Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Xequecal
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 02:03:00 -
[31]
Edited by: Xequecal on 25/09/2007 02:06:33 Edited by: Xequecal on 25/09/2007 02:04:22
Originally by: Reem Fairchild 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.
....unless the enemy brings a number of Celestii equal to the number of ships in your support fleet. Again completely locking you out with far more inexpensive ships than what you're fielding. Again, strong ECM means numbers prevail over everything, including ship cost.
I admit it is rather difficult to assign damping duties to a large number of ships so that everyone gets damped. But if you try to win a balance discussion with an argument that is essentially, "Yes, it's overpowered, but it's OK because using it is too hard." you've already lost before you started. Eventually, someone WILL come up with a strategy that allows the overpowered module to be exploited in that fashion, and then you're back to square one. All that matters is that the Celestis fleet attain a certain skill level relative to the engagement, and at that point the skill level of the enemy fleet becomes meaningless, because they have all been made useless.
If you take 8 Celestii against ANY OTHER 8 ships that do not have a damp bonus, the Celestii ALWAYS WIN, REGARDLESS of the pilot skill, ISK value, or fittings of the opposing ships.
|
Benn Helmsman
Caldari Helmsman Engineering Company
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 02:20:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Xequecal
If you take 8 Celestii against ANY OTHER 8 ships that do not have a damp bonus, the Celestii ALWAYS WIN, REGARDLESS of the pilot skill, ISK value, or fittings of the opposing ships.
Not true for drone and FoF ships, but the other points are right. Damps need a change.
|
Ms Bukakie
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 02:34:00 -
[33]
Wow did not know my topic was going to start this big of debate. So on the topic of how to nerf damps, if it were going to happen shouldnt it be like ECM and make the person use some of their low slots to power them up, or make them chanced based like ECM?
|
Xequecal
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 02:45:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Benn Helmsman
Originally by: Xequecal
If you take 8 Celestii against ANY OTHER 8 ships that do not have a damp bonus, the Celestii ALWAYS WIN, REGARDLESS of the pilot skill, ISK value, or fittings of the opposing ships.
Not true for drone and FoF ships, but the other points are right. Damps need a change.
The drone ships will still lose. The drones will attack randomly, without the ability to focus fire. it will be trivial for 8 cruisers to swat them all. It will take a while, but they'll still win eventually.
|
Terianna Eri
Amarr STK Scientific M. PIRE
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 02:54:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Xequecal If you take 8 Celestii against ANY OTHER 8 ships that do not have a damp bonus, the Celestii ALWAYS WIN, REGARDLESS of the pilot skill, ISK value, or fittings of the opposing ships.
What about anything faster than a Celestis that fits a web? Or am I missing something here? __________________________________
|
Benn Helmsman
Caldari Helmsman Engineering Company
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 03:09:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Terianna Eri
Originally by: Xequecal If you take 8 Celestii against ANY OTHER 8 ships that do not have a damp bonus, the Celestii ALWAYS WIN, REGARDLESS of the pilot skill, ISK value, or fittings of the opposing ships.
What about anything faster than a Celestis that fits a web? Or am I missing something here?
How to web something you cant lock? Everything that is faster than a celestis will get dampened below 5km and will take like 30-50 seconds to lock it even if you manage to get that close.
|
Xequecal
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 03:12:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Terianna Eri
Originally by: Xequecal If you take 8 Celestii against ANY OTHER 8 ships that do not have a damp bonus, the Celestii ALWAYS WIN, REGARDLESS of the pilot skill, ISK value, or fittings of the opposing ships.
What about anything faster than a Celestis that fits a web? Or am I missing something here?
Anything faster than a Celestis will be damped to about 4km lock range. That's what a Vagabond's lock range becomes with 3 Celestis damps on it.
8 speed-fitted recon ships might be able to do it, due to their high targeting range. But they would still have to somehow survive AND stay in targeting range for 60-90 seconds while they're locking on.
|
Laboratus
Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 06:23:00 -
[38]
Somehow comical how "I like the ideo of right click menus" has become something totaly different here.
Damps are fine. EW is supposed to be powerful, and ignoring EW has never been, and hopefully will never be a winning tactic. ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats |
Bodhisattvas
mUfFiN fAcToRy
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 07:05:00 -
[39]
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.
Exactly, tis just MORONS who constantly whinge nerf nerf in a squeaky girly voice instead of realising range is your friend to counter damps...and if your too slow....tough ******* !!!
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 07:29:00 -
[40]
I use damps a lot and fly a Lachesis most of the time in pvp... and I support damps getting a (small) nerf. They are just a bit too powerful at the moment.
The discussed tweak of having to choose either target range reduction or lock time would work fine, I think. I'd still use damps after that, but they would become a small bit easier to counter.
|
|
Leandro Salazar
The Blackguard Wolves Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 07:50:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Bodhisattvas
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.
Exactly, tis just MORONS who constantly whinge nerf nerf in a squeaky girly voice instead of realising range is your friend to counter damps...and if your too slow....tough ******* !!!
Imho it is morons who just have to overuse overpowered modules to get that precious I-win button that really cause these nerfs. Not that I expect these people to see it, they wouldn't recognize game balance if it smacked them in the face. It is also about fun. Too powerful EW simply makes combat 100% unfun for the receiving side. Again something the using side will not care about, but that doesn't change the facts. And then of course there are the fundamentally different views on whether a handful of T1 frigs should be able to pwn a BS or not. I think they should not and thus EW is too powerful imho.
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 |
Teresa Delaflote
Gallente Oyster Colors
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 08:12:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Leandro Salazar Imho it is morons who just have to overuse overpowered modules to get that precious I-win button that really cause these nerfs. Not that I expect these people to see it, they wouldn't recognize game balance if it smacked them in the face. It is also about fun. Too powerful EW simply makes combat 100% unfun for the receiving side. Again something the using side will not care about, but that doesn't change the facts. And then of course there are the fundamentally different views on whether a handful of T1 frigs should be able to pwn a BS or not. I think they should not and thus EW is too powerful imho.
If there are enough frigs, you should be able to take down a BS. I think EWAR is overpowered on non EWAR ships. On ewar ships it should be a BIT less powerful. A nerf on the signature resolution bonus would do it (While you're in targeting range mode), but I don't think they need to be separated completely. That would reduce some of their usefulness.
A good team should always be able to take out a bigger ship. I don't see the problem with that.
You should need an RSD ship to effectively use RSDs. you should need an ECM ship to use ECM. RSDs promote teamwork in gangs, they are an I-Win button against solo ships as long as you have dps. But then again - Gang VS Solo? Gang should win anyway.
If EW makes combat unfun in gangs, bring friends with you able to counter. If you're whining about having your solo BS popped by a few cruisers...
|
Aramendel
Amarr Coreli Corporation Exuro Mortis
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 09:02:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Aramendel on 25/09/2007 09:04:25 The problem is not only the efficiency of damps on nonspeced ships.
Why do we see everyone and their mother using damps, but alsmost noone tracking disruptors or (haha) target painters?
We have a general balance problem in the EW field, be it on specced or unspecced ships.
Right now ECM is IMO pretty balanced (could maybe use a total 5-10% buff, but thats about it).
Damps are too powerful. Under and outranging need to be viable counters against them. Underranging does not work due to the sig resolution reduction, outranging does not work because they are still rather effective at high rangeds due to their huge falloff.
Also, it would be a good idea to reduce their efficiency a bit and boost the damp ships bonuses to counter that. Or, better: boost the t2 damp ships damp bonuses. Celestis and maulus could use a slight nerf, they are with damps just as effective as the lachesis & arazu.
TDs are highly specialized, but desipite this specialisation they are even in their narrow field usually worse module for module than damps or ECM. Their low effective range (lowest of all EW) makes them useless against snipers and vs shortrange turrets their range reduction does not mean much vs most of them since it does not effect falloff and the tracking reduction is too easy to counter by minimizing transversal. Changing the tracking reduction to a big enough sig resolution increase might fix them.
And painters are no real EW module, they are more like a tracking link in their effect. I can see them as bonused module on logistic ships, but not on recons.
|
Dheorl
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 09:38:00 -
[44]
Does anyone know how stacking will work?
For instance if someone has 1 dampener on a target ship and is trying to reduce their range will it be stacked against another dampener trying to reduce lock time?
|
Leandro Salazar
The Blackguard Wolves Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 10:38:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Teresa Delaflote If there are enough frigs, you should be able to take down a BS. I think EWAR is overpowered on non EWAR ships. On ewar ships it should be a BIT less powerful. A nerf on the signature resolution bonus would do it (While you're in targeting range mode), but I don't think they need to be separated completely. That would reduce some of their usefulness.
A good team should always be able to take out a bigger ship. I don't see the problem with that.
You should need an RSD ship to effectively use RSDs. you should need an ECM ship to use ECM. RSDs promote teamwork in gangs, they are an I-Win button against solo ships as long as you have dps. But then again - Gang VS Solo? Gang should win anyway.
If EW makes combat unfun in gangs, bring friends with you able to counter. If you're whining about having your solo BS popped by a few cruisers...
Oh I agree with you that if there are enough frigs a BS should go down. But a lot of people seem to define 'enough' as 2 or 3, while imho it should take 8+. And where was I whining? I was just stating two different PoVs. And how do friends in my gang make being excluded from a fight thru overpowered EW any more fun for me? Of course that works for people whose sole idea of fun is winning, but my idea of fun is fighting... Personally I rather die in a slugfest than win an EW-galore. Sure EW has its place in EVE and can make things interesting, but when an EW module becomes a standard fit even on non-EW ships, something is wrong. EW should support damage and tank. Not replace them as primary means of competition.
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 |
Reem Fairchild
Minmatar Republic University
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 10:54:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Leandro Salazar but when an EW module becomes a standard fit even on non-EW ships, something is wrong.
And who said that modules are only meant to be used on ships that have bonuses for them?
|
Teresa Delaflote
Gallente Oyster Colors
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 11:03:00 -
[47]
Oh the whining comment wasn't directed at you, but I've had people scream "CHEAP TRICK!", I'm sorry about you seeing it that way. I agree, 6-8 frigates should be enough, less the BS should be able to at LEAST tank their damage while their drones eat away.
I've viewed ewar like you've said, though I'm talking small gangs using primarily cruisers and maybe a frig for tackling. When BOTH sides have an ewar cruiser it gets.... interesting :) and we're the first ones to pop
Lachesis vs 3 cruisers and a tackler, god that was boring, the falloff _must_ change. Damping us from 120km away and we couldn't lock him, it went on for like 10 minutes in a stalemate. I think a few changes are in order, the scan res while using targeting range needs to change, being as even when you duck into lock range you need to stay there for some 30 seconds, during which you are now primary. I think turning that down would be good, a (much) lower falloff combined with the lower scan res debuff should be good from what I've gathered. Combine that with the suggestion of damps being less effective than current on the celesty and maulus, and even less so than now on unbonused ships, thats what _I_ think, feel free to flame away.
|
Hastur DragonTooth
Amarr Call of Cthulhu
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 12:03:00 -
[48]
Quote: And then of course there are the fundamentally different views on whether a handful of T1 frigs should be able to pwn a BS or not.
I see comments such as this quite often and it always makes me chuckle. After all the biggest and baddest battleship of all time, The Bismarck, was rendered totally useless by a lowly WWI era biplane. Nurf biplanes!
As far as the discussion. One thing to remember. It won't end here. Tactics will shift, just as they did after the EW nurf or the dozens of other nurfs in Eve's history. New tactics will be developed shortly after and applied to great success. We'll then see people coming to these boards crying, "This needs to be nurfed. These guys used xyz to blow me up and it's patently unfair."
Instead of nurfing damps I have a better idea. How about you fit one too. Then it's simply a matter of reaction time molded by experience as to who wins. Which is the way it should be.
|
Aramendel
Amarr Coreli Corporation Exuro Mortis
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 12:09:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Hastur DragonTooth Instead of nurfing damps I have a better idea. How about you fit one too. Then it's simply a matter of reaction time molded by experience as to who wins. Which is the way it should be.
Yes, best lets reduce eve to one ship. Which is prefitted with the same setup. Remove all modules, rig and other silly stuff from the game.
"Just use them too" is an immensly stupid argument (and you will see it in EVERY discussion about an overpowered item - "just use it too").
|
Hastur DragonTooth
Amarr Call of Cthulhu
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 12:30:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Aramendel
Originally by: Hastur DragonTooth Instead of nurfing damps I have a better idea. How about you fit one too. Then it's simply a matter of reaction time molded by experience as to who wins. Which is the way it should be.
Yes, best lets reduce eve to one ship. Which is prefitted with the same setup. Remove all modules, rig and other silly stuff from the game.
"Just use them too" is an immensly stupid argument (and you will see it in EVERY discussion about an overpowered item - "just use it too").
When you can back up your blanket dismissal with a rational argument then please come visit us again. These Amarr women, all emotion and no logic.
|
|
Noisrevbus
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 12:31:00 -
[51]
Edited by: Noisrevbus on 25/09/2007 12:45:28
Hello,
I think i made this point in another 'Nerf damps' thread a couple of weeks ago and i will continue to try to bring it forward as these threads arise.
Chance is bad Yes, the damps do need something more to keep them in check. There are good and bad ways to nerf things though, putting modules to rely on good or bad mechanics. ECM is an example of bad mechanics. It's not that it's entirely crippled, it's more that you no longer have any feasible control over your ECM - making it a lottery module that pendle between complete lockout and doing nothing. That's not exciting to fit a ship for. Chance takes skill out of combat, and i prefer well planned combat and timing over luck.
Cycles are good Instead, i propose that both damps and ECM are remade to only work on cycles within their cycles (mechanics seen in other MMO games when it comes to CC). They already have their cycles in effect, and instead of making the module chance based complete lockdown, a damp or ECM could be a sensor knockout module. So once you turn it on, it always work, but it doesn't work for the full duration of the cycle - only for a quick second. Then your opponent can re-lock and with good resolution he will do that quickly.
Bonuses and balance This correlates very well to the lock-time bonus on damps, makes EW more exciting on smaller ships with low signature radiuses (for their own survival) and makes Sensor upgrades of all kinds a direct counter to both damps and ECM (since i guess we all know that ECCM is kind of shoddy and could be removed from the game). Thus both modules rely somewhat more on lock times than being a complete control item. Shipbonuses to these modules could later be either effect-elongation, or shortening of cycle duration.
EWar vs. Tank As for the Ewar vs. tank discussion, i don't really agree that EWar is too powerful in one-on-one combat. It should be powerful, you generally do not have a tank if you aim to use it effectively (well, unless you have the luxury of both alot of low and midslots - but that's another balance issue not tied to EWar itself, and that can be discussed outside of this immidiate thread). Complaining about a possible near complete knockout in single combat from a ship that fit 4-5 EW modules would be about as fruitful as to complain about not breaking a strong tank if you don't do enough damage, and don't fit exclusively to do so. You adapt and survive as i see many people on these forums point out over and over.
The eight types of EWar One final thing as well, when you debate balance between the races - let's not forget that all races have two variations of 'EWar'. While painters and turretstabs may not be as powerful as the sensor modules, i wouldn't say that BECM is as powerful as nos and neut or long range webbing. Let's keep that in mind, shall we? Nos and neuts, as well as webbers, are very powerful items that almost any race put on none-bonused ships, yet they are only bonused on Amarr and Minnie ships. So that damps and ECM are more powerful than painters and turretstabs, that is a none-issue in my eyes.
|
Rastigan
Caldari Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 12:31:00 -
[52]
The RSD problem.
1. Since it effects scan resolution and targetting range, it is equally effective vs large ships (low scan resolution) and small ships (low targetting range).
2. Low fitting requirements and resonable cap usage make it too easy to fit on any non-specialized ship, including frigates.
3. Unlike ECCM which on a Battlecruiser or larger ship can counter an entire rack of ECM modules with just 1 module, one RSD can overpower 1 counter (sensor booster).
4. Unlike ECM which needs racial specific modules and specialized ships to be truely effective just adding an RSD to any ship will always be effective in combat.
Non-Kneejerk solution.
1. Double RSD cap usage to slightly limit its use in frigates and give a RSD cap usage bonus to the Gallente E-war frigate.
2. Instead of RSD overpowering Sensor boosters, currently its 200scan res + sensor booster(50%) = 300 scan res / RSD (50%) = 150 scan res. Have each sensor booster of equivalent strength counter each RSD.
Ie. if you activate a Sensor booster 2, and an RSD 2 is on you. Your scan res/targetting range would be like if the Sensor booster AND the RSD was never activated. If 2 RSD's was on a ship with 1 sensor booster it would be like 1 RSD was on you.
Summary of problems.
Too easy to fit/effective on non-specialized ships. Too difficult to counter its effects.
|
Aramendel
Amarr Coreli Corporation Exuro Mortis
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 12:37:00 -
[53]
Edited by: Aramendel on 25/09/2007 12:41:56
Originally by: Hastur DragonTooth When you can back up your blanket dismissal with a rational argument then please come visit us again. These Amarr women, all emotion and no logic.
I only answer rational posts with rational arguments.
But let me humor you. The "just use it" has so many fallacies its not even funny. To mention two: - not an option on many ships - does not remove the fact that damps are still more powerful that the alternatives, in fact it only enforces this fact
Not enforcing game balance by buffing too weak modules/ships and nerfing too strong ones results eventually in nearly everyone using the same ship with the same setup.
The "Just use it argument" essentially only confirms that it is overpowered, but everyone can use it, so it doesn't matter. But it does. Because it reduces game diversity. With that argument if something cannot fit damps its useless, medslot modules other than damps are useless.
Also, if everyone fit damps eve combat would be reduced to who locks first. Yes, sounds very skillbased to me
|
Hastur DragonTooth
Amarr Call of Cthulhu
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 12:49:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Noisrevbus
Instead, i propose that both Damps and ECM are remade to only work on cycles within their cycles (mechanics seen in other MMO games when it comes to CC). They already have their cycles in effect, and instead of making the module chance based complete lockdown idea, a Damp or ECM could be a sensor knockout module. So once you turn it on, it (almost-) always work, but it doesn't work for the full duration of the cycle - only for a quick second.
Noisrevbus,
I agree that what they did to ECM was horrible game mechanics. When it works it's great, but like weapon procs in other MMO's nobody really likes to roll the dice. Especially with 300m+ isk ships. I disagree with you on the solution to all of this. I would do the following.
1) Leave sensor damps alone, don't let them stack. Allow sensor boosters to negate the effects of a damp. 2) Do the same with ECM/ECCM. Get rid of the D20 roll, don't allow them to stack and have an ECCM module fully negate the effects.
Now we're back to rock/paper/scissors again and one needs to simply make judgment calls on fitting their midslots flying solo. Add hot-potato first-target sensor/radar boosting gang cruisers into the mix and you have alot more choices and flavor in the game. It would have the addded benefit of giving smaller ships a role, and move away from Battleships Online in roaming gangs.
Riding the nurf train for one module after another is not game balance and is not the right path. We -will- end up with a slew of useless modules and have only 2 viable setups for each ship. Gank or tank.
|
Rawr Cristina
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 12:59:00 -
[55]
3 Damps on you = about 8% of your lock range.
Say you have 60km lock range
3 damps from a caracal = you now have 5-6km lock range
You would need THREE sensor boosters to become useable again, and would only have a lock range of about 23km (thereabouts) and still a horrendous lock time
Even the old ECM wasn't THAT overpowered as it was counterable. If someone fit 3 Multispecs and you had 1 ECCM , they would achieve a jam less than 50% of the time on you (not counting time to re-lock), so you would still be able to do SOMETHING back. Then there was remote ECCM which, when used logistically, could counter ECM almost completely. yes ECM was powerful, but it also had hard counters for it. Damps are just as powerful (if not more powerful because they arn't luck-based) and have no counters anywhere near as effective.
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar MASS HOMICIDE Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 13:06:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Hastur DragonTooth
Quote: And then of course there are the fundamentally different views on whether a handful of T1 frigs should be able to pwn a BS or not.
I see comments such as this quite often and it always makes me chuckle. After all the biggest and baddest battleship of all time, The Bismarck, was rendered totally useless by a lowly WWI era biplane. Nurf biplanes!
As far as the discussion. One thing to remember. It won't end here. Tactics will shift, just as they did after the EW nurf or the dozens of other nurfs in Eve's history. New tactics will be developed shortly after and applied to great success. We'll then see people coming to these boards crying, "This needs to be nurfed. These guys used xyz to blow me up and it's patently unfair."
Instead of nurfing damps I have a better idea. How about you fit one too. Then it's simply a matter of reaction time molded by experience as to who wins. Which is the way it should be.
Very bad analogy there. First by calling the Bismark a big badass BB. It was completely outclassed by USN Iowa class and RN Vanguard class. Second a biplanet got a miracle shot on it locking its helm. After that took 2 RN Battleships (including a Nelson class super heavly armed one) more than 1 hour of uninterrupt firing upon the Bismark until it sank.
If you had just a handful of frigates or airplanes attackin g it, it would still be afloat today.
If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough |
Laboratus
Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 13:24:00 -
[57]
Meh, damps are fine, they perform up to spec, you need to sacrifice two essential mid slots, sacrificing one or other form of essential ability to get the effect they are supposed to get.
ECM just needs a 50% str boost to get it to perform at 75% of the previous level
TD need to apply their bonus to falloff as well, and TCs and TEs need to effect falloff.
TPs need to provide a penalty to resistance modules
Problem solved... ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats |
Mourn Navarre
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 13:38:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Noisrevbus
EWar vs. Tank As for the Ewar vs. tank discussion, i don't really agree that EWar is too powerful in one-on-one combat. It should be powerful, you generally do not have a tank if you aim to use it effectively (well, unless you have the luxury of both alot of low and midslots - but that's another balance issue not tied to EWar itself, and that can be discussed outside of this immidiate thread). Complaining about a possible near complete knockout in single combat from a ship that fit 4-5 EW modules would be about as fruitful as to complain about not breaking a strong tank if you don't do enough damage, and don't fit exclusively to do so. You adapt and survive as i see many people on these forums point out over and over.
I've taken on a Celestis in one on one with a Caracal and beat it hands down. I knew my opponent so I know our skill points were about equal. My shields were barely scratched. I was damped the whole time but I used FoFs. After the drones were gone, which didn't take long, the missiles went straight after him and that was it.
I've also been on the recieving end. With Ewar 5, signal dispersion 5 (I think that name of the ecm one), 2 low slot modules to boost ewar strength and 1 of the rigs to further boost strength while using a Falcon and I failed jamming on 3 battleships (gallente, amarr and caldari) for 2 cycles in a row with T2 racial jammers appropriate to the ship types. Sometimes it just bites you in the ass.
|
Futher Bezluden
Minmatar ORIGIN SYSTEMS Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 14:07:00 -
[59]
So a "Dual Action" Remote Sensor Dampener? Yeah, even better. CCP has sat long enough while the community stated the obvious and called for balance because the simple tactic is to fit damps on anything possible. Now CCP want to change the RSD from the ewar easy mode award winner to the multipurpose solution to anything. They lock at long range, use the range kill mode. They lock slow already, make them lock slower... Real good idea there if your on drugs.
How does this prevent 3-4 damps completely knocking a carrier completely out of a fight? Will CCP realize the idiocy of damping out a carrier and make them immune to damping at least? First thing an FC does is call for a carrier to be damped dead so it's nothing more than a 2.5 billion hunk of salvage watching it's fleet die.
Please, Make them chance based like ECM modules. People will still choose the mode that diminishes lock range to 5km or less, it won't matter how long it takes for someone to lock if they can never engage. BC/BS class ships that already take a long time to lock will be at an even greater disadvantage when swarmed and they can't get a lock for over a minute against smaller ships with Damp support. Either way, the dual mode DAMP doesn't sound like a solution.
Boost Target Painter Effectiveness and Range. Put a Rig in to boost effectiveness!
THUKKER -Be Paranoid
|
Illyria Ambri
RennTech
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 14:08:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Rawr Cristina 3 Damps on you = about 8% of your lock range.
Say you have 60km lock range
3 damps from a caracal = you now have 5-6km lock range
You would need THREE sensor boosters to become useable again, and would only have a lock range of about 23km (thereabouts) and still a horrendous lock time
Even the old ECM wasn't THAT overpowered as it was counterable. If someone fit 3 Multispecs and you had 1 ECCM , they would achieve a jam less than 50% of the time on you (not counting time to re-lock), so you would still be able to do SOMETHING back. Then there was remote ECCM which, when used logistically, could counter ECM almost completely. yes ECM was powerful, but it also had hard counters for it. Damps are just as powerful (if not more powerful because they arn't luck-based) and have no counters anywhere near as effective.
If you want my dampner tank to become luck based then I want the same for your armor/shield tank.
You ppl cry about damps, you cry about cloaks, you cry about anything that requires any tactics to use effectivly. If its not front and center plain as day, then you cry cause there is a chance you might not be able to kill it.
Those that want boosters to counter damps.. I can understand.. but if ny named damn is greater then your unnamed sensor booster and I can still successfully damp you.. the result will be you running back and crying on the forums saying its still broken.
I need to buy stock in kleenex.. the amount of salty tears in this thread is seriously in danger of causing a flood. ------------ This is not War... This is pest control - Dalek Sek
Here come the Drums!! - The Master |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |