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...
|
|
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 |
|
MrTripps
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 15:25:00 -
[61]
The proposed solution for damps sounds just horrible. I would prefer a nerf to making them more difficult to use. There isn't even anything wrong with them. Distance, sensor boosters, and drones are all counters to a damp ship.
But, hey, CPP is on a Gal nerf hate fest so why not. Maybe they can nerf armor repping and blasters next.
Certainty of death...small chance of success...what are we waiting for? - Gimli |
Kayna Eelai
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 15:40:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Karyuudo Tydraad
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.
even if they nerf the damps so u have to chose either range or lock range, they'll be overpowered due possibility of web or dual web. how are you gonna close in then?
or... what if the opponent damps you so you lose lock, then switches them over to "lock time mode"?
i don't pvp much and my damp skills are minimal... but i've allready noticed that they need a real huge nerf. hell the pvp tournament prooves it: dampening all over the place.
imagine a couple of battleships against 3-4 cruisers or frigattes with dampeners and webbers... the BS have no chance at all.
|
Bodhisattvas
mUfFiN fAcToRy
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 15:58:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Kayna Eelai
Originally by: Karyuudo Tydraad
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.
even if they nerf the damps so u have to chose either range or lock range, they'll be overpowered due possibility of web or dual web. how are you gonna close in then?
or... what if the opponent damps you so you lose lock, then switches them over to "lock time mode"?
i don't pvp much and my damp skills are minimal... but i've allready noticed that they need a real huge nerf. hell the pvp tournament prooves it: dampening all over the place.
imagine a couple of battleships against 3-4 cruisers or frigattes with dampeners and webbers... the BS have no chance at all.
What if what if what if......imagine this imagine that...listen to yourself...your beat before you even start....
Horses for courses, what if the bs side has 1 single ***dari ecm boat or hey hey perhaps even an arazu on their side !!!!
A mod can only be considered overpowered if the opposing side does nothing but whinge about its effect instead of using a number of known methods to counter its effect.
|
Benn Helmsman
Caldari Helmsman Engineering Company
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 16:01:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Kayna Eelai or... what if the opponent damps you so you lose lock, then switches them over to "lock time mode"?
Thats why there should be 2 different modules, one for range and one for sensor resolution. Like you have to decide with ECM which faction ECM you fit. Maybe make the module that can use both weak so only dedicated ships can use them at least a low efficiency level.
|
Kayna Eelai
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 16:03:00 -
[65]
Edited by: Kayna Eelai on 25/09/2007 16:03:46
Originally by: Bodhisattvas instead of using a number of known methods to counter its effect.
yeah coz when you leave your station you know EXACTLY what you're gonna face ALLWAYS, right?
STFU willya? if if if... it's thx to ppl. who think stuff BEFORE, that u even exist.
|
Illyria Ambri
RennTech
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 16:07:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Kayna Eelai Edited by: Kayna Eelai on 25/09/2007 16:03:46
Originally by: Bodhisattvas instead of using a number of known methods to counter its effect.
yeah coz when you leave your station you know EXACTLY what you're gonna face ALLWAYS, right?
STFU willya? if if if... it's thx to ppl. who think stuff BEFORE, that u even exist.
Thats just it.. ppl are whining about damps cause they dont like to nerf their "midslots of pwning" to fit a sensor booster or 2 to counter the damping. ------------ This is not War... This is pest control - Dalek Sek
Here come the Drums!! - The Master |
Reem Fairchild
Minmatar Republic University
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 16:13:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Rawr Cristina 3 Damps on you = about 8% of your lock range.
Only with tech 2 damps, high skills and ship bonuses.
|
Benn Helmsman
Caldari Helmsman Engineering Company
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 16:15:00 -
[68]
Edited by: Benn Helmsman on 25/09/2007 16:15:45
Originally by: Reem Fairchild
Originally by: Rawr Cristina 3 Damps on you = about 8% of your lock range.
Only with tech 2 damps, high skills and ship bonuses.
wrong, that is on an unbonused ship without rigs/cs bonus
|
Reem Fairchild
Minmatar Republic University
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 16:20:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Kayna Eelai yeah coz when you leave your station you know EXACTLY what you're gonna face ALLWAYS, right?
STFU willya? if if if... it's thx to ppl. who think stuff BEFORE, that u even exist.
Welcome to Eve combat, where you don't know what the enemy will bring and the enemy doesn't know what you will bring. That's what makes it so great. You can't fit to counter anything the other side will bring, you're not supposed to be able to do that, and if you could do it, well it would be damn boring.
|
Reem Fairchild
Minmatar Republic University
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 16:21:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Benn Helmsman Edited by: Benn Helmsman on 25/09/2007 16:19:05 Edited by: Benn Helmsman on 25/09/2007 16:17:56 Edited by: Benn Helmsman on 25/09/2007 16:15:45
Originally by: Reem Fairchild
Originally by: Rawr Cristina 3 Damps on you = about 8% of your lock range.
Only with tech 2 damps, high skills and ship bonuses.
wrong, that is on an unbonused ship without rigs/cs bonus
edit: ah sry its with 2 rigs.. 12% without rigs
Are you taking stacking penalties into account?
|
|
Benn Helmsman
Caldari Helmsman Engineering Company
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 16:22:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Reem Fairchild Are you taking stacking penalties into account?
Yes
|
Dizeezer Velar
Caldari Atomic Heroes The OSS
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 17:52:00 -
[72]
Edited by: Dizeezer Velar on 25/09/2007 17:54:19 no modules should have been nerfed, now all ships have such cookie cutter setups its boring. CCP should boost counter modules not nerf offensive EWAR modules imo. Without effective EWAR, ships that have the best tanks win always. How ******* boring.
|
Laboratus
Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 18:08:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Dizeezer Velar Edited by: Dizeezer Velar on 25/09/2007 17:54:19 no modules should have been nerfed, now all ships have such cookie cutter setups its boring. CCP should boost counter modules not nerf offensive EWAR modules imo. Without effective EWAR, ships that have the best tanks win always. How ******* boring.
qft ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats |
Hurricane
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 18:12:00 -
[74]
Originally by: MrTripps The proposed solution for damps sounds just horrible. I would prefer a nerf to making them more difficult to use. There isn't even anything wrong with them. Distance, sensor boosters, and drones are all counters to a damp ship.
But, hey, CPP is on a Gal nerf hate fest so why not. Maybe they can nerf armor repping and blasters next.
Cry me a ****in river. It's about damn time Gallente got rebalanced.
|
Emperor D'Hoffryn
No Quarter. Vae Victis.
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 18:24:00 -
[75]
Im so shocked everyone is complaining about this damp change. It really changes very little, if you nano your ship, fit your 3 damps, and are faster then the enemy, how is it really all that worse then it is now?
Lets see what we can come up with:
1. enemy will be able to target your drones in less then 3 minutes, and defend himselve against those = good thing 2. enemy might be able to overload his mwd and close the range, and get a web on you since hell lock you in less then 1.5 minutes, and his overloaded mwd wont burn out all his med slots while waiting for the lock = good thing
so, in short, this changes allows the successful use of tactics to counter damps, and requires additional tactics by the damp users to continue to use their damps successfully.
boosting sensor boosters is dangerous since they have other combat uses as well. My curse with 2 sensor boosters still does not lock fast enough to get interceptors and shuttles. I do not think that it should.
Originally by: Snuggly It's just so great to have an actual reason to not die, incentive is fantastic!
|
MrTripps
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 18:28:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Hurricane It's about damn time Gallente got rebalanced.
Ok. When are they going to nerf Caldari ratting and mission running again?
Certainty of death...small chance of success...what are we waiting for? - Gimli |
Laboratus
Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 18:29:00 -
[77]
You don't seem to understand what the working philosophy behind the gallantean damp boats is...
They have very few slots, so to break through tank, you need to take the gallantean weapons of choise, blasters and drones. And you have very few low slots... You protect yourself by damping the other guy, and hopefully the damage you deal before he aquires a lock is enough to bring the fight to you, if not, screwed... ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats |
Illyria Ambri
RennTech
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 18:41:00 -
[78]
Originally by: MrTripps
Originally by: Hurricane It's about damn time Gallente got rebalanced.
Ok. When are they going to nerf Caldari ratting and mission running again?
When you decide to join the rest of us in discussing the pvp aspects of the mod.. then post something more then a stealth bomber thin whine ------------ This is not War... This is pest control - Dalek Sek
Here come the Drums!! - The Master |
Bodhisattvas
mUfFiN fAcToRy
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 18:46:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Kayna Eelai Edited by: Kayna Eelai on 25/09/2007 16:03:46
Originally by: Bodhisattvas instead of using a number of known methods to counter its effect.
yeah coz when you leave your station you know EXACTLY what you're gonna face ALLWAYS, right?
STFU willya? if if if... it's thx to ppl. who think stuff BEFORE, that u even exist.
Could I have that in some semblance of English please.
One of the more appealing points of the game is in fact you have no idea of who you might meet, their ship setups etc etc.
You fit your ship as best to counter as much as possible, whilst retaining a effective ship fitting depending on your chosen profession within the game.
The same can be said of flying in groups with corpies, you choose ships and fittings that will compliment the gang, hopefully catering for as many a battle scenarios as possible.
From your point of view, scouring the forums and implementing your dream boat battle badger setups, it would appear they fail on a regular basis in every day eve situations. Therefore your only recourse would appear to be crying on forums stamping ones feet in a similar manner to this young gentleman.
There is no such thing as a "I WIN" button in eve, so please stop asking for such a thing in the form of Nerf this Nerf that.
You and many other like you sir.......suck.
DEAL WITH IT.
|
Hurricane
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 18:48:00 -
[80]
Edited by: Hurricane on 25/09/2007 18:49:17
Originally by: MrTripps
Originally by: Hurricane It's about damn time Gallente got rebalanced.
Ok. When are they going to nerf Caldari ratting and mission running again?
When they boost Caldari in PvP.
On topic, let's look at these nerfs:
The EANM nerf, it doesn't only apply to Gallente and it helps Amarr theoretically. This one I don't agree with 100% but it hasn't majorly affected a number of ships anyway (myrm, domi, rax etc).
The NOS nerf, a very good thing. Not only does it help Amarr a lot, it also makes PvP far more interesting and brings more variety in setups. Best of all it quashed the Nos Domi as a low skill i-win button which it should never have been. That was one major Gallente imbalance right there that got fixed.
Drone bandwith - I can't comment since we don't know exactly what will happen, but the Myrm with its five heavies is definately not on par with the other BCs damage/tank wise. The instant drone shield recharge nerf also fixes an imbalance.
Am I forgetting some? Maybe, but look at how many nerfs Gallente has received prior, then compare that to the other races and you'll see why many players share my joy at finally seeing Gallente rebalanced.
Nerfs are in the long run good for the game, they make the playing field more even. Gallente certainly wasn't balanced prior. You still have many quality PvP ships that most likely will not get nerfed in the near future, many of which are top or near top of their class.
|
|
Bodhisattvas
mUfFiN fAcToRy
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 18:50:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Hurricane
Originally by: MrTripps
Originally by: Hurricane It's about damn time Gallente got rebalanced.
Ok. When are they going to nerf Caldari ratting and mission running again?
When they boost Caldari in PvP.
On topic, let's look at these nerfs:
The EANM nerf, it doesn't only apply to Gallente and it helps Amarr theoretically. This one I don't agree with 100% but it hasn't majorly affected a number of ships anyway (myrm, domi, rax etc).
The NOS nerf, a very good thing. Not only does it help Amarr a lot, it also makes PvP far more interesting and brings more variety in setups. Best of all it quashed the Nos Domi as a low skill i-win button which it should never have been. That was one major Gallente imbalance right there that got fixed.
Drone bandwith - I can't comment since we don't know exactly what will happen, but the Myrm with its five heavies is definately not on par with the other BCs damage/tank wise. The instant drone shield recharge nerf also fixes an imbalance.
Am I forgetting some? Maybe, but look at how many nerfs Gallente has received prior, then compare that to the other races and you'll see why many players share my joy at finally seeing Gallente rebalanced.
Nerfs are in the long run good for the game, they make the playing field more even. A Gallente certainly wasn't balanced prior. You still have many quality PvP ships that most likely will not get nerfed in the near future.
Does that turn you on sweet pea ?
|
Hurricane
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 18:57:00 -
[82]
Originally by: Bodhisattvas Does that turn you on sweet pea ?
I touch myself whenever Gallente get nerfed. But shhh. It's a secret.
|
Bodhisattvas
mUfFiN fAcToRy
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 19:03:00 -
[83]
Originally by: Hurricane
Originally by: Bodhisattvas Does that turn you on sweet pea ?
I touch myself whenever Gallente get nerfed. But shhh. It's a secret.
Hahahahaha do you have pics.....
I have buyers in corp already!!!!
|
Hurricane
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 19:21:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Bodhisattvas
Hahahahaha do you have pics.....
I have buyers in corp already!!!!
No, but I'll be sure to take some next time a nerf hit. Then we can do a swap.
And I almost forgot, the Nyx bonus got rebalanced as well .
|
Fehz
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 19:36:00 -
[85]
Originally by: Ms Bukakie 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
great.. sensor damps are just on the edge of being useful.. guess they truly do want to make the only useful asset(s) large numbers in your fleet. Let's just get it over with.. Get rid of ecm of all sorts, make everyone have +20k on their shields or armor, half the damage of all weapons, oh.. can't forget about webs.. who needs -90%? Let's just make it -10%... and scramblers? .25 points per scram, .5 for the 7.5k scrams.. Now you must bring numbers to any fight in hopes of killing a single person before they warp away.
|
killmore
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 19:56:00 -
[86]
Here's a story when in privateers I seen a arazu 30 off the gate I was in a short range megathron. I started microwarping while trying to get a lock I got lock he slammed me I still had lock he died end of story ew is highly difficult to use period. Every alliance I've joined I tried to get them to use it, every time I get the same answer its to hard to coordinate the ew blah blah instead run tracking comps!!! This came from iron /mm/lv/and v the only ones who accepted it were of course our alliance and goons. The peeps who cry about ew are the tards that don't use it period they all want it to be about colonial wars everyone stand and shoot I'd rather use cover and pew pew just my to cents. Oh yeah the only alliance that I knew had to run ew on ships was g they ran 2 racial specific jams on b.s :) until it got nerfed.
|
Matiaj
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 19:58:00 -
[87]
If anything, the damp nerf is a caldari nerf, not a gallente nerf. So please stop whining about gallente now or make a new thread since this has nothing to do with dampeners.
|
killmore
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 20:14:00 -
[88]
Show me a caldari ship that gets racial bonus's to dampners and I'll agree with you :) gallante ships with bonus's to damps maulus, celestis, arazu, and lachesis. Now wtf are you talking about?
|
MrTripps
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 20:39:00 -
[89]
Originally by: Matiaj If anything, the damp nerf is a caldari nerf,
My Celestis, Arazu, Ishtar, and Helios disagree. I guess it depends on how they implement it. Damp ships require the pilot to get a lock and damps on the target before the other pilot can get a lock and sick the drones on. If you have to fumble around trying to right click and menu each damp the ships are going to be useless.
FWIW I also thought the Cal ewar nerf was too extreme.
Certainty of death...small chance of success...what are we waiting for? - Gimli |
Illyria Ambri
RennTech
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 20:58:00 -
[90]
That settles it.. its a not so Stealth Bomber nerf.. These will be 90% useless now since there will be crappy chances of avoiding a lock and escaping. ------------ This is not War... This is pest control - Dalek Sek
Here come the Drums!! - The Master |
|
Apolloe
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 21:31:00 -
[91]
IMO nerfing Damps is bs. Almost everyone fits damps nowadays - why? cause it's the best EWAR mod right now. Nerf that and they'll all just use the next best thing. Same thing happened to ECM. Everyone kept using it cause it was the best EWAR mod why? because people play to WIN!!!! When people pvp they intend to win, so of course they're going to use the best mods for the job. Nerfing Damps will only force everyone to use the next best EWAR mod, whether that be tracking disruptors, target painters, ECM again, whatever. Then those mods will probably just get nerfed as well. It's kind of stupid if you ask me.
And yeah I only read the first page of this thread so if there's something I missed....whatever.
|
Aramendel
Amarr Coreli Corporation Exuro Mortis
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 21:54:00 -
[92]
Originally by: Laboratus You don't seem to understand what the working philosophy behind the gallantean damp boats is...
They have very few slots, so to break through tank, you need to take the gallantean weapons of choise, blasters and drones. And you have very few low slots... You protect yourself by damping the other guy, and hopefully the damage you deal before he aquires a lock is enough to bring the fight to you, if not, screwed...
Right. Because gallente blasterships are at a disadvantage in webrange, right?
No. You do not need additional protection there. If a fight starts in webrange an ac, missile and laserboat is screwed against a blasterboat. Even if it can lock it instantly.
|
Futher Bezluden
Minmatar ORIGIN SYSTEMS Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 21:57:00 -
[93]
Originally by: Apolloe Blah Blah, I'll post with an alt because I don't want to admit they are overpowered and fling poo at people to have real ideas.
Yes, it's not just the best, it's vastly overpowered to the point that Damp BB's and Scorps fly with them loaded up. Why bother using ECM when you can use the damp? It's got the 100km range in which most combat occurs, is much more successful than ECM's, uses very little cap, and against ships without 2 sensor boosters.
I can get 4 damps on a cyclone and without rigs they are -58.4 % to lock range and scan res. Tested this against an absolution that fit 2 F-90's and had a 133km max long range. Damped him to 55km, 27, 18, and finally to 15km by the time the 4th damp was activated. Never missed a cycle with them. So yes, they are a tad bit overpowered and because of people stuffing them on anything with a spare midslot as was done with ECM (yes, I had a 3 multispec II cyclone as well) before the "nerf" was applied.
Chance Based -could work well, makes the gallente ewar ships the ones that should carry them. Increased Cap to ECM levels -if the gallente ewar ships get cap reduction bonuses it could be a nice thing to keep damps from being on any old ship. Reduce effectiveness -give gallente ewar ships an effectiveness bonus, others trying to use them will have pitiful results. Any of the above 3 or combination thereof could balance damps without leaving the celestis, arazu/lachesis screwed completely.
Dual Mode... won't solve the problem without some serious thought applied to it so they aren't overused like they are now.
THUKKER -Be Paranoid
|
Rudy Metallo
The Bastards
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 21:59:00 -
[94]
Originally by: Futher Bezluden
Originally by: Apolloe Blah Blah, I'll post with an alt because I don't want to admit they are overpowered and fling poo at people to have real ideas.
Yes, it's not just the best, it's vastly overpowered to the point that Damp BB's and Scorps fly with them loaded up. Why bother using ECM when you can use the damp? It's got the 100km range in which most combat occurs, is much more successful than ECM's, uses very little cap, and against ships without 2 sensor boosters.
I can get 4 damps on a cyclone and without rigs they are -58.4 % to lock range and scan res. Tested this against an absolution that fit 2 F-90's and had a 133km max long range. Damped him to 55km, 27, 18, and finally to 15km by the time the 4th damp was activated. Never missed a cycle with them. So yes, they are a tad bit overpowered and because of people stuffing them on anything with a spare midslot as was done with ECM (yes, I had a 3 multispec II cyclone as well) before the "nerf" was applied.
Chance Based -could work well, makes the gallente ewar ships the ones that should carry them. Increased Cap to ECM levels -if the gallente ewar ships get cap reduction bonuses it could be a nice thing to keep damps from being on any old ship. Reduce effectiveness -give gallente ewar ships an effectiveness bonus, others trying to use them will have pitiful results. Any of the above 3 or combination thereof could balance damps without leaving the celestis, arazu/lachesis screwed completely.
Dual Mode... won't solve the problem without some serious thought applied to it so they aren't overused like they are now.
This. Say what? |
Allestin Villimar
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 22:08:00 -
[95]
Damps are overpowered because right now, *any* ship who fits these can disable *any* ship with virtually no difficulty. The other ship has to be much faster to escape, and if they want to deal any damage they pretty much have to use drones of FoFs, and if they haven't sent the drones to attack by the time they're damped, the drones will sit there doing nothing.
For EWar to be effective, you have to fit both low and mid slots devoted to it and be in a ship that gets bonuses to it, and even then you're not likely to jam a battleship or bigger more than 70% thing. Damps are always a 100% thing and in a way have a much greater effect seeing as even if something is in range, it takes it forever and a day to lock onto something.
There are also effective counters to EW, both personal and projected, while sensor boosters, the very modules that should counter sensor dampeners, just get their effect reduced by them.
|
Aramendel
Amarr Coreli Corporation Exuro Mortis
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 22:11:00 -
[96]
Its not only a problem of damps being overpowered, though.
A curse and huginn fit damps mainly because their racial EW systems perform only substandart. TDs have even vs turrets only a worse performance than ECM or damps. Painters are no realy EW system to begin with.
We need a general rebalancing of all EW. The only one currently halfway in the sweet spot is ECM.
|
Benn Helmsman
Caldari Helmsman Engineering Company
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 22:11:00 -
[97]
Originally by: Apolloe IMO nerfing Damps is bs. Almost everyone fits damps nowadays - why? cause it's the best EWAR mod right now. Nerf that and they'll all just use the next best thing. Same thing happened to ECM. Everyone kept using it cause it was the best EWAR mod why? because people play to WIN!!!! When people pvp they intend to win, so of course they're going to use the best mods for the job. Nerfing Damps will only force everyone to use the next best EWAR mod, whether that be tracking disruptors, target painters, ECM again, whatever. Then those mods will probably just get nerfed as well. It's kind of stupid if you ask me.
And yeah I only read the first page of this thread so if there's something I missed....whatever.
Well you mentioned the problem, damps are simply the best, no matter what situation. That needs to change, each ewar needs a situation where it is good, and these situations need to be equally common. Thats pretty hard without making them very similar, but atm damps are just a very powerfull ewar that is usefull in every situation but fighting sieged dreads or supercapitals.
|
Matiaj
|
Posted - 2007.09.25 23:09:00 -
[98]
Edited by: Matiaj on 25/09/2007 23:13:18
Originally by: killmore Show me a caldari ship that gets racial bonus's to dampners and I'll agree with you :) gallante ships with bonus's to damps maulus, celestis, arazu, and lachesis. Now wtf are you talking about?
And all caldari ships have a ****load of med slots, and suck so much at tackling and dps'ing that one of the few ways for them to still be useful in gangs is (was ?) to armortank and fit damps.
I actually do think that there is more caldari than gallente pilots using damps on their ships.
|
Xequecal
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 00:29:00 -
[99]
Originally by: Illyria Ambri
Originally by: Kayna Eelai Edited by: Kayna Eelai on 25/09/2007 16:03:46
Originally by: Bodhisattvas instead of using a number of known methods to counter its effect.
yeah coz when you leave your station you know EXACTLY what you're gonna face ALLWAYS, right?
STFU willya? if if if... it's thx to ppl. who think stuff BEFORE, that u even exist.
Thats just it.. ppl are whining about damps cause they dont like to nerf their "midslots of pwning" to fit a sensor booster or 2 to counter the damping.
Repeat after me:
Sensor boosters do not effectively counter damps. Sensor boosters do not effectively counter damps. Sensor boosters do not effectively counter damps.
Let's say you're in a Raven. Normal lock range is 93.75km and normal scan resolution is 106.3mm. Now put three sensor boosters on it and have someone else put 3 damps on it. Now your lock range is 36.6km and your scan resolution is 41.5mm. You have less than half your normal lock range and it still takes over twice as long to target anything, DESPITE you fitting the same amount of "counter-modules" as ewar applied to you.
|
Me v2
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 02:27:00 -
[100]
OMG another WHINE thread. If CCP nerfed everything that you whiners asked this game would NOT be worth playing.
This is how it goes normally. A player goes to low sec and gets killed while trying to pvp. And because he gets killed he's ****ed ergo he WHINES about what killed it soo they nerf it... If you don't like it STAY IN EMPIRE!! The only people that Whine are the ones that DON'T KNOW HOW TO PVP!!
Want some cheese with that WHIIIINE
|
|
Ms Linne
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 02:34:00 -
[101]
The guy above is RIGHT!! Whine Whine Whine... Is this all forums are good for?? If soo, let ME whine and ask CCP to NERF the Forums!!
Seriously now, Stay in Mpire if you can't handle the heat!!
|
Azur Tzesaeia
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 06:36:00 -
[102]
In my opinion Changing Damps, so you can switch what they either do would be as logic as forcing Nos to only function if your own Energy is lower than the one of the enemy ship, besides logical stuff I wouldn't bother since I still fit NOS and I would continue fitting sensor damps even with this "CHANGE".
It would be something else, If they decrease the effectivness of damps. This would be a so called "NERF". And there is absolutly no reason for this.
1.SDs are in line with all the other ECM modules concerning strenght and range and stuff. Target painters can come in very useful aswell as ECM can. Tracking dissruptors would might feel a little boost if the "CHANGE" was made to sensor boosters.
<IRONY> If they "NERF" SBs I want guns to be nerfed, too! How can it be that a bunch of cruiser sized t2 gun can shoot down a BS on their own? My Battleship is loosing always against a cruiser *whine whine whine whine whine. <IRONY>
2.In fact it comes pretty much down to skills who is loosing a fight.
If a pilot can activate effective sensor damps with an mwd on his frig he needs to have some skills in Damps as well as in Cap and Navigation. So the same amount of skills or even more needed to fly a t2 dmg dealer cruiser. Why shouldn't he be able to beat it?
Concerning balance in the ECM Modules. If he had the same skills in ECM and would use ECM Mods he most likely also could beat it, if the cruiser had a target painter and skills in target painting he might beat the frig. Besides if the crusier pilot is clever he would flee befor he got webbed to a safespot and try to warp to 0 to the sd ship or to at least something under 20km this range he can overcome very easy and grill the SD ship.
But yeah EW warfare is good for solo stuff...better than a shield tank on a amarr ship. And that is the way it should be.
3. With one SD-Ship you can take out more than 3 targets. ( I read this here the first time and was really thinking I must have missed something)
There are not many ships that can damp more than one target long enough to kill two or even more targets.
Let's take an example: The Arazu "the Damp ship" in Eve has 6 med slots.
It needs a MWD <IRONY>since speed is so badly and unfair overpowered NERF MWD. *whine whine whine<IRONY> It needs a Sensor booster <IRONY>since sensor boosters are so badly and unfair overpowered...<IRONY> It needs a warp jammer at least one. <IRONY> ONE module that makes it possible to stop nearly every enemy ship from warping*whine whine whine<IRONY> It needs a webbifier since it is so damn slow it couldn't flee most of those PWNG Vagabonds or well anything not Capital sized out there. It needs at least 2 sensor damps to dissable a crusier sized or larger ship.
See the point? No? Haven't thought so.
I explain: You can either fit 2 warp jammers or 2 sensor boosters not both. So you either are able to catch only one target, while the other can flee or you are able to dissable only, at best one ship, although one damp is most of the time not enough to dissable a ship with SBs. You must have the webby since everything that has more speed than you have will enclose to you in the time you need to grill him since the dmg of the Arazu is worse than that of a AF. <IRONY>*whine whine whine<IRONY>
So not even the Arazu can kill more than one ship in SOLO stuff. Hmm how many targets can a vagabond get...or a Megathron...
4. SOLO isn't the purpose of a MMOG or EVE.
This had been said befor but I just repeat it for those who have Altzheimer's diseas. Eve is not for SOLO. Any ship will die Solo in certain circumstances for example if it gets jammed or damped or if it gets warp jammed and has less tank or not enough dmg to overcome the enemy. You see I could again start crying that certain ships do to much dmg have to much tank etc. We can cry till all the ships are perfectly the same and than change to a exciting game. BUT DO WE WANT THIS?
|
Laboratus
Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 07:05:00 -
[103]
Originally by: Aramendel
/edit. Ah, wait, I misread. You are now seriously arguing that gallente dampboats are designed for blasters and shortrange combat?
This just goes to show how little understanding you have of the combat philosophies and balancing of the races. Think about that...
Originally by: Xequecal
Repeat after me:
Repeating does not make something true. If it did, I'd be a millionare.
Also, it is unlikely you'd be hit with 3 damps, since 2 do well in most situations and most ships do not have 3 spare slots for ew... ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats |
Xequecal
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 07:12:00 -
[104]
Originally by: Laboratus
Originally by: Aramendel
/edit. Ah, wait, I misread. You are now seriously arguing that gallente dampboats are designed for blasters and shortrange combat?
This just goes to show how little understanding you have of the combat philosophies and balancing of the races. Think about that...
Originally by: Xequecal
Repeat after me:
Repeating does not make something true. If it did, I'd be a millionare.
Also, it is unlikely you'd be hit with 3 damps, since 2 do well in most situations and most ships do not have 3 spare slots for ew...
Would you like me to post the resulting scan res/lock range that results when you have 2 damps on you and 2 boosters active? I assure you, it's even worse that the stats on 3/3.
|
Teresa Delaflote
Gallente Oyster Colors
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 07:18:00 -
[105]
Edited by: Teresa Delaflote on 26/09/2007 07:21:18 Edited by: Teresa Delaflote on 26/09/2007 07:18:57
Originally by: Laboratus
Originally by: Aramendel
/edit. Ah, wait, I misread. You are now seriously arguing that gallente dampboats are designed for blasters and shortrange combat?
This just goes to show how little understanding you have of the combat philosophies and balancing of the races. Think about that...
Originally by: Xequecal
Repeat after me:
Repeating does not make something true. If it did, I'd be a millionare.
Also, it is unlikely you'd be hit with 3 damps, since 2 do well in most situations and most ships do not have 3 spare slots for ew...
It is true, and saying its not makes you sound like a complete tool. What are the odds of a BS fitting 3 boosters on a non sniper fit either? 1 is more probable.
Damps from a nonbonused ship shouldn't do much anyway, screw using spare slots for EW, people moan too much and the specialized ships get nerfed because of it.
If you're in a battleship and are getting caught solo (kek, good times) it IS probable that you will be hit by 3 damps, from a bonused ship, with t2/muon damps. With slightly above average skills and a celestis thats -66.78% per damp (t2, Signal Suppression 4/Gallente Cruiser 4) - which is MORE than enough to make a BS cry. If 1SB gave them a good chance at being able to lock things in their targeting range (ATM their scan resolution is even poorer than usual, making it near impossible to lock anything) and it shut people up, I'm all for it.
Sensor boosters do need to be able to counter RSDs TO A POINT, not completely, but right now its just pathetic to watch someone try and counter RSDs, if you needed an EWAR spec ship and good skills (I'm looking at you ECM) the whining would stop.
The scan res debuff needs to get nerfed, it makes it IMPOSSIBLE to hit an ewar ship if they're with a decent ship. I'm saying this as a dedicated Celestis pilot, thats not balanced.
Edit: Forgot to finish a sentence.
|
Laboratus
Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 07:33:00 -
[106]
Edited by: Laboratus on 26/09/2007 07:35:46
Originally by: Teresa Delaflote ...
Most BS do not have an abundance of unneeded mid slots. This leads to the most propable BS vs BS scenario involving either 1 damp agains no SB or 1 damp vs 1 SB
Then you get the numbers:
a: (1-0.67)*base= 0.33*base, base targeting range from hyperion 60km to scorpion 90km ~= 24.75-37.125km targeting range, and that is irrelevant in most gate engagements. b: 1.6*0.33*base ~= 40-59+ km, meaning that the SB fitted ship will lock first, and not lose the lock when it gets damped.
Hence it is proven the argument that SB never counter RSD is false. Repeating something untrue, does not make it true...
Edit: Soz, didn't read your whole scenario. If you get into a situation, where you are damped, ECMd, webbed and scrambled, imho, EW should be effective enough, that that situation is unwinnable with a pure dps/tank oriented fitting. ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats |
Teresa Delaflote
Gallente Oyster Colors
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 07:47:00 -
[107]
Originally by: Laboratus Edited by: Laboratus on 26/09/2007 07:36:15 [SNIP] Soz, didn't read your whole scenario. If you get into a situation, where you are damped, ECMd, webbed and scrambled, imho, EW should be effective enough, that that situation is unwinnable with a pure dps/tank oriented fitting.
I agree with this, and your numbers about damps in BS vs BS were nice to have, and thanks for that. I'm not denying that EW should be effective, and pairing dampening with ECM you'll be relying on the scan res debuff to keep your target completely dead.
When there are several non spec'd ships in gangs chances are that SOMEONE is going to have extra mids, a few extra mids with damps will make the enemy absolutely cry, focusing the 3-4 damps allows you to make a target near unable to lock anything, and when they do, you can just skitter out of range easily. If SBs countered this, that would make the "under-ranging" counter to damps feasible, they're such an I-Win button in many engagements because there's no real counter, and they require little dedication to obtain that state, at least - thats what I've gathered.
|
Laboratus
Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 07:56:00 -
[108]
Most ppl I've talked with generally agree that coordinating EW efforts is too difficult to be done properly in gangs, and due to this, amazingly many ppl fit tackle on their BS than EW or counter modules. That I find a bit strange tbh. Personally, I don't think it's not too difficult, but it guess it just is the general concensus... ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats |
Allestin Villimar
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 08:06:00 -
[109]
Originally by: Azur Tzesaeia In my opinion...BUT DO WE WANT THIS?
1) Most other ECM is based on chance or has a very limited effect. Tracking disruptors aren't very useful if you aren't speed tanked (in which case you don't need them), target painters aren't going to matter much in terms of dps output (because small ships are just too small and they have big stacking penalties). Jammers are chance based and virtually require ship bonuses to have any reasonable effectiveness. RSDs are *always* 100% if you're in optimal and even having one on you massively reduces your combat capabilities. They make sniper fits pointless, and can bring interceptors/frigates down to a level where they can't effectively tackle without getting within 5-6 km of their target ship.
2) A character who only has 3 million in skillpoints in a cruiser with 2 RSDs, 1 webber, and 1 scrambler can indefinitely kite a 30 million skillpoint battleship pilot, and that pilot won't be able to do anything to stop it without using FoFs. Drones aren't an option as they won't attack without being told to and the battleship will be targetted and dampened before it can target the cruiser. Skill is not much of an issue. If the cruiser hits "orbit at x" then the bs pilot is boned. Even if the cruiser stays in range long enough to get a lock (which it won't), they only have to move past the ~30 km or so lock on range the BS is down to to break it again.
3) EVE isn't for solo you say in #4. Then why fit Webs and Scramlbers on an Arazu? The Arazu isn't a tackler in the first place, so you don't need a scrambler or webber since tacklers will be taking care of that (Referencing point #4). Not that it changes the fact that a ship with 4 RSDs can take 2 other ships out of the fight with no hope of getting back in any time soon.
Right now, damps offer a complete guarantee of shutting someone down with very little to no risk due to their long range. They don't drain enough cap to worry about, and they aren't any heavier on the grid/cpu than scramblers and webbers are.
I'd say leave them in game as they are, but move them to a high slot. Virtually every other module with remote in it's name is a high slot, and it makes ships choose if they want dps or damps.
|
Laboratus
Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 08:28:00 -
[110]
Originally by: Allestin Villimar ...
1. TPs make your gang mates lock faster. This seems like a non issue, but when fighting in gangs the fact that a huggin/bellicose make the targets pop on screen and thus pop twice faster really makes a difference. The advantages become very visible, once youve shot stuff smaller than yourself. TDs are just as effective vs snipers, and very effective agains ships relying somewhat or all on optimal (null blasters all lasers and all long range weapons). Agains bonused damp ships, just releasing a set of light or med drones will rip the damp ships to bits. Against non bonused ships, the damps are not always effective, and can be outmaneuvered. Sniper ships can outrange damps, but med/long range ships do get shafted. This however is part or the design, changing the rules of engagements. All fine and well.
2. That is the whole point of support ships! It's a good thing, not a bad thing. It means newer players can contribute! Without it, this would be wow-online, where you have no chance of doing anything to anything 10lvl higher than you. As for drones, if you have them out, and you get damped by the damp boat before you lock the drones aggro on the damp boat. You get the drones on the right target.
Right now damps offer no guarantees, they can still get close and wtfbbqpwn you, or do the same with drones/fof. All in all, to balance racial EW without destroying EW in concept TDs need to effect falloff range and TPs need to reduce the effectiveness of resistance mods, while ECM gets a 50% boost in str... ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats |
|
Aramendel
Amarr Coreli Corporation Exuro Mortis
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 08:36:00 -
[111]
Originally by: Laboratus This just goes to show how little understanding you have of the combat philosophies and balancing of the races. Think about that...
copy-paste:
Guess why they have a 100% warp scram/disruptor range bonus?
|
Laboratus
Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 08:45:00 -
[112]
Originally by: Aramendel
Guess why they have a 100% warp scram/disruptor range bonus?
Celestis Maulus Come again? ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats |
Aramendel
Amarr Coreli Corporation Exuro Mortis
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 08:55:00 -
[113]
Originally by: Laboratus
Originally by: Aramendel
Guess why they have a 100% warp scram/disruptor range bonus?
Celestis Maulus Come again?
Tech 1.
What about the arazu and lachesis? Why do they have an scram range bonus if they are supposed to be blaster ships? They aren't.
In general the recon ship line enhances and focusses the tech1 EW ships. In the case of gallente it further enhances their role as med range ew plattform by adding the scram range bonus.
|
Azur Tzesaeia
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 10:04:00 -
[114]
Point 1:
Quote: Tracking disruptors aren't very useful if you aren't speed tanked (in which case you don't need them),
Sensor dampeners aren't very useful if you fit close range weapons or if you don't have a qick lock time. SB is required so you already have to have 2 free med slots on a ship to operate one sensor booster. So why in hell should tracking dissruptors be worse cause they need a speed setup? Sensor damp setups need SB as well as speed. What is the point!
Quote: RSDs are *always* 100% if you're in optimal.
Yeah if you are. And if you can stay there so you need a speed fit.NOT ALWAYS BUT IF... AS EVERY OTHER TACTIC! Your guns always hit if they are in optimal they must be nerfed! Why not make them chance based?..here comes in point one- And they aren't any close to beeing as effective as ECM. If ECM works your completly blind it must be chance based.
Quote: They make sniper fits pointless, and can bring interceptors/frigates down to a level where they can't effectively tackle without getting within 5-6 km of their target ship.
Ok so you cry for intys eh? Inties are the hardest thing to beat! They are not hit by drones nor by guns nor by rockets at least you can cryple them somewhat with ecm and with any ecm also with real ECM modules or with target painters that is just fair.
A Sensor Booster or even 2 like they are on Sniper Ships gives sensor damps really tuff work to do. And if you are at 250km simply warp out warp back in to 40km and grill the damper. Sensor booster ships hate snipers and most of the time die to them.
Quote: A character who only has 3 million in skillpoints in a cruiser with 2 RSDs, 1 webber, and 1 scrambler can indefinitely kite a 30 million skillpoint battleship pilot, and that pilot won't be able to do anything to stop it without using FoFs
I can't clean my ass either without using toilet paper. How do you stop an inty from tackling you an inty without sds I mean? If you don't have small guns? Take along some Fofs in your Setup or is your Cargo hold filled with records wich play "breath in; breath out" for you so you don't forget?
Quote: EVE isn't for solo you say in #4. Then why fit Webs and Scramlbers on an Arazu? The Arazu isn't a tackler in the first place, so you don't need a scrambler or webber since tacklers will be taking care of that (Referencing point #4). Not that it changes the fact that a ship with 4 RSDs can take 2 other ships out of the fight with no hope of getting back in any time soon.
Ok I'm slowly getting tired of explaining but here I go for another round. First I took this example to show the solo capabillities of this ship so I could argue against the ppl that state sds give a solo pilot the chance to beat 3. Second a Arazu has a webber Bonus. I USE IT. A ship with 4 RSDs heh what ship? And why don't the enemies warp off?(maybe cause they have no brain but thats there fault not a issue of game balance) And how can a ship with 4 Sds brake there tanks? A arazu needs a mwd so it can avoid to be closed in one slot left a webb maybe so it can at least hold one enemy? Still it is slow still the other one can warp off and warp back closer again still it has no dmg. If you're talking about big gangs. It is the role of the Arazu to damp other ships more than one since one would be useless waste of a pilot cause the arazu can't deal dmg and can't take dmg and is slow like hell so of no use other than dampening enemy ships. And just cause you have 30mil SP you shouldn't be bale to win a fight esspecially not if you're are as stupid as a sponge.
Quote: move them to a high slot.quote]
This would open a door to fitting sds + ecm for example what would make things even worse for you dmg dealing Orks out there.
Last thing befor I logg: GO BACK TO CHANCE*spitsout BASED WoW IT MATCHES YOUR WITS AND STOP TRYING TO MAKE EVE A CHANCE BASED GAME FOR IDIOTS.
|
Azur Tzesaeia
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 10:28:00 -
[115]
Quote: A character who only has 3 million in skillpoints in a cruiser with 2 RSDs, 1 webber, and 1 scrambler can indefinitely kite a 30 million skillpoint battleship pilot, and that pilot won't be able to do anything to stop it without using FoFs
I must say more to this. It is the most griefing brainless primitive mean comment of all. And my comment will be as like and it goes to all you griefers who argue in this way.
You certainly like Nobles don't you? They have money cause they are born in a family which was succeessful 500 years ago and is very old. You love them don't you? You wished it would be everywhere like this. The one who came first gets first. But sadly you aren't a noble so you search for opportunities to still ruin the lifes of others without reason and show off that you were first in something.
IMO this is oldish nonesense. The chinese regognized 2000years ago that a intelligent clerk is better as one who was born to his position or earns it cause he has more cash or power.
Eve is not a chance based game. While it provides huge advantages to older players who invested their time in skilling senseful stuff it still provides the oppotunity to win with a good tactical setup and gang or fleet tactics.
A noob with some understanding of the game and tactics is able to kill a 30 mil SP char who nearly manages breathing, eating and sleeping in his life. In EVE this is possible! Eve isn't just griefers paradise. Having started earlier than the others doesn't give a player the I WIN button! This is good don't you agree? Or do you like I Win buttons as long as they are on your desk and not on another ones.
Beeing new in eve is worse enough already. One has to train for a year to really matter in any way most of the time. And I can't remember an alliance which consisted of noobs in crusiers killing BOB and alike and ruling eve out do you?
I feel sorry if you got killed in your shiny ship once by a noob(or alt of a older player) and since than have become a even worse griefer. I hope you get a girl soon or any other sense into your life other than griefing.
If you can't find Eve interesting anymore why don't you just quit? Stop running after the dream that once you will be so good you always win and grief the **** out of each and every single player in Eve, cause you'll never. Even the char with the most skills of all can still loose in bad circumstances. Just quit! QUIT the game go become a traffic warden grief ppl in real life but quit Eve!
If you haven't been killed like this and you haven't even ever encountered sensor damps or you actually don't care really since you aren't that dull as I thought and use some of the counter tactics out there to survive Sds, Why won't you shut up?! AND STOP GRIEFING LIKE HELL ON OTHERS!
|
Laboratus
Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 10:32:00 -
[116]
Originally by: Aramendel
Originally by: Laboratus b: 1.6*0.33*base ~= 40-59+ km, meaning that the SB fitted ship will lock first,...
1 SB is a 60% boost. One damp - without any skills - is a 48% reduction. That is 1.6 * 0.52 -> 0.832
If you go 1 ship with damp vs 1 ship with sensor booster the ship with the SB will always lock last.
If you read the post that post was refering to, the effectivenss of the RSD was from that post (~-66.??%).
I have braking news for you. Damps do not have any effect if you do not have a lock on the one you need to damp and activate the module. So, to spell it out for you this is what happens...
T100 = amount of time required for an unboosted ship to aquire lock
T0 2 identical ships start locking eachother. . . . T62 Ship with sensor booster aquires lock . . . T100 Ship with no booster and damp aquires lock T100+n Ship with damp activates damp
See what happened there? ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats |
Teresa Delaflote
Gallente Oyster Colors
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 10:40:00 -
[117]
Originally by: Laboratus [SNIP]
My number is in reference to the ship/skills/damps that were mentioned in the post. Thats just one damp, and thats from a cruiser that should have at least a 300mm scan res.
Laboratus is slightly misusing these numbers, pay more attention to the posts you read
The math posted in that post look right. All of this is merely discussion about uses, I really want to actually hear WHAT situations the damps become an I-Win button, wouldn't that be where you should, well start during a discussion of balance?
|
Sonja Vladomirovic
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 11:55:00 -
[118]
Make it like ECM 1: Give it a x Power (calculate it out, I won't) - divide it by the target range or scan resolution of the enemy - that will be the % chance on hit 2: Keep the falloff penalty: less minus if not in optimal range 3: Keep the stack penalty
So we have: Chance based, weaker vs bigger EW
|
Aramendel
Amarr Coreli Corporation Exuro Mortis
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 12:22:00 -
[119]
Originally by: Laboratus Damps do not have any effect if you do not have a lock on the one you need to damp and activate the module.
Point taken. However as was already noted your scenario is an unrealistic one. Damps on unspeced ships are either used with 2 damps + damp rigs, or 3 damps.
If there are less they are used with multiple ships working together. For example, if 3vs3 ships with one side having SBs and one RSDs the battle will become a 2vs3.
|
Conroy Peckerwood
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 12:40:00 -
[120]
I was wondering.. Is a Target Painter a counter to Sensor Dampeners? Increasing the signature radius of the target should make it easier to lock. Im only guessing it works like this and I have no idea if it would be effective at all..
|
|
Somerled MacDhommal
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 13:44:00 -
[121]
Oi
|
ForumPosterAlt
HERRO KITTY
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 14:11:00 -
[122]
This thread sucks.
Because posting on the forums is serious business. |
Laboratus
Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 14:16:00 -
[123]
Originally by: Aramendel
Originally by: Laboratus Damps do not have any effect if you do not have a lock on the one you need to damp and activate the module.
Point taken. However as was already noted your scenario is an unrealistic one. Damps on unspeced ships are either used with 2 damps + damp rigs, or 3 damps.
If there are less they are used with multiple ships working together. For example, if 3vs3 ships with one side having SBs and one RSDs the battle will become a 2vs3.
Do tell, what ships have 3-4 (sb+damps) free slots after the generic 4 mid slot pvp fit (mwd+cb+web+scram) to fit an effective dampening setup? There are the scorpion, and thats it. There are no realistic scerarios, where your basic assumption applies to. Then there are the basic realities of fitting a ship. If you don't fit cap injector, you die. Mods that eat cap, stop. Hence, not very realistic. If you don't fit mwd, you have to use longer range weapons, that generally take more fittings. If you don't fit largest guns, you have extremely poor damage. This either means you sacrifice tank for fitting mods, or rig slots. Either way, you either don't have damp rigs, hence no effective damp, or poor tank, or poor damage.
All in all, balanced.
Considering, that the last 10-20 nerf damp threads started after oveur said that damps provide the most powerful single module effect, that is what we are talking about here balance wise...
About the unrealistic numbers used above. The numbers I used were for a reasonably high celestis. A specialised ship. Unspecialised will do worse than in those numbers, not better... If you wish to argument, that my numbers are not good, then please do your own. Purposeful comparison numbers should be done ranging from minimal skills, to max skills with rigs. And for 1-3 modules. Personally I can't be bothered, since the limits of effectiveness have been determined.
___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats |
Azur Tzesaeia
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 14:21:00 -
[124]
Edited by: Azur Tzesaeia on 26/09/2007 14:23:54
Quote: ...I really want to actually hear WHAT situations the damps become an I-Win button, wouldn't that be where you should, well start during a discussion of balance?
Yeah. I agree. What situations do damps become a I win button?!
Quote: Considering, that the last 10-20 nerf damp threads started after oveur said that damps provide the most powerful single module effect, that is what we are talking about here balance wise...
Damps aren't the most effective single module in Eve. Warp scramblers, MWD and WEbbies are much better. Besides there aren't a lot of ships out there that can use damps really effective. A scorp is outrun by almost any other ship so you can easily enclose befor you get destroyed with a good enough tank fitted.
|
Benn Helmsman
Caldari Helmsman Engineering Company
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 15:03:00 -
[125]
Originally by: Laboratus
Originally by: Aramendel
Originally by: Laboratus Damps do not have any effect if you do not have a lock on the one you need to damp and activate the module.
Point taken. However as was already noted your scenario is an unrealistic one. Damps on unspeced ships are either used with 2 damps + damp rigs, or 3 damps.
If there are less they are used with multiple ships working together. For example, if 3vs3 ships with one side having SBs and one RSDs the battle will become a 2vs3.
Do tell, what ships have 3-4 (sb+damps) free slots after the generic 4 mid slot pvp fit (mwd+cb+web+scram) to fit an effective dampening setup? There are the scorpion, and thats it. There are no realistic scerarios, where your basic assumption applies to. Then there are the basic realities of fitting a ship. If you don't fit cap injector, you die. Mods that eat cap, stop. Hence, not very realistic. If you don't fit mwd, you have to use longer range weapons, that generally take more fittings. If you don't fit largest guns, you have extremely poor damage. This either means you sacrifice tank for fitting mods, or rig slots. Either way, you either don't have damp rigs, hence no effective damp, or poor tank, or poor damage.
All in all, balanced.
Considering, that the last 10-20 nerf damp threads started after oveur said that damps provide the most powerful single module effect, that is what we are talking about here balance wise...
About the unrealistic numbers used above. The numbers I used were for a reasonably high celestis. A specialised ship. Unspecialised will do worse than in those numbers, not better... If you wish to argument, that my numbers are not good, then please do your own. Purposeful comparison numbers should be done ranging from minimal skills, to max skills with rigs. And for 1-3 modules. Personally I can't be bothered, since the limits of effectiveness have been determined.
Sry but you dont have any clue about what you are talking and just defending the module (most likely because you use it yourself intesively): You dont need 3 damps on one ship, you can use 1 damp on 3 ships, because sensor damps are very effective on unbonused ships. And a lot of ships have a spare medslot left in a gang.
|
Butter Dog
The Littlest Hobos Insurgency
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 15:11:00 -
[126]
Well, I rather like the idea of 'Racial Damps'...
----------
|
Lrrp
Minmatar Gallente Mercantile Exchange Coalition Of Empires
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 15:33:00 -
[127]
Yawn...another nerf thread because something is too effective. Might just as well have ccp remove "ALL" ewar typ fitting. Then of course all those pesky damage mods will have to be looked at with the resulting opinion they are just too powerful so ccp migh as well eliminate those also. In the end we'll have the true union philosophy of compassionate mediocrity where there will only be one type of ship with only certain permitted mods allowed for pvp. At that point, pvp will truely become a game of skill. At that point we might as well start playing pac man.
|
Benn Helmsman
Caldari Helmsman Engineering Company
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 15:36:00 -
[128]
Originally by: Lrrp Yawn...another nerf thread because something is too effective. Might just as well have ccp remove "ALL" ewar typ fitting. Then of course all those pesky damage mods will have to be looked at with the resulting opinion they are just too powerful so ccp migh as well eliminate those also. In the end we'll have the true union philosophy of compassionate mediocrity where there will only be one type of ship with only certain permitted mods allowed for pvp. At that point, pvp will truely become a game of skill. At that point we might as well start playing pac man.
You are politician right? Much talking, saying nothing. Or maybe you just dont see that 1 module that is to strong kills diversity... well politicians arent really known to have a clue right?
|
ViolenTUK
Gallente Vindicated Exiles
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 15:36:00 -
[129]
Could the moderators please close this thread. I am losing the will to live and i have a new job starting tomorrow.
www.eve-players.com |
Laboratus
Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 15:39:00 -
[130]
Edited by: Laboratus on 26/09/2007 15:40:42
Originally by: Benn Helmsman
Sry but you dont have any clue about what you are talking and just defending the module (most likely because you use it yourself intesively): You dont need 3 damps on one ship, you can use 1 damp on 3 ships, because sensor damps are very effective on unbonused ships. And a lot of ships have a spare medslot left in a gang.
/me hands out clue cookie to benn
Take it pal, you need it. You made me spit my coffee on the keyboard
The level of micromanagment needed to direct that sort of effort, not to mention the fact that your performance is 1 damped ship per 3 ships with spare midslots is pathetic compared to for example EW caracals, arbitrators etc etc etc
But please, if you actually have an intelligent argument to make, with a point perhaps some sort of reasoning maybe numbers and some sort of facts, instead of just laughable attempts of personal attacks, I'd love to discuss it with you. Maybe by evemail?
Originally by: ViolenTUK Could the moderators please close this thread. I am losing the will to live and i have a new job starting tomorrow.
This man speaks the truth. ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats |
|
Benn Helmsman
Caldari Helmsman Engineering Company
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 15:43:00 -
[131]
Originally by: Laboratus Edited by: Laboratus on 26/09/2007 15:40:42
Originally by: Benn Helmsman
Sry but you dont have any clue about what you are talking and just defending the module (most likely because you use it yourself intesively): You dont need 3 damps on one ship, you can use 1 damp on 3 ships, because sensor damps are very effective on unbonused ships. And a lot of ships have a spare medslot left in a gang.
/me hands out clue cookie to benn
Take it pal, you need it. You made me spit my coffee on the keyboard
The level of micromanagment needed to direct that sort of effort, not to mention the fact that your performance is 1 damped ship per 3 ships with spare midslots is pathetic compared to for example EW caracals, arbitrators etc etc etc
But please, if you actually have an intelligent argument to make, with a point perhaps some sort of reasoning maybe numbers and some sort of facts, instead of just laughable attempts of personal attacks, I'd love to discuss it with you. Maybe by evemail?
Originally by: ViolenTUK Could the moderators please close this thread. I am losing the will to live and i have a new job starting tomorrow.
This man speaks the truth.
Sry but directing 3 people to damp 1 ship isnt really that hard.
Numbers are above in this thread, you can look for them.
|
Laboratus
Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 15:48:00 -
[132]
Edited by: Laboratus on 26/09/2007 15:50:53
Originally by: Benn Helmsman
Sry but directing 3 people to damp 1 ship isnt really that hard.
Numbers are above in this thread, you can look for them.
No, but directing fire with 60ppl all while trying to sort out 20 EW targets, doing it in an orderly fashion, is... Or for that matter, any larger group...
You could direct EW by placing it on primary, seconday, tertiary targets... But even that limits the applications... ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats |
Benn Helmsman
Caldari Helmsman Engineering Company
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 15:52:00 -
[133]
Originally by: Laboratus
Originally by: Benn Helmsman
Sry but directing 3 people to damp 1 ship isnt really that hard.
Numbers are above in this thread, you can look for them.
No, but directing fire with 60ppl all while trying to sort out 20 EW targets, doing it in an orderly fashion, is... Or for that matter, any larger group...
60 ppl -> fleet sniper, normaly no room for RSD
And even if you fit RSD on them, if you are in a good fleet, you can make it work if you make a plan of dampening ships by squads and enemies alphabetic orders.
|
Lrrp
Minmatar Gallente Mercantile Exchange Coalition Of Empires
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 16:01:00 -
[134]
Originally by: Benn Helmsman
Originally by: Lrrp Yawn...another nerf thread because something is too effective. Might just as well have ccp remove "ALL" ewar typ fitting. Then of course all those pesky damage mods will have to be looked at with the resulting opinion they are just too powerful so ccp migh as well eliminate those also. In the end we'll have the true union philosophy of compassionate mediocrity where there will only be one type of ship with only certain permitted mods allowed for pvp. At that point, pvp will truely become a game of skill. At that point we might as well start playing pac man.
You are politician right? Much talking, saying nothing. Or maybe you just dont see that 1 module that is to strong kills diversity... well politicians arent really known to have a clue right?
Politician no. Remember back when nerfing ewar target jamming was the soup de jour? Back then there was no mention of sensor dampners being too powerful. All that nerfing a module does is opens up another module for the nerf whine thread. So after you have your way and sensor dampners are nerfed, then what? Guess I'll start a whine thread about sensor boosters being way too powerful. I mean, WTF, doubling a ships target range by putting on a few t2 boosters and have a ship be sensor dampner proof afterwards is unthinkable. So contrary to your supposition that that a single mod is too powerful kills diversity I suggest you learn how to fit your ship to counter dampners. A balanced game is one where for every mod, for every set up, there is a counter to it. Learn how to counter something instead of crying for it to be reduced. You sir, are the one killing diversity.
|
Gabriel Magnar
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 16:06:00 -
[135]
If they will indeed be changed so that they only affect either targeting range or lock time, sensor boosters should also be split as well.
|
Benn Helmsman
Caldari Helmsman Engineering Company
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 16:10:00 -
[136]
Originally by: Lrrp
Originally by: Benn Helmsman
Originally by: Lrrp Yawn...another nerf thread because something is too effective. Might just as well have ccp remove "ALL" ewar typ fitting. Then of course all those pesky damage mods will have to be looked at with the resulting opinion they are just too powerful so ccp migh as well eliminate those also. In the end we'll have the true union philosophy of compassionate mediocrity where there will only be one type of ship with only certain permitted mods allowed for pvp. At that point, pvp will truely become a game of skill. At that point we might as well start playing pac man.
You are politician right? Much talking, saying nothing. Or maybe you just dont see that 1 module that is to strong kills diversity... well politicians arent really known to have a clue right?
Politician no. Remember back when nerfing ewar target jamming was the soup de jour? Back then there was no mention of sensor dampners being too powerful. All that nerfing a module does is opens up another module for the nerf whine thread. So after you have your way and sensor dampners are nerfed, then what? Guess I'll start a whine thread about sensor boosters being way too powerful. I mean, WTF, doubling a ships target range by putting on a few t2 boosters and have a ship be sensor dampner proof afterwards is unthinkable. So contrary to your supposition that that a single mod is too powerful kills diversity I suggest you learn how to fit your ship to counter dampners. A balanced game is one where for every mod, for every set up, there is a counter to it. Learn how to counter something instead of crying for it to be reduced. You sir, are the one killing diversity.
1. Bring a module to a reasonable effectivness just makes the game better. Nos nerf is best proof around.
2. fitting a few sensor booster... would like to see how you do that, and it has been proven (in this thread btw) that sensor boost is no working counter to sensor damps. Especially because you can stack 3 damps from 3 different ships on 1 ship, but even if you make a remote sensor boost circle, you get only 2 booster on one ship.
3. maybe you should learn some more logic, if it becomes better to fit an agressive module over the defensive one, everybody will take it, since a good attack is the best defense (look at the NOS before patch). There is no real working counter to damps, if you dont believe that, run the numbers yourself, 3 unbonused damps make a BS take 40 secs to lock a carrier.
|
Lrrp
Minmatar Gallente Mercantile Exchange Coalition Of Empires
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 16:18:00 -
[137]
Edited by: Lrrp on 26/09/2007 16:18:12 No counter to damps? Surely you jest. Damp a speed fitted vagabond and when he is orbiting you at 1k, what do you think your precious dampners are going to do? Keep you from being hit? Like I said, learn how to play the game.
|
Laboratus
Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 16:20:00 -
[138]
Edited by: Laboratus on 26/09/2007 16:20:01
Originally by: Benn Helmsman
1. Bring a module to a reasonable effectivness just makes the game better. Nos nerf is best proof around.
2. ...
3. ...
1. RSD works to spec at this moment. No problems there.
2. EW is supposed to be effective, and the need to sacrifice 3 slots for effectivenss is pretty balanced tbh. And, the same stacking formula is used for all modules so your point is invalid. IMHO RSB should be boosted since it requires a lock to be effective.
3. That is the whole point. Modules effecting someone else require more skill and coordination to use, hence it should be a more valid tactic than static defences. It's called balance. ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats |
Benn Helmsman
Caldari Helmsman Engineering Company
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 16:25:00 -
[139]
Originally by: Lrrp Edited by: Lrrp on 26/09/2007 16:18:12 No counter to damps? Surely you jest. Damp a speed fitted vagabond and when he is orbiting you at 1k, what do you think your precious dampners are going to do? Keep you from being hit? Like I said, learn how to play the game.
HAHAHA omg did you just said that you would go to 1km with a vagabond?
|
Benn Helmsman
Caldari Helmsman Engineering Company
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 16:38:00 -
[140]
Originally by: Laboratus Edited by: Laboratus on 26/09/2007 16:20:01
Originally by: Benn Helmsman
1. Bring a module to a reasonable effectivness just makes the game better. Nos nerf is best proof around.
2. ...
3. ...
1. RSD works to spec at this moment. No problems there.
2. EW is supposed to be effective, and the need to sacrifice 3 slots for effectivenss is pretty balanced tbh. And, the same stacking formula is used for all modules so your point is invalid. IMHO RSB should be boosted since it requires a lock to be effective.
3. That is the whole point. Modules effecting someone else require more skill and coordination to use, hence it should be a more valid tactic than static defences. It's called balance.
1. no really know what you mean tbh
2. sacrificing 3 slots on 1 ship would be ok, damps are fine on specced ships (strong but ok), but 3 damps scattered on the whole gang of unspecced ships make it to strong. And just for you +60% bonus != -60% bonus, so with same stacking 1 RSD > 1 SB
3. you dont need much skill in useing RSD in solo or small gang warfare at all
|
|
Hellaciouss
Genco Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 16:52:00 -
[141]
Originally by: Xequecal - Nothing ruins MMO PvP faster than excessive crowd control, it doesn't matter what MMO it is. Ewar is crowd control.
Nothing ruins MMO PvP faster then excessive DPS and super fast kills, it doesn't matter what MMO it is. DPS is crowd control, cause when the target is dead, he's not doing anything.
I can play that game too.
|
Allestin Villimar
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 16:57:00 -
[142]
Originally by: Azur Tzesaeia I must say more to this...AND STOP GRIEFING LIKE HELL ON OTHERS!
Ok Mr. Chinese Superiority, why don't you try an argument that makes sense and has some relevance on what I actually said? And unless you want me to get into elixirs of immortality containing copious amounts of mercury or ineffective walls used to stop invading Mongols, I wouldn't go on about ancient Chinese intelligence. No "race" has proven consistently smarter than another and they all have their shining examples of stupidity and intelligence. And just so you know, there are no nobles in America.
There are no counters to RSDs. That effectively makes them an i win button. It's not a matter of tactics, because there is no counter to them. RSDs are more effective than sensor boosters so even if you have the same amount of boosters as they do damps, you're still at a serious disadvantage. You'd have to blow your entire set up on sensor boosters and signal amplifiers and have people remote boosting you to overcome 2 damps. Even then, your lock on times are still going to be much slower than they were before, you won't deal any significant damage due to a lack of mods, and you won't have much in the way of tanking.
But let's assume you have a balanced set up for tanking, dealing dps, and all that. And you have 1 sensor booster. Cerberus warps in and nails you with 2 damps, a webber, and a scrambler and starts unloading with HMs. You turn on your sensor booster. Suddenly, you still can't lock on! He's hanging around outside your targetting range and you can't do jack to him, because even one sensor dampener will reduce your boosted range to 80% of your original range, and he's got two. Your drones sit there circling your ship because you can't tell them to attack. Better hope you have a friend. But if you assume you have a friend, then you have to assume he does, too, and there's no reason his friend won't fit sensor damps. So it becomes a game of who has more friends or who can target first. And larger ships will never win that fight.
Plenty of things in EVE are chance based. Jamming, turret DPS. For something which serves basically the same purpose as target jammers, it ought to be chance based or at least vary depending on the signal strength of the ship instead of just a flat effect.
It's extremely difficult to get the organization right to damp an entire fleet of 200 enemy ships. But I guarantee you any fleet commander worth his position has a squad of dampeners on call along with his EW ships, and any smaller battle you'll see damps everywhere. I see them more often than I see normal target jammers, anyway.
|
Kayna Eelai
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 16:57:00 -
[143]
Originally by: Benn Helmsman
Originally by: Lrrp Edited by: Lrrp on 26/09/2007 16:18:12 No counter to damps? Surely you jest. Damp a speed fitted vagabond and when he is orbiting you at 1k, what do you think your precious dampners are going to do? Keep you from being hit? Like I said, learn how to play the game.
HAHAHA omg did you just said that you would go to 1km with a vagabond?
that would be a nice waste of a vagabond indeed... however, how many damps would it actually need to make a vagabond at +-20km to lose lock?
|
Hellaciouss
Genco Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 17:01:00 -
[144]
Originally by: Allestin Villimar There are no counters to RSDs.
Have your gang/fleet kill the ship that's damping.
Counter found.
The entire enemy fleet damping? Time to change your tactics. Fit for short range, get on top of them.
Counter found.
Try thinking outside the sniper blob mentality.
|
Benn Helmsman
Caldari Helmsman Engineering Company
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 18:00:00 -
[145]
Edited by: Benn Helmsman on 26/09/2007 18:01:19
Originally by: Kayna Eelai
Originally by: Benn Helmsman
Originally by: Lrrp Edited by: Lrrp on 26/09/2007 16:18:12 No counter to damps? Surely you jest. Damp a speed fitted vagabond and when he is orbiting you at 1k, what do you think your precious dampners are going to do? Keep you from being hit? Like I said, learn how to play the game.
HAHAHA omg did you just said that you would go to 1km with a vagabond?
that would be a nice waste of a vagabond indeed... however, how many damps would it actually need to make a vagabond at +-20km to lose lock?
2 damps from unbonused ship (without rigs/without eos +warfarelink in gang) will put a vaga to <12km locking range
Originally by: Hellaciouss
Originally by: Allestin Villimar There are no counters to RSDs.
Have your gang/fleet kill the ship that's damping.
Counter found.
The entire enemy fleet damping? Time to change your tactics. Fit for short range, get on top of them.
Counter found.
Try thinking outside the sniper blob mentality.
Closing in range doesnt work, because it takes ages to lock someone (40+ seconds for a BS), especially caldari ships are in a huge disadvantage here.
|
Hellaciouss
Genco Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 18:19:00 -
[146]
Originally by: Benn Helmsman Closing in range doesnt work, because it takes ages to lock someone (40+ seconds for a BS), especially caldari ships are in a huge disadvantage here.
Then you're Cov Ops pilots/ceptors suck. If you can't get a ceptor behind their fleet in just a couple seconds so you can warp to him at a range that will drop you on top of their fleet then you're not trying hard enough and deserve to lose.
If you're at sniper range which is 150km+ then you can warp to a wreck and be right on top of their fleet.
Stop making excuses for lack of tactics and inexperience.
|
Benn Helmsman
Caldari Helmsman Engineering Company
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 18:21:00 -
[147]
Originally by: Hellaciouss
Originally by: Benn Helmsman Closing in range doesnt work, because it takes ages to lock someone (40+ seconds for a BS), especially caldari ships are in a huge disadvantage here.
Then you're Cov Ops pilots/ceptors suck. If you can't get a ceptor behind their fleet in just a couple seconds so you can warp to him at a range that will drop you on top of their fleet then you're not trying hard enough and deserve to lose.
If you're at sniper range which is 150km+ then you can warp to a wreck and be right on top of their fleet.
Stop making excuses for lack of tactics and inexperience.
No sure what that change the fact, that it takes 40-60 seconds to lock an enemy.
|
MrTripps
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 18:30:00 -
[148]
Originally by: Allestin Villimar The Arazu isn't a tackler in the first place, so you don't need a scrambler or webber
You might want to check the bonuses on the ship and revise that statement.
Certainty of death...small chance of success...what are we waiting for? - Gimli |
Allestin Villimar
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 18:38:00 -
[149]
Originally by: Hellaciouss
The entire enemy fleet damping? Time to change your tactics. Fit for short range, get on top of them.
Counter found.
Good luck doing that while they blow you up from range.
|
Benn Helmsman
Caldari Helmsman Engineering Company
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 18:41:00 -
[150]
Originally by: Allestin Villimar
Originally by: Hellaciouss
The entire enemy fleet damping? Time to change your tactics. Fit for short range, get on top of them.
Counter found.
Good luck doing that while they blow you up from range.
Close range fleet combat can work, it is a lot harder but if you have your long range enemy in a close range combat, he is dead.
|
|
Azur Tzesaeia
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 20:58:00 -
[151]
Quote: There are no counters to RSDs
Ok in your first post you said you can't get away if you don't have FoF missiles. Have you forgotten your own words? This is a counter! I listed a lot more conunter tactics in my post you might read more than the first paragraph. Besides a BS with one sensor booster has a effective locking range of about 200km++ -80% so you still had 20km. More than enough for a megathron to ripp any other Ship apart.
Comming to Senosr Dampener PWNG noob gangs i repeat what i already wrote if you had read it... Show me a noobie alliance that has won a large part of the Universe with the help of noob E-War Cruisers. And you said every good commander has a damp squad but no other EW. Well you seem to have met only average commanders so far since good ones would prefer to have any type of EW Squad at hand.
READ THIS BEFOR POSTING! I QUOTED EVERY SINGLE BIT OF YOUR POST BEFOR AND NEGATED ALL YOUR POINTS LOGICAL WITH WORDS LIKE SINCE OR BECAUSE...THE CHINIES BEGINNING WAS JUST A JOKE READ ALL OF IT AGAIN AND THAN QUOTE AND TELL ME FORMING SENTENCES WITH BECAUSE AND SINCE WITH SOME SENSE IN BEHIND WHERE I MAKE NO SENSE! AND YEAH YOU AMERICANS DON'T HAVE NOBLES WHAT STILL LEAVES ROOM FOR MY THESIS THAT YOU FEEL SORRY FOR NOT BEEING ONE.
|
Benn Helmsman
Caldari Helmsman Engineering Company
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 21:09:00 -
[152]
Originally by: Azur Tzesaeia
Quote: There are no counters to RSDs
Ok in your first post you said you can't get away if you don't have FoF missiles. Have you forgotten your own words? This is a counter! I listed a lot more conunter tactics in my post you might read more than the first paragraph. Besides a BS with one sensor booster has a effective locking range of about 200km++ -80% so you still had 20km. More than enough for a megathron to ripp any other Ship apart.
Comming to Senosr Dampener PWNG noob gangs i repeat what i already wrote if you had read it... Show me a noobie alliance that has won a large part of the Universe with the help of noob E-War Cruisers. And you said every good commander has a damp squad but no other EW. Well you seem to have met only average commanders so far since good ones would prefer to have any type of EW Squad at hand.
READ THIS BEFOR POSTING! I QUOTED EVERY SINGLE BIT OF YOUR POST BEFOR AND NEGATED ALL YOUR POINTS LOGICAL WITH WORDS LIKE SINCE OR BECAUSE...THE CHINIES BEGINNING WAS JUST A JOKE READ ALL OF IT AGAIN AND THAN QUOTE AND TELL ME FORMING SENTENCES WITH BECAUSE AND SINCE WITH SOME SENSE IN BEHIND WHERE I MAKE NO SENSE! AND YEAH YOU AMERICANS DON'T HAVE NOBLES WHAT STILL LEAVES ROOM FOR MY THESIS THAT YOU FEEL SORRY FOR NOT BEEING ONE.
Well if you can show me a BS that gets a locking range of even 200km with 1 sensorboost and no rigs, i will believe you. Else you are just talking without facts.
|
Lrrp
Minmatar Gallente Mercantile Exchange Coalition Of Empires
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 21:09:00 -
[153]
Originally by: Benn Helmsman
Originally by: Lrrp Edited by: Lrrp on 26/09/2007 16:18:12 No counter to damps? Surely you jest. Damp a speed fitted vagabond and when he is orbiting you at 1k, what do you think your precious dampners are going to do? Keep you from being hit? Like I said, learn how to play the game.
HAHAHA omg did you just said that you would go to 1km with a vagabond?
Considering you need 3 sensor boosters to damp a vaga down into web range, you more than likely will not have the room to put webbers on in your mid slots to slow the vaga down. If the Vage has one t2 sensor booster then I think you might need 4 dampeners to get him to webb rang (feel free to check my math) My example is just that, a extreme case to counter your omgdampnersrtehpwn. Unless you're in a Rapier with dampners and a webber bonus, any ship with a fast fit will MWD towards you until targeting comes on line. I have a cyclone that will do 2k m/s+, so unless you have a good dps ship that can go faster to stay away from it then you will be screwed. Throw in a few sentry drones and you are 2x screwed. Dampners are not the end all to pvp, they are just another tool to be used wisely. Out come is always based on ship type, pilot and DPS. One module type does not rule the Eve Universe.
|
Laboratus
Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 21:10:00 -
[154]
Originally by: Benn Helmsman
+60% bonus != -60% bonus, so with same stacking 1 RSD > 1 SB
3. you dont need much skill in useing RSD in solo or small gang warfare at all
Stacking penalty, einstein...
First module works at 100% efficiency, 2nd at ~87% 3rd at ~57% etc etc...
Remote modules still require >> skill than modules affecting just yourself.
Originally by: Allestin Villimar
Originally by: Hellaciouss
The entire enemy fleet damping? Time to change your tactics. Fit for short range, get on top of them.
Counter found.
Good luck doing that while they blow you up from range.
If all of the following, your FC, Cov ops pilots, ceptor pilots and dictor pilots are so incompetent that you cannot get on top of them, they should not be flying those ships, they should not be in that position, you should not be flying anything bigger than a T1 frigate with them, and you deserve to lose.
At this time, it seems like there is no point in discussing this issue with you gentlemen, since you clearly see time and again tested and used tactics and strategies as impossible. Your base assumptions and scenarios are astonishing. I suggest you take an agony or eve-uni pvp course, fly around, try gang combat, scout, fc a bit and see how it goes. ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats |
Azur Tzesaeia
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 21:12:00 -
[155]
Edited by: Azur Tzesaeia on 26/09/2007 21:14:45 I like the idea of making it more difficult to ew bigger ships with smaller ships. But i'd rather base it on sensor strength than on size so e-war ships stay effective with their modules. I'm still against chance based stuff. Ludo is chance based it's for little kids. I want to win cause i got brain not cause i just was lucky. A way closer to playing chess.
Quote: Well if you can show me a BS that gets a locking range of even 200km with 1 sensorboost and no rigs, i will believe you. Else you are just talking without facts.
I'm sorry iw as wrong acutally a BS ahs with one sensor booster t2 and max skills a lock range of 160km without rigs. But -80% it still has 36km lock range. My first math was total nonsense but this is right and it makes it even better for the BS.
|
Lrrp
Minmatar Gallente Mercantile Exchange Coalition Of Empires
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 21:16:00 -
[156]
Originally by: Allestin Villimar
Originally by: Hellaciouss
The entire enemy fleet damping? Time to change your tactics. Fit for short range, get on top of them.
Counter found.
Good luck doing that while they blow you up from range.
Ummm...a goodly number of fleet engagements are at gates with everyone up close and personal with no time to get in sniper positions. A fleet could have a squad sensor booster fitted that will target likely dampner ships. All depends on knowing by experience how the opposing fleet operates. Nothing is for certain.
|
Benn Helmsman
Caldari Helmsman Engineering Company
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 21:18:00 -
[157]
Edited by: Benn Helmsman on 26/09/2007 21:19:49
Originally by: Lrrp
Originally by: Benn Helmsman
Originally by: Lrrp Edited by: Lrrp on 26/09/2007 16:18:12 No counter to damps? Surely you jest. Damp a speed fitted vagabond and when he is orbiting you at 1k, what do you think your precious dampners are going to do? Keep you from being hit? Like I said, learn how to play the game.
HAHAHA omg did you just said that you would go to 1km with a vagabond?
Considering you need 3 sensor boosters to damp a vaga down into web range, you more than likely will not have the room to put webbers on in your mid slots to slow the vaga down. If the Vage has one t2 sensor booster then I think you might need 4 dampeners to get him to webb rang (feel free to check my math) My example is just that, a extreme case to counter your omgdampnersrtehpwn. Unless you're in a Rapier with dampners and a webber bonus, any ship with a fast fit will MWD towards you until targeting comes on line. I have a cyclone that will do 2k m/s+, so unless you have a good dps ship that can go faster to stay away from it then you will be screwed. Throw in a few sentry drones and you are 2x screwed. Dampners are not the end all to pvp, they are just another tool to be used wisely. Out come is always based on ship type, pilot and DPS. One module type does not rule the Eve Universe.
2 sensor damps on a Vaga -> locking range falls below 12km, overheating web -> vaga dead especially because you need to close a bit more if you dont want to fall over the 12km border and lose lock again
Originally by: Laboratus
Originally by: Benn Helmsman
+60% bonus != -60% bonus, so with same stacking 1 RSD > 1 SB
3. you dont need much skill in useing RSD in solo or small gang warfare at all
Stacking penalty, einstein...
First module works at 100% efficiency, 2nd at ~87% 3rd at ~57% etc etc...
Remote modules still require >> skill than modules affecting just yourself.
Yes, sensor boost and damps are both stacking nerfed, so what is the point? Even numbers of damps and booster will result in an heavy loss in locking range and resolution, sry but you obviously dont know EVE mechanics so dont try to argument with your wrong math.
Sensor damps dont need really a lot of skills, its like training for medium T2 guns...
|
Lrrp
Minmatar Gallente Mercantile Exchange Coalition Of Empires
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 21:20:00 -
[158]
Oh and good point Laboratus, forgot about stacking penalties.
|
Benn Helmsman
Caldari Helmsman Engineering Company
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 21:25:00 -
[159]
Originally by: Azur Tzesaeia Edited by: Azur Tzesaeia on 26/09/2007 21:14:45 I like the idea of making it more difficult to ew bigger ships with smaller ships. But i'd rather base it on sensor strength than on size so e-war ships stay effective with their modules. I'm still against chance based stuff. Ludo is chance based it's for little kids. I want to win cause i got brain not cause i just was lucky. A way closer to playing chess.
Quote: Well if you can show me a BS that gets a locking range of even 200km with 1 sensorboost and no rigs, i will believe you. Else you are just talking without facts.
I'm sorry iw as wrong acutally a BS ahs with one sensor booster t2 and max skills a lock range of 160km without rigs. But -80% it still has 36km lock range. My first math was total nonsense but this is right and it makes it even better for the BS.
Yes i also think, the damp specced ships T1 and T2 are fine, but unspecced damps are not.
Well 36km with 1 damp. Every long range fitted ship is out of the fight now, it has to come close, where it dead for sure. If you put a second damp on that ship, the range drops again by like 65% hitting below the magic 13km overheated web range.
|
Azur Tzesaeia
|
Posted - 2007.09.26 21:41:00 -
[160]
Edited by: Azur Tzesaeia on 26/09/2007 21:43:42 Yes Ben if you have two sensor damps it gets more difficult but with 2 sensor boosters you get 240km range reduced by 80% it is 48km reduced by 65% it is about 16kms or more.
A Sniper has most likely ranged t2 guns or Launchers, if he has launchers he can hit form close and longe range with the same effectivness. If he got the long range guns he can still carry two kinds of t2 ammo while the short range one has most likely a range around 20km. So you aren't totally dissabled although you can't snipe anymore you can still make decent dmg on the range you got left. I suggest a warp out and back in at the liked range and than shoot what you got since most ew ships are to weak to stand against your dmg. And even if your optimal with the t2 ammo close range is not at 20km but longer or shorter you have agreater fall off with the ranged t2 guns for lasers this is 8km with pulse and 20kms with tachs what is much better and help you do decent dmg not ebeing at your optimal.
|
|
Aramendel
Amarr Coreli Corporation Exuro Mortis
|
Posted - 2007.09.27 07:24:00 -
[161]
Originally by: Laboratus Do tell, what ships have 3-4 (sb+damps) free slots after the generic 4 mid slot pvp fit (mwd+cb+web+scram) to fit an effective dampening setup? There are the scorpion, and thats it.
Right. Why would you need a SB? The other ship will lock first (IF it has the sae size), but considering it will then be damped below its locking range it will get at best 1 volley. Yay.
To efficiently disable an enemy ship you need 2 damps on a damp specced ship or with 2 damp rigs on an unspecced ship or 3 damps without rigs on an unspecced ship.
Quite a few ships can make room for 2 med slots + rigs without really nerfing their setup. Especially considering that they do not need a web there nor an injector since they use an EW instead regular tank.
Quote: There are no realistic scerarios, where your basic assumption applies to.
There are pink bunnies flying in the sky. See? I can say nonsense, too.
Statements without arguments behind them are useless.
Quote: Then there are the basic realities of fitting a ship.
See above.
Quote: If you don't fit cap injector, you die. Mods that eat cap, stop. Hence, not very realistic.
The biggest capeater is a tank. Guess what you do not have to do if an enemy cannot hit you.
Quote: If you don't fit mwd, you have to use longer range weapons, that generally take more fittings.
Where did I ever say not to use a MWD and what does this have to do in either case here.
Quote: If you don't fit largest guns, you have extremely poor damage.
See above.. your argumentation chain makes no sense at all.
Quote: This either means you sacrifice tank for fitting mods, or rig slots.
And why would you need to tank if your target cabbot target you?
Quote: Either way, you either don't have damp rigs, hence no effective damp, or poor tank, or poor damage.
No because what you are talking about is completely constructed without any logic behind it.
If you have your target damped you do not need to rep so the main reason for a cap injector falls out. You also do not need to use rigs to improve your rep efficiency but an use them to boost your damps.
Your whole thing about not fitting a MWD is totally senseless.
And you complete ignore that even one single damp is highly effective in changing the force balance significantly when you combine multiple ships with them in a gang.
Quote: All in all, balanced.
Try taking a look at the other EW. And no, thats not only ECM. Which is perfectly fine right now btw. And I am flying mostly a falcon these days.
Quote: Considering, that the last 10-20 nerf damp threads started after oveur said that damps provide the most powerful single module effect, that is what we are talking about here balance wise...
Exept what he is saying is completely true. Compared to the other EW damps are a lot overpowered.
Quote: About the unrealistic numbers used above. The numbers I used were for a reasonably high celestis. A specialised ship. Unspecialised will do worse than in those numbers, not better...
3 damps on an unspecialised ship with the spec at 4 is a reduction to below 13.8%, 2 damps with damp strength rigs one of 14.3%. Thts in either case just fine to bring the majority of ships with 1 SB2 to below 20k.
|
Aramendel
Amarr Coreli Corporation Exuro Mortis
|
Posted - 2007.09.27 07:45:00 -
[162]
Originally by: Azur Tzesaeia Yes Ben if you have two sensor damps it gets more difficult but with 2 sensor boosters you get 240km range reduced by 80% it is 48km reduced by 65% it is about 16kms or more.
You are still using inflated numbers.
240k with 2 damps means a base locking range of 79k. Out of 12 battleships (not counting faction) 2 have 90k. One 80k. 2 75k. Everything else is below (up to 60k). Average base range is between 70-72k.
Originally by: Azur Tzesaeia I suggest a warp out and back in at the liked range and than shoot what you got since most ew ships are to weak to stand against your dmg
Oh god, that utterly stupid suggestion again. It it is dumb. Moronic. Idiotic.
Why?
- Firstly, it assumes you *can* warp out. And are not bubbled or scrambled.
- Secondly, it assumes you magically have a warpin spot near the damp ship. In eve yu cannot just warp anywhere you like. And even if this would be correct nothing stops the damp ship from warping out and warping in at range again.
- Thirdly, and most importantly: Eve is mostly gang/fleet combat. If you warp out what do you think a damp ship will be doing? Just sit there twiddeling thumbs? No, it will damp another gangmember of yours. So, instead being able to disable one target with the damps it used it is disabeling TWO. Its new target and in addition you while you spend 2 minutes doing some sightseeing in the system.
|
Laboratus
Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen
|
Posted - 2007.09.27 08:19:00 -
[163]
Originally by: Aramendel ...
One would think, that as amarr, you would know that guns, such as lasers or hybrids eat cap pretty fast... It might also be a rather reasonable assumption, that you will not stop recieving damage from drones, fof and his gang mates, even if you manage to break his lock.
Statements without arguments behind them are useless. I agree. The scenarios you have posted have been sensless. In general, when one tries to analyse any given system, the key components, the most important variables, if you may, and look at how they funktion.
If you recognised logic, you would see that what I posted was a single branch from a pretty simple model of a decision tree. However, it has become apparent, that logic is beyond your reach so I will not bother to try to teach you, what is the point in trying to teach you that.
Quote: The biggest capeater is a tank.
MWD, without fail...
Quote: Where did I ever say not to use a MWD and what does this have to do in either case here.
As most of the readers realised, I was pointing out what are the modules there, and what is what you need to take into consideration after that.
My friend. Have you ever fit dual rails? Or any other low tier gun for that matter?
Quote: And why would you need to tank if your target cabbot target you?
In theory, yes, you don't need to tank. However, had you ever flown EW support, you would know that drones, fof and fighters generally are not too impressed by not being able to target.
Quote: Try taking a look at the other EW. And no, thats not only ECM. Which is perfectly fine right now btw.
EW should be a strong strategy. All nerfs to it take the game back towards the virtual epeen competition of who has more tank/gank. That is uninteresting gameplay. Been there, done that, flown the mega and the hyp. Without effective EW there is no way I can lose that game, making it very boring. At this time damps are able to fill the role of effective EW. Yet TDs, TPs, and ECM cannot. To perserve game balance, and yet keep the uniqueness of the combat in eve, other EW needs a boost.
Quote: If you have your target damped you do not need to rep so the main reason for a cap injector falls out
Rails, beams, blasters and pulses all burn through cap faster than pvp fits recharge cap. As an amarr pilot, you should know this pretty well. Not to mention, that you still recieve damage from all but guns after you damp someone...
Quote: Your whole thing about not fitting...
As posted above, I listed the alternatives that of what can go to be able to fit those mods. If you cannot see that, sorry mate.
Quote: Exept what he is saying is completely true. Compared to the other EW damps are a lot overpowered.
If you actually bothered to read my post, that quote was a refrence that you had misunderstood my post in the post before that. I did the numbers on how a single damp works agains a single boosted and unboosted targets and you started going on something completetly different. As shown by those numbers (being from a celestic I might add) a single damp rarely knocks you below the normal engagement range at gates... Hence having a zero effect. Compare this to say the effect of a single TD and you get an idea of how that argument sounds...
Quote: 3 damps on an unspecialised ship with the spec at 4 is a reduction to below 13.8%, 2 damps with damp strength rigs one of 14.3%. Thts in either case just fine to bring the majority of ships with 1 SB2 to below 20k.
In either case you are using 3 slots to be effective, so it is all fine and balanced. ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats |
Amaldor Themodius
|
Posted - 2007.09.27 08:30:00 -
[164]
Edited by: Amaldor Themodius on 27/09/2007 08:30:17 No denying damps are effective.. not over powered.. sad to see another nerf introduced by forum w***es and programmers out of touch with the game... many people cite the prevalance of damp use in the recent tourney as proof positive of the uberness of damps and yeah they did work.. but that tourney is an aritifical environ that is not replicated anywhere else in eve.. truth is few ships fit damps in real PVP and those that do, do so at great risk.. as they will be primaried.. So whats all the fuss about damps are easily countered.. in fact i can say i love it when a damp ship comes at me.. close rang and pop.. copy & paste to kill board... next!!
Without pointing fingers at specific people it is clear from many of the posts some peeps have no knowledge or exposure to damps which raises the question why post on here at all.. Play the game develop some strategy and learn by winning and losing like we all do / have done.. PVP experience is the most expensive skill to learn in game and is measured in billions of isk.. and thats the way it ought to be.. dont devalue the game and the rich combat system developed by the the original game developers.. these plastic programmers with their nerf bats in hand are a plague on all our houses....
|
Laboratus
Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen
|
Posted - 2007.09.27 08:34:00 -
[165]
Originally by: Aramendel
Oh god, that utterly stupid suggestion again. It it is dumb. Moronic. Idiotic.
Why?
- Firstly, it assumes you *can* warp out. And are not bubbled or scrambled.
- Secondly, it assumes you magically have a warpin spot near the damp ship. In eve yu cannot just warp anywhere you like. And even if this would be correct nothing stops the damp ship from warping out and warping in at range again.
- Thirdly, and most importantly: Eve is mostly gang/fleet combat. If you warp out what do you think a damp ship will be doing? Just sit there twiddeling thumbs? No, it will damp another gangmember of yours. So, instead being able to disable one target with the damps it used it is disabeling TWO. Its new target and in addition you while you spend 2 minutes doing some sightseeing in the system.
Ok...
1. If your sniper gang is bubbled, basically your FC, or scout has already ****ed up, big time. Or that your pilots are incompetents, who cannot align.
2. Scouts, Cov ops, ceptor pilots. Have them, or don't bother undocking, really. Get out of the armchair, general, and try them. Before WTZ scouts used to scout out regions they were going to invade, making insta BMs, safespots, bounce spots and sniper spots in the region they were going to invade. Nowdays, there is no need for the instas, the rest however, are still needed... ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats |
Aramendel
Amarr Coreli Corporation Exuro Mortis
|
Posted - 2007.09.27 09:11:00 -
[166]
Originally by: Laboratus One would think, that as amarr, you would know that guns, such as lasers or hybrids eat cap pretty fast...
Your point? Their capuse is pretty meaningless exept on pure dps ships which are not terribly useful as damp plattforms.
Quote: It might also be a rather reasonable assumption, that you will not stop recieving damage from drones, fof and his gang mates, even if you manage to break his lock.
FOF only attack the closest target. Don't be it. Drones are pretty easy to avoid, either damp your target when its drones are already engaged. His gang mates -> your gangmates.
Quote: Statements without arguments behind them are useless. I agree. The scenarios you have posted have been sensless.
See your first sentence. Saying "It is so" does not make it so. Argumenting without arguments is just white noise.
Stop your pityful attempts for semantics and give them. Unless you have none left, that is.
Quote: If you recognised logic, you would see that what I posted was a single branch from a pretty simple model of a decision tree.
See above, you keep making unfounded statements.
Quote: MWD, without fail...
A single MAR2: 17.78 cap/sec 10mn MWD2: 14.85 cap/sec
Come again?
Quote: As most of the readers realised, I was pointing out what are the modules there, and what is what you need to take into consideration after that.
My friend. Have you ever fit dual rails? Or any other low tier gun for that matter?
This has nothing to do with the matter at hand. You are trying to derail.
Quote: However, had you ever flown EW support, you would know that drones, fof and fighters generally are not too impressed by not being able to target.
Been there, done that. All of that is pretty easy to avoid.
FoF attack the nearest target. in a gangfight thats easy to avoid being. Solo you can use drones to bait FoFs and scoop them before the FoFs hit them. Works pretty well, done that. Heavies can easily be speedtanked, as can some mediums. The rest can be destroyed or driven off before the do much damage. Fighters ssumes the enemy gang has a carrier. Apart from the fact that fighters are also easy to speedtank if there are equal conditions (your side has a carrier as well) it can simply remote rep you in which case you can laugh at the fighters.
Quote: At this time damps are able to fill the role of effective EW. Yet TDs, TPs, and ECM cannot. To perserve game balance, and yet keep the uniqueness of the combat in eve, other EW needs a boost.
I am, as said, mainly flying a falcon these days. ECM is just fine. Damps aren't and need a nerf. TDs need a boost. And TPs need to be replaced really, they are more similar to tracking links than EW.
Quote: As posted above, I listed the alternatives that of what can go to be able to fit those mods. If you cannot see that, sorry mate.
Which have nothing to do with what is discussed. If you have any clue about PvP you would know that a MWD is pretty much a must have there. You are making pointless comments in an attempt to derail.
Quote: As shown by those numbers (being from a celestic I might add) a single damp rarely knocks you below the normal engagement range at gates... Hence having a zero effect. Compare this to say the effect of a single TD and you get an idea of how that argument sounds...
Because a celestis has only a single damp fitted? And you might try to use TDs for a change to see how much one will do there.
Quote: In either case you are using 3 slots to be effective, so it is all fine and balanced.
Using 3 slots on an unspecced ship to disable a complete other ship (which has also 1 countermodule fitted, otherwise 2 slots are just fine) is anything but balanced. Reality check?
|
Aramendel
Amarr Coreli Corporation Exuro Mortis
|
Posted - 2007.09.27 09:15:00 -
[167]
Originally by: Laboratus 1. If your sniper gang is bubbled, basically your FC, or scout has already ****ed up, big time. Or that your pilots are incompetents, who cannot align.
So by which precognition can you "see" a cloaked dictor which has been waiting at the gate?
Quote: 2. Scouts, Cov ops, ceptor pilots.
Doesn't remove the fact that damp ships can do exactly the same thing. Does change anything there.
And in either case the thrid point remains. It is and stay an utterly stupid suggestion, all you do is boosting the EW efficiency of the enemy if you warp out when getting EWrd, not reducing it. The point of EW is to remove an enemy ship from the battlefield, if this is because it is warping around in the system or stays there disabled makes no difference.
|
Reem Fairchild
Minmatar Republic University
|
Posted - 2007.09.27 10:03:00 -
[168]
Originally by: Azur Tzesaeia
I like the idea of making it more difficult to ew bigger ships with smaller ships.
I like the idea of making it easier.
|
Azur Tzesaeia
|
Posted - 2007.09.27 20:02:00 -
[169]
Quote:
240k with 2 damps means a base locking range of 79k. Out of 12 battleships (not counting faction) 2 have 90k. One 80k. 2 75k. Everything else is below (up to 60k). Average base range is between 70-72k.
I haven't noticed this.I took the abbaddon since it is most suited for sniping imo and if you want to be a sniper you better take one of those with the longer base targeting ranges if you don't this is no issue of balance but is your own fault. If you are no sniper you certainly don't care to be damped to 6km.
With a sniper the sit. is still:
You have a range of ca. 16km left you take the t2 ammo for your sniper guns what ever race that is made for close range. Sound weired but every race has 4 types of t2 ammo 2 for each category of weapons. There is a category for example Amarr Beam Lasers this was made for sniping. Those can either fire aurora crystals or the other one dunno what they are called but they have an optimal of about 20km + a very large fall off. They do more dmg at 20km than the short range modules can do on the same range. So you win against a megathron that is trying to damp you an approach you still, if you are able to be faster than the megathron. What is difficult but has nothin to do with sensor damps and should be disscussed somewhere else. Puh. Have you understood what i try to say? Please read careful.
Quote: Why?
- Firstly, it assumes you *can* warp out. And are not bubbled or scrambled.
I was assuming we have a one on one. Sensor boosters are effective in gangs i know. Would you prefer if the only effective gang member would be a dmg dealer/heavy tank? So we got gangs flying around competing in what gang does the most dps? I certainly don't. I like to have diversity. Sensor dampeners have been accused to kill diversity. It is the other way around. Sensor damperners make it reasonable to take ammo for different ranges (diversity point 1(see my example why)) make it reasonable to take along FoF (diversity point 2 + a counter) make it reasonable to fit sensor booster + ecm since this might win against 2 damps without booster(you get lock first and than jam him befor he gets you). Sensor boosters are a reasonable module for med slots besides the usual mwd cap injector wep scram (diversity point3) are an alternative to the standart tank (diversity point 4). This is what i found out so far.
Quote: Secondly, it assumes you magically have a warpin spot near the damp ship. In eve yu cannot just warp anywhere you like. And even if this would be correct nothing stops the damp ship from warping out and warping in at range again.
Thirdly... i cover these 2 in the one paragraph below
Ok most fights are at Stations, gates or at belts. If you coordinate your warp points correct you can guess on what range you got to jump back to the gate / belt/ Station. Or you make a bm warp out towards your enemy and than warp back in to the bm choosing the range you like. I'm sure you knew that didn't you? Just to remind you of possibilities of eve.
Secondly taking your assumption that it is no one on one but a gang fight. And your gang member is in danger. Fit good tanks on your gangs' ships warp out as soon as you or your gang mate gets damped and warp back on him again guessing what range would bring you in the best position to the dampener ship. While you do that your gang mate does his best to survive the attack with the help of his decent tank. If the dampener ship is a lachesis or a arazu you can take your time since the arazu or lachesis have a dmg/s of about 200 was is laughable for any tank bigger than a frig.
Thirdly any good commander of a well equipped gang has a cov op at hand that can fly cloaked in position and function as warp in point. Usually they do this befor the group jumps through if more than one enemy is in system but 0 ships can be seen at the gate simply cause it smells like a trap. If the damp ship warps out good so nobody won.
|
Azur Tzesaeia
|
Posted - 2007.09.27 20:32:00 -
[170]
If he is shooting your gang mate he won't warp out anyways. Besides A cov op can be a very good tackler not only a warp in point.
I wrote this to help you succeed against sensor booster and stop your tears. Just kidding. No really this is a very kind answer to your post i now sometimes everybody forgets things. I might forgot something in some of these tactics, too if you find something tell me. But i'm sure you will. But please stop flaming on me i try to help you out of your despair you feel cause of a module that is not easy to counter. SDs force you to really think about tactics and to get aware of a lot of possibilities of Eve. I tryed to help you with that and i already found out new ways to counter them as i read your posts. SDs made me understand the game deeper and brought me to thinking more about my setups instead of just waiting to get the next best gunnery skill in line and fit the most obvious next best cannon to have even more muscles to overcome the enemy. It more over forced me to rethink about other ECM stuff and how i could use it against SDs as with the SB+ecm example. Another side point you said sbs arren't reasonable since even if you aquire lock first you will loose it again and not be able to relogg. Yeah i read what you say. But you forgot about drones. ECM drones as well as sd drones or simply dmg drones can be send to your enemy and make him loose his lock after he made you loose your lock so you regain your lock again! Or simply blow him out of the sky cause he has no tank other than the Sds. Another of the many tactics i provide here for free to the community. It is good as long as you find an error and post it here.
Comming to an end I agree that a switch that makes it possible to either use the range damp or the lock damp would make combat more thrilling fo the sd users again since they would be less safe.
I don't agree that they are 100% safe or that sds are a "i win button" read this whole post and you will understand where the weaknesses of sds lie and why they are much less safe than you might think. If you still don't want to use one of all those tactics others and i posted here, you stand to your position but forget that you are not alone on the world and others might like all those possibilities. As others respect you in not using the tactics don't try to steel them the chance to do so.
And finally I'm against nerfing anything but i'm pro changes. The change to nos was no nerf it was a change. I would prefer if in future ccp would make changes only no nerfs anymore and it would be extremly cool if those would be woven in the eve world as research of the different npc corps and races so we would have a technology race instead of stepping back in technology nerfing modules that where good we should invent modules that are better(counters). I want to make a thread about this idea of RP-based module/ship/gameplay changing in the dev forum at the WE you are all invited to take a look.
Having said all i wanted to and beeing tired i go to bed now again. If you find errors in the tactics posted here plz read over and make sure you understood everything than quote the exact error and than explain why you think it is wrong.
|
|
Azur Tzesaeia
|
Posted - 2007.09.27 20:40:00 -
[171]
Edited by: Azur Tzesaeia on 27/09/2007 20:40:52
Originally by: Reem Fairchild
Originally by: Azur Tzesaeia
I like the idea of making it more difficult to ew bigger ships with smaller ships.
I like the idea of making it easier.
Ah we got each other wrong i meant for Sensor dampeners not for ECM Moduels. I just used ecm as a genus.
|
Allestin Villimar
|
Posted - 2007.09.27 20:51:00 -
[172]
Originally by: Azur Tzesaeia If you are no sniper you certainly don't care to be damped to 6km.
Please stop talking. You've obviously never fought in any battle in this game before if you think that's true. Even if you're a blasterboat (which are the only ships that fight at that range), you're still talking a 40s+ lock on time every time you can lock on to someone. And they just have to go in the opposite direction for a few seconds to break your lock, and then you have another 40 seconds to lock on again. It's not possible to fight that way.
|
Divideby0
Gallente Amalgamated Industries
|
Posted - 2007.09.27 21:22:00 -
[173]
Its only a whine thread to those who are not specially trained on the subject at hand and have fallen victim to it.
I do agree that RSD's are too effective in the hands of the untrained pilot in a ship that is not designed specifically to use it. ECM has somewhat gone the route of requiring such specialization. Some argue that ECM is now too weak, but since when isn't an ECM boat ever NOT still called primary?
In a good "sandbox game" like eve, there should be no single I-Win button. This goes goes for EWAR as well as DPS, or whatever your tactics are. I suspect that CCP has been watching the forums, observing things like the tournament and IS developing ways of creating a balance.
I am especially looking forward to seeing what these new T2 EWAR frigs are going to be. Maybe they are the answer that allows CCP to weaken EWAR to those not flying the right ship while still keeping it effective to those committed to using it.
A really nice perk of these new ships would be to allow them to affect capital ships. Because something should.
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 |
Danjira Ryuujin
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 00:44:00 -
[174]
Originally by: Divideby0
I do agree that RSD's are too effective in the hands of the untrained pilot in a ship that is not designed specifically to use it. ECM has somewhat gone the route of requiring such specialization. Some argue that ECM is now too weak, but since when isn't an ECM boat ever NOT still called primary?
What reason would you have for not making a tankless ship the primary?
|
Azur Tzesaeia
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 04:40:00 -
[175]
Originally by: Allestin Villimar
Originally by: Azur Tzesaeia If you are no sniper you certainly don't care to be damped to 6km.
Please stop talking. You've obviously never fought in any battle in this game before if you think that's true. Even if you're a blasterboat (which are the only ships that fight at that range), you're still talking a 40s+ lock on time every time you can lock on to someone. And they just have to go in the opposite direction for a few seconds to break your lock, and then you have another 40 seconds to lock on again. It's not possible to fight that way.
As i said i think a switch would be reasonable so you eiother have a range damp or a lock time damp. What make your arguementation non sense. If you are a balster boat you should have enough speed to keep at your range and a pulse laser boat also goes down to around 6km i was talking about BS in this case.
If you manage to get the lock even for a very short time it is enough to send drones. Take some ecm drones along and you can turn the situation for your advantage.
Villimar your still here. I repeat Eve forces you to think about your setups closely and to use every tactic you can imagine to win. Simply activating your guns is not enough.
Of my whole comment you post me one sentence. I guess you stopped reading there again didn't you? Just stop posting if you are to lazy to read a whole post.
|
Allestin Villimar
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 06:03:00 -
[176]
Oh, I read the whole post, but that one statement shows you have no idea what balance would be. You may have said it earlier in the thread, but you didn't mention a modified RSD in those 2 posts nor was it mentioned in the one you replied to, so it can't be assumed that you were talking about a modified one.
Even then, having a 100% chance to knock a ship down to 6 km is silly. 3 slots to bring all the slots another ship has out of the fight regardless of it's size or fittings? You want to know why jamming mods were nerfed? Because they did the exact same thing.
|
Aramendel
Amarr Coreli Corporation Exuro Mortis
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 09:58:00 -
[177]
Originally by: Azur Tzesaeia I took the abbaddon since it is most suited for sniping imo and if you want to be a sniper you better take one of those with the longer base targeting ranges if you don't this is no issue of balance but is your own fault.
Riiiight. So unless you are flying an abaddon, rokh or scorp, sorry, its your fault.
Quote: If you are no sniper you certainly don't care to be damped to 6km.
Locking times. And imagine, there are ships which fight at ranges between 5k and 30k.
Quote: You have a range of ca. 16km left you take the t2 ammo for your sniper guns what ever race that is made for close range.
Tracking.
Quote: I was assuming we have a one on one.
1v1 sniper combat does not happen. It is utterly pointless.
Quote: Ok most fights are at Stations, gates or at belts. If you coordinate your warp points correct you can guess on what range you got to jump back to the gate / belt/ Station. Or you make a bm warp out towards your enemy and than warp back in to the bm choosing the range you like. I'm sure you knew that didn't you? Just to remind you of possibilities of eve.
Something you apparently do not know is that people make sniperspots not inline with warpable objects. So that won't work.
And you ignore the fact that even if the dampener could do *exactly* the same thing.
Quote: Secondly taking your assumption that it is no one on one but a gang fight. And your gang member is in danger. Fit good tanks on your gangs' ships warp out as soon as you or your gang mate gets damped and warp back on him again guessing what range would bring you in the best position to the dampener ship. While you do that your gang mate does his best to survive the attack with the help of his decent tank. If the dampener ship is a lachesis or a arazu you can take your time since the arazu or lachesis have a dmg/s of about 200 was is laughable for any tank bigger than a frig.
In a gang fight there will be more than a lachesis/arazu. For example a dps ship. Uups..there goes your gangmate down. Or a dictor/tackler. Uups, you cannot warp. Or another dampener. Upps, you cannot do anything either.
Quote: Thirdly any good commander of a well equipped gang has a cov op at hand that can fly cloaked in position and function as warp in point. Usually they do this befor the group jumps through if more than one enemy is in system but 0 ships can be seen at the gate simply cause it smells like a trap. If the damp ship warps out good so nobody won.
And a well equipped enemy gang will have a cloaked dictor waiting at the gate. Where do you want to warp again?
Quote: If he is shooting your gang mate he won't warp out anyways. Besides A cov op can be a very good tackler not only a warp in point.
A cov ops will be a very good tackler...for about 5 seconds till it dies to your support or your drones. In a gang fightit is suicide to use it as tackler.
And as said already, a dictor will make warps to the sniper area pretty useless.
Quote: I wrote this to help you succeed against sensor booster and stop your tears. Just kidding. No really this is a very kind answer to your post i now sometimes everybody forgets things. I might forgot something in some of these tactics, too if you find something tell me. But i'm sure you will. But please stop flaming on me i try to help you out of your despair you feel cause of a module that is not easy to counter.
Drones have only a max range of 60k. And against recon ships damp & ecm drones are pointless. Look at their stats. Everything you are talking about can be avoided or used by the other side as well.
Your warp tactics only speak of your unfamiliarity of the game because they simply do not work. You are theorizing without any game knowledge.
I myself are not specced for DPS but EW. I have equal skills of ECM, damps and TDs and used all of them. I know pretty well what they do and how they can be countered.
|
Reem Fairchild
Minmatar Republic University
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 10:15:00 -
[178]
Originally by: Azur Tzesaeia Edited by: Azur Tzesaeia on 27/09/2007 20:40:52
Originally by: Reem Fairchild
Originally by: Azur Tzesaeia
I like the idea of making it more difficult to ew bigger ships with smaller ships.
I like the idea of making it easier.
Ah we got each other wrong i meant for Sensor dampeners not for ECM Moduels. I just used ecm as a genus.
I meant in general, with any kind of EWar.
|
Aramendel
Amarr Coreli Corporation Exuro Mortis
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 10:22:00 -
[179]
Edited by: Aramendel on 28/09/2007 10:24:04 But being able to be countered does not make something balanced. EVERYTHING can be countered. Eve if there would be a ship which would deal twice the dps, tank twice as much, etc you could "counter" it with twice the amount of "normal" ships. But it wouldn't be a balanced counter.
And right now damps are simply too effective. Their two problems are that neither under nor outranging are effective as counters.
Underranging does not work due to the locking range & locking time reduction at the same time you still take ages to lock a dmapener ship, giving it plenty of time to get at range again. Overranging does not work due to the high effective range of damps due to their high falloff.
Fixes: You need to decide with damps if you want a locking time or range reduction, it should be either/or. And their falloff should be reduced significantly, they should be no ECM alternative at sniper ranges (since they are betetr than ecm on non-sniper ranges and due th the fact that ECM needs a range bonus to even work at sniper ranges).
The other problem is that the efficiency of damps on nonspecced ships is just too high. They need a moderate efficiency nerf and damp ships an efficiency boost.
This should be combined with making TDs and TPs better, though. Amarr and minmatar recons do not use damps only because they are too strong atm, they also use them because their own native EW systems suck.
Quote: And finally I'm against nerfing anything but i'm pro changes. The change to nos was no nerf it was a change. I would prefer if in future ccp would make changes only no nerfs anymore
Does not work.
Lets say out of a shipclass we have one ship which is too good. Lets take an actual example, the myrmidon. So the option would be to nerf the myr or buff all other BCs. So lets buff them.
*buff*buff*buff*
Oh, now command ships become pretty pointless to use.
*buff*buff*buff*
Mhh.. battleship and cruiser/hac performance is pretty low compared to the new nber BCs/CS.
*buff*buff*buff*buff*buff*buff*buff*
Frigates! Capitals!
*buff*buff*buff*buff*buff*buff*buff*buff*buff*buff*buff*buff*buff*
And since changes are never perfect there is a *very* high probability that there will be ANOTHER ship which is made too strong with its changes.
*buff*buff*buff*buff*buff*buff*buff*buff*buff*buff*buff*buff*buff* *buff*buff*buff*buff*buff*buff*buff*buff*buff*buff*buff*buff*buff* *buff*buff*buff*buff*buff*buff*buff*buff*buff*buff*buff*buff*buff*
Both buffs and nerfs are needed. Otherwise you will just "buff" the game into a buffing spiral of no return.
|
Grytok
German Kings OPUS Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 11:49:00 -
[180]
Works in both directions
*nerf*nerf*nerf*... Oh wait... my Velator is able to kill a Titan
The only thing we can hope for is, that CCP get the numbers right.
If I'm calculating through this, the right number for Damps should be around 40% to be equally strong compared with a Sensor Booster.
Meagthron = 90km get hit by a SensorDamp (40%) and drops to 54km. SensorBooster activated = +60% and back up to 86.4km.
If you get damped by multiple Damps, then well... you're still screwed, but you should be, if someone choose to go totally EW.
We can only balance it for a 1vs1 Situation. 2 BS vs 1 BS... you get my point .
|
|
Xequecal
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 12:00:00 -
[181]
Aramendel: It's not THAT clear cut. It's not like now everyone who can fly command ships is ditching them and boarding a Myrmidon instead, unless they want to spend less.
|
Xeronn
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 12:16:00 -
[182]
ok...just my .02 isk...from a noob`s perspective
how about an imunity cycle after a dampning cycle..i mean damps would work 100% of the times , but , say if you damped the target for 60 secs , he gets 30 secs of damp imunity after that
This would , imho , still make dampning a very powerful tool , but not a battle wining one , yes i`m old fashion , i belive guns and armor win or lose a fight , EW is there to suport it
Stacking multiple damps would still be usefull , for dampning several targets at the same time...this would allso encourage planing fights as oposed to simply spaming some key on the same target , keeping the target efectively useless...
make it rough? using a damp on an allready imune target would only prolongue it`s imunity . IMHO this would allso encourage usage of alternate EW mods , as the target is damp imune , one could try to ECM it , till it`s damp imunity wears off , as well as making usage of EW different from spamming gun shortcuts , as someone posted , it would require special profesional gangs to succesfully distribute EW on the enemy fleet , and this way 1v1 or small scale fight , EW won`t be a wining weapon (it shouldn`t be) , but rather a means of cripling the enemy till you can escape
ok TQ is up...
|
Mammirammer
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 14:59:00 -
[183]
I've never used FOF missles but would they launch against being dampened? Or do they only work against jamming ecm?
|
Azur Tzesaeia
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 16:38:00 -
[184]
Edited by: Azur Tzesaeia on 28/09/2007 16:50:53
Originally by: Mammirammer I've never used FOF missles but would they launch against being dampened? Or do they only work against jamming ecm?
Yes they do as long as no other target is closer than the damp ship.
Quote: In a gang fight there will be more than a lachesis/arazu. For example a dps ship. Uups..there goes your gangmate down. Or a dictor/tackler. Uups, you cannot warp. Or another dampener. Upps, you cannot do anything either.
Eh ok i see. i mean there could be a Titan shooting a doomsday on your gang...Why don't you take along a Arazu, too and damp the enemy dmg dealer? A mixed gang is ought to be better than a gang that only does dmg.
But I see your point a gang with SDs on every ship possible, would in 80 of 100 fights win against one that has less dampeners in gang. Thats what your saying and what is to some degree true but not only cause Sds are imba but also cause the players are often not careful enough and don't plan things good enough.
Quote: And a well equipped enemy gang will have a cloaked dictor waiting at the gate. Where do you want to warp again?
Another thing is the fact of gate camps and that they are difficult to overcome. If a enemy dictor is cloaked on a gate it is most likely that the incomming gang will die if they are not a lot more than the ones who are camping.
Imagine the enemy gang had a dictor or 2 and 2 huginns as well as 2dmg dealers they would easily overcome every equally sized gang except for a gang with at least 2 arazus though i still believe the dmg dealer would shoot one of them down so the other huginn can lock again and than the incomming gang still would die. So SDs are one of the few counters against gate camps for sure they can be used to form very good gate camps but they aren't necessary for a gate camp to work. If SDs would be nerfed even more ppl would start flyin the huggin and all the other Recons would slowly die out. So you now go on and nerf the Huginn(not actuall the huggin but the webby since it kills ca.90% of your speed it is, speedwise, the same as sds are for targeting range) he would die out, too.
Counter tactis to gate camps are eihter try killing the dictor getting him to jump into your system where you wait for him and gang him. This can be done with frigs(inties afs) who jump through first when the scout saw that a lot of enemy activity is in local and suspects a cloaked dictor. Or to use Capital Jump Drives to move instead of gates though those can be camped, too it is much more difficult to get a gang to one of those quick and there won't be a possibility for the dictor to flee anymore(no gate). And you can open several in a system so you force your enemy to either decide which one to camp or to split his forces slightly increasing your chance to overcome the first camp.
I hope that the game develops towards the use of capital jump drives instead of gates so gate camps get more and more pointless.
Quote: Something you apparently do not know is that people make sniperspots not inline with warpable objects. So that won't work.
Ah yeah so you had to make bms towards those directions 6 bms n-s-w-e-above-beneath of each gate should serve this so far. If the sniper warps out nobody wins what is perfectly balanced
I more and more agree that SDs for standart ships should be nerfed. What do you think about a falloff decrease to 10km so everything under 10kms will be effective very slightly by damps? How would it be if they could still damp you down like they do now but have a standart fall off of max 10km? Only the Arazu should get a bonus to there falloff since he should be able to switch of 2 ships cause he has no tank at all and no dmg at all and otherwise would be useless. This would make them a bit more like webbys but for ew instead of speed.
|
Aramendel
Amarr Coreli Corporation Exuro Mortis
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 17:41:00 -
[185]
Edited by: Aramendel on 28/09/2007 17:40:57
Originally by: Azur Tzesaeia Eh ok i see. i mean there could be a Titan shooting a doomsday on your gang...Why don't you take along a Arazu, too and damp the enemy dmg dealer? A mixed gang is ought to be better than a gang that only does dmg.
Don't be obstrusive.
The point is that your "solutions" all ignore the other gang ships.
And, yes, a mixed gang should be better. However a gang with 1 ECM ship, 1 TD ships, 1 damp ship + 3 damage dealers is WORSE than a gang with 3 damps and 3 damage dealers.
Damps are as module imblanced.
Quote: But I see your point a gang with SDs on every ship possible, would in 80 of 100 fights win against one that has less dampeners in gang. Thats what your saying and what is to some degree true but not only cause Sds are imba but also cause the players are often not careful enough and don't plan things good enough.
No really. SDs are not really more difficult to use than other modules. They are no special "if you just think you can counter them" module.
Quote: ...So SDs are one of the few counters against gate camps for sure they can be used to form very good gate camps but they aren't necessary for a gate camp to work. If SDs would be nerfed even more ppl would start flyin the huggin and all the other Recons would slowly die out. ...
Not really. The point is to balance damps, not to make them useless. Right now their performance is plain out too good. They are no magic required module to break gatecamps.
Quote: Counter tactis to gate camps are eihter try killing the dictor getting him to jump into your system where you wait for him and gang him. This can be done with frigs(inties afs) who jump through first when the scout saw that a lot of enemy activity is in local and suspects a cloaked dictor.
Do you have ANY combat experience at all? The dictor will not sit in the middle of the gate. It will be cloaked 150k+ from the gate. When local rises he will uncloak, warp to the gate and drop its bubble.
YOu cannot scout him out, nor will he jump to the other side when your fleet is waiting there unless he is a complete moron.
Quote: Or to use Capital Jump Drives to move instead of gates though those can be camped, too it is much more difficult to get a gang to one of those quick and there won't be a possibility for the dictor to flee anymore(no gate).
What? Which game are you playing?? Seriously. Have you just started?
Quote: And you can open several in a system so you force your enemy to either decide which one to camp or to split his forces slightly increasing your chance to overcome the first camp.
Newsflash: people usually camp chockpoints.
Quote: Ah yeah so you had to make bms towards those directions 6 bms n-s-w-e-above-beneath of each gate should serve this so far. If the sniper warps out nobody wins what is perfectly balanced
Snipercamps work with bubbles, otherwise they are utterly pointless.
Quote: I more and more agree that SDs for standart ships should be nerfed. What do you think about a falloff decrease to 10km so everything under 10kms will be effective very slightly by damps?
Learn how falloff works.
|
Jodi Knight
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 18:00:00 -
[186]
OMG FFS all you you whiners out there complaining about SH__ because you get your arse kicked all the time STFU!!! I am so damn sick and tired of hearing people complain about DAMPS/JAMMERS/NOS and so many other GOOD and USEFUL mods! I killed a rapier that had 3 damps on it... IN MY VAGABOND! If the damps were nerfed then where would the pride in that kill be huh?? FGS people if you get your arse kicked by something DONT CRY LIKE A BABY GIRL and figure out a way to FKIN BEAT IT!!! DEATH TO ALL WHINY A553D CAREBEARS!
|
SoftRevolution
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 18:34:00 -
[187]
Was this even an issue before Oveur made that comment?
Why not wait and see what the proposed change (which sounds fairly reasonable and incremental to me) does to balance when it goes live before deciding kneejerk nerfstouseless are the way forward?
|
Allestin Villimar
|
Posted - 2007.09.28 22:21:00 -
[188]
Oveur made the comment because a lot of people were having problems with it.
|
Rex Luthor
|
Posted - 2007.09.29 02:12:00 -
[189]
ECM nerf was well balanced, and now it is the Damp turn to be balanced. The need is obvious...
I use both of them (recon spe gallente and caldari) and my opinion is that the current bonus could be the same if the succesful effect was based on a resistance. Same as the ECM, you could use racial and multispec Damps, with improvements in low slots. Each Damp module will work only if it beats the sensor strenght : hard against spe EWar ships and big ships, and easier against other ships. Then ECCM will be greatly useful because they would work against Damps and ECM in improving your resist to them.
Considering Target painters and Tracking disruptors, I feel they work good as they are, not obviously powerful and far not useless.
Ewar support should remain a support to "tank and gank", a specific war that have to be won but not the main war. Nerfing the damps the same way they nerfed the ECM is a good way to rise mix tactics (ECM+Damp) and not a focus "all damps" tactics that is too often seen. |
Hurricane
|
Posted - 2007.09.29 11:10:00 -
[190]
I'm a little dissapointed in this nerf. I was hoping for some low slot strength mods for damps like they did for ECM, bastards can still tank or nano up .
|
|
Azur Tzesaeia
|
Posted - 2007.09.29 11:19:00 -
[191]
I think if you base them on sensor strength eccm would become too useful.
|
Benn Helmsman
Caldari Helmsman Engineering Company
|
Posted - 2007.09.29 13:29:00 -
[192]
Originally by: Azur Tzesaeia
I think if you base them on sensor strength eccm would become too useful.
Why?
|
Bendit
|
Posted - 2007.09.29 15:18:00 -
[193]
Quote: Do you have ANY combat experience at all? The dictor will not sit in the middle of the gate. It will be cloaked 150k+ from the gate. When local rises he will uncloak, warp to the gate and drop its bubble.
Stop pretending to be the all knowing pvp knowhow. Multiple groups cloak dictors on the gate. Just because you dont use it or havent seen it doesnt mean it it`s not used.
Other arguing for making damps chancebased... I cant see that ever happen. Why would you do that if you could use another chancebased module (Jammer) and completely lock their sensors down???
And taking sensorstrength... that means every small ship will be hit harder on top of that they have the shortest sensor range.
Then you have sensortype... ladar, gravi etc, that would mean they would need to use the same towards tracking disruptors. One for rails, one for lasers and one for projectiles.
And nuking the damps as hard as they did with jamemrs... If that happens we can all just go and play counterstrike or something.
Fine and dandy that you dont like damps/jammers. But dont turn this game into more blob game then it already is.
|
Rex Luthor
|
Posted - 2007.09.29 16:34:00 -
[194]
Edited by: Rex Luthor on 29/09/2007 16:35:27
Originally by: Bendit
Other arguing for making damps chancebased... I cant see that ever happen. Why would you do that if you could use another chancebased module (Jammer) and completely lock their sensors down??? And taking sensorstrength... that means every small ship will be hit harder on top of that they have the shortest sensor range. Then you have sensortype... ladar, gravi etc, that would mean they would need to use the same towards tracking disruptors. One for rails, one for lasers and one for projectiles. And nuking the damps as hard as they did with jamemrs... If that happens we can all just go and play counterstrike or something. Fine and dandy that you dont like damps/jammers. But dont turn this game into more blob game then it already is.
Good first point, I would say the balance can be done on the % chance to resist. ECM hard to success and Damps easier.
For small ships you will agree they are fast and have good scan res so they can move to close range, not a real pb for them. And for ECM it is already easy to jam small ships and harder for big targets. If it was only me, there would be only multispectral modules for all... I see no use for racial sensor systems...
The logic for tracking speed is not same, racial sensors systems make no difference : if you use gravimetric or ladar that does not affect you scan resolution or locking range. Tracking speed is specific to each turret, so a module affecting hybrid or projectile would not make sense for me. If you make that choice you have to be more specific and go for a spe tracking hybrid railgun / hybrid blaster : that would be horrible.
Another way is to specialize the Sensor linking and Electronic warfare skills (yeah, I know more skills ^^). ECM and Damp would affect all ships the same way with a single type module (like multispectral), and you could have a bonus with a specialize skill : Electronic Warfare 5 > Caldari Ships specialization, Sensor linking 5 > Minmatar ships specialization. Note that it can be also a Tracking disruptor specialization (3 turrets types). Maybe by disabling more easier turrets you will see more launchers on battlefields...
What the difference between actual blobs with damp overpower, and the next blobs with damps nerfed ? I mean I see no impact on blobs.
|
Bendit
|
Posted - 2007.09.29 17:21:00 -
[195]
TBH, I dont care what CCP does. The day I dont enjoy this game anymore I`ll just move on.
But I do like this game alot. And the reason for this is the "sandbox mode". Noone tells you what to do, what you can fit and what you cant fit.
Some setups are really clever and and work really well, until someone comes with a specific counter to that setup and wipes the floor with them. That be a certain tactic, trap or just better skills.
CCP can "nerf" the damps, but I would still want a way of getting their effectiveness up to a point where they could be effective on a non-spec ship. That being more skills to train, rigs, or modules.
Some people have many million SP in gunnery, well over 10mil. And they get frustrated when a ship worth 4 mil shuts their effective range down to less then 30%. Or in some cases jams them out and makes them unable to do anything. And that is understandable... But what about the guy in a jamming ship? If he is really unlucky all his jammer fails and his life ends as soon as someone gets a lock on him.
Other argument I see tossed around is: "OMG he only need x amount of SP to lock me down NERF NERF" Would you feel better if he had the same amount of SP as you in his specced area?
Personally I would love if we got some advanced skills to our ew modules. CCP could nerf them a little and then add some skills for the really dedicated people to still have the option to spec in them.
But in the end, you will never be able to satisfy everyone... And the way things are going it looks like CCP are looking on satisfying the whiners...
|
Queen Hopy
Your Friendly Booster Company
|
Posted - 2007.09.29 17:44:00 -
[196]
One day, when a pilot fitting his ship has to think twice which ew to fit (damp, ecm, td, tp(?)) is the day ewar is balanced. Now there is no reason to choose any other ewar besides damps. Thats unbalanced.
Possible fixes: Racial damps Different damp for lock range and scan resolution Reduced efficiency of damps + a low slot mod to boost efficiency Make 1 sensor booster counter 1-2 damps Keep the damps as they are but move them into chance based system
|
Laboratus
Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen
|
Posted - 2007.09.29 20:03:00 -
[197]
The difference between ECM and damps is, that damps do not disable a ship, like ECM did, it changes the rules of engagements, so you either need to go inside the new targeting range, or outside the effective range of damps. Hence a whole different ballgame.
Making them racial, or chance based doesn't work. It didn't work for damps. Randomness will still leave the unlucky amongst us permajammed, and the lucky ones still never get hit with it. The original system for ECM was a lot better than the one we had now, but still a lot of ppl whined, and we got the system we have now.
All this nerfing of EW is moving the game more and more into a direction, where you can effectively just ignore EW. ECM is not strong enough or common enough these days that anyone would need to fit a countermodule. Number of ECM ships is too low due to the nerf, and the str is pathetic. So you can win by ignoring it. We are moving too fast and too certainly to the direction of carebearland. If this cycle of nerfing continues, it will be possible to just ignore damage, since it can no longer cause you inconvenience. Not to mention, that the focus of forum ZOMG is completely in the wrong place. What are the two modules that have become mandatory in each and every fit during the last year? MWD and Webs. Both with their overeffectiveness make eachother mandatory. With the exception of capitals, pretty much every ship is fitting them these days, and even they have been seen on a few occations... ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats |
Queen Hopy
Your Friendly Booster Company
|
Posted - 2007.09.29 20:28:00 -
[198]
Originally by: Laboratus The difference between ECM and damps is, that damps do not disable a ship, like ECM did, it changes the rules of engagements, so you either need to go inside the new targeting range, or outside the effective range of damps. Hence a whole different ballgame.
Making them racial, or chance based doesn't work. It didn't work for damps. Randomness will still leave the unlucky amongst us permajammed, and the lucky ones still never get hit with it. The original system for ECM was a lot better than the one we had now, but still a lot of ppl whined, and we got the system we have now.
All this nerfing of EW is moving the game more and more into a direction, where you can effectively just ignore EW. ECM is not strong enough or common enough these days that anyone would need to fit a countermodule. Number of ECM ships is too low due to the nerf, and the str is pathetic. So you can win by ignoring it. We are moving too fast and too certainly to the direction of carebearland. If this cycle of nerfing continues, it will be possible to just ignore damage, since it can no longer cause you inconvenience. Not to mention, that the focus of forum ZOMG is completely in the wrong place. What are the two modules that have become mandatory in each and every fit during the last year? MWD and Webs. Both with their overeffectiveness make eachother mandatory. With the exception of capitals, pretty much every ship is fitting them these days, and even they have been seen on a few occations...
Except that getting inside your new targeting range still leaves you with such long lock times that u are most of the time as good as dead. So you dont agree with me on the point that different ewar systems would be in balance when a non dedicated ship had to think about which to fit instead of going with damps? There are two ways to go, either bring the damps in line with the rest or boost ECM and TD's. Personally I think the best way to go would be to have 2 different damps, one for range and one for sig resolution and along with that nerf the effectiveness to a lvl they can be countered with sensor boosters. Then also introduce the low slot str mod for damps and possibly even boost the damp specced ships abit.
|
Laboratus
Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen
|
Posted - 2007.09.29 21:30:00 -
[199]
Even at this moment, I feel that EW is a bit too weak to what it should be in these settings.
If you look at the performance of EW specialised ships: T1 frig has the ability to have a significant effect on one ship (yet not disable) T1 cruiser has the ability to have a significant effect on two ships (yet not disable) T2 cruiser has the ability to have a significant effect three ships (yet not disable)
Now, an unspecialised BC or BS usually has the ability to effect one ship effectively. The high end ships performing with the effectiveness of a T1 frigate on a secondary role? Seems ok. Ships in eve are modular so that all ships can perform most roles. Some ships are just better at what they do. Hence specialised ships.
By cutting the effectiveness to two different modules you would get the following T1 frig ability to effect 0 ships effectively T1 cruiser ability to effect 1 ship effectively T2 cruiser ability to effect 2 ships effectively
Here we would have what you call a "broken game mechanic" since one of those ships could not perform their role at all... It would effectively end EW as a valid strategy.
On the other hand boosting ECM str by 50% or going back to the determenistic point system would rebalance the different EW, while still keeping EW as a valid strategy. ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats |
MiIitary Genius
|
Posted - 2007.09.29 22:42:00 -
[200]
Originally by: Queen Hopy One day, when a pilot fitting his ship has to think twice which ew to fit (damp, ecm, td, tp(?)) is the day ewar is balanced. Now there is no reason to choose any other ewar besides damps. Thats unbalanced.
Possible fixes: Racial damps Different damp for lock range and scan resolution Reduced efficiency of damps + a low slot mod to boost efficiency Make 1 sensor booster counter 1-2 damps Keep the damps as they are but move them into chance based system
This is 100% correct. If someone has a mid slot free and they dont know what to put there out of the 3 ewar types, then we have balance. Right now it is an absolute certainty that if someone has a slot free they will fit a dampner.
The fix for them is obviously to do the exact same as they did with ECM (except without chance coming into it), specialised ships, both T1 and T2, should work as good as they do now (properly trained and fitted), but it pretty much should suck on anything else.
Also in favour of this nerf is the fact that they are Burn Edens favourite mod (cruise ravens with mids stuffed with dampners, with a cloaked dictor on the gate), and if the risk averse people in Burn Eden fit them, you can be sure they are as close to an i-win button as you can get. |
|
Queen Hopy
Your Friendly Booster Company
|
Posted - 2007.09.29 23:19:00 -
[201]
Originally by: Laboratus Even at this moment, I feel that EW is a bit too weak to what it should be in these settings.
If you look at the performance of EW specialised ships: T1 frig has the ability to have a significant effect on one ship (yet not disable) T1 cruiser has the ability to have a significant effect on two ships (yet not disable) T2 cruiser has the ability to have a significant effect three ships (yet not disable)
Now, an unspecialised BC or BS usually has the ability to effect one ship effectively. The high end ships performing with the effectiveness of a T1 frigate on a secondary role? Seems ok. Ships in eve are modular so that all ships can perform most roles. Some ships are just better at what they do. Hence specialised ships.
By cutting the effectiveness to two different modules you would get the following T1 frig ability to effect 0 ships effectively T1 cruiser ability to effect 1 ship effectively T2 cruiser ability to effect 2 ships effectively
Here we would have what you call a "broken game mechanic" since one of those ships could not perform their role at all... It would effectively end EW as a valid strategy.
On the other hand boosting ECM str by 50% or going back to the determenistic point system would rebalance the different EW, while still keeping EW as a valid strategy.
Did you read what I said? The specced ships (maulus, celestis etc) could even be boosted to perform as they do now. Or even a bit better. As long as damps wouldnt be an I-win on non specced ships.
|
Bendit
|
Posted - 2007.09.29 23:59:00 -
[202]
Quote: should work as good as they do now (properly trained and fitted), but it pretty much should suck on anything else.
So what you mean is that every EW specced ship should have damage as a wet towel and every ship capable dealing some damage should suck in EW?
What would the point of flying a EW ship in small groups be then? With the stupid tanking ability you have in game now, loss of dps in a small group is very noticable. You would maybe trade much needed dps for a ship that can MAYBE neutralise one or two ships.
So the only groups gaining on this would be the big groups. Since losing 1 or 2 damage dealers in a group of 5 and get ew ships will hurt alot more then loosing 5 damage dealers and getting 5 ew ships in a group of 20.
On top of that add the "must have" huginn/rapier to slow down the nanofags and you dont have much firepower to break a good tank before one of your weaker friends are dead.
|
Laboratus
Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen
|
Posted - 2007.09.30 07:55:00 -
[203]
That performance comparison was made with 2 damps counting as effective before the split into two modules. After the split you would need 2+1 to be effective. If the specialised ship boni are boosted enough that 1+1 is enough, they will be a bit too overpowered with just one module. ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats |
Aramendel
Amarr Coreli Corporation Exuro Mortis
|
Posted - 2007.10.01 01:52:00 -
[204]
Originally by: Laboratus And damps are not an I-win button atm. They just change the rules of engagement. You either need to move closer, or move out.
Exept this does not work.
Move closer = minute long targeting timers. By the time you get lock the battle is over. Move out = damps still work fine even at 100k ranges.
If they would a) make damps reduce range OR sig resolution and b) nerf their falloff then out or underranging will become viable counters. Right now they aren't.
|
MITSUK0
|
Posted - 2007.10.01 02:08:00 -
[205]
I dont really like playing at being a dev but *shrug* my 2iskies:
If it was me I would split into two seperate modules. One to reduce range which gallente keep as racial ewar. The new module increases lock time and replaces lolpainters as the minmatar ewar.
Two birds with one stone.
|
Tessikhet
|
Posted - 2007.10.01 04:42:00 -
[206]
It's a pity that CCP goes to all the trouble of making such a wide variety of specialized ships...and then has to go back and neuter more than half of them to the point that noone seriously cares to fly them anymore.
Blackbird Falcon Rook Blockade Runners All AFs aside from the Ishkur etc..
But what the hell, let's just add all the rest of the force recons and EWar cruisers to the list too. When everyone is flying the same 2-3 ships and using the same 1-2 fittings for each, the game is much easier to balance, amiright?
|
shinsushi
|
Posted - 2007.10.01 05:16:00 -
[207]
Originally by: Tessikhet It's a pity that CCP goes to all the trouble of making such a wide variety of specialized ships...and then has to go back and neuter more than half of them to the point that noone seriously cares to fly them anymore.
Blackbird Falcon Rook Blockade Runners All AFs aside from the Ishkur etc..
But what the hell, let's just add all the rest of the force recons and EWar cruisers to the list too. When everyone is flying the same 2-3 ships and using the same 1-2 fittings for each, the game is much easier to balance, amiright?
This is the the new, "its over-powered and I love it that way" party line isn't it?
Time and time again has proven that a balance between ships increases variety, while overpowered modules decrease it. All the ships mentioned above are fine and fill their roles. Unfortunately its stupid to use them when you can just use an overpowered ship/setup instead... like everyone else. Friends don't let friends be trolls.
|
Laboratus
Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen
|
Posted - 2007.10.01 06:53:00 -
[208]
Originally by: Aramendel ...
Assuming you did not lock first, pack an SB, or be smart enough to warp in at close range. A bold assumption I might add... ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats |
shinsushi
|
Posted - 2007.10.01 08:12:00 -
[209]
Originally by: Laboratus Edited by: Laboratus on 01/10/2007 06:56:41
Originally by: Aramendel ...
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.
@shin EW is supposed to be effective, and at the moment that is true with damps. ECM got spanked too hard, and TP and TD suffer from real limits in use. To get them to be purposeful TP and TDs should get boosted...
Your right, TDs should get boosted (to effect fall-off aswell.) ECM works wonderfully on specialized ships, like EW should. RSDs are too effective on non-EW ships, thats whats wrong here. Its the new multi-spec of doom, just not as bad.
Target painters are flawed by design. I have no solution to it though. Personally I would just give minmatar (the jack of all trades) ships that can use any type of EW (RSDs, TDs, and ECMs) but with 1/2 the bonus amount of the dedicated EW ships that amarr/gal/caldari have. I would make target painters stronger than they are now, and relegate them to Tracking computer status (race neutral.)
|
Laboratus
Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen
|
Posted - 2007.10.01 08:17:00 -
[210]
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. ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats |
|
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] |