EVE Search - Tis' time - dampeners need to be chance based and 1 dampening per ship

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Tis' time - dampeners need to be chance based and 1 dampening per ship

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Atsuko Ratu Caldari VSP Corp.	Posted - 2007.09.01 16:36:00 - [31] Originally by: Bendit Edited by: Bendit on 01/09/2007 16:31:46 Quote: Again, False math and an unreasonable assumption. 1 damp vs. 1 booster: 125 * 1.6 * 0.416 = 83.2, not 104. Quote: So you did max range skill vs 0 bonused damps? Nice dude. I just replied to your post: Quote: 3 midslots to counter 2 frigs using 1 damp each, and you still can not lock past initial lock range. That's unboosted tech2 damps. Then I asked if it was ships with bonuses, like the maulus. and got this answer: Quote: No? Then I did the numbers. And the 125km lockrange was just to make it easy, nice round numbers. But if we used 3 mids as you said in the first post it would actually have almost the same lockrange: 123,8km I did mislead you a little, I was assuming that the user would actually have at least lvl 3 in damp skill (I think I actually said no skill bonuses, my bad on that part). If you're gonna use lvl 5 targeting range, let's start using lvl 5 sensor damp strength. Someone has already posted the result.
Shadowsword COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2007.09.01 16:38:00 - [32] Edited by: Shadowsword on 01/09/2007 16:41:20 Originally by: Centurion1 Originally by: Nian Banks For target painters, the simplest fix would be a -2%/lvl to all resistances as a second bonus. That would make it damned useful. For tracking disruptors, perhaps a second ability that reduces the rate of fire of launchers. apart from that not much you could do. Best idea yet, would also help pwn omni tankns. Very, very Bad Idea: -10% resist to enemy ships is way more effective than a second of third damage mod. Say your enemy has 70% resists, average. Remove 10% resist, and you're suddenly doing 25% more DPS. Painter are mid slots. Which race suffer the most from omni-tanks? Now, which race has the least mid slots? That change would turn blaster rokhs and maelstroms into the new gankageddon: fit 3 damage mods and 3 painters, and you have a pwnmobile. ------------------------------------------ What is Oomph? It the sound Amarr players makes when they get kicked in the ribs.
Bendit	Posted - 2007.09.01 16:49:00 - [33] Edited by: Bendit on 01/09/2007 16:51:40 Edited by: Bendit on 01/09/2007 16:49:18 Quote: I did mislead you a little, I was assuming that the user would actually have at least lvl 3 in damp skill (I think I actually said no skill bonuses, my bad on that part). If you're gonna use lvl 5 targeting range, let's start using lvl 5 sensor damp strength. Someone has already posted the result. Sure, I can do both actually, with lvl 5 strength and without lvl 5 longrangetargetting. With lvl 5 damp strength: 1 sensorbooster vs 1 damp: 75km 2 sensorbosoter vs 2 damp: 55.8km 3 sensorbooster vs 2 damp: 74.8km With lvl 5 damps strength and without long range target skill. 1 sensorbooster vs 1 damp: 62.4km 2 sensorbooster vs 2 damp: 44.6km 3 sensorbooster vs 2 damp: 59.9km If you have long range targeting at lvl 5 your ship will never go below 47km if you fit the same amount of sensorboosters as damps. This is all done with our fictional 100km baserange ship. Actually, even if you only fit 2 sensorbooster, your lockrange will still be 27.6km with 6 damps on you.... Yeah, your locktime will suck. But with the OMG tanks we are seeing nowdays that wouldnt be a problem
Leandro Salazar The Blackguard Wolves Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.09.01 16:57:00 - [34] Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 01/09/2007 16:59:03 So maybe for a reasonable example we should use 70km base lock range and lvl4 in the RSD strength skill? Lvl5 IS quite a long train and thus not a reasonable assumption for common use, just like 100km base lock range is unreasonable. And tbh the only conclusion I can draw from all these examples is that you must for 3 sensor boosters on anything to even hope to counter being damped to oblivion by unbonused ships? lol Fix speedtanks, base hit chance on agility!
Atsuko Ratu Caldari VSP Corp.	Posted - 2007.09.01 16:58:00 - [35] Also try to remember, my whole point in posting all of that was to prove that "you can't go below initial range" poster was wrong Again, I think the lock on time is what kills it, range isn't that big of a deal (maybe decrease scan res. reduction on damps?)
Leandro Salazar The Blackguard Wolves Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.09.01 17:01:00 - [36] Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 01/09/2007 17:01:25 Originally by: Atsuko Ratu Also try to remember, my whole point in posting all of that was to prove that "you can't go below initial range" poster was wrong Again, I think the lock on time is what kills it, range isn't that big of a deal (maybe decrease scan res. reduction on damps?) Well what I would love to see is both stats seperated, RSDs retaining the range reduction and staying the Gallente EW, and a new module that reduces scan res and becomes the minmatar EW instead of painters which really are not EW at all but just a general purpose module. Would kill two birds with one stone. Fix speedtanks, base hit chance on agility!
sov68n Caldari RABBLE-RABBLE Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.09.01 17:07:00 - [37] Originally by: Leandro Salazar That and the obvious fact that many people like sov68n have no idea how damp math really works and thus are ignorant of how overpowered the things actually are. thank you for belittling your own alliancemate. I did calculations without skills and and rigs, so what? that was alot of math I didn't feel like doing. cry me a river. --- the KOS killboards nerfed our kill sigs!!!
Cpt Branko The Bloody Red	Posted - 2007.09.01 17:14:00 - [38] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 01/09/2007 17:14:54 Originally by: Atsuko Ratu 3 midslots to counter 2 frigs using 1 damp each, and you still can not lock past initial lock range. That's unboosted tech2 damps. A single anti-ecm mod will make it nearly impossible for a 5-6 non-boosted racials to jam you (if you're in a bship or recon). Well... two griffins will also run any single ship's day, and nobody fits eccm, because it doesn't really do anything for you except, of course, countering ECM. My Myrmidon mates typically do use a sensor booster, it assists in locking down things faster, and you get the occasional pod that way Anyway, two damps from an unbonused ship still won't damp me into uselessness in a close-range setup, sorry. And if the opponent has two more frigs on his side, well, duh, i expect it to go roughly. Ewar is beautiful in gangs. Basically, just one (one) noob showing up in a griffin standing 40km off can turn the tide of a close-range slugfest. Originally by: Tsanse Kinske The second you start equating time spent playing a game with lost time and money is the second you need to ask yourself "Why am I playing?". Seriously
Bendit	Posted - 2007.09.01 17:38:00 - [39] Quote: And tbh the only conclusion I can draw from all these examples is that you must for 3 sensor boosters on anything to even hope to counter being damped to oblivion by unbonused ships? lol If someone is using enough mids to damp you to oblivion, yes you need to use alot of sensorboosters. Would you say it`s unreasonable that I have to fit a sheild/armour tank to be able to soak up damage? Or that I would need to fit cap boosters or cap recharger or even nos to counter a energy draining setup? Or god forbid, fit wcs to counter scramblers? Or mwd to counter someone webbing me? Would you say that webs are overpowered? They use the same stacking as damps... And thoose webs work agaisnt ONE fitted module...
Leandro Salazar The Blackguard Wolves Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.09.01 18:11:00 - [40] Originally by: sov68n Originally by: Leandro Salazar That and the obvious fact that many people like sov68n have no idea how damp math really works and thus are ignorant of how overpowered the things actually are. thank you for belittling your own alliancemate. I did calculations without skills and and rigs, so what? that was alot of math I didn't feel like doing. cry me a river. There was a lot more wrong with your math than just disregard for skill and rigs. Like adding up the bonuses instead of multiplying them, treating dampening as a positive modifer instead of a negative one, comparing positive and negative modifier as if they had equal effects, and actually coming up with an additive comparison between both modifiers instead of the correct multiplicative one. And if someone so horribly butchers math to defend an imho overpowered module, I don't give a fk whether he is in my alliance or not, he just deserves a lil smack in the face. Fix speedtanks, base hit chance on agility!
ReePeR McAllem The Carebear Stare	Posted - 2007.09.01 18:15:00 - [41] Damps are fine... ADAPT!
Leandro Salazar The Blackguard Wolves Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.09.01 18:20:00 - [42] Originally by: Bendit Edited by: Bendit on 01/09/2007 17:50:13 Edited by: Bendit on 01/09/2007 17:49:00 Quote: And tbh the only conclusion I can draw from all these examples is that you must for 3 sensor boosters on anything to even hope to counter being damped to oblivion by unbonused ships? lol If someone is using enough mids to damp you to oblivion, yes you need to use alot of sensorboosters. Would you say it`s unreasonable that I have to fit a sheild/armour tank to be able to soak up damage? Or that I would need to fit cap boosters or cap recharger or even nos to counter a energy draining setup? Or god forbid, fit wcs to counter scramblers? Or mwd to counter someone webbing me? Would you say that webs are overpowered? They use the same stacking as damps... And thoose webs work agaisnt ONE fitted module... what im trying to show is that, you can never fit your ship to be a "jack of all trades". It simply wont work. Yes, we have some setups that are very strong. But ONLY if you use them WITHIN certain limits. Engage them outside their limimts and they go pop. Same with damps. They are very powerful up to 100km. After that its very much chance based. At the same time you need to keep the target there. So the target needs to be within scramrange if your solo. And if you are solo this means usually scram and web, maybe some other stuff in the meds and 2 damps. 2 sensorboosters fitted and the target would be able to fight back, all the attacking force got was a delay in the time the target could fight back. Also engagement ranges depends very much on gangsizes and tactics used. If someone jumps you, slams 2 damps on you and you dont have sensorbooster fitted, to bad for you. It`s the same if a ganker jumps on a ship without a tank. It dies. Nothing the other guy can do about it. Nothing. Unless he outdamage him before he goes pop. Transfer this to damps and it means you need to get first lock = sig amps or sensor boosters. Well it is basically that I think the limits that allow a damp setup to pwn with unbonused ships are too wide. Not a whole lot, just a little. A mere 15-25% reduction in damp strength (and subsequent bonus of the same strength to damp ships) would do the trick to balance them well imho. I don't want them nerfed into total uselessness on unbonused ships like ECM was, but I think right now they are just a little bit too powerful. The sheer amount of RSDs used on unbonused ships right now is actually better proof of that than any arguing I could do here. But I guess that is just as natural as nonbonused ships using webs and scrams... Fix speedtanks, base hit chance on agility!
Leandro Salazar The Blackguard Wolves Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.09.01 18:23:00 - [43] Originally by: ReePeR McAllem Damps are fine... ADAPT! Ohh the 'adapt or die'-harp. Favorite instrument of people who are afraid of adapting their cookie cutter setups to new variables themselves... When that thing is played, you know something is broken Fix speedtanks, base hit chance on agility!
ReePeR McAllem The Carebear Stare	Posted - 2007.09.01 18:27:00 - [44] Originally by: Leandro Salazar Originally by: ReePeR McAllem Damps are fine... ADAPT! Ohh the 'adapt or die'-harp. Favorite instrument of people who are afraid of adapting their cookie cutter setups to new variables themselves... When that thing is played, you know something is broken Nope the 'adapt or die harp' simply reminds folk that damps have a simple counter. Damps are really not that difficult to deal with. Just be prepared or die... its simple. Enough with the nerfing already. Let the gal recons have a purpose still, let other regular ships use all their mids to damp...
Leandro Salazar The Blackguard Wolves Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.09.01 18:37:00 - [45] Originally by: ReePeR McAllem Originally by: Leandro Salazar Originally by: ReePeR McAllem Damps are fine... ADAPT! Ohh the 'adapt or die'-harp. Favorite instrument of people who are afraid of adapting their cookie cutter setups to new variables themselves... When that thing is played, you know something is broken Nope the 'adapt or die harp' simply reminds folk that damps have a simple counter. Damps are really not that difficult to deal with. Just be prepared or die... its simple. Enough with the nerfing already. Let the gal recons have a purpose still, let other regular ships use all their mids to damp... Yeah let me fit MWD and 3 SeBos on my Geddon.... oh wait... And the way I want to see damps nerfed would actually increase the value of Gal recons since their capabilities would remain the same while that of nonbonused ships would be reduced. I don't mind an Arazu damping the hell out of me. I DO mind when a Pilgrim, Rapier, Raven, Drake or whatever else has 3 spare meds does it. The worst thing is Scorps, fitting some RSDs despite ECM bonus. Tells it all really. Fix speedtanks, base hit chance on agility!
Bendit	Posted - 2007.09.01 18:43:00 - [46] Edited by: Bendit on 01/09/2007 18:45:34 Quote: Well it is basically that I think the limits that allow a damp setup to pwn with unbonused ships are too wide. Not a whole lot, just a little. A mere 15-25% reduction in damp strength (and subsequent bonus of the same strength to damp ships) would do the trick to balance them well imho. I don't want them nerfed into total uselessness on unbonused ships like ECM was, but I think right now they are just a little bit too powerful. The sheer amount of RSDs used on unbonused ships right now is actually better proof of that than any arguing I could do here. But I guess that is just as natural as nonbonused ships using webs and scrams... Yeah, the way ccp nerfed ecm went to far. Before the nerf we didnt hear much about the damps. But with the nerf and rigs comming into the game it did maybe go a little bit over the top. I can just talk for my self here, but a small reduction wouldnt be to bad. The people who would spec could still get the old T2 values if the fitted rigs, but they had to pay for it. Example: T2 with rigs and maxed skills = T2 damps with maxed skills we have now. This would stop the damps on all ships, since it would mean a HUGE extra cost on T1 non specced ships to get the effectiveness they have now. But the people still willing to spec and use the money for it could. And people would need to decide on the rigs to. Ploycarbons for speed or damp rigs for more effect. This would also mean that the Arazu got nerfed a little, but since it has a bouldt in shipbonus it would still be good and they could fit rigs on top of that to top it off.
ReePeR McAllem The Carebear Stare	Posted - 2007.09.01 18:54:00 - [47] Originally by: Leandro Salazar Originally by: ReePeR McAllem Originally by: Leandro Salazar Originally by: ReePeR McAllem Damps are fine... ADAPT! Ohh the 'adapt or die'-harp. Favorite instrument of people who are afraid of adapting their cookie cutter setups to new variables themselves... When that thing is played, you know something is broken Nope the 'adapt or die harp' simply reminds folk that damps have a simple counter. Damps are really not that difficult to deal with. Just be prepared or die... its simple. Enough with the nerfing already. Let the gal recons have a purpose still, let other regular ships use all their mids to damp... Yeah let me fit MWD and 3 SeBos on my Geddon.... oh wait... And the way I want to see damps nerfed would actually increase the value of Gal recons since their capabilities would remain the same while that of nonbonused ships would be reduced. I don't mind an Arazu damping the hell out of me. I DO mind when a Pilgrim, Rapier, Raven, Drake or whatever else has 3 spare meds does it. The worst thing is Scorps, fitting some RSDs despite ECM bonus. Tells it all really. A geddon should not be flown solo to start, its more suited as a gang ship. Don't get me wrong or anything. I will solo pvp my plated trimarked gank geddon, only when I really know what im up against. If your in the situation when you need three sensor boosters fitted to survive, your in the wrong situation to begin with.
Liang Nuren The Refugees	Posted - 2007.09.01 21:39:00 - [48] TBH, I don't care if damps get nerfed on non bonused ships. But if damps get nerfed on bonused ships, I'll be more than a little annoyed. There are some key differences between Damps and ECM. Namely, that it only takes 1 jammer to completely shut down an enemy ship - where it takes 2-3 damps (even from bonused ships). So even NOW ECM can be better than damps (and I am speaking of the recon ships here). Ex: It takes 2 damps from a fully bonused fully rigged max skilled Arazu/Lachesis to shut down a Thorax. It takes EXACTLY 1 racial jammer to completely shut down a Thorax from a Rook/Falcon Ex2: It takes 2 jammers to shutdown a DOMINIX. 3 damps. Falcon/Rook still has more mids, and the Arazu's simply out of them. ECM scales better than damps do - even after the nerf. Again, I don't really care what you do to non-bonused ships - but nerfing them on bonused ships is simply not an answer or solution. Liang Yarr?
MITSUK0	Posted - 2007.09.01 21:43:00 - [49] lol So by that logic the maulus is better than the arazu? I mean if everyone was using the maulus it must be right?
Xion Dsurion Gallente The Bloody Red	Posted - 2007.09.01 21:56:00 - [50] Ok we're missing a valid thought as well here.. 1. I agree you cannot base this off tournament results, so lets take this to a REAL pvp situation Lets look at this from a fleet standpoint, the major pvp not piracy the solo/small gang pvp. When you warp your fleet in on another fleet, lets say (on a small scale to make sensor dampening look even more devistating, haha) your enemy has 5 bs, 1 sensor damp ship, and 1 ecm ship... Now, the ecm ships do what? lock down all the damage ships to a pretty much perminate lock failure (rooks with 2 or more ecm on 3-4 of the damaging ships) so what do you do bout that? sensor damp the ecm ship to allow you to fight, however a sensor damp ship on their side stops you from doing that even. now thinking of that what does that make sensor damp ships vs ecm ships (even with the current ecm nerfs etc) ecm ship = holds down 3-4 targets each ship (specialized ships, ecm dont work proper on others ill agree) sensor damp ships = holds down 1, maybe 2 if ya set it up and only on specialized ships. Are sensor dampeners a problem? well if you think you are the only pilot in your fleet, damn straight its a problem. If you look at your fleet in actuality, each sensor damp ship is a 1 for 1 or possibly 1 for 2 trade. This does not seem nearly as problematic as everyone makes it look to me. Oh and as for getting out of the sensor damp ships ability, over a ecm... you just move closer to your intended target...
MITSUK0	Posted - 2007.09.01 21:58:00 - [51] The range on damps isnt really good enough for fleet work though, whereas a good rook can get out to lock range hardcap with his ecm :)
VicturusTeSaluto	Posted - 2007.09.01 22:30:00 - [52] Edited by: VicturusTeSaluto on 01/09/2007 22:33:33 Hey forum whiners, stop posting and learn to actually play the game. Damps are fine. I have used damp ships, I have fought against damp ships. They work as intended and are not overpowered. The counter to damps(sensor booster) is a no-brainer to fit to most ships, and it helps even when you are not being dampened. Not to mention that damp ships are usually fragile and will die if anything can engage them within web range. Additionally, damps are a huge cap drain so they either sacrifice damage/tanking/speed/tackle mods for cap mods or they eventually cap out. Damp ships also are pretty low DPS so you have plenty of time to tank it out and call for help. Also, with a sensor booster or two, long range targeting, and gang skills- damp users need pretty good equipment/skills and even then a damp ship can usually only lock down a single target at a time. Drone ships are also a great counter to damp ships. Ever engaged a dominix in a damp ship?
Atsuko Ratu Caldari VSP Corp.	Posted - 2007.09.01 22:40:00 - [53] Edited by: Atsuko Ratu on 01/09/2007 22:45:24 Edited by: Atsuko Ratu on 01/09/2007 22:42:38 Originally by: Xion Dsurion Ok we're missing a valid thought as well here.. 1. I agree you cannot base this off tournament results, so lets take this to a REAL pvp situation Lets look at this from a fleet standpoint, the major pvp not piracy the solo/small gang pvp. When you warp your fleet in on another fleet, lets say (on a small scale to make sensor dampening look even more devistating, haha) your enemy has 5 bs, 1 sensor damp ship, and 1 ecm ship... Now, the ecm ships do what? lock down all the damage ships to a pretty much perminate lock failure (rooks with 2 or more ecm on 3-4 of the damaging ships) so what do you do bout that? sensor damp the ecm ship to allow you to fight, however a sensor damp ship on their side stops you from doing that even. now thinking of that what does that make sensor damp ships vs ecm ships (even with the current ecm nerfs etc) ecm ship = holds down 3-4 targets each ship (specialized ships, ecm dont work proper on others ill agree) sensor damp ships = holds down 1, maybe 2 if ya set it up and only on specialized ships. Are sensor dampeners a problem? well if you think you are the only pilot in your fleet, damn straight its a problem. If you look at your fleet in actuality, each sensor damp ship is a 1 for 1 or possibly 1 for 2 trade. This does not seem nearly as problematic as everyone makes it look to me. Oh and as for getting out of the sensor damp ships ability, over a ecm... you just move closer to your intended target... It's a little obvious that you... 1) Can not count "2 or MORE ecms on 3-4 ships? I don't have 12 midslots...) 2) You've never flown either of the recon classes. Go back to passive tanking your mission drake. edit: sensor damp ships = holds down 2, maybe 3 and only on any ship that has more than three free midslots. fixed
Tsin'Valha	Posted - 2007.09.01 22:54:00 - [54] /signed Dampers should operate in much the same manner as ECM modules against the target ship's sensor strength or simply increase the Sensor Booster and Signal Amp bonuses and get rid of the arbitrary 249km lock range. Allow my 2 sensor booster II, 1 signal amp II Full 1400mm Art II Maelstrom to lock -on paper- at it's absolute max range (288km or so?) so when I get hit by damps, I'm not pwnd into small ac range taking forever to lock.
sov68n Caldari RABBLE-RABBLE Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.09.01 23:12:00 - [55] Originally by: Leandro Salazar There was a lot more wrong with your math than just disregard for skill and rigs. Like adding up the bonuses instead of multiplying them, treating dampening as a positive modifer instead of a negative one, comparing positive and negative modifier as if they had equal effects, and actually coming up with an additive comparison between both modifiers instead of the correct multiplicative one. And if someone so horribly butchers math to defend an imho overpowered module, I don't give a fk whether he is in my alliance or not, he just deserves a lil smack in the face. I never see you, is this an alt? --- the KOS killboards nerfed our kill sigs!!!
Max Hardcase Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.09.01 23:22:00 - [56] Originally by: Tsin'Valha /signed Dampers should operate in much the same manner as ECM modules against the target ship's sensor strength or simply increase the Sensor Booster and Signal Amp bonuses and get rid of the arbitrary 249km lock range. Allow my 2 sensor booster II, 1 signal amp II Full 1400mm Art II Maelstrom to lock -on paper- at it's absolute max range (288km or so?) so when I get hit by damps, I'm not pwnd into small ac range taking forever to lock. What does RSD have to do with sensor str? If yer contemplating adding a ship/targer sensor str modifier be very carefull what you ask for.
Tarron Sarek Gallente Endica Enterprises	Posted - 2007.09.01 23:45:00 - [57] Well this is what I've come up with in a different thread: Suggested change: 40,0% Phased Muon Sensor Disruptor I/Remote Sensor Dampener II 38,5% Low Frequency Sensor Suppressor I 37,0% Indirect Scanning Dampening Unit I 35,5% Kapteyn Sensor Array Inhibitor I 34,0% Remote Sensor Dampener I Those values are closer together, so that RSDI doesn't become totally useless. The max bonus is 8% lower, giving sensor boosters an easier time compensating the dampening. Basically, right now an unbonused ship with 1 (best named) sensor dampener and signal suppression 4, which is easily attainable, can negate 2 (best named) sensor boosters. Or the other way around: you need 2 sensor boosters to compensate for 1 sensor dampener with signal suppression 4. From my point of view that's a bit too much and too cheap. I don't say overpowered, but a bit too strong. Therefore a simple slight reduction of the bonus might just do the trick. _________________________________ - Balance is power, guard it well -
Leandro Salazar The Blackguard Wolves Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.09.02 00:09:00 - [58] Originally by: sov68n Originally by: Leandro Salazar There was a lot more wrong with your math than just disregard for skill and rigs. Like adding up the bonuses instead of multiplying them, treating dampening as a positive modifer instead of a negative one, comparing positive and negative modifier as if they had equal effects, and actually coming up with an additive comparison between both modifiers instead of the correct multiplicative one. And if someone so horribly butchers math to defend an imho overpowered module, I don't give a fk whether he is in my alliance or not, he just deserves a lil smack in the face. I never see you, is this an alt? Lol no. But I am not playing a lot atm, and my main is in empire earning money so my alt can afford some ships to lose in 0.0... Fix speedtanks, base hit chance on agility!
Vandalias	Posted - 2007.09.02 00:21:00 - [59] Edited by: Vandalias on 02/09/2007 00:22:18 Split it so ECM reduces lock range and Damps reduce scan res. The combination of both on damps is over the top in that even if you manage to get in lock range it takes ages just to lock the ship thats dampening you. Edit: Or maybe introduce a new module that reduces lock range and leave ECM the same. I wouldn't be opposed to the same change being applied to sensor boosters either.
Benn Helmsman Caldari Helmsman Engineering Company	Posted - 2007.09.02 04:30:00 - [60] People need to start to learn how EVE does the range calculation... the 60% bonus of sensorbooster are much less effective then the -61% from an RSD (on an unbonused ship, -70% from a bonused one). 1.6x0.39=0.624 you lose over 37.6% of your base locking range, this means you are down to less then 2/3 of your base ship locking range (yes the BASE not the modified). This already gives a lot of long range setups big big problems. You can run this down to 3 SB against 3 RSD and it will become worse to less then 40% of the base ship targeting range, for most ships this will be quite close to warp disrupter range. Balanced? Not at all, since these modules are not race dependant and dont need dedicated ships.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 :: 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.