EVE Search - DAMPS ARE FINE SERIOUSLY

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

DAMPS ARE FINE SERIOUSLY

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Hugh Ruka Caldari Free Traders	Posted - 2007.08.15 17:08:00 - [31] Originally by: Zubakis Originally by: Hugh Ruka Of course it will ... the largest dedicated DAMP ship is a CRUISER !!! I'd seriously expect that a battleship deals more damage than a cruiser !!! And please show me the fitting where the Raven deals more damage AND has a BETTER TANK than a dedicated DAMP ship while using DAMPs itself to any effect (i.e 2-3 damps). Look here You mean this one: Quote: 3.3 Damp Raven Maxed skills Ship: Raven Highs: 6x Siege Missile Launcher II Mids: feel free to fit them, you have enough room here Lows: 2x 1600mm RT, DMC2, 2x EANM2 Rigs: 2x RSD rigs Drones: 5x Hammerhead II Result: 589 DPS, optimal 100+km, passive armor tank, EW effectivness of a Celestis 1. With my skills (Eng/Ele 5, WU 5, Awu 4, I noticed you mentioned max skills, but that won't fit either), this setup won't fit an MWD. Ever. You have to drop both plates. So you have no option to keep range with the damped ship or no tank (note that even a single LAR won't fit). 2. 586 DPS is 1/3 drone dps, the rest is only valid for BS sized targets. Every other target will get less. 3. No way to repair after fight (gang reliant). So you used 5 slots for a hp buffer tank without option to rep after fight. With no propulsion mod. That BS would be better used for damage and DAMPs are left to a Celestis. This is no gang setup nor a solo setup. Anyway you argument about the setups spins around gangs with ecm ships. In large gangs, you take single-purpose ships. It's the small (2-3) people gang and solo work where you take joat setups. the above is none. Originally by: JP Beauregard The experience with Exodus playtesting has scarred me for life. Those were bug-reports, not feature requests, you numbskulls....
Zubakis Bambooule TALIONIS ALLIANCE	Posted - 2007.08.15 17:48:00 - [32] Edited by: Zubakis on 15/08/2007 17:51:10 Originally by: Hugh Ruka 1. With my skills (Eng/Ele 5, WU 5, Awu 4, I noticed you mentioned max skills, but that won't fit either), this setup won't fit an MWD. Ever. You have to drop both plates. So you have no option to keep range with the damped ship or no tank (note that even a single LAR won't fit). So what? You cant fit MWD, this is true, but you can fit 6 damps. Originally by: Hugh Ruka 2. 586 DPS is 1/3 drone dps, the rest is only valid for BS sized targets. Every other target will get less. Still more than your Celestis. Originally by: Hugh Ruka 3. No way to repair after fight (gang reliant). Yes, it's gang reliant. Where is the problem, do you never played in gangs? Originally by: Hugh Ruka So you used 5 slots for a hp buffer tank without option to rep after fight. With no propulsion mod. That BS would be better used for damage and DAMPs are left to a Celestis. This is no gang setup nor a solo setup. If you get primaried, you will be by far better with this hp buffer tank, than with any armor repair. I dont need a propulsion mod, missiles can fly very far. And your Celestis would die in the first seconds of a fight. Originally by: Hugh Ruka Anyway you argument about the setups spins around gangs with ecm ships. In large gangs, you take single-purpose ships. It's the small (2-3) people gang and solo work where you take joat setups. the above is none. It's a gang setup, i said nothing about soloing. It's a viable setup, there are people who use similar setups. -- Zuba
Rafein	Posted - 2007.08.15 18:01:00 - [33] Originally by: Cyan Nuevo Tracking Disruptors: Only useful against turret ships. ECM: Needs a dedicated ECM setup to use effectively. Target Painters: Obviously only useful in limited situations. RSD: 3x RSD! PWNT, LOL! If damps aren't overpowered, then the rest of EW needs a boost. I don't think the rest of EW needs a boost. You mention that Damps are only effective Vs. turret ships, but fail to mention that Damps/ECM is also negated by missile ships with FoF. As for capitals, AFAIK, Dreads/Carriers have their own seige modes that make them Damp Immune.
Blood Cultist	Posted - 2007.08.15 18:18:00 - [34] Edited by: Blood Cultist on 15/08/2007 18:18:26 Originally by: Zubakis You are totally wrong. This Raven will deal more damage and will have more tank than any dedicated EW ship . WIN Obviously it will have more damage and outtank a damp ship, it also doesn't have the same dampening power. Your comparison is flawed, it has a weak tank or weak damage compared to other battleships. The Raven doesn't get magical slots, with five damps and a sensor booster in mids that leaves five lows for tank and damage mods. Hence weak damage or weak tank for a battleship.
Zubakis Bambooule TALIONIS ALLIANCE	Posted - 2007.08.15 18:23:00 - [35] Originally by: Blood Cultist Edited by: Blood Cultist on 15/08/2007 18:18:26 Originally by: Zubakis You are totally wrong. This Raven will deal more damage and will have more tank than any dedicated EW ship . WIN Obviously it will have more damage and outtank a damp ship, it also doesn't have the same dampening power. Your comparison is flawed, it has a weak tank or weak damage compared to other battleships. The Raven doesn't get magical slots, with five damps and a sensor booster in mids that leaves five lows for tank and damage mods. Hence weak damage or weak tank for a battleship. With rigs it has. And i'm not comparing Raven to other battleships, i'm comparing Raven to a dedicated damp ship. It has still more DPS than a Celestis and a better tank than a Celestis. -- Zuba
Shadowsword COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2007.08.15 18:28:00 - [36] Originally by: Heikki Originally by: Lydia Browm whatever is the FOTM it needs to be nerfed You got that one right; glad to see you supporting slight damp nerf as well :) -Lasse QFT. When people start putting the same module on any ship that has the slots to spare, you know something is wrong... ------------------------------------------ What is Oomph? It the sound Amarr players makes when they get kicked in the ribs.
Blood Cultist	Posted - 2007.08.15 18:44:00 - [37] Edited by: Blood Cultist on 15/08/2007 18:45:15 Quote: With rigs it has. And i'm not comparing Raven to other battleships, i'm comparing Raven to a dedicated damp ship. It has still more DPS than a Celestis and a better tank than a Celestis. I assumed you were talking about recons when talking about dedicated damp ships, not comparing a cheap cruiser to a 90 mil battleship with two 20 mil rigs. Regardless, if you were to equip a Celestis with five damps with those two same rigs it would still be a better damp platform than a Raven. With max skills the damps on the raven give -68.41%, those on the celestis -76.31%. Without the rigs, lo and behold, -70.75% which is still better than the Raven for a tiny portion of the cost. Even without a sensor booster the celestis still has nearly twice the signature resolution of a sensor boosted Raven, coupled with its lower sig it would get first lock on a damp raven every single time. The celestis is a better platform for pure dampening, as it should be, it has less dps, tank, and far less cost than a battleship, as it should. I see no problem here.
Cyan Nuevo The Blackguard Wolves Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.08.16 03:24:00 - [38] Originally by: Rafein You mention that Damps are only effective Vs. turret ships, but fail to mention that Damps/ECM is also negated by missile ships with FoF. So you can do (less) damage with FoF missiles, but can you web, scram, jam, or otherwise own? No. I'm not saying the RSD concept is overpowered anyway, the modules just need a slight nerf. Three of them on any old ship shouldn't be as powerful as it is. Quote: As for capitals, AFAIK, Dreads/Carriers have their own seige modes that make them Damp Immune. Except the carrier one takes away all your fighters... --- Proud Amarr pilot.
Mr Friendly That it Should Come to This	Posted - 2007.08.16 06:16:00 - [39] as per your title, NO THEY'RE NOT it's a must-fit item, it nukes people back into the stone age if they have more than 2 on them, and they don't have any real drawbacks for the ships that fit them (other than taking up slot(s)). Come on, ECM used to be the 'thing' to slap on, and it got nerfed because it did exactly what damps do now: make pvp into whoever gets the lock first. That's crappy pvp. It's frustrating pvp. Screw that. Make damp specced ships own like they should (the Arazu NEEDS damps to survive), but putting damps whenever you ask yourself, 'hmm, I have a med slot or two open, what should I fit?' MEANS damps are too powerful. Balance them, sure, we don't have to hit them like ecm got hit, but for god's sake, whenever a fit almost automatically includes a particular module, its got too much performance vs. the other options available; that means it's overpowered, and should get balanced so it's not such an obvious choice. come on, its not a matter of 'adapting' when your locking speed is doubled, it's a matter of 'wtf!' 'lame!!!' Oh look, my BS now takes a REALLY long time to lock anything smaller than a BC... not balanced. also, how much 1vs1 is there is eve right now? Mostly it's gang and up, so the primary gets more than just one damp on him. Life suddenly turned from a fight into a 'screw this, this is nonsense' one-sided gank. Keep damp ships with damp bonuses, but make a damp a viable but not 'automatic' choice for the other ship types. A nerf is not needed, but a balancing IS. cheers __________________________________________________ FOLD. The Ultimate PVP. It really is Us vs. Them. clicky
Lao Cheng	Posted - 2007.08.16 11:20:00 - [40] You know that if u have 5 slots and after using 4 of them i go for another web instead of a damp, guess why :o

Lady Caeser Open Fist of Castallus	Posted - 2007.08.16 11:47:00 - [41] Originally by: Lao Cheng You know that if u have 5 slots and after using 4 of them i go for another web instead of a damp, guess why :o Flying an overpowered minmatar recon? -------------------------------------- What are you looking at? --------------------------------------
Yuleth Gix	Posted - 2007.08.16 11:50:00 - [42] Nerf webs!!!!!11one haha
B'huz Illion	Posted - 2007.08.16 12:11:00 - [43] Edited by: B''huz Illion on 16/08/2007 12:12:04 First nerf Dampeners! Then nerf Sensor Boosters! Then nerf Signal Amplifiers! After that nerf Webbers and Scramblers! Let's just all play online rock/paper/scissors Where does it end.
Sebesto Minmatar Destination Unknown	Posted - 2007.08.16 12:23:00 - [44] Originally by: Pinky Denmark Edited by: Pinky Denmark on 15/08/2007 11:20:34 Maybe dampeners are fine, but so was ECM So was NOS, but people are going to keep complaining and CCP is going to keep listening until this game is basically everyone running around in noob ships because they haven't been nerfed. That is, until people complain about Reapers being overpowered and it gets nerfed.
Pinky Denmark The Cursed Navy	Posted - 2007.08.16 12:36:00 - [45] well - 2-3 damps on any target is so easy and the pilot will more or less just be sitting there... 2-3 jammers might do the same for 20 seconds - but it's a chance and it takes a specific setup with little tank and often a choice of racials making it only effective against chosen oponents. Even eccm is available for both med AND lowslots. I know about signal amps, but tell me how my chances are against 2-3 damps with a few signal amps. I don't say a Sensor Dampener is overpowered. but 2-3 of them are almost impossible to counter in most sensible setups. - I'm a nice guy!! MOA is NOT UGLY!!! It's A FREAK SHOW!!!!
NightmareX Caldari Infinitus Odium The Church.	Posted - 2007.08.16 13:53:00 - [46] Originally by: Mr Friendly Edited by: Mr Friendly on 16/08/2007 07:51:01 Edited by: Mr Friendly on 16/08/2007 07:33:48 as per your title, NO THEY'RE NOT it's a must-fit item, it nukes people back into the stone age if they have more than 2 on them, and they don't have any real drawbacks for the ships that fit them (other than taking up slot(s)). Come on, ECM used to be 'the thing' to slap on, and it got nerfed because it did exactly what damps do now: make pvp into whoever gets the lock first. That's crappy pvp. It's frustrating pvp. Screw that. Keep damp specced ships working like they do now (the Arazu NEEDS damps to survive-wafer thin, anyone?), but putting damps in whenever you ask yourself, 'hmm, I have a med slot or two open, what should I fit?' MEANS damps are too powerful. Balance them, sure, we don't have to hit them like ecm got hit, but for god's sake, whenever a fit almost automatically includes a particular module (excluding basic pvp fits like web/scram obviously), its got too much performance vs. the other options available; that means it's overpowered, and should get balanced so it's not such an obvious choice. come on, its not a matter of 'adapting' when your locking speed is doubled (or trebled!), it's a matter of 'wtf!' 'lame!!!' Oh look, my BS now takes a REALLY long time to lock anything smaller than a BC... that's not balanced, it's a ream-job. Also, how much 1 vs 1 is there is in Eve right now? Mostly it's gang and up, so the primary gets more than just one damp on him. Life suddenly turned from a fight into a 'screw this, this is nonsense' one-sided gank. Eve pvp should not be about having the I-win Epic weapon... it should integrally involve the player at the keyboard. You know, the guy past his SP? I expect to be scrammed and webbed; that's Eve. That doesn't stop me from fighting back (in the main). Dampening me so I take a minute to lock my nearest BS @ 10 km effectively removes the player from the game and makes it a game of 'hah-hah, locked you first... NooOb. Lrn2play". Keep damp ships with damp bonuses, but make a damp a viable but not 'automatic' choice for the other ship types. A nerf is not needed, but a balancing IS. cheers edit: nothing like editing my edits ftw;( I'm apparently too stupid to post /cuts wrist This man speaks the truth
Chelmar II Caldari Perkone	Posted - 2007.08.16 19:52:00 - [47] Fitting 3 damps nerfs either speed or tackling ability on most non-dedicated ships with 4 or more med slots. Let's look at the following 1v1 scenarios involving unbonused 3x damping: 1.) You damp a Raven outside of 20km. (I choose a Raven since it's pretty common and has a relatively high targeting range.) If you have an MWD, you can try to get within scram range, otherwise it will run away. 2.) You damp a Raven within 20km (scram range) but outside of 10km (web range). If you have an MWD, you can approach and web it, but only with unbonused damps the Raven will have a 17-19km targeting range and a minimum of around 75 second targeting speed without sensor boosters. Then, if it tanks you for that long, it will eventually target you, and you will pop. If the Raven has cruise launchers, then it can still spam FoFs at you, and if you decide to tank them long enough to realize you can't, the Raven probably has you targeted and scrammed, and you will pop. However, if you do tank the Raven's torps or cruises and manage to keep it within scram range, then after a while you will outlast him. 3.) You damp a Raven within 10km. You have the Raven in scram and web range now, so look over at scenario 2 to see what the Raven can do to you. If you have a close range gank setup (i.e. neutrons) you can probably dish enough DPS in 75 seconds to at least wear down its shield tank, and the Raven will pop. Looking at the above, scenarios 2 and 3 are the only solo options that are truly viable, with scenario 3 giving the greater probability of success. This happens to coincide exactly with Gallente design philosophy which encourages the use of hard-hitting, close-range weapons called blasters. Not only that, but the only ships which get damping bonuses are Gallente. What a coincidence!</sarcasm> As much as dampeners are considered by some to be FOTM, their targeting penalties are a) ineffectual and b) a waste when only fitted in that extra med slot. Usually this happens due to player ignorance rather than inherent overpoweredness. Contrast this to even a small nos, which in its current condition can utterly cap-nuke a frigate or, in rare cases, even a BS if used long enough (bleeder FTW). On the other hand, when damps are used a) as far as the stacking penalty makes effective, and b) with a sensible overall ship role, they do EXACTLY what they are supposed to, as shown by the above scenarios: encourage targets to get close and into pewpew range. The rest should be trivial.
