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)
Liang Nuren The Refugees	Posted - 2007.09.09 21:23:00 - [1] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 09/09/2007 21:23:51 "In terms of one slot vs power, damps are overpowered as such" - Oveur "Locking range and locking speed should not be on the same module" - Oveur He discussed right-click context menus for nerfing damps. Thoughts/comments? - Eve TV Alliance Tournament at 21:17 Eve-time Liang Yarr?
Dred 'Morte Winds of Dawn Phalanx Alliance	Posted - 2007.09.09 21:24:00 - [2] Oh god, whiners won again. Fast! To the adaptmobile!
Hoshi Blackguard Brigade	Posted - 2007.09.09 21:27:00 - [3] Most likely it will get the same treatment as sensor boosters. They will be able to do both range and scan res reduction just not at the same time. You can switch the mod to what ever function you think is best at the time. ---------------------------------------- A Guide to Scan Probing in Revelations
Corwain Gallente Kamite	Posted - 2007.09.09 21:30:00 - [4] RIP Amarr Recons Gallente Recons up next? 3/4 Recons nerfed. Can we get one for Minmatar? -- A Solo Arbitrator vid, Distortion by Corwain
Aramendel Amarr Coreli Corporation Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2007.09.09 21:54:00 - [5] 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.
Blind Man Angel Deep Corporation	Posted - 2007.09.09 22:11:00 - [6] 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
madaluap Gallente Mercenary Forces Exquisite Malevolence	Posted - 2007.09.09 22:37:00 - [7] 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. _________________________________________________ Breetime A killmail!11!1 omgrawr: BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Kagura Nikon Minmatar Guardians of the Dawn Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.09.09 23:41:00 - [8] I really think they should not be separated. Just nerfed to a reasonable level (like 40% for a max skilled one) If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
KD.Fluffy The Refugees	Posted - 2007.09.10 00:12:00 - [9] damps need to be nerfed. They need a low slot fitting mod like ecm has, and possibly make them chance based.
SpaceTrucker 3000	Posted - 2007.09.10 00:23:00 - [10] 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 Apparently it isn't enough, because the Huginn is the only recon that doesn't get better fitting stats.

Liang Nuren The Refugees	Posted - 2007.09.10 00:30:00 - [11] 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. No, they just need nerfed a tiny bit. He didn't make it sound like they were omgwtfbbqhax overpowered - and they're not! Just nerf them on non-bonused ships! Liang Yarr?
Wrayeth Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.09.10 01:42:00 - [12] Edited by: Wrayeth on 10/09/2007 01:43:12 Originally by: Liang Nuren Edited by: Liang Nuren on 09/09/2007 21:23:51 "In terms of one slot vs power, damps are overpowered as such" - Oveur "Locking range and locking speed should not be on the same module" - Oveur He discussed right-click context menus for nerfing damps. Thoughts/comments? - Eve TV Alliance Tournament at 21:17 Eve-time Liang All I have to say is: HELL YEAH! About time. \o/ 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. Exactly. P.S. This is why Oveur is made of 75% pure win (the other 25% is alchohol ). -Wrayeth n00b Extraordinaire "Look, pa! I just contributed absolutely nothing to this thread!"
Bellum Eternus Gallente Blood Corsair's The Red Skull	Posted - 2007.09.10 02:17:00 - [13] If damps were seperated into two modules: range and lock time, would be fine, but only if the stats for each specialty module were better than the existing combined modules stats. Example: Muon damp has -48% lock range, and -48% scan res bonus. The new modules should have something like -54% lock range and -54% scan res bonus, but in seperate modules. The reasoning: you're using double the slots to do the same job as was previously capable with one slot. Two modules combined should therefore do a slightly better job than the one existing module that they replace. Additionally, I think that the damp ships (Arazu, Lachesis, Celestis) should get their damp bonuses increased, and the overall damp effectiveness decreased, so that their damp effectiveness remains the same, while it is reduced by a small amount for ships that are not specifically designed to use damps. That would go a long way to help balance damps. [Video]Blood Corsairs - Day One
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.09.10 02:27:00 - [14] Originally by: Bellum Eternus If damps were seperated into two modules: range and lock time, would be fine, but only if the stats for each specialty module were better than the existing combined modules stats. Why? 3 phased muon damps will take a target from 200km lock to like 10km lock. On a lach/arazu it gets worse.
Jordan Musgrat Convergent Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.09.10 02:28:00 - [15] 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. ----------- Primary is family values, secondary is 0.0...
6Bagheera9 Slacker Industries Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2007.09.10 02:29:00 - [16] Could we just try nerfing the raw numbers for a change rather than getting all tangled up in reworking the game? Jesus.
omiNATION	Posted - 2007.09.10 02:33:00 - [17] Here's a dumb idea no one will like. Why not make them racial? Right now sensor strength only affects ECM right? why not make them effect damps too? Stronger sensor strength reduces damp effectiveness, also most effective against racial damps, while general purpose damp works equally well on all 4 ship types, but overall less effective. What we'd see is that overall the effect is the same as it is now, assuming that you're using the same racial type, with a 10% or so decrease in effectiveness if you're using the general damp. I like damps just the way they are, but i think the tournament more or less put to rest any arguement that damps are the dominating EW right now
aUTOKILL Gallente Slacker Industries Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2007.09.10 02:36:00 - [18] 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. you fail this thread, ECM is chance based, not damps. If damps were to become chance based (no way in hell) then people would just fit ecm instead, why mess up their lock range when you can jam them at 2x the range? Originally by: omiNATION Here's a dumb idea no one will like. Why not make them racial? no thats what ecm is for.... ~~~~~~
Scordaf Ganja Labs Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2007.09.10 03:01:00 - [19] Edited by: Scordaf on 10/09/2007 03:02:44 Originally by: Dred 'Morte Oh god, whiners won again. Fast! To the adaptmobile! I don't actually think this case has much to do with whiners. All it takes is for any schleb to watch the damp-fest yawn-a-thon that is the Eve Alliance Tournament to see that damps are overpowered.
