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)
Max Payne	Posted - 2007.09.01 13:47:00 - [1] I.e. if you put 5 dampeners it can be dampened obviously but that should reduce target range no more than whatever the 1 dampener that did the dampening is doing - it should not be additive. Championship proved it. It's time dampeners worked just like jamming does. They are a kind of EW actually. Discuss
Atsuko Ratu Caldari VSP Corp.	Posted - 2007.09.01 14:13:00 - [2] Edited by: Atsuko Ratu on 01/09/2007 14:15:25 Edited by: Atsuko Ratu on 01/09/2007 14:14:58 Edited by: Atsuko Ratu on 01/09/2007 14:13:20 Do you mean that it should only damp the range once and the scan res more than once? As odd as it sounds, I kind of agree. Chanced based? Not so much. Edit: rereading the odd wording, I think you want them to BE ecm, as in you can only damp once and it's all chanced based. With that line of thinking you might as well remove damps and start fitting ECM again. Op fails.
Firkragg Blue Labs Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.09.01 14:13:00 - [3] Championship proves nothing, its a controlled environment which isnt eactly like normal pvp. Hence caldari ships are actually doing well
sov68n Caldari RABBLE-RABBLE Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.09.01 14:23:00 - [4] dampeners may seem overpowered, but they ARE stack nerfed, so if you fit 2 or 3 T2 sensor boosters, the enemy cannot fit enough dampeners to reduce your range past the default of the ship you're in. OK time for some math: Stacking Nerf Penalties: 1st mod: = 100.000% effectiveness 2nd mod:= 86.9119842% effectiveness 3rd mod:= 57.1037996% effectiveness 4th mod: = 28.2469117% effectiveness 5th mod:= 10.5988834% effectiveness 6th mod: = 2.9989473% effectiveness ok so that means: Sensor Booster T2 = 60% boost to Targeting Range + Scan Resolution 1st Sensor Booster: 60% 2nd Sensor Booster: 52.14719052% 3rd Sensor Booster: 34.26227976% That all adds up to: 146.40947028% boost to your range/res Sensor Dampener II = 48% remote penalty to Target Range + Scan Resolution of Target. 1st Dampener: 48% 2nd Dampener: 41.717752416% 3rd Dampener: 27.409823808% 4th Dampener: 13.558517616% 5th Dampener: 5.087464032% 6th Dampener: 1.439494704% Total: 137.213052576% So even if the guy attacking you has 6 dampeners, with 3 T2 sensor boosters you still have a 9.196417704% boost to your targeting range and scan resolution. If you don't want to have to fit 3 Boosters, then have fun being damped. Sensor boosters make things easy for you anyway, since the bonus to scan res makes thing easier to hit, and they counter damps. If you are unwilling to defend against it, it will defeat you. --- the KOS killboards nerfed our kill sigs!!!
bldyannoyed Un4seen Development	Posted - 2007.09.01 14:31:00 - [5] A 100% stacking penalty on damps isnt as insane as it sounds you know. Dampener ships with rigs and skills can get a single damp up to like 80% effective, which on its own is pretty devastating. Hells, even give damps a slight power buff if it means only 1 will work. Ofc the chance based thing is a no-no cos everyone hates it, but making only the first damper effective would stop this whole silly mega dampening stuff that seem sto happen alot, and make the " Strong" damping ships more valuable, cos if you can sue 1 on a target every percent of strength you can squeeze out of them matters. Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed dimensions of 400x120 pixels and filesize of 24000 bytes -Sahwoolo Etoophie ([email protected])
bldyannoyed Un4seen Development	Posted - 2007.09.01 14:34:00 - [6] Originally by: sov68n dampeners may seem overpowered, but they ARE stack nerfed, so if you fit 2 or 3 T2 sensor boosters, the enemy cannot fit enough dampeners to reduce your range past the default of the ship you're in. Stuff If you are unwilling to defend against it, it will defeat you. Which is simpy incorrect cos i have been in sniping ships with 3 Senor boosters fitted and been damped down to like 20% of my targetting range. A sensor booster could DOUBLE your lock range, and a Damper would only have to have a strength of 50% to counter it completely. More Maths: Starting lock range 100km. Sensor Booster doubles it to 200km. A single 50% Damp reduces that right back to 100km. Of course in real Eve a Sensor Booster 2 is only 60% and a Damp can be anything up to 80% with Top skills, rigs, and a damping ship. Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed dimensions of 400x120 pixels and filesize of 24000 bytes -Sahwoolo Etoophie ([email protected])
Atsuko Ratu Caldari VSP Corp.	Posted - 2007.09.01 14:43:00 - [7] Edited by: Atsuko Ratu on 01/09/2007 14:43:36 I was gonna bust out a bunch of math, but you beat me to it bldy =(
sov68n Caldari RABBLE-RABBLE Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.09.01 14:44:00 - [8] Edited by: sov68n on 01/09/2007 14:46:47 Edited by: sov68n on 01/09/2007 14:46:23 Originally by: bldyannoyed Originally by: sov68n dampeners may seem overpowered, but they ARE stack nerfed, so if you fit 2 or 3 T2 sensor boosters, the enemy cannot fit enough dampeners to reduce your range past the default of the ship you're in. Stuff If you are unwilling to defend against it, it will defeat you. Which is simpy incorrect cos i have been in sniping ships with 3 Senor boosters fitted and been damped down to like 20% of my targetting range. A sensor booster could DOUBLE your lock range, and a Damper would only have to have a strength of 50% to counter it completely. More Maths: Starting lock range 100km. Sensor Booster doubles it to 200km. A single 50% Damp reduces that right back to 100km. Of course in real Eve a Sensor Booster 2 is only 60% and a Damp can be anything up to 80% with Top skills, rigs, and a damping ship. Long Range Targeting lvl 5 = 25% boost to your default range, so theres a bit of help. Also fitting a Target Painter with Signature Focusing 5 will keep your scan res up. But yes, you are correct, if someone is REALLY serious about dampening you they can do it, but alot of people will only use t2 damps or even just t1 without rigs or insane skills, so the three boosters will defend against MOST damp ships. or you could fit a few Cormack's Modified Sensor Booster, for a 78% boost to range/res (even though that is outrageously expensive xD). --- the KOS killboards nerfed our kill sigs!!!
Atsuko Ratu Caldari VSP Corp.	Posted - 2007.09.01 14:50:00 - [9] Originally by: sov68n Long Range Targeting lvl 5 = 25% boost to your default range, so theres a bit of help. Also fitting a Target Painter with Signature Focusing 5 will keep your scan res up. But yes, you are correct, if someone is REALLY serious about dampening you they can do it, but alot of people will only use t2 damps or even just t1 without rigs or insane skills, so the three boosters will defend against MOST damp ships. or you could fit a few Cormack's Modified Sensor Booster, for a 78% boost to range/res. But there is your problem. We need up to 3 sensorbooster, and thus 3 midslots, to counter 2-3 damps on any ship, and yet a non-dedicated ship using ECM has like a 20% chance to jam with 3-4 ecm. Also, target painters don't keep your own res up... if you're already targeting the enemy and USING it, then logically you are already LOCKED and no longer need to... well... lock him? Maybe you mean an ally targeting painting him, but I'd rather my ally damp the damping ship.
James Lyrus Lyrus Associates Betrayal Under Mayhem	Posted - 2007.09.01 14:52:00 - [10] Originally by: Firkragg Championship proves nothing, its a controlled environment which isnt eactly like normal pvp. Hence caldari ships are actually doing well Very true. The PvP tournament they held at fanfest, RSD caracals were I-win. Why? Because unlike real PvP: The fight was at 0-140km range. Meaning midrange ships are useful. You can't warp. Meaning tackling isn't necessary. In this kind of situation, RSDs are awesome, as are missiles. Caldari ships are thus popular, because despite being 'long range' ships (and actaully, we haven't seen much in the way of long range railboats) the missile platforms are medium range really - they shine in the 24-100km range bracket. Real PvP is almost always at 0-24km or >150km. shrug. I am anticipating the 'caldari are fine in PvP' coming up, but ... really, this tournament isn't 'real' pvp. And Damps have always been really good. It's just they're not quite as fire and forget as ECMs, so everyone forgot about them.
sov68n Caldari RABBLE-RABBLE Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.09.01 14:54:00 - [11] Edited by: sov68n on 01/09/2007 14:54:59 Originally by: Atsuko Ratu But there is your problem. We need up to 3 sensorbooster, and thus 3 midslots, to counter 2-3 damps on any ship, and yet a non-dedicated ship using ECM has like a 20% chance to jam with 3-4 ecm. Also, target painters don't keep your own res up... if you're already targeting the enemy and USING it, then logically you are already LOCKED and no longer need to... well... lock him? Maybe you mean an ally targeting painting him, but I'd rather my ally damp the damping ship. well in fleet pvp theres always a few carriers to remote sensor boost you but this isn't ECM is it? and having to sacrifice 3 slots for the boosters is more practical than fitting sensor backup arrays. Target painters counteract low scan res by making the enemies sig rad higher, so if you find a way to counteract him with boosters, that will give you a large boost to "the hitting him" bonus. --- the KOS killboards nerfed our kill sigs!!!
Atsuko Ratu Caldari VSP Corp.	Posted - 2007.09.01 14:58:00 - [12] Edited by: Atsuko Ratu on 01/09/2007 15:04:30 But there is no point in making him easier to target if you're already targeting him. It does not increase lock time unless an ally is target painting him. Also, your math is way off. 300km targeting range is reduced to 156 with one damp. 91.6 with a 2nd. Already below initial targeting range... Edit: Fire and forget ecms? You havn't been a ecm pilot in anything above 1v1 have you?
Cpt Branko The Bloody Red	Posted - 2007.09.01 15:13:00 - [13] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 01/09/2007 15:13:21 The tournament in no way is close to any real PvP situation, because, normally, you'd just warp out. It's like saying 'nerf caracals, they won the tournament', or 'nerf missiles'. Er, both generally suck for PvP... Anyway, the nerf you'd proposing preety much amounts to: "remove damps from game completely". 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 15:23:00 - [14] Quote: We need up to 3 sensorbooster, and thus 3 midslots, to counter 2-3 damps on any ship OMG, a guy actually used 3 midslots and you need to use around the same to keep your lockingrange effective?? How rude!! Quote: Also, your math is way off. 300km targeting range is reduced to 156 with one damp. 91.6 with a 2nd. Already below initial targeting range... And your point is? The way damps work is forcing longrange setups to fight closerange. Thats the whole idea. Saw a math thingy once that showed the effects on a ship fitted with same amount sensorboosters as there was damps used on him. TBH, didnt look that bad actually. Another thing people tend to do is showing examples of maxed skills pilot in ships with rigs and/or bonuses and the best damps u can get... If we used the same examples on everything else in eve... OMG the nerfage!!
Atsuko Ratu Caldari VSP Corp.	Posted - 2007.09.01 15:39:00 - [15] Originally by: Bendit OMG, a guy actually used 3 midslots and you need to use around the same to keep your lockingrange effective?? How rude!! 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). Originally by: Bendit And your point is? The way damps work is forcing longrange setups to fight closerange. Thats the whole idea. Saw a math thingy once that showed the effects on a ship fitted with same amount sensorboosters as there was damps used on him. TBH, didnt look that bad actually. Another thing people tend to do is showing examples of maxed skills pilot in ships with rigs and/or bonuses and the best damps u can get... If we used the same examples on everything else in eve... OMG the nerfage!! 300km was a 100km ship boosted by 200% (3 sensorbooster 2s don't even do that). It has been damped twice by 2 tech2 unboosted damps (no skills, no bonuses, no rigs). Also I never called it unbalanced, I was merely proving his math wrong.
Leandro Salazar The Blackguard Wolves Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.09.01 15:47:00 - [16] Originally by: Bendit And your point is? The way damps work is forcing longrange setups to fight closerange. Thats the whole idea. Saw a math thingy once that showed the effects on a ship fitted with same amount sensorboosters as there was damps used on him. TBH, didnt look that bad actually. The 'problem' with damps imho is not that they force long range setups to fight close range. It is that they can completely disable closerange setups from participating in combat AT ALL. And even IF by some screwup the dampening guys move into targetting range, it will take ages to get a lock due to scan res also being reduced, another little fact that the damp fans tend to belittle or ignore. 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. Plus of course people who will go to any length not to have their module of pwange nerfed. RSD-II with lvl4 in the damp strength skill is really not hard to get and fairly cheap too, so that MUST be the base for any damp calcs. And that is a base reduction down to 41.6% lock range and scan res. Three of those reduce it to 13.65%. Even when you fit three top end sensor boosters (+226%), you end up with 44% of your original lock range and scan res when triple-damped. And at least to me, that does not seem very well balanced. Fix speedtanks, base hit chance on agility!
Bendit	Posted - 2007.09.01 15:48:00 - [17] Quote: 2 frigs using 1 damp each, 2 frigs with bonuses?
Laboratus Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen	Posted - 2007.09.01 15:53:00 - [18] Damps are fine. ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats
Atsuko Ratu Caldari VSP Corp.	Posted - 2007.09.01 15:54:00 - [19] Originally by: Bendit Quote: 2 frigs using 1 damp each, 2 frigs with bonuses? No? I also approve of the death to your lock on range, it's the scan res reduction that is broken IMO. If you manage to insta teleport your sniper Bship within 10km of the target that is damping you, you will still need 60 seconds to even LOCK him. It kills a lot more than sniper ships.
Lisento Slaven Amarr Vendetta Underground Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.09.01 15:55:00 - [20] I don't think people should be expected to fit 3 t2 sensor boosters just to fight up close vs most damp ships. And if you don't know what I'm talking about you guys haven't seen a sacrilege with 2 - 3 damps and a 20km scram before (if 2 it's a web + scram) and damp rigs...not to mention any damps his gang mates have with them. TS web makes his setup even more sick. --- Put in space whales!
Bendit	Posted - 2007.09.01 15:58:00 - [21] Quote: RSD-II with lvl4 in the damp strength skill is really not hard to get and fairly cheap too, so that MUST be the base for any damp calcs. And that is a base reduction down to 41.6% lock range and scan res. Three of those reduce it to 13.65%. Even when you fit three top end sensor boosters (+226%), you end up with 44% of your original lock range and scan res when triple-damped. And at least to me, that does not seem very well balanced. Looks like you are correct with the math. But remember,you also have other counters: FOF`s Drones Speed Range (Extremly short or long range 140km+) And you are not forced to stay there. You can say you are tackled, but the only ships able to keep you there and stay out of your range if you fit enough sensorboosters are the lachesis and arazu or someone with uber scram. Unless you are in a frigate wich will give you to short default lockrange. But from cruiser and up you will be able to deal with the tackler and get, and then come back in at YOUR desired range. We could also say that tanking is overpowered. If we use some of the same math. CS having above 80% resists all over the board. The tank is so big that certain BS arent able to break the tank. is that balanced?
Atsuko Ratu Caldari VSP Corp.	Posted - 2007.09.01 16:02:00 - [22] Edited by: Atsuko Ratu on 01/09/2007 16:05:34 Originally by: Bendit We could also say that tanking is overpowered. If we use some of the same math. CS having above 80% resists all over the board. The tank is so big that certain BS arent able to break the tank. is that balanced? When that same ship can still fit 2 t2 damps and make you useless? I'd say so =) but that's not that tanking's fault Edit: FoF are nice if you happen to be using one of the launchers that happens to be able to use them (lowest dps weapon type in game). Drones are a real counter though. Speed doesn't help much when the guys going 4500m/s and can easily damp + enter range, wait 55 of the 60 seconds itl take you to lock and leave your 8km range, rinse repeat. Speed doesn't help much in a bship and he's not. Also 24 km scram > 10km lock range.
Bendit	Posted - 2007.09.01 16:08:00 - [23] Quote: No? I also approve of the death to your lock on range, it's the scan res reduction that is broken IMO. If you manage to insta teleport your sniper Bship within 10km of the target that is damping you, you will still need 60 seconds to even LOCK him. It kills a lot more than sniper ships. Did some numbers, and to be honest, it didnt look that bad: Default range with long range targeting lvl 5: 125km 1 damp and 1 sensorbooster = 104km 2 damp and 2 sensorbooster = 92.2km If you keep going with this, the lockrange of the damped ship will never go below 89km... I wouldnt call that overpowered.
Lisento Slaven Amarr Vendetta Underground Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.09.01 16:13:00 - [24] Originally by: Bendit Quote: No? I also approve of the death to your lock on range, it's the scan res reduction that is broken IMO. If you manage to insta teleport your sniper Bship within 10km of the target that is damping you, you will still need 60 seconds to even LOCK him. It kills a lot more than sniper ships. Did some numbers, and to be honest, it didnt look that bad: Default range with long range targeting lvl 5: 125km 1 damp and 1 sensorbooster = 104km 2 damp and 2 sensorbooster = 92.2km If you keep going with this, the lockrange of the damped ship will never go below 89km... I wouldnt call that overpowered. I don't think people who use long range setups don't have a right to complain because damps are supposed to mess up long range setups. It's the people that fight under 40km who get completely ruined by damps. Ever have your targetting range go below 10km before? How are you supposed to fit 2x t2 sensor boosters on a close range tackling ship? --- Put in space whales!
Bendit	Posted - 2007.09.01 16:17:00 - [25] Quote: When that same ship can still fit 2 t2 damps and make you useless? I'd say so =) but that's not that tanking's fault 2 damps wouldnt made u useless, IF you had fitted for it. I also think this ***es of some people, cause they want to go in all guns blazing and pew pew. But when someon denies them that fun... click* something snaps and they goes all "HAXORZ, my guns cant shoot, death over ecm" And regarding tanks, I feel they are overpowered. Dual repping crazythings with high resists, gangbonuses, and implants... Quote: Speed doesn't help much when the guys going 4500m/s and can easily damp + enter range, wait 55 of the 60 seconds itl take you to lock and leave your 8km range, rinse repeat. If you only have 8km range. LOL thats your own fault then. maybe a sensorbooster or 2 would have helped a littlebit? Quote: Also 24 km scram > 10km lock range. A few snesorboosters would have fixed that.
Leandro Salazar The Blackguard Wolves Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.09.01 16:20:00 - [26] Originally by: Bendit Quote: No? I also approve of the death to your lock on range, it's the scan res reduction that is broken IMO. If you manage to insta teleport your sniper Bship within 10km of the target that is damping you, you will still need 60 seconds to even LOCK him. It kills a lot more than sniper ships. Did some numbers, and to be honest, it didnt look that bad: Default range with long range targeting lvl 5: 125km 1 damp and 1 sensorbooster = 104km 2 damp and 2 sensorbooster = 92.2km If you keep going with this, the lockrange of the damped ship will never go below 89km... I wouldnt call that overpowered. Again, False math and an unreasonable assumption. 1 damp vs. 1 booster: 125 * 1.6 * 0.416 = 83.2, not 104. Also, how many non-recon ships have a lock range of 125km after skill? Even the Rokh has less, and that is the BS with the best lock range... Fix speedtanks, base hit chance on agility!
Atsuko Ratu Caldari VSP Corp.	Posted - 2007.09.01 16:23:00 - [27] Originally by: Bendit Quote: No? I also approve of the death to your lock on range, it's the scan res reduction that is broken IMO. If you manage to insta teleport your sniper Bship within 10km of the target that is damping you, you will still need 60 seconds to even LOCK him. It kills a lot more than sniper ships. Did some numbers, and to be honest, it didnt look that bad: Default range with long range targeting lvl 5: 125km 1 damp and 1 sensorbooster = 104km 2 damp and 2 sensorbooster = 92.2km If you keep going with this, the lockrange of the damped ship will never go below 89km... I wouldnt call that overpowered. So you did max range skill vs 0 bonused damps? Nice dude.
Tenebrious Quantum Technologies	Posted - 2007.09.01 16:26:00 - [28] Originally by: Bendit Quote: RSD-II with lvl4 in the damp strength skill is really not hard to get and fairly cheap too, so that MUST be the base for any damp calcs. And that is a base reduction down to 41.6% lock range and scan res. Three of those reduce it to 13.65%. Even when you fit three top end sensor boosters (+226%), you end up with 44% of your original lock range and scan res when triple-damped. And at least to me, that does not seem very well balanced. Looks like you are correct with the math. But remember,you also have other counters: FOF`s Drones Speed Range (Extremly short or long range 140km+) And you are not forced to stay there. You can say you are tackled, but the only ships able to keep you there and stay out of your range if you fit enough sensorboosters are the lachesis and arazu or someone with uber scram. Unless you are in a frigate wich will give you to short default lockrange. But from cruiser and up you will be able to deal with the tackler and get, and then come back in at YOUR desired range. We could also say that tanking is overpowered. If we use some of the same math. CS having above 80% resists all over the board. The tank is so big that certain BS arent able to break the tank. is that balanced? And Amarr has what? We don't have the midslots for SBs , not many ships can use drones... You get the picture. I agree wtih some of the other posters that the scan res penalty is really what breaks the damps.
Bendit	Posted - 2007.09.01 16:31:00 - [29] Edited by: Bendit on 01/09/2007 16:35:09 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. ( 100km default with long ragne targeting lvl 5) But if we used 3 mids as you said in the first post it would actually have almost the same lockrange: 123,8km
Atsuko Ratu Caldari VSP Corp.	Posted - 2007.09.01 16:32:00 - [30] Originally by: Leandro Salazar Also, how many non-recon ships have a lock range of 125km after skill? Even the Rokh has less, and that is the BS with the best lock range... To be fair, he was using my example ship (which is fictional, 100 base is so clean to use)
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.
Skelator Stronghold corp Curse Alliance	Posted - 2007.09.02 08:30:00 - [61] Absolute Garbage. If Anything they should be Skill based. Our Knights/GhostFleet are available for small honorable contracts. Phasmatis Velox Equitatus
Aramendel Amarr Coreli Corporation Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2007.09.02 09:32:00 - [62] Originally by: Liang Nuren 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. Uhm..no. 2 of the correct racial ECM give you a ~80% chance to shutdown a domi. 2 multispecs give you a ~60% chance. 3 non-racial damps give you a 100% chance to shut it down. And the rook and lachesis have the same number of mids. The falcon gets an EW strength reduction by having a smaller bonus, the arazu gets one by having 1 less mid. It is pretty much the same for both ships. Originally by: Xion Dsurion Oh and as for getting out of the sensor damp ships ability, over a ecm... you just move closer to your intended target... And get a 30+ sec lock time. if damps would only reduce locking range moving closer would be a real counter, as it is now however, it isn't. Originally by: MITSUK0 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 :) Actually it is. With EW range rigs a scorp can get better chances for a damp to work at 150k (and reduce the locking range of any sniper fitted BS to below 120k, efficiently disabeling it) than racial ECM to jam your average BS. And it can also fit a full 4 slot anti-burst tank. Originally by: Tsin'Valha Dampers should operate in much the same manner as ECM modules against the target ship's sensor strength This is already the case, the sensor strength of damps is the ships base locking range. It increases by pretty much the same rate as sensorstrength increases, too. With the exeption of capitals.
Laboratus Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen	Posted - 2007.09.02 09:51:00 - [63] Originally by: Aramendel Uhm..no. 2 of the correct racial ECM give you a ~80% chance to shutdown a domi. 2 multispecs give you a ~60% chance. 3 non-racial damps give you a 100% chance to shut it down. BS Damps do not "shut down" a ship, they change the rules of engagement. They force it to engage closer. Under no conditions do they "shut down" a ship... ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats
Bendit	Posted - 2007.09.02 10:14:00 - [64] Quote: 3 non-racial damps give you a 100% chance to shut it down. Nope, you nerf his lockrange and locktime pretty hard, IF HE DONT FIT SENSORBOOSTERS. If he have sensorboosters fitted ( 3 of them ) he will have roughly 40% range left, I know a little bit above. Quote: And get a 30+ sec lock time. if damps would only reduce locking range moving closer would be a real counter, as it is now however, it isn't. Again, no. If you have snesorboosters fitted, you will increase your own locktime, and if you are alert you will be locking him as soon as possible. This means you will get atleast halfway through the lock cycle before the damps kick in. But if he is outside your range and moves in, yes you will take some time locking him. But it`s only a delay. You will be able to lock him, IF you are not vastly ounumbered and outgunned. Quote: With EW range rigs a scorp can get better chances for a damp to work at 150k (and reduce the locking range of any sniper fitted BS to below 120k, efficiently disabeling it) than racial ECM to jam your average BS. You say 120km, I would hardly say that the sniper is disabled. he can still shoot at closer targts and he can warp out and come back in. You can also move you fleet out to 170-180km. See how many damps hit you there compared to the ecm...
Aramendel Amarr Coreli Corporation Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2007.09.02 11:13:00 - [65] Edited by: Aramendel on 02/09/2007 11:17:00 Originally by: Laboratus Damps do not "shut down" a ship, they change the rules of engagement. They force it to engage closer. Under no conditions do they "shut down" a ship... With that argumentation ECM neither does "shut down" a ship either. It can still use FOFs or drones. What? Not every ship has those? Not every ship can move closer, too. Or will have still an effect on the battleoutcome if it can and finally gets a lock after 20-60 seconds. ---------- Originally by: Bendit OMG sensorboosters! Guess what happens when it fits ECCM? Newsflash: EW gets less efficient when you fit countermodules. Sensorboosters are more common, but 1 SB does not much vs damps. 1 ECCM has a considerably bigger effect vs ECM. Quote: You say 120km, I would hardly say that the sniper is disabled. he can still shoot at closer targts and he can warp out and come back in. You can also move you fleet out to 170-180km. See how many damps hit you there compared to the ecm... You have never been in a fleet fight, have you?
Hank Showbo Neyi Industries	Posted - 2007.09.02 12:17:00 - [66] Originally by: Laboratus Originally by: Aramendel Uhm..no. 2 of the correct racial ECM give you a ~80% chance to shutdown a domi. 2 multispecs give you a ~60% chance. 3 non-racial damps give you a 100% chance to shut it down. BS Damps do not "shut down" a ship, they change the rules of engagement. They force it to engage closer. Under no conditions do they "shut down" a ship... The can actually, in a lot of cases your lock range becomes less than 10KM, in this scenario if you get webbed by whoever is damping you, you are unable to get into lock range. Of course though, EvEs pvp tourny is completely rubbish, without the need to warp scramble ranged ships+damps will ALWAYS come out on top. I mean...5 caracals, lots of maulus?!?! 5 Caracals will deal quite a bit of DPS, from 100KM away, and will certainly be in 'Invul' mode until a target gets close. Now the fastest targets are the weakest, meaning anything quickly approaching will die quickly. Anything slow and approaching wont get a chance to even lock anything, as damps at this point will be focused. At the moment, the ammount of damps used on tranquility is rising, and to be honest this eve tourny is really gunna boost the ammount of people using dampeners. Dampeners need to be sorted.
Max Hardcase Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.09.02 12:41:00 - [67] 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.
mallina Caldari Sybrite Inc. Derek Knows Us	Posted - 2007.09.02 13:06:00 - [68] Was doing a test earlier, a single Caracal with damps reduces a TachAbaddon with triple sensor-boosters lock-range down to 56km or so, whilst the Caracal was sitting at 100km. Had the caracal been using ECM, the Abaddon would still be able to acquire a lock. Had it been using Tracking Disruptors, it would have been out of range (plus TDs don't exactly work against missile ships, whereas Damps do) As for damps not being used so heavily in actual PvP - I'm assuming you've never fought against the likes of BE with their DamperRavens, or met a gang of MWDing Dampdrakes and had your lock range reduced to 8km from 60km (from ONE drake), taking over a minute to lock anything. Damps do need to be 'adjusted' somewhat, although I think a flat nerf to their effectiveness isn't the answer. Simply removing the locking time penalty (so you can still lock if you manage to briefly get in range) or following the road of ECM and being limited to Gallente EW ships would be preferable. This way, they would still be devastatingly effective at range, but much less effective up close (like Tracking Disruptors, which are completely useless against Missiles/Drones and ineffective against Autocannons, but render a Laser boat almost useless)
Bendit	Posted - 2007.09.02 13:11:00 - [69] Quote: With that argumentation ECM neither does "shut down" a ship either. It can still use FOFs or drones. What? Not every ship has those? Not every ship can move closer, too. Or will have still an effect on the battleoutcome if it can and finally gets a lock after 20-60 seconds. Not sure what you are trying to say here. All ships can move closer, someone better then the other. Either by warping out and back in, or mwd towrds it. All counters you mention on the ecm can be used towards the damps. Another thing, fitting sensorbooster also give you a bonus even if you dont meet a dampening ships. ECCM will not. Regarding drones and FOF, I think caldari is the race with the smallest drone space, and surprise, they have FOF`s. With the recent changes to Amarr they are actually abel to feild some to. Quote: Or will have still an effect on the battleoutcome if it can and finally gets a lock after 20-60 seconds. Would be faster to warp out and back in again then if he is able to do that. Quote: Guess what happens when it fits ECCM? Newsflash: EW gets less efficient when you fit countermodules. 1 point to you. Congrats. Quote: Sensorboosters are more common, but 1 SB does not much vs damps. 1 ECCM has a considerably bigger effect vs ECM. Of course 1 sensorbooster wont do much if you are slammed by 4 damps. ECCM would also be less efficient if someone used 4 jammers on you. Difference would be, crap target range vs no lock at all. Quote: You have never been in a fleet fight, have you? What have that to do with this. And to answer you, probarbly more then you.
Leandro Salazar The Blackguard Wolves Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.09.02 13:15:00 - [70] 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. Sure. Thing is, the argument (at least mine) is about NONSPECCED RSDs being too strong. Fix speedtanks, base hit chance on agility!
Atsuko Ratu Caldari VSP Corp.	Posted - 2007.09.02 14:16:00 - [71] Edited by: Atsuko Ratu on 02/09/2007 14:19:51 Edited by: Atsuko Ratu on 02/09/2007 14:18:15 So inorder for me to counter 2-3 damps on any ship in the game, I need to... 1) Not be caldari. Slowest ships, FoF on only half of the launchers, which puts you at 2/3ed the dps on the normal missles which is already the lowest dps type. 2) Have 4 midslots open at all times. (3 sensorboosters, mwd) No shield tanking ships either, not enough low slots to fit dps compensation for our low dps AND a tank, since 2 midslots that are left is a point and web. 3) Warp out. Wait, I'm scrambled... 34 seconds to lock... 4) Have my own damps or Rook, manage to lock first. At this point, it's more viable to just fit 2 damps than 2 extra sensorboosters. Also, a single anti-ecm will half your effectiveness, and that's IF you're in a rook. Becomes impossible even for a scorp. And yet they got nerfed to near uselessness on any ship aside from the Rook, when there was a easy-to-fit-and-use counter to it.
Bendit	Posted - 2007.09.02 14:58:00 - [72] Quote: in a lot of cases your lock range becomes less than 10KM, in this scenario if you get webbed by whoever is damping you, you are unable to get into lock range. If you fit sensorboosters your lockrange will never go below 10km, unless your in a frigate of some sort. Quote: Had the caracal been using ECM, the Abaddon would still be able to acquire a lock. Had it been using Tracking Disruptors, it would have been out of range (plus TDs don't exactly work against missile ships, whereas Damps do) I have to disagree here. Had the caracal been using ECM he would MAYBE get a lokc on you if the jammers had failed. Had you been using tracking disruptors you would not engage him outside disruptor range... would you? And for the Abaddon, had he moved below 56km range that caracal would been toast... If the abaddon had been at 56km and you used tracking disruptors he would never touched you. Quote: So inorder for me to counter 2-3 damps on any ship in the game, I need to... 1) Not be caldari. Slowest ships, FoF on only half of the launchers, which puts you at 2/3ed the dps on the normal missles which is already the lowest dps type. You fail already here. If yo had been ina caldari missile boat you would used FOF`s. Did you see the drake who killed 3 dampening caracals in the pvp tournament? Quote: Have 4 midslots open at all times. (3 sensorboosters, mwd) No shield tanking ships either, not enough low slots to fit dps compensation for our low dps AND a tank, since 2 midslots that are left is a point and web. If the attacker is using 2-3 damps on you he is also using 2-3 of his mids for this. And he would not have a sheild tank. Quote: Warp out. Wait, I'm scrambled... 34 seconds to lock... Would you rather be jammed? Quote: Have my own damps or Rook, manage to lock first. Could work yes. Quote: Also, a single anti-ecm will half your effectiveness, and that's IF you're in a rook. Becomes impossible even for a scorp. And yet they got nerfed to near uselessness on any ship aside from the Rook, when there was a easy-to-fit-and-use counter to it. And the snesorbooster gives you a bonus on top of just countering damps. omg!! And regarding ecm, CCP nerfed it to hard...
Aramendel Amarr Coreli Corporation Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2007.09.02 15:01:00 - [73] Originally by: Bendit Not sure what you are trying to say here. The point is that if your really get technical nothing, even ECM, is shutting down your ship completely. If you get technical, as said. Realistically once you reduced a ships performance below a certain lvl it is efficiently shut down, as in that its performance is so low that it won't really have an impact on the battle anymore. Quote: Would be faster to warp out and back in again then if he is able to do that. There is a magic module called "warp disruptor". Quote: Of course 1 sensorbooster wont do much if you are slammed by 4 damps. ECCM would also be less efficient if someone used 4 jammers on you. You are missing the point. 1 SB is relatively common. 2 you will findrarely outside snipersetups. 3 are almost never present unless you fit especially vs damps. 1-2 ECCM give you a better protection against ECM than 2-3 SB give you against damps. Quote: What have that to do with this. And to answer you, probarbly more then you. It has to do with moronic suggestions from you which are utterly impractical and pointless in fleetcombat. Which show an utter cluelessness of fleet combat mechanics. Let me repeat them: You say 120km, I would hardly say that the sniper is disabled. he can still shoot at closer targts and he can warp out and come back in. You can also move you fleet out to 170-180km. See how many damps hit you there compared to the ecm... The first..if the enemy fleet warped to a sniperspot 150k from you you will not find any targets closer which you can hit. Warping out and warping in would be utterly stupid. Lets say you get damped by an enemy ship and warp out and warp in again. Which takes around 30-60 seconds. What do you think the dampener will do? "Oh, my target has warped out, lets do..mhh...noting." Yes, right. It will dampen another ship of your fleet instead of you. And while you are blissfully doing some sightseeing in the system you will have increased the efficiency of the damp ship since it has currently disabled two targets at once, you while you are warping around and the ship he has dampened instead of you. If you would just have stayed it would have a smaller disabeling effect on the fleet. You are only thinking on your subjective lvl, but not on the fleet lvl. And moving out to 170-180k..first you need a bookmark for that. And the resulting warpin-warpout (if you are even able to do that and have no dictor bubbles) and the fact that your arty and laser ships will then fire in falloff will reduce your fleet performance most likely more than the dampener ships in the enemy fleet could have ever done.
doctorstupid2 Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire	Posted - 2007.09.02 15:19:00 - [74] Originally by: bldyannoyed Which is simpy incorrect cos i have been in sniping ships with 3 Senor boosters fitted and been damped down to like 20% of my targetting range. And if one replaced those damps on you with well-skilled jammers, you would have been a lot worse off. At least while dampened you have the ability to (eventually) target drones and get your own out and cycling targets. I'd rather have to deal with a lachesis than a rook on the other side any damn day of the week. Steel Rat > if they only knew we make this **** up as we go
Shevar Minmatar A.W.M Ka-Tet	Posted - 2007.09.02 16:23:00 - [75] Yes PvP should ONLY be tank/spank. Any other form of modules should be nerfed into total uselessness so you don't need to do anything else then f1 f2 f3 f4 f5 and have a perfect setup for everything! /end sarcasm --- -The only real drug problem is scoring real good drugs
Bendit	Posted - 2007.09.02 17:46:00 - [76] Edited by: Bendit on 02/09/2007 17:49:15 Quote: If you get technical, as said. Realistically once you reduced a ships performance below a certain lvl it is efficiently shut down, as in that its performance is so low that it won't really have an impact on the battle anymore. That I can agree to. But at the same time you cant expect to be efficient against a heavy EW pilot of he uses his range and ew and tou are fitted for the normal gank/tank thing. People fit tanks to survive the damaage. People fit NOS, cap rechargers, cap boosters to keep the cap going. Cause everybody know, cap=life in pvp. If a pilot with none of theese module comes up against a nos/neuting ship and dies. Would you say it`s the pilot who didnt fit to counter fault, or the neut/nos modules who are overpowered? Quote: There is a magic module called "warp disruptor". And theres a magic module called "sensor booster" who would make you able to targt him, unless he was flying a arazu/lachesis or had "uber" scrams fitted. Quote: 3 are almost never present unless you fit especially vs damps. 1-2 ECCM give you a better protection against ECM than 2-3 SB give you against damps. Wait a minute! You mean you dont want to fit your ship to counter damps? No wonder you have so much trouble with them... And 2-3 sensor boosters gives you more bonus then fitting 1-2 ECCM. 1-2 ECCM wont do jack if you dont get jammed. 2-3 sensorboosters will always give their bonus even if you are not damped. OMG, look at that, you can lock really fast and even far out. Quote: It has to do with moronic suggestions from you which are utterly impractical and pointless in fleetcombat. Which show an utter cluelessness of fleet combat mechanics. Not me who has problems with finding counters. Quote: The first..if the enemy fleet warped to a sniperspot 150k from you you will not find any targets closer which you can hit. If the enemy fleet had many damping ships, that was smart of them. And since there is nothing closer, it also means you are free to warp out. Wich, if you dont and are heavily damped is stupid. If you jump into a bubble, that is a thing the FC needs to think about. -Do you have the firepower to take this, even if you get damped? -Will we be able to get off the gate? -Is there a bubble on the gate? Quote: Warping out and warping in would be utterly stupid. Lets say you get damped by an enemy ship and warp out and warp in again. Which takes around 30-60 seconds. What do you think the dampener will do? He will ofcourse try and damp another ship. But again, if you are sitting at 150km all this is chance based. So the damp can fail. You can also just sit there and hope that next cycle fails. But for a ship to keep you permadamped at 150km, he will need to use all 4 midslots. And still then he can fail. Quote: And moving out to 170-180k..first you need a bookmark for that. And the resulting warpin-warpout (if you are even able to do that and have no dictor bubbles) and the fact that your arty and laser ships will then fire in falloff will reduce your fleet performance most likely more than the dampener ships in the enemy fleet could have ever done. OMG, you need to navigate to get into a better firing position? Thats just madness!! To get a spot on that fleet would take a skilled covert op pilot max 30 sec. And if your pilots are starting to fall into falloff range at 170km, they seriously need to train some skill and start fitting rigs... "butbutbut, they have a chance at dampen us at 150km" Only way to get that range with damps are rigs. Solution, fit rigs on the sniping BS and move outside the damp range. Damps would not do much if anything at all. And if you fleet are able to hit at 170km even if you are starting to get into some peeps falloff range, and dont use that against a enemy that damps... Well your own fault.
Lisento Slaven Amarr Vendetta Underground Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.09.02 18:07:00 - [77] Do you guys actually take FOF's with you into pvp? I would like to see the lockon time penalty removed from dampeners...reducing lock range is pretty powerful as it is no? --- Put in space whales!
Atsuko Ratu Caldari VSP Corp.	Posted - 2007.09.02 18:39:00 - [78] Edited by: Atsuko Ratu on 02/09/2007 18:42:15 Originally by: Bendit Quote: So inorder for me to counter 2-3 damps on any ship in the game, I need to... 1) Not be caldari. Slowest ships, FoF on only half of the launchers, which puts you at 2/3ed the dps on the normal missles which is already the lowest dps type. You fail already here. If yo had been ina caldari missile boat you would used FOF`s. Did you see the drake who killed 3 dampening caracals in the pvp tournament? BOOM HEADSHOT. Credability flys out the window with the words "pvp tournament". Post ignored. Originally by: Bendit Quote: Have 4 midslots open at all times. (3 sensorboosters, mwd) No shield tanking ships either, not enough low slots to fit dps compensation for our low dps AND a tank, since 2 midslots that are left is a point and web. If the attacker is using 2-3 damps on you he is also using 2-3 of his mids for this. And he would not have a sheild tank. 2 damps = 2 midslots. I need 4 to counter effectivly. Lose against any other ship now, but I can beat the caracal!!11one Originally by: Bendit Quote: Warp out. Wait, I'm scrambled... 34 seconds to lock... Would you rather be jammed? By a caracal? Yes. He'll have a good 20% chance to jam me with 3-4 racials, below 10% if I have any counters equiped. Originally by: Bendit And regarding ecm, CCP nerfed it to hard... Agreed. I can't even perma jam a bs with 3 ecms at 7.5 str. My rook does it well with 11 str tho Edit: It seemed like you didn't know, but only the "ranged" launchers have FoF. "Ranged" launchers are the lowest dps type in the game, and FoF do 2/3ed the dps of the normal missles. If you die to say, a raven using 6 FoF cruiser launchers you're an idiot (read: drones)
Tarron Sarek Gallente Endica Enterprises	Posted - 2007.09.02 19:29:00 - [79] To get some facts straight: 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 it's nowhere near a direct counter (3 slots for 3 slots). Imho the bonus on RSDa should simply be reduced a bit as an immediate measure. Like this: 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 _________________________________ - Balance is power, guard it well -
Aramendel Amarr Coreli Corporation Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2007.09.02 20:52:00 - [80] Originally by: Bendit If a pilot with none of theese module comes up against a nos/neuting ship and dies. Would you say it`s the pilot who didnt fit to counter fault, or the neut/nos modules who are overpowered? Has nothing to do with the quoted text. Keep on topic. Quote: And theres a magic module called "sensor booster" who would make you able to targt him, unless he was flying a arazu/lachesis or had "uber" scrams fitted. So you admit that coming close alone is no counter? Quote: Wait a minute! You mean you dont want to fit your ship to counter damps? No wonder you have so much trouble with them... No, I do not mean that. Where did I say it? Stop trying to twist my words. Quote: And 2-3 sensor boosters gives you more bonus then fitting 1-2 ECCM. 1-2 ECCM wont do jack if you dont get jammed. 2-3 sensorboosters will always give their bonus even if you are not damped. OMG, look at that, you can lock really fast and even far out. The bonus of the 2nd (when not sniping) and 3rd (always) sensorbooster is not worth it compared to other med slot modules. There is a reason people usually do not use them. If used they are just like ECCM only to counter EW. Quote: Not me who has problems with finding counters. Your "counters" are - as shown in my last post - not counters, they actually increase the effect damps have on a fleet. You either know this and are simply trolling or you are utterly clueless and do not know what you are talking about. Quote: If the enemy fleet had many damping ships, that was smart of them. And since there is nothing closer, it also means you are free to warp out. Wich, if you dont and are heavily damped is stupid. Wrong. I said nothing close which you can hit. Being able to target dictors and inties does not help you much since your chance to do anything against themin a sniper fit are near zero. And it has nothing to do with "being smart", it has something to do with normal fleet combat tactics, something which you do not seem to be experienced with. Quote: He will ofcourse try and damp another ship. But again, if you are sitting at 150km all this is chance based. So the damp can fail. You can also just sit there and hope that next cycle fails. But for a ship to keep you permadamped at 150km, he will need to use all 4 midslots. And still then he can fail. Does not change a single thing that warping out-in when getting EWrd in a fleet is the most stupid thing to do. During the time you are out of the battle (which is far longer than a single cycle) it is like if he had sucessfully damped you during all this time. And vs his new target he has exactly the same chances as he had vs you. Meaning that you haven't reduced the efficiency of his EW AT ALL and in addition made a single cycle of him removing you out of the battle for 5-10 times as long (since you were so stupid to warp out to "counter" him ).
Aramendel Amarr Coreli Corporation Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2007.09.02 20:52:00 - [81] Originally by: Bendit OMG, you need to navigate to get into a better firing position? Thats just madness!! To get a spot on that fleet would take a skilled covert op pilot max 30 sec. And if your pilots are starting to fall into falloff range at 170km, they seriously need to train some skill and start fitting rigs... "butbutbut, they have a chance at dampen us at 150km" Only way to get that range with damps are rigs. Solution, fit rigs on the sniping BS and move outside the damp range. Damps would not do much if anything at all. And yet again you show that you have no utter clue about fleet combat. Guess what? Rigs share stacking penalities with tracking comps. Which, for your uninformed self, are needed to reach sniping distance. So the effect of fitting rigs = nil. Nada. Zip. Zilch. You still claim that you ever were in a fleetbattle? I seriously doubt that.
MITSUK0	Posted - 2007.09.02 20:54:00 - [82] Originally by: Aramendel Originally by: Bendit OMG, you need to navigate to get into a better firing position? Thats just madness!! To get a spot on that fleet would take a skilled covert op pilot max 30 sec. And if your pilots are starting to fall into falloff range at 170km, they seriously need to train some skill and start fitting rigs... "butbutbut, they have a chance at dampen us at 150km" Only way to get that range with damps are rigs. Solution, fit rigs on the sniping BS and move outside the damp range. Damps would not do much if anything at all. And yet again you show that you have no utter clue about fleet combat. Guess what? Rigs share stacking penalities with tracking comps. Which, for your uninformed self, are needed to reach sniping distance. So the effect of fitting rigs = nil. Nada. Zip. Zilch. You still claim that you ever were in a fleetbattle? I seriously doubt that. Shhh... Armchair pvp'ers > all.
Bendit	Posted - 2007.09.02 20:58:00 - [83] Quote: BOOM HEADSHOT. Credability flys out the window with the words "pvp tournament". Post ignored. BOOM HEADSHOT back, if u had a clue, you would know that FOF`s also have use in real pvp. I`ve seen FOF`s save peeps multiple times before. If you are able to use FOF`s and dont do it, it`s your own fault. You should rather use energy on trying to get FOF`s to work better. Like not chasing after drones... Quote: 2 damps = 2 midslots. I need 4 to counter effectivly. Lose against any other ship now, but I can beat the caracal!!11one What do you mean? Are you talking about solo pvp, gang pvp? If you have 60km base range, 2 sensorboosters will make you able to lock most tacklers except the arazu/lachesis. If you have long range targeting lvl 5. If you are not tackled you can dissengage. And come back at your choice. Quote: By a caracal? Yes. He'll have a good 20% chance to jam me with 3-4 racials, below 10% if I have any counters equiped. If you had been damped by a caracal and scrambled it means he is within 24km... Thats easily countered. 2 sensorboosters would give you roughly 31km range if you have 50km baserange. And since the caracal have already used 3 midslots for damp and scram he has no tank. Quote: By a caracal? Yes. He'll have a good 20% chance to jam me with 3-4 racials, below 10% if I have any counters equiped. Was not what I asked you about. I asked you if you would rather be jammed then damped. Anyway, with thoose numbers i guess we are talking about a bs. You would easily tank the damage from the caracal and wait out the locktime and double volley him... Quote: It seemed like you didn't know, but only the "ranged" launchers have FoF. "Ranged" launchers are the lowest dps type in the game, and FoF do 2/3ed the dps of the normal missles. If you die to say, a raven using 6 FoF cruiser launchers you're an idiot Since you like trying to be the "expert" you also know that the ships with the most midslots (read caldari) also lack drone space. BB dont have a dronebay, caracal can field 2 light ones. Anyway, CCP should fix the FOF`s so they dont chase around the stupid drones. Quote: Imho the bonus on RSDa should simply be reduced a bit as an immediate measure. Like this: 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 numbers look ok. With thoose numbers you would actually have to fit rigs or have a bonused ship to be effective. And the bonused ship will still be the strongest one. It`s higly unlikely people will fit 40-50mil in rigs on a T1 ship. And T2 ships to fit rigs are highly unlikely since they have bonuses to other stuff. And fitting rigs to make damps more effective will nerf something. Like speed, if they are used to using polycarbons, cap rigs if they need cap and so on.
Bendit	Posted - 2007.09.02 21:22:00 - [84] Quote: Originally by: Bendit -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If a pilot with none of theese module comes up against a nos/neuting ship and dies. Would you say it`s the pilot who didnt fit to counter fault, or the neut/nos modules who are overpowered? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Has nothing to do with the quoted text. Keep on topic. Of course it has. We are talking about counters to damps. And I pulled a reference towards other setups. If you die to that setup, is it the setups fault our your fault for not beeing fit to counter it? Quote: So you admit that coming close alone is no counter? So comming close on a sniping ship with a blasterboat is not a counter towards the sniper? Quote: No, I do not mean that. Where did I say it? Stop trying to twist my words. Quote: 3 are almost never present unless you fit especially vs damps. You said unless... You dont fit to counter who you normally fight? Over time you will notice what certain groups like to fit, and you accordingly. RAZOR are know for the nanocrap, so are Outbreak. Bob had very normal setups before, tank/gank, dunno what they fly now. Goons run around with alot of EW support. Quote: No, I do not mean that. Where did I say it? Quote: The first..if the enemy fleet warped to a sniperspot 150k from you you will not find any targets closer which you can hit. You should specify that you had targets closer then 150km then. Quote: The bonus of the 2nd (when not sniping) and 3rd (always) sensorbooster is not worth it compared to other med slot modules. Unless you are fighting people who use damps... You talk about other midslots that would be more usefull then fitting a third midslots. Like what? Web? Ohh, thats for catching fast targets... Scram? Ooh thats for keeping targets put. cap booster? Ooh thats for trying to have some cap if you get nos/neuted or just have a cap hungry setup. Quote: And it has nothing to do with "being smart", it has something to do with normal fleet combat tactics, something which you do not seem to be experienced with. Then I must say that warping in at 150km or lower against an enemy u know will feild damps are stupid. Specially if you have the ability to go in at longer range. Quote: Does not change a single thing that warping out-in when getting EWrd in a fleet is the most stupid thing to do. During the time you are out of the battle (which is far longer than a single cycle) it is like if he had sucessfully damped you during all this time. And vs his new target he has exactly the same chances as he had vs you. I also said that you could wait out the cycle time and hope he failed a cycle. Quote: And yet again you show that you have no utter clue about fleet combat. Guess what? Rigs share stacking penalities with tracking comps. Which, for your uninformed self, are needed to reach sniping distance. So the effect of fitting rigs = nil. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Hmm, so how did my buddies get over 200km range on their lasers? I actually think maxrange came at 210 or 220km, dont remember. But they where far over 170km. Quote: You still claim that you ever were in a fleetbattle? I seriously doubt that. And I seriously doubt that you guys can think for your self. Not even spoonfeeding it would have helped you. Quote: Shhh... Armchair pvp'ers > all. Armchair pvp`ers kicks ass
Jordan Musgrat Convergent Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.09.02 21:59:00 - [85] Some people already said this, but it is the insane amount of negative scan res that makes damps overpowered. So just make the scan res penalty half of what it is, or half of the targetting range penalty, that will force ships to fight close, and still affect their lock time significantly on small stuff like intys/cruisers. ----------- Primary is family values, secondary is 0.0...
Melinda Bettin	Posted - 2007.09.03 03:04:00 - [86] I believe all modules that do not inflict even a single damage point to a ship should be nerfed and made chanced based. Or better still just remove them from game and only allow modules which pewpew and make ships go boomboom to remain in game. Alliance Tournament has proved that. Discuss.
Tarron Sarek Gallente Endica Enterprises	Posted - 2007.09.03 03:30:00 - [87] Fitting one EW module should only yield a small effect. Because it's just one module. That's the problem with dampeners and EW in general. A more fluent progression is missing. Black/White - Win/Lose is a bad in that case. Jordan Musgrat, I agree, the scan resolution penalty should halfed. _________________________________ - Balance is power, guard it well -
Bendit	Posted - 2007.09.03 05:42:00 - [88] So if CCP did the following? Quote: Imho the bonus on RSDa should simply be reduced a bit as an immediate measure. Like this: 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 and Quote: Some people already said this, but it is the insane amount of negative scan res that makes damps overpowered. So just make the scan res penalty half of what it is Would that be ok? Would peeps be happy then, or would you still be crying nerf nerf nerf? In my eyes this could work. - Getting damps relly efficient you would need rigs... Not very likely to use rigs on T1 ships since it will make them expensive as HAC`s. And T2 ships only have 2rig slots wich most likely will be used for other stuff. - You would reduce the locktime so you would be able to fight the closerange tackler a little more efficient. If you fit sensorbooster/sensorboosters (depends how many damps are used on you. -Would gimp the solo damp, speed, taclker setup, since he would only have 2 damps most likely, since rest of the slots are used for tackling, speed and so on. Wich means 1 sensorbooster would be enough.
Ashaz Mindstar Technology United Confederation of Corporations	Posted - 2007.09.03 06:43:00 - [89] Only 1 dampner per target? You do realize that they would have to boost their effectiveness alot for this to be viable? ....meaning I could be dampening 3 targets instead of 1. Are you sure this is what you want? __________________________________ Gallente by birth. Amarr by choice. iDrone
Ashaz Mindstar Technology United Confederation of Corporations	Posted - 2007.09.03 06:55:00 - [90] Originally by: Hank Showbo The can actually, in a lot of cases your lock range becomes less than 10KM, in this scenario if you get webbed by whoever is damping you, you are unable to get into lock range. webbed... Fit the damn SB already! Then noone will come into your webbing range. If more people are packing dampe, as you claim. Then maybe people will.. oh. I duno... adapt? Try bringing a bucket of FoF missiles or fit an extra SB. All the dedicated dampner ships are so fragile that they will ***** if you look at them too harshly. Most ships out there can't even dampen down to scrambler range. __________________________________ Gallente by birth. Amarr by choice. iDrone
Aramendel Amarr Coreli Corporation Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2007.09.03 07:15:00 - [91] Edited by: Aramendel on 03/09/2007 07:17:44 Originally by: Bendit Of course it has. We are talking about counters to damps. And I pulled a reference towards other setups. If you die to that setup, is it the setups fault our your fault for not beeing fit to counter it? Wrong. This particular sub-discussion was about the nature of lockdowns. Quote: So you admit that coming close alone is no counter? So comming close on a sniping ship with a blasterboat is not a counter towards the sniper? Again you try to derail a topic instead admitting you are wrong. Pointis that coming close is no counter agianst damps because you will face a such hugelock time increase that by the time you get a lock the battle will be more or less over. Quote: 3 are almost never present unless you fit especially* vs damps.* You said unless... You dont fit to counter who you normally fight? Again, learn to read or stop trying to twist my words. Seriously...that is becoming ******. Are you using google translator? Nothing in that sentence even suggest what you claim.. Quote: The first..if the enemy fleet warped to a sniperspot 150k from you you will not find any targets closer which you can hit. You should specify that you had targets closer then 150km then. I did. You just cannot read. Why do you think I added the bold text? Of cource the other fleet will send tacklers against you. You are as sniper-BS just useless against those targets since you cannot hit them efficiently. Quote:** The bonus of the 2nd (when not sniping) and 3rd (always) sensorbooster is not worth it compared to other med slot modules. Unless you are fighting people who use damps... Yes. But in that case you do not fit them because the bonus they give you but only to counter damps. Meaning they are then compareable to ECCM. 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. Quote: And it has nothing to do with "being smart", it has something to do with normal fleet combat tactics, something which you do not seem to be experienced with. Then I must say that warping in at 150km or lower against an enemy u know will feild damps are stupid. Specially if you have the ability to go in at longer range. They whole damage lost by warping in-out (and which not all of your ships will be able to..hello tacklers) will cost you tons of dps. And your enemy can do exactly the same thing. It is no counter, it it will only delay the inevitable. Quote: I also said that you could wait out the cycle time and hope he failed a cycle. Later when I explained to you why what you would be doing is utterly stupid. Congrats, you are able to learn. Maybe you'll use it when you get out of empire for the first time in a few months. And, of cource, thats what you would do vs any other EW, too. With damps being able to get as good sucess chances as ECm this means they are right now betterthan ECM there (since there is no need for racials and you can use the lows for a tank). Just as I said. Quote: Hmm, so how did my buddies get over 200km range on their lasers? I actually think maxrange came at 210 or 220km, dont remember. Impossible. Words -> mouth. Fell free to prove me wrong.
Aramendel Amarr Coreli Corporation Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2007.09.03 07:15:00 - [92] Originally by: Bendit EDIT: With max rangeskills, 2 tracking comps and 2 trackinglinks you should get roughly 175km optimal with T2 tachyons. Add 2 rigs for falloff range and you get 32km falloff range. And you should have no problem hitting at 180km. So instead of using 2 sniper BS you want to use 1 sniper BS and 1 other ship which is boosting that with tracking links? Yes, right. Quote: You still claim that you ever were in a fleetbattle? I seriously doubt that. And I seriously doubt that you guys can think for your self. Not even spoonfeeding it would have helped you. Again you are trying to avoid the question. So by refusing to answer it we can assume correctly that you have no experience there and are talking out of your backside here?
Bendit	Posted - 2007.09.03 09:00:00 - [93] Quote: Wrong. This particular sub-discussion was about the nature of lockdowns. And we a discussing ways to counter damps, or how to improve you chances to dissengage and get in a better position. It`s tha same thing with all other setups. Sniper vs blaster. Gank vs no tank. Heavy tank+NOS/neuts vs Gank and so on. Quote: Again you try to derail a topic instead admitting you are wrong. Pointis that coming close is no counter agianst damps because you will face a such hugelock time increase that by the time you get a lock the battle will be more or less over. Im not. You are trying to push your views over others head. Im simply stating different scenarios where things are possible. You are simply going black/white, no/yes. You keep telling you have huge locktimes. Without a sensorbooster or 2 or 3 yes. But with the insane tanks we have in the game now, certain ships would have no problem just soaking up the damage until he gets a lock. UNLESS he is outblobbed and outgunned. Quote: Again, learn to read or stop trying to twist my words. Seriously...that is becoming ******. Are you using google translator? Nothing in that sentence even suggest what you claim.. Quote: I did. You just cannot read. Why do you think I added the bold text? Of cource the other fleet will send tacklers against you. You are as sniper-BS just useless against those targets since you cannot hit them efficiently. Bolded text was added afterwards. And btw, some tacklers are pretty stupid, so you can hit them if they come on to in a straight line. If not they have doing zig zag run towards you. If they not just warp right on top of you. Quote:** Yes. But in that case you do not fit them because the bonus they give you but only to counter damps. Meaning they are then compareable to ECCM. Dont you fit hardeners to counter damaged dealt? Or webs to counter fast moving targets? Or nos/neut to break someones cap? 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. Quote: With damps being able to get as good sucess chances as ECm this means they are right now betterthan ECM there (since there is no need for racials and you can use the lows for a tank). Just as I said. And a other peeps here have come with good suggestion how damps could maybe work. half the penalty on sig resolution and slighty reduce the effects on damps down to T2+rigs = T2 we have now. Quote: Impossible. Words -> mouth. Fell free to prove me wrong. Ok: Abaddon 2 T2 tracking enhanchers 2 T2 tracking computers 2 T1 Falloff rigs Maxed skills towards range on the turrets 175km optimal+32km falloff Happy?
Bendit	Posted - 2007.09.03 09:03:00 - [94] Quote: So instead of using 2 sniper BS you want to use 1 sniper BS and 1 other ship which is boosting that with tracking links? Yes, right. yeah that was my bad, I meant tracking enhanchers. Sorry about that. Quote: Again you are trying to avoid the question. So by refusing to answer it we can assume correctly that you have no experience there and are talking out of your backside here? Hmm, lets see G/IRON when they where around, Bob, AAA, ASCN.... yeah I have no fleetbattle experience.
Hank Showbo Neyi Industries	Posted - 2007.09.03 09:43:00 - [95] Originally by: Ashaz Originally by: Hank Showbo The can actually, in a lot of cases your lock range becomes less than 10KM, in this scenario if you get webbed by whoever is damping you, you are unable to get into lock range. webbed... Fit the damn SB already! Then noone will come into your webbing range. If more people are packing dampe, as you claim. Then maybe people will.. oh. I duno... adapt? Try bringing a bucket of FoF missiles or fit an extra SB. All the dedicated dampner ships are so fragile that they will ***** if you look at them too harshly. Most ships out there can't even dampen down to scrambler range. FoF's suck, and not all ships can fit standard/heavy/cruise launchers. Sensor Boosters are too weak of a counter. Dedicated dampening ships are fine, its all the ships with a few meds to fit them thats the problem. Dampeners shouldnt have a lock time penalty imo, theoretically the weapon is designed for Gallente to force thier Caldari opponents that are normally ranged into thier reach. Making dampeners just reduce lock range would be a simple fix that wouldnt be too harsh.
Juha85 Beasts of Burden YouWhat	Posted - 2007.09.03 09:50:00 - [96] There is no reason to argue about this anymore. If you would have watched eve-tv you would already know that they are looking into making 2 different damps. One to lower your lock range and one to lower your sig resolution. ---------------------------------------
Lucifer Fellblade Ore Mongers R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.09.03 09:58:00 - [97] Chanced based is the worst possible solution to anything, ever. ------
Juha85 Beasts of Burden YouWhat	Posted - 2007.09.03 10:03:00 - [98] Originally by: Lucifer Fellblade Chanced based is the worst possible solution to anything, ever. Yes, ECM should also be moved out from chance based system ---------------------------------------
Pinky Denmark The Cursed Navy	Posted - 2007.09.03 10:22:00 - [99] Dampeners are like ecm not used to be used on every and all ships... When everybody wants to fit them it's because they are very very useful. Pinky - I'm a nice guy!! MOA is NOT UGLY!!! It's A FREAK SHOW!!!!
Hank Showbo Neyi Industries	Posted - 2007.09.03 10:24:00 - [100] Originally by: Juha85 There is no reason to argue about this anymore. If you would have watched eve-tv you would already know that they are looking into making 2 different damps. One to lower your lock range and one to lower your sig resolution. Now thats a good balance!
Rodj Blake Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2007.09.03 10:34:00 - [101] All that's needed is a slight decrease in the effectiveness of dampeners and a slight boost to the bonuses of those ships specialised in their use. Dulce et decorum est pro imperium mori.
Atius Tirawa Minmatar Wreckless Abandon Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.09.03 11:40:00 - [102] I agree with Blake, Damps are ok, but they should only truly be effective in specilized ships. As it stands, they are a great tool for forcing people into close range. Also, does anyone fit 3 SBs on any of their battleships? I fit two, and I consider that a very speciized long range ship - normally, I fit one for roaming stuff - and thats at the expense of other modules. I thought the ECM chages were idiotic (they needed changing yes, but not like that) and fear a similar nurf to SDs - but one is bound to happen.
Vathar Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.09.03 13:12:00 - [103] I was not fond of the ECM nerf and predicted this ages ago, but it boild down to two things. The mass of players so keen on gank/tank to the exception of everything else. this brings us to two-dimension setups (dps/tankability). This creates an annoying nerf-train. On the other hand, you should not need an equivalent number of modules to counter a specific secondary offense (I call it secondary since jamming/dampening/nossing alone won't kill a ship). The reason : You can't have an allround defense against all form of EW, but usually, you build you offense around one specific type. Let's pretend 3 boosters will protect you against 3RSD, you fit 3, use three slots, somehow manage to have a decent fit around and ... your opponent does not fit damps. You lock faster and further, but let's be honest, if you fit for closerange, it's not worth wasting three meds. I was perfectly happy with ECCM since a single ECCM module gave me decent protection against the 1or2-jammers bastard. Against RSDs, a single sensor booster is useful for other purposes, but does not defeat 2 damps. The usefulness of sensor boosters compared to ECCM does not justify the need to use an excessive number of damps to achieve reasonable protection. My view of balance would be (scraping things off the wall) : 1 specific defense covers roughly 1.5/2 modules of corresponding offense on an unbonused ship. 1.5 in the case of sensor boosters who have a secondary beneficial effect, 2 for ECCM who are useless when you're not jammed Right now, 1 sensor booster does not even counter a single RSD (talking about unbonused ships and reasonable skills/modules) Originally by: Radeberger If you plan to make your alliance combat based, recruit pvpers with mining alts rather than miners with pvp alts[/qu
Ashaz Mindstar Technology United Confederation of Corporations	Posted - 2007.09.03 13:49:00 - [104] Originally by: Hank Showbo FoF's suck, I disagree. They hurt if the guy at the launching end has decent missile skills. Originally by: Hank Showbo and not all ships can fit standard/heavy/cruise launchers. not all ships can fit dampners. what's the problem? Originally by: Hank Showbo Sensor Boosters are too weak of a counter. Dedicated dampening ships are fine, its all the ships with a few meds to fit them thats the problem. Please. Just TRY it will you? Fit one or two SBII to your BS. None of the not dampner-speced ships will get you down below scrambling range, so you can just warp away if you want to, or get in there and slaughter them. __________________________________ Gallente by birth. Amarr by choice. iDrone
Atsuko Ratu Caldari VSP Corp.	Posted - 2007.09.03 16:19:00 - [105] Edited by: Atsuko Ratu on 03/09/2007 16:21:17 Originally by: Ashaz Please. Just TRY it will you? Fit one or two SBII to your BS. None of the not dampner-speced ships will get you down below scrambling range, so you can just warp away if you want to, or get in there and slaughter them. If you ever manage to lock them Lower than 20 scan res FTL Make my ECM's strength base 10 so I don't need 5 lows to make them decent please. Or cut the effectivness of damps down to 1/3th of their currentness and add a lowslot mod to increase effectivness. ECM got booted and so will damps soon. Edit: Originally by: Bendit Ok: Abaddon 2 T2 tracking enhanchers 2 T2 tracking computers 2 T1 Falloff rigs Maxed skills towards range on the turrets 175km optimal+32km falloff Happy? Sexy range. Would run out of cap in like 4 volleys tho
Lisento Slaven Amarr Vendetta Underground Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.09.03 16:35:00 - [106] I think the problem with damps is that they are simply too effective. Gang of 5 vs a gang of another 5...are you in optimal range of their damps? Uh oh, you're permanently out of the fight (or at least knocked out of the fight long enough to not make a difference, since it'll take you forever to lock on to anything if you manage to get in range again). At least with ECM you have a chance of getting back in the fight after the cycle is over (barring of course the specialized ECM boats...which may keep you jammed forever). Don't give me that FoF excuse because that only applies to missile ships...and the Amarr/Gallente/Minmatar don't rely entirely on missiles so they usually won't take that stuff, even if they have a launcher that shoots FoF's. I know if there are 3 - 4 damps in my gang that we can effectively turn off whoever is the heavy hitter in the opponents gang. I'm speaking entirely from small gang (meaning less than 10 players, usually 3 - 4 players) point of view. Even solo point of view. Thankfully if anyone yells at me to put on a sensor booster, I am in a position where I can. But I don't...I'd rather have my web on then off =P --- Put in space whales!
Bendit	Posted - 2007.09.03 17:09:00 - [107] Edited by: Bendit on 03/09/2007 17:10:16 Edited by: Bendit on 03/09/2007 17:09:27 Quote: Sexy range. Would run out of cap in like 4 volleys tho U still have 4 lowslots to play with and one rigslot. Or you can drop the falloff rig and go all out Cap rigs. But they would only change your cap from 3min to 4min... Or you could go with a tempest...over 90% of base damage at 180km. Peak damage on 1400mm T2 would be 58.72 dmg/sec at 159km Peak damage on 425mm T2 would be 49.91 dmg/sec at 190km (Gall) Peak damage on Tachyon T2 would be 62.49dmg/sec at 174km At 190km the 1400mm would drop to about 46.98 dmg/sec. Thats 5.88% lesser damage then the megathron. Or 94.12% of the damage. But at a higher alphastrike. NOTE: All values with 2 falloff rigs on the tachyons and 1400mm. NOT on the rails. Also, numbers are per gun...
Hank Showbo Neyi Industries	Posted - 2007.09.03 17:53:00 - [108] Originally by: Ashaz Originally by: Hank Showbo FoF's suck, I disagree. They hurt if the guy at the launching end has decent missile skills. Originally by: Hank Showbo and not all ships can fit standard/heavy/cruise launchers. not all ships can fit dampners. what's the problem? Originally by: Hank Showbo Sensor Boosters are too weak of a counter. Dedicated dampening ships are fine, its all the ships with a few meds to fit them thats the problem. Please. Just TRY it will you? Fit one or two SBII to your BS. None of the not dampner-speced ships will get you down below scrambling range, so you can just warp away if you want to, or get in there and slaughter them. Considering FoFs would only hurt if you have at least 5 launchers, that would reduce your statement to only Caldari missile boats will hurt, if the FoFs actually work properly. " None of the not dampner-speced ships will get you down below scrambling range" ; Huginn Rapier Curse Hehehe see, my problem too with sensor boosters is, I am either flying amarr that cant spare the mediums, or I am flying a shield tanked ship which will have to reduce its tank to try to counter damps, which just wont work.
Aramendel Amarr Coreli Corporation Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2007.09.03 20:14:00 - [109] Originally by: Bendit Im not. You are trying to push your views over others head. Im simply stating different scenarios where things are possible. You are simply going black/white, no/yes. You keep telling you have huge locktimes. Without a sensorbooster or 2 or 3 yes. But with the insane tanks we have in the game now, certain ships would have no problem just soaking up the damage until he gets a lock. UNLESS he is outblobbed and outgunned. You claimed "getting close" is a counter. Now you need to get close AND have 2-3 sensorboosters or an uber-tank? So, to repeat, you admit that getting close alone is no counter? Quote: Bolded text was added afterwards. Wrong. I bolded it to assist you in your reading weakness. The words were there the whole time, they are also in your original quote of that text, too. Quote: Dont you fit hardeners to counter damaged dealt? Or webs to counter fast moving targets? Or nos/neut to break someones cap? So you admit that fitting 3e sensorboosters is compareable to fitting 2 ECCM? And that 2 ECCM is a superior counter to ECM than 3 SB2 are to counters sensorboosters? Quote: 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. No, I want to make them counterable. If you fit ECCM you reduce the efficiency of ECM specced ships considerably. If you fit an injector you reduce the effect of capwarfare vs you considerably, even vs cap warefare specced ships. If you tank specifically vs the damagetypes a ship does you reduce its efficiency considerably. SBs are not strong enough to reduce the effect of damps from a specced ship considerably. Quote: And a other peeps here have come with good suggestion how damps could maybe work. half the penalty on sig resolution and slighty reduce the effects on damps down to T2+rigs = T2 we have now. So you admit that damps are superior for fleets? Quote: Abaddon 2 T2 tracking enhanchers 2 T2 tracking computers 2 T1 Falloff rigs Maxed skills towards range on the turrets 175km optimal+32km falloff Optimals. You do at optimal + falloff around 40% of your dps as on optimal. This means you would do there the same dps as you would do if everysingleship would have a 60% success chance ECM/damp on them. Yet again you show your inexperience in fleet combat. Quote: yeah that was my bad, I meant tracking enhanchers. Sorry about that. Yes, sure does show that you fitted fleet BS if you do not even know the modules And 4 tracking modules is not the norm, nor does it come without a price - reduced tank. Quote: Hmm, lets see G/IRON when they where around, Bob, AAA, ASCN.... yeah I have no fleetbattle experience. So how do you explain you newbie mistakes which a 3 month char knows? Fell on your head? Ebay? Or simply trolling?
Sarah Benthwell	Posted - 2007.09.03 20:25:00 - [110] Ok please dont tell me this doesnt need to be nerfed... Abaddon with 3 sensor booster + 4 Remote sensor booster has 11km lock range when damped. Sounds pretty balanced to me.
Bendit	Posted - 2007.09.03 20:49:00 - [111] Originally by: Sarah Benthwell Ok please dont tell me this doesnt need to be nerfed... Abaddon with 3 sensor booster + 4 Remote sensor booster has 11km lock range when damped. Sounds pretty balanced to me. Against a specced ships with rigs and maxed skills?
Sarah Benthwell	Posted - 2007.09.03 21:05:00 - [112] Originally by: Bendit Originally by: Sarah Benthwell Ok please dont tell me this doesnt need to be nerfed... Abaddon with 3 sensor booster + 4 Remote sensor booster has 11km lock range when damped. Sounds pretty balanced to me. Against a specced ships with rigs and maxed skills? Caracals with no rigs
Atsuko Ratu Caldari VSP Corp.	Posted - 2007.09.03 21:14:00 - [113] Originally by: Sarah Benthwell Ok please dont tell me this doesnt need to be nerfed... Abaddon with 3 sensor booster + 4 Remote sensor booster has 11km lock range when damped. Sounds pretty balanced to me. A lucky ibis can perma jam a bs with a single multispec! Then again, he can do the same thing with damps without a chance ticker...
Bendit	Posted - 2007.09.03 21:15:00 - [114] Quote: You claimed "getting close" is a counter. Now you need to get close AND have 2-3 sensorboosters or an uber-tank? So, to repeat, you admit that getting close alone is no counter? Yeah, if all you need is get closer its a counter. Like if you have 1 damp on you. Quote: Wrong. I bolded it to assist you in your reading weakness. The words were there the whole time, they are also in your original quote of that text, too. 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. Quote: So you admit that fitting 3e sensorboosters is compareable to fitting 2 ECCM? And that 2 ECCM is a superior counter to ECM than 3 SB2 are to counters sensorboosters? 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 woth damps you will need 3 damps on the target. 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. Quote: No, I want to make them counterable. And how would you do that? I have seen other people comming with suggestions, all you have done is comming with personal and telling how everybody else is wrong and you are right. So please enlighten us with you wisdom... Quote: So you admit that damps are superior for fleets? They can be superior. But it all depends on the situation. Again you are looking for a yes/no answer. Quote: Optimals. You do at optimal + falloff around 40% of your dps as on optimal. This means you would do there the same dps as you would do if everysingleship would have a 60% success chance ECM/damp on them. Yet again you show your inexperience in fleet combat. 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. Your volley damage would be slightly above 2000 damage. If you had been in your optimal it would have been 2300+. This is without any heatsinks. Again you show me you look to much yes/no. Just because your optimal says 175km, it doesnt mean you cant move further out... Quote: Yes, sure does show that you fitted fleet BS if you do not even know the modules And 4 tracking modules is not the norm, nor does it come without a price - reduced tank. So because I did a typo my numbers doesnt count? And you should not come here talking about knowing your setup/modules... What was it that you said to me? Quote: 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... Quote: So how do you explain you newbie mistakes which a 3 month char knows? Fell on your head? Ebay? Or simply trolling? Not me who are getting told how to fit a sniper to hit farther then 180km... 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?
Bendit	Posted - 2007.09.03 21:18:00 - [115] Quote: Caracals with no rigs And where are you getting theese numbers?
Arii Smith Caldari StarHunt Fallout Project	Posted - 2007.09.03 21:48:00 - [116] Anyone thought of making them racial, like EWAR?
Corphus Aliastra	Posted - 2007.09.03 22:45:00 - [117] chance based: rejected 1 damp per ship: rejected. every other ew mod is stackable. racial damps: rejected. ppl try to overnerf things. and overreactions are simply not rescourceful. the current problem lies within the ability to damp a target totally down if u got 3 spare med slots, which isnt usually the case without gimping other capabilities of ur ship. another point is that non damp ships can achieve almost the same result like the dedicated gallente damp boats. imo the damp effectivness should have a small decrease on non damp ships in order to make damps not as effective as they are on the gallentean damp ships. a big flaw of this nerfing is the abilities eve gives u to custom ur ship and the predicability of ship setups. ccp nerfed ecm and from now on i only await that ecm boats of the caldari usually use this ecm related mods. same will be the case if ccp will nerf damps and later on tracking disruptors since they will be choice no.1 after damps are "balanced". imo there must be an better overall solution to EW. making modules being worth fitted not just on their predestined shipclasses is the point of eve and the custamization. if u start making ships suited to much for a specific role u can just stop selling mods but release ships with their special role related setups being prefitted.
Kadreal	Posted - 2007.09.03 22:48:00 - [118] A good rule of thumb when calculating results using pretty much any % based thing in eve is, if you add or subtract in your math, you've done it wrong. Let's take for example a 50% boost from a sensor boost and a 50% penalty from a sensor dampener. Now some people may be tempted so say 50%-50% = 0% overall change. This is wrong, the correct math is as New range/scan = Normal range/scan * 1.50 * 0.50 or about 75% of normal scan range.
Grytok German Kings OPUS Alliance	Posted - 2007.09.03 23:06:00 - [119] I can't hear it anymore, really! Damps are Gallente specialty. Why? Because the Short-Range-Blaster-Boats want to force the enemy into their own optimal range and want to have alittle time unlocked, while approaching. That's the purpose of Damps! The Tournament is in no way mandatory to show how overpowered they are, because it's an unnatural environment. Chancebased like ECM? Plain simple, NO. ECM is chancebased because there is no other way to do the math with them. I f tehy were not chancebased, then ECMs would be total ineffective against ships with higher sensorstrength then the ECM. Thats why they're chancebased. No way that you can do such thing with Damps. What we can talk about though, is a little tweaking for the damps, so that they're effective to use by Maulus, Celestis, Arazu, Lachesis, but not that effective on unspecialized ships, i.e. -10% for the Modules, +5% for the Ships bonus'. Thanks, and fly safe o/ .
Bodhisattvas mUfFiN fAcToRy	Posted - 2007.09.04 01:59:00 - [120] Originally by: Max Payne I.e. if you put 5 dampeners it can be dampened obviously but that should reduce target range no more than whatever the 1 dampener that did the dampening is doing - it should not be additive. Championship proved it. It's time dampeners worked just like jamming does. They are a kind of EW actually. Discuss Tis' time you be quiet.
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]

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.