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)
shinsushi	Posted - 2007.10.01 08:31:00 - [211] Originally by: Laboratus IMHO EW should be a valid strategy, since the whole consept of eve is modularity, and lack of true specialisation. That is why we don't have restricting clases etc. Hence restricting EW, or any other form of game play to specialised platforms only is really against the basic concept of eve. If thats the case, why not argue for all ships to use covert ops cloaking device IIs, or bomb launchers, or dictor bubbles, or whatever. Allowing EW to be incredibly useful on all ships is much the same as me arguing that missiles should be useful on all ships, or blaster/lasers/ACs. EW is a valdi strategy. Haven't you ever been completely locked down by a blackbird in a BS?
Laboratus Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen	Posted - 2007.10.01 08:48:00 - [212] Edited by: Laboratus on 01/10/2007 08:48:28 Originally by: shinsushi If thats the case, why not argue for all ships to use covert ops cloaking device IIs, or bomb launchers, or dictor bubbles, or whatever. Allowing EW to be incredibly useful on all ships is much the same as me arguing that missiles should be useful on all ships, or blaster/lasers/ACs. EW is a valdi strategy. Haven't you ever been completely locked down by a blackbird in a BS? Straw man argument there. I never said anything to that effect. (offtopic) If all ships were able to warp cloaked, you would have a situation, where no combat would ever occur. Anyone at a disadvantage, would just cloak and warp away.(/offtopic) Those are roles that need to be limited. With EW we are talking about an alternative active gang defence system. A whole other ballgame, if you will... ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats
shinsushi	Posted - 2007.10.01 08:52:00 - [213] Originally by: Laboratus Edited by: Laboratus on 01/10/2007 08:48:28 Originally by: shinsushi If thats the case, why not argue for all ships to use covert ops cloaking device IIs, or bomb launchers, or dictor bubbles, or whatever. Allowing EW to be incredibly useful on all ships is much the same as me arguing that missiles should be useful on all ships, or blaster/lasers/ACs. EW is a valdi strategy. Haven't you ever been completely locked down by a blackbird in a BS? Straw man argument there. I never said anything to that effect. (offtopic) If all ships were able to warp cloaked, you would have a situation, where no combat would ever occur. Anyone at a disadvantage, would just cloak and warp away.(/offtopic) Those are roles that need to be limited. With EW we are talking about an alternative active gang defence system. A whole other ballgame, if you will... Your argument is strawman aswell. RSDs do not make for varied gameplay when everyone fits them. Have a free mid? Fit a RSD does not equate to variance, it actually promotes cookie cutter setups. RSDs are both offensive and defensive, along with NOS and ECM.
Laboratus Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen	Posted - 2007.10.01 09:54:00 - [214] Originally by: shinsushi Your argument is strawman aswell. RSDs do not make for varied gameplay when everyone fits them. Have a free mid? Fit a RSD does not equate to variance, it actually promotes cookie cutter setups. RSDs are both offensive and defensive, along with NOS and ECM. Umm. You do know what Straw man argument means? It means misrepresenting someones position in a way that it is easy to refute. For example saying that I mean that everything should be allowed to fit every mod. It is a false argument, because you did not refute my argument, you only made another argument that you discussed. For example: "Would you than only have ships with specific bonuses fit those mods. Tanking only for ships with tanking bonus. Make them use 10k cpu units and put a role reduction in there. No that would be ****d" See how it is used? As proven in an earlier post fitting a single RSD, even with ship bonuses or rigs, makes no differense whatsoever to any BS in any gate, station etc engagements, where you start at warp distruptor range. Even with 2 modules and rig, or 3 modules they only perform at the effectiveness of a T1 frig, a lot worse than any cruiser specialised in using them. Hence---> balanced... ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats
Aramendel Amarr Coreli Corporation Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2007.10.01 10:15:00 - [215] Originally by: Laboratus Assuming you did not lock first, pack an SB, target is not TPd, or you were smart enough to warp in at close range. A bold assumption I might add... One must fail on quite a few levels to achieve the needed circumstances. Lock first means you have to be close right at the start of combat. If you need to get closer locking first will not help you because you will be again dampned below your locking range. The range reduction of damps is big enough to countert a sensorbooster. A painter will help very little against it. Nothing at all against the locking range reduction and worse preformance than a sensor booster. Oh, and requires some other ship being able to lock the dampener. And of cource all this does zero zip zilch against the high efficiency of damps at longer ranges. So your "under or outrange" counters are reduced to "start the combat at < 10k and lock first". Right. Perfectly balanced.
Laboratus Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen	Posted - 2007.10.01 10:25:00 - [216] If you have a competent covert ops in your gang, as attacker you get to choose range by warping to him. If you are fighting as defenders, you can operate first from higher sniper ranges, negeting the effeciveness of damps, take out whatever ships you like damp or not, then move in for the kill. All in all, if you are active and take initiative, you can easily counter them, if you are passive, you will lose, damps or no damps... ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats
Teresa Delaflote Gallente Oyster Colors	Posted - 2007.10.01 11:33:00 - [217] To counter that argument, a damp ship should have drones, and drones will eat covert ops alive. Outranging doesn't work unless its against very much sniper builds. Underranging doesn't work because of the z0mg lock time nerf. With them being split, I'll probably use 2x for lock range, and 1x for scan res rape. And really, anything to shut the whiners up. I think CCP's current solution is a good one, though the scan resolution debuff should be less powerful than locking time. Why are we still whining? Because they work on non spec'd ships? Then nerf them on non spec'd ships. In other news: Their falloff is ridiculous. Balance it. About the target painters argument: Target painters blow. Any argument about them is pointless. Minmatar aren't supposed to have fancy ewar, considering it a "cheap trick". Caldari and Gallente should be tied, Amarr lagging a bit behind, and Minmatar in last. This is only on the complexity of the modules effect, their effects should have worthwhile effects. And please, De-Nerf Amarr.
Laboratus Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen	Posted - 2007.10.01 13:32:00 - [218] Originally by: Teresa Delaflote To counter that argument, a damp ship should have drones, and drones will eat covert ops alive. I'm confused. Where did that come from. Covert ops cloak means nothing, includes drones targets you. Gang warps to 10-100km from you depending on position and direction of bounce spot. And since you have to activate damps for them to have effect, damps don't have any effect on a gang warping in at point blank. No braking lock, no increase in locking time, since fitting damps does not increase the targeting time on any given ship. You need sensor boosters to do that... ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats
Susan Acid	Posted - 2007.10.01 14:16:00 - [219] Are they going to do this with Tracking Disruptors as well? ie:Either Turret tracking or Turret range?
Laboratus Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen	Posted - 2007.10.01 14:21:00 - [220] Edited by: Laboratus on 01/10/2007 14:22:51 That would seem reasonable tbh. Since TDs would be the top of the bunch after the change. And damage mods could be either damage or rof. While speed modules (such as MWD) could be max speed or acceleration (m/s^2) ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats
Alex Harumichi Gallente Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2007.10.01 15:22:00 - [221] Edited by: Alex Harumichi on 01/10/2007 15:25:13 Edited by: Alex Harumichi on 01/10/2007 15:23:09 Originally by: Susan Acid Are they going to do this with Tracking Disruptors as well? ie:Either Turret tracking or Turret range? That would be a bit stupid, since TDs have such a lower impact than SDs. They're useless against missiles, useless against most close-range gunboats, and useless as protection against hostile EW (and other effects). TDs are the only form of EW that does absolutely nothing vs missile boats. Unless missile boats suddenly become a lot less popular, they're fine as is.
Delaney	Posted - 2007.10.02 14:15:00 - [222] Bump
Rex Luthor	Posted - 2007.10.02 15:32:00 - [223] Can we admit Ewar is for Ewar ships only ? Or at least should have a VERY low efficiency fit on other non Ewar ships ? That is the main problem here, whatever ECM damps or TD you can fit... T1 ships have Ewar bonuses and they work great, so access to Ewar is easy, just need a few more skills to be very effective with them. ECM with non Ewar ships is near useless or rely on a tremendous luck (but, well if you have the skills and a free slot... it may work, especially against small tacklers frigs), and RSD are too effective both on spe damp and non Ewar ships. Maybe the balance could come with cutting the actual RSD effectiveness by 50%, according the spe Damp ships have bonuses to improve this rate (I do not count skills bonuses that would make the difference). I have not made all the math but proportions sound good for me. A Gallente recon with max skills in damps will still be very useful (as ECM T2 ships are).

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.