Bellum Eternus Gallente Blood Corsair's The Red Skull	Posted - 2007.09.10 03:19:00 - [20] Originally by: Scordaf Edited by: Scordaf on 10/09/2007 03:02:44 Originally by: Dred 'Morte Oh god, whiners won again. Fast! To the adaptmobile! I don't actually think this case has much to do with whiners. All it takes is for any schleb to watch the damp-fest yawn-a-thon that is the Eve Alliance Tournament to see that damps are overpowered. There was just as much ECM and ECM drones in the fights as there were damps. [Video]Blood Corsairs - Day One

Hotshothotshot1 Atomic Heroes The OSS	Posted - 2007.09.10 03:59:00 - [21] Edited by: Hotshothotshot1 on 10/09/2007 04:00:48 All attacking weapons should be highslots including EW, Scram& web. That way there wouldnt be a solopwn ship witch damps you too hell and still loads of firepower to kill you, or web you to hell. So if you want to Damp someone to hell you will have to exchange dps for it. On top of that if you want to scram and web someone too then you either go all EW and no dps or suck at both. Things wont have to get nerfed then, more gang instead of solo? make attacking mods highslot mods Nos/neuts are highslots, guns, missiles, lasers all highs. These mods "ATTACK" the targets, so why arent webs, scram, tracking disruptors, damps and ECM highslots.
Karanth Gallente Cirrius Technologies O X I D E	Posted - 2007.09.10 04:47:00 - [22] Originally by: Hotshothotshot1 Edited by: Hotshothotshot1 on 10/09/2007 04:00:48 All attacking weapons should be highslots including EW, Scram& web. That way there wouldnt be a solopwn ship witch damps you too hell and still loads of firepower to kill you, or web you to hell. So if you want to Damp someone to hell you will have to exchange dps for it. On top of that if you want to scram and web someone too then you either go all EW and no dps or suck at both. Things wont have to get nerfed then, more gang instead of solo? make attacking mods highslot mods Nos/neuts are highslots, guns, missiles, lasers all highs. These mods "ATTACK" the targets, so why arent webs, scram, tracking disruptors, damps and ECM highslots. /signed. Free beer for those who mod my sig! There is only one sig hijack that matters, the orginal and only member of the hijack squad. me. -Eris. ps Black russians are better then beer. I'll see your beer, and raise you a goat kebab -Tirg I'll take that pint and raise you two -Timmeh I bet 2 goats, 1 pint and a bag of slugs -Lordharold I grab it all, cook it/eat and drink it all and say thank you. -Pirlouit I'll call your bluff, and go all in on 3 locks of Hutch's hair. -Incognus I'll see that bet, depending on where the hair came from. -Rauth pushes the other mods out of the way Mmmm, bree - Karass Bree & goat kebabs!!! I'm in!! - Yips IT WAS ME, MUHAHAHA. -Hango How did I miss free BREE!!? -Kaemonn always fashionably late - Deckard Better late than never! -Sahwoolo
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.09.10 04:48:00 - [23] Originally by: Hotshothotshot1 Edited by: Hotshothotshot1 on 10/09/2007 04:00:48 All attacking weapons should be highslots including EW, Scram& web. That way there wouldnt be a solopwn ship witch damps you too hell and still loads of firepower to kill you, or web you to hell. So if you want to Damp someone to hell you will have to exchange dps for it. On top of that if you want to scram and web someone too then you either go all EW and no dps or suck at both. Things wont have to get nerfed then, more gang instead of solo? make attacking mods highslot mods Nos/neuts are highslots, guns, missiles, lasers all highs. These mods "ATTACK" the targets, so why arent webs, scram, tracking disruptors, damps and ECM highslots. Unless you were a drone ship, which get tons of new mods to put in the high slots that you arenty perfectly abusing with nos anymore. Mids for ew is fine
KD.Fluffy The Refugees	Posted - 2007.09.10 04:53:00 - [24] Quote: you fail this thread, ECM is chance based, not damps. If damps were to become chance based (no way in hell) then people would just fit ecm instead, why mess up their lock range when you can jam them at 2x the range? as it stands right now ecm has no point. Everyone uses damps instead because it works much more effectivly. Maybe damps just need to only work on bonused ships like ecm... Also I still feel a high slot is needed for damp strenght, why should ecm be required to fit this but not damps?
Theron Gyrow Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2007.09.10 06:10:00 - [25] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Bellum Eternus If damps were seperated into two modules: range and lock time, would be fine, but only if the stats for each specialty module were better than the existing combined modules stats. Why? 3 phased muon damps will take a target from 200km lock to like 10km lock. On a lach/arazu it gets worse. Point of fact: three phased muon damps with advanced skill at level 4 and no ship bonus will take a target from 200km lock to about 27km lock range. At level 5 skill, a hair under 24km. ( At least if the skill works as I think it does: the first damp drops the locking range to (1-base_locking_range_reduction)(1-adv_skill0.05) = 0.52 * 0.8 = 0.416. ) -- Gradient forum
Hugh Ruka Caldari Free Traders	Posted - 2007.09.10 06:27:00 - [26] finaly. or make them racial like ECM. or make their effect based on target/dampner sensor strength (i.e you need more sensor than enemy to realise full damp effect). Originally by: Aravel Thon Originally by: Nith Batoxxx Hi my alt just leanred to fly the ferox............... I am so so terribly sorry...
Liang Nuren The Refugees	Posted - 2007.09.10 06:38:00 - [27] Originally by: Theron Gyrow Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Bellum Eternus If damps were seperated into two modules: range and lock time, would be fine, but only if the stats for each specialty module were better than the existing combined modules stats. Why? 3 phased muon damps will take a target from 200km lock to like 10km lock. On a lach/arazu it gets worse. Point of fact: three phased muon damps with advanced skill at level 4 and no ship bonus will take a target from 200km lock to about 27km lock range. At level 5 skill, a hair under 24km. ( At least if the skill works as I think it does: the first damp drops the locking range to (1-base_locking_range_reduction)(1-adv_skill0.05) = 0.52 * 0.8 = 0.416. ) Goumin, I'm really surprised to see you not make a graph of that. Of course, it could be because you're wrong. 3 phased muons from a perfectly skilled arazu takes a Rokh to 19 km lock range. But he can still lock - and hell, effective PVP range is about 25km. By comparison, a perfectly skilled non bonused ship, the Cormorant for instance, fielding 3 phased muon damps (for instance) takes the same Rokh to 33km locking range. I'll admit that 33km is alot like 10km, but its really not. Liang Yarr?
Aramendel Amarr Coreli Corporation Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2007.09.10 06:50:00 - [28] Originally by: Liang Nuren Goumin, I'm really surprised to see you not make a graph of that. Of course, it could be because you're wrong. 3 phased muons from a perfectly skilled arazu takes a Rokh to 19 km lock range. But he can still lock - and hell, effective PVP range is about 25km. A rokh with a shortrange (aka 25k or less) setup won't be using 2 sensor boosters. And it has an exeptionally high targeting range for BS. Try a geddon or typhoon.
Shevar Minmatar A.W.M Ka-Tet	Posted - 2007.09.10 06:52:00 - [29] yawn Instead of PvP being an EW/DPS/Tank affair you want to turn it into DPS/Tank? yay for dumbing the game down :/. --- -The only real drug problem is scoring real good drugs
Liang Nuren The Refugees	Posted - 2007.09.10 06:53:00 - [30] Originally by: Aramendel Originally by: Liang Nuren Goumin, I'm really surprised to see you not make a graph of that. Of course, it could be because you're wrong. 3 phased muons from a perfectly skilled arazu takes a Rokh to 19 km lock range. But he can still lock - and hell, effective PVP range is about 25km. A rokh with a shortrange (aka 25k or less) setup won't be using 2 sensor boosters. And it has an exeptionally high targeting range for BS. Try a geddon or typhoon. TBH, I was picking on his obscene lack of precision - considering how he flames the holy living **** out of everyone else for it. So I had no choice but to use his own example. Liang Yarr?

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 û say you have their range neutered, then switch to lock time and close in for the killà 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.

Ashaz Mindstar Technology United Confederation of Corporations	Posted - 2007.09.10 12:31:00 - [61] Quote: 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 **. hello. curse pilot here. Make one single guess what occupies the 3 first midslots of almost all curses out there? The curse will in fact be one of the ships that gets hit the hardest by this nerf. Quote:** ECM is now mostly fine (could maybe use a (total) 5-10% boost, but thats about it). Damps are too strong. Quote: 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. wait... You admit that ECM is stronger then RSD? Yet you claim RSD is too strong but ECM needs a boost? rook seems to do decently in the dps department from what I have seen. it doesn't need scram range, since it can sit up in its targets face and say "no you can't target that, sucker" and Lachesis and arazu also has absolutely no tank what so ever. The Dampners is their tank just like ECM is the Rook's tank. So i don't see the point of that argument. 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. I love my EW ships. Love the concept of it. but with this nerftrain rolling on, I am moving away from those sweet toys to the very ships that are almost immune to their effects. i find it very sad that a whole branch of ships is slowly beeing choked into almost uselessness. __________________________________ Gallente by birth. Amarr by choice. iDrone
Aramendel Amarr Coreli Corporation Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2007.09.10 12:32:00 - [62] Edited by: Aramendel on 10/09/2007 12:48:54 Originally by: Hugh Ruka 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. If you have only recon 3 maybe. For racial ECM on a rook: prenerf: 7.2 (base) * 1.5 (rook bonus) * 1.25 (spec skill) -> 13.5 postnerf: 3.6 * 2 * 1.25 * 1.2 (1st SDA) * 1.174 (2nd SDA) -> 12.7 You have 6% less than prenerf (and which is the reason a 5-10% strength boost would be IMO ok). Of cource, thats without rigs. If you add 2 ECM strength rigs on both you get around a 15% difference. But then I would ask you how you managed to rig your ECM ships before the ECM nerf, considering rigs did not exists before it.
Corphus Aliastra	Posted - 2007.09.10 12:36:00 - [63] I am an all out gallente pilot and love damps since they force my enemy to come into my prefered range but there is a big danger of blancing em. if u remove the sensor resol penalty from damps it will cause nanoships and lowweight ships gain an insane advantage over the gallentean recons and damp specced ships. if the only counter is to come close those ships clearly outrun any other ship due to their insane speed. gallente recons would be easy to counter taking into account that their average weight is making em rather slow compared to minmatr recons. i would like to add that a balance should also include the idea of making dampners more effective on damp ships than on non-damp-bonused ships. atm the bigger problem comes from pilots using damps on any ship exceeding more than 3 med slots.
Aramendel Amarr Coreli Corporation Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2007.09.10 12:41:00 - [64] Edited by: Aramendel on 10/09/2007 12:44:48 Originally by: Ashaz hello. curse pilot here. Make one single guess what occupies the 3 first midslots of almost all curses out there? The curse will in fact be one of the ships that gets hit the hardest by this nerf. Not if we do not have a damps only balancing but a general EW balancing (and TDs become actually worth using. Quote: Quote: ECM is now mostly fine (could maybe use a (total) 5-10% boost, but thats about it). Damps are too strong. Quote: 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. wait... You admit that ECM is stronger then RSD? Yet you claim RSD is too strong but ECM needs a boost? Should != is. Quote: rook seems to do decently in the dps department from what I have seen. Half the dps of the lachesis. Quote: it doesn't need scram range, since it can sit up in its targets face and say "no you can't target that, sucker" Until it gets drone aggro. Or randomly fails an ECM cycle and gets instantly targetable. Quote: and Lachesis and arazu also has absolutely no tank what so ever. 3 & 4 low slots are nothing? Right. Then you should have no problem whatsoever with completely removing those, right? They do not do anything after all. Or maybe reduce damp base strength by half and introduce damp boost modules a la SDAs? Quote: 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. As said, reducing the damps base efficiency and giving damp specced ships an higher bonus would be good. Its just not enough, as explained already. Quote: I love my EW ships. Love the concept of it. but with this nerftrain rolling on, I am moving away from those sweet toys to the very ships that are almost immune to their effects. i find it very sad that a whole branch of ships is slowly beeing choked into almost uselessness. I love my EW ships too. And I would like to see the different EW systems actually balanced because of this. Damps is the only EW which needs nerfing right now. Everything else is either fine atm or needs boosts.
