EVE Search - "In terms of one slot vs power, damps are overpowered as such"

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

"In terms of one slot vs power, damps are overpowered as such" - Oveur

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Aramendel Amarr Coreli Corporation Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2007.09.11 08:10:00 - [91] Originally by: Ashaz yes! Seriously. Right. So, to let me repeat for newcomers: according to Ashaz only the gal recons need a MWD. Feel free to point and laugh. Quote: But wait. didn't you just claim that NO recon CAN run a MWD while using EW and Scrambler? Yes, and? Its either-or. They can run a MWD, but they will eventually run out of cap. Quote: er.. wow. realy good argument. I guess your fleet combat experience - where rooks/falcons are mostly used - is pretty much nil? Or is the only place where you do PvP in low sec? Quote: I have never said anything about the owslots beeing useless! As I said over and over. Learn to read! You think I fit two CPRs just cause they didn't fit in the cargo bay? All ships have lowslots. All ships have use of their lowslots. Stop tossing around pointless arguments that don't make sence. Exept ECM ships have to use them to boost their EW to good lvls. Damp ships don't. So you finalyl admit this is a major advantage for damp ships? Quote: You DO know that webbers are EW, right? it has a bonus to that EW. That's the main strength of the ship. Actually, no, it is no EW. The only EW modules are TDs, damps, ECM and painters. Webs (and scramblers) are propulsion jamming modules. This can be seen by what is effected by which skills & ganglinks. Quote: anything that a hugin has trouble breaking, will cause just as much trouble for the other recons. Except perhaps the curse. Yes. However you claimed the huginn is a solopownmobile with damps. So now it is only just as good as the other recons? You seem to switch your arguments as your clothes. Quote: You know, your reasoning lacks any logic at all. Why break the one that works instead of fixing the ones that suck? You claimed that TDs and painters are not that good, but that those ships have also secondary bonuses which make up for that. But so have the gal recons. With that argumentation it would be ok to nerf damp significantly since their scram range bonus makes up for it. This is not exactly the case, but so it is for the other recons too. I just called in your bad argument. Quote: Yes I have. have you tried double balmer TDs on a ship with lvl 5 bonus? It doesn't nullify the hits, but they help. Not as good as damps, but a better bonus then painters, defenately. So we have a specialized EW vs turrets (which does nothing against missiles, nos, neuts, remote boosters/reps, webs, scrams and all kind of enemy EW). Which is even vs this singular specialized target worse than ECM or damps. How can you call that anything but significantly underpowered? They are better than painters, yes, but that does not make them ok. Would damps be if they would be as useful as TDs? Painters are plain out mislabeled as EW. Quote: You know. this realy just gives you away as the troll you are. Here you are clearly just argumenting for arguments sake. You spend numerous posts complaining that the caldari recons aren't as strong as the gal ones. and when I point out the obvious unfairness that they in reality only get one bonus, devided over both the bonus slots, you argue? Right, nice try. Caldari ECM ships are not worse than damp ships because they have only bonuses to ECM. They are worse because damps are more powerful than ECM. The ships themselves are ok, the modules aren't.
Reatu Krentor Minmatar Void Spiders Fate Weavers	Posted - 2007.09.11 08:17:00 - [92] Originally by: Aramendel Caldari ECM ships are not worse than damp ships because they have only bonuses to ECM. They are worse because damps are more powerful than ECM. The ships themselves are ok, the modules aren't. Ding ding ding, we have a winner! --- My thoughts on Damps.
Ashaz Mindstar Technology United Confederation of Corporations	Posted - 2007.09.11 08:36:00 - [93] Quote: Right. So, to let me repeat for newcomers: according to Ashaz only the gal recons need a MWD. Feel free to point and laugh. once again. mroe trolling. I explained my point of view, but you didn't reply to any of these arguments. Quote: I guess your fleet combat experience - where rooks/falcons are mostly used - is pretty much nil? Or is the only place where you do PvP in low sec? What the X dos that have to do with anything? Your argument was that you need to counter bubblecamps? So does ANY ship! Oh and look there. more trolling with imbedded insults. Quote: Exept ECM ships have to use them to boost their EW to good lvls. Damp ships don't. So you finalyl admit this is a major advantage for damp ships? sigh what has it got to do with damps tha EMC has a boosting module? Will you admit that the boosting module helps the ECM? As I said before. ALL ships have lowslots (Except the freigter). ALl ships have use of their lowslots. It's not a "huge advantage" that only gal recons have. Quote: Actually, no, it is no EW. The only EW modules are TDs, damps, ECM and painters. Webs (and scramblers) are propulsion jamming modules. This can be seen by what is effected by which skills & ganglinks. aah. so in what tab do you look when you go shopping for your webbers? Quote: Yes. However you claimed the huginn is a solopownmobile with damps. So now it is only just as good as the other recons? You seem to switch your arguments as your clothes. What I said was that the hugin currently is ARGUABLY the best recon. Stop trying to twist words into something else. Quote: You claimed that TDs and painters are not that good, but that those ships have also secondary bonuses which make up for that. You know, you are very good at missing the point. So good in fac that I thin you do it intentionaly just to troll. I did not say that their second bonuses make up for it. I said the caldari is MISSING it's second bonus, wich all other recons have! Quote: I just called in your bad argument. No. You just missed the point. Quote: So we have a specialized EW vs turrets (which does nothing against missiles, nos, neuts, remote boosters/reps, webs, scrams and all kind of enemy EW). Which is even vs this singular specialized target worse than ECM or damps. How can you call that anything but significantly underpowered? They are better than painters, yes, but that does not make them ok. Would damps be if they would be as useful as TDs? Painters are plain out mislabeled as EW. Where did you get it into your head that i think they are good? I said they WORK. Not more. And never ever ever did I say they are even remotely as good as dampners or ecm. And painters? Yes! That's exactly what I said aswell! What's your point? Quote: Caldari ECM ships are not worse than damp ships because they have only bonuses to ECM. They are worse because damps are more powerful than ECM. The ships themselves are ok, the modules aren't. ah. so you complain that minm and amarr gets a bad second bonus. but you don't complain that caldari gets no second bonus. yea that makes sence.... or no. it don't. You take what I say and try to twist it into something I didn't say. Your arguments lack logic. And your insults are petty. Please come back when you're not just trolling and have some real arguments. __________________________________ Gallente by birth. Amarr by choice. iDrone
Aramendel Amarr Coreli Corporation Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2007.09.11 09:14:00 - [94] Originally by: Ashaz once again. mroe trolling. I explained my point of view, but you didn't reply to any of these arguments. OH RLY? Originally by: Aramendel Every single recons needs a MWD. The curse even if it uses TDs needs speed to keep up transversal and range, with damps it is in the same boat as the gal recons. The huginn needs speed for a speedtank or to maintain damp range. The rook needs it to counter bubblecamps and keep its range to ships or it will die when it gets unlucky with the jams. it has then no 1 minute warning that it will be in trouble soon. Quote: What the X dos that have to do with anything? Your argument was that you need to counter bubblecamps? So does ANY ship! Oh and look there. more trolling with imbedded insults. How is "I think you have no fleet pvp experiece" or "Do you only pvp in low sec" an insult? It are simply conclusions I have made from your arguments. MWDs are essential on any ship in 0.0 to counter bubblecamps. Claiming non-gal recons do not need these makes no sense at all - unless you are only doing pvp in low sec. For fleet setups especially a MWD is a must on any ship. Claiming the rook does not need one is showing a serious lack of experience there. Quote: Quote: Exept ECM ships have to use them to boost their EW to good lvls. Damp ships don't. So you finalyl admit this is a major advantage for damp ships? sigh what has it got to do with damps tha EMC has a boosting module? Will you admit that the boosting module helps the ECM? Yes, in the same way a damp boost module would "help" damps if their stats would be decreased by 50%. But let me remind you of the origin of this sub-discussion: I said that ECM ships have no tank at all because the need their lows for the ECM mods. YOu replied that damp ships also have "no tank". So, what? Are you now again switching arguments and state that this is not correct and that have a tank (be it speed or regular armortank)? Quote: As I said before. ALL ships have lowslots (Except the freigter). ALl ships have use of their lowslots. It's not a "huge advantage" that only gal recons have. Caldari recons have as many effective lowslots as a freighter since they need them to boost their EW. If that does not matter it should be ok to reduce damp strength by 50% and introduce damp strength lowslot modules? Would put the gal recons in excactly the same place as galari recons. Noone forces you to use these modules after all, right? Quote: aah. so in what tab do you look when you go shopping for your webbers? Doesn't matter in which shop box they are mislabled. Skills and gang mod effects do matter. "Long distance jamming" for example, it says: Skill at the long-range operation of electronic warfare systems. Does it effect webbers and scramblers? No. Same with the "electronic superiority" warfare link. Boosts the strength of the gang's electronic warfare modules.. No effect on webs/scrams at all. Those are effected by the "Interdiction maneuvers" warfare link which states Boosts the range of the gang's propulsion jamming modules. Quote: What I said was that the hugin currently is ARGUABLY the best recon. Stop trying to twist words into something else. Correct. However you state this is because damps which isn't the case. Quote: You know, you are very good at missing the point. So good in fac that I thin you do it intentionaly just to troll. I did not say that their second bonuses make up for it. I said the caldari is MISSING it's second bonus, wich all other recons have! How? It has the same amount of bonuses as the other recons. It just gets all these bonuses on one module instead two. Which should boost this modules performance above that of the modules of other ships which get only 1-2 bonuses per module. Yet that exactly is not the case. Damps + 1 bonus > ECM + 3 bonuses.
Aramendel Amarr Coreli Corporation Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2007.09.11 09:14:00 - [95] Originally by: Ashaz No. You just missed the point. You claimed that the amarr and minmatar recons have "also have other realy great bonuses" which make up for their weaker EW systems. This is (partly) correct. However the gal recons have with high scramble range also a really useful secondary bonus. AND have a really good EW system. Does the term "eat the cake and keep it" mean anything to you? Quote: Where did you get it into your head that i think they are good? I said they WORK. Not more. And never ever ever did I say they are even remotely as good as dampners or ecm. And painters? Yes! That's exactly what I said aswell! What's your point? An EW which is extremly limited on its target and does not even succeed in disabeling its target in many cases "WORK"s? YOu have a funny definition of "working". If damps would only get a sig resolution reduction and would therefore be only good if you lock tyour target first and then only for 30-60 secs till you are targeted would "WORK" too. Quote: ah. so you complain that minm and amarr gets a bad second bonus. but you don't complain that caldari gets no second bonus. yea that makes sence.... or no. it don't. No? Which part of "The ships themselves are ok, the modules aren't." do you not understand? The bonuses of the ships themselves do not make them under/overpowered. The EW modules themselves are in need of balancing.
Ashaz Mindstar Technology United Confederation of Corporations	Posted - 2007.09.11 09:39:00 - [96] Your two long posts were just more twisting of words and claiming I've said stuff that I haven't so I am not even gona bother responding to them. However. I see you claim TDs don't even work. yet in the curse thread you say you use them yourself. oops? have a good day now. __________________________________ Gallente by birth. Amarr by choice. iDrone
Laboratus Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen	Posted - 2007.09.11 10:43:00 - [97] Originally by: Ashaz Your two long posts were just more twisting of words and claiming I've said stuff that I haven't so I am not even gona bother responding to them. However. I see you claim TDs don't even work. yet in the curse thread you say you use them yourself. oops? have a good day now. Tracking distruptors are very limited as to in what situations they are usefull... Long range: Guns: Here TDs shine. They drop long range guns from optimal and destroy what little tracking they had, so those ships cannot hit anything with transvectral... Missiles: No effec. SubTotal, 3/4 effective. Short range: Guns: Pulse lasers have weaker tracking than other short range guns, and rely on optimal insead of falloff, so they are very vulnerable to TDs. However Blasters and autocannons that have a negligable optimal range as it is, and insane tracking in their sizeclass are not really effected by TD at all... Missiles: Are not effected by TDs. SubTotal: 1/4 effective Considering the recent buffs to tanking, rigs and resistance skills, it is rarely possible to overcome anyones tank with long range guns, and as such a fair majority of setups are intended for close range fights. If we are to put an arbitrary number on it, I'd say 4/5 pvp situations happen at close range (since for some reason ppl have started to take their stealth bombers into use again...). That would rougly make TDs effective in about 7/20 figths. So it is unlikely that you will be able to put those TDs into effective use too often... ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats
Aramendel Amarr Coreli Corporation Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2007.09.11 10:58:00 - [98] Edited by: Aramendel on 11/09/2007 11:06:42 Originally by: Ashaz Your two long posts were just more twisting of words and claiming I've said stuff that I haven't Really? Claiming non-gal recons do not need MWDs Originally by: Ashaz The curse don't need a MWD. Neither do the hugin. The rook? not realy. I said that ECM ships have no tank at all because the need their lows for the ECM mods. YOu replied that damp ships also have "no tank". Originally by: Ashaz Lachesis and arazu also has absolutely no tank what so ever. You claimed that the amarr and minmatar recons have "also have other realy great bonuses" which make up for their weaker EW systems. Originally by: Ashaz Yes painets are just lame they way they are now. TDs are not super either, but they work. However, the ships with those bonuses also have other realy great bonuses. neut range and strength. webber range and strength. (Oh, and I totally missed that, there isn't a web strength bonus.) So, where did claimed you said things you didn't or twisted your words please? Quote: However. I see you claim TDs don't even work. yet in the curse thread you say you use them yourself. oops? As general turret disabeling EW they do not work, simply because they have this effect mostly vs longrange turrets (and even then only if they are not at sniper ranges since the range performance of TDs is very poor). For recon ships which need to use their EW (and speed) to survive they are because of that a pretty poor module. "It works" is a pretty bad statement there since..well..a target painter "works" too. A small shield booster on an abaddon "works" as well. I use them (now) on the curse in gangs because with my current setup I am limited to 2 EW modules. On nonspecced ships you IMO need 3 RSDs (or 2 + 2 rigs) to be useful in a gang. Otherwise the error margin for your gangmates is just too small. So with 2 EW modules TDs are better there. Their effect is relatively minor, but it will be probably better than that of 2 damps for gang combat unless your gang is very disciplined. Thats unless you work together with the rest of your gang with multiple damps and coordinate their use. Then even 1 damp is useful. Originally by: Laboratus Long range: Guns: Here TDs shine. They drop long range guns from optimal and destroy what little tracking they had, so those ships cannot hit anything with transvectral... They have problems there too. Depending what you state as "long range", that is. Balmer/t2 TDs have after skills an optimal of 72k a and a falloff of 36k. This means they have an 100% chance to work at 72k, a 50% chance to work at 108k and a 6% chance to work at 144k. If long range is for you 30-80k, then yes, they are decent there. At 100k - sniper distance for cruisers with a 50% range bonus - they are already far less effective than damps and at 150k - common minimum sniper range for BS - they are a waste of a med slot with success chances of less than 5% (damps have a 38% success chance at 150k, btw).
Laboratus Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen	Posted - 2007.09.11 11:09:00 - [99] Originally by: Aramendel They have problems there too. Depending what you state as "long range", that is. Balmer/t2 TDs have after skills an optimal of 72k a and a falloff of 36k. This means they have an 100% chance to work at 72k, a 50% chance to work at 108k and a 6% chance to work at 144k. If long range is for you 30-80k, then yes, they are decent there. At 100k - sniper distance for cruisers with a 50% range bonus - they are already far less effective than damps and at 150k - common minimum sniper range for BS - they are a waste of a med slot with success chances of less than 5% (damps have a 38% success chance at 150k, btw). Ok, sorry, med range. Anyways, the point is they work well against amarr, but not so well against the other 75% of pod pilots... ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats
Atius Tirawa Minmatar Wreckless Abandon Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.09.11 11:36:00 - [100] ECM nurf was too big. I don't mind being SDed by an Arazu/Lech - I just don't think those mods belong on Ravens. .. like ECM. EW is a big issue in EvE. . .I fear all forms of EW are where the nurfs will be concentrated for a long time to come.

Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.09.11 11:37:00 - [101] Originally by: Laboratus Originally by: Aramendel They have problems there too. Depending what you state as "long range", that is. Balmer/t2 TDs have after skills an optimal of 72k a and a falloff of 36k. This means they have an 100% chance to work at 72k, a 50% chance to work at 108k and a 6% chance to work at 144k. If long range is for you 30-80k, then yes, they are decent there. At 100k - sniper distance for cruisers with a 50% range bonus - they are already far less effective than damps and at 150k - common minimum sniper range for BS - they are a waste of a med slot with success chances of less than 5% (damps have a 38% success chance at 150k, btw). Ok, sorry, med range. Anyways, the point is they work well against amarr, but not so well against the other 75% of pod pilots... Yes they do. As you close the ability to lock fast means you start doing damage faster. The difference between an undamped ship and a damped ship closing and locking a target is probably between 30 seconds to 1 minute of DPS. Even for a ship with low DPS this is thousands of DPS. Here is an example. On the test server, i was in a 3.5km/s Zealot and decided to try my luck against a lachesis for the heck of it. I was damped and unable to orbit, so i closed in very close. By the time i got into locking range i was taking serious damage. Then i was webbed, and i got close. Eventually i locked him and started doing DPS. But by then it was too late, because i was behind on his DPS by a good 30 seconds, which equates to about 6-9000 damage.
Ashaz Mindstar Technology United Confederation of Corporations	Posted - 2007.09.11 11:54:00 - [102] Quote: Really? Claiming non-gal recons do not need MWDs Yes. your only response to that was refering to fleet pvp. Doesn't seem very relevant in this discussion, since a dampening raven will do better then a rook anyway. and a lachesis would last about 2 seconds in a fleet aswell. And bubbles affect any ship. Quote: I said that ECM ships have no tank at all because the need their lows for the ECM mods. YOu replied that damp ships also have "no tank". no. you said they have no tank. that was it. the stuff about lowslot modules came later after my reply about them not having tanks either. You say the lowslot mods are required to bring them up to where they were before nerf? ok. let's add a lowslot mod that brings damps up to pre-nerf status. you wnat that? no stacking penalty on damps? :) No I don't want that either. let's just drop that since you clearly don't understand my arguments. ..or go fit a lachesis with a 3-slot-tank and try it yourself. A frig can break it. Quote: You claimed that the amarr and minmatar recons have "also have other realy great bonuses" which make up for their weaker EW systems. yes since it sounded from you like they only had TP and TD bonuses. I reffered to the webber and neut bonuses wich are realy good. So I remembered wrong about webber strength. big deal. not like you're gona go anywhere with your 2.2 m/s speed anyway. the TD is not a turret _disabling_ ew. had it been that, it would be like ECM, only with no chanse involved. and that'd be insane. Quote: So, where did claimed you said things you didn't or twisted your words please? When you repeatedly claimed I was changing my oppinion back and forth. I stick by my oppinion. When you said "However you claimed the huginn is a solopownmobile with damps". I did no souch thing.. When you twisted together the stuff I said about pre nerf ships and post nerf ships, to try to make me look like I was contradicting myself. When you decide CCP was wrong when they labeled Webbers as an EW mod and placed it in the EW category. That's pretty damn heavy twisting of references there. When you claimed I'd said the gal lowslots are useless. When you tried to derail the entire conversation into a "yea but in fleetbattles..." discussion, and disregard all other forms of pvp. When you ignored the arguments about MWDs and instead told people to point and laugh. Realy good argument there... You want more examples? __________________________________ Gallente by birth. Amarr by choice. iDrone
