EVE Search - Candidate for EW

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Candidate for EW

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Joshua Calvert	Posted - 2004.02.15 17:47:00 - [31] j0sephine is my friend? but she always pokes holes in my rash assumptions and stuff LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!
Discorporation	Posted - 2004.02.15 17:49:00 - [32] I laughed, lol Ain't no way you're gonna get me to fly a megathron, tho [Heterocephalus glaber]
Atandros	Posted - 2004.02.15 17:55:00 - [33] Quote: I'll make this system good Joshua and it it's not a nerf for Caldari at all. Going to combat in Scorpion as a tank might still leave your med slots open to 1-2 jammers, they are offensive but still defensive for you and your entire team. Example: Joshua is in an Armageddon getting heavy fire from Discorporation who is in a Megathron with heavy blasters. Joshua yells: help me j0sephine my best friend! discorporation is killing me! j0sephine only has one multi-jammer and is at 50KM range, but still goes for it and successfully jams Discorporation with 40% of jamming and makes Discorp jammed for 15 seconds. Joshua now starts repairing mad and tries to get out of range. But then TomB comes and kills them all. Discorporation: blaaa i almost had u Joshua: no way i was to back to full armor j0sephine: gg anyway... Wow, that sounds like a cool system, especially the last bit. I'd really like to buy a "TomBifier" module for my ship. And it should shout DEVLIKE! every time you kill someone with it (ie, all the time), audible within a 50km radius.
Nafri	Posted - 2004.02.15 18:04:00 - [34] somehow this thing is bad in my oponion Caldari will get more missile bonuses, most likely more launcher slots and perhabs some EW bonuses ... stay tuned for posts about changes to the ships. Quote from TomB i dont think caldari ships lack on launcher slots , its just that launcher just make you poor and are pretty useless against BS (at long ranges) My opinion to the ECM changes: makes caldari ships even worser, now thy can get jammed by luck and with their incredible high scanning resultion thy are thy ships who suffer most from getting jammed and their jamming isnt that good anymore, if your unlucky the enemy has long times of luck in your and a jamming Scorp isnt that sturdy to endure this nah, who cares, already lost all my caldari BS and my last bb should die soon enough before changes take effect Wanna fly with me?
Xtro 2	Posted - 2004.02.15 18:05:00 - [35] Edited by: Xtro 2 on 15/02/2004 18:08:29 1 jam module of any type should not massivly cripple some1 to he point they cannot respond in any way, it would be better if all the mentioned theoretical stats were improved when 1 person is affected by more than just 1 ship, giving frigates that "role" they desire and require, an excelent system idd proposted, but could do with being still less effective from a 1 ship/jam's another ship effectivly point of view, base it as mentioned with lower affects, but increased effects with many/more ships jamming 1 ship. id be gutted if a poxy frigate managed to jam me constantly (has happened, and for once fof's actually fired), it would be more acceptable if you had 2-3 swarming round you giving you a tougher time... Dont actually know how it works fully myself coz i dont EW, but surely if ship1 is jammed successfully, surely it would be viable to still allow that jammed ship to attempt jamming back even tho he cannot target LOCK, he shoudl possibly still be able to successfully EW back, causing deadlocks etc... __________________________________________ Hell is nothing more than an office with fluorecent lights.
Kalki Nibiru	Posted - 2004.02.15 18:07:00 - [36] Since EW is no longer requires a slew of medium slots to be effective, are we going to see changes to some gallente ships so they can be the EW race as they were meant to be? (IE. will black sheep ships like the Celestis get some figure like 15% EW effectiveness chance). Taken from the May 29th 2003 Devchat at EveGate . <Muaddid> Q: When will sentry gun and station and similar construction pods be introduced on the market? <Hellmar> we have various player owned entities already implemented. Sentry guns, power/shield generators, field repair mini-stations, mobile refineries. We are still working out the last tidbits of how they can be over taken, what is the penalty of having a sentry gun kill a n00b etc. and we have been a bit busy with plugging the holes that people have found.I would say that you'd start to see these items on the market in about 2-3 weeks, very expensive to begin with
Nafri	Posted - 2004.02.15 18:09:00 - [37] ecm bonus will be granted to caldari Wanna fly with me?
TomB	Posted - 2004.02.15 18:16:00 - [38] It has come to the point where balancing hybrids between Caldari and Gallente looks pointless, also getting EW for Gallente instead of Caldari. I've stated that Caldari will most likely get removed bonuses on hybrids and given missile/ew bonuses instead. Old design on EW were never thought about when it came to launch and changes would need to be to dramatic to be able to get it working. Gallente will instead get drone lovin on bonuses, new drones and skills. So you wanted to test out some boosters?
Joshua Calvert	Posted - 2004.02.15 18:18:00 - [39] Ooooh, ew and missiles bonuses. Awesome - I think a nice bonus would be a reduction of the "re-try" delay. LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!
s0cks	Posted - 2004.02.15 18:19:00 - [40] This is a seriously bad nerf. I'm not going to list the hundereds of reasons why, but our whole corp has come to rely on ECM's 100% perfection. No range limit, no maybe of it not working, etc... Everyone has always been happy with EW in my opinion. Never seen a big uproar about it. I say just leave it as it is. I feel its balanced and working well. Many times have people had ECCM and killed us. Plz don't do this nerf TomB. Its a really bad idea. Our battles HAVE to be quick and precise. This would just ruin this tactic and we'd be more likely to loose many many more ships. Thx for reading. Peace and love x
Discorporation	Posted - 2004.02.15 18:21:00 - [41] My Tachyons don't have 100% effectiveness at all ranges, s0cks = ECM does :( [Heterocephalus glaber]
Admiral IceBlock	Posted - 2004.02.15 18:26:00 - [42] im sure Tracking Disruptors will be USEFULL after this Nerf so u Frigate users can use does? right TomB? "We brake for nobody"
TomB	Posted - 2004.02.15 18:33:00 - [43] Quote: This is a seriously bad nerf. I'm not going to list the hundereds of reasons why, but our whole corp has come to rely on ECM's 100% perfection. No range limit, no maybe of it not working, etc... Everyone has always been happy with EW in my opinion. Never seen a big uproar about it. I say just leave it as it is. I feel its balanced and working well. Many times have people had ECCM and killed us. Plz don't do this nerf TomB. Its a really bad idea. Our battles HAVE to be quick and precise. This would just ruin this tactic and we'd be more likely to loose many many more ships. Thx for reading. Peace and love x Activating lots of ECM's on a ship will mean they will be pretty screwed just like before, but they still might have a chance, both by simply luck and by trying to get out of range for less effectness. This means that your target won't just sit there and tell their buddies: "im jammed but got shields running, can you call me when the fight is over? im gonna check for food" So you wanted to test out some boosters?
MaiLina KaTar	Posted - 2004.02.15 18:45:00 - [44] Quote: Old design on EW were never thought about when it came to launch and changes would need to be to dramatic to be able to get it working. Can¦t you just implement EW-hardpoints for the ships and then just give Gallente ships more hardpoints then Caldari? After that you can just give Gallente EW ship bonuses and Caldari ECCM bonuses so ECCM finally is worth something. You can then move EW modules to hi-slot again without screwing everything up IMHO. Mai's Idealog
McWatt	Posted - 2004.02.15 19:05:00 - [45] Edited by: McWatt on 15/02/2004 19:07:12 i m in general pro-random factor. yet i m very worried about pirates and the ability to charge money with random warp scramblers/webbers. any one got a good idea on this one? in general (assuming that battle lag gets fixed soon ) i d love to see more activation on stuff during combat. atm, most ppl activate their comabt gear at the start of battle, with minor changes (apart from switching targets) happening during battle. wouldn t it be cool if you had more options while fighting? needing to activate deactivate items, finding out what your enemys set-up is about?(imo, this is the way EW and its countermeassures should work) the old "overcharging option" idea would work pretty well under the new system. just one more option in the manual/auto menu would increase your effectiveness with some risk of loosing the module...
zincol	Posted - 2004.02.15 19:09:00 - [46] Scorps dont have enuff fire power to take down ships on there own without ecm. i may be wrong but seems strange to me. Missles r expensive. w00t!
Jim Raynor	Posted - 2004.02.15 19:19:00 - [47] Quote: It has come to the point where balancing hybrids between Caldari and Gallente looks pointless, also getting EW for Gallente instead of Caldari. I've stated that Caldari will most likely get removed bonuses on hybrids and given missile/ew bonuses instead. Damn 2 million skill points devoted to gunnery/hybrids down the drain? Will Railguns still be the 'best' guns for Caldari ships? I guess losing the optimal range bonus on hybrids won't be a huge deal since it does next to nothing in most instances anyways. If missiles are to become THE weapon for Caldari ships, then missiles will need quite an overhaul again. They will have to atleast match turrets in terms of damage and usability (read: cost is too high / missiles too slow). I'm looking forward to the EW changes honestly, I don't care much for the current EW system. It's way too easy to cripple ships and there's basically no counter for most modules. ------ ROBBLE ROBBLE
Bizarre	Posted - 2004.02.15 19:45:00 - [48] After reading the initial Dev Blog I was not happy at all, but after reading some of TomB's replies I am very interested in this change. Caldari should definetly be the EW race within EvE, changing to Gallente as EW race would be taking up to much time and it would change EvE completely. I look forward to the changes. ------------------------------------------------- Deathwing > U LIKE THOSE NUTS ON YA CHIN?
zincol	Posted - 2004.02.15 19:48:00 - [49] Give megathrons 8 mid slots and a scorp 4 mid slots. All fixed and sorted :-p w00t!
Tyria Evenstar	Posted - 2004.02.15 19:54:00 - [50] Edited by: Tyria Evenstar on 15/02/2004 19:55:38 Quote: I've stated that Caldari will most likely get removed bonuses on hybrids and given missile/ew bonuses instead. It has come to the point where balancing hybrids between Caldari and Gallente looks pointless, also getting EW for Gallente instead of Caldari. 4 Races, 4 Weapon types (specialisations) makes much more sence. But as Jim says, missiles need to be reduced in building cost and given better speed. -Tyria.
Joshua Calvert	Posted - 2004.02.15 19:56:00 - [51] dito, Bizarre. TomB has soothed my worries a lot but I'll wait for the changes on chaos before casting aside ALL doubts. LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!
Gan Howorth	Posted - 2004.02.15 20:02:00 - [52] Two things spring to mind. 1. Skills that affect jam-time are now going to make highly skilled would-be-jammers get fewer chances to jam in over time. Bit daft. 2. Are you going to use this opportunity to introduce three sizes of the modules in question?
Cao Cao	Posted - 2004.02.15 20:32:00 - [53] TomB, I read your blog and also all the user posts. I have to say this is a HUGELY NEEDED change and brilliant solution to the current problem. I have only three concerns at the moment, and hope you can address them: 1. Caldari / Long Range: ok. Along the lines of Halo Jones' problem above is that I am nervous about the "chance" factor if the range on the modules is too short. For example, if the optimal is 20km with a 20km falloff, Caldari will not be able to use them since they are long range combat specialists. If the optimal range is along the lines of 50km with a 50km falloff (with decreasing effectiveness as you get further into the falloff), I think this problem is effectively solved. I REALLY like the chance factor for ECM, however. 2. Warp disruptors. Ok. If you move this module into the chance roll like the rest of ECM, the ranges need to be increased dramatically. I am very much in favor of this, as long as warp disruptors are made useable by long range pilots as well. Of course, chance of warp disruption should be lower at long range, but please these modules need an optimal of say, 30km with a falloff of 70km or more. 3. Stasis webifiers. Same issue as the warp disruptor. This module SHOULD be made into a "chance" roll module with a medium range optimal and a long falloff, so that it is usable by long range craft. I like your idea of rerolling before it deactivates (perhaps, roll it 3 times for each full activation cycle) so that it has the chance of getting stronger during a single cycle. But PLEASE make these modules (ALL modules) workable at long range as well (say VERY strong at close range but please please please we need to be able to have ECM options at long range). Final thoughts: you could give each of these modules an optimal range of, say, 5km. Then a falloff of 100km. Make them SUPER STRONG within optimal range, and gradually weaker as you get further into the optimal. This would still benefit specialty frigates and other ships fitted for close-range encounters with ECM but allow longer range ships to use the modules as well. That's it, thanks again this SOUNDS FANTASTIC though if implemented properly!
Joshua Calvert	Posted - 2004.02.15 20:40:00 - [54] Edited by: Joshua Calvert on 15/02/2004 20:42:35 Make webbers/warp jammers of different sizes. I really don't want frigates to have the ability to warp-jam at 50km Also, warp-jam range should always exceed the webify range otherwise long-range ganking at gates will be too easy LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!
Beseb	Posted - 2004.02.15 20:47:00 - [55] Agree Josh, we need propulsion jamming modules in 3 sizes just like you recently did for neutralizers and AB/MWD. It only makes sense. Frigate - 10k optimal, 10k falloff Cruiser - 20k optimal, 15k falloff Battleship - 30k optimal, 30k falloff
Cao Cao	Posted - 2004.02.15 20:48:00 - [56] Quote: Make webbers/warp jammers of different sizes. I really don't want frigates to have the ability to warp-jam at 50km Also, warp-jam range should always exceed the webify range otherwise long-range ganking at gates will be too easy Basically what you are saying here is something I wholeheartedly agree with: balancing webifiers and warp disruptors will be a VERY tricky thing and should be thought through very verrrry thoroughly before anything new is implemented. The three different sizes for these modules SHOULD be implemented, though, but I think that frigates should have the POTENTIAL to warp jam or web at 50km just not a high probability. So, for example, on a high powered (read: lotsa grid) battleship webifier, say optimal range of 30km falloff 70km. Low powered frigate webifier, say 5km optimal, 70km falloff. Anyway, but yeah, needs lots of testing and lotsa thought before it is changed however this is a VERY GOOD CHANGE, all told. I really really like it, and plz plz plz fix my poor raven, it suxx0r da c0xx0r atm).
Admiral IceBlock	Posted - 2004.02.15 20:52:00 - [57] making new sized modules for warp scramblers and webbers is just stupid!!! "We brake for nobody"
Discorporation	Posted - 2004.02.15 20:54:00 - [58] Quote: Basically what you are saying here is something I wholeheartedly agree with: balancing webifiers and warp disruptors will be a VERY tricky thing and should be thought through very verrrry thoroughly before anything new is implemented. The three different sizes for these modules SHOULD be implemented, though, but I think that frigates should have the POTENTIAL to warp jam or web at 50km just not a high probability. So, for example, on a high powered (read: lotsa grid) battleship webifier, say optimal range of 30km falloff 70km. Low powered frigate webifier, say 5km optimal, 70km falloff. Most frigates can't even target beyond 50Km =\ [Heterocephalus glaber]
Joshua Calvert	Posted - 2004.02.15 21:02:00 - [59] You simply cannot give a warp-jammer a range penalty and allow the same module to be equipped across three classes of ship. It negates the very purpose of these changes - balance. Why should a frigate, with the advantages of speed, agility, and faster lock time, be able to warp-jam at the same distances of a battleship? There NEEDS to be different sized warp-jammer/webifiers. LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!
zincol	Posted - 2004.02.15 21:04:00 - [60] Edited by: zincol on 15/02/2004 21:05:04 Quote: You simply cannot give a warp-jammer a range penalty and allow the same module to be equipped across three classes of ship. It negates the very purpose of these changes - balance. Why should a frigate, with the advantages of speed, agility, and faster lock time, be able to warp-jam at the same distances of a battleship? There NEEDS to be different sized warp-jammer/webifiers. Yup i see what u mean,a frig can get into optimal range alot faster than a battleship. But cant you see that caldari are way too strong and powerful? w00t!

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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