Ashaz Mindstar Technology United Confederation of Corporations	Posted - 2007.09.10 13:30:00 - [65] Originally by: Aramendel Quote: it doesn't need scram range, since it can sit up in its targets face and say "no you can't target that, sucker" Until it gets drone aggro. Or randomly fails an ECM cycle and gets instantly targetable. gets drone aggor. same goes for dampners. fails a cycle. same goes if the target gets within range for the dampners. Originally by: Aramendel Quote: and Lachesis and arazu also has absolutely no tank what so ever. 3 & 4 low slots are nothing? Right. Then you should have no problem whatsoever with completely removing those, right? They do not do anything after all. Or maybe reduce damp base strength by half and introduce damp boost modules a la SDAs? Come on. You're surely not folish enough to mean that? They can't tank enough with 3 lows for it to survive anything. But the 3 lows are instead used for Cap and/or speed. Have you ever seen how cap hungry a lachesis is? it takes 2 CPRs and a large battery to keep it running. That leaves 1 lowslot. nice tank that's gona be. Most people seem to fit a small repper there for after-combat-repping. I prefer a odi. Quote: Quote: 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. As said, reducing the damps base efficiency and giving damp specced ships an higher bonus would be good. Its just not enough, as explained already. Quote: I love my EW ships. Love the concept of it. but with this nerftrain rolling on, I am moving away from those sweet toys to the very ships that are almost immune to their effects. i find it very sad that a whole branch of ships is slowly beeing choked into almost uselessness. I love my EW ships too. And I would like to see the different EW systems actually balanced because of this. Damps is the only EW which needs nerfing right now. Everything else is either fine atm or needs boosts. I disagree. Imho, damps and ECM are quite equal in effectiveness on their designated ships. However I do agree that damps are a bit strong on other ships. Still, if the dampners are nerfed, the curse will be broken. And possibly the hugin aswell. __________________________________ Gallente by birth. Amarr by choice. iDrone
Testy Mctest	Posted - 2007.09.10 13:43:00 - [66] The problem with the people who are saying that nerfing damps is bad, is that you're living in a dream world. Let me explain. What you're used to is your recons being solopwnmobiles. You're saying that nerfing damps would break your Huginns, Arazus, Curses, etc. Do you not see how backwards this is? If these ships are only awesome because of a single module, then the module is by definition of the word, broken. We all know that various recons are solopwnmobiles. Lots of people have come to get used to that, because they enjoy how strong the ships are, and enjoy winning with what is essentially an iwin button once you know how to fly it. What you have to realise is that this is not the state that these ships should be in. They shouldn't be solopwnmobiles at all, and if they become not so because of a damp nerf, all the better. They have many other uses if stopped from being overpowered solo ships. Another slight point is that you shouldn't see this as a nerf to Gallente. Many races (as with the aforementioned "Huginn, Curse, Arazu") ships will take the hit from a nerf, and rightly so. The moment you start talking about 'my race' and so on is the moment you lose objectivity as to how the game should be balanced - try to think about the big picture and not just how it'll affect your stuff :) Scrapheap Challenge Forums
Veryez	Posted - 2007.09.10 14:03:00 - [67] Originally by: Aramendel 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. This paragraph completely sums up the current state of EW in Eve. While I would argue ECM ships need the slight boost, not the module. The fact remains that I almost completely agree with you...
goodby4u Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2007.09.10 14:15:00 - [68] Ok,just to start i fly amarr so this actually helps me(i dont fly the curse or pilgrim),however,i think nerfing damps will makes this game purely a tank vs gank game,which in reality isnt much fun... Ofcourse there are more veriations(sniping etc)but ewar is the advantage having more mid slots gives you. __________________________________________ Yes it is great being amarr. I am minmatar,fly amarr,use gellente drones and am in caldari space.
Aramendel Amarr Coreli Corporation Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2007.09.10 14:26:00 - [69] Originally by: Ashaz gets drone aggor. same goes for dampners. fails a cycle. same goes if the target gets within range for the dampners. Damp specced ships can deal FAR better with drone aggro due to the ability to fit a light armortank or speedtank and have more dps to kill drones. A target which comes into range still has to spend 30-60 seconds trying to target the damp ship which gives it plenty of time to get out of range again or to warp off. Quote: They can't tank enough with 3 lows for it to survive anything. But the 3 lows are instead used for Cap and/or speed. Have you ever seen how cap hungry a lachesis is? it takes 2 CPRs and a large battery to keep it running. That leaves 1 lowslot. nice tank that's gona be. Most people seem to fit a small repper there for after-combat-repping. I prefer a odi. Speed = tank. And capwise the gal recons are not worse off than the ECM ships. A multispec needs (after the ECM capuse bonus) exactly the same cap/sec than damps. Racials need only 66%, but are, well, racials. Fitting a racial EW is using up more slots than fitting nonracial EW. The gal recons do not have more or less capproblems than the other recons. They only run out of cap if they try to run mwd + scram + EW at once - but no recon can do that. So... first you say that gal recons can use their lowslots does not matter and then you say it is an essential thing. Which is it? Either it is no advantage of them vs ECM ships and therefore it should not matter if they get removed or be used for damp amplifiers or it is an advantage of them compare to ECM ships and therefore damps should be weaker than ECM to balance this out. Decide. Quote: I disagree. Imho, damps and ECM are quite equal in effectiveness on their designated ships. However I do agree that damps are a bit strong on other ships. Still, if the dampners are nerfed, the curse will be broken. And possibly the hugin aswell. First you say the huginn is a solopownmobile and then it is broken? It works quite well without any EW if you fit it essentially as vaga with webs. And, as said, the problem is not alone that damps are too strong. it is that TDs are also too weak and painters are no real EW. We have a general balance problem in the EW field.
