EVE Search - Nerf to Sensor Damps?

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Nerf to Sensor Damps?

» 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)
Ms Bukakie	Posted - 2007.09.24 21:53:00 - [1] Have heard that they are thinking about swinging the nerf bat at damps. If this is true what type of nerfs have any of yall heard, or is it going to be like the ECM jammers any imput would be nice
Emperor D'Hoffryn No Quarter. Vae Victis.	Posted - 2007.09.24 21:58:00 - [2] damps will be changed to do one effect at a time, with lock range, or lock time. You will be able to choose in space which one it does with a new right click menu, to apply to the situation at hand. Most will likely chose lock range, so finally closing range will finally be a counter. Also, if you are going to make an alt to ask questions, can you make one with a less offensive name? Originally by: Snuggly It's just so great to have an actual reason to not die, incentive is fantastic!
Ms Bukakie	Posted - 2007.09.24 22:01:00 - [3] Thanks alot for the information and this is my real name Im Japanese parents just have a wierd name
Pinky Denmark The Cursed Navy	Posted - 2007.09.24 23:07:00 - [4] Im sure the switch will help a little, but is it enough... thats the real question. - I'm a nice guy!! MOA is NOT UGLY!!! It's A FREAK SHOW!!!!
Audri Fisher Caldari VentureCorp Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2007.09.24 23:09:00 - [5] wuts wrong with racial dampners?
Reem Fairchild Minmatar Republic University	Posted - 2007.09.24 23:10:00 - [6] Instead of reducing the effectiveness of Sensor Dampeners they should roll back the "nerf" on ECM and boost Tracking Disruptors and Target Painters (especially Target Painters, of course) to make them useful as well.
Divideby0 Gallente Amalgamated Industries	Posted - 2007.09.24 23:13:00 - [7] So do you have to set each one? Or can you set one to affect range, and another to affect targeting time? ...because you know some genius will equip like 12. Who is the bigger carebear: The miner who braves lowsec on his own, or the "PvPer" who attacks an unarmed ship? I support the f
Xequecal	Posted - 2007.09.24 23:16:00 - [8] Originally by: Reem Fairchild Instead of reducing the effectiveness of Sensor Dampeners they should roll back the "nerf" on ECM and boost Tracking Disruptors and Target Painters (especially Target Painters, of course) to make them useful as well. So instead of one grossly overpowered ewar mod, we now have four? If you roll back the ECM nerf nobody will ever put anything in their mid slots past MWD/disruptor besides ECM. No, not even web/injector, it's better to downgrade weapons and permajam your target.
Benn Helmsman Caldari Helmsman Engineering Company	Posted - 2007.09.24 23:17:00 - [9] Originally by: Divideby0 So do you have to set each one? Or can you set one to affect range, and another to affect targeting time? ...because you know some genius will equip like 12. Well i would wonder if you can fit more than 8 ^^ and the other point: it would make RSD less effective on non dedicated ships if you have to fit twice as much to have same effect as now
Firkragg Blue Labs Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.09.24 23:19:00 - [10] god dont get the problem with damps. just close range and nail them. If your not able to close range then that seems like a very effective use of ewar. The reason ecm got nerfed was that you would have scorpions permajamming 3 man bs gangs.
Reem Fairchild Minmatar Republic University	Posted - 2007.09.24 23:28:00 - [11] Originally by: Xequecal Originally by: Reem Fairchild Instead of reducing the effectiveness of Sensor Dampeners they should roll back the "nerf" on ECM and boost Tracking Disruptors and Target Painters (especially Target Painters, of course) to make them useful as well. So instead of one grossly overpowered ewar mod, we now have four? If you roll back the ECM nerf nobody will ever put anything in their mid slots past MWD/disruptor besides ECM. No, not even web/injector, it's better to downgrade weapons and permajam your target. You think EWar is overpowered. I say guns, missiles and tanking modules are. Anything that breaks up the gank and tank mentality of people with no sense of tactics who think Eve is an FPS is good in my book.
Benn Helmsman Caldari Helmsman Engineering Company	Posted - 2007.09.24 23:43:00 - [12] Originally by: Firkragg god dont get the problem with damps. just close range and nail them. If your not able to close range then that seems like a very effective use of ewar. The reason ecm got nerfed was that you would have scorpions permajamming 3 man bs gangs. The problem is, that 3 damps from unbonused ships can make a bs need 40+ seconds to lock a carrier while you need to be <10km away
Reem Fairchild Minmatar Republic University	Posted - 2007.09.24 23:47:00 - [13] Originally by: Benn Helmsman Originally by: Firkragg god dont get the problem with damps. just close range and nail them. If your not able to close range then that seems like a very effective use of ewar. The reason ecm got nerfed was that you would have scorpions permajamming 3 man bs gangs. The problem is, that 3 damps from unbonused ships can make a bs need 40+ seconds to lock a carrier while you need to be <10km away That's only true if the pilot in question has high skills for sensor dampeners and the battleship doesn't have a sensor booster.
Benn Helmsman Caldari Helmsman Engineering Company	Posted - 2007.09.24 23:55:00 - [14] Originally by: Reem Fairchild Originally by: Benn Helmsman Originally by: Firkragg god dont get the problem with damps. just close range and nail them. If your not able to close range then that seems like a very effective use of ewar. The reason ecm got nerfed was that you would have scorpions permajamming 3 man bs gangs. The problem is, that 3 damps from unbonused ships can make a bs need 40+ seconds to lock a carrier while you need to be <10km away That's only true if the pilot in question has high skills for sensor dampeners and the battleship doesn't have a sensor booster. You need less than a month to have the skills, and no: a raven hit by 3 sensor damps still needs 30 seconds to lock a carrier IF the (unbonused!) dampening ship(s) doesnt use rigs EVEN with 1 sensor boost. If the dampener use (pretty cheap) rigs, it will be 40 seconds. If they have an eos with warfare link, you dont need any rigs.
omiNATION	Posted - 2007.09.25 00:03:00 - [15] hardly, with 3 t2 damps u'd still need max skills to get a BS sensor range down to 15km + rigs. The change is good, either damp or delay. frigates take a long time to target anyways, they can get close, attack, then flee before target lock
Benn Helmsman Caldari Helmsman Engineering Company	Posted - 2007.09.25 00:09:00 - [16] Edited by: Benn Helmsman on 25/09/2007 00:11:57 Locking range is not the problem, its the huge locking time needed even on capital sized ships. If you need more time than the whole battle to lock even the biggest ships, something is wrong. If you want to calculate it on your own: Put the formula 10000/[scan resolution]/asinh([signature radius]) in the online calculator
Reem Fairchild Minmatar Republic University	Posted - 2007.09.25 00:12:00 - [17] It takes less than a month to train high skills for many modules. For example, maxing out skills for ECM takes the exact same amount of time. That doesn't mean anything cause together they all add up. You aren't going to be training for sensor dampeners alone. It only takes a month or so (maybe alightly more) to train up for tech 2 shield tank. What's your point? With 3 halfway reasonable named sensor dampeners on a Nemesis I was able to drop a corp mate's Megathron's (that wasn't using sensor boosters) locking range to 18 km while testing. At the time, I didn't have Signal Suppression skill trained up yet though. With signal suppression at 3 (as it is now for me) and tech 2 or best named sensor dampeners, I imagine it would drop it to 10 km or right above if I tried it now. However, you put just 1 sensor booster on that Megathron and there is no way 3 sensor dampners without ship bonuses or rigs are dropping it below 10 km even with Signal Suppression at 5.
Xequecal	Posted - 2007.09.25 00:28:00 - [18] Edited by: Xequecal on 25/09/2007 00:29:27 Originally by: Reem Fairchild You think EWar is overpowered. I say guns, missiles and tanking modules are. Anything that breaks up the gank and tank mentality of people with no sense of tactics who think Eve is an FPS is good in my book. "Sense of tactics?" ECM is the opposite of tactics and skill, you push a button and disable the enemy. Sensor dampeners in their current form guarantee two things: 1. The outnumbered side always loses. 2. If sides are relatively equal, the slower side always loses. DPS, tankability, player skill, or relative ship value all do not matter in the face of dampeners. They guarantee that the outnumbered player will always lose. 12 Tech 1 cruisers worth 5m each will ALWAYS beat 8 Vindicators worth 5 billion each if 8 of the cruisers fit 3 sensor dampeners. Always, regardless of the skill of the Vindicator players. There is NO skill involved in being damped out of combat. If you have 3 damps on you, you are USELESS, there is NO COUNTER WHATSOEVER due to how damps stack. You can fit 3 sensor boosters and still be worthless. Sensor dampeners force the mass adoption of nano fits because all you need to do to completely lock your opponent out of the fight is be faster than them, so you can escape their heavily damped lock range and leave them unable to do anything. You say ECM promotes skill and choices when it really has the opposite effect. I think you realize this. You want a cheapass I-win button that completely ****s your target regardless of what they fit, how good they are, or how much they spent. Un-nerfing ECM is the height of stupidity, unlike damps they don't care about relative ship speeds. Un-nerfed ECM will result in ALL engagements being decided by who can cram the most ECM onto their ships.
Reem Fairchild Minmatar Republic University	Posted - 2007.09.25 00:52:00 - [19] The funny thing, aside from the factual inaccuracies and the lack of knowledge of what it takes to make use of Ewar in a fleet effective (distributing EWar across an enemy fleet in battle is a tad bit more complicated than simply calling primary and secondary), is that anything you said about EWar can be said about all the "conventional" ways of fighting. The thing is, I can't see why a battle has to be primarily about gank and tank, and you seem to think the game is broken if it isn't. EWar being effective leads to several things: 1. It makes large, expensive, ships vulnerable unless properly supported. That's a good thing. 2. It requires close coordination within the fleet to work well, in a fleet battle (again, spreading the EWar across the enemy fleet is quite a bit more involved than simply calling primary and focusing fire). That's a good thing. 3. It makes small ships potentially effective fleet ships (rather than everyone being in battleships and capitals) and encourages the use of combined arms. That's a good thing. 4. It is an effective counter to DPS freaks, without which tactics in battles are simply "bring the biggest ships you can and as much of them as possible". Again, a good thing.
Benn Helmsman Caldari Helmsman Engineering Company	Posted - 2007.09.25 00:56:00 - [20] Originally by: Reem Fairchild The funny thing, aside from the factual inaccuracies and the lack of knowledge of what it takes to make use of Ewar in a fleet effective (distributing EWar across an enemy fleet in battle is a tad bit more complicated than simply calling primary and secondary), is that anything you said about EWar can be said about all the "conventional" ways of fighting. The thing is, I can't see why a battle has to be primarily about gank and tank, and you seem to think the game is broken if it isn't. EWar being effective leads to several things: 1. It makes large, expensive, ships vulnerable unless properly supported. That's a good thing. 2. It requires close coordination within the fleet to work well, in a fleet battle (again, spreading the EWar across the enemy fleet is quite a bit more involved than simply calling primary and focusing fire). That's a good thing. 3. It makes small ships potentially effective fleet ships (rather than everyone being in battleships and capitals) and encourages the use of combined arms. That's a good thing. 4. It is an effective counter to DPS freaks, without which tactics in battles are simply "bring the biggest ships you can and as much of them as possible". Again, a good thing. Beeing a nice thing in huge fleets (in which only a small fraction of players are involved) doesnt justify it beeing total i-win-buttoning in any other engagement.
Akat Slacker Industries Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2007.09.25 01:02:00 - [21] I love it how everyone using damps can't admit there is a problem. As with the old gankships packing 7-8 damage mods and nanofaggotry, its easy to lose objectivity and defend the flavor of the month when your the one using them. The fact remains that sensor dampeners are currently THE most effective form of electronic warfare. Within their optimal range the work 100% of the time and each damp will reduce your targets ability to lock you by about 50%. This becomes frightening effective in combination with nanogangs. In my mind damps are just as bad, quite possibly worse than the multispecs of doom. Getting shot? Eh, just throw 2-3 damps on him and you'll be fine; they work well when fitted to any ship. A stacking penalty or something mentioned above (pick range or sig res) would be a step in the right direction.
Reem Fairchild Minmatar Republic University	Posted - 2007.09.25 01:06:00 - [22] Originally by: Benn Helmsman Beeing a nice thing in huge fleets (in which only a small fraction of players are involved) doesnt justify it beeing total i-win-buttoning in any other engagement. You're actually right, and I've been thinking about that lately. Electronic Warfare should be more effective in fleet battles but less so in small and single ship engagements. One way could be to make all of it it 'area of effect', emanating from the ship being targeted, but a lot less effective per module than it is now. So, if you have say 10 EWar ships hitting a tightly packed enemy fleet, it royally screws up their sensors. But one ship using EWar on another single ship would do very little. Would also have the added benefit of encouraging fleets to disperse within the grid (which a lot of people seem to want).
Xequecal	Posted - 2007.09.25 01:10:00 - [23] Originally by: Reem Fairchild The funny thing, aside from the factual inaccuracies and the lack of knowledge of what it takes to make use of Ewar in a fleet effective (distributing EWar across an enemy fleet in battle is a tad bit more complicated than simply calling primary and secondary), is that anything you said about EWar can be said about all the "conventional" ways of fighting. The thing is, I can't see why a battle has to be primarily about gank and tank, and you seem to think the game is broken if it isn't. EWar being effective leads to several things: 1. It makes large, expensive, ships vulnerable unless properly supported. That's a good thing. 2. It requires close coordination within the fleet to work well, in a fleet battle (again, spreading the EWar across the enemy fleet is quite a bit more involved than simply calling primary and focusing fire). That's a good thing. 3. It makes small ships potentially effective fleet ships (rather than everyone being in battleships and capitals) and encourages the use of combined arms. That's a good thing. 4. It is an effective counter to DPS freaks, without which tactics in battles are simply "bring the biggest ships you can and as much of them as possible". Again, a good thing. - Nothing ruins MMO PvP faster than excessive crowd control, it doesn't matter what MMO it is. Ewar is crowd control. If ECM is strong enough to break the reliance on "gank and tank," the game simply becomes, "whoever can cram in the most ECM wins." That's what the game WAS pre-ECM nerf. Nobody flew Amarr because they didn't have midslots to cram in ECM. People gave up injectors and webs because ECM was better. If you can disable a 200m battleship in a 10m cruiser, why fly the battleship? You're taking 20x the risk for no loss in effectiveness. I personally think a better way to go about it is to make sensor boosters reduce the effectiveness of dampeners so damps have minimal effect if you fit 2 boosters, but hey, I'll take what I can get. There is NO justification for 3 damps = you are useless, period. If you spend a thousand times as much as your opponent, you SHOULD win. End of story. There is no excuse for a 2 billion carrier getting completely disabled by a 10m Celestis. What's worse is there is NO WAY, no fitting in the game that lets the Carrier pilot counter the Celestis disabling him. The whole thing comes down to numbers. You need more than your opponent, regardless of your ship value. That carrier pilot needs a friend with him to assign fighters to so he can do stuff damped. If the enemy brings 2 damping ships, now you need three people. Your ship value is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is how many pilots you can bring. 5m ships are as good as 2bil ships, because the 5m ship can fit 3x damp and eliminate the 2bil ship.
Reem Fairchild Minmatar Republic University	Posted - 2007.09.25 01:12:00 - [24] Originally by: Akat The fact remains that sensor dampeners are currently THE most effective form of electronic warfare. Within their optimal range the work 100% of the time and each damp will reduce your targets ability to lock you by about 50%. Which is why the other forms of EWar need to be boosted. Quote: A stacking penalty or something mentioned above (pick range or sig res) would be a step in the right direction. They already have a stacking penalty. The third dampener put on a ship only works at roughly 57% effectiveness, and anything more than 5 is near completely useless.
Benn Helmsman Caldari Helmsman Engineering Company	Posted - 2007.09.25 01:12:00 - [25] Originally by: Reem Fairchild Originally by: Benn Helmsman Beeing a nice thing in huge fleets (in which only a small fraction of players are involved) doesnt justify it beeing total i-win-buttoning in any other engagement. You're actually right, and I've been thinking about that lately. Electronic Warfare should be more effective in fleet battles but less so in small and single ship engagements. One way could be to make all of it it 'area of effect', emanating from the ship being targeted, but a lot less effective per module than it is now. So, if you have say 10 EWar ships hitting a tightly packed enemy fleet, it royally screws up their sensors. But one ship using EWar on another single ship would do very little. Would also have the added benefit of encouraging fleets to disperse within the grid (which a lot of people seem to want). I like the idea the guy brought on the tournament, having to choose between range and resolution damp wouldnt touch the effectiveness in fleet battles (since 1 range damp will already take almost every ship out of fight, if they are at >100km) but reduce the effect in small battles which occure in realtively close range. Tho i would make it 2 different modules and not 1 module that can choose.
Karyuudo Tydraad Caldari Whiskey Pete's Drycleaning Services	Posted - 2007.09.25 01:16:00 - [26] Originally by: Firkragg god dont get the problem with damps. just close range and nail them. If your not able to close range then that seems like a very effective use of ewar. The reason ecm got nerfed was that you would have scorpions permajamming 3 man bs gangs. Yesterday my harbinger got its lock range reduced to under 6km. When I closed that distance again, there was a 90second timer to lock. That's the current problem with Damps, there's no effective counter. Sensor boosters are less effective than one damp, and gimp your setup.
Benn Helmsman Caldari Helmsman Engineering Company	Posted - 2007.09.25 01:18:00 - [27] Originally by: Karyuudo Tydraad Originally by: Firkragg god dont get the problem with damps. just close range and nail them. If your not able to close range then that seems like a very effective use of ewar. The reason ecm got nerfed was that you would have scorpions permajamming 3 man bs gangs. Yesterday my harbinger got its lock range reduced to under 6km. When I closed that distance again, there was a 90second timer to lock. That's the current problem with Damps, there's no effective counter. Sensor boosters are less effective than one damp, and gimp your setup. Exactly, because it is more effective to fit a damp of your own over fitting a booster.
Xequecal	Posted - 2007.09.25 01:22:00 - [28] I should also point out that making ECM strong enough to displace "gank and tank" completely eliminates Amarr as a playable race because their ships don't have enough mid slots to fit ECM. Making ECM very strong in fleet is exceptionally prejudicial to Amarr. Gallente/Minmatar have enough mids to fit ECM on their fleet setups, Caldari can compensate for missile suckage by fitting tons of ECM in their high number of midslots. Amarr are left with their ****s in their hands.
Reem Fairchild Minmatar Republic University	Posted - 2007.09.25 01:29:00 - [29] Edited by: Reem Fairchild on 25/09/2007 01:31:31 Originally by: Xequecal If you spend a thousand times as much as your opponent, you SHOULD win. End of story. There is no excuse for a 2 billion carrier getting completely disabled by a 10m Celestis. What's worse is there is NO WAY, no fitting in the game that lets the Carrier pilot counter the Celestis disabling him. See, that's where I vehemently disagree. A large expensive ship should be both powerful and vulnerable. That's where support fleets come in. A Celestis is very easily disposed off unless that carrier is flying solo. And it shouldn't. If there isn't a way for a gang of smaller ships to kill an unsupported larger ship, no one would ever fly anything other than the biggest most powerful ship that they have skill training and isk for. And pretty soon (as characters on the whole get older) it's 'Capital Ships Online' (we're allready in the danger zone on that one). It would be no tactics, no finesse, no balanced fleets, no player skill... The side with the most sp and isk wins.
Barbens	Posted - 2007.09.25 01:31:00 - [30] Damps were already nerfed...if they do anything to them it will be a second swing of the nerf bat...

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.