EVE Search - nice, but too much damping..

All Channels

EVE Alliance Tournament Discussion

nice, but too much damping..

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Roq Tabris	Posted - 2007.08.31 17:35:00 - [1] nice tournament fights so far.. only one thing to "whine" about..i think there is too much sensor damping in the fights..what do you ppl think?
QwaarJet Gallente hirr Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.08.31 17:40:00 - [2] It's not our concern to come up with an interesting setup. It's our job to win, it's the Devs/GM's jobs to come up with interesting rules. There are too many damps, but they just happen to be the standard tactic for this tourney.
Asestorian Minmatar Domination.	Posted - 2007.08.31 17:41:00 - [3] Well, it's an extremely effective tactic. Although it's early into the whole thing, so it may start to change later. So far, I don't really mind it. --- ---
Ishina Fel Caldari Synergy. Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2007.08.31 17:41:00 - [4] Edited by: Ishina Fel on 31/08/2007 17:42:03 Indeed, the winning teams' setup thoughts seem to go along the lines of "Let's take the minimum amount of damage that can break any single opposing tank, add a few remote reps for safety, and then spam as many Mauluses as there are slots left". Of course, that's not entirely true, but it's a certain tendency Rooks and other ECM ships have been a remarkable waste of points so far, except for the Griffin, which seems surprisingly cost-effective. Sensor dampening far far outpaces ECM in importance though. Can't really blame anyone for fielding them though, considering how powerful they are.
Pharos Dei Cruoris Seraphim	Posted - 2007.08.31 17:46:00 - [5] well, nos used to be lthe last tourney big thing, sensor damps are this years. maybe with some degree of hope we will see them being readjusted by the 5th tourny Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes -Hango ([email protected])
Patch86 Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2007.08.31 17:49:00 - [6] I agree that it does make for some extremely dull fights. It's doing much the same as remote repping did in the last tournament. Not that any of the blame should go to the competitors- they can and should just use whatever they find most effective. Any blame for things like this should be directed at the rule writers. But this kind of thing will probably crop up in any rule-set, so it's not really worth getting worked up about it. ------ Originally by: CCP Prism X There's no such thing as playing too much EvE! You all obviously need more accounts!
Shamis Orzoz Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.08.31 17:50:00 - [7] There are counters to damps. Only reason we had so many damps was because this was the easiest team to setup and most of our best pilots were unavailable since our match times BLOW.
Imperator Jora'h	Posted - 2007.08.31 17:55:00 - [8] Every so often (rather often actually) someone posts in the forum asking when damps will get nerfed and they are usually shouted down by many people saying they are fine...adapt. Since I do not PvP much I tend to stay out of those arguments but just thinking on them I have to agree I think they are overpowered and I think their ubiquitous use in the tournament just highlights that. EVE is best when there is no "must have" mod. NOS used to be in that category and damps (and as a result sensor boosters) have likewise fallen into that category. I have no idea what an appropriate fix is and not sure this is the place to speculate but this tournament does seem to highlight that they could do with some tweaking.
Aramendel Amarr Coreli Corporation Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2007.08.31 19:22:00 - [9] Edited by: Aramendel on 31/08/2007 19:26:22 Originally by: Shamis Orzoz There are counters to damps. There are counters vs everything. Problem is if they are cost/effect wise efficient counters. Vs damps those do not seem to exist. Saw a picture of the Intrepid Crossing's damnation - targeting range 2.2k. 4 (!) SB2 and it would have had 8.6k - yes, that would have helped for sure Although I must say SB2s are indeed the counter to damps. If you have more of them you can lock and damp the enemy ships first.
Kagura Nikon Minmatar Guardians of the Dawn Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.08.31 19:34:00 - [10] SB are far from being a counter to damps. A SB would need to Boost 100% to counter a sensor dampener of 50% Simple math. Sensor dampeners/boosters balance MUST be looked at. Some nerf to the dampeners and some boost to boosters should do the trick A Ship with 3 SB II should be at about 70% of its range when being dampened by 3 DP2, not 10% If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Szaman	Posted - 2007.08.31 19:45:00 - [11] Originally by: Kagura Nikon SB are far from being a counter to damps. A SB would need to Boost 100% to counter a sensor dampener of 50% Simple math. Sensor dampeners/boosters balance MUST be looked at. Some nerf to the dampeners and some boost to boosters should do the trick A Ship with 3 SB II should be at about 70% of its range when being dampened by 3 DP2, not 10% Stop the whine noob. Learn to play
dalman Finite Horizon	Posted - 2007.08.31 19:50:00 - [12] Originally by: Ishina Fel Rooks and other ECM ships have been a remarkable waste of points so far, except for the Griffin Negative. The Rook is essential in the setup BoB/BoB2 used. And Ivy League would have beaten roadkill if they had managed to jam the basilisk earlier in that match. Am I forced to have any regret? I've become the lie, beautiful and free In my righteous own mind I adore and preach the insanity you gave to me
Aceoil Murder-Death-Kill	Posted - 2007.08.31 20:01:00 - [13] Range also affects this. Do these ships start within 40km of each other? Sensor dampeners & ECM have a max range of 50km i believe.
doctorstupid2 Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire	Posted - 2007.08.31 20:34:00 - [14] Originally by: Aceoil Range also affects this. Do these ships start within 40km of each other? Sensor dampeners & ECM have a max range of 50km i believe. 135km is the edge of falloff (still functional, occasional miss) with T2/muon damps and max skills, T2 racial jammers with max skills attached to a ship with range bonus hit the edge of falloff just past 202km. Maulus and griffin are logical choices as you get very good e-war capability per point used, and can be very difficult to counter especially when backed with logistics. It's not terribly exciting to watch, but it's effective, and I think that's the goal of most teams competing. Steel Rat > if they only knew we make this **** up as we go
Owi Es and Whizz Hedonistic Imperative	Posted - 2007.08.31 20:34:00 - [15] no comment on someone who didnt even watched the full day to make his point Quote: Posted - 2007.08.31 17:35:00 My EvE-Files.com folder !
Kodiak31415 An Eye For An Eye Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.08.31 22:06:00 - [16] I personally don't care about damps on TQ, but it makes for very boring fights. Damping the living daylights out of the other team with your 5 maluses may be a good tatic but makes for boring fights for the viewers. _______________________________ Pleese exucse any seplling erorr's in tihs psot
William DeMeo Gallente Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.08.31 22:12:00 - [17] Originally by: Kodiak31415 I personally don't care about damps on TQ, but it makes for very boring fights. Damping the living daylights out of the other team with your 5 maluses may be a good tatic but makes for boring fights for the viewers. On the contrary, the CoW vs. Chaos Incarnate FoF match was one of the most interesting I've seen. Yarr
Pinky Denmark The Cursed Navy	Posted - 2007.08.31 22:42:00 - [18] Dampeners are somewhat fine, but so was ecm... The problem is you can't really counter them easily because they are so strong compared to sensor boosters. even if they are stacking nerfed. - I'm a nice guy!! MOA is NOT UGLY!!! It's A FREAK SHOW!!!!
dalman Finite Horizon	Posted - 2007.08.31 23:26:00 - [19] Edited by: dalman on 31/08/2007 23:27:50 Dampeners are bizarrely overpowered modules and have always been. But on TQ their use is limited, and are mostly used to render capships useless and make it impossible to fight outnumbered. The tourney is another matter. Because of the control you have. You know exactly what you face, and you have plenty of time to give exact instructions (a dampen x, b dampen y, c dampen z, and so on). Just looking at the matches today, you could see for example how BoB, BoB2, MM, Cruel Intentions,Red Skull and, I'd say, MC as well, all came with setups based on dampeners while also sporting a way to counter opponent dampeners. Am I forced to have any regret? I've become the lie, beautiful and free In my righteous own mind I adore and preach the insanity you gave to me
Yakia TovilToba Halliburton Inc.	Posted - 2007.08.31 23:50:00 - [20] Originally by: William DeMeo Originally by: Kodiak31415 I personally don't care about damps on TQ, but it makes for very boring fights. Damping the living daylights out of the other team with your 5 maluses may be a good tatic but makes for boring fights for the viewers. On the contrary, the CoW vs. Chaos Incarnate FoF match was one of the most interesting I've seen. Really loved to see that, 4 tanking drakes run into an ew ships and using fofs. Would be even more funny if the caracal team had more ew ships FoF and a smartbomb to get rid of small drones (ok drakes prolly even don't need a smarty as heavys kill drones pretty nice) is a perfect countertacktics to a mass of ew-ships (sensordapeners or jammers).
Dex Thorpe	Posted - 2007.08.31 23:55:00 - [21] Edited by: Dex Thorpe on 31/08/2007 23:55:03
Sylva Moon Eternal Rising EternalRising	Posted - 2007.08.31 23:55:00 - [22] Originally by: Shamis Orzoz There are counters to damps. Only reason we had so many damps was because this was the easiest team to setup and most of our best pilots were unavailable since our match times BLOW. QFT :P I'm surprised we even turned up to get beat...but good victory regardless.. The damping thing was always going to be big... if the teams are able to get into slugging range it wouldn't be so profound.. but with a huge distance to drive vs ships moving away at decent speed there is going to be no contest.
Sai Renn Leader Dogs For The Blind	Posted - 2007.09.01 00:22:00 - [23] Originally by: William DeMeo Originally by: Kodiak31415 I personally don't care about damps on TQ, but it makes for very boring fights. Damping the living daylights out of the other team with your 5 maluses may be a good tatic but makes for boring fights for the viewers. On the contrary, the CoW vs. Chaos Incarnate FoF match was one of the most interesting I've seen. Aye, I tuned in very late and that was the second fight i saw today. Was great to watch. -----
Max Payne	Posted - 2007.09.01 02:52:00 - [24] won't 5 ishtars pumping drones beat the hell out of dampening ships?just stay on top of each other pack 5 hardeners, remote armor reps in highs, keep launching medium or even light or hell sentry drones ...when they get damaged pull them in launch them again wait till missile hits you - drones with auto counter attack....

Pages: [1] :: 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.