Chelmar II Caldari Perkone	Posted - 2007.08.16 20:02:00 - [48] Anyway I need my damps. Don't touch my damps please :p
warpod Amarr Pact Of Honour United Legion	Posted - 2007.08.16 21:10:00 - [49] Damps are fine, because you need at least 3 to be effective. That means three medslots! (fitting issues here). And you are very vulnerable if you have more than 1 opponent. Do not touch damps, or solo PVP will be completely dead. And for the future nerfs, CCP, please, make some voting system. It is a pain when small group of whiners make some aspects of game completely unplayable.
Reto The Last Resort	Posted - 2007.08.18 11:38:00 - [50] Originally by: Damned Force Originally by: Reto Originally by: Damned Force Originally by: Amberly Coteaz Nothing wrong with damps, sensor boosters just need boosting in a way that a single sensor booster will completly cancel out a sensor damp of the same 'grade' (eg both basic t1, or both best named t1 etc). The problem, that dampeners are easy to use and they doing too powrfull work on big ships(like carriers). 1 single arazu with dampeners can disable a carrier, and that is wrong. There would be some way to fix them: like use various sized ones on various ships, like neuts are(and make them reduce fixed range and resolution, not %) Or split the dampeners on range reducing and resolution reducing module. As i can remember this is the only EW module affecting 2 different attributes on a ship did u know that a single griffin can do this too...with ecm ? OMG TO THE NERF MOBILE ! i would like to see the griffin which can switch off the carrier. pls give me one. The griffin would have poor chance again a carrier. and if the target have 1 eccm the chance is almost 0 even by a dedicated ecm ship. But u can fit even 2 sensor boosters on the carrier, the arazu would win the EW fight :( I see u never flough any ecm ship or a carrier i didnt fly a carrier so far but i have nearly max. skills in ecm systems sunshine. and damps target range reduction isnt the real problem here but the poor sig resolution of a carrier and the sig res penalty resulting from damps. damps are meant to reduce range so u cant simply attack from afar. nothing more nothing less. its simple, the bigger the ship the smaller its sig resolution the more they are affected by dampners. ecm however is the other way around the bigger the ship the less chance u have due to bigger sensor strenght. however i manage to jam battleships in my griffin due to skills and rigs. i bet i could do that with a carrier aswell since the chance is never 0%. u shouldnt whine about dampners with the "my 1,5bil carrier is disabled by a 50 mil recon cruiser arguement". a carrier isnt meant to be a solokilling machine which can fight everything off on its own. if u have at least 1 gangmate in a simple frigate with u the arazu is toast. dont u think that dedicating at least 3 medslots for disabeling a single target isnt ballanced ? imo a scorp is by far superior to the arazu. a scorpion can jam 3 targets if hes lucky without a problem. an arazu is happy getting only 1 in range of his damps and keeping him damped. Originally by: s4mp3r0r "Hey man, you're mom has a cruise missile".

LUKEC Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.08.18 11:49:00 - [51] Originally by: Reto an arazu is happy getting only 1 in range of his damps and keeping him damped. What about rigged lachesis, with no luck it can gimp more than your lucky scorp can jam? -------- I tanked D2 capital fleet and all I got was truncated Erebus mail.
welsh wizard 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.08.18 12:20:00 - [52] Edited by: welsh wizard on 18/08/2007 12:21:25 I love this expression "permajam". It doesn't exist folks, its a myth. A griffin won't threaten a carrier for any more than 1 cycle with its midslots setup with racials unless the carrier is on its own and stupid.
Aramendel Amarr Coreli Corporation Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2007.08.18 12:27:00 - [53] If the strength of your ECM is > the sensor strength of your target its still possible just fine Vs carriers its a silly statement though of cource.
welsh wizard 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.08.18 12:28:00 - [54] Edited by: welsh wizard on 18/08/2007 12:32:18 Originally by: Aramendel If the strength of your ECM is > the sensor strength of your target its still possible just fine Vs carriers its a silly statement though of cource. You have a Griffin with a higher sensor strength than a carrier? :D edit: Bah, didn't read the second line. :P Yeah, with a full skilled Rook loaded with rigs, ecm damage mods, racials and gang boosting you can get a higher sensor strength than some cruisers. Thats the limit though.
LUKEC Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.08.18 13:27:00 - [55] With the current state of EW, rigged damparook is better than ECM one. At least you have lowslots for damage mods and effect that won't result in zomg, 3 racials failed to jam this blasterthron... wait i'm dead. -------- I tanked D2 capital fleet and all I got was truncated Erebus mail.
Teani Gallente omen.	Posted - 2007.08.19 09:24:00 - [56] damps arefine vs all bar cap ships , againstcarriers and dread they are stupidly overpowered because theres no difference of effect on using a damp and a frig or a carrier Signature Your signature exceeds the 24000 byte limit on the forums -Darth Patches
Laboratus Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen	Posted - 2007.08.19 10:58:00 - [57] I would like to ask all of you gentlemen to define for us what in your opinion is the role of sensor damps. What do they have to be able to do and at what skill level and setup. I'll go first. Gallantean combat philosophy differes from the amarr philosophy of max tank and max gang in the tanking aspect. Gallante EW tank. The purpose of sensor damps is dual. In low skilled setups it is to make possible for newer players to damp significantly up to 2 BS sized ships efficiently. With more skill intensive setups the purpose of damps is to protect the ship from being shot upon outside the effective range of blasters and to provide enough time in the form of the sig res penalty for the blaster boat to be able to get enough head start on the damage to the other guy to survive with little tank (think celestis with 3/4 damps neutron blasters and damage mods). Instead of commenting, please say what you think what that module is supposed to do in regards to your own view of gallantean combat philosophy. ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats
Dr Fighter	Posted - 2007.08.19 11:16:00 - [58]
Laboratus Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen	Posted - 2007.08.19 11:22:00 - [59] pic don't work ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats
Aramendel Amarr Coreli Corporation Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2007.08.19 12:07:00 - [60] Edited by: Aramendel on 19/08/2007 12:10:30 In general all races EW is aimed to enhance their racial strengths, not to counter their racial weaknesses. Caldari are the long range race and their EW system is effective in countering enemy snipers. Amarr are a race with a strong turret focus and cap superiority. Their recons make enemy turrets less effective and are good in cap warfare. Minmatar are the skirmish race with high speed and low sigs. Their recons can make enemies slower at long ranges and boosts the sig of enemy ships. The gallente philosophy is trading higher damage vs a shorter efficient range. If their EW would follow their racial philosophy - just like the EW of all other races - Damps should be more effective than other races EW at shorter range but does not do much at longer ranges. Which it is in some aspects and in other aspects isn't. It is in the 10-120k range the most effective EW, but it also is very efficient at sniper ranges with the right setup. A scorp can be with damps more effective than with racial ECM in fleet warfare. The effective range of damps is WAY too high. If it would be effective at 10-50k it would be closer to the racial theme. And from a balance aspect the range & sig resolution reduction at the same time is imbalanced. If a tracking disrupted ship manages to come close to counter its lower effective range and minimizes the transversal it counters the effect of TDs. If a ECM ship fails a cycle it is instantly lockable and very quickly destroyed if in range since it has no tank. If you come close enough to a damp ship you'll have a 30 sec+ lock time, giving the damp ship plenty of time to retreat. It should be able to reduce scan resolution and targeting range at the same time.



Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: 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.