Ashaz Mindstar Technology United Confederation of Corporations	Posted - 2007.09.11 12:06:00 - [103] Originally by: Atius Tirawa ECM nurf was too big. I don't mind being SDed by an Arazu/Lech - I just don't think those mods belong on Ravens. .. like ECM. EW is a big issue in EvE. . .I fear all forms of EW are where the nurfs will be concentrated for a long time to come. That pretty much summarises the problem. The recons using EW are just fine. that's what they are meant to do, and the one thing they are good at. When the mods get overused on for example dampening ravens, then there's something wrong, and the "nerf" should do something about _that_. This change, won't effect a dampening raven much at all. __________________________________ Gallente by birth. Amarr by choice. iDrone
Gabriel Karade Nulli-Secundus	Posted - 2007.09.11 12:58:00 - [104] Originally by: Gix Firebrand 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. Not if you understand how damps work and, gosh, use your brain. ---------- Video - 'War-Machine'
Laboratus Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen	Posted - 2007.09.11 13:48:00 - [105] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Laboratus Originally by: Aramendel They have problems there too. Depending what you state as "long range", that is. Balmer/t2 TDs have after skills an optimal of 72k a and a falloff of 36k. This means they have an 100% chance to work at 72k, a 50% chance to work at 108k and a 6% chance to work at 144k. If long range is for you 30-80k, then yes, they are decent there. At 100k - sniper distance for cruisers with a 50% range bonus - they are already far less effective than damps and at 150k - common minimum sniper range for BS - they are a waste of a med slot with success chances of less than 5% (damps have a 38% success chance at 150k, btw). Ok, sorry, med range. Anyways, the point is they work well against amarr, but not so well against the other 75% of pod pilots... Yes they do. As you close the ability to lock fast means you start doing damage faster. The difference between an undamped ship and a damped ship closing and locking a target is probably between 30 seconds to 1 minute of DPS. Even for a ship with low DPS this is thousands of DPS. Here is an example. On the test server, i was in a 3.5km/s Zealot and decided to try my luck against a lachesis for the heck of it. I was damped and unable to orbit, so i closed in very close. By the time i got into locking range i was taking serious damage. Then i was webbed, and i got close. Eventually i locked him and started doing DPS. But by then it was too late, because i was behind on his DPS by a good 30 seconds, which equates to about 6-9000 damage. Tracking distrupters. We were talking about amarr racial EW, tracking distrupters, TDs. ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats
Omega Bloodstone Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.09.11 14:13:00 - [106] nerfing ecm was one thing becuase it could cycle, however damps from one ship can only take out 1 other ship, and thats normally having to use 3 damps to do it, especially in pvp where most folks run sensor boosters. Its not needing a nerf like ecm was. Now if it cycled, and only one damp owned the world then theres a certain justice needed...
Hyuuga Veralis Pator Tech School	Posted - 2007.09.11 14:42:00 - [107] Originally by: Ashaz I see you don't understand how EW-tanking works. since these ships are so fragile, it is either sucessfully using your EW and live, or fail and die faster then you can say pie. You seem to be under the imression that Recons are suppose to have durability, they aren't. Their point is they're extremely powerful support ships, not HACs that traded DPS for Ewar. -------------- Fulfilling 0.0 Ammo needs since 2 days after being made.
Aramendel Amarr Coreli Corporation Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2007.09.11 15:59:00 - [108] Edited by: Aramendel on 11/09/2007 16:01:51 Originally by: Ashaz Yes. your only response to that was refering to fleet pvp. Doesn't seem very relevant in this discussion, since a dampening raven will do better then a rook anyway. and a lachesis would last about 2 seconds in a fleet aswell. And bubbles affect any ship. Its pvp in 0.0 in general, not only fleet. For the simple fact because bubbles effect every ship every ship needs to have a MWD - or will stay behind and get kileld with an high probability. You can get away with an AB on a recon in low sec. In 0.0 - no chance. Quote: no. you said they have no tank. that was it. the stuff about lowslot modules came later after my reply about them not having tanks either. Because it is blindingly obvious for anyone who has any clue about ECM ships? Prenerf they always armortanked. Maybe you should get a clue about what is talked about before opening your mouth? Quote: You say the lowslot mods are required to bring them up to where they were before nerf? ok. let's add a lowslot mod that brings damps up to pre-nerf status. you wnat that? no stacking penalty on damps? There is a difference between a change 6 months ago and a change 3 years ago. At that time ECM had different mechanics as well. Quote: ..or go fit a lachesis with a 3-slot-tank and try it yourself. A frig can break it. The frig will die to the lachesis drones before that. The 0-slot "tank" of the rook can be broken by light drones... And as said already, speed/agility is for a recon a very valid tank, too. Removing the lows from gal recons (and amarr and minmatar ones, for that matter) would reduce their efficieny considerably. Having to sacrifice its lows is a significant disadvantage. Quote: yes since it sounded from you like they only had TP and TD bonuses. I reffered to the webber and neut bonuses wich are realy good. So I remembered wrong about webber strength. big deal. not like you're gona go anywhere with your 2.2 m/s speed anyway. Big deal because you seem to have despite you claiming otherwise no real experience with the other recons. And as said, the gal recons also have a 2ndary bonus. Quote: When you repeatedly claimed I was changing my oppinion back and forth. I stick by my oppinion. When you said "However you claimed the huginn is a solopownmobile with damps". I did no souch thing.. From here: Originally by: Ashaz The mentioned changes to RSDs also won't effect the dampening Hugins at all. and that is arguably the most powerfull solomobile out there right now. Quote: When you twisted together the stuff I said about pre nerf ships and post nerf ships, to try to make me look like I was contradicting myself. I did no such thing. Where please? Quote: When you decide CCP was wrong when they labeled Webbers as an EW mod and placed it in the EW category. That's pretty damn heavy twisting of references there. Because the effects from skills and modules backup my claim. Which you tried to ignore so far. The market order is clearly wrong. ECCM is in the "electronic warfare" folder as well - would you claim that that is an EW module? Quote: When you claimed I'd said the gal lowslots are useless. Its either that or they are useful. Yet you seem to be unwilling to admit that being able to use their lowslots without gimping their EW is an advantage of damp ships over ECM ships. They cannot be useful and no advantage at the same time. Decide. Quote: When you tried to derail the entire conversation into a "yea but in fleetbattles..." discussion, and disregard all other forms of pvp. I didn't. I only brought it up for the caldari recons which are used there.
Aramendel Amarr Coreli Corporation Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2007.09.11 16:00:00 - [109] Originally by: Ashaz When you ignored the arguments about MWDs and instead told people to point and laugh. Which "arguments" did I ignore? I stated why your arguments are invalid already: The curse even if it uses TDs needs speed to keep up transversal and range, with damps it is in the same boat as the gal recons. The huginn needs speed for a speedtank or to maintain damp range. The rook needs it to counter bubblecamps and keep its range to ships or it will die when it gets unlucky with the jams. it has then no 1 minute warning that it will be in trouble soon. Something you have choose to completely ignore when you answered the post with that. Quote: You want more examples? Yes, please. I am always happy when someone is digging his/her own grave in a discussion.
Haradgrim Caldari The Wild Bunch INTERDICTION	Posted - 2007.09.11 16:41:00 - [110] Originally by: KD.Fluffy damps need to be nerfed. They need a low slot fitting mod like ecm has, and possibly make them chance based. Ohplzgodno! nothing in this game should be chanced based, infact remove multi-spec ecm and take it off chanced based while your at it! - Haradgrim [-WB-] That.which.does.not.bend.breaks

Stientolical Atomic Heroes The OSS	Posted - 2007.09.11 17:05:00 - [111] I think that, as a few people have already suggested, the effectiveness of damps should be sacrificed and the damp bonus for specific ships increased. EW like ECM/ damps should only work VERY WELL for specific ships. Personally, there is no way i would fit ECM on a non-bonus ship rather than a rack of damps (3x ECM on a caracal instead of damps ftw...?). If damps were nerfed so that they are still effective on Celestis/ Lachesis/ Arazu and only mildly effective for other ships i think that would be the best possible idea. If one EW Caracal (with 3 damps) is able to close a (non-sensor boosted) BS lock range to around 15km with the ability to orbit 5+km outside of that range and keep him scrammed, then something is slightly messed up [url=http://killboard.atomic-heroes.com/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=39412] [/url]


Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.