Terianna Eri Amarr STK Scientific M. PIRE	Posted - 2007.09.10 14:30:00 - [70] Originally by: Testy Mctest The problem with the people who are saying that nerfing damps is bad, is that you're living in a dream world. Let me explain. What you're used to is your recons being solopwnmobiles. You're saying that nerfing damps would break your Huginns, Arazus, Curses, etc. Do you not see how backwards this is? If these ships are only awesome because of a single module, then the module is by definition of the word, broken. We all know that various recons are solopwnmobiles. Lots of people have come to get used to that, because they enjoy how strong the ships are, and enjoy winning with what is essentially an iwin button once you know how to fly it. What you have to realise is that this is not the state that these ships should be in. They shouldn't be solopwnmobiles at all, and if they become not so because of a damp nerf, all the better. They have many other uses if stopped from being overpowered solo ships. Another slight point is that you shouldn't see this as a nerf to Gallente. Many races (as with the aforementioned "Huginn, Curse, Arazu") ships will take the hit from a nerf, and rightly so. The moment you start talking about 'my race' and so on is the moment you lose objectivity as to how the game should be balanced - try to think about the big picture and not just how it'll affect your stuff :) <3 __________________________________

Ashaz Mindstar Technology United Confederation of Corporations	Posted - 2007.09.10 14:45:00 - [71] Originally by: Testy Mctest The problem with the people who are saying that nerfing damps is bad, is that you're living in a dream world. Let me explain. What you're used to is your recons being solopwnmobiles. You're saying that nerfing damps would break your Huginns, Arazus, Curses, etc. Do you not see how backwards this is? If these ships are only awesome because of a single module, then the module is by definition of the word, broken. 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. Quote: We all know that various recons are solopwnmobiles. Lots of people have come to get used to that, because they enjoy how strong the ships are, and enjoy winning with what is essentially an iwin button once you know how to fly it. What you have to realise is that this is not the state that these ships should be in. They shouldn't be solopwnmobiles at all, and if they become not so because of a damp nerf, all the better. They have many other uses if stopped from being overpowered solo ships. They are strong at diabling their opponents, yes. Pwnmobiles? no. as soon as you have more then 1 opponent you are in trouble. many uses.. Please enlighten me on the uses of a curse, except for solo or small gang pvp? Quote: Another slight point is that you shouldn't see this as a nerf to Gallente. Many races (as with the aforementioned "Huginn, Curse, Arazu") ships will take the hit from a nerf, and rightly so. The moment you start talking about 'my race' and so on is the moment you lose objectivity as to how the game should be balanced - try to think about the big picture and not just how it'll affect your stuff :) /me points at signature I fly the ships of 3 races, and I am about to learn the 4th. I also have no fear for EW ships, since I know how to use them and therefor also how to counter them. Sadly it seems alot of people prefer for their problems to simpy go away, rather then figuring out how to handle them. Also, let's not forget that EW is what mixes things up so combat is not purely a "I have more SP then you!" competition. When I started hunting in my celestis, there was no wa I could have won a fight in a pure tank/gank ship. The game NEEDS the rock/paper/cissors to remain in any form of balance. Remove the paper, and how fun is it going to be? __________________________________ Gallente by birth. Amarr by choice. iDrone
Jasai Kameron Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2007.09.10 14:55:00 - [72] Originally by: Testy Mctest The problem with the people who are saying that nerfing damps is bad, is that you're living in a dream world. Let me explain. What you're used to is your recons being solopwnmobiles. You're saying that nerfing damps would break your Huginns, Arazus, Curses, etc. Do you not see how backwards this is? If these ships are only awesome because of a single module, then the module is by definition of the word, broken. We all know that various recons are solopwnmobiles. Lots of people have come to get used to that, because they enjoy how strong the ships are, and enjoy winning with what is essentially an iwin button once you know how to fly it. What you have to realise is that this is not the state that these ships should be in. They shouldn't be solopwnmobiles at all, and if they become not so because of a damp nerf, all the better. They have many other uses if stopped from being overpowered solo ships. While I agree with you in the most part I think there's a difference between a solopwnmobile and a solo ship. For example, the Pilgrim is pretty much useless as a gang ship. Dampeners, ECM, webbing, scramming... etc, are all far more useful than cap leeching. Tracking disrupting is okay, but not really enough to make it a useful ship compared to a falcon or an arazu. So the point is, it works best as a solo or small-gang ship, or did before the nerf of Nos. Which is a bad thing in my view. There's nothing inherently wrong with ships working better in solo or small gangs. As for the damps, splitting them is fine, although a slight boost to the scan resolution side of it seems to make sense - as I think that is the weaker of its two EW forms. Reducing target range can keep a ship out of fight constantly, but reducing scan resolution is only postponing the inevitable (unless used in conjunction with ECM). And I also agree that splitting Sensor Boosters is pretty stupid. Nobody ever claimed that sensor boosters were an overpowered module.ur recons being solopwnmobiles.
Laboratus Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen	Posted - 2007.09.10 14:57:00 - [73] Originally by: Testy Mctest The problem with the people who are saying that nerfing damps is bad, is that you're living in a dream world. Let me explain. What you're used to is your recons being solopwnmobiles. You're saying that nerfing damps would break your Huginns, Arazus, Curses, etc. Do you not see how backwards this is? If these ships are only awesome because of a single module, then the module is by definition of the word, broken. We all know that various recons are solopwnmobiles. Lots of people have come to get used to that, because they enjoy how strong the ships are, and enjoy winning with what is essentially an iwin button once you know how to fly it. What you have to realise is that this is not the state that these ships should be in. They shouldn't be solopwnmobiles at all, and if they become not so because of a damp nerf, all the better. They have many other uses if stopped from being overpowered solo ships. Another slight point is that you shouldn't see this as a nerf to Gallente. Many races (as with the aforementioned "Huginn, Curse, Arazu") ships will take the hit from a nerf, and rightly so. The moment you start talking about 'my race' and so on is the moment you lose objectivity as to how the game should be balanced - try to think about the big picture and not just how it'll affect your stuff :) The problem with the people who are saying that they want damps nerfed, is that you're living in a dream world. Let me explain. What you're used to is thinking that such things as solopwnmobiles exist. Lots of people have come to get used to that concept. What you have to realise is that this is tha no such thing exists. Originally by: Testy Mctest ...would break your Huginns, Arazus, Curses, etc. Do you not see how backwards this is? If these ships are only awesome because of a single module, then the module is by definition of the word, broken... Huggins, Arazus and Curses are awesome because they get a bonus to webbing range, warp distrupt range and nos range+effectiveness respectively You are right, they are good, because of one module, but is not damps... Damps keep them alive. That is not too much to ask, really, from a ship that costs as much as a battleship, if not more, and have the durability of a wet paper towel... Damps give them time to try to get enough headstart with their dps so that maybe, just maybe they can break the opponents tank... This is not even possible with all these ships, since their dps is rather sad... If you are thinking about those ships, you have to take into account one thing. What justifies bringing them, instead of a T2 fitted BS. The cost is the same. Will they perform as effectively? If damps are nerfed, as suggested, the answer is a simple no, except for killing speed ships like the vaga or inties, ofc... What needs to be done is a rebalance of the entire EW system, not just blindly looking at arbitrary numbers, as so many have done here, but focusing on the racial concepts of warfare and balancing them accoardingly. At the moment ECM is suffering from the ECM gimp so badly, it is rarely used. After the range ammo nerf most tanks cannot be broken by long range guns (exception of large gangs/fleet) and that has lead to a situation where TDs are really effective against pulse lasers. They would need to affect falloff range as well, but that would mean that TCs would need to effect falloff range, so as to make a decent counter for TDs. TPs don't really work as EW at the moment and they would have to get something to make them really useful. Resistance penalties have been proposed, but those are a bit hard, if not impossible to balance, so they will propably not work... ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats
Ashaz Mindstar Technology United Confederation of Corporations	Posted - 2007.09.10 15:01:00 - [74] Originally by: Aramendel Speed = tank. And capwise the gal recons are not worse off than the ECM ships. A multispec needs (after the ECM capuse bonus) exactly the same cap/sec than damps. The gal recons do not have more or less capproblems than the other recons. They only run out of cap if they try to run mwd + scram + EW at once - but no recon can do that. You pretty much responded to your own question there. The curse don't need a MWD. Neither do the hugin. The rook? not realy. The lachesis however has to dictate range, since range is the strength of the dampners. And that one module is what munches up all the cap, both as fuel and with the 25% penalty. And EW + Scram? sure they can. Quote: So... first you say that gal recons can use their lowslots does not matter and then you say it is an essential thing. Which is it? Learn to read and stop trying to troll. I said 3 lowslots will not be enough to tank anything. I didn't say they are useless. Quote: Quote: I disagree. Imho, damps and ECM are quite equal in effectiveness on their designated ships. However I do agree that damps are a bit strong on other ships. Still, if the dampners are nerfed, the curse will be broken. And possibly the hugin aswell. First you say the huginn is a solopownmobile and then it is broken? It works quite well without any EW if you fit it essentially as vaga with webs. again. Learn to read. It is CURENTLY the best recon for soloing. thanks to combining damps and webbers. if damps are nerfed is is possibly broken aswell. You fit your hugin with NO ew? then why do you fly a recon? Sure I can fit a all shieldtanking missile curse aswell. but why? That's not the purpous of the ship. Quote: And, as said, the problem is not alone that damps are too strong. it is that TDs are also too weak and painters are no real EW. We have a general balance problem in the EW field. 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. What you should complain about instead in that department is that the caldari ships only realy get one bonus while the others get two __________________________________ Gallente by birth. Amarr by choice. iDrone
Xaen Caldari Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2007.09.10 15:08:00 - [75] Recons are only solopwnmobiles in 1v1 fights versus small ships. And with that many qualifiers I'd hesitate to call them solopwnmobiles at all. As soon as you bring another ship into the fight - any ship - they are so screwed. Or any battleship with a halfassed tank that their paltry DPS can't break. They're much better off as an asset to a gang than flying solo. And if you're carrying a cyno generator your DPS is a joke in any force recon. ----------- Support fixing the EVE UI Drones should not aggro anything missiles or turrets do not.
Aramendel Amarr Coreli Corporation Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2007.09.10 15:23:00 - [76] Edited by: Aramendel on 10/09/2007 15:25:21 Originally by: Ashaz You pretty much responded to your own question there. The curse don't need a MWD. Neither do the hugin. The rook? not realy. Seriously? I mean, seriously? Please tell me that is a joke or you have just thrown any credability far far out of the window. Have you ever flown anything but gal recons? 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: Learn to read and stop trying to troll. I said 3 lowslots will not be enough to tank anything. I didn't say they are useless. Speed = tank, as said before. And in either case, so you agree that being able to use its lowslots is a major advantage for the lachesis/arazu? And if it is no major advantage but only a minor only loosing those lows should not effect them much, shouldn't it? Quote: again. Learn to read. It is CURENTLY the best recon for soloing. thanks to combining damps and webbers. if damps are nerfed is is possibly broken aswell. You fit your hugin with NO ew? then why do you fly a recon? Because the web range bonus maybe? It works solo just fine as vaga with webs, as said already. 2 Damps are also fine, but anything where 2 LSE2 + speedtank is not sufficient to kill will also cause the huginn trouble with breaking its tank. And in a gang using 2 LSE2 is >>> using 2 damps on the huginn since the LSE2 give far more survivability. Quote: 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. What you should complain about instead in that department is that the caldari ships only realy get one bonus while the others get two And gal recons get scram range. So damps should be fine if brought to the lvl of TDs and painters, right? As a sidenote, TDs do not "work". Even vs turrets they do very little vs a good part of them. Have you any experience in EW outside damps? The caldari recons only get bonuses on 1 EW system, but they get multiple & stronger bonuses on it.
