| Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Sarah Benthwell
   |
Posted - 2007.09.04 19:14:00 -
[121]
 Originally by: Bendit
Quote:
Caracals with no rigs
And where are you getting theese numbers?
Actual ingame experience surprisingly enough
|
Bendit
|
Posted - 2007.09.04 19:31:00 -
[122]
Originally by: Sarah Benthwell
Originally by: Bendit
Quote:
Caracals with no rigs
And where are you getting theese numbers?
Actual ingame experience surprisingly enough
Hmmm, if thats the case somethings wrong.
Lets assume the abaddon have long range targeting trained up to lvl 5. That will give him 100km lockrange as base if im not wrong.
Did you have wcs fitted?
If you had 3 sensorboosters fitted you should not go below 29km, even if you got hit by 6 damps...
Here, check out this link: Linky for damp calculation
|
Atsuko Ratu
Caldari
VSP Corp.
|
Posted - 2007.09.04 20:29:00 -
[123]
It's really not fair to assume everyone is going to walk around with 3 sensorboosters. Not only will it make you nearly useless in most other situations, it also barly counters damps; and I use counter in a ironic sense, because not going below 30km is not a COUNTER. Sure, I can lock him in a good 20-30 seconds, maybe get a volley off or two, assuming he doesn't just bump me and leave lock range again... And no mwding after him, you don't have one 
|
Laboratus
Gallente
BGG
League of Abnormal Gentlemen
|
Posted - 2007.09.04 20:43:00 -
[124]
EW is supposed to be effective.
It is supposed to be one of the strategies you can choose.
EW at the moment is effective, and fills the place it is suposed to fill.
What some here are trying to sugest would break the whole concept without improving anything for the game. Thats crazy talk, I say...
___
P.S.
Post with your main.
Mind control and tin hats |
Bendit
|
Posted - 2007.09.04 21:07:00 -
[125]
Actually, some of the ideas from peeps here do make some sense.
Like cut the penalty on sig resolution in half and make it so that you need 2 Tech 1 rigs to get the default effectivenes you have now on T2 damps.
Default now is 61% on T2 damps with maxed skills.
If ccp changed it to 61% on T2 damps with 2x Tech 1 rigs and cut the sig resolution penalty to 30% we could maybe come to an agrement.
It would stop damps on "every" ship out there. Who would spend millions on rigs on cheap T1 frigs and cruisers...?
The ships with bonuses would still have its place. No need for rigs to get the same effectivenes. 61% at maxed skills.
Also, pilots who really really want to fit damps cant get range and strength.
Think this could be balanced.
If you want to damp at 150km you wont get same strength on damps as you have now, unless you are in a dedicated ship.
If you want the strength we have now, you would not be able to damp at 150km. Atelast your chance would be pretty gimped.
Ands if you get within range you wouldnt be a floating target for to long...
|
Aramendel
Amarr
Coreli Corporation
Exuro Mortis
|
Posted - 2007.09.05 12:04:00 -
[126]
Edited by: Aramendel on 05/09/2007 12:04:13
Originally by: Bendit
Yeay, we have moved down to personal insults now Seriously, grow up will you.
And yes, you bolded the writing after you had made the post. Now its you who are trying to twist words here.
So you need text bolded to see it?
The text itself was there all the time, perfectly readable.
Quote:
This kinda amuses me. Seems you are after some sort of yes/no answer here.
1: ECM and damps work very differently.
2: 1 succesfull ECM have far greater effects on you then 1 damp.
3: 3-4 ecms wont do jack if the first ones works. Wich means you have 3 others to spread around. To get nearly the same effect with damps you will need 3 damps on the target.
1) the end result is prettym uch identical.
2) ECM is chancebased, damps aren't.
3) And if non works you are instantly targetable without any delay.
Quote:
As long as you wont se the difference ECM vs damps we can discuss this all day/night without comming any closer. You have your views I have mine.
Contrary to you I see both the advantages and disadvantages. Damps are not inheritely weaker than ECM to justify a weaker counter.
Quote:
And how would you do that? I have seen other people comming with suggestions, all you have done is comming with personal insult and telling how everybody else is wrong and you are right. So please enlighten us with you wisdom...
Lets go to the begining of this before you try to derail it yet again.
Originally by: Bendit
Quote:
And, as a sidenote, against a damp specced ship even those are pretty useless, it will still be able to damp you below scram range no matter how many SB you fit. Against an ECm spcced ship ECCM is still highly effective.
So you wanna nerf the specced ships to the oblivion to? Yes plese let this be a game of gank and tank. Oh how much fun that will be.
To recap, I mentioned the fact that no matter how many sensorboosters you fit a damp specced ship will still be able to get you below scramrange. You replied with your typical overexeggeration in attempting to twisting my words that I "want to nerf specced ships into oblivion".
The problem here is rather simple: sensor boosters are no effective counter vs damps on specced ships. Do you really need to be spoonfed the obvious solution? Booster sensor boosters so they can actually counter damps from specced ships...
|
Aramendel
Amarr
Coreli Corporation
Exuro Mortis
|
Posted - 2007.09.05 12:05:00 -
[127]
Quote:
They can be superior. But it all depends on the situation. Again you are looking for a yes/no answer.
And how exactly is this balanced considering
a) damps are stronger than ECM at short-med ranges
b) damps do not require you to use low slots to boost their efficiency
c) ECM needs one shipbonus to reach that range, damps do not
Quote:
Who said you should go all out to 175+32km.
At 190km you will do a little above 85% damage of what you would do in optimal.
You said. 210k-220k, remember?
Quote:
Again you show me you look to much yes/no. Just because your optimal says 175km, it doesnt mean you cant move further out...
Wrong. You are still ignoring the damage reduction. By moving farther you will loose more damage to it than you would loos to enemy dampeners.
Quote:
So because I did a typo my numbers doesnt count? And you should not come here talking about knowing your setup/modules...
YOu were not making a "typo", you were confusing modules. And you already showed your inexperience multiple times (for example your "smart" warp out tactics).
Quote:
What was it that you said to me?
Impossible. Words -> mouth. Fell free to prove me wrong.
WTF?? Not the norm?? What does that have to do with it? If it gives and advantage you wouldnt fit it, cause it was not the norm?
And talking about tank. you still have 4 lowslots and 1 rigslot to play with, I think you with all your wisdom could fix that...
3 damagemods and - for the abaddon - 1 fitting mod.
And, as said, optimals. A *blasterthron* can hit at 200k, hitchance never decreases to zero.
Asking where a ship can hit is meaningless. The point is where a ship can operate at full efficiency, and that is its optimal.
Quote:
Not me who are getting told how to fit a sniper to hit farther then 180km...
Se above.
Quote:
But I dont think it would help, since it`s not within your "normal" setup.
But since im so full of newbie mistakes as you put it, would you be so kind and show us how you would fit your sniping bs?
full rack of max tier guns.
MWD, 2 SB2, a combined total of 3 tracking comps/enhancers
3 damagemods, fitting mods if needed
Leaves between 0-2 slots left, depending on BS. Those are filled with an 1600mm plate (alternatively a LSE2 on the rokh, although a plate can still be more effective depending on the gang boosts) and DC2.
|
Kaleidon Reth
|
Posted - 2007.09.05 12:34:00 -
[128]
Couldn't you make it so that sensor damps were anti-boosters instead of the other way around?
If you made it so that damps worked fully on boosted ranges (including or not including the long-range targeting skill) but only had 1/3rd or (perhaps even no effect at all) similar effect on ranges below the ships default range then damps would perhaps work as an anti-sniper weapon while not simultaneously being overly effective on shortrange ships, ofc they would still grant the extra locking time on shortrange ships.
This would effectively reduce the damp effectiveness versus shortrange ships while having them somewhat retain their effectiveness against sensorboosted snipers. Other adjustments might have to be made so that they could fullfill this role I guess.
|
Ahistaja
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.05 12:51:00 -
[129]
Edited by: Ahistaja on 05/09/2007 12:51:26
Originally by: Max Hardcase
Sensorboosters cant and shouldnt ever be so strong as to nullifiy the effect of a specced RSD, the reason is simple: SB's provide a benefit to you as well if you arent RSD'd.
ECCM should be changed to a EWCM module that either gives a chance to negate EW effects on you or reduces their strength on you.
I concur.
How about a new module, call it Sensor Backup Array for example, that would reduce effectiveness of enemy RSD more substantially than a sensor booster, but wouldn't by itself provide a bonus to targeting range or scan resolution. Less vulnerability to RSD for sacrificing a slot sounds like a fair tradeoff.
Regular ECM has a whole bunch of counters, but aside from some recon ships possibly needing a redo, I can't see why RSD's shouldn't have any.
|
WildSide
Toys R Us
M. PIRE
|
Posted - 2007.09.05 12:54:00 -
[130]
Originally by: Aramendel
Edited by: Aramendel on 05/09/2007 12:13:27
Quote:
They can be superior. But it all depends on the situation. Again you are looking for a yes/no answer.
And how exactly is this balanced considering
a) damps are stronger than ECM at short-med ranges
b) damps are not limited by racials
c) damps do not require you to use low slots to boost their efficiency
d) ECM needs one shipbonus to reach that range, damps do not
And in exchange for these advantages damps need rigs. Yes, sounds rather balanced...
ehm... 1) yes, however ...ecm reach much father. a well rigged rook can jamm at sniping distance 200, a falcon can do a little less..but still jamm slitly over 150 with rigs.
2) True. But ecm tend to work anyway...just a little less chance with not the right racial jammer. But...on my caldari jamming spec alt..I tend to fit grav(caldari jammers) and multi spec, and this is ofteen enough to jam anyone. ofc not all the time..but with a decent succese rato.
3) Ever tryed flyed a arazu or lachesis?????????!
I need atleast 2 cap relays t2, and prefer to use 3 to keep everything running perma.
Damps are cap hungry beasts. Unless u fly a battleship the damps gonna serious harm ure cap.
4) as far as I know it doesnt exist a ship with damping range bonus. This means that over 80-100km ure safe from damps. And thats from the speced pilots. A avarge damp pilots is more 60-80 I think.
A Rook can seriously **** up a sniping fleet. A arazu/lachesis is dead the moment it decloaks/comes out of warp. as it cant damp ppl at properly sniping range. however 1vs1 damps is very nice...but how ofteen does that happenes? in a small gang close combat ships ofc damps may tip the balance, but after all its a 200mill paperthin ship, which should be primary.
_______________________________
Vids produced by me
|
Ione Hunt
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.09.05 12:55:00 -
[131]
People give up medslots to fit damps...not their fault if their enemies are too stupid to fit the counter (SB) by giving up a slot too. They add variety, which is good. You can adapt to damps.
Trying to make the damps work almost exactly like ECM is kinda stupid 
_______________
|
Aramendel
Amarr
Coreli Corporation
Exuro Mortis
|
Posted - 2007.09.05 13:14:00 -
[132]
Edited by: Aramendel on 05/09/2007 13:19:11
Originally by: WildSide
ehm... 1) yes, however ...ecm reach much father. a well rigged rook can jamm at sniping distance 200, a falcon can do a little less..but still jamm slitly over 150 with rigs.
The problem is that those ranges can only rarely be used. 150k are the usual sniper ranges for fleets, if you want to get above that you need your own bookmarks/warpin. That is only very rarely available.
Quote:
2) True. But ecm tend to work anyway...just a little less chance with not the right racial jammer. But...on my caldari jamming spec alt..I tend to fit grav(caldari jammers) and multi spec, and this is ofteen enough to jam anyone. ofc not all the time..but with a decent succese rato.
33% of the chance as you would have vs the right target is "a little less"?
Putting the right racials on a target is vital.
Quote:
3) Ever tryed flyed a arazu or lachesis?????????!
I need atleast 2 cap relays t2, and prefer to use 3 to keep everything running perma.
Damps are cap hungry beasts. Unless u fly a battleship the damps gonna serious harm ure cap.
Multispectral jammers and damps need (after the 50% capreduction skill of the falcon/rook) just as much cap/sec as damps. No difference there.
Racials need less, only 66% of it, but are more limited in their use.
Alltogether the capuse of damps isn't that high. What makes you cap out is trying to use guns, MWD and scram in addition to the damps, but no recon can sustain that + EW.
Quote:
4) as far as I know it doesnt exist a ship with damping range bonus. This means that over 80-100km ure safe from damps. And thats from the speced pilots. A avarge damp pilots is more 60-80 I think.
If that would be that way it would be fine, but that exactly isn't the case.
Damps have a HUGE falloff. This makes them chancebased like ECM in their falloff range, however 1 damp is enough to reduce the lockrange of a sniper fitted bs enough to make it unable target you. So you are very much not safe from damps over 80-100k.
Only if damps had a falloff of 30k after skills instead of 90k this would be true.
Essentially, they work past 100k pretty much like ECM.
Without rigs you have a 38% chance for a damp to work at 150. If you use 2 t1 EW range rigs this gets 52%. Which is pretty much the same chance a falcon has to jam a average BS.
So, if we compare arazu vs falcon at 150k:
- same strength per EW module
- falcon has 1 more med than arazu, room for 1 more EW module
- falcon has 0 lows free, arazu 4: MASSIVE tank advantage of the arazu
- arazu needs 30 mil in rigs
- falcon needs to "waste" one of its ship bonuses to be able to use its EW at that range, arazu doesn't
- falcon is limited by racials, arazu isn't
- falcon is less powerful at < 100k ranges than the arazu
|
Lisento Slaven
Amarr
Vendetta Underground
Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.09.05 14:02:00 -
[133]
Originally by: Ione Hunt
People give up medslots to fit damps...not their fault if their enemies are too stupid to fit the counter (SB) by giving up a slot too. They add variety, which is good. You can adapt to damps.
Trying to make the damps work almost exactly like ECM is kinda stupid
How does a close range ship adapt to damps?
---
Put in space whales!
|
Rialtor
Amarr
Yarrrateers
|
Posted - 2007.09.05 14:54:00 -
[134]
What I don't understand is why Dampeners do 2 things? isn't reducing lock range enough? why does it need to french up your lock time too? TDs don't do 2 things, ECMs don't do 2 things, Webbers don't do 2 things, why the special treatment to damps.
|
goodby4u
Cutting Edge Incorporated
RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.09.05 15:02:00 -
[135]
Originally by: Rialtor
What I don't understand is why Dampeners do 2 things? isn't reducing lock range enough? why does it need to french up your lock time too? TDs don't do 2 things, ECMs don't do 2 things, Webbers don't do 2 things, why the special treatment to damps.
TD's reduce a turret's range and tracking.
__________________________________________
Yes it is great being amarr.
I am minmatar,fly amarr,use gellente drones and am in caldari space. |
Markus Aurelian
|
Posted - 2007.09.05 15:10:00 -
[136]
Originally by: goodby4u
Originally by: Rialtor
What I don't understand is why Dampeners do 2 things? isn't reducing lock range enough? why does it need to french up your lock time too? TDs don't do 2 things, ECMs don't do 2 things, Webbers don't do 2 things, why the special treatment to damps.
TD's reduce a turret's range and tracking.
but are only useful against turret ships, and more specifically, ships that rely more on optimal than falloff (so basically amarr and blasters). damps dont have that limitation in what they affect, so they should have a weakened effect. either that or make TD's make missiles+drones miss or something. damps are pretty out of balance, and should be changed so that they are marginally useful on ships, and only really effective on recons, not effective on any ship you can fit one on, and omgwtf***** on recons.
Meatwad FTW |
Lisento Slaven
Amarr
Vendetta Underground
Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.09.05 15:14:00 -
[137]
Originally by: Markus Aurelian
Originally by: goodby4u
Originally by: Rialtor
What I don't understand is why Dampeners do 2 things? isn't reducing lock range enough? why does it need to french up your lock time too? TDs don't do 2 things, ECMs don't do 2 things, Webbers don't do 2 things, why the special treatment to damps.
TD's reduce a turret's range and tracking.
but are only useful against turret ships, and more specifically, ships that rely more on optimal than falloff (so basically amarr and blasters). damps dont have that limitation in what they affect, so they should have a weakened effect. either that or make TD's make missiles+drones miss or something. damps are pretty out of balance, and should be changed so that they are marginally useful on ships, and only really effective on recons, not effective on any ship you can fit one on, and omgwtf***** on recons.
The guy said TD's don't do 2 things...he didn't say anything about effectiveness. You just brought a whole new argument in to defend something that was wrong =P
I'm for one in the group that says damps should not screw up lock time considering that's what really ruins close range fighters. "Oh look you can't lock me....and if any of my friends are in range it'll take you 2 minutes to lock them!"
---
Put in space whales!
|
Markus Aurelian
|
Posted - 2007.09.05 15:43:00 -
[138]
Originally by: Lisento Slaven
Originally by: Markus Aurelian
Originally by: goodby4u
Originally by: Rialtor
What I don't understand is why Dampeners do 2 things? isn't reducing lock range enough? why does it need to french up your lock time too? TDs don't do 2 things, ECMs don't do 2 things, Webbers don't do 2 things, why the special treatment to damps.
TD's reduce a turret's range and tracking.
but are only useful against turret ships, and more specifically, ships that rely more on optimal than falloff (so basically amarr and blasters). damps dont have that limitation in what they affect, so they should have a weakened effect. either that or make TD's make missiles+drones miss or something. damps are pretty out of balance, and should be changed so that they are marginally useful on ships, and only really effective on recons, not effective on any ship you can fit one on, and omgwtf***** on recons.
The guy said TD's don't do 2 things...he didn't say anything about effectiveness. You just brought a whole new argument in to defend something that was wrong =P
I'm for one in the group that says damps should not screw up lock time considering that's what really ruins close range fighters. "Oh look you can't lock me....and if any of my friends are in range it'll take you 2 minutes to lock them!"
 lack of sleep FTL
Meatwad FTW |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |