Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Blood Corsair's The Red Skull
|
Posted - 2007.09.10 06:55:00 -
[31]
Why not just reduce damp effectiveness by 12.5%, increase the damp ship bonuses to 7.5% per level instead of 5% (which will perfectly offset the 12.5% reduction).
This will reduce damp effectiveness in a big way for non bonused ships, while leaving the damp ships where they are (as it should be).
It's so simple. Why does everyone have to make it so complicated?
[Video]Blood Corsairs - Day One |
Aramendel
Amarr Coreli Corporation Exuro Mortis
|
Posted - 2007.09.10 06:58:00 -
[32]
Edited by: Aramendel on 10/09/2007 06:59:45 Well, yes, he was exaggerating. But IMO his point is correct:
Even if damps would completely loose their sig resolution reduction they wouldn't need a boost in the locking range reduction to be still useful.
Originally by: Bellum Eternus Why not just reduce damp effectiveness by 12.5%, increase the damp ship bonuses to 7.5% per level instead of 5% (which will perfectly offset the 12.5% reduction).
This will reduce damp effectiveness in a big way for non bonused ships, while leaving the damp ships where they are (as it should be).
It's so simple. Why does everyone have to make it so complicated?
Because it does not matter if it is on a specced ship or not. Just like with ECM the module itself is simply too strong.
|
Liang Nuren
The Refugees
|
Posted - 2007.09.10 07:06:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Aramendel Edited by: Aramendel on 10/09/2007 06:59:45 Well, yes, he was exaggerating. But IMO his point is correct:
Even if damps would completely loose their sig resolution reduction they wouldn't need a boost in the locking range reduction to be still useful.
Originally by: Bellum Eternus Why not just reduce damp effectiveness by 12.5%, increase the damp ship bonuses to 7.5% per level instead of 5% (which will perfectly offset the 12.5% reduction).
This will reduce damp effectiveness in a big way for non bonused ships, while leaving the damp ships where they are (as it should be).
It's so simple. Why does everyone have to make it so complicated?
Because it does not matter if it is on a specced ship or not. Just like with ECM the module itself is simply too strong.
Well, my real point was that Goumin was exagerating, and he flames everyone to hell and back for it. :p
But yeah, Damps are pretty powerful. I just don't think that the Gallente recons should be nerfed quite that hard.
But, lets put it in perspective: He was talking about a context menu that let you pick a mode. You can damp lock range, OR you can damp lock speed (per module, on the same ship).
It sounded like he made up his mind about the issue, but said he was working on the details. He also said that the forums have "a high signal to noise ratio". I doubt CCP checks our balance suggestions here very often. ;-)
Liang
Yarr? |
Serj Darek
Minmatar Mentally Unstable Enterprises
|
Posted - 2007.09.10 07:11:00 -
[34]
Originally by: madaluap
Originally by: Blind Man
Originally by: Corwain RIP Amarr Recons Gallente Recons up next?
3/4 Recons nerfed. Can we get one for Minmatar?
as if a target painting bonus isnt enough
Being able to web a target outside disrupter (t2) range, combined with highspeeds and decent dps output makes minmatar recons very powerfull.
Target painting is nice when a huggin flies in combination with torp raven gangs.
Where as scrambling outside of normal scram range and sensordampening is nice when flying in all gangs.
First!
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Blood Corsair's The Red Skull
|
Posted - 2007.09.10 07:17:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Aramendel Edited by: Aramendel on 10/09/2007 06:59:45 Well, yes, he was exaggerating. But IMO his point is correct:
Even if damps would completely loose their sig resolution reduction they wouldn't need a boost in the locking range reduction to be still useful.
Originally by: Bellum Eternus Why not just reduce damp effectiveness by 12.5%, increase the damp ship bonuses to 7.5% per level instead of 5% (which will perfectly offset the 12.5% reduction).
This will reduce damp effectiveness in a big way for non bonused ships, while leaving the damp ships where they are (as it should be).
It's so simple. Why does everyone have to make it so complicated?
Because it does not matter if it is on a specced ship or not. Just like with ECM the module itself is simply too strong.
Well, my real point was that Goumin was exagerating, and he flames everyone to hell and back for it. :p
But yeah, Damps are pretty powerful. I just don't think that the Gallente recons should be nerfed quite that hard.
But, lets put it in perspective: He was talking about a context menu that let you pick a mode. You can damp lock range, OR you can damp lock speed (per module, on the same ship).
It sounded like he made up his mind about the issue, but said he was working on the details. He also said that the forums have "a high signal to noise ratio". I doubt CCP checks our balance suggestions here very often. ;-)
Liang
No kidding. So reduce it by 12.5% per damp (big drop), buff the damp ship bonus, and you're fine.
[Video]Blood Corsairs - Day One |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.10 07:49:00 -
[36]
Edited by: Goumindong on 10/09/2007 07:50:03 Actualy 3 phased muons on a rigged arazu/arazu/lachesis will take a 250km lock range Rokh down to 12.34km.
That is a final lock range reduction of 95.04%
On a non-specialized ship its about 21km for a final lock range reduction of 91.4%
That being said, yes it was an exaggeration. Whop de do, the extra 8km arent going to help you hit anything, not to mention the effect on frigates and cruisers.
ed: I only point out exaggerations if it affects the meat of the arguement.
|
Liang Nuren
The Refugees
|
Posted - 2007.09.10 07:57:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Goumindong Edited by: Goumindong on 10/09/2007 07:50:03 Actualy 3 phased muons on a rigged arazu/arazu/lachesis will take a 250km lock range Rokh down to 12.34km.
That is a final lock range reduction of 95.04%
On a non-specialized ship its about 21km for a final lock range reduction of 91.4%
That being said, yes it was an exaggeration. Whop de do, the extra 8km arent going to help you hit anything, not to mention the effect on frigates and cruisers.
ed: I only point out exaggerations if it affects the meat of the arguement.
You put a max skilled rigged Arazu together. Nice. You got a graph of it?
You only exagerate (like now) when it suits you. It also suited you in the Zealot thread, and in the Eagle thread.
Liang
Yarr? |
Laboratus
Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen
|
Posted - 2007.09.10 08:03:00 -
[38]
Splitting damps into two modules will result in serious imbalance, unless they they get boosted at the same time, and then they will be seriously broken.
At the moment damp specific ships perform "up to spec", after the effectives are split, they would be effectively worthless as EW platforms.
Frankly I don't see why ppl are driving the quite unique EW system out of eve, but I guess it just doesn't fit their personal style... ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats |
Aramendel
Amarr Coreli Corporation Exuro Mortis
|
Posted - 2007.09.10 08:07:00 -
[39]
Edited by: Aramendel on 10/09/2007 08:13:18
Originally by: Goumindong Actualy 3 phased muons on a rigged arazu/arazu/lachesis will take a 250km lock range Rokh down to 12.34km.
Yes, but 250k rokhs do not exist.
Their targeting range is capped there, but the cap only happens after all effects are calculated. So a 2 SB LRT5 rokh has before damp a range of 274k.
It is no good representation of the average BS max lock range with that setup though, thats more between 70-75k base and not 90k like the rokh and scorp - resulting in 213-228k locking ranges.
Originally by: Laboratus At the moment damp specific ships perform "up to spec", after the effectives are split, they would be effectively worthless as EW platforms.
2 damps on a damp specced ship will reduce the locking range of any target to 11% of the original.
That reduces your average BS without sensorboosters to below 10k locking range. How is that "worthless"? I mean, *seriously*, why?
With 1 SB its 14k, with 2 20k, which still puts their effective range below tackling range. The effect for their gang is somewhat reduced with 2 SB2 on their target (still viable, but people have to be careful), but isn't that what SBs are supposed to do? Counter damps?
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.10 08:21:00 -
[40]
In which case the % reductions are higher. At 95.49% and 92.1% respectivly
EFT used to give me total uncaped lock range. Now it doesnt.
|
|
Damned Force
|
Posted - 2007.09.10 08:28:00 -
[41]
I dont think Damps need to be nerfed. Just need a good countermodule. The prob is there is no module which can counter with the dams. On ECM u can fit 3-4 ecm even on a dedicated ship, 1 single eccm would make them almost useless. Where on a ship u can fit 2-3 sensor booster, 2 damps would make them almost useless....
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Blood Corsair's The Red Skull
|
Posted - 2007.09.10 08:30:00 -
[42]
So, I'm confused. What are you two actually arguing about? Reduce damp effectiveness by 12.5% across the board, increase damp ship bonuses to 7.5% per level from 5% per level, and be done with it.
Problem solved.
[Video]Blood Corsairs - Day One |
Aramendel
Amarr Coreli Corporation Exuro Mortis
|
Posted - 2007.09.10 08:34:00 -
[43]
Copy-paste:
Because it does not matter if it is on a specced ship or not. Just like with ECM the module itself is simply too strong.
|
Gabriel Karade
Nulli-Secundus
|
Posted - 2007.09.10 08:47:00 -
[44]
Having them perform both functions, but not at the same time is a really cool idea. Do you go in with all RSD's primed for disabling lock range or lock time? do you mix them up and go for both?, do you switch functionality mid fight ū say you have their range neutered, then switch to lock time and close in for the killą
Very cool idea.
----------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
Testy Mctest
|
Posted - 2007.09.10 08:47:00 -
[45]
One thing that I've always learned from this forum is that talking about specific numbers, such as what percentages damps *should* be, will get you pretty much nowhere. But talking about vague ideas will do, so I think you're worrying over exact bonuses for nothing when you should be focusing on the real question - is splitting the damp effect and the sensor booster effect a good thing or not?
Personally, I think that splitting the damp effect is a good thing. Having flown with Burn Eden and in Burn Eden style for a long time, they are very definitely far too good. There really is very little answer to them in a normal situation and they do require a tailored setup to beat, which shouldn't be the case.
I'm not so convinced by sensor boosters, though. Midslots are the best slots! Simply using a sensor booster in the first place is a tough enough decision that I don't think nerfing them is neccessary at all. Although by the sounds of it, Oveur's mind is already made up.
Scrapheap Challenge Forums |
Hugh Ruka
Caldari Free Traders
|
Posted - 2007.09.10 08:54:00 -
[46]
Edited by: Hugh Ruka on 10/09/2007 08:53:51
Originally by: Testy Mctest One thing that I've always learned from this forum is that talking about specific numbers, such as what percentages damps *should* be, will get you pretty much nowhere. But talking about vague ideas will do, so I think you're worrying over exact bonuses for nothing when you should be focusing on the real question - is splitting the damp effect and the sensor booster effect a good thing or not?
Personally, I think that splitting the damp effect is a good thing. Having flown with Burn Eden and in Burn Eden style for a long time, they are very definitely far too good. There really is very little answer to them in a normal situation and they do require a tailored setup to beat, which shouldn't be the case.
I'm not so convinced by sensor boosters, though. Midslots are the best slots! Simply using a sensor booster in the first place is a tough enough decision that I don't think nerfing them is neccessary at all. Although by the sounds of it, Oveur's mind is already made up.
wow... Testy Mctest ... long time no see ... :-))
Anyway slinging numbers and graphs is a favourite forum activity of many people. Discussing game mechanics needs brains and logic, discussing numbers only needs a calculator or Excel sheets.
Originally by: Aravel Thon
Originally by: Nith Batoxxx Hi my alt just leanred to fly the ferox...............
I am so so terribly sorry...
|
Ashaz
Mindstar Technology United Confederation of Corporations
|
Posted - 2007.09.10 09:02:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Aramendel Damps which can only reduce locking range would still be an excellent module.
Exept that "getting close" - which is constantly mentioned as counter - is then actually a real counter.
Only problem is that the gallente recons rely on drones for a major part of their damage, and those will now be instapopped. Before they atleast took 25 secs to lock, before you had to call them back.
once again the dev fail to adress the real problem and manage to nerf something that wasn't even that overpowered.
dampening ravens will still be just as good. Gal-recons won't be able to kill much at all anymore. Not like they had much damage before either, but now?
Stop messing with modules that work just fine!
And stop listening to the damned forum whining nerfcryers who wants everything else adapted around them, instead of achtually using their brains themselves! __________________________________ Gallente by birth. Amarr by choice. iDrone |
Rinaldo Titano
Caldari Domus Fatalis FREGE Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.09.10 09:03:00 -
[48]
Edited by: Rinaldo Titano on 10/09/2007 09:04:54
Originally by: Bellum Eternus So, I'm confused. What are you two actually arguing about? Reduce damp effectiveness by 12.5% across the board, increase damp ship bonuses to 7.5% per level from 5% per level, and be done with it.
Problem solved.
No i dont think so, because after this would be still able a single arazu to damp even a carrier to useless. What is wrong.
|
Gix Firebrand
Caldari Beets and Gravy Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.09.10 09:09:00 -
[49]
Or just make ECM/damp/TP/TD work on those ships it was meant for.
Jesus.
I just spent practically the whole summer training for damps and my lach.
Thanks for ******* 3 months of my time and money there buddy.
|
Plague Black
4S Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.09.10 09:09:00 -
[50]
If you don't see a problem with dampeners then you are blind.
And they affect 2 ship abilities at the same time. Nanos got nerfed for that, now each module affects one ship characteristics.
There are few possible solutions to the problem. One would be to introduce the new module type that would affect locking speed and keep dampeners at range only. Other would be to soften the bonuses on the dampeners, something like 20% rather then 60% per module.
But knowing CCP and their nerf tactics I am a bit scared of the abomination they will spawn from their secret nerf-lab.
|
|
Ashaz
Mindstar Technology United Confederation of Corporations
|
Posted - 2007.09.10 09:33:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Aramendel
Because it does not matter if it is on a specced ship or not. Just like with ECM the module itself is simply too strong.
and ECM is still that strong on the speced ships. a skilled Rook pilot can pretty much perma-lock his target. and getting in close won't help you at all there. __________________________________ Gallente by birth. Amarr by choice. iDrone |
Ashaz
Mindstar Technology United Confederation of Corporations
|
Posted - 2007.09.10 09:34:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Jordan Musgrat This makes me happy. I guess it's impractical, but it would be nice to have 2 skills for these, instead of 1 that affects range/res as well. But too late for that.
There are already two skills for these. and it takes over 2.000.000 SP to max them out. __________________________________ Gallente by birth. Amarr by choice. iDrone |
Doxs Roxs
White Wolves Defence league The OSS
|
Posted - 2007.09.10 10:03:00 -
[53]
Personally Id like to see alot of changes to damps.
Im not sure if all are needed, but a couple should be enough to nerf it into the semi useful field were jammers are today.
* Nerf their strength and raise the bonus on dedicated dampener ships, introduce low slot dampener enhancers. * Change them into racial variants and let a ships sensor strength come into play, higher sensor strength on target ship should reduce the dampener effectiveness. (NOT chance based) * Split the modules so that you have to choose between lock range dampening and lock time dampening.
Regards /Doxs After 9 months of being a "!" face, I now discover that Im butt ugly instead... |
Rodj Blake
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.09.10 10:10:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus Why not just reduce damp effectiveness by 12.5%, increase the damp ship bonuses to 7.5% per level instead of 5% (which will perfectly offset the 12.5% reduction).
This will reduce damp effectiveness in a big way for non bonused ships, while leaving the damp ships where they are (as it should be).
It's so simple. Why does everyone have to make it so complicated?
Agreed.
Dulce et decorum est pro imperium mori. |
Terianna Eri
Amarr STK Scientific M. PIRE
|
Posted - 2007.09.10 10:23:00 -
[55]
As much as I hate damps... I don't think that making them like ECM (Racial, Chance-Based, Needs low-slot modules to be effective) is a good idea, because - when they actually work - ECM is strictly more powerful than damps. Damps make it harder to lock, ECM says "no, you're not locking anything, kthx."
Similarly, I do think that Damps are too powerful. I think that maybe decreasing their strength would be a good idea (only slightly), but only to the point where one t2 sensor booster will counter the effects of a *moderately skilled* t2 damp.
By this i mean that with minimum skills for damps, a target with a sensor booster will still have more than their inital locking range (though obviously not as much as they would if they weren't being damped), and with maxiumum skills, the same target will be damped below their initial locking range even through the sensorbooster.
At some point in between, a SB and a Damp would directly cancel each other out, but I'm too lazy and not qualified to judge which point that should be.
Anyway, back on topic - I actually really like the idea of getting to choose which mode your modules are in. Balance issues aside, it's *cool*. It's like overloading, in that your ship (and subsequent gameplay) becomes more interesting and dynamic, and frankly I'd like to see more of this in EVE.
Also, I think it's interesting that if they're damping your lock range to below their distance from you, all the signature resolution in the world won't save you, but once you get in close enough to lock, bam, you've pretty much got them. Sort of like ECM in it's "hit or miss" sense.
The real question is, if this change goes through, what happens to sensor boosters?
I guess I should probably make a new thread for that question because Liang and Goumindoug are having a go at each other, but I'll ask the question here...
If damps can no longer affect sensor range and sensor resolution, should sensor boosters stay the way they are, or should they, also, have two modes of operation?
I personally think they should stay the way they are... Nobody is complaining that sensor-boosted ships are *too hard* to damp, and reducing their effectiveness the same way that damps are being, well, 'nerfed,' wouldn't really fix the problem. It's like saying "damage in the game is too high!" and cutting all dps by two, but then saying "oh no now tanks and hit points are too good" and cutting those in half by two as well.
Maybe the solution is to change damps as discussed (making them modal), but to increase their power slightly to compensate.
Alternatively, I would like to see ECM get a small boost, and then making ECCM affect... i dunno.. something relevant, so that it actually *did something* when you weren't being jammed. A counter that nobody really ever fits for any reason ever isn't a counter at all.
Thoughts? -Teri __________________________________
|
Aramendel
Amarr Coreli Corporation Exuro Mortis
|
Posted - 2007.09.10 10:28:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Testy Mctest I'm not so convinced by sensor boosters, though. Midslots are the best slots! Simply using a sensor booster in the first place is a tough enough decision that I don't think nerfing them is neccessary at all. Although by the sounds of it, Oveur's mind is already made up.
Same opinion there.
Although it won't really hurt sensorboosters much if this is done. Sensorboosters are in the end used for 2 reasons:
- locking stuff faster in non-sniper combat - being able to lock targets in sniper combat
Not getting a range boost does not matter much for their use in non-sniper combat (unless you get dampened). Not getting a locking speed boost in sniper combat *does* matter, however since the other side will recieve the same penality the effect should be balancewise nil. It would slow down focus fire a bit, but thats IMO a good thing.
Originally by: Ashaz Only problem is that the gallente recons rely on drones for a major part of their damage, and those will now be instapopped. Before they atleast took 25 secs to lock, before you had to call them back.
Right. Thats no argument. So what stops the target of amarr recons (which rely *entirely* on drones) to kill them? TDs won't, because a webebd drone is still easy to hit. And most ships have drones of their own against which TDs don't do ****.
Quote: And stop listening to the damned forum whining nerfcryers who wants everything else adapted around them, instead of achtually using their brains themselves!
I myself am using RSDs heavily on many PvP ships of mine. I got 2 times the SP in electronics than I have in any weapon skill tree.
The point is not to "nerf everything", it is to balance things. ECM is now mostly fine (could *maybe* use a (total) 5-10% boost, but thats about it). Damps are too strong. TDs need a boost because right now they are by far not the turret killer as advertised. And painters need to be moved to the logistic ships and minnie recons a real EW system.
Originally by: Ashaz and ECM is still that strong on the speced ships. a skilled Rook pilot can pretty much perma-lock his target. and getting in close won't help you at all there.
A rook has not the dps of a lachesis, no scram range bonus and zero-zip-zilch tank. Of cource its EW should be more effective.
If the rook gets drone aggro it has to warp out or die. If the rook misses a jam (and, no, there is no permajam unless its target has 12 or lower sensorstrength (and thats when it uses racials)) it is no good idea to be close since due to its low hp getting caught then is not good.
-----------
In general I think that giving damps an efficiency nerf and damp specced ships a bigger ship bonus to counter that is a good idea.
However that alone is not enough. Damps themselves are simply too effective. All EW needs inherit weaknesses, having a countermodule alone isn't enough. This got pretty obvious with ECM where ECCM boost did not hange anything.
ECM has as weakness no tank + chancebased (and racial EW to some extend)
TDs have the limitation to turrets (which is not only not effective against missiles, but also not effective against nos/neuts, webs, scrams, remote reps/boosts, all kind of enemy EW and no limitation of drone control (and their efficiency against shortrange turrets of equal size and smaller is pretty low)).
RSDs have getting under/outranged as weakness - in theory. Underranging does not work because you get so high locking times that by the time you get a lock the RSD ship has warped out or you are already dead or so damaged that the battles efficiently over. Outranging does not work because damps have with their falloff a very high range where they are effective.
|
Leandro Salazar
The Blackguard Wolves Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.09.10 10:38:00 -
[57]
I have been advocating a damp nerf for quite some time, but just splitting the module would be too much imho, especially against the Gal recons which are not even the main problem. Though I do like the basic principle behind it, but for different reasons, namely providing minmatar with real EW. A good solution is Bellums nerf module boost bonus approach. An even better one imho could be this combination of both worlds:
1. Nerf the module by some percentage between 10% and 20%. 2. Increase the ship bonus by whatever percentage is neccessary to reach the old effect on the gallente ships having it, but make it only affect the lock range reduction. 3. Exchange the Minmatar pseudo-EW painter bonus for a bonus similar to the above, but only affecting the sig res reduction.
End result: 1. The module is nerfed on unspecced ships. 2. Gallente Recons can still blow lock range to hell but get no bonus to sig res anymore, so are slightly but reasonably nerfed. 3. Minmatar finally get a REAL EW.
There is no 'n' in turret There is no 'r' in faction There is no 'a' in Scorpion There is no 'e' in Caldari There is no makeup in rogue drones |
Hugh Ruka
Caldari Free Traders
|
Posted - 2007.09.10 11:24:00 -
[58]
Edited by: Hugh Ruka on 10/09/2007 11:25:46
Originally by: Leandro Salazar I have been advocating a damp nerf for quite some time, but just splitting the module would be too much imho, especially against the Gal recons which are not even the main problem. Though I do like the basic principle behind it, but for different reasons, namely providing minmatar with real EW. A good solution is Bellums nerf module boost bonus approach. An even better one imho could be this combination of both worlds:
1. Nerf the module by some percentage between 10% and 20%. 2. Increase the ship bonus by whatever percentage is neccessary to reach the old effect on the gallente ships having it, but make it only affect the lock range reduction. 3. Exchange the Minmatar pseudo-EW painter bonus for a bonus similar to the above, but only affecting the sig res reduction.
End result: 1. The module is nerfed on unspecced ships. 2. Gallente Recons can still blow lock range to hell but get no bonus to sig res anymore, so are slightly but reasonably nerfed. 3. Minmatar finally get a REAL EW.
The "nerf module, boost specialist ship bonus" approach simply does not work with CCP. They suck at such 'complicated' math. See what they did to ECM. Even with all skills maxed and all rigs and SDAs, I get 20% less jammer strength than before nerf. Not to forget that ECCM stayed at the same strength as prenerf and ship sensor strength boost also remained.
The module split idea is great. Gal recons will have to pack less range reduction and a few scan res reduction damps to still work solo. Which is fine IMO. ECM needs to go racial these days, multis suck. So same choice (but in a different flawor) to damps is not that bad.
Originally by: Aravel Thon
Originally by: Nith Batoxxx Hi my alt just leanred to fly the ferox...............
I am so so terribly sorry...
|
Spartan dax
Galactech Industries Ltd. Freelancer Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.09.10 11:31:00 -
[59]
Edited by: Spartan dax on 10/09/2007 11:32:23
Originally by: Aramendel The point is not to "nerf everything", it is to balance things. ECM is now mostly fine (could *maybe* use a (total) 5-10% boost, but thats about it).
ECM doesn't need a boost, in fact that would only make ECM ships an even more "Primary target". What the ECM-ships needs is to get rid of the low slots SDA's and have the ship bonuses and module stats increased to match as that would be a buff to the ships and not ECM directly. Increasing the ecm strength will do nothing for an ECM ship IMO, in fact reduce the ECM strength by 10% (or whatever) and remove the SDA's completely. That would yield a lot more interesting ship setups, people would actually consider using ECCM's and ECM ships would be less likely to go pop the instant a jam fails as they could field even a slight tank.
Off topic a bit I'll admit but the moral of the story; low slot amplifiers for damps? Hell no! It won't do much for reducing the debiliating effect on Remote sensor damps but it will ruin the ships.
|
welsh wizard
Celestial Apocalypse Insurgency
|
Posted - 2007.09.10 11:32:00 -
[60]
It would be going a bit far to have 4 racial damps because damp ships generally have less mids than their ECM counter-parts.
So two modules, one that damp Gallente/Caldari and one for Amarr/Minmatar (or whichever combination is preffered).
Or have two modules with the two different damp effects and specialise the hell outta them so you need a damp ship to use them effectively.
Right now they're basically the same as the old old ECM from Castor/Cold War except with the added bonus of only needing one module for all four races. That is overpowered tbh.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |