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
Brixer Dai Dai Hai	Posted - 2007.11.06 11:55:00 - [31] Not only thinking about ECM/damps here, but I wonder, on a general basis, WHY does CCP seem to balance everything with a freaking sledgehammer ? How about trying to do small changes to the ships/modules until the point fewer are using them, or more people are fitting them. I bet it's possible to monitor such things based on killmails/DB SELECTS or whatnot. ofc you can't nerf warp disruptors and webs just because everyone is using them, but I guess a lot of modules/ships are just favored over others. You could look at the market too. Prices would dictate the most popular ship in a class, and those balancing ships could look at that ship to see if there is any imbalance. NO, I don't want every ship to be the same, but when half EvE start training minmatar cruiser to 5 and***abond prices going through the roof someone should get the hint to look IF* there where anything seriously imbalanced. (Nah, I think****as are ok.. They will be cought more often now with the new ships.) Instead we see random hardcore nerfs left and right. I guess the word 'adjust' means something like 'hit it until it dies' in Iceland.
F90OEX	Posted - 2007.11.06 12:00:00 - [32] I don't think there is one nerf/change that anyone is going to like, this is just another example. Time to adapt I guess
Brixer Dai Dai Hai	Posted - 2007.11.06 12:04:00 - [33] Originally by: F90OEX I don't think there is one nerf/change that anyone is going to like, this is just another example. Time to adapt I guess Seeing you are a Caldari you won't have to.
d026 THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.11.06 12:30:00 - [34] Originally by: Brixer Originally by: F90OEX I don't think there is one nerf/change that anyone is going to like, this is just another example. Time to adapt I guess Seeing you are a Caldari you won't have to. caldari had to take heavy nerfage in the past to. welcome on board!
Phaedruss	Posted - 2007.11.06 12:42:00 - [35] Originally by: Brixer Instead we see random hardcore nerfs left and right. I guess the word 'adjust' means something like 'hit it until it dies' in Iceland. I would have thought that 5 years into development, 'tweaking' would have become the way to achieve their conception of balance. Not just because one would expect huge problems requiring huge swings of the nerf bat to have been dealt with in the beta stages of the game (yes I know, Eve is STILL in beta apparently), but also because the sledgehammer approach should only be required if you just dont have the skills or knowledge to make more precise and subtle changes.
Kerfira	Posted - 2007.11.06 13:18:00 - [36] Originally by: Phaedruss Originally by: Brixer Instead we see random hardcore nerfs left and right. I guess the word 'adjust' means something like 'hit it until it dies' in Iceland. I would have thought that 5 years into development, 'tweaking' would have become the way to achieve their conception of balance. Not just because one would expect huge problems requiring huge swings of the nerf bat to have been dealt with in the beta stages of the game (yes I know, Eve is STILL in beta apparently), but also because the sledgehammer approach should only be required if you just dont have the skills or knowledge to make more precise and subtle changes. That would require them to have a good overall view of how the game works.... and would also require them to constantly consider all items together. The approach though seems to be to let problems stay unresolved for a long time until the forum whinage gets too much, and then suddenly overcompensate. TBH, it seems to me they're not managing on which problems the devs spend their effort, but just let whichever dev takes an interest in a certain part/problem work away on it. If they're understaffed that's understandable, but still the wrong approach. 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.
Buyerr	Posted - 2007.11.06 13:36:00 - [37] ehh... you kind of forget, damps makes the "i win" if they get your targeting under the range your at, ecm makes the temporarily "you can't shoot" if they work, tracking makes the "you have a hard time hitting" if they work, so all in all it is balanced that damps are the hardest to get to work... so stop the whining.. and YER! no **** that you need a tackler with you if you want to do the "i am impossible to hit WEEEHEEE" thing
Miss KillSome Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2007.11.06 13:36:00 - [38] its another of CCPs useless and stupid nerfs.. get used of it, looks like they cannot handle this much of subscribers and they are making a game suck, so they dont get so much of a lag problems (at least thats why they think so..)
Buyerr	Posted - 2007.11.06 13:43:00 - [39] Originally by: Kerfira Originally by: Phaedruss Originally by: Brixer Instead we see random hardcore nerfs left and right. I guess the word 'adjust' means something like 'hit it until it dies' in Iceland. I would have thought that 5 years into development, 'tweaking' would have become the way to achieve their conception of balance. Not just because one would expect huge problems requiring huge swings of the nerf bat to have been dealt with in the beta stages of the game (yes I know, Eve is STILL in beta apparently), but also because the sledgehammer approach should only be required if you just dont have the skills or knowledge to make more precise and subtle changes. That would require them to have a good overall view of how the game works.... and would also require them to constantly consider all items together. The approach though seems to be to let problems stay unresolved for a long time until the forum whinage gets too much, and then suddenly overcompensate. TBH, it seems to me they're not managing on which problems the devs spend their effort, but just let whichever dev takes an interest in a certain part/problem work away on it. If they're understaffed that's understandable, but still the wrong approach. ehh soo which game doesn't have the nerfing when balancing a game out ? now talking of mmo's of cause?! OW NON! is that really so?! well duhh.. why don't you then just craw back into your hole untill you get a valid argument! the truth is that they can't possible be able to find every loophole that the player base find and exploits. that is why they fix them as they come. how long time did it take before people actually thought of the nanoships or the nos+drone ships, or the, or the, or the etc. and that is 30k+ player base, how much do you think they can do at once?! stupid ***** get your find right and start having some reality sense.
Kerfira	Posted - 2007.11.06 13:54:00 - [40] Originally by: Buyerr Stupid post.... Go away, troll!! 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.
Gaogan Gallente Solar Storm Sev3rance	Posted - 2007.11.06 18:10:00 - [41] If damps needed a nerf then everyone and their mother would be fitting them, and that is simply not the case. When was the last time you fit one on a bs? How about a non specialist cruiser? The only time I use them is on the gallente ships with the bonus, and on stealth bombers since they operate at 100k, which is the sweet spot for damps to still work, and one will keep most people from locking quite that far. Unless the majority of players are fitting damps on non specialist ships, your argument that they are overpowered hasn't got a leg to stand on; you are just whining because you got beat by them once. You would probably complain that rock is overpowered because you picked scissors expecting your enemy to choose paper. Let's compare a lachesis to a falcon shall we? Falcon can render 4 enemies completely useless with ecm, at least most of the time using one mod per ship, using the remaining modules as needed. The lachesis has to put 2 or 3 damps on each target to be useful, and even then, they can still lock things that are close. So that leaves the lachesis able to neutralize 2 enemy ships, and the falcon 4. Why would you ever use a lachesis again? Why bring an expensive t2 ship to a fight that can ( mostly ) neutralize 2 enemies when you could bring a cheaper battleship that actually can deal and take damage? Or a falcon that can jam 4.
d026 THE LEGION OF STEEL WARRIORS.... R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.11.06 18:16:00 - [42] Originally by: Gaogan If damps needed a nerf then everyone and their mother would be fitting them everybody and there mother ARE fitting them. probably you play a different game than i do..
Gaogan Gallente Solar Storm Sev3rance	Posted - 2007.11.06 18:29:00 - [43] Originally by: d026 Originally by: Gaogan If damps needed a nerf then everyone and their mother would be fitting them everybody and there mother ARE fitting them. probably you play a different game than i do.. Apparently... do you just like the sound effect they make or something? Throw two of them on a blasterthron and what do they get you? Absolutely nothing. You will only take your enemy's lock range down to maybe 50km, and you will be closer than that. Maybe you like to use them on vagabonds? No? Maybe they do some good on sniper fleets? Oops, they don't work over 100k, so not so useful I suppose.... what exactly is the draw again? At best a celestis could damp two enemies out of the fight on tq... I would never consider taking one to a fight instead of a blasterrax unless it was specifically to try and counter caldari jammer ships the enemy has.
Cythrawl Caldari Central Defiance	Posted - 2007.11.06 18:32:00 - [44] Read this post of mine. I think this change would solve a lot of problems for the gallente recons. You'd have to work out the math on the amarrian ones yourselves since I don't care about tracking disruption myself. .:. Originally by: Krazy Bitsch Originally by: Virtuality In before the first troll. i do believe you are too late for this....
Amaki Tint	Posted - 2007.11.06 19:22:00 - [45] just.../signed Dont decrease effectiveness and limit to one effect.
Melanger EnTech Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.11.07 11:31:00 - [46] To get this out the way now "I fly Gallente Recons". I've not been doing it long but I enjoy it. My limited use of other EWAR probably makes me biased but this is my take on the situation. End disclaimer. From what I saw in the alliance tournament damps were used by everyone on ships of all kinds (damp caracals). They were very effective in the tournament at limiting the oppositions fire. Jamming saw limited use and was only effective on specific caldari ships which is fine as they are the racial specialists. The Jamming Nerf: This nerf limited the effectiveness of jamming modules to specific caldari ships by lowering the overall stats of the modules and increasing the bonuses to compensate on those ships. By doing this Jamming was not blanket I WIN module that any ship could use but required a level of specialisation to use well. The Damping Nerf: In everyday PVP damping is used everywhere. Most new players are shown early on that with a group of simple frigates with damps scrams and webs you can be quite effective. This is true because damps can be fitted to anything and be effective. What is proposed is an across the board drop in the effectiveness of damps to the point that like jamming modules they are not I WIN modules that can be fitted to any ship. This change gives the same effect as the Jamming nerf. Where it differs in my eyes is the lack of corresponding boost to task specific gallente ships. Lets face it, the reason the caldari ships like the rook and scorpian are flown is not due to their firepower or tank but due to their jamming prowess. Like the Gallente, the Caldari ECM ships are pretty thin on protection and rely on their ECM to lock down the enemy ship. Caldari have their problems with their ECM being chance but when jammed they cannot be touched. Gallente rely on keeping the enemy at enough of a range to be unlockable but remaining within weapons range. All I would ask is that when reducing the effectiveness of the module as a whole, the gallente specialist ships get a corresponding boost to allow them to continue fulfilling their role. Come over to the dark side.. We have cookies!
Gypsio III Darkness Inc.	Posted - 2007.11.07 12:31:00 - [47] Quote: everybody and there mother ARE fitting them. probably you play a different game than i do.. QFT. Drake and Raven currently make particularly good damp platforms. Unless I'm fitting for extreme range, I also put a damp or two on my ECM boats as well.
big5824	Posted - 2007.11.10 20:05:00 - [48] screw lachesis, boost the rook! it CANT tank, it CANT nano, it can jam well, but if they have one too many targets ur screwed, and it only has one bonus compared to every other recons double bonus.
Elmicker Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.11.10 20:54:00 - [49] Originally by: big5824 and it only has one bonus compared to every other recons double bonus. You know, this is probably the best feature of the rook. My favourite bit of the gallente EW nerf is a dev stating that it's "fine" that it now takes 4 max-skileld damps to knock a non-sensor boosted battleship down to 11km. Not even below web range. The only useful recons for gang combat are now the huginn and rapier. The rook/falcon are too fragile (if powerful), the pilgrim and curse are now a tad on the **** side (no damps and no nos), and the arazu and lachesis are now glorified tier-1 interceptors.

Pages: 1 2 :: [one 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.