EVE Search - A Plea to Examine RSD Specialised Ships.

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

A Plea to Examine RSD Specialised Ships.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Minas Reul Synergy. Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2007.11.11 00:38:00 - [1] I'm making this thread because I believe that the bonuses on remote sensor dampener specialised ships need to be re-examined in conjunction with the change to RSDs. Such a change was sensibly implemented for ECM specced ships, and I believe it is also warranted here. I deliberately avoided adding this to the scripts thread as it regards more than just the module itself. As things stand now on the TQ server, an RSD II on a specced ship (ignoring other skill bonuses) gives: 48% + 25% bonus from ship = 61% on both stats, Whereas an RSD II on SiSi gives: 17% + 25% bonus from ship = 38% on both stats or 34% + 25% bonus from ship = 50.5% on just ONE stat. (using a script) This means that a single RSD II is 62% as effective as on TQ to be for both stats, and 83% as effective for JUST ONE stat. The reason for the introduction of scripts, and reduction of RSD strength was understandable: RSDs were becoming used as a 'standard' fit on many non-specced ships, with too great an effect, and I for one have always thought that the script is an elegant solution to the problem of modules with too many useful bonuses being applied. That said, as the change stands now, specialised RSD ships will suffer greatly from their lack of power. With one RSD on a specced ship being less powerful then on a non-specced ship on TQ now, the ships will struggle to have any meaningful impact on combat in eve. With RSDs additionally being impacted by a stacking penalty, simply using more of them is not an option as it would be for an ECM ship. I'd like, therefore, to propose a modest increase for the bonus per level that RSD specialised ships recieve, of perhaps 50%. Compare this to the 100% boost that the some ECM ships have already recieved, and others (Falcon) are likely to recieve, and it is not at all unreasonable. Consider the following example: Increase the ship bonus from 5% per level to 7.5% per level. 17% + 37.5% ship bonus = 48% on both stats. (equal to one unbonused RSD on TQ) 34% + 37.5% ship bonus = 58.75% on just ONE stat. (Less than one bonused RSD on TQ!) Meaning that a single RSD II is 79% as effective on both stats, and 96% as effective on JUST ONE stat. It would probably be sensible to apply this to just the tech 2 variants (again, the same way it was handled with ECM specced ships). I hope this will be considered, as it would be a shame to see a specialisation slide into disuse.
Elmicker Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.11.11 00:45:00 - [2] I absolutely agree with you :)
Ruciza	Posted - 2007.11.11 02:34:00 - [3] Originally by: Minas Reul the ships will struggle to have any meaningful impact on combat in eve. Wouldn't that be wonderful? A beautiful dream...
Celedris Stimulus	Posted - 2007.11.11 05:31:00 - [4] Unfortunately this has already asked and answered in the general forum thread: Originally by: CCP Zulupark We've looked at the stats on the specialized TD and Damp ships and we're happy with them at the moment. Remember, Tracking Disruption and Sensor Dampening is a sure thing. ECM is not. Apparently the Falcon's new 14-point jammers used against intys & HACs isn't a sure thing. Hey I wonder what the sensor strength of everyone's favorite 7km/s heavy assault cruiser is? What about battleships you say? Overheated you get 17 point jam strength; I wonder what the sensor strength of your average gank-geddon is? It would be nice if you could overheat damps. That is with 162 base optimal ECM jammers too; presumably damps used outside of 45km (i.e. in falloff) for gang support is also a "sure thing". All your recon & support skills, long-distance jamming & freq mod will carry over to ECM. It's less than four week's training to cross over to Caldari with sig disp IV, or a few more weeks for sig disp V. Your sig supression is the only skill that will be wasted. Have fun trolling the ECM whines with item database links to ECCM modules.
DiseL Dirt Nap Squad	Posted - 2007.11.11 05:50:00 - [5] Well, we now have two out four races of Recons that will be much less effective. I agree that RSD's were over powered but not on the Lachesis/Arazu. The NOS nerf killed Amarr recons now the Lachesis/Arazu are going to suffer the same fate. Now once again the ECM boats will be all over the battlefield. Hmmm, wasn't there a big ECM nerf quite some time ago and we come full circle on them only to hammer NOS and RSD's. I get tired of these yoyo changes. Makes specializing in any single ship a big mistake.
Vicious Phoenix	Posted - 2007.11.11 05:52:00 - [6] Actually the Curse/Pilgrim got hit twice both nos and TD nerf. TDs are like 25+% less effective in Trinity as they are now. 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.
Minas Reul Synergy. Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2007.11.11 13:46:00 - [7] Originally by: CCP Zulupark We've looked at the stats on the specialized TD and Damp ships and we're happy with them at the moment. Remember, Tracking Disruption and Sensor Dampening is a sure thing. ECM is not. I think we'd all like a better explanation to this though. One could go to the extreme and say that one RSD on a non-specialised ship is a 'sure thing'. The fact that it 'does' very little of any use is not beside the point. ECM specialised ships get a whopping 100% strength bonus (as well as two other bonuses), where a RSD specced ship gets a meagre 25%, which is hardly a specialisation at all. If CCP want to make RSDs a bit less definite, then perhaps they should be looking at reducing their range, to keep them firmly in the mid-range EWar category, and increasing the bonus on RSD specced ships.
Alpha Type Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2007.11.11 15:33:00 - [8] Originally by: Minas Reul Originally by: CCP Zulupark We've looked at the stats on the specialized TD and Damp ships and we're happy with them at the moment. Remember, Tracking Disruption and Sensor Dampening is a sure thing. ECM is not. I think we'd all like a better explanation to this though. One could go to the extreme and say that one RSD on a non-specialised ship is a 'sure thing'. The fact that it 'does' very little of any use is not beside the point. ECM specialised ships get a whopping 100% strength bonus (as well as two other bonuses), where a RSD specced ship gets a meagre 25%, which is hardly a specialisation at all. If CCP want to make RSDs a bit less definite, then perhaps they should be looking at reducing their range, to keep them firmly in the mid-range EWar category, and increasing the bonus on RSD specced ships. Zulupark's comment seems also to have missed the point that ECM is not stacking-penalised like RSDs are. I hope CCP aren't justifying the lack of an increased RSD bonus on the basis of comparing a single module too ECM. CCP, please look again at RSD ship bonuses!
Lelulie	Posted - 2007.11.11 15:53:00 - [9] Recons are fine now except for overpowered ECM changes, back in time with e-war we go.
Gripen Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2007.11.11 16:41:00 - [10] Originally by: Minas Reul Whereas an RSD II on SiSi gives: 17% + 25% bonus from ship = 38% on both stats or 34% + 25% bonus from ship = 50.5% on just ONE stat. (using a script) RSD II with 25% bonus from sisi (with and without script): pic. They actially reduced the bonus so unless it's some kind of mistake I doubt it's worthwhile to ask them to revisit somthing. Details in my post here.
Minas Reul Synergy. Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2007.11.11 17:11:00 - [11] Edited by: Minas Reul on 11/11/2007 17:15:20 Originally by: Gripen Originally by: Minas Reul Whereas an RSD II on SiSi gives: 17% + 25% bonus from ship = 38% on both stats or 34% + 25% bonus from ship = 50.5% on just ONE stat. (using a script) RSD II with 25% bonus from sisi (with and without script): pic. They actially reduced the bonus so unless it's some kind of mistake I doubt it's worthwhile to ask them to revisit somthing. Details in my post here. Thanks, Original post updated. I have to say, I think that's just a silly change. Clearly the bonus mechansim was changed with the expectation that damping would stay at less than 64%, such that the multipliying bonuses don't give > 100%. Again, it would be nice if someone from CCP can explain how this squares with the 'RSDs always work' comment, or are they planning on nerfing ECM bonuses too?
Bein Glorious GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.11 17:34:00 - [12] thread title broken
Minas Reul Synergy. Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2007.11.11 18:04:00 - [13] Point-labouring is a-go: I made a small table to demostrate what I mean. As you can see, taking into account max skills, an RSD II is only 75% as effetcive on just one stat as on TQ atm, and 38% as effective on both stats. It's clear to me why the bonus mechanism may have been changed: with the bonus being multiplicative, it encourages the RSD user to focus on one stat, as you get a correspondingly bigger effect from your skills. Previously you got a larger effect from the bonus when it applied to a smaller number (i.e. unscripted RSD). I think this could be a good idea to be honest, but I think it really MUST go hand in hand with a change to the ship bonus. I've added 4 rows to the table to show what the module would be like with some different ship bonuses. Personally, I think 10% per level would be good (still weaker than a current RSD, and only affecting one stat). However, any increase would be welcome, and the 7.5% per level would probably save RSD specced ships from disuse. P.S. Thanks to whomever fixed the title
Flawliss Gallente The Dead Parrot Shoppe Inc. Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.11.11 20:13:00 - [14] /Super Signed
Era Mercatrix	Posted - 2007.11.11 23:10:00 - [15] Originally by: Minas Reul Point-labouring is a-go: I made a small table to demostrate what I mean. As you can see, taking into account max skills, an RSD II is only 75% as effetcive on just one stat as on TQ atm, and 38% as effective on both stats. It's clear to me why the bonus mechanism may have been changed: with the bonus being multiplicative, it encourages the RSD user to focus on one stat, as you get a correspondingly bigger effect from your skills. Previously you got a larger effect from the bonus when it applied to a smaller number (i.e. unscripted RSD). I think this could be a good idea to be honest, but I think it really MUST go hand in hand with a change to the ship bonus. I've added 4 rows to the table to show what the module would be like with some different ship bonuses. Personally, I think 10% per level would be good (still weaker than a current RSD, and only affecting one stat). However, any increase would be welcome, and the 7.5% per level would probably save RSD specced ships from disuse. P.S. Thanks to whomever fixed the title This man talks sense. Deffo /signed for an increased ship bonus, especially since the calculation has been changed.
Azuse The Brotherhood Of The Blade Pure.	Posted - 2007.11.11 23:38:00 - [16] I fully agree with this, and thank you for finally creating an easily read table , it has spawned multiple threads over these months and has indeed been relooked at by the balancing team and been give the were happy response. Last time i spoke to a dev i was told it was because dampening was a cert while ecm was chance. When i said sensor booster made that a load of bull i got no response (well i was rude) but its true really. Unlike an eccm it has a dual use, boosting lock range ect and countering damps. Weren't dual use modules what script were ment to prevent? So as much i i wish this would happen all i can really say is use your arazu while you can and train caldari cruiser v, thankfully ecm skills are almost identical. Then sell the arazu, or wait and reprocess after the patch. --------------------------
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2007.11.12 01:17:00 - [17] I've always said that the damp specific ships should have their bonuses increased to offeset the reduced effectiveness of the new damps. I agree 100% with the OP. Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y I I
Amy Wang	Posted - 2007.11.12 02:06:00 - [18] Edited by: Amy Wang on 12/11/2007 02:14:44 It is a pretty hefty nerf indeed RSDs are getting, much worse then the ECM nerf that inspired quite a lot of whining back in the days. Reduced efficiency %-wise AND limited to one effect. The obvious solution would be to give damp specialized ships a bonus to bring the RSD to an effect like before the nerf on ONE of the two effects, perhaps even a bit higher, the overall nerf would still prevent non specialized ships from fitting them regularly just like the ecm nerf did which is a good thing I guess. The argument that Jamming is "only" chance based while RSD is a "sure thing" is shortsighted. RSD dont work at the range jammers works at (from 0km to over 200km on a specialized ship). Moreoever the number of modules needed to shot down a single ship with RSD is higher (normally 3) then with jammers where for a lot of ships a single module is enough to nearly permajam a target. Sure its chance based, meaning it doesnt work always but if you chose to put 3 jammers on one target its far from likely they all miss on a specialised ships with decent skills.
Beast Rabban Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.12 04:56:00 - [19] I don't like the RSD changes any more than you do, as it's a pinnacle means of deterrence for my rapier, but it puts the arazu and the lachesis more on par with the damage dealing recons(all but the falcon). Be thankful that the gallente recon is still purpose built to have ewar to add to it's survivability, as it will eventually be rebuffed to answer the never-ending complaints of how useless RSD's are. All the recons will still have a means of ewar survivability sans the minmatar; At least you dont get target painting. Oh and while the rapier and huginn have decent resists, they are marginally more protected than other recons which is to say not much at all.
Draygo Korvan Merch Industrial	Posted - 2007.11.12 05:10:00 - [20] Can you put up a neat chart with the changed effectiveness if the target is using a scripted sensor booster vs an RSD with the same type of script? --
Captain Narmio Baptism oF Fire VENOM Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.12 09:48:00 - [21] Lowslot amplifier module? Just throwing it out there.
Shadowsword COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2007.11.12 10:09:00 - [22] Originally by: Captain Narmio Lowslot amplifier module? Just throwing it out there. Imho, the current ecm "damage mod" should work for every kind of EW. Screaming murder because RSD aren't as effective in Sisi than in TQ is premature, because: - There's going to be a lot less multi-sensor boosted ships out there, since sensor boosters get nerfed, too. - There's is a gang module that significantly increase EW effectiveness. Maybe you should start using RSD with an Eos in your gang? I heard that in TQ a Lachesis with gang mods can get 83% effectiveness on it's RSD. That is clearly overpowered, so it gets nerfed. ------------------------------------------ What is Oomph? It the sound Amarr players makes when they get kicked in the ribs.
Holy Cheater Red Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.12 10:32:00 - [23] And so how about racial jammer with strength of 14 vs a marauder's sensor strength 11-14? Isn't it a sure thing?
Minas Reul Synergy. Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2007.11.12 10:36:00 - [24] Originally by: Draygo Korvan Can you put up a neat chart with the changed effectiveness if the target is using a scripted sensor booster vs an RSD with the same type of script? I surely can: As you can see, scripts make RSDs less effective (obvious really). I think it's also clear that the bonus should be increased. As things stand at the moment on sisi, an unscripted SB almost cancels out an unscripted RSD on a specialised ship. With both modules running scripts, the RSD on the specialised ship is still not much more powerful than the SB on an unspecialised ship. ~ Increase the bonus on RSD specialised ships!
Minas Reul Synergy. Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2007.11.12 10:43:00 - [25] Originally by: Shadowsword Originally by: Captain Narmio Lowslot amplifier module? Just throwing it out there. Imho, the current ecm "damage mod" should work for every kind of EW. Screaming murder because RSD aren't as effective in Sisi than in TQ is premature, because: - There's going to be a lot less multi-sensor boosted ships out there, since sensor boosters get nerfed, too. - There's is a gang module that significantly increase EW effectiveness. Maybe you should start using RSD with an Eos in your gang? I heard that in TQ a Lachesis with gang mods can get 83% effectiveness on it's RSD. That is clearly overpowered, so it gets nerfed. No-one's screaming murder yet. I don't think the script change will discourage SBs, since they generally get used on ships that need them (snipers etc). I was comparing like-for-like with the ECM changes for a reason. Obviously there are always other factors, but given that only 1/8 CS has a significant effect on EWar strength, it seems a bit premature to include it in a baseline comparison. Yeah, the RSD is overpowered on TQ, but it has had 3 changes now which reduce it's power, and it seems too low now, for a specialised ship. ~ Increase the bonus on RSD specialised ships!
Minas Reul Synergy. Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2007.11.12 13:53:00 - [26] Edited by: Minas Reul on 12/11/2007 13:53:02 More tables! Apparently 3 Sensor Boosters on a Non-Specialised ship should be 80% as powerful as 3 RSDs on a specialised ship. Any devs care to comment? ~ Increase the bonus on RSD specialised ships!
acompton Dragons Of Redemption Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.11.12 18:52:00 - [27] Honestly is scares me to see quotes from a dev that say that RSD's are a 'sure thing' They are within a certain range, but then they go to chance based just like ECM. If this is the same dev that is making the damp adjustments then all of the Gallente recon pilots better start training for something else because they apparently have no idea how the things actually work. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ All the cool kids have Mickey Mouse ears....
Kaiji Vincente	Posted - 2007.11.13 01:35:00 - [28] Originally by: Minas Reul Edited by: Minas Reul on 12/11/2007 13:53:02 More tables! http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/minas/rsd3.JPG Apparently 3 Sensor Boosters on a Non-Specialised ship should be 80% as powerful as 3 RSDs on a specialised ship. Minor quibble: the chart you link to doesn't show the unbonused RSD numbers on Singularity for easy comparison. Even though I do agree with the scripts idea in principle, the details don't look so promising for the EW specalists. If these numbers are accurate, performance gain for using a Celestis/Lachesis/Azrau for damping is rather lackluster. Right now, I fear the net result will be even fewer Celesti and Gallente recons being used outside of the solo gank role. As a means of encouragement to leave RSDs on the dedicated ships, it seems unlikely to work.
Celedris Stimulus	Posted - 2007.11.13 01:54:00 - [29] Originally by: Shadowsword I heard that in TQ a Lachesis with gang mods can get 83% effectiveness on it's RSD. That is clearly overpowered, so it gets nerfed. I heard that on Singularity a Falcon with gang mods can get 18-points on it's 230km optimal jammers. 90-100% jam chance on most battleships, and single-module 100% permajam on anything smaller that isn't a recon. That is clearly balanced which is why it got buffed.
Arana Tellen Gallente The Blackguard Wolves Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.11.13 02:34:00 - [30] Originally by: acompton Honestly is scares me to see quotes from a dev that say that RSD's are a 'sure thing' They are within a certain range, but then they go to chance based just like ECM. If this is the same dev that is making the damp adjustments then all of the Gallente recon pilots better start training for something else because they apparently have no idea how the things actually work. I already have caldari cruiser working up --------------------------------- Thorax type R&R. (Ribbed and R rated)
Elmicker Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.11.13 02:36:00 - [31] Originally by: Arana Tellen I already have caldari cruiser working up ♥s Caldari Cruiser 5. Now to work on those ECM skills.
Devian 666 Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.13 03:25:00 - [32] Originally by: DiseL Well, we now have two out four races of Recons that will be much less effective. I agree that RSD's were over powered but not on the Lachesis/Arazu. The NOS nerf killed Amarr recons now the Lachesis/Arazu are going to suffer the same fate. Now once again the ECM boats will be all over the battlefield. Hmmm, wasn't there a big ECM nerf quite some time ago and we come full circle on them only to hammer NOS and RSD's. I get tired of these yoyo changes. Makes specializing in any single ship a big mistake. You're quite correct I said that the proposed RSD change was idiotic and I'll considered but I assumed the maulus, celestis, lach, and arazu would get a boost. Guess which EAF gets a nerf right out of the box. In the past the progression for a recon pilot was ewar frig -> ewar cruiser -> recon -> scorp The ecm nerf just rubbed out the scorp at the end. The nos and RSD nerf has just added the scorp back on the list. Funny I completed caldari bs IV last night, I wonder why I trained that... Newsflash for the balancing department: Whatever you nerf the most powerful pvp "feature" people move to the next most powerful. Balancing requires balance and overnerfing (which is standard CCP practice) actually creates overpowered builds. Another newsflash is that listening to people whining about RSDs you should actually do some detective work and find out that most of them were damped by recons or other specialised ewar ships. Overnerfing creates unbalanced ship builds. Stop overnerfing!
Minas Reul Synergy. Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2007.11.13 09:30:00 - [33] Originally by: Kaiji Vincente Minor quibble: the chart you link to doesn't show the unbonused RSD numbers on Singularity for easy comparison. Yeah, I wanted to, but adding scriptless RSDs and SBs would have made the table too big. ~ Increase the bonus on RSD specialised ships!
Minas Reul Synergy. Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2007.11.13 11:08:00 - [34] Okay, so I thought I'd help the devs out with a little calculation showing that RSDs arent a 'sure thang'. Ship 1: Rook 3 x Best Multispectral Jammers 2 x Signal Distortion Amplifiers 1 X Jam Strength Rig Against average sensor strength ships of each class, we get the following result: Battleship: 84.09% chance to jam per cycle Battlecruiser: 90.36% chance to jam per cycle Cruiser: 96.13% chance to jam per cycle Frigate: 100.70% chance to jam per cycle And that's just using multispectral jammers! With the right racial jammers, you have a 97% chance of jamming an average battleship. Now let's look at the RSD result: Ship 2: Lachesis 3 x Best Damps 1 x Damp Strength Rig Against average lock range for each class, we get: Battleship: 14km lock range Battlecruiser: 10km lock range Cruiser: 10km lock range Frigate: 4km lock range And that's using all three RSDs on one attribute! So: > RSDs might be a 'sure thing' (in their optimal), but ECM isn't far from 100% success on specialised ships. > RSDs also have the drawback that many ships can just close to locking range and lock anyway (especially with the script changes), whereas ECM completely debilitates the target at any range. > RSDs have a shorter effective range than ECM. > SBs are a module that is useful for more than just countering RSDs, unlike ECCM. RSD specced ships simply don't have a large enough bonus. ~ Increase the bonus on RSD specialised ships!
Sleepkevert Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.11.13 11:13:00 - [35] Do the sensor boosters have scripts too now? Also, sensor boosters are almost standard on battleships in PvP. Backup array's are not. _______ Sign my sig
Alpha Type Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2007.11.13 12:03:00 - [36] Edited by: Alpha Type on 13/11/2007 12:03:12 Originally by: Sleepkevert Do the sensor boosters have scripts too now? Yeah, most dual-bonus midslot items have scripts.
Minas Reul Synergy. Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2007.11.13 15:39:00 - [37] I forgot to metion this earlier, but I also noticed yesterday that damps are due to receive a fourth effective nerf in this patch, with the bonus from damp rigs being cut in half. Not only that, but now the bonus is applied differently, it's now [strength x (1+ rig bonus)] which gives a measly 2.5% strength increase to maxed RSDs. I guess it's not so bad, except that Damp Specced Ships need a bigger bonus!!! ~ Increase the bonus on RSD specialised ships!
Mortis Tyrathlion Twisted Inc.	Posted - 2007.11.13 15:48:00 - [38] Originally by: Minas Reul Okay, so I thought I'd help the devs out with a little calculation showing that RSDs arent a 'sure thang'. Ship 1: Rook 3 x Best Multispectral Jammers 2 x Signal Distortion Amplifiers 1 X Jam Strength Rig Against average sensor strength ships of each class, we get the following result: Battleship: 84.09% chance to jam per cycle Battlecruiser: 90.36% chance to jam per cycle Cruiser: 96.13% chance to jam per cycle Frigate: 100.70% chance to jam per cycle And that's just using multispectral jammers! With the right racial jammers, you have a 97% chance of jamming an average battleship. Now let's look at the RSD result: Ship 2: Lachesis 3 x Best Damps 1 x Damp Strength Rig Against average lock range for each class, we get: Battleship: 14km lock range Battlecruiser: 10km lock range Cruiser: 10km lock range Frigate: 4km lock range And that's using all three RSDs on one attribute! So: > RSDs might be a 'sure thing' (in their optimal), but ECM isn't far from 100% success on specialised ships. > RSDs also have the drawback that many ships can just close to locking range and lock anyway (especially with the script changes), whereas ECM completely debilitates the target at any range. > RSDs have a shorter effective range than ECM. > SBs are a module that is useful for more than just countering RSDs, unlike ECCM. RSD specced ships simply don't have a large enough bonus. That's just so wrong. I can see why the scripts were introduced - as a damp-fiend (only ewar I use, really), I certainly saw their potential first hand. Flying a Lachesis in gang and being the first to warp in on some mission runner was certainly fun... On the other hand, I've also flown with a Rook in gang on a gatecamp, and it nearly permajammed a Hyperion. I can certainly believe that forcing damps to specialise with the scripts is a good balancing tool, but then there's the issue of what you do. We simply don't have the midslots, even on recons! Go for scan script - doesn't help anyone already locked. Go for range script - good luck helping out your blasterboat friends. Go for a mixture - as shown, you can do **** all. Ok, good, things are interesting - maybe get a Rook tagteaming with a scan-damping Lach. Now the Lach can't even be as good as before, despite being a damping ship. Add on the fact that beyond the 3rd damp, there's no real effect thanks to stacking nerfs... Guess it's time to go train Minmatar ahead of schedule.
Gaogan Gallente Solar Storm Sev3rance	Posted - 2007.11.13 16:48:00 - [39] Originally by: Minas Reul Okay, so I thought I'd help the devs out with a little calculation showing that RSDs arent a 'sure thang'. Ship 1: Rook 3 x Best Multispectral Jammers 2 x Signal Distortion Amplifiers 1 X Jam Strength Rig Against average sensor strength ships of each class, we get the following result: Battleship: 84.09% chance to jam per cycle Battlecruiser: 90.36% chance to jam per cycle Cruiser: 96.13% chance to jam per cycle Frigate: 100.70% chance to jam per cycle And that's just using multispectral jammers! With the right racial jammers, you have a 97% chance of jamming an average battleship. Now let's look at the RSD result: Ship 2: Lachesis 3 x Best Damps 1 x Damp Strength Rig Against average lock range for each class, we get: Battleship: 14km lock range Battlecruiser: 10km lock range Cruiser: 10km lock range Frigate: 4km lock range And that's using all three RSDs on one attribute! So: > RSDs might be a 'sure thing' (in their optimal), but ECM isn't far from 100% success on specialised ships. > RSDs also have the drawback that many ships can just close to locking range and lock anyway (especially with the script changes), whereas ECM completely debilitates the target at any range. > RSDs have a shorter effective range than ECM. > SBs are a module that is useful for more than just countering RSDs, unlike ECCM. RSD specced ships simply don't have a large enough bonus. /SIGNED Get it through your head you stupid whiners: DAMPS ARE NOT OVERPOWERED! Already a falcon can more effectively disable more ships in more situations than a lachesis. After this nerf, a lachesis will be useless against even a single target at ranges less than 30 km. And what am I supposed to fit on my stealth bomber's mid slots now? Before the damp was just enough to break most people's locks at 75-100km... now it won't be, meaning they can just shoot back and one shot the pathetically weak bomber.
Alpha Type Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2007.11.14 09:58:00 - [40] Still no response?
Varrakk Chosen Path	Posted - 2007.11.14 11:02:00 - [41] Originally by: Ruciza Originally by: Minas Reul the ships will struggle to have any meaningful impact on combat in eve. Wouldn't that be wonderful? A beautiful dream... Just like the Pilgrim and Curse..
Aenigma Griefwatch	Posted - 2007.11.14 12:08:00 - [42] Originally by: Minas Reul Okay, so I thought I'd help the devs out with a little calculation showing that RSDs arent a 'sure thang'. Ship 1: Rook 3 x Best Multispectral Jammers 2 x Signal Distortion Amplifiers 1 X Jam Strength Rig Against average sensor strength ships of each class, we get the following result: Battleship: 84.09% chance to jam per cycle Battlecruiser: 90.36% chance to jam per cycle Cruiser: 96.13% chance to jam per cycle Frigate: 100.70% chance to jam per cycle I recalculated these numbers and found about the same results: Multispectral jammer II: 2.4 strength Rook (Recon 5): x(1+50.2) Signal Dispersion 5: x(1+0.50.05) 2x Signal Dist. Amp. II: x(1+0.20+0.86*0.20) [Stacking penalized on attribute scan strength bonus] 1x Particle Disp. Augm. I: x (1+0.1) [Stacking penalized on attribute ew strength modifier, that doesn't seem to be the same stack as the modules above] This leads to a strength of 2.4 x 2 x 1.25 x 1.372 x 1.1 = 9.0552 per multispectral jammer. I cannot fly Rooks so i cannot check if this is correct. This is not including any gang bonuses. For battleships: Avg. sensor strength = ~20 The chance to jam is then 9.0552/20=0.45276 The chance not to jam is then 1-0.45276=0.54724 Hence with 2 jammers the chance to jam is 1-(0.54724)^2=0.7005 -> 70.05% Hence with 3 jammers the chance to jam is 1-(0.54724)^3=0.8361 -> 83.61% For battlecruisers: Avg. sensor strength = ~17 The chance to jam is then 9.0552/17=0.532659 The chance not to jam is then 1-0.532659=0.467341 Hence with 2 jammers the chance to jam is 1-(0.467341)^2=0.7816 -> 78.16% Hence with 3 jammers the chance to jam is 1-(0.467341)^3=0.8979 -> 89.79% For cruisers: Avg. sensor strength = ~13 The chance to jam is then 9.0552/13=0.696554 The chance not to jam is then 1-0.696554=0.303446 Hence with 2 jammers the chance to jam is 1-(0.303446)^2=0.9079 -> 90.79% Hence with 3 jammers the chance to jam is 1-(0.303446)^3=0.9721 -> 97.21% For frigates: Avg. sensor strength = ~9 The chance to jam is then 9.0552/9>1 (and chances cannot ever be greater than 1) The chance not to jam is then 0 Hence with 1 jammer the chance to jam is 1.00 -> 100% I won't draw any conclusions to RSDs from this, but I'd really like to hear why the devs think that ECM is not a 'sure thing' on a well-skilled character. Even with just 2 multispectral jammers on a battleship, the chance not to get a jam in 2 cycles is only 9%. ECM has an advantage of a higher optimal range on specialized ships. It also has an advantage because having ECCM fitted is far less standard as having sensor boosters fitted, so the chance that you will run into something that actually is prepared to fight ECM is smaller. A further advantage is that unlike other types of EW, it completely shuts down the offensive systems of ships (with the exception of FoF and drones, but all other types of EW are not invulnerable to it either) and it can't be countered by getting into range (range-script RSD), having a bit more patience(lock-script RSD, it's only useful against big ships), getting into fall-off range (optimal-script TD) or making the target have less transversal velocity/ increase their signature (tracking-script TD). I hope the devs did these kind of calculations and took these things into consideration when applying these changes for SiSi. I'm sure they did and that's all the more reason for me to want to hear their arguments for the changes as they are now. BattleClinic \| Griefwatch
Minas Reul Synergy. Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2007.11.14 12:25:00 - [43] Originally by: Aenigma I recalculated these numbers and found about the same results... Glad to see that our results agree (I used slightly different base sensor strengths). I too would like to hear the reasoning behind this. It's not like we want RSDs boosted, just the ships that are specialised to use them, yet CCP gives no decent explanation of why they are happy with the change. Hell, they might even convince us if they do! ~ Increase the bonus on RSD specialised ships!
Gaogan Gallente Solar Storm Sev3rance	Posted - 2007.11.14 15:37:00 - [44] If they DID consider all these facts, then they did so while drunk at the pub, and need to reevaluate them while sober.
Dingus Rx Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.11.14 16:52:00 - [45] /signed. CCP please address Dingus Out
Teli San	Posted - 2007.11.14 17:03:00 - [46] Thanks for all those calculations. No need to say more : Damps are simply useless now compared to Jammers. Please reduce the nerf CCP. In one way or another. (best IMHO : let the script, but it make it so the damps keep the same effectiveness prenerf, but on only one attribute). And a dev input to all these constructives criticism and hard math work would be nice too!
PCX339 The Scope	Posted - 2007.11.14 17:13:00 - [47] Edited by: PCX339 on 14/11/2007 17:14:39 Yeah, I fly Lachesis and Arazu regularly and love that I am welcome in gangs. Now there will be frigates and a whole ship class (Hvy Interdictor) with extended warp disruption ranges and the sensor damps are not really capable of effecting average range pvp combat (and yes I've been on SiSi - alot). The Gallente recons no longer have a role and are just expensive paper-thin cruisers with lots of mids and little damage. Bleah. At least when they originally nerfed ECM they tried to let the specialized ships keep a role.
Altaic Bits	Posted - 2007.11.15 09:48:00 - [48] /signed
Kaiji Vincente	Posted - 2007.11.15 23:05:00 - [49] Originally by: Minas Reul I forgot to metion this earlier, but I also noticed yesterday that damps are due to receive a fourth effective nerf in this patch, with the bonus from damp rigs being cut in half. Not only that, but now the bonus is applied differently, it's now [strength x (1+ rig bonus)] which gives a measly 2.5% strength increase to maxed RSDs. I guess it's not so bad, except that Damp Specced Ships need a bigger bonus!!! I was under the impression this was how Inverted Signal rigs already worked on TQ. EFT certainly suggests this is the case, and it's number vaguely agrees with manual calculation if stacking penalties with ship bonus and pilot skills are assumed. (I get a 5% increase from the T1 rig, and 7.5% increase for T2, using TQ numbers. Assumptions: ship skill 5, signal suppresion 3+, no implants.) If CCP wants to discourage min-max types from using damper rigs to compete with a trained EW specalist, I can see the reasoning. With Gal cruiser 4, Sensor Linking 1, ES Rigging 1, and two T1 rigs, you can get 62% effect on a low-end named RSD. (I.e. comperable effect for much less time and skill points.) Using current TQ strengths. Now I'm all for getting rid of FOTM idiocy. And if weakening rigs makes advanced EW skills more effective than just spending a couple million ISK, a trained EW specalist becomes all the more valuable. But please, leave the dedicated EWAR types something to work with on the Gallente ships that specalize in it. These changes, taken in totality, are going to make it difficult for a Celestis (or it's recon offspring) to have any significant effect on more than one target, compared to a couple "spare midslot" RSDs on more damage oriented ships. Especially since Caldari, Minmatar, and <gasp> even Amaar EW ships can still noticably affect multiple adversaries without fitting in total disregard for their Tech I ship bonuses.
Minas Reul Synergy. Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2007.11.16 12:47:00 - [50] Edited by: Minas Reul on 16/11/2007 12:47:54 MOAR tables! clicky In this table I'm illustrating the strength of ECM despite it's non-certain success, although I have already demonstrated that it has an incredibly high rate of success. One of the the bonuses of ECM is that if you succeed in breaking a lock (which always happens if you are successful, unlike with RSDs), your target then has to re-lock. In the table, I have given the lock times for various classes versus various other classes. I have also shown the % of a failed jam cycle during which the previously jammed target is waiting for a lock to complete. As you can see, for BS especially, it is a long time ( > half the cycle in all cases). However, even for cruisers and frigates, it is still a significant length of time. Reaction time also comes into play, with people not starting to re-lock exatly as the jam finishes. In the last column, I have given the chance of being jammed at least every other cycle (assuming 3 multispecs as before). As you can see, it is almost a certainty that you will be jammed at least once every two cycles, and the ships that can lock faster, and hence lose less time to re-locking are more likely to be jammmed anyway. More proof of the power of ECM, and the need to boost RSD ship bonuses. ~ Increase the bonus on RSD specialised ships!
Gaogan Gallente Solar Storm Sev3rance	Posted - 2007.11.16 15:54:00 - [51] Nice number crunching Minas. We also need to dispell this myth that damps are a sure thing. They don't fail WITHIN THEIR OPTIMAL, which is only 30k. As you move into falloff, you get an increasing chance of failure. Then of course, you have the fact that they don't break all locks like ecm, so even when they DO work, depending on the ranges involved, they still may not do any good.
Samurai XII	Posted - 2007.11.16 16:14:00 - [52] Have you noobs even thought about that MAYBE the ship isn't suppose to be a solowtfpwnmachine... Maybe they should be use in groups to be super effective, as it was before one of them was way overpowered. If anything, CCP finally did something right in their 'balancing' act. ______________________ Just another cool alt.
Gaogan Gallente Solar Storm Sev3rance	Posted - 2007.11.16 16:37:00 - [53] Originally by: Samurai XII Have you noobs even thought about that MAYBE the ship isn't suppose to be a solowtfpwnmachine... Maybe they should be use in groups to be super effective, as it was before one of them was way overpowered. If anything, CCP finally did something right in their 'balancing' act. Have you, noob, stopped to consider that they AREN'T solopwnmachines, and are supposed to be able to support a gang? After this nerf, why would a gang consier bringing along a celestis, when AT BEST it can take 1 enemy ship out of the fight? Anyone in their right mind would rather have a ship that can dish and take dps. Ewar ships have no dps or tank because they are there to neutralize other ships. The only way that is worthwhile is if they can neutralize more than one or two. If you think it's bad being damped by an arazu 1v1, try being jammed by a falcon. There is a reason they have low dps and no tank.
Minas Reul Synergy. Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2007.11.16 20:59:00 - [54] Originally by: Samurai XII Have you noobs even thought about that MAYBE the ship isn't suppose to be a solowtfpwnmachine... Maybe they should be use in groups to be super effective, as it was before one of them was way overpowered. If anything, CCP finally did something right in their 'balancing' act. We don't want the ships to be solo wtfpwnmachines, and they aren't anything close to that (weaksauce damage and tank), it's just that with a paltry 25% bonus, you're better off bringing a damping Drake, for example, and doing more dps, having a better tank, and having only slightly less damp strength. One whole point of the nerf was to discourage it's use on non-specialised ships, but there's no real advantage to flying the specialised ships. ~ Increase the bonus on RSD specialised ships!
Kaiji Vincente	Posted - 2007.11.16 21:08:00 - [55] Originally by: Samurai XII Have you noobs even thought about that MAYBE the ship isn't suppose to be a solowtfpwnmachine... Maybe they should be use in groups to be super effective, as it was before one of them was way overpowered. If anything, CCP finally did something right in their 'balancing' act. Have you bothered to read this thread? Solo ganking is the only PvP role that hasn't been nerfed to oblivion for Gallente Recons.
Princess Jodi Vendetta Underground Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.11.16 22:13:00 - [56] I'd like to ask the Sensor Dampening crowd one question: How can a Carrier fight back against even ONE of these ships? I'd like to sympathize with the posts in this thread because they sound familiar to the proposed nerf-bat mega-Whomp that was proposed against Carriers, but I just can't. A Carrier is nothing but a floating meat pile to even a single Sensor Dampening ship. When you are discussing changes and balance, please keep in mind Capitals.
Minas Reul Synergy. Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2007.11.16 22:43:00 - [57] Originally by: Princess Jodi I'd like to ask the Sensor Dampening crowd one question: How can a Carrier fight back against even ONE of these ships? I'd like to sympathize with the posts in this thread because they sound familiar to the proposed nerf-bat mega-Whomp that was proposed against Carriers, but I just can't. A Carrier is nothing but a floating meat pile to even a single Sensor Dampening ship. When you are discussing changes and balance, please keep in mind Capitals. You could say the same for ECM boats. Capitals just shouldn't be used without support if they expect to be viable, and support should be dealing with ewar first. Again: it's not about the module. It's about the ships. They just arent specialised enough. ~ Increase the bonus on RSD specialised ships!
Kaiji Vincente	Posted - 2007.11.17 01:22:00 - [58] Edited by: Kaiji Vincente on 17/11/2007 01:24:23 OK, let's consider the capital angle. Some back of the envelop calculations using Gallente ships as an example. Thanatos Carrier: Magnetometric Sensor - 76 pt Targeting Range - 192km (100km base, T2 Booster + Long Range Targeting 4) Turrets - 0 Signature - 2960m Capacitor - 75000 (Energy Mgmt V) Moros Dreadnaught: Magnetometric Sensor - 44 pt Targeting Range - 201km (105km base, T2 booster + LRT 4) Turrets - 3 Signature - 1740m Capacitor - 65625 (Energy Mgmt V) Using a max skilled Rook, hitting it with three Multispec II gives a jamming rate of around 29% on the carrier, 47% on the Dread. Adding a single T2 ECCM drops these to 16% and 26% respectively. So significant resistance here out the door, but not what I'd call total immunity either. Tracking disruptors are only significant against dreads, due to carriers having no turrets. And even then, the Caldari one is mostly immune as it's set up for missiles. Could go either way on this one, depending on hostile fleet composition. The Dual 1000mm Railgun turret has a target resolution of 1000m. Significantly less than the signature radius of either capital type. Assuming these values are typical, the tactical utility of using target painters against capitals is dubious at best. (Exception: Dreads firing on a POS in siege mode?) Nos/Neut tactics? Can and has been done in the past, but my understanding is that you can't make it work with only one or two BS size ships unless the cap pilot is either AFK or an idiot. And finally, dampers. Assuming I haven't messed up the strength numbers on the test server, two RSD II on a Celestis/Azrau/Lachesis with max skill and no rigs gives: Thanatos eff. range: 21.6km (TQ), 65km (SiSi/Range) Moros eff. range: 22.6km (TQ), 68.1km (SiSi/Range) With 100% certainty, if the damper ship is no more than 30km away. (45km, if our hypothetical pilot has Long Range Jamming V.) From a practical standpoint, if our Damper ship is at Optimal + 1/2 Falloff (60-90km, depending on EW range skills) we're looking at probbably 60% odds of full effect, 75-80% for partial effect. Staggered damp activation, plus having a 10 second cycle time instead of 20 seconds for ECM ... yeah. If I was a cap pilot, I'd probbably shoot the Gallente EW ships fist even if they weren't close enough to warp scramble. Damnit. Capitals being inherently resistant to every form of primary EW except damps makes this a much, much nastier problem.
PCX339 The Scope	Posted - 2007.11.17 01:45:00 - [59] Originally by: Kaiji Vincente Damnit. Capitals being inherently resistant to every form of primary EW except damps makes this a much, much nastier problem. Hmmm. Why not just increase locking range on all capitals by 2x or more? Why not... doesn't hurt anything else right?
Minas Reul Synergy. Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2007.11.17 10:54:00 - [60] Originally by: PCX339 Originally by: Kaiji Vincente Damnit. Capitals being inherently resistant to every form of primary EW except damps makes this a much, much nastier problem. Hmmm. Why not just increase locking range on all capitals by 2x or more? Why not... doesn't hurt anything else right? But considering that CCP are introducing a whole class of ships that are inherently ECM susceptable (marauders), is it not okay perhaps for capitals to be inherently RSD weak? Either way, you may be right that capitals need a higher lock range, but it's kinda off-topic as it's to do with the effectiveness of RSDs in general (which has been massively reduced), not the effectiveness of RSD specced ships versus non-specced ships. ~ Increase the bonus on RSD specialised ships!
a51 duke1406 Order Of The Sentinel	Posted - 2007.11.17 11:56:00 - [61] Good to see CPP have worked it all out, A 92% chance of jamming a battleship as opposed to bringing it to 15k locking range, wow, yes ccp, I understand now But its good to see people taking a real interest in the changes and putting in alot of work on the maths, now it would be nice if CCP would reply.
Dana Serenity	Posted - 2007.11.17 12:53:00 - [62] Though this thread seems to be solely about RSD's. I'm going to actually be talking about all the script NERFS. First of all I actually agree with you CCP that it would be better to split the double bonuses of such modules and use scripts to get a better singular bonus. What I dont understand is why the hell the singular bonus is so much less than what is currently on TQ? Taking both the loss of the double bonus and the reduction of the singular bonus, this is about 34% as effective as the same module on TQ ATM. WTF! You have stated that this is balanced due to the opposing module recieving the same nerf (sensor boosters Vs sensor damps) but surely by reducing the effectiveness of such modules makes them less of a viable option for PvP. Do you really want everybody only flying tank/gank ships and not using anything else, surely this would be the start of making PvP boring. Not to mention that sniper setups will be next to useless now with this nerf to boosters and tc's, and using snipers as fire support should be a very viable option for gang combat! I can see the argument to a degree that in certain situations, having a sensor dampener or tracking disrupter can equal "I win button" but nerfing it to oblivion is not the answer. Surely it would be better to give players a more viable defence, we all know the sensor boosters/tracking computers are not that effective at couteracting the effects of sensor damps/tracking disrupters! How about making it more effective? This can be done without making them overpowered VERY EASILY! Heres a rough idea which I think would work. It would allow for ewar setups to remain effective while still giving opposing players a viable defence against it (a form of eccm for damps/disrupters) while still allowing sniper setups to be effective and splitting the double bonus currently applicable in Eve; 1) Keep scripts as they are with the only exception being that using them give the same singular bonus as the module currently does on TQ 2) Make Sensor Boosters/Tracking Computers/Tracking Enhancer/Sensor Enhancers have a passive bonus which reduces the effect of incoming Sensor Dampeners/Tracking Disrupters This would actually make Sensor Boosters/Tracking Computers be reasonably effective against Sensor Damps/Tracking Disrupters because they would act as a form of ECCM and counter them also with the bonus they already get which is now effected by which script is used. Damps & disrupters would still be very effective in PvP but would not be the "I WIN" button that they sometimes are today. Just a rough idea and probably needs a bit more thought but think that this is better than the complete blitznerf on these givern modules thats currently on SISI!
Elmicker The Scope	Posted - 2007.11.17 13:29:00 - [63] Originally by: Princess Jodi How can a Carrier fight back against even ONE of these ships? Drone assignment. Support fleet. The more pertinent question is "How can an arazu fight back against even ONE ship of any other class". The answer, as provided by a dev, is 4 damps. It currently takes 2 on TQ to lock a target down. If that isn't an unneeded nerf, i don't know what is. 4, even multispec, jammers from a rook will lock any target down with near 100% certainty. Damps are nowhere near 100%.
Kaiji Vincente	Posted - 2007.11.17 17:33:00 - [64] Originally by: Elmicker The more pertinent question is "How can an arazu fight back against even ONE ship of any other class". The answer, as provided by a dev, is 4 damps. It currently takes 2 on TQ to lock a target down. If that isn't an unneeded nerf, i don't know what is. 4, even multispec, jammers from a rook will lock any target down with near 100% certainty. Damps are nowhere near 100%. Then I have to question if this Dev has looked at the math on how multiple dampers work. Stacking penalties make a simple "number of ECM mods vs damps" comparison pointless. More than three damps gets you effectively no improvement. Ex: Hostile with 50km tareting range (Unboosted AF, or Inty with some form of SB) 2 RSD @55% range reduction: 11.7km effective (non-FOF) firing range 3 RSD @55%: 8km effective range 4 RSD @55%: 6.8km effective range You can play with the numbers as much as you want, but unless the underlying equation or stacking penalties are changed, you're into rapidly diminishing returns on damper #3.
Minas Reul Synergy. Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2007.11.18 11:45:00 - [65] Still no full explanation. ~ Increase the bonus on RSD specialised ships!
dor amwar Foundation R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.11.18 12:09:00 - [66] don't complain, at least you have something to get nerfed. minmatar have what ... painters
Alpha Type Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2007.11.19 16:00:00 - [67] Come on CCP! This really needs adressing. These are 'specialised ships' that have no significant advantage to an unspecialised ship in their own role, and no particular advantage over their unspecialised adversaries trying to counter them. Increase the bonus to 7.5% per level, at least.
Kransthow AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2007.11.20 03:47:00 - [68] Keep damps The same as they are on speced ships and nerf them on other ships CCP k thx bi
Kaiji Vincente	Posted - 2007.11.20 04:40:00 - [69] New dev blog on scripted modules here. Short version: math for how bonuses apply to scriptable EW is/will be different from current mechanics. The example given is for tracking disruptors, but this suggests the picture for Rev 3 gallente EW ships may not be quite so bleak after all. My suspicion the Devs want to reserve 50% or higher effect strength for specalist ships with advanced skill training is also starting to look vaguely credible.
Liang Nuren The Avalon Foundation Knights Of Syndicate	Posted - 2007.11.20 04:54:00 - [70] Originally by: Kaiji Vincente New dev blog on scripted modules here. Short version: math for how bonuses apply to scriptable EW is/will be different from current mechanics. The example given is for tracking disruptors, but this suggests the picture for Rev 3 gallente EW ships may not be quite so bleak after all. My suspicion the Devs want to reserve 50% or higher effect strength for specalist ships with advanced skill training is also starting to look vaguely credible. They claim that on Sisi it should be already the way it is on TQ - you just have to choose between lock range and lock speed. The problem? We get Rigged Max skilled Arazus that damp like half of a T1 unbonused damp on TQ. Liang -- Retired forum *****. Plz tell me to STFU. Yarr?
nemississ Kissaki Confederation	Posted - 2007.11.20 04:58:00 - [71] i should probably throw this out there that not only does the gallente recon get smacked in the face with the damp nerf it also gets smacked with the drone nerf since as much as ccp may want to say but you get highslots most gallente recon pilots use drones as primary dps cause the guns just suck.
Kaiji Vincente	Posted - 2007.11.20 05:19:00 - [72] Originally by: Liang Nuren They claim that on Sisi it should be already the way it is on TQ - you just have to choose between lock range and lock speed. The problem? We get Rigged Max skilled Arazus that damp like half of a T1 unbonused damp on TQ. Liang Hence the qualifier, "suggests". The math described in the dev blog is a major departue from how things currently work for calculating damper strength. Hopefully this a result of SiSi module stats being changed before the associated code was updated. (I refuse to give odds on this, however.)
Liang Nuren The Avalon Foundation Knights Of Syndicate	Posted - 2007.11.20 05:34:00 - [73] Originally by: Kaiji Vincente Originally by: Liang Nuren They claim that on Sisi it should be already the way it is on TQ - you just have to choose between lock range and lock speed. The problem? We get Rigged Max skilled Arazus that damp like half of a T1 unbonused damp on TQ. Liang Hence the qualifier, "suggests". The math described in the dev blog is a major departue from how things currently work for calculating damper strength. Hopefully this a result of SiSi module stats being changed before the associated code was updated. (I refuse to give odds on this, however.) If they're planning on all this coming out in Trinity, that's actually quite likely. Liang -- Retired forum *****. Plz tell me to STFU. Yarr?
Yukisa	Posted - 2007.11.20 07:36:00 - [74] Nerfing them on standard ships is logical. Nerfing them on specialized EW ships also is irresponsible. CCP if you plan on making broad changes, consider the side effects as well.
Minas Reul Synergy. Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2007.11.20 09:51:00 - [75] Originally by: Kaiji Vincente New dev blog on scripted modules here. Short version: math for how bonuses apply to scriptable EW is/will be different from current mechanics. The example given is for tracking disruptors, but this suggests the picture for Rev 3 gallente EW ships may not be quite so bleak after all. My suspicion the Devs want to reserve 50% or higher effect strength for specalist ships with advanced skill training is also starting to look vaguely credible. Yeah, the way they calculated it in the dev blog is the way I did my calcs on the earlier pages of this thread. Basically it's a lot worse than before, unless you can get your base damp strength significantly above 50%, which the specialised ships should be able to do (but can't). This would make them still worse than before, but not as poor as now. ~ Increase the bonus on RSD specialised ships!
Complex Potential Soliders Of Eve The Church.	Posted - 2007.11.20 13:18:00 - [76] /signed And a friendly bump. Let's keep this issue in the public eye.
Hugh Ruka Caldari Exploratio et Industria Morispatia	Posted - 2007.11.20 15:01:00 - [77] I have to agree that the ARM script idea is a NERF. I have signal dispersion 5, recon 5, cald cruiser 5 and cald BS 5, so I am just smiling as an ECM pilot. But I think it is only a short lived smile ... Halving the Sensor Booster module effect and scripting the RSDs would be the best solution (without scripting or changing TDs and TCs). However given the current situation, TDs need a fallof reduction scripts. And all the scripted reducing EW mods need the specialised ship bonuses altered by as much as 50% increase. Come to think about it, scripting ECM would be cool. But that would be a HUGE boost to ECM, as I can switch from multispec to racial jammer on the fly (in the ideal scenario). There are a few more elegant solutions then ARM scripts available, but seems the DEVs are out of sensible ideas. Originally by: Aravel Thon Originally by: Nith Batoxxx Hi my alt just leanred to fly the ferox............... I am so so terribly sorry...
Kaiji Vincente	Posted - 2007.11.20 16:41:00 - [78] Originally by: Minas Reul Originally by: Kaiji Vincente New dev blog on scripted modules here. Short version: math for how bonuses apply to scriptable EW is/will be different from current mechanics. The example given is for tracking disruptors, but this suggests the picture for Rev 3 gallente EW ships may not be quite so bleak after all. My suspicion the Devs want to reserve 50% or higher effect strength for specalist ships with advanced skill training is also starting to look vaguely credible. Yeah, the way they calculated it in the dev blog is the way I did my calcs on the earlier pages of this thread. Basically it's a lot worse than before, unless you can get your base damp strength significantly above 50%, which the specialised ships should be able to do (but can't). This would make them still worse than before, but not as poor as now. I seem to have forgotten that SiSi has RSD II at 34% effect with script. Whoops. If we bump the ship-based bonus amount, the numbers become: No bonus (for comparison): 0.341.25 = 0.425 or 42.5% (max skill) At 5%/level: 0.341.25 = 0.425 or 42.5% (ship only) 0.341.251.25 = 0.53125 or 53.1% (max skill) At 7.5%/level: 0.341.375 = .4675 or 46.75% (ship only) 0.341.3751.25 = 0.584 or 58.4% (max skill) At 10%/level: 0.341.5 = 0.51 or 51% (ship only) 0.341.51.25 = 0.6375 or 63.75% (max skill) Conclusion: Mallus, Celestis, and their Tech II descendants need their damp strength bonus doubled to retain a significant fraction of their current mojo. Anything higher and you've got them hitting well above 50% per module without training signal supression to 4 or 5.
SoldierOfJustice Infortunatus Eventus HUZZAH FEDERATION	Posted - 2007.11.20 18:52:00 - [79] /signed The original post by Minas Reul makes sense. But am afraid CCP wont change anything. Here is the last picture taken of the devs after the nerfs were decided: Devs I am looking forward to play WoW when the new patch is applied and eve is ruined .
britchie Gallente The Phoenix Rising FreeFall Securities	Posted - 2007.11.20 20:23:00 - [80] I hope the bonus increases on the specialized ships, but i can still effectively tackle someone with an arazu the way it is atm on sisi. Dont forget about the warp disrupter range too guys. But the celestis will probably need an increase to be as good as a blackbird. Does anyone know how to get my name capitalized?
James Lyrus Lyrus Associates Enuma Elish.	Posted - 2007.11.20 21:56:00 - [81] Originally by: Aenigma I won't draw any conclusions to RSDs from this, but I'd really like to hear why the devs think that ECM is not a 'sure thing' on a well-skilled character. Even with just 2 multispectral jammers used against a battleship, the chance on not getting a jam in 2 cycles is only 9%. Because the average battleship will pop you in 1 cycle, or at the very least unleash 150dps or so of drones on your untanked ship. Which as you quite correctly point out happens 30% of the time, if you're using 2 jammers, on a max skilled character. -- Crane needs more grid 249km locking? GMP and TNP
Ulstan	Posted - 2007.11.20 22:40:00 - [82] OP makes solid, good points, and backs it up with data. Excellent.
Altaic Bits	Posted - 2007.11.21 10:00:00 - [83] This really needs to happen.
Salacir Khan	Posted - 2007.11.21 10:23:00 - [84] Edited by: Salacir Khan on 21/11/2007 10:23:07 All this counts also for Tracking Disruptors. I really wasnt aware that anyone would consider TDs an overpowerd Mod that needed a nerf :( I dont like to complain about changes in game balances, but this one just goes too far into the wrong direction. Nerfing EWar in general would be ok. Nerfing Recons in general would be ok. (not that i think that this would be necessary, but we could adjust to it and play on) But nerfing Ewar in a way, so it renders the special attributes of Recons kinda useless is just wrong imo. The Solution to this is so simple : Bigger Boni for Ewar Mods on Recons -> Everythings fine. I hope CCP will have a look into this before Trinity goes live. If not I pedition they give the Pilgrim a bigger Cargohold and a Bonus for Mining or salvaging.... :/
Minas Reul Synergy. Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2007.11.21 16:38:00 - [85] Originally by: Salacir Khan Edited by: Salacir Khan on 21/11/2007 10:23:07 All this counts also for Tracking Disruptors. I really wasnt aware that anyone would consider TDs an overpowerd Mod that needed a nerf :( I dont like to complain about changes in game balances, but this one just goes too far into the wrong direction. Nerfing EWar in general would be ok. Nerfing Recons in general would be ok. (not that i think that this would be necessary, but we could adjust to it and play on) But nerfing Ewar in a way, so it renders the special attributes of Recons kinda useless is just wrong imo. The Solution to this is so simple : Bigger Boni for Ewar Mods on Recons -> Everythings fine. I hope CCP will have a look into this before Trinity goes live. If not I pedition they give the Pilgrim a bigger Cargohold and a Bonus for Mining or salvaging.... :/ Exactly. Though I never mentioned it, it certainly should be obvious that TD specced ships need an increased bonus too, especially since the passive low-slot module for tracking is not as weak compared to the midslot module as is the case for sensor boosting. Pretty much all of my previous maths only needs a few changes to show how useless the TD ship bonus presently is. Quite how CCP hopes for these types of ewar to be powerful specialisms (as ECM is), I have no idea. ~ Increase the bonus on RSD specialised ships!
Liang Nuren The Avalon Foundation Knights Of Syndicate	Posted - 2007.11.21 18:41:00 - [86] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 21/11/2007 18:41:57 Originally by: Minas Reul Quite how CCP hopes for these types of ewar to be powerful specialisms (as ECM is), I have no idea. I don't think they do, actually. I think they're looking to nerf the variety of ewar that's available and effective in game. This makes it easier to "counter" ewar - because nobody likes to just sit there and die. Quote from another post of mine: Quote: 4. Rework the Ewar system so that there is a single strong form of ewar (ECM). This lets people feel more comfortable fitting a counter to "all ewar". snipped With respect to point 4, let's face it: it's no fun to sit there and never shoot back. This is what ewar does - it makes you just die, and it ***es lots of people off. But, what's the practical difference between having an ewar tank and a OMGWTFUBER tank? Well, the only real difference is that you could choose to shoot someone else with wtf tank, and ewar prevents that. Ewar is "no fun" to the bruiser pilots, so they're nerfing it - by nerfing variety. At least, this is my opinion. For supporting evidence, CCP Zulupark says that "for parity, it just doesn't make sense not to script Tracking Disruptors", and "We've looked at the modules on Sisi and we feel that they are balanced correctly now". CCP feels that TD's and Damps are fine* at this point - when obviously with a Curse/Pilgrim/Arazu/Lachesis you won't even be able to completely lock down a single ship of the appropriate type. OTOH, the Falcon/Rook/Scorpion are locking down 3-4 ships regularly (this is where they should have been all along, tbqfh though). Liang Ed: Screwed up the quote boxes -- Retired forum *****. Plz tell me to STFU. Yarr?
Minas Reul Synergy. Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2007.11.21 21:02:00 - [87] Originally by: Liang Nuren Edited by: Liang Nuren on 21/11/2007 18:41:57 Originally by: Minas Reul Quite how CCP hopes for these types of ewar to be powerful specialisms (as ECM is), I have no idea. I don't think they do, actually. I think they're looking to nerf the variety of ewar that's available and effective in game. This makes it easier to "counter" ewar - because nobody likes to just sit there and die. Quote from another post of mine: Quote: 4. Rework the Ewar system so that there is a single strong form of ewar (ECM). This lets people feel more comfortable fitting a counter to "all ewar". snipped With respect to point 4, let's face it: it's no fun to sit there and never shoot back. This is what ewar does - it makes you just die, and it ***es lots of people off. But, what's the practical difference between having an ewar tank and a OMGWTFUBER tank? Well, the only real difference is that you could choose to shoot someone else with wtf tank, and ewar prevents that. Ewar is "no fun" to the bruiser pilots, so they're nerfing it - by nerfing variety. At least, this is my opinion. For supporting evidence, CCP Zulupark says that "for parity, it just doesn't make sense not to script Tracking Disruptors", and "We've looked at the modules on Sisi and we feel that they are balanced correctly now". CCP feels that TD's and Damps are fine* at this point - when obviously with a Curse/Pilgrim/Arazu/Lachesis you won't even be able to completely lock down a single ship of the appropriate type. OTOH, the Falcon/Rook/Scorpion are locking down 3-4 ships regularly (this is where they should have been all along, tbqfh though). Liang Ed: Screwed up the quote boxes If that is the intention, (and I doubt it , seeing as the recon and EAF class would need a thorough overhaul first), then I would expect CCP to say more than 'it's okay because RSDs/TDs are a sure thing and ECM isn't', which is entirely misleading. ~ Increase the bonus on RSD specialised ships!
SoldierOfJustice Infortunatus Eventus HUZZAH FEDERATION	Posted - 2007.11.21 23:19:00 - [88] Originally by: Liang Nuren Edited by: Liang Nuren on 21/11/2007 18:41:57 Originally by: Minas Reul Quite how CCP hopes for these types of ewar to be powerful specialisms (as ECM is), I have no idea. I don't think they do, actually. I think they're looking to nerf the variety of ewar that's available and effective in game. This makes it easier to "counter" ewar - because nobody likes to just sit there and die. You're not making any sense. The whole point in EW is to neutralize enemy ships in the battlefield, meaning enemy ships are rendered useless and put out of the battle untill their time comes . If EW isnt able to do that then it shouldnt be in the game at all. Simple as that. If ECM doesnt work then why have it in game? Damps dont work they why have them in game? I really dont see why damps and tracking disruptors are hit so hard just because some stupid players dont want to die to a ship using those. If the argument is that not all ships should be able to use them, then fine, reduce the power of the modules and boost the specialized ship bonuses so the mods are still usable on those ships. If I meet a falcon I expect to be jammed, if I meet an arazu/pilgrim I better be dampened or tracking disrupted. CCP, If those ships dont work, then FFS remove them to make it easier for your devs to make the game actully work. My problem in eve isnt that I got dampened and left out, but that I cant see the enemy before its too late. Even more could be mentionened about how CCP wants to have less blobs, well, with no EW then numbers are the only way to stand up to blobs. Darwin would be dissapointed if he sees how you are de-evolving!
Minas Reul Synergy. Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2007.11.22 19:14:00 - [89] Originally by: SoldierOfJustice If I meet a falcon I expect to be jammed, if I meet an arazu/pilgrim I better be dampened or tracking disrupted. CCP, If those ships dont work, then FFS remove them to make it easier for your devs to make the game actully work. My problem in eve isnt that I got dampened and left out, but that I cant see the enemy before its too late. Even more could be mentionened about how CCP wants to have less blobs, well, with no EW then numbers are the only way to stand up to blobs. Darwin would be dissapointed if he sees how you are de-evolving! Very true, and while the power of damps was being abused by non-specced ships, it was for solo work mainly. With that now countered via the planned changes, something needs to be done to put damps back in place as a blob-breaker, and boosting specced ships is part of that. ~ Increase the bonus on RSD specialised ships!
Percunust	Posted - 2007.11.24 23:48:00 - [90] /signed
DarkXenon	Posted - 2007.11.25 01:44:00 - [91] Just had a war where I was flying a turtle tank domi with 2 ECCM, I still got jammed most of the time as did my gangmate running the same setup. This next patch is starting to take the **** with all the Caldari buffs and Gallente Nerfs. /Op Signed
Aenigma Griefwatch	Posted - 2007.11.25 13:32:00 - [92] Edited by: Aenigma on 25/11/2007 13:33:37 Originally by: DarkXenon This next patch is starting to take the **** with all the Caldari buffs and Gallente Nerfs. Well, I think you are making a slight mistake here. ECM isn't buffed and will remain the same, which is not a bad thing. It doesn't need a nerf in my opinion. Not many people complained about it before Trinity and I do find it odd that people would suddenly complain about ECM. The only general Caldari buff you mentioned is increasing the usefulness of torpedoes. The rest adresses ships. The general Gallente nerfs you speak about are non-existent. Several Gallente ships were toned down because they were just too good. The drone rescoop was a bit lame. RSDs were used as heavily on Gallente as Caldari ships, meaning they just worked too well. The other, now scripted, modules didn't really need to be scripted, though on most occassions i don't disagree with these changes. But that is not what this thread is about. This thread is about the bonuses to Remote Sensor Dampeners on specialized ships, i.e. the Celestis, the Lachesis and the Arazu. Remote Sensor Dampeners, even on these specialized ships, are less than useful as they are now, and they need an increase in their specialization bonus. For a pilot with Gallente Cruiser V and Signal Supression V an RSD II with a range script gives a 0.17(1+50.05)(1+50.05)(1+1)=0.53125 reduction to range. Following is a list of the multipliers of the targeting range as it is now on SiSi: 1 RSD II: 1-0.53125 ~= 46.88% 2 RSD II: (1-0.53125)(1-A10.53125)~=25.23% 3 RSD II: (1-0.53125)(1-A10.53125)(1-A20.53125)~=17.58% 4 RSD II: (1-0.53125)(1-A10.53125)(1-A20.53125)(1-0.53125)~=14.94% With A1=0.8691199808, A2=0.570583143511, A3=0.282955154023 the multiplier of the stacking penalty (see my stacking penalty guide). On Tranquility the same pilot in the same ship gives a (1-0.48)0.750.75=29.25% range multiplier, or a reduction to range of 70.75%: 1 RSD II: 1-0.7075=29.25% 2 RSD II: (1-0.7075)(1-A10.7075)=11.26% 3 RSD II: (1-0.7075)(1-A10.7075)(1-A20.7075)=6.72% 4 RSD II: (1-0.7075)(1-A10.7075)(1-A20.7075)(1-A30.7075)=5.37% As you can see, on Tranquility, with 3 RSD IIs used by a specialized pilot in a specialized ship, the reduction in targeting range is about 2.6 times larger than the same setup currently on SiSi as well as losing the effect to scan resolution. For one, two and four RSD IIs respectively, the effect is 1.6 times, 2.2 times and 2.8 times. The proposed increase to the %/level of the specialized ships would yield the following: 5% per level: 46.88%; 25.23%; 17.58%; 14.94% 7.5% per level: 41.56%; 20.45%; 13.63%; 11.38% 10% per level: 36.25%; 16.17%; 10.29%; 8.43% 12.5% per level: 30.93%; 12.37%; 7.49%; 6.03% 15% per level: 25.63%; 9.06%; 5.22%; 4.12% Non-specialized ship: 57.50%; 36.26%; 27.47%; 24.16% A bonus of 12.5% per level would bring the efficiency close to what it used to be on specialized ships. Why? Well because there are really two combat scenarios out there: long range and short range. At long range, the recons have little added value, aside from being called primary. Other ships can dampen the other fleet quite well, while also bringing damage to the table. With a targeting range of 250k (very optimistic, even on battleships) and an engagement at 150k, if the RSD actually has an influence (you are far in the fall-off range of the RSD), a single RSD I will break the lock, and it doesn't matter if it was fitted on a specialized ship. That's why I think that the specialized ships were originally intended as close range support (unlike the Rook and Falcon which get an optimal bonus for ECM). Hence they need an increased bonus, because even without the other ship having sensorboosters and being a complete newbie, it's impossible to even reduce a Typhoon or Hyperion (lowest targeting range with 60km) within 10km using 3 RSD II with a fully skilled character flying a specialized ship. BattleClinic \| Griefwatch
Nasair	Posted - 2007.11.25 13:42:00 - [93] Edited by: Nasair on 25/11/2007 13:43:27 So the blackbird, scorpion and falcon ECM strength increases are not a caldari ECM buff? Nor is the rook getting an extra low an ECM buff either, obviously the pilots will fit cargo expanders.....
Aenigma Griefwatch	Posted - 2007.11.25 15:59:00 - [94] Originally by: Nasair Edited by: Nasair on 25/11/2007 13:43:27 So the blackbird, scorpion and falcon ECM strength increases are not a caldari ECM buff? Nor is the rook getting an extra low an ECM buff either, obviously the pilots will fit cargo expanders..... I doubt you actually read the entire post. Originally by: Aenigma The rest adresses ships. The blackbird and the scorpion got their bonus increased from 10% to 15%. They are specialized ships, so it's hardly groundbreaking. The Falcon was brought on par with the Rook. As you might have noticed, now all pairs of recons share one bonus that is tied to recon skill. Previously the Rook had 20% ECM strength per level, while the Falcon had 10% per level. My definition of buff is that something is made better than it already is. ECM hasn't been made better with these changes. There are just more ships that can use it well. Originally by: Nasair Nor is the rook getting an extra low an ECM buff either, obviously the pilots will fit cargo expanders..... They could fit an extra signal distortion amplifier there, so it's actually a small buff i forgot about. I do see the reason why CCP changed it. The Falcon has 3 lowslots. The Rook has 2. With the same bonuses, people would be 'forced' to use the Falcon. So they increased the amount of lowslots on the Rook. I'd like to remind you that ECM is not what this thread is about. It's about remote sensor dampeners. BattleClinic \| Griefwatch
Theron Gyrow Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2007.11.25 16:01:00 - [95] Originally by: Aenigma Well, I think you are making a slight mistake here. ECM isn't buffed and will remain the same, which is not a bad thing. You are aware of the 40% reduction in cap use for ECM? -- Gradient forum
Aenigma Griefwatch	Posted - 2007.11.25 16:14:00 - [96] Originally by: Theron Gyrow Originally by: Aenigma Well, I think you are making a slight mistake here. ECM isn't buffed and will remain the same, which is not a bad thing. You are aware of the 40% reduction in cap use for ECM? No, I wasn't. I made an edit to my post. BattleClinic \| Griefwatch
Chr0nosX Ore Mongers R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.11.25 16:32:00 - [97] Might aswell fit ECM on the arazu now tbh.
Theron Gyrow Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2007.11.25 16:35:00 - [98] Originally by: Aenigma Edited by: Aenigma on 25/11/2007 16:21:33 Edited by: Aenigma on 25/11/2007 16:20:41 Originally by: Theron Gyrow Originally by: Aenigma Well, I think you are making a slight mistake here. ECM isn't buffed and will remain the same, which is not a bad thing. You are aware of the 40% reduction in cap use for ECM? No, I wasn't. I made an edit to my post. The ECM thing seems to detract attention from the actual subject, so i deleted it. Yeah, sorry about that. In my defense, I had nothing to add to the other parts of your post, I agree with you. You would probably get more responses to your points if you made some slight deliberate mistakes. -- Gradient forum
SoldierOfJustice Infortunatus Eventus HUZZAH FEDERATION	Posted - 2007.11.26 01:00:00 - [99] Originally by: Aenigma Remote Sensor Dampeners, even on these specialized ships, are less than useful as they are now, and they need an increase in their specialization bonus. For a pilot with Gallente Cruiser V and Signal Supression V an RSD II with a range script gives a 0.17(1+50.05)(1+50.05)*(1+1)=0.53125 reduction to range. ... That's why I think that the specialized ships were originally intended as close range support (unlike the Rook and Falcon which get an optimal bonus for ECM). Hence they need an increased bonus, because even without the other ship having sensorboosters and being a complete newbie, it's impossible to even reduce a Typhoon or Hyperion (lowest targeting range with 60km) within 10km using 3 RSD II with a fully skilled character flying specialized ships. Well put. I agree with you in everything you said. Another argument is that Gallente favours short range combat (drone + blaster ships), so it doesnt make sense to have long range EW. Which means if the damps are ment to be for the gallente then they better be usefull in short range combat.
Futher Bezluden Minmatar ORIGIN SYSTEMS Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.26 05:22:00 - [100] What CCP fails to go is make the Damps and TD's useful only on the Gallente and Amarr EW ships. Scripted Damps and TD's are still quite useful on anyship out there so where is the big fix to them? No huge Cap increase for damps or TD's, No massive str nerf with only Gallente/Amarr EW ships having massive bonuses, No G/A EW ship cap reduction bonuses. The ECM tweak done that made ECM mods pretty much a "Caldari" only ewar system should have been good enough for Damp/TD modules that work 90%+ of the time. That Dev's don't want to break FOTM damp/TD usage shows just how out of touch they are with EVE. CCP completely breaks combat with sensor booster/tracking computer scripting, nerf the dictor -so they can be hit by crap optimal/tracking guns, but won't touch poly/snaked ships that are going to be even more overpowered. CCP, start drug testing your DEV/GM's. THUKKER -Be Paranoid Skeet Skeet L33t
Theron Gyrow Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2007.11.26 08:15:00 - [101] Originally by: Futher Bezluden What CCP fails to go is make the Damps and TD's useful only on the Gallente and Amarr EW ships. Scripted Damps and TD's are still quite useful on anyship out there so where is the big fix to them? No huge Cap increase for damps or TD's, No massive str nerf with only Gallente/Amarr EW ships having massive bonuses, No G/A EW ship cap reduction bonuses. The ECM tweak done that made ECM mods pretty much a "Caldari" only ewar system should have been good enough for Damp/TD modules that work 90%+ of the time. You are free to fit damps to your ships after the changes, others are free to laugh at you if you do. -- Gradient forum
voogru Gallente Massive Damage	Posted - 2007.11.26 08:26:00 - [102] Edited by: voogru on 26/11/2007 08:26:30 I'm just going to sit and laugh at all of the whiners when this nerf and ECM buff hits. I have a maxed arazu pilot, but I'll just switch to my maxed ECM pilot and it will be as if nothing happened. That's the advantage of multiple accounts, I already have every flavor of the month trained in advance. Hate Farmers? Click Here
Minas Reul Synergy. Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2007.11.26 16:26:00 - [103] Edited by: Minas Reul on 26/11/2007 16:26:42 Originally by: SoldierOfJustice Well put. I agree with you in everything you said. Another argument is that Gallente favours short range combat (drone + blaster ships), so it doesnt make sense to have long range EW. Which means if the damps are ment to be for the gallente then they better be usefull in short range combat. Quite, and range itself is an added bonus, allowing you to be effective at ranges where you are less vulnerable, and ECM has the most of that. Again, it's these subtle things that need to be taken into account, and should have made it obvious the RSD specced ships need a buff. This is especially true since changes to other ships (interceptor scramble range and heavy dictors), have decreased the value of the Gallente recon's scram range bonus. ~ Increase the bonus on RSD specialised ships!
MTX PT Unsafe Flying Ops	Posted - 2007.11.27 14:01:00 - [104] /Signed
Alex Harumichi Gallente Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2007.11.27 15:00:00 - [105] Yeah, the Gallente recons need a boost to their damp bonuses (and the Amarr ones to their TD bonuses). I have no problem with damps being weak on normal ships, but when they are stupidly weak even on ships specialized to use them, there's a problem.
Alpha Type Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2007.11.28 09:09:00 - [106] Please fix this, CCP!
Suitonia Gallente interimo A.F.K	Posted - 2007.12.06 11:30:00 - [107] /Signed and a friendly bump --- I've always wondered about those Vagabond pilots...
AureuSZ Inter-Regional Intelligence Service Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2007.12.06 16:00:00 - [108] /signed, my favorite ship is now quite useless :-(
Huan CK Gallente Bounty Hunter - Dark Legion Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.12.06 23:43:00 - [109] I totally agree with the op. At this point, it is unprofitable and very much unpractical to field a Lachesis or an Arazu anywhere. It's ok that you've nerfed sensor dampeners, and I'm ok with it if the modules are WAY less effective on regular ships, but what's the point of having ships with bonus to sensor damps, and still not being able to put it to a use? 10% bonus to sensor damp efficiency instead of 5% IS indeed justified. It still is less than the sensor damps had on TQ, even if you use only 1 stat by adding a script. Script fitted, 1 stat available only, 20% nerf compared to before the patch, I can live with that, but without any changes done to the way it is now is WRONG. What is a Lachesis or Arazu pilot supposed to do CCP, tell me, I seriously want to know! Give the Lachesis and the Arazu double its sensor damp bonus, and give the Celestis maybe 1.5x its current bonus, give the maulus a 1.5x better bonus and the e-war frig double its current bonus, aswell! ---------- Join us today and bring a friend for free
Sunabi Caldari Defiance Corp Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.12.06 23:56:00 - [110] /signed It feels wrong to fit 5 warp disruptors on my Lachesis but that's all it does well now
Shaelin Corpius The Undertakers Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.12.06 23:59:00 - [111] /signed Save our recons!
Silpher The Blackstone Group Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.12.07 00:09:00 - [112] /signed!! /signed!! /signed!! --- () () (â;..;)â (")(") Fear the Evil Bunny! <^>((><))<^>
Halsoy Gallente 4 wing Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.12.07 00:34:00 - [113] /signed... So the Arazu and Lachesis is now only good at tackle. But it's not even good at that really =/ Give me back my ship! Boost the bonus on the arazu and lachesis!
Talo Momoe Caldari TOHA Heavy Industries Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.12.07 00:42:00 - [114] Originally by: Minas Reul I'd like, therefore, to propose an increase for the bonus per level that RSD specialised ships recieve, of 100%. Compare this to the 100% boost that the some ECM ships have already recieved, and others (Falcon) are likely to recieve, and it is not at all unreasonable. Signed.
Elmicker The Scope	Posted - 2007.12.07 01:15:00 - [115] Well, this made it onto TQ without even a single dev response. Thanks .
Saka Mizuno The Graduates Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.12.07 01:48:00 - [116] /signed
Sabine Runebane Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.12.07 05:56:00 - [117] /signed
Neva Second	Posted - 2007.12.07 06:07:00 - [118] /signed CCP unnerf the arazu or give me back my money !!!
Ghost Gates	Posted - 2007.12.07 06:28:00 - [119] Seriously what were u thinking CCP?? You turned Arazu and Lachesis in useless trash cans!!! I dont wanna have a 100 mil ship only to tackle, i can do that in a friggin frigate! UNNERF UNNERF UNNERF UNNERF GALLENTE RECONS!!!!!!
Futher Bezluden Minmatar ORIGIN SYSTEMS Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2007.12.07 06:41:00 - [120] Originally by: CCP Zulupark We've looked at the stats on the specialized TD and Damp ships and we're happy with them at the moment. Remember, Tracking Disruption and Sensor Dampening is a sure thing. ECM is not. 1. Zulupark needs to be drug tested. 2. This system screws everyone. 3. Zulu, was increasing mod cap, decreasing str, then bonusing the ewar ships to use them so frakkin tough? So what if they are a "Sure Thing", any ship whose pilot has signal suppression 4 and turret destabilization can use them effectively -just that little extra edge makes it easier for people to still use them more effectively than a multispec II. Being able to get 43% damps and 47% TD's on non-ewar ships -without riggings- just shows that the "nerf" isn't one. CCP nerfed ECM multispec II's so that they are really only effective on Caldari EW ships, not just "well, it's ok the jam 45% of the time on any ship." If CCP wanted to touch their sacred cow, they'd have made damps 50+ str on gallente ewar ships and about 10% on non-ewar ships -same for TD's for only the amarr ewar ships. How is being able to get 42% for damps and 47% for TD's balance? Seriously, kill off the little hacker bastards who created scripts and balance damps/td's properly. Skills could have been applied for sensor boosters, remote sens boosters, tracking computers and tracking links effectiveness to be balanced against damps/td's. Thanks for making EVE "Short Range" Online without touching snakes, odj/poly ships that benefit 1000% from what script does. THUKKER -Be Paranoid Skeet Skeet L33t
Huan CK Gallente Bounty Hunter - Dark Legion Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.12.07 06:58:00 - [121] Phased Muon used to be 48% or something. With skills and ship bonus you went to 72%. Now it is 17% on both stats. With a scritp you get 32%. With skills and ship bonus you now get to 48% (with a script) on one stat, 0% on the other. So now, WITH skills and ship-bonus, you go to where the sensor damp used to be without anything at all. In a matter of fact, you used to be "ok" with 3 dampeners on a Lachesis//Arazu. Because of the changes made and stacking penalties, you won't get even close to where you ought to be with 5 or 6 modules. How Recons stay alive: Amarr: Speed and NOS. Also, space in mids for Tracking Disruptor, ECM, or other preverences + main damage from Drones. Your Drones are a sufficient damage source, while you dedicate your highs to NOS and NEUTS(extreme range thanks to ship bonus) wich kills the enemies tank, ability to tackle, or fire guns. You are quite fast and manage to outrun most ships and weapons. In addition, you can go for Tracking Disruptors. This ship can pretty much take care of itself. Minmatar: It is a speed tanker. Minmatar are fast by nature. What makes this one so good is that a tackler can't even outrun and catch it, since its increased web range is permitting the Recon to orbit at a distance at its speed without letting the enemy close in. In addition, it has the ability to quite efficiently use Target Painters. This speeds up the time that people need to lock a target, increases missile damage on smaller ships, and enables turrets to do more wrecking shots. A target painted and webbed ship is going to die rather quick, and is at least unable to touch the Recon. Caldari: Well, they can pretty much rely on their ECM. It easily permanently jamms 1-3 ships, depending on size and sensor strength of those ships. While its not a pwn boat, it can atleast keep itself alive pretty good and escape if need be. You see, all those ships can manage to stay alive really well and they all have their way of staying alive. Gallente: Recons don't have much of a tank by default and get primaried, therefore they need ways to stay alive. The Gallente Recon used to be able to use its Damps to get rid of tackle, or high damage ships and maintain their role to scramble their target from a distance. Now, what are they supposed to do? They can orbit at 35-40km, scram the enemy, and just wait for their sure death. You have no neuts to disable the hostile and run away, you have no ECM to break a lock and run away, you don't have a long-range webber to maintain a speed-bonus and run away. If you look at the optimal range of a sensor dampener (30km + skills) and then look at its Sensor Dampeners WITH all the boni from the ship, you cannot even get out of a Battleships targeting range, especially not with a Sensor Booster, and maintain your Scramble. The Dampeners were the only thing keeping those Recons together. Now you'd have to fly well beyond your Sensor Dampeners optimals and your Scramblers range to stay out of touch, where again the Sensor Damps work in falloff, are less efficient, and therefore still don't give you safety. It's the role of the Recon ships to be hard to touch. They are highly evasive and tactical. The Gallente Recon is not in a state to maintain that role anymore by any means. ---------- Join us today and bring a friend for free
BELLZYBUB Minmatar Bounty Hunter - Dark Legion Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.12.07 07:46:00 - [122] \singed " SOUL COUNTER DELUXE" THE DEVILS ADVOCATE
BELLZYBUB Minmatar Bounty Hunter - Dark Legion Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.12.07 07:48:00 - [123] singed? wtf is this im drinkin....anyways \signed " SOUL COUNTER DELUXE" THE DEVILS ADVOCATE
zoroette Bounty Hunter - Dark Legion Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.12.07 07:57:00 - [124] /emote pulls Bellz away from the bar... most definitely /signed
Alex Harumichi Gallente Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2007.12.07 08:46:00 - [125] Yeah. Arazu/Lachesis seriously need a damp bonus boost, now. The best they can do is drop one target ship down to 20km lock range (with no hinderance to lock speed). Compare to Rook, which can 100% lock down 2-4 ships, and... sigh. Same goes for Curse/Pilgrim and tracking disruptors. Boost the bonus, ffs!
Tzesaeia	Posted - 2007.12.07 09:38:00 - [126] Edited by: Tzesaeia on 07/12/2007 09:42:28 /signed I thought Arazu still got the same range-damp or time-damp as befor if you fit scripts but only one of them at a time. Seeing this new facts I also feel the Recons are a bit weak now. Its just a matter of usefulness in a gang. I don't want them to be solo pvown ships but if my gang leader sends me home if i bring a arazu this reallly sucks considering i learned all those skills for recons. CCP Your arguement that it is a 100% is false. If you fit scripts for sensor damp time and you aquire lock after your enemy he won't be affected, so if he locks 5 targets at once right in the beginning it's very likely he wont' be affected at all in the whole fight! unless you get out of range. So this reduces the chance a LOT that your sensor damps are effective at all. Besides as a recon you're beeing called primary quick. If there are severall enemy ships you are 100% dead if you don't manage to damp in what ever way at least 2 of them. If you are only able to damp 1, the others will kill you immediatly. So you need a Sensor booster to make sure you aquire lock fast what cuts of a med slot for you, you need a mwd to get away quick cause you have no chance if any enemy gets under 10km to you. The recons are cap instable so you need some modules to get cap a cap booster and another med slot is gone. And than there was this warp disrupting role for the Arazu where shell he put those? In the end you come out with one or 2 damps and with the current configuration this is not worth loosing a gunboat (the pilot better bring a t1 gunboat) with some tank or a tackler. So summary: - rsds(time script) are not 100% sure since the enemy isn't affected at all if he aquires lock first - rsds(range scripts) are not 100% sure since the enemy isn't affected at all if he gets under the range of the damp. Where comes this 100% sure nonesense from? This is not the same with ecms enemies need to be out of range of ecm so it wont be effective at all and at this range enemies wont be effective at all anymore. But for the Gallente recons a short range ship with sbs is death that is 100% asure. - you need a mwd and you want to take advantage of your high rank skill recon that gives extra warp dissruptor range so at least one wd. You need a SB to make sure locking first. If you use a Arazu time damp is totally useless cause you will never lock first from uncloaking. You very likely need a cap booster though it can be flown without one - You loose 3-4 med slots to other moduels than RSDs - You don't have no tank and no gunpower the only useful thing you can do to your gang is your spec. - You must be able to get time for your gang to kill. So much time that it doesn't matter that your gang has send you and your HAC home and has now less dps. - I like the script idea just make this little tweak to the Recon bonus so it comes back to beeing as effective as befor the patch but only in one of the two flavours not in both at once. I thought this was why you changed the stuff at all. - btw concerning the curse. It is a solo Vaga Omen Gallente GUN Hac PVown mobile....its just not able to fight much else. PLS RESPOND TO THIS FACTS CCP
jarhu	Posted - 2007.12.07 11:11:00 - [127] /signed
Damned Force	Posted - 2007.12.07 12:17:00 - [128] /not signed i liked very my arazu and even my dampener curse, but was too powerfull. Someone posted a picture where was analyzed the effectiveness of the recon ships with the new damps. and if the ship would get 50% bonus, 1 single dampener could get a locking range from 100km to 36,25km. That means that with 2 dams would be around 17km Its extreme overpowered if a ship can make a BS size ship(and even a capital ship) useless in fight without any real risk with 100% chance. Just to see how extreme powerful that is lets take the example u fit enough boosters to lock on max range of 250km. Just 2 daps from an arazu and your lock range is 37km.... And u have 6 med slots on a arazu. that means that u could shut down 3 BS class snipers with 1 single ship in fleet battles completely, without any chance to get a lock or somehow counter with. I miss my power too, but if u dont too egoists than u can see that was the right move
ZentorUk Dark Marauders	Posted - 2007.12.07 13:36:00 - [129] Are we geting t2 scripts? As I have gone from -58% damp to -39.1%.. Better get lots of recons in stock as I am now going to lose them now or pick on little ships.. like frigs. :-(
Hatch Minmatar Cloak and Daggers Knights Of Syndicate	Posted - 2007.12.07 14:05:00 - [130] Another Recon bites the dust. two out of two are now utterly useless. what fun.
ZentorUk Dark Marauders	Posted - 2007.12.07 14:15:00 - [131] Edited by: ZentorUk on 07/12/2007 14:15:03 So with Phased Muon Sensor Disruptor1 and Targeting Rnage Dampening script. On info; Max Targeting range bounus -39.1% is how much the targets ship locking range now damped? As it WAS -58% for me...
Arshea	Posted - 2007.12.07 14:28:00 - [132] /signed give role ships their 10% per level!
Huan CK Gallente Bounty Hunter - Dark Legion Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.12.07 14:56:00 - [133] Originally by: Damned Force /not signed i liked very my arazu and even my dampener curse, but was too powerfull. Someone posted a picture where was analyzed the effectiveness of the recon ships with the new damps. and if the ship would get 50% bonus, 1 single dampener could get a locking range from 100km to 36,25km. That means that with 2 dams would be around 17km Its extreme overpowered if a ship can make a BS size ship(and even a capital ship) useless in fight without any real risk with 100% chance. Just to see how extreme powerful that is lets take the example u fit enough boosters to lock on max range of 250km. Just 2 daps from an arazu and your lock range is 37km.... And u have 6 med slots on a arazu. that means that u could shut down 3 BS class snipers with 1 single ship in fleet battles completely, without any chance to get a lock or somehow counter with. I miss my power too, but if u dont too egoists than u can see that was the right move Your math is off, mate. Lets asume the skill gives you 20% bonus. You get 25% from the ship. 100% form the script. Muon: 17% reduction base. 17x2x1.25x1.2=51% on one module With the suggested 50% from the ship: 17x2x1.5x1.2=61.2% on one module What it used to be: 48x1.25x1.2=72% on one module So, even with 10% bonus instead of 5% you damp 11% less, which is only a 85% efficiency compared to pre-patch. So, its still a nerf, even when using a script and only using one module. Also, take into account that there are stacking penalties. With 5% it is: One module has a modifier of 0.388 on the hostiles targeting range. For two modules this would be: (0.49^2)^((1/2)^(1/4))=0.3=30% range for the hostile With a third it goes as follows: (0.49^3)^((1/3)^(1/4))=0.196=19.6% range of the hostile ship With a forth it goes liek this: (0.49^4)^((1/4)^(1/4))=0.13=13% range of the hostile ship As you see, you need at least 4 dampeners to get out of targeting range and stay within your scramble range as soon as the battleship you're tackling has a single sensor booster, which is quite common. With the supposed 10% One module has a modifier of 0.388 on the hostiles targeting range. For two modules this would be: (0.388^2)^((1/2)^(1/4))=0.2=20% range for the hostile With a third it goes as follows: (0.388^3)^((1/3)^(1/4))=0.115=11.5% range of the hostile ship As you see, you need at least 3 dampeners to get out of targeting range and stay within your scramble range as soon as the battleship you're tackling has a single sensor booster, which is quite common. Count in that you have to stay at range, so you need a MWD, count in that you need a scram, so you can fulfill your purpose. 2 Slots gone. Consider a slot for cap. You see, you can barely manage to fulfill your role against a single target. Also, at this state, you're not any good against a sniper with 2 sensor boosters or more, you'll be forced to fly outside your scrambler range. It's the purpose of the ship to stay out of a hostiles range and operate as intended. Caldari got a boost, Amarr and Minmatar still work very well in their roles, whereas Amarr could use some turret disruption love, but Gallente simply fails its role now. ---------- Join us today and bring a friend for free
Alex Harumichi Gallente Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2007.12.07 15:47:00 - [134] Originally by: Arshea /signed give role ships their 10% per level! I think someone calculated that it would need to be about +17% per level in order to be around where they were? Not sure. But anyway, I'd be happy with just +10% per level, it might make them at least flyable in some situations. Same goes for the Amarr recons, they really need a boost to their equally pitiful tracking disruptor bonus -- TDs were weak even before this, and now... eh. I'm not sure I want everyone to "adapt" by training Caldari Cruiser V. Once all Gallente & Amarr recon pilots switch to Rook/Falcon, I'm sure CCP will see that as a sign of ECM needing a nerf (instead of Gallente+Amarr recons needing a small boost). Sigh.
Poba Firing Squad Pure.	Posted - 2007.12.07 19:13:00 - [135] I agree that the damp spec ships need more of a boost after the damp nerf. when the NOS nerf happened the amarr recons got a extra bonus i think( the neut bonus possibly? not sure dont fly amarr )so i dont think its out of line to hope for the same for the galente. CCP, the new arazu model isnt bad(although some of the others need some love) and the new EW frig is really nice looking, i would love to fly either of them but with the damp nerf and no increase in their bonuses these ships are pretty broken. please consider modifying them to bring them in balance. [url=http://a4d.corpsewatch.net/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=3607] [/url] ~Welcome to the internet, where the men are men, the women are men
mamolian Madhatters Inc. Enuma Elish.	Posted - 2007.12.07 19:24:00 - [136] RIP Arazu.. we had fun together. -------------------------------
Silpher The Blackstone Group Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.12.07 21:34:00 - [137] I don't know about you, but when I pay as much for a ship as a battleship, but have NO tank and not enough DPS to take anything down larger than a cruiser, I expect there to be SOMETHING to make up for it to keep me safe. This nerf takes the only thing that keeps me alive and just chucks it away. If my arazu is fighting a BS, and we're both fit equally in a rellative kind of way, and the values of our ships are within 50m of each (including fittings), I better be able to do something to him besides scram him from a distance. This nerf is NOT balancing to Gallente Recons. It's quite the opposite. It's crippling. Every time you nerf something, something else will seem overpowered untill the only balance you have is ship A and Ship B. --- () () (â;..;)â (")(") Fear the Evil Bunny! <^>((><))<^>
Huan CK Gallente Bounty Hunter - Dark Legion Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.12.10 23:44:00 - [138] Quote: Stuff Dunno if you'd need 17%, but yea, 10% is still less than what it used to be, yet it would make it worth flying Gallente Recons Again And yea, Amarr did get a bonus in return for the NOS-nerf. ---------- Join us today and bring a friend for free
Discobird Vale Heavy Industries Molotov Coalition	Posted - 2007.12.11 00:03:00 - [139] Amarr didn't get a bonus in return for the nos nerf. If you're referring to their neut bonuses, those were already there before the nos nerf.
Liang Nuren The Avalon Foundation Knights Of Syndicate	Posted - 2007.12.11 01:00:00 - [140] Guys, seriously, the answer here is Caldari Cruiser 5. Deal with it (I did). -Liang -- Retired forum *****. Plz tell me to STFU. Yarr?
Laila Eldgorn	Posted - 2007.12.17 13:21:00 - [141] Originally by: Silpher I don't know about you, but when I pay as much for a ship as a battleship, but have NO tank and not enough DPS to take anything down larger than a cruiser, I expect there to be SOMETHING to make up for it to keep me safe. This nerf takes the only thing that keeps me alive and just chucks it away. If my arazu is fighting a BS, and we're both fit equally in a rellative kind of way, and the values of our ships are within 50m of each (including fittings), I better be able to do something to him besides scram him from a distance. This nerf is NOT balancing to Gallente Recons. It's quite the opposite. It's crippling. Every time you nerf something, something else will seem overpowered untill the only balance you have is ship A and Ship B. I guess if you're scramming from distance you're doing what you're supposed to do. One/two range damps will quite much shut down any sniper or ecm ship. What else you're asking for? wtfpwn ability? If you want to completely disable lock you want to get ecm ship. Just don't expect you're going to jam anything well unless you spam your meds full of ecm.
Azur Tzesaeia	Posted - 2007.12.17 14:13:00 - [142] But nobody is using Sniping BS expect for Fleet Battles.
Alex Harumichi Gallente Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2007.12.17 14:29:00 - [143] Originally by: Laila Eldgorn One/two range damps will quite much shut down any sniper Hint: take a look at the optimal range of damps, you'll probably be able to figure out why your statement is a bit silly.
Frances Ducoir Bounty Hunter - Dark Legion Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.12.17 17:28:00 - [144] 15% bonus on specialised ships... same to tracking d's nothing more to say. snip Signiture remoted because it contained profanity - hutch
Athion	Posted - 2008.01.02 11:49:00 - [145] /signed ECMs permajam so easily now on a specialized caldari ship it makes gallente recons laughable. So ECMs got a huge bump and RSDs got nerfed. They'd still be useful if they had range to deal with snipers, but they don't. They'd still be useful if reducing sensor resolution did something without requiring a jamming ship to assist, but it doesn't. Considering they are useless in fleet combat (range) and now can't even noticeably affect ships at medium range, the lachesis is a sitting duck with low dps and no tank to speak of. Now I have to figure out what I'm going to do with this 100,000,000 isk pile of scrap metal I have sitting in my hangar. Maybe RSDs needed to be hit with the nerf bat. But they didn't need to be beaten to death with it.
Kransthow AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2008.01.02 12:55:00 - [146] /signed /signed /signed
Charlie Seriya Gallente Eve Defence Force Insurgency	Posted - 2008.01.02 13:27:00 - [147] /signed My Lachesis is really no less effective at solo killing due to the recent changes, I can still point, damp and kill something without it touching me, provided it can't get to a gate or move faster than I can (which was always how it was with this ship anyway.) What really sucks is that it's much worse as a gang ship now. Caldari Recons are SO much more useful it's untrue. I appreciate that Caldari is going to have the most effective e-war recons because their ships don't get any secondary bonuses (Pointing / Damping / Cap Drain) but with the impact the Arazu and the Lachesis currently have on the battlefield, I don't see it's worth fielding them over any number of other ships.
Chencherra Gallente Deep Space Exploration Squad	Posted - 2008.01.03 11:21:00 - [148] Edited by: Chencherra on 03/01/2008 11:25:16 Originally by: Damned Force /not signed ... Just to see how extreme powerful that is lets take the example u fit enough boosters to lock on max range of 250km. Just 2 daps from an arazu and your lock range is 37km.... And u have 6 med slots on a arazu. that means that u could shut down 3 BS class snipers with 1 single ship in fleet battles completely, without any chance to get a lock or somehow counter with. look at optimal and falloff of RSD's. you are not gonna damp a bs thats 250km away . there is just no effect on that range. so you not gonna kill long range snipers with them. and an arazu still has problems with targets around 100k cause at that distance the RSD's begin to fail. with current stats RSD's are for medium range, so you could damp down the average drake or raven ( those are often at medium ranges ) effectively with ALL your damps. every other ships would either stay shortrange, so they dont care about getting damped anyway or they stay at longrange and get not effected. btw fitting no mwd on and arazu kills it before it enters the fight. you only have 5 meds for RSD's. try to permarun them while you mwd for your life. and we dont need the old RSD's back, we just need stronger bonus for the arazu and the lachesis. + stacking on damps, only the first damp does its what ? - 50% dampening or something with all skills @ 5.
Huan CK Gallente Bounty Hunter - Dark Legion Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2008.01.03 13:04:00 - [149] bump for ccp :) ---------- Join us today and bring a friend for free
Poba Firing Squad Black-Out	Posted - 2008.01.03 17:36:00 - [150] /signed nerfing non speced ships doesnt need to involve nerfing everything [url=http://a4d.corpsewatch.net/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=3607] [/url] ~Welcome to the internet, where the men are men, the women are men
xXxKatsujinxXx	Posted - 2008.01.03 19:47:00 - [151] /signed i pre-trained for the arazu, since i never trusted the ecm chance based thing... i'm currently halfway through training gallente cruiser 5, with everything else ready to go.. Even bought myself an arazu so i just had to jump in and go. I cannot believe the comments from ccp reguarding damps as a "sure thing"... When you look at the optimal range on them, and the effect they'l now have. You also need to remember that most people will be packing a sensor booster (the counter to a damp) because it is usefull even if you aren't being damped. ECCM on the other hand is only used for countering ECM, thus, no-one really makes the sacrifice to fit it "just incase". So you say damps are a "sure thing", when 90% of eve has the counter module fitted to their ships? Lets look at the factors that have been changed in one single swipe - Firstly, there are the base value changes... Which basically mean that unless we fit a full rack of damps, we have to stay in falloff range - all of a sudden damps don't feel like a sure thing. Secondly, there is the script system, designed so that if a ship can get inside locking range, you aren't shafting their scan res too - without the other nerfs, this would have been an excellent idea. However even with scripts, riding our specialised ships, with mods specialised to do one thing, they're still weaker than pre-nerf non specialised ships... Thirdly, the stack penalty, also would have been a good idea on its own, or even combined with the script system. To me it seems ridiculous that CCP could nerf a module so severely in 3 different ways all in one patch, when the module only affects other ships in 2 ways to start with... Any one of the changes would have been great on their own... but this is overkill in the strongest sense of the word. Was the guy who approved this change drunk? Couldn't you all find a way to decide which nerf to hit it with so just went with all of them? You tried to steer us away from brute force attack and defend, and tried to encourage EW... Why go backwards? I could go on and on... but i'l get nowhere... i guess i'l give in and finish caldari cruiser 5, then when enough people have done that you'l nerf them too... we'l just chase around, tailed by the nerfs, pretending we have a choice in this "Sandbox style environment" you call EvE http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/5695/moanbearwo9.jpg
Lukas Rox SCREAMING MEME'S	Posted - 2008.01.20 14:51:00 - [152] Edited by: Lukas Rox on 20/01/2008 14:52:12 /signed Give specialized ships more bonus - remote sensor damp as it is now is USELESS. I won't give you numbers, I will give you an example. Let's say we have a Falcon with 3 multispec ECMs and Let's say we have an Arazu with 3 damps. They meet a solo PVP Battleship which has a sensorbooster on (because most people do that to have better locking times). Since Force recons are meant to be espionage ships, they both choose to run. The Falcon has a chance: with 3 ECMs with 4.7 strength each it has 50% chance to ECM the attacking battleship. But what about Arazu?? Even with 3 sensor damps on, the battleship still has 50km locking range. What's wrong with that you ask? BALANCE. There is no balance anymore. Caldari Force Recn is far superior than Gallente right now, which became useless ship for 100 million isk. Fix it CCP, Please fix it. Because this time the nerf bat hit a bit too hard. Instead of balancing the game it unbalanced it. That's of course my own humble point of view, no one has to agree. But if things like this happen, what wil this game become in future? Caldari Online? --- Visit in game for nice items links http://eve.interkam.pl/eveships
Frances Ducoir Bounty Hunter - Dark Legion Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2008.01.20 16:15:00 - [153] Originally by: Lukas Rox Because this time the nerf bat hit a bit too hard. ccp has become one with the nerf bat this time... dont know if it has mentioned but the tracking disruptor nerf was way over the top too. snip Signiture remoted because it contained profanity - hutch
Nhaz Damage Unlimited Inc Insurgency	Posted - 2008.01.20 23:09:00 - [154] It is really Unfortunate. is it possible to get refunded all the sp I wasted on the Arazu? I know it sounds terrible and like a whine. But Mt arazu is parked and will remain so. im working on a nanoishtar skill set now. I expect by the time i get decent at it they will nerf it. But seriously. the arazu did Not need nerfing. as a matter of fact the only thing keeping the arazus alive were its rsd's It has Zero tanking ability its not really all that fast and you have always have cap issues. its ability to get itself untargeted was the only thing keeping it alive. It needs a Larger bonus to its rsd's. and Please dont take a year like you did with the bombers and the hp buff. _____________________________________________ It's NOT paranoia, If they REALLY ARE out to get you!
xXxKatsujinxXx	Posted - 2008.01.21 01:42:00 - [155] Edited by: xXxKatsujinxXx on 21/01/2008 01:43:24 just to recap on lukas' point - the balance between rook and arazu is now about as balanced as lead and feathers. As he said, the rook has 50% chance to jam a BS with 3 ECM - however its most likely that people will have a full rack of them, whereas due to the stacking penalty, that isn't an option with damps. Any more than 3 damps and you're wasting your time and your cap (and most importantly your isk, though i think the damage is already done there). So bottom line is - if you're willing to give up your solo WTFPWN-ability (ie lose your scram and web etc) and fit all out ECM, you can pretty much guarantee safety if you happen to bump into an unfriendly bs... you even stand a slight chance against 2 maybe even 3 if you just wanna cut the lock and escape... whereas with all the EW that can effectivly be mounted on the arazu, you still don't stand a chance against 1 sensor boosted BS, letalone 2 or 3. It seems ridiculous that a single mod (that is fitted to alot of ships as a booster, not as a defensive counter) can render this specialised EW boats 3-4 damps, with all the ships bonuses, and most likely the pilots skills in the area of damping, completely useless. Please CCP, i can accept the fact that on non specialised ships, damps were overpowered.. but please give the arazu a purpose again.. increase the bonus...
Miss KillSome Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.01.21 11:09:00 - [156] ./signed lachesis and arazu lost its means for usage.. we dont need solo pwn mobiles again, just a usable ships..
Flawliss Gallente The Dead Parrot Shoppe Inc. Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2008.01.22 07:50:00 - [157] Personally i always thought the problem wasn't so much the effects, but the range damps use, In my view dampeners should be a Long range ewar, specific to bringing the fight close, as is Blaster range. Something thats a very Gallente tactic. The script change i think would be better if damps became effective at very long ranges. Decide on a favorable Optimal range and an effective Falloff to give it its better purpose. My thoughts
1Evildude Gallente Kingdom of Kador	Posted - 2008.01.22 10:05:00 - [158] /signed Please make my 200mil isk ship do more than just cloak. * Of all the things I've lost, I miss my boot.ini file the most *
Tzesaeia	Posted - 2008.01.22 11:50:00 - [159] I think damps are quiet useful but: The Arazu has a considerable too small dronebay. 40m¦ common have you forgotten him when you increased the drone hangars of all ships? He hasn't even enough space for a single replacement drone. For the SDs I haven't tested them yet. THe arazu is paper thin and did you know that arazu means something like pray?
Gaogan Gallente Solar Storm Sev3rance	Posted - 2008.01.22 18:02:00 - [160] If you don't want anyone but caldari using ewar, then fine... but at least make the arazu decent at combat so it can at least put up a fight now that its damps are useless. Same for the lachesis.
xXxKatsujinxXx	Posted - 2008.01.23 00:22:00 - [161] Very good point Flawliss, i completely agree.. the 30-35km optimal is a little short, increasing that even to 45-50km would be great... the arazu/lachesis could still scram from that distance and stay fairly safe. I don't think the drone bay needs buffing though... as fun as it would be, the ship isn't about damage... it can cause some decent damage already with good gunnery/drone skills, which you should already have if you're flying such a ship... Anyone seen or heard a reply from CCP on this yet? I heard they'd said they weren't gonna change it - they feel the damps are nicely balanced right now... :/
Gus Morgan Genos Occidere	Posted - 2008.01.23 02:06:00 - [162] Edited by: Gus Morgan on 23/01/2008 02:06:58 I wish CCP would listen to the players on this one, Even the gallente haters agree that the arazu and the lachesis (not to talk about the new e-war frig which was released sucky) are pretty much useless right now. can you PLEASE fix dampener-specific ships. bring them back to what they were before!
xXxKatsujinxXx	Posted - 2008.01.24 12:41:00 - [163] Originally by: Tzesaeia THe arazu is paper thin and did you know that arazu means something like pray? Actually its old style japanese, and means "not" or "there is no"... modern equivelent is arimassen... ^_^ BOOST THESE DAMN SHIPS CCP!
Githtakai Gallente	Posted - 2008.01.24 19:20:00 - [164] Originally by: xXxKatsujinxXx Originally by: Tzesaeia THe arazu is paper thin and did you know that arazu means something like pray? Actually its old style japanese, and means "not" or "there is no"... modern equivelent is arimassen... ^_^ BOOST THESE DAMN SHIPS CCP! Not sure where you got this but the whole Gallente line is based on "old world" mythology. Phobos and Deimos were the sons of the war god Mars. Eos was the Greek god of dawn... And Arazu was the Babylonian god of completed construction. Put that one in your trivia collection for later. Even if it does mean something in Japanese I'm going to guess that they got the name from continuing the "old deities" path Gallente use for all ships. Still a worthless ship these days though. RSD's nerfed and everybody and their dog has extended range disruption, so really the ship and the Lachesis were both hit doubly by the nerf bat.
Puk Jinn	Posted - 2008.02.01 02:45:00 - [165] /signed never read an un-nerf thread with so little contra ignoring it can't be a solution ccp give this useless Recon its right cheers
Ulstan	Posted - 2008.02.01 16:07:00 - [166] signed if I haven't already. Gallente recons also need to be viable e-war platforms. Not quite as good as falcon, which can't do any soloing/dps/tank of it's own, but there's still quite a bit of room for improvement.
Githtakai Gallente	Posted - 2008.02.05 16:47:00 - [167] Bump for a worthy thread where almost everybody agrees these formerly beloved ships have been cast out. Boost patch blog is out, no love for Gallente Recons. I guess they want them to be down and out for a good long while before making them usable again.
Chr0nosX Ore Mongers R0ADKILL	Posted - 2008.02.05 16:56:00 - [168] /Sign. Atm they suck - a blackbird with terrible skills is a lot more effective.
Aramendel Amarr North Face Force	Posted - 2008.02.05 21:22:00 - [169] Originally by: Huan CK What it used to be: 48x1.25x1.2=72% on one module Since this misinformation is repeated here a few times: no, it didn't. Before trinity skills worked differently. They did not apply on the reduction of the damps but on the remaining amount of the stat they reduced. And reduced that one again. A damp was -48%. So thats 52% range remaining. 52% * 0.75 * 0.75 = 29.25% remaining range or -70.75% on the damps. Not a major difference, mind you, but still... But now the changed system results actually in a very significant difference. With the new system a damp with max spec and shipskills and range script is -53.125%. With the old system it would be -62.875%. This means that the new system actually reduced the efficiency by damp by around 21%, in addition to the 29% nerf from their reduced base stat! Both nerfs multiply each other. So, in reality damps did not got a 29% efficiency nerf, but a 44% efficiency nerf!
Githtakai Gallente	Posted - 2008.02.06 16:11:00 - [170] Originally by: Aramendel Edited by: Aramendel on 06/02/2008 02:12:40 Since this misinformation is repeated here a few times: no, it didn't. What defines a damps strength is essentially how big a percentag remains after one damp. After shipbonus and spec. Pre-trinity it was 29.25%. Post trinity it is 46.875% QFT. And damps are stacking nerfed so you can't get much more than the relative effect of two of them on a target, so you can't use more. Huge difference between before and now. Used to be you could keep alive in a Recon if you didn't do much damage, now lots of ships can lock you anywhere within tackle range.
Githtakai Gallente	Posted - 2008.02.07 17:13:00 - [171] I trained Carriers just so I could move my stuff, and was a Gallente cruiser then recon specialist for years (not FOTM). Last patch CCP nerfed everythin I could do all at once, including double nerfing Gal recons by providing their special ranged jamming to every race. Account expiring soon and I think I'll let it go. Wanted to give another bump before the long goodbye. I'll watch the forums in case they decide to fix this stuff but just not worth it now. Fly safe everybody. (And my stuff is already spoken for by in-game friends).
Shearha	Posted - 2008.02.08 22:01:00 - [172] /Signed
Solomon XI Caldari Dawn of Chaos	Posted - 2008.02.13 22:03:00 - [173] /Signed.
Spenz Gallente Dark Knights of Deneb Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2008.02.14 02:07:00 - [174] /signed If I had an Alt I would probably post with it...
Sorien Marutor The X-Trading Company Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2008.02.14 22:55:00 - [175] If you don't boost these Ships give us some NPC Buyorders please.
Puk Jinn	Posted - 2008.02.26 22:00:00 - [176] /bumpin him to pageOne fly safe
Nicholas DW Unorthodox Engineers G Thanks Alliance	Posted - 2008.02.26 22:31:00 - [177] /signed Never Knows Best
Schnitzar	Posted - 2008.03.11 07:34:00 - [178] /signed
xXxKatsujinxXx Imperial Academy	Posted - 2008.03.18 00:17:00 - [179] /BUMP!
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.03.18 00:48:00 - [180] Jesus, can't believe i didn't see this earlier. You cannot change the bonus from 5% to 10% because of the way that the bonuses stack now. It will bring the final strength of the bonuses to 80-90% per mod. Which is unacceptable. There is a legitimate complaint, but it has to do with the way that the bonuses stack now.[It is now straight multiplicative instead of inverse]
James Lyrus Lyrus Associates	Posted - 2008.03.18 09:08:00 - [181] Edited by: James Lyrus on 18/03/2008 09:11:00 What I still don't get is quite why people feel a ship with a 40m3 drone bay, a hybrid damage bonus (and 3 weapons to apply it to), and a warp disruption range bonus, and 4 lowslots of tank, should be a compared to a falcon in terms of ability to do ewar. But I keep looking at these stats, and see ... what, 3 RSDs drop a BS locking range to 14km? What's wrong with that? Do you really want a BS to be damped down to 2-3km locking range, with 100% reliability, with 3 mods? A max skilled pilot will drop an ship with a locking range of 100km, less than it's RSD optimal, and less than it's warp disruptor range with one damp. With 3, that same ship is less than everyone elses warp disruptor range as well. All these people who flag 'signed, I want more power'... what do you actually think an arazu _should_ be able to do? -- Crane needs more grid 249km locking?
Haniblecter Teg F.R.E.E. Explorer Atrum Tempestas Foedus	Posted - 2008.03.25 16:45:00 - [182] A recent thread made me mad all over again about the nerf. So Im bumping. ----------------- Friends Forever
Nicholas DW Digital-Anarchy	Posted - 2008.03.25 19:58:00 - [183] At James Lyrus: with the introduction of HICs and the changes to 'ceptors making them even better tacklers, the warp disrupt bonus isn't as great an asset to a fleet as it used to be. If I'm given the choice, I'd rather have a HIC over an Arazu in almost any gang. And given the choice between a Falcon and an Arazu I'd almost always choose the Falcon. If the biggest remaining "draw" the Arazu has is its DPS, its certainly in need of a boost or at the very least a fundamental change. If people wanna fly a DPS boat they fly a HAC, a BC or a BS. What I want, and what I assume the majority of the people posting in this thread want out of the Arazu is an EW platform that is a viable alternative to the Falcon. CCP likes to push the "jack-of-all trades" thing unless a particular ship doesn't fit their "intended role" for said ship class; and in some cases it works. But when it comes to a dedicated EW platform, specialization is the key to success and survival. Other ships do the tackle role or the DPS role much, much better then the Arazu and most do it for a lot less isk and with lower SP. When, in order to preform your role, you have to do it at 40km because your damps have limited range, a "Four-slot" tank doesn't get you very far. In a small gang fight being able to damp one ship to less then 20km is nice and all, but it doesn't keep your friends that have to fight under that range alive nor does it keep you alive when the guy has 4-5 friends with him and you get called primary. And if its a gank anyways, i.e., 5 ships vs 1 random BS, more DPS would have been more useful then an Arazu anyways. Which brings us to the Falcon comparisons; the Falcon and other ECM boats can take 1-2+ targets out of a fight completely and they can do it at great range and at relative safety. If you want tackle or DPS, lots of ships do it better then the Arazu/Lachesis. What I want and expect out of the Arazu to be is a damp platform and as it stands now it can't do that properly. I don't want or expect damps to be plain better then ECM at taking people out of a fight, but it shouldn't be altogether useless at the job either.
Mr Sisterfister Appetite 4 Destruction INTERDICTION	Posted - 2008.03.25 20:10:00 - [184] Originally by: James Lyrus Edited by: James Lyrus on 18/03/2008 09:11:00 What I still don't get is quite why people feel a ship with a 40m3 drone bay, a hybrid damage bonus (and 3 weapons to apply it to), and a warp disruption range bonus, and 4 lowslots of tank, should be a compared to a falcon in terms of ability to do ewar. But I keep looking at these stats, and see ... what, 3 RSDs drop a BS locking range to 14km? What's wrong with that? Do you really want a BS to be damped down to 2-3km locking range, with 100% reliability, with 3 mods? A max skilled pilot will drop an ship with a locking range of 100km, less than it's RSD optimal, and less than it's warp disruptor range with one damp. With 3, that same ship is less than everyone elses warp disruptor range as well. All these people who flag 'signed, I want more power'... what do you actually think an arazu _should_ be able to do? The arazu should be able to perform as well as it could before the damp nerf, when it was inline and there werent (many) threads full of people screaming about it being overpowered, cause it was nullinlinenull. and your right, you cant compair it to a falcon, a falcon can perma jam 4+ ships easily at 100 km, is there a legit reason that the range reduction mods are short range and the jamming mods are long range ? cause it doesnt make much sense to me. And damping a 100km locking ship with one damp and staying im point range on a arazu ? looks like a case of "when carebears use EFT to understand PVP" to me arazu and pilgrim have been hit hard compaired to the rapier and the falcon (after the EW buff). if you want to nerf arazu and pilgrim thats fine, but hit rapiers and falcons too then, let them all be equally underpowered. I think the whole class of force recons could use a little in-lining with eachother, i dont care if they all suck or all rock, lets just try to keep them at about the same usefullness. btw i claim no responsibilty for my spelling, and refuse to correct it OH NOES !!!
Eaterof Children Pator Tech School	Posted - 2008.03.25 23:59:00 - [185] Edited by: Eaterof Children on 26/03/2008 00:00:54 Originally by: Mr Sisterfister and your right, you cant compair it to a falcon, a falcon can perma jam 4+ ships easily at 100 km... The hell it does! Sigh, there we go again... A falcon will "almost permajam" around two targets. And that is if they have the correct racial jammers. Falcons sport 5 damned jammers, not 8. If you mean "it can with a little luck jam 4 targets at a time for a cycle", yes with enough luck it could. Permajam? No chance in hell. Go fly the damned thing and if you manage to "permajam" 4 ships (that means not losing a cycle for the duration of a fight), come speak again. Permajam my ass. There's no such thing in any useful scenario, except if you only need to take a key ship out of a fight. Anyway where the hell do you get these numbers from? ON ANOTHER NOTE. I agree with you that the dampener ships need a definite boost. But this has nothing to do with the falcon. They need a boost because they suck. Damping strength to what it was before the nerf is pretty much right. I think.
Alex Harumichi Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2008.03.26 08:59:00 - [186] Originally by: Eaterof Children I agree with you that the dampener ships need a definite boost. But this has nothing to do with the falcon. They need a boost because they suck. Damping strength to what it was before the nerf is pretty much right. I think. QFT. At the moment, an Arazu/Lachesis gives very little to a gang/fleet, you're almost always much better off flying something else. Even before the nerf, Arazu/Lachesis was much weaker than the Rook/Falcon in jamming ships -- given that you need an MWD and at least one scrambler (usually two), all an A/L could really hope to do it to jam one ship, two if really lucky and the fleet is operating at an unusually convenient range. And that was fine. An A/L should be weaker than a R/F in jamming, since it has a secondary role (scrambling). Thing is, with the new damps you can't even jam one ship in any useful way. Given 4 damps (the usual max you will fit in practice), your normal bs will still have enough target range to engage your ships, with no inconvenience. In other words, all that damp "power" is doing your fleet exactly nada, in most cases. Remember that target range and speed are now separate, so unless the target is damped to below your own fleet engagement range (very hard or impossible in most cases), damps are totally useless. The "damp snipers" option, which is now and then presented by people for comedy value, falls down flat due to damp range, the need to fit a sensor booster to even reach normal sniper range, and lots of other silliness. It plain doesn't work, unless you define "sniping" to be at something like 130km range max. Which it usually isn't. Oh, and all the above are assuming perfect level 5 skills and rigs. It gets much worse if you don't have those. What we want is a ship that can fill a role. At the moment Arazu and Lachesis lack one. In my opinion, having actually flown the ships quite a bit (unlike some here apparently, I might add), they were fine before. I'd be fine with the ship bonuses being boosted so that the damp effect is in the same ballpark that is was -- even though that will still leave the ship weaker than it was due to the damp scripting, it should be enough to make the ships useful. The Arazu needs to be able to totally and reliably jam one ship, and somewhat jam two ships, in order to be useful as a specialist EW cruiser. At the moment it fails miserably, and with 30km inties and 40km HICs in the picture now, the 48k scramble range is also no longer all that hot either. Ok, hands up. Of all the people saying the ships are fine now, how many of you have actually flown and new Lachesis / Arazu in combat? How many of you have even flown the old ones? Basing on what I read, the answer seems to be: not many. The old Arazu & Lach were balanced ships, and useful additions to most fleets. The new ones are crap. I have near-perfect skills, rigs, etc... and neither me or my FC sees a scenario where I should undock in one of the ships now. They have no useful role anymore. The best (and possibly only) use for a L/A nowadays is as support to a Falcon gang -- and after all that skill training, if you end up being at best a support for another (superior) recon, you're not going to be a happy camper. A solo Arazu/Lachesis is useless. A solo Falcon can turn a small skirmish to your favor (been there, seen that, so many times now). All we want is a role back for our ships. It really isn't rocket science, here.
Alex Harumichi Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2008.03.26 09:01:00 - [187] Edited by: Alex Harumichi on 26/03/2008 09:01:14 Originally by: James Lyrus But I keep looking at these stats You look at the stats, endlessly it seems. Do you actually fly the things? Have you ever flown them? Do you have any clue, in practice, of what you're talking about, or is this EFT and "stats" talking?
Alex Harumichi Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2008.03.26 09:05:00 - [188] Originally by: James Lyrus what do you actually think an arazu _should_ be able to do? Very simple: what it did before, more or less. Be able to seriously lock down one ship (until it gets to point-blank range), or to hinder two. The fact that a Falcon/Rook can do more is fine, since that's the only role those ships have. And please don't tell me Falcons and Rooks can't do more; we have lots of competent ECM pilots and I know quite well what those ships are capable of.
Sith8 The Collective Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2008.03.26 09:51:00 - [189] /Signed .. FREE THE ARAZU
MasterDecoy Exiled.	Posted - 2008.03.27 10:24:00 - [190] so how about those npc buy orders? Originally by: Evilempire1 good, im pentitioning you for slandering.
Das Panzer The Collective Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2008.03.29 10:44:00 - [191] How about them damps? FREE THE ARAZU
Cornette Black Screen of Death HUZZAH FEDERATION	Posted - 2008.03.29 12:42:00 - [192] My Arazu stays in the hangar until it gets a fix. Before that happens the only recon I will use is the rapier (can't fly caldari, so falcon is not a option. yet.)
Commander Poppinfresh Life. Universe. Everything. Rejuvenate	Posted - 2008.03.29 21:41:00 - [193] Damps just aren't useful right now. Sure, that BS has a 30km lock range and can't hit you, but what about your entire gang which cannot contribute to the fight unless they get within 20km of him or so? Your damps don't help them at all, and if you want the lock time effect you need to use 3-4 damps, and have less effect than 2 damps would before, limiting the ship to locking down a single target. The lock range dampening is basically not useful at all unless you are solo, or in a gang of medium-range-only ships only (how often does that happen?). The scan res dampening isn't powerful enough to be useful because it takes multiple damps to increase the lock time by a few seconds. Changing these ship bonuses to 10% or even 7.5% would make the ships reasonably useful, while keeping everyone from fitting damps on every ship they flew (this was the real problem, nobody was ever arguing that damps were overpowered on gallente recons).
Alex Harumichi Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2008.04.04 08:19:00 - [194] Originally by: Cornette My Arazu stays in the hangar until it gets a fix. Before that happens the only recon I will use is the rapier (can't fly caldari, so falcon is not a option. yet.) Yeah. Arazu and Lachesis are worthless now, and the only other race I can fly recons with is Amarr... who have the equally broken Pilgrim. So out of 4 ships, I have one actually useful ship to fly (Curse). Wheee! Maybe I should just do what everyone else is doing, train Caldari cruiser V and hop into a Falcon. Sigh. Are the devs totally clueless here, or are they aware of the balance problems between the recons? Wish I knew.
Timaios	Posted - 2008.04.04 08:53:00 - [195] Have you tried using Arazu/Lachesis in a nanogang to keep those pesky rapiers/huginns out of the fight so they cannot keep you jammed - while dealing DPS and being nanoed? Gallente recons sound pretty good for that kind of job. You can't really do it with a falcon (nanoing a falcon means crappy EWAR strenght and a single ECCM ruins your day). I'm not trolling here, it's a legitimate question I'm pondering. Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
Theron Gyrow	Posted - 2008.04.04 10:07:00 - [196] Originally by: Timaios Have you tried using Arazu/Lachesis in a nanogang to keep those pesky rapiers/huginns out of the fight so they cannot keep you jammed - while dealing DPS and being nanoed? Gallente recons sound pretty good for that kind of job. You can't really do it with a falcon (nanoing a falcon means crappy EWAR strenght and a single ECCM ruins your day). I'm not trolling here, it's a legitimate question I'm pondering. Lachesis with two damp rigs and level 4 spec skill vs a Huginn with level 5 locking range skill gives 23.75km locking range for Huginn. :-/ And, well. Good luck nanoing a Lachesis - three low slots, rigs used for damp effectiveness and ****-poor cap does not a good nano make. -- Gradient forum
Kellaen	Posted - 2008.04.04 22:06:00 - [197] Add another for the 'fix the damp ships after you neutered them' crowd.
Mike Yass	Posted - 2008.04.05 18:50:00 - [198] I agree. They should also look into increasing the capacitor of the Lachesis, as currently it is lower than the celestis and less than a Arazu, so you can come close to getting a stable MWD setup.
Chr0nosX	Posted - 2008.04.07 01:01:00 - [199] Arazu,lachesis and Celestis need some changes to make them worth it over a falcon.
maralt The seers of truth	Posted - 2008.04.07 01:11:00 - [200] Originally by: Chr0nosX Arazu,lachesis and Celestis need some changes to make them worth it over a falcon. Although im gallente spec'd i can fly falcons as well and i think that to put all damping ships in line with a single caldari ship (the falcon) would be wrong but for the arazu (its opposite number) i agree should have its damp optimal increased a lot and its str as well.
Chi Quan DEFCON. Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.07 11:55:00 - [201] \in for a review of the Lachesis and Arazu. i _don't_ want to be like a Falcon/Rook, but i _do_ want a role. they are tech2 ships and take a whole lot of skilling. ---- "i-r-l33t3r-than-u 'cause ju is a n00b" is not a valid argument, it just shows you don't have any
Chr0nosX Ore Mongers Black Hand.	Posted - 2008.04.07 13:39:00 - [202] Tbh I don't think the Arazu should of been nerfed with the damp nerf I think before the nerf it was fine. Damps overall wern't fine because all ships fitted them with great results. As to people saying the Arazu is fine how come they are never seen in gangs anymore?
Kel Solaar Soulbound. Tenth Legion	Posted - 2008.04.07 15:24:00 - [203] Originally by: Timaios Have you tried using Arazu/Lachesis in a nanogang to keep those pesky rapiers/huginns out of the fight so they cannot keep you jammed - while dealing DPS and being nanoed? Gallente recons sound pretty good for that kind of job. You can't really do it with a falcon (nanoing a falcon means crappy EWAR strenght and a single ECCM ruins your day). I'm not trolling here, it's a legitimate question I'm pondering. If you are in a small nano engagement like 2 vs 2, yeah. Anything else and you get primary and raped, the goal of Lachesis/Arazu is to take out ships of combat, like the falcon, not trying to make the longest survivability score once you uncloaked...
xXxKatsujinxXx	Posted - 2008.04.19 11:50:00 - [204] Shameless bump, lost an arazu and a lachesis lately and it made me realise just how helpless these ships are. http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/5695/moanbearwo9.jpg
Der Fangzahn Breed of Malakka	Posted - 2008.04.21 21:03:00 - [205] /sigend Gallente Recons are atm useless helpless whateverless -- I'm the Pest --
Viiju	Posted - 2008.04.23 14:40:00 - [206] /Signed FREE THE ARAZU
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.04.23 18:45:00 - [207] The problem is not the ships: See http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=756166 for greater detail. Vote Goumindong for CSM
Emmerlaine Gallente Crab and Krawdad Enterprises	Posted - 2008.04.30 18:40:00 - [208] As if we needed any confirmation that the Arazu / Lachesis have lost their role.... There is an article up on Eve Tribune about constructing recon gangs. Every race is mentioned and roles discusses... except Gallente. Towards the end they start talking about tackling and I thought, finally! Unfortunately the interdictors, HICs, and newly buffed interceptors are the only things mentioned. Gallente Recons are officially off the gang use radar. Weak ECM, weak dmg, tackling overshadowed by other races, sigh... Article is here
Suitonia Gallente interimo	Posted - 2008.05.09 11:51:00 - [209] Originally by: Mike Yass I agree. They should also look into increasing the capacitor of the Lachesis, as currently it is lower than the celestis and less than a Arazu, so you can come close to getting a stable MWD setup. Quotin' 'cos i'm down. --- I've always wondered about those Vagabond pilots...
xXxKatsujinxXx	Posted - 2008.05.15 00:13:00 - [210] ooops accidental bump - this isn't gonna go away mr ccp... lol http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/5695/moanbearwo9.jpg
Chi Quan Perkone	Posted - 2008.06.09 23:09:00 - [211] come on, this needs looking into ccp ---- You don't have to like it - I don't blame you for not liking it.
Flawliss Gallente Pilots of True Potential	Posted - 2008.07.07 03:33:00 - [212] I think the biggest issue with damps is less about their strength and more about their operating RANGE. It doesnt bother me how many ships an ECM spec ship can take out of the fight, thats the ecm's job, and honestly i'm fine with that, what bothers me about damps is thier range We're looking at an ewar who's best asset in my book (and to a gall type fleet especially) is the reduction in the targets locking range, edging enemy fleets closer to Shorter range weapon platforms. Damps need either a range increase on their own,and/or preferably, a role bonus to damp type ships of 80-100% optimal range on dampeners. The only comparison to ECM i will make here is what i concider the switch at birth problem between these 2 modules. In my estimation an EWAR module only make the Ewar ship viable if it can somehow operate outside its effect range. ECM which breaks the target should have had a lower range then Damps that only lower Targeting range (or targeting speed, which is generally more useful WITH ecm ships. My example, if ECM had a total optimal operating range of 80k (double in many cases a damps optimal) will ECM suffer alot? They may be in range of more ships with ranged weapons, however breaking that lock completely puts that ecm ship outside its effect range (2k range same thing) A dampener with the same optimal allows it to operate outside its operational range of the effect, added range only helps, Lower range as it is now, put it Inside its effects operational range, and thus voids the effect. I really have no problem with ECM operating at its current range, although a lowering of its range could facilitate an increase in its strength, which i would be happy with aswell. However Dampeners should operