EVE Search - Tested on sisi - damps now useless

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Tested on sisi - damps now useless

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Gaogan Gallente Solar Storm Sev3rance	Posted - 2007.11.06 04:49:00 - [1] Rendering the Keres, the lachesis, the arazu, and the celestis now utterly useless. I tested a Keres ( the gallente ewar frig with damp bonus ) on sisi tonight, using the damp range script, and two t2 damps with full ship damp bonus only dropped a maurader's lock range WITHOUT A SENSOR BOOSTER to 31k. This renders damps and the ships that are supposed to use them utterly worthless. As it is on tq damps have a use only in a few situations: 1) On a stealth bomber operating at 100k range. You can damp most ships down to under 100k with the one or at most two damps you can fit on a bomber, so they can't shoot back at you while you lob slow moving cruise missiles at them, but they can warp away since you are too far to scram, and the missiles take a long time to reach their target. And they only do significant damage to t1 cruisers and lower. 2) On gallente ewar boats, where combined with the racial bonus, you can damp most ships down under 20k with 2 or 3 damps. That means that the best dampening boat in the game, the lachesis, can take 2 enemy ships out of the fight AT MOST. The only other possible use of damps on tq is for ships that tend to engage at 100km, which are few and far between. Further than that, and you are out of damp range, closer and without 2-3 of them on a ship with bonus to them, you can't damp their range down enough to make a lick of difference. Now even with having to use scripts to select range dampening and no lock time dampening, you still can't make a meaningful range reduction with 2-3 of them on a target. I can understand having to choose range OR lock speed, but DO NOT NERF THEIR USE EVEN AFTER PICKING ONE OR THE OTHER. For the particulars, with signal suppression 3 on a keres with frigate 5 giving max bonus to a t2 damp, using the range dampening script, on sisi I am only able to reduce lock range by 48.875%. On tq in a lachesis with the same t2 damp I drop lock range by 65something%. I guess CCP wants us to just go back to fitting nothing but guns and tank on ALL ships in the game. That sure is fun.
Julius Romanus Amarr Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2007.11.06 05:29:00 - [2] Tracking disruptors are equally as bad if not worse too. Lame. -- All these graphs show is how bad the apocalypse is with different kinds of weapons. -Dr Jigglez
Gaogan Gallente Solar Storm Sev3rance	Posted - 2007.11.06 05:36:00 - [3] I agree... tracking disruptors were already the second worst ecm type, second only to target painters. I would never consider fitting a tracking disruptor on a ship that didn't have a bonus to them, and even then, 2-3 of them only had any use at all on a ship that was all guns with no missiles.
Etil DeLaFuente Res Publica	Posted - 2007.11.06 05:49:00 - [4] Edited by: Etil DeLaFuente on 06/11/2007 05:52:09 /agree Damping sucks now, thanks CCP. please, boost bonus on specialized damping ships to 10% per level.
Cybrex Enterprise Estonia	Posted - 2007.11.06 07:19:00 - [5] we need to boost damps effectviness on lachesis/arazu ... no point making those recons pointless or is there? those ships are ment to use damps and use them well.
Vicious Phoenix	Posted - 2007.11.06 07:53:00 - [6] Originally by: Cybrex we need to boost damps effectviness on lachesis/arazu ... no point making those recons pointless or is there? those ships are ment to use damps and use them well. Well it would put them on par with the minnie recons in that they'd have a useless EW mod but a good tackle mod. CFW (Certified Forum Warrior) I kill people ingame too. Originally by: CCP Tuxford I prefer dew over pepsi. I prefer beer over most things. Damn now I want beer.
Cybrex Enterprise Estonia	Posted - 2007.11.06 08:27:00 - [7] but minni recons can tank gallente ones cant very vell :P
Viashivan Amarr FM Corp Insomnia.	Posted - 2007.11.06 08:38:00 - [8] Originally by: Cybrex we need to boost damps effectviness on lachesis/arazu ... no point making those recons pointless or is there? those ships are ment to use damps and use them well. You have to look at all recons, not just Gallente. As Gallentee still have scramling range bonus. /me looks at his Pilgrim or Nano Curse :-)
Cybrex Enterprise Estonia	Posted - 2007.11.06 09:31:00 - [9] Originally by: Viashivan Originally by: Cybrex we need to boost damps effectviness on lachesis/arazu ... no point making those recons pointless or is there? those ships are ment to use damps and use them well. You have to look at all recons, not just Gallente. As Gallentee still have scramling range bonus. /me looks at his Pilgrim or Nano Curse :-) i agree pilgrim/curse need bonuses adjusted also. but his thread was about arazu/lachesis. u cant speed tank them u cant armor tank them very vell. and no point just to scramle everyone can do that. most fight is close range anyway.
Alex Harumichi Gallente Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2007.11.06 09:35:00 - [10] Originally by: Cybrex we need to boost damps effectviness on lachesis/arazu ... no point making those recons pointless or is there? those ships are ment to use damps and use them well. ...and to the effectiveness of the Curse & Pilgrim. I'm ok with damps and TDs being lowpower on generic ships, but ships specializing in them must be powerful with them, otherwise there is no reason to fly them. Especially considering that ECM & ECM ships just got a boost, and it wasn't weak to begin with (on ECM ships, that is)
Eleana Tomelac Gallente Through the Looking Glass	Posted - 2007.11.06 09:52:00 - [11] Sounds bad... With a damp and scripts on a gallente recon ship, we should not loose efficiency in both range and scan res. We should choose between both so we don't render the ship totally defenseless. Here's an example of what was wrong with the damps before : A gang of small to medium sized ships with a celestis/or recon engages a BS. The celestis runs 3 or 4 damps on the BS, reducing the range to 1/10 (depends on skills). Now, the BS locks at 15 km (had a sensor booster). The small ship gang has some short range frigates and cruisers, they charge, they get under 15 km, the BS tries to lock them again, the locking time shows around 2 minutes. What is wrong here is that the BS has no opportunity to fight back at all under 15 km because of the locking time. Even a slow BS would have time to disengage out of 15 km not to be locked. Now, let's take it back from : The small ship gang has some short range frigates and cruisers, they charge, they get under 15 km, the BS tries to lock them again, the locking time is as usual because the damp on a celestis with the range script does not affect resolution. The BS locks the ships, can shoot a little and they may disengage out of 15 km. He has a chance to fight, which is good, but a well coordinated gang will have no difficulty of engaging and disengaging if they don't get webbed, here, it's tactics and not another IWinButton that does not allow to fight back at all. So, the script idea was good, the way we have to choose is good, what is wrong is the final stat : It should be as effective if all focused on one stat on a specialized ship, which is already a 50% efficiency nerf. Having more options is good, it raises the need for good tactics but making stuff useless is bad. -- Pocket drone carriers (tm) enthousiast ! Say hello to my tiny friends !
Ruciza	Posted - 2007.11.06 09:58:00 - [12] Edited by: Ruciza on 06/11/2007 10:01:25 Originally by: Gaogan I can understand having to choose range OR lock speed, but DO NOT NERF THEIR USE EVEN AFTER PICKING ONE OR THE OTHER. Don't worry, that is not how scripts work. I'm so worried about what's happenin' today, in the Middle East, you know And I'm worried about the baggage retrieval system they've got at Heathrow I'm so worried about the fashions today, I don't think they're good for your feet And I'm so worried about the shows on TV that sometimes they want to repeat I'm so worried about what's happenin' today, in the Middle East, you know And I'm worried about the baggage retrieval system they've got at Heathrow I'm so worried about my hair falling out and the state of the world today And I'm so worried about bein' so full of doubt about everything, anyway I'm so worried about modern technology I'm so worried about all the things that they dump in the sea I'm so worried about it, worried about it, worried, worried, worried I'm so worried about everything that can go wrong I'm so worried about whether people like this song I'm so worried about this very next verse, it isn't the best that I've got And I'm so worried about whether I should go on, or whether I should just stop.
Esmenet Gallente	Posted - 2007.11.06 10:33:00 - [13] You have to wait and see how scripts work with it. The dampening effect will probably be a lot stronger with scripts.
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong Namtz'aar k'in	Posted - 2007.11.06 10:35:00 - [14] I don't get it... isn't it -50% to both old bases? and then the ammo increases one by 100%? and it takes 1 sec to reload the ammo and change? If this is true they are no less effective. please someone explain why I wouldn't just use optimal range ammo and then use none and then go to tracking ammo in 1 second when they are close??? if they cut it by 50%... and then it increases it by 100%... then there no nerf, and you can get a ship down locking range just as much as before, if I'm wrong please tell me why. Official fanboy of jenny< pink supporter! looking to work in the art department with CCP, 3 years and counting. http://www.digipen.edu/main/Gallery_Games_2004#Narbacular_Dropthi
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong Namtz'aar k'in	Posted - 2007.11.06 10:38:00 - [15] Originally by: Esmenet You have to wait and see how scripts work with it. The dampening effect will probably be a lot stronger with scripts. at the moment damping lock range Or lock time is the same as before, but you can only do one, or both at 50%. best part is you can scale down. meaning when they are farther away you move to medium and too close you move to locking time. Official fanboy of jenny< pink supporter! looking to work in the art department with CCP, 3 years and counting. http://www.digipen.edu/main/Gallery_Games_2004#Narbacular_Dropthi
Chromakey Dreamcoat Caldari Model Of Aggression	Posted - 2007.11.06 10:47:00 - [16] Originally by: MotherMoon I don't get it... isn't it -50% to both old bases? and then the ammo increases one by 100%? and it takes 1 sec to reload the ammo and change? If this is true they are no less effective. please someone explain why I wouldn't just use optimal range ammo and then use none and then go to tracking ammo in 1 second when they are close??? if they cut it by 50%... and then it increases it by 100%... then there no nerf, and you can get a ship down locking range just as much as before, if I'm wrong please tell me why. have you even read the replies in this thread by people who have used the scripts? you are wrong they are much weaker than ever before and almost useless on the arazu/lachesis. if you don't believe it, try out the scripts with a rigged arazu/lachesis on sisi.
Brixer Dai Dai Hai	Posted - 2007.11.06 10:49:00 - [17] Remote sensor dampener II: TQ base: -48% scan res and -48% lock range on target Sisi base: -17% / -17% Sisi base with script: 0%/-34% OR -34%/0% Recons getting hit even harder as they get % strength increase from base value. How hard is it to understand ?
Kerfira	Posted - 2007.11.06 10:51:00 - [18] Sounds good. It'll mean that damp is not an 'I-Win' button anymore, but a weapon to use in a fleet where damping for example a battleship with your smaller ships will mean it can't shoot your battleships at range. Recons should not be 'I-can-kill-a-battleship-with-impunity' ships, but either RECON ships or having a specific role in a fleet.... Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
Naviset	Posted - 2007.11.06 10:57:00 - [19] Huginn and Rapier WEB bonus is incredible, because 25% of the people out there are flying nanos and despite what everyone says the huginn and rapier are the only decent counter to that (and as a rapier pilot they're not even as effective as most act like due to a lack of mids). Rapiers are amazing, cause nobody can do what they do. Arazus aren't that amazing... Especially with the new interceptors going like + the keres the arazu scram range bonus gets devalued alot (As if an instant locking 15kms interceptor wasnt already better than an arazu for tackling even if the target starts 50km away). Also, scrams are dead, dictors are in. I dont remember the last time I was in a gang over 5 people and we actually needed points because of bubbles / rapiers holding them in them.
Ancy Denaries Caldari Isseras Manufacture	Posted - 2007.11.06 10:57:00 - [20] Edited by: Ancy Denaries on 06/11/2007 10:57:34 8quote=Cybrex]Especially considering that ECM & ECM ships just got a boost, and it wasn't weak to begin with (on ECM ships, that is) Ever flown a Griffin or a Blackbird? Or wait...a Scorpion?
Sleepkevert Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.11.06 11:06:00 - [21] Originally by: Kerfira Sounds good. It'll mean that damp is not an 'I-Win' button anymore, but a weapon to use in a fleet where damping for example a battleship with your smaller ships will mean it can't shoot your battleships at range. Recons should not be 'I-can-kill-a-battleship-with-impunity' ships, but either RECON ships or having a specific role in a fleet.... Sooo, you are saying a caldari recon perma jamming two ships is fine, but a gallente recon using the same amount of modules in damps shouldn't be able to disable two close range ships? _______ Sign my sig
Chi Quan DEFCON. Phoenix Allianz	Posted - 2007.11.06 11:18:00 - [22] agreed, i tested lockrange scripts + td on celestis type ships and the nerf is to much. deffinately. all ewar is useless on nondedicated ships now, i fited a domi full of ewar, but it did absolutely nada besides having a nice comedy effect. splitting the effect may be ok, but don't decrease the effectiveness of a single script effect. as it is now on tq, a celestis disables one other ship, to do this it has to attack from afar and use a sensorbooster for the lockrange. it does not kill that ship with its guns or drones as the target is too far away. if it does not use a sb and some engine mod, it is dead alone, when ganged it has fulfilled its role and can stay away from the fight. it also helps the gangmates as the target needs more time to lock. if the celestis comes closer, it is dead, because it's paper thin. lets look at this on singularity now: damps can only counter snipers, thats all, their effect is too small now. for the recons, you can affect one ship more, due to a greater number of midslots. however those mids are now much better spent on warp disruptors. therefor i suggest the following: EITHER have the scripts reach the current TQ maximum for the speciffic effect, at the same time increasing the stacking penalties for them OR increase the td bonus on the ewar ships. -- Tempus fugit -- quote spiralJunkie: it doesn't matter how you pronounce it, it still shoots you in the face
Chi Quan DEFCON. Phoenix Allianz	Posted - 2007.11.06 11:19:00 - [23] Edited by: Chi Quan on 06/11/2007 11:19:29 Originally by: Sleepkevert Sooo, you are saying a caldari recon perma jamming two ships is fine, but a gallente recon using the same amount of modules in damps shouldn't be able to disable two long range ships? fixed -- Tempus fugit -- quote spiralJunkie: it doesn't matter how you pronounce it, it still shoots you in the face
Zirator Times of Ancar Pure.	Posted - 2007.11.06 11:19:00 - [24] To add insult to injury CCP also decided to give all jamming Caldari ships a strength bonus to jaming strength. So CCP isn't only nerfing Amarr and Gallente EW ( Minmatar EW is non existant ) but their boosting Caldari ECM. You go CCP. Give the Gallente damper ships and Amarr tracking disruptor ships a simular bonus as well please.
Kerfira	Posted - 2007.11.06 11:24:00 - [25] Originally by: Sleepkevert Originally by: Kerfira Sounds good. It'll mean that damp is not an 'I-Win' button anymore, but a weapon to use in a fleet where damping for example a battleship with your smaller ships will mean it can't shoot your battleships at range. Recons should not be 'I-can-kill-a-battleship-with-impunity' ships, but either RECON ships or having a specific role in a fleet.... Sooo, you are saying a caldari recon perma jamming two ships is fine, but a gallente recon using the same amount of modules in damps shouldn't be able to disable two close range ships? IF he happens to have the right racial jammers fitted..... (afaik) You DO see a lot of damping going on ingame (and also in the tourney), but quite limited amounts of jamming. That sorta tells me that damps are much more overpowered than jamming. Most people ingame KNEW that damps were going to get nerfed at some point. If that's not an indication they're too overpowered, I don't know what is! And even if jamming recons are overpowered (dunno if they are...), that's still not a good reason not to nerf damps. You can't reason: "Because object A might be overpowered, object B which IS overpowered can't be nerfed!" That's simply faulty reasoning!! Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
Gamesguy Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.11.06 11:34:00 - [26] Originally by: Kerfira IF he happens to have the right racial jammers fitted..... (afaik) You DO see a lot of damping going on ingame (and also in the tourney), but quite limited amounts of jamming. That sorta tells me that damps are much more overpowered than jamming. Most people ingame KNEW that damps were going to get nerfed at some point. If that's not an indication they're too overpowered, I don't know what is! And even if jamming recons are overpowered (dunno if they are...), that's still not a good reason not to nerf damps. You can't reason: "Because object A might be overpowered, object B which IS overpowered can't be nerfed!" That's simply faulty reasoning!! You'd be wrong. Damps are used more because you dont need a caldari recon/scorp to use them effectively, they are exactly like ECM before the big ecm nerf. The difference is, the ECM nerf was compensated by the massive bonuses caldari EW ships got, arazu/lachesis/celestis got no such bonus. Nerf damps on normal ships, fine. But give us 20% damp str per level like caldari recons do.
Esmenet Gallente	Posted - 2007.11.06 11:39:00 - [27] Edited by: Esmenet on 06/11/2007 11:42:20
Esmenet Gallente	Posted - 2007.11.06 11:42:00 - [28] Originally by: Gamesguy You'd be wrong. Damps are used more because you dont need a caldari recon/scorp to use them effectively, they are exactly like ECM before the big ecm nerf. The difference is, the ECM nerf was compensated by the massive bonuses caldari EW ships got, arazu/lachesis/celestis got no such bonus. Nerf damps on normal ships, fine. But give us 20% damp str per level like caldari recons do. That sounds like a good idea.
Kerfira	Posted - 2007.11.06 11:44:00 - [29] Edited by: Kerfira on 06/11/2007 11:45:47 Originally by: Gamesguy The difference is, the ECM nerf was compensated by the massive bonuses caldari EW ships got, arazu/lachesis/celestis got no such bonus. Nerf damps on normal ships, fine. But give us 20% damp str per level like caldari recons do. BUT, the EW ships have a significant additional disadvantage since they need to choose which racial jammers they want to fit. Damps have no such problem. Implement racial dampers, and you can have your bonus.... And, as I said, you can't use something being (in your opinion) overpowered as an excuse for not nerfing something else that more or less everyone agrees IS overpowered. Note: I'm not saying jammers are or aren't overpowered. Just that it has absolutely no relevance when nerfing damps which clearly ARE overpowered! Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
Sleepkevert Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.11.06 11:49:00 - [30] Edited by: Sleepkevert on 06/11/2007 11:51:00 Originally by: Kerfira Edited by: Kerfira on 06/11/2007 11:45:47 Originally by: Gamesguy The difference is, the ECM nerf was compensated by the massive bonuses caldari EW ships got, arazu/lachesis/celestis got no such bonus. Nerf damps on normal ships, fine. But give us 20% damp str per level like caldari recons do. BUT, the EW ships have a significant additional disadvantage since they need to choose which racial jammers they want to fit. Damps have no such problem. Implement racial dampers, and you can have your bonus.... And, as I said, you can't use something being (in your opinion) overpowered as an excuse for not nerfing something else that more or less everyone agrees IS overpowered. Note: I'm not saying jammers are or aren't overpowered. Just that it has absolutely no relevance when nerfing damps which clearly ARE overpowered! Oh i agree damps needed a nerf, alliance tournament is a good example of how easily and effectively they can be used. Thing is, specialized gallente ships get nerfed just as hard. You can't tell me that an Arazu or Lachesis was overpowered if compared to a falcon that is these days. Or for that matter a curse or pelgrim. Don't get me wrong, but from 60% effectiveness to 40% is a bit of a huge nerf. Not to mention that the locking time increase effect totaly gets lost when you even want close to 40% range reduction... Also, this nerfing is done to bring ships in line with each other, comparable, etc. So saying that bringing up another race isn't a viable argument when discussing this is just total BS. _______ Sign my sig

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.