Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jilly Serkov
|
Posted - 2007.10.04 10:49:00 -
[1]
Using the same (justifiable) argument that got Nos nerfed, are damps overpowered ?
Nos had 2 upsides : drain opponent, and cap boost self. Damps have 2 upsides : reduces sensor lock range, and increases locking time of opponent
So, should these effects be separated into 2 modules ? Or should one of the effects be eliminated ? Lets face it, ECM jamming and long lock times are very similar effects - perhaps damps should be reduced to range effect only ?
Curious to see what the community thinks (assuming of course I am not simply dredging up old arguments, in which case please can someone link me to an existing thread)
|
Aptenodytes
|
Posted - 2007.10.04 10:50:00 -
[2]
You're dredging up old arguements, see almost every other thread and several dev blogs.
|
Mc Fraser
Enterprise Estonia Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.04 10:59:00 -
[3]
if it only decreased lock range it will still work the same ... and if it only affected lock time it would be bretty pointless
|
Sokratesz
Paradox v2.0
|
Posted - 2007.10.04 11:00:00 -
[4]
Yes, and theyre working on it. Last i heard you are going to be able to pick whic heffect you want to apply, either range or lock speed.
Paradox V2.0 is recruiting! |
IKEELYOU
|
Posted - 2007.10.04 11:01:00 -
[5]
Burn Gallente burn .
|
Zana Kito
Antares Fleet Yards SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.04 11:19:00 -
[6]
The whole "double bonus" sounds like a weak argument. How about for beneficial mods?
Sensor Boosters: up lock range, up lock time. Weapon Upgrades: up rof, up damage. EANM: ups ALL 4 resists. Tracking Comps: up weapon range, up weapon tracking.
And plenty of others. It seems noobs enjoy whining about EW flat out since it detracts from the simplistic style of combat they prefer. Do not forget, depth is good. |
Jilly Serkov
|
Posted - 2007.10.04 12:01:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Zana Kito The whole "double bonus" sounds like a weak argument. How about for beneficial mods?
Sensor Boosters: up lock range, up lock time. Weapon Upgrades: up rof, up damage. EANM: ups ALL 4 resists. Tracking Comps: up weapon range, up weapon tracking.
And plenty of others. It seems noobs enjoy whining about EW flat out since it detracts from the simplistic style of combat they prefer. Do not forget, depth is good.
First, I agree depth is good, and am not a noob-whiner. I decided to pose the question having paged back through blogs and forums without finding anything relevant - I did of course ask for ppl to link to old threads if they could.
Well it may sound like a weak argument to you, but it was good enough to nerf Nos (although admitedly, damps need power unlike Nos did).
You also make valid points about the double positive modules - although I would argue EANM is still a single benefit diluted across resist types, they do not increse resists and increase armour amount, which would be a double IMO.
So, my point was that choosing offense (or defense) should be tough, and force more specialisation than it does now with some modules. I picked on the dampeners, but you rightly point out that there are other examples. So, to promote the "depth" you seek, you agree that soemthing needs to give ? The "BOGOF" modules should be changed ? Or did you just want to flame ?
|
Firkragg
Blue Labs Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.10.04 12:29:00 -
[8]
Im not looking forward to a nos nerf as one of the main ships it will effect is the curse as alot of people fit damps on it and tbh the curse can do without another nerf already.
|
Wardeneo
|
Posted - 2007.10.04 12:30:00 -
[9]
i dont think damps are overpowered, coz if u get close theres no use, whereas ecm jammers were overpowered as no matter how far (to a certain extent) ur still f**ked if they have a jam on u
wardeneo
|
Zosana
|
Posted - 2007.10.04 12:56:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Wardeneo i dont think damps are overpowered, coz if u get close theres no use, whereas ecm jammers were overpowered as no matter how far (to a certain extent) ur still f**ked if they have a jam on u
wardeneo
Jammers can fail. Jammers take up low slots for e-war strength mods. Jammers are worthless on non specialist ships.
|
|
Laboratus
Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen
|
Posted - 2007.10.04 13:15:00 -
[11]
Damps are fine. They have many counters, and their effect can be completely avoided by fitting SB and being smart. ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats |
Ashaz
Mindstar Technology YouWhat
|
Posted - 2007.10.04 13:27:00 -
[12]
For the love of beer! Shut up with the dampner threads already! What is this, the 347th thread on the subject since august?
Dampners are gona get nerfed. Again. what's gona be the next target? "NERF ECM It's overpowered!!"
"My cissors can't kill that rock! Nerf rocks! ...and boost paper!" __________________________________ Gallente by birth. Amarr by choice. iDrone |
Chrysalis D'lilth
|
Posted - 2007.10.04 13:29:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Laboratus Damps are fine. They have many counters, and their effect can be completely avoided by fitting SB and being smart.
Which you clearly aren't, since fitting a SB does not completely avoid the effects of a dampener.
Let me guide your not so smart reply through the basic maths.
Lets take a very poor dampener that has only a 50% range penalty.
my ship can lock 100km 1 dampener brings that down to 50km.
If i have 1 60% booster, does that 'completely' avoid it?
50km *1.6 = wait for it.... 80km.
does 100km = 80km?
No, and remember thats using a very poor dampener & no skills vs a good SB, add skills and a T2 dampener and the differences are much greater.
Not smart. Don't post about being smart unless you know what your talking about.
|
Laboratus
Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen
|
Posted - 2007.10.04 13:40:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Laboratus on 04/10/2007 13:40:40
Originally by: Chrysalis D'lilth Weak attempt at flame
Let me explain this slowly, so you can understand.
Cov op.
Goes 10km behind target.
You.
Click warp to 10km.
Activate SB
Arrive on top of target.
Lock target first.
Blow target up.
Even with 3 max bonused SB they cannot drop you below the range you are at, and since you lock first, you don't care how low long it takes to target after the damps hit.
By being smart, and locking first, damps have no effect. That is the difference between ECM and damps. ECM cannot be avoided, damps can... ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats |
Zana Kito
Antares Fleet Yards SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.04 13:41:00 -
[15]
My biggest concern with all these EW nerf cries is that they effectively render the gap between low sp and high sp players un-bridgeable since the less EW is a factor in combat, the more dps and tank strength comes into play.
EW allows relatively low sp players to perform important roles in gang or fleet warfare since their effect are beyond the common denominator in combat. But this is for another topic.
The question is balance. The anti-dampnener reasoning are that they have a dual effect, -lock range and -lock time. The point here is that many modules have multiple bonuses.
If you separate the bonuses, by reducing range, close range ships are not effected. Or by reducing lock times, it has no effect on ships already locked. This would effectively cause dampeners to be ineffective in many cases. Why bring a EW platform to your gang if it does not perform? Simply bring a dps ship, and instead of playing with bad EW, you can simply blow them apart.
Eve combat will lose a lot of depth if EW keeps getting nerfed.
p.s. Damps are also one of the few effective means pilots have of fighting versus the nano fad. |
Chrysalis D'lilth
|
Posted - 2007.10.04 13:53:00 -
[16]
Nice coverup. If 2v1 is your smart tactic, you just made blobbers the smartest of the smart.
|
Laboratus
Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen
|
Posted - 2007.10.04 14:01:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Chrysalis D'lilth ...
The game is a multiplayer game, not single player game, so gameplay is not based on soloplay, but multiplayer situations. Hence 1vs1 is an invalid argument. If you don't know how to use alt scouts, you make me a sad panda.
___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats |
Zana Kito
Antares Fleet Yards SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.04 14:23:00 -
[18]
On that topic, you simply cannot balance eve in 1v1, or even small gang warfare. There's many factors that need to be taken into account.
The point is any tactic should have a viable counter. When a tactic has none or is too extreme of a counter it becomes overpowered.
Is the counter against dampeners effective?
|
Elmicker
Black Sea Industries Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.10.04 14:25:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Elmicker on 04/10/2007 14:26:17
Originally by: Laboratus The game is a multiplayer game, not single player game, so gameplay is not based on soloplay, but multiplayer situations. Hence 1vs1 is an invalid argument. If you don't know how to use alt scouts, you make me a sad panda.
Ok, so he's allowed to bring a second ship, let's say, for the sake of argument, a rook who keeps you permajammed. Eeh gads, we're right back where we started.
Your argument is flawed.
If sensor boosters (and remote sensor boosters) countered sensor damps 1:1 the situation would be fine, but, they don't so it isn't.
|
Zana Kito
Antares Fleet Yards SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.04 14:41:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Elmicker Edited by: Elmicker on 04/10/2007 14:26:17
Originally by: Laboratus The game is a multiplayer game, not single player game, so gameplay is not based on soloplay, but multiplayer situations. Hence 1vs1 is an invalid argument. If you don't know how to use alt scouts, you make me a sad panda.
Ok, so he's allowed to bring a second ship, let's say, for the sake of argument, a rook who keeps you permajammed. Eeh gads, we're right back where we started.
Your argument is flawed.
If sensor boosters (and remote sensor boosters) countered sensor damps 1:1 the situation would be fine, but, they don't so it isn't.
Sensor boosters should never counter damps on a 1:1 ratio, because people fit SB not for the purpose of anti-damps, but for the strategic advantage they gain from it. A counter module is something you fit to counter a specific threat a.k.a ECCM vs ECMs, it cannot be a commonly used mod in general pvp. As in the counter module provides no advantage in a fight where its target counter is not present. In the case of SB, its benefit remains whether it fights enemies that use damps or not.
This is the mindset one should think when you get into game balance and mechanics.
|
|
Laboratus
Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen
|
Posted - 2007.10.04 14:47:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Elmicker [
Ok, so he's allowed to bring a second ship, let's say, for the sake of argument, a rook who keeps you permajammed. Eeh gads, we're right back where we started.
Your argument is flawed.
If sensor boosters (and remote sensor boosters) countered sensor damps 1:1 the situation would be fine, but, they don't so it isn't.
There are too many variables in this game to make easy comparisons. In general flying without scout is suicide, since you have no good picture on what the enemy has. As a result, in most cases everyone has a scout or two. Recon teams are not unheard of, but bringing ECM into this comparison just adds another variable, and as such does not contribute anything to the conversation.
In your case of random ship + rook vs cov op vs random ship no combat would occur, since neither side will see any point in engaging...
RSD require a lock to work. Sensor boosters do not. Hence RSD should be more effective than SB. RSB are not comparably more effective than SB, and that should be looked at...
___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats |
Revenge 1
|
Posted - 2007.10.04 15:19:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Aptenodytes You're dredging up old arguements, see almost every other thread and several dev blogs.
It is inverse of sensor booster, you are sugessting 2 mods to combat 1.
|
Xequecal
|
Posted - 2007.10.04 15:24:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Xequecal on 04/10/2007 15:25:06
Originally by: Zana Kito Sensor boosters should never counter damps on a 1:1 ratio, because people fit SB not for the purpose of anti-damps, but for the strategic advantage they gain from it. A counter module is something you fit to counter a specific threat a.k.a ECCM vs ECMs, it cannot be a commonly used mod in general pvp. As in the counter module provides no advantage in a fight where its target counter is not present. In the case of SB, its benefit remains whether it fights enemies that use damps or not.
This is the mindset one should think when you get into game balance and mechanics.
Yes they should. Other ECM doesn't make you 100% useless like damps. If you don't fit ECCM, you still have a chance of resisting ECM and being able to do something. If you don't fit tracking enhancers, you can still beat tracking disruptors by flying to minimize transversal, or fitting missiles which are not affected or autocannons which are mostly falloff.
In the current system, if you get 3 damps on you, it DOESN'T MATTER what you have fitted, what your skills are, your relative piloting skill, or ANYTHING. NOTHING MATTERS. You are 100% useless and might as well self destruct on the spot.
|
Chrysalis D'lilth
|
Posted - 2007.10.04 15:42:00 -
[24]
equally even with a cov ops, you have to be pretty lucky or your opponent be pretty foolish and be standing still in order to catch them.
A good player is going to see you inbound on scanner and get to battlespeed with his MWD, i'm pretty sure reaching 1.5k m/s under a T2 MWD isn't that hard for a gallente damp ship (or most cruisers for that matter), easily putting him at 15-20km+ when you arrive from warp.
Having played gallente recons myself, a SB isn't an unusual fitting either, meaning that you won't necessarily get to lock first. Its quite a handy tool used to catch people coming through gates whilst sitting 40km away yourself.
However, when you start looking at requiring 2-1 advantage in order to defeat something, thats not a case for game balance, its a case for imbalance.
Yes Eve is a multiplayer game and if normal ships that fit Sensor dampeners were pretty useless with them and required specific damp ships to be useful (like caldari ecm boats), then yes there would be some kind of balance, as such ships are usually very weak in terms of dps and tanking.
However, in the hands of a regular combat ship, damps are still far stronger than any counter module.
|
Jilly Serkov
|
Posted - 2007.10.04 15:53:00 -
[25]
Instead of nerfing the effects, would it make any difference if you could only fit a single damp per ship (like MWD) ? Or would this make the damp spoecialist ships unbalanced towards being a waste of time ?
|
Caldorous
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.10.04 16:09:00 -
[26]
Edited by: Caldorous on 04/10/2007 16:10:02
Originally by: Jilly Serkov Instead of nerfing the effects, would it make any difference if you could only fit a single damp per ship (like MWD) ? Or would this make the damp spoecialist ships unbalanced towards being a waste of time ?
<hypothetic case> Hi, yesterday our gang encountered another gang with two long range ships but i could nothing because only one sensor dampener was allowed to fit in my ship. </hypothetic case>
There is no point in using 1 ew ship and 1 dps ship against another ship when you could use 2 dps ships having more versatility (you could sacrifice one med slot to put a damp, 2 damps > 1 super damp). Maybe could be correct not allowing more than one dampener being activated per target, but the ew specialist ships should be able to fit as much ew as required (always considering the limitations of slots, cpu and pg ofc) -----------------------------
|
Caol
UK Corp
|
Posted - 2007.10.04 16:21:00 -
[27]
If they split up RSD into 2 component parts then sensor boosters should also go down the same path: a) chose an increase in range or b) an increase in scan resolution and hence lock speed.
|
SoldierOfJustice
Infortunatus Eventus
|
Posted - 2007.10.04 16:30:00 -
[28]
Edited by: SoldierOfJustice on 04/10/2007 16:34:01
Originally by: Xequecal Edited by: Xequecal on 04/10/2007 15:25:06
Originally by: Zana Kito Sensor boosters should never counter damps on a 1:1 ratio, because people fit SB not for the purpose of anti-damps, but for the strategic advantage they gain from it. A counter module is something you fit to counter a specific threat a.k.a ECCM vs ECMs, it cannot be a commonly used mod in general pvp. As in the counter module provides no advantage in a fight where its target counter is not present. In the case of SB, its benefit remains whether it fights enemies that use damps or not.
This is the mindset one should think when you get into game balance and mechanics.
Yes they should. Other ECM doesn't make you 100% useless like damps. If you don't fit ECCM, you still have a chance of resisting ECM and being able to do something. If you don't fit tracking enhancers, you can still beat tracking disruptors by flying to minimize transversal, or fitting missiles which are not affected or autocannons which are mostly falloff.
In the current system, if you get 3 damps on you, it DOESN'T MATTER what you have fitted, what your skills are, your relative piloting skill, or ANYTHING. NOTHING MATTERS. You are 100% useless and might as well self destruct on the spot.
Have you heard about drones? They are bots you can launch from a drone bay. If you have those out and you get damped.... booyyaaa, little drones get angry and agress the dampening ship.
It's really sad to see ppl whining about damps, since you have to use 3 damps to effectively neutralize 1 ship's lock. If a rook puts 3 ecm modules on your ship I bet you'll be crying just as much as when lachesis puts 3 damps on you. Same thing with tracking disruptors, 3 of them would make any turret ship useless.
To counter ECM use ECCM, and to counter damps use sensor boosters :D, and you also get the little modules called signal amplifiers, which also will help against damps if you have a spare lowslot :-).
|
MrTripps
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.10.04 17:30:00 -
[29]
Anyone who has spent time in an Arazu or Celestis can tell you that damps do have very effective counters. I would much rather seen sb's boosted instead of damps nerfed.
Certainty of death...small chance of success...what are we waiting for? - Gimli |
Sharupak
Minmatar Knights Of the Black Sun Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2007.10.04 17:42:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Sharupak on 04/10/2007 17:43:10 I dont think its the same as nos, because there is a counter to it with ECCM.
Also, just to note, I actually preffered the suggestion of tracking and whatnot with NOS vice the actual nerf it recieved. _______________________________________________ RuntimeError: ChainEvent is blocking by design, but you're block trapped. You have'll have to find some alternative means to do Your Thing, dude. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |