a BONUSED ship against 2 ECCM. 3. ... 4. Profit \o/
Dr Fighter	Posted - 2007.08.09 06:27:00 - [53] why bother. i fit sensor boosters for a fast long or extra range NOT for dampner defence. im happy using damps and damps being used on me. Id rather be damped than jammed as much as i hate being jammed im not gunna fit ECCM because imo its a waste of a slot most of the time. im done arguing, i give up - if damps get nerfed so they are no longer effective then i'll just hav to use somthing else, and its got nothing to do with them being an iwin module. so dont jump on my "i'll use somthing else" comment saying ahh HA! got you, you say you'll use somthing else if they wernt so good, DAMNED RIGHT, they only just work against certain ships as is, besides if i got 4 damps on one guy i dont hav much defence form his freinds. Dr fighter out having wasting a good deal of time defending a perfecting decent and ballanced module. save the whales dont save the whales, i dont give a **** anymore lol
Benn Helmsman Caldari Helmsman Engineering Company	Posted - 2007.08.09 06:31:00 - [54] They would be balanced, if only working decent on dedicated ships like ECM.
Shevar Minmatar A.W.M Ka-Tet	Posted - 2007.08.09 06:43:00 - [55] Originally by: Benn Helmsman They would be balanced, if only working decent on dedicated ships like ECM. Why? If 2 ships meet should it ALWAYS be just about who has the best tank or best gank? Really how mindboggling boring would that be? --- -The only real drug problem is scoring real good drugs
Dr Fighter	Posted - 2007.08.09 06:47:00 - [56] Edited by: Dr Fighter on 09/08/2007 06:48:20 tehehe i sed i wouldnt defend damps anymore, but concider this, you hav 3 ships all with 3 damps. Now when they all damp the same target, the target range isnt ruduced any more than just the one damp ship on its own. Now if they all when for ECM instead theyd hav 9 rolls of the ECM dice, im not good at math but thats souunds infanity worse than being damped (considering the stacking penelties on the damps). just somthing to think about, im not saying that if damps get nerfed ECM will take their place, just somthing to think about. i like the variation and as the chap above sed, how dull would it be if EW specific ships were the only ones able to use EW effectivly. or we'd all be flying blaster throns lol
Max Hardcase Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.08.09 07:02:00 - [57] ECCM is more powerfull as an ECM countermodule since it has a higher oppertunity cost. It provides zero benefit if you arent the target of ECM, while it does take up a valuable midslot. Sensor boosters are less powerfull while countering RSD, but the oppertunity cost to fit one is less than that of ECCM, since sensor boosters provide a very valuable benefit if you arent the target of an RSD. The RSD @ 150km arguement is silly. One TD hit on a sniper out there would cripple it in the just the same way as a succesfull RSD hit would.
Gaia Thorn Infestation.	Posted - 2007.08.09 08:19:00 - [58] Why is RSD over powered when hit by that module you can still fight back ? if im hit with a ECM im rumproast i can only tank and prey he doesnt get another cycle on me. With 1 or 2 SB's you get youre locking time below 1 minute and range about 20 km. Now whats so bad with that? Honestly people some modules are gonna be "overpowered" since some have a natural weakness towards it aka ive only got 2 med slots i cant fit 5 Sb t2 but hey i can shoot another type of ship that has another weakness. Stop trying to cookie cut every ship and module.
Aramendel Amarr Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate	Posted - 2007.08.09 08:59:00 - [59] Edited by: Aramendel on 09/08/2007 09:01:19 Originally by: Max Hardcase The RSD @ 150km arguement is silly. One TD hit on a sniper out there would cripple it in the just the same way as a succesfull RSD hit would. Exept they don't. Or, better: they do, but the chance that they do is far far smaller. Look at the stats, do the math, THEN speak. With skills 1 TD has a 50% chance to work at 96k and a 6% chance to work at 132k. Even if you use 3 EW rigs you have only a hitchance of 19% at 150k. To compare: damps have one of 58% at 150k with them. If damps would behave at range similat like TDs there would be no problem at all.
Max Hardcase Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.08.09 10:43:00 - [60] So you want a 50% nerf to falloff on RSD's ? But I thought everyone was whining about RSD str when it does affect you. I'd rather see TD get a little falloff love instead, its not that much used. Atleast I can buy Balmers for a decent price. The only problem I see with RSD is that its FOTM, and that magnifies any apparent "problems" people have with it. You might as well argue that guns are overpowered cause its one of the major killers in pvp. Would an ECCM module that has a flat chance to negate any EW affecting you satisfiy the Anti EW crowd ? Atleast that combined with RSB is a nice way to hedge your bets.



Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.