welsh wizard Celestial Apocalypse Insurgency	Posted - 2007.09.10 15:29:00 - [77] Originally by: Ashaz You pretty much responded to your own question there. The curse don't need a MWD. Neither do the hugin. The rook? not realy. The lachesis however has to dictate range, since range is the strength of the dampners. And that one module is what munches up all the cap, both as fuel and with the 25% penalty. And EW + Scram? sure they can. Go back to sleep. [Balance] The Caldari problem.
Laboratus Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen	Posted - 2007.09.10 15:32:00 - [78] You are trying to prove that damps are OP with argumenting that speed tanks are OP. That only means speed tanks are op, nothing else... ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats
Aramendel Amarr Coreli Corporation Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2007.09.10 15:35:00 - [79] Originally by: Laboratus You are trying to prove that damps are OP with argumenting that speed tanks are OP. Uhm.. no?
Reatu Krentor Minmatar Void Spiders Fate Weavers	Posted - 2007.09.10 16:51:00 - [80] Imo damps are too strong as they are. Right now, 1 T1 sensor booster practically counters 1 T1 sensor dampener, that's fine. But go to named/T2 or consider skills and rigs and the one-to-one balance is gone. The meta issue: The meta/T2 increase was applied to the effect for dampeners and to the bonus for sensor boosters, causing an imbalance. The numbers: Sensor booster:1 + (0.5 * 1.2) = 1.6 Sensor Dampener(the wrong way): 0.65 * 0.8 = 0.52(-48%) Sensor Dampener(as it should be): 1 - (0.35 * 1.2) = 0.58(-42%) result: 1.6 * 0.58 = 0.928 vs. 0.832 before. That was issue 1, issue 2 is skills. Where sensor dampeners have a skill that increases the effect further, the boosters have no such skill. My solution would be to nerf the damps so that the skill is taken into account as well, rather then get a skill for sensor boosters. Assuming most people that train for damps would get a minimum skill level of lvl 4 that means a penalty decrease of 20% from current base value. 0.65 / 0.8 = 0.8125 or -18.75% before skills(let's make this -20% to have a nice round value) For T2: 1 - (0.2 * 1.2) = 0.76 or -24% before skills. Result(with lvl 4 signal dispersion): 0.68 for T1, 0.646 for T2. 0.68 * 1.5 = 1.02; 0.646 * 1.6 = 1.0336 A side issue of skills is the ship bonuses that the gallente EW-ships have. Dropping the effectiveness of damps to -20/-25% before skills looks like it would be enough to allow the gallente EW-ships to have a bonus of 7.5% instead of 5%, so that they still have the powerfull damps(which is justified as they are EW-boats and are weaker on tank, just like Blackbirds etc.) Final issue is rigs, the dampening rigs are quite powerfull and could allow ships without damp bonuses to become too powerfull again. Perhaps changing the drawback from losing shieldhp(admit it, not that big a deal for the armor tankers) to something a bit more drastic like losing cpu output of ship or increasing cpu use of all EW-modules(including sensor boosters, scrams, etc.) --- My thoughts on Damps.

Djerin Obsidian Exploration Services	Posted - 2007.09.10 21:37:00 - [81] Without reading the entire thread there are two things i'd like to say. First of all right now damps are very powerfull. People are using it for a reason. There is no denying. There are several counters. Some of them work pretty bad, others aren't even noticed (by concept some ships dont care about it). What i really dislike about them is, that they are generally too effective without specializing in it. If you've got low skills damps are waaaaay better then racial jammers. And if you've got perfect skills in electronic warfare damps are still better if you dont plan to engage at inferior numbers. Dont get me wrong, i dont have a problem with damps. I just think they shouldn't be better then racial jammers in most cases. And the other thing i want to mention is that no matter if damps are overpowered or not, there should be a class of ships that is just impossible to damp. I can't see any reason why a recon cruiser should be easy to damp. You have to be a good pilot to use a recon effectively. No recon is a solo-pwn-mobile. They can't tank sh!t and they can't deal good dps. To make them awesome you have to be awseome. Of course some ships are damned to fail against a recon on a 1on1, but that's not the scale you should measure them at. ---- Sarmaul's crosstrainorgtfo
Liang Nuren The Refugees	Posted - 2007.09.10 21:42:00 - [82] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 10/09/2007 21:42:42 Originally by: Djerin Without reading the entire thread there are two things i'd like to say. First of all right now damps are very powerfull. People are using it for a reason. There is no denying. There are several counters. Some of them work pretty bad, others aren't even noticed (by concept some ships dont care about it). What i really dislike about them is, that they are generally too effective without specializing in it. If you've got low skills damps are waaaaay better then racial jammers. And if you've got perfect skills in electronic warfare damps are still better if you dont plan to engage at inferior numbers. Dont get me wrong, i dont have a problem with damps. I just think they shouldn't be better then racial jammers in most cases. And the other thing i want to mention is that no matter if damps are overpowered or not, there should be a class of ships that is just impossible to damp. I can't see any reason why a recon cruiser should be easy to damp. You have to be a good pilot to use a recon effectively. No recon is a solo-pwn-mobile. They can't tank sh!t and they can't deal good dps. To make them awesome you have to be awseome. Of course some ships are damned to fail against a recon on a 1on1, but that's not the scale you should measure them at. Seriously, have you ever tried to damp a recon cruiser? I have, and it didn't work so well for me. I did get out, but only because they didn't get a point on me before I sped away. Recons and some battleships get just ridiculous locking range. Edit: There are also motherships and titans that are impossible to damp. ;-) Liang Yarr?
Redback911 Malevolent Intentions Chaos Incarnate.	Posted - 2007.09.10 23:31:00 - [83] A non-bonus T2 Damp (no rigs / special ship) should damp marginally better than 2 T2 Sensor Booster - that way there IS a counter. On Gall ships you still need to be able to work the magic, but with their large bonus it should still work.
Hyuuga Veralis Pator Tech School	Posted - 2007.09.10 23:39:00 - [84] All it took were two tournaments where 90% of the Ewar used was Damps... Honestly, after the ECm nerf how could damps not be nerfed? They're absurd on non-damp ships. The curse doesn't have a damp bonus but I bet most people never knew that, given how many curses would fly with damps and just damp/nos/drone people. And Damps can't ever fail, ECM can. I'm glad they're going to make ewar less effective on non-ewar ships. Damps will still be evil on ships that are made to damp, just not so omgwtfbbq, hopefully. -------------- Fulfilling 0.0 Ammo needs since 2 days after being made.
wictro	Posted - 2007.09.11 00:40:00 - [85] jsut for god's sake keep something the same so long, that we have time to train it ! i'll just wait that the circle closes, and the things i first trained will be useful again. :D seems that balanced means that regardless of ship, mods and sp, you'll stand a 50:50 chance of winning in 1:1
Ansuru Starlancer The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities	Posted - 2007.09.11 01:51:00 - [86] Edited by: Ansuru Starlancer on 11/09/2007 01:58:42 Chance based: NO! If you're just going to create a carbon copy of ECM, use ECM! Racial: See above! Split effects: it's possible, I guess..doesn't seem all that important, lock range is the part most used (lock time is only useful in certain situations). Global damp effectiveness reduction, with buffed specialist ship bonuses: YES! There is nothing wrong with taking a mod that is so overused and nerfing it for the ships that weren't meant to use it 100% of the time, so long as you leave it useful on the ones that were! Disclaimer: The author of this post has Recon Ships IV, Signal Suppression IV, and a fat pile of named dampeners.
ThaMa Gebir Gallente Raddick Explorations Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2007.09.11 02:06:00 - [87] Originally by: Plague Black And they affect 2 ship abilities at the same time. Nanos got nerfed for that, now each module affects one ship characteristics. ....... But knowing CCP and their nerf tactics I am a bit scared of the abomination they will spawn from their secret nerf-lab. Bold; Ok, by that logic then all ships should get only 1 bonus, then it will be balanced. Italic; I agree, I am **** scared of what they will do to them, I found the ecm nerf a little too harsh tbh, but meh. ---------------------------- Confirmed heaviest member of RDEX........ Hah, no more hijacks here.
Ashaz Mindstar Technology United Confederation of Corporations	Posted - 2007.09.11 07:14:00 - [88] Originally by: Djerin What i really dislike about them is, that they are generally too effective without specializing in it. This is a good point. Could be a good fix to make them less effective when not skilled for them, and keep the high end as it is. People should need to train for what they use. AFAIK, ecm is like that aswell. Quote: And the other thing i want to mention is that no matter if damps are overpowered or not, there should be a class of ships that is just impossible to damp. I can't see any reason why a recon cruiser should be easy to damp. mate, recons is one of the ships that is a total nono for dampners. The curse for example has a 140 km locking range without a booster. And there is no way I can get my mate's rook down to scrambler range. Also, there are many ships that can deal with dampners. all you need is atleast one launcherslot, and 25m3 dronebay. The rest you'll have to figure out for yourself. __________________________________ Gallente by birth. Amarr by choice. iDrone
Ashaz Mindstar Technology United Confederation of Corporations	Posted - 2007.09.11 07:23:00 - [89] Quote: Seriously? I mean, seriously? Please tell me that is a joke or you have just thrown any credability far far out of the window. Have you ever flown anything but gal recons? Every single recons needs a MWD. yes! Seriously. My curse has no MWD and have yet to find a target where that causes me trouble. Yes they get within range eventualy. but by then they are so low on cap that the battle is almost over. Hugin/rapier. Why would it mwd, when it's target is unable to move or target? Even a BS would be fast enough to keep range! Rook. I can see how you'd prefer a mwd on thisone, for when a cycle fails. Lachesis. Already explained why it needs one. But wait. didn't you just claim that NO recon CAN run a MWD while using EW and Scrambler? Quote: The rook needs it to counter bubblecamps er.. wow. realy good argument. Quote: Speed = tank, as said before. And in either case, so you agree that being able to use its lowslots is a major advantage for the lachesis/arazu? And if it is no major advantage but only a minor only loosing those lows should not effect them much, shouldn't it? 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. Quote: Because the web range bonus maybe? It works solo just fine as vaga with webs, as said already. 2 Damps are also fine, but anything where 2 LSE2 + speedtank is not sufficient to kill will also cause the huginn trouble with breaking its tank. And in a gang using 2 LSE2 is >>> using 2 damps on the huginn since the LSE2 give far more survivability. You DO know that webbers are EW, right? it has a bonus to that EW. That's the main strength of the ship. anything that a hugin has trouble breaking, will cause just as much trouble for the other recons. Except perhaps the curse. but ok. cool. then the hugin won't be broken. I did write possibly. Quote: And gal recons get scram range. So damps should be fine if brought to the lvl of TDs and painters, right? You know, your reasoning lacks any logic at all. Why break the one that works instead of fixing the ones that suck? Quote: TDs do not "work". Even vs turrets they do very little vs a good part of them. Have you any experience in EW outside damps? 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. Quote: The caldari recons only get bonuses on 1 EW system, but they get multiple & stronger bonuses on it. 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? __________________________________ Gallente by birth. Amarr by choice. iDrone
Highwayman Bob	Posted - 2007.09.11 07:35:00 - [90] Keep nerfing all the effective EW modules ccp, since we all enjoy a game with nothing but dps/tank.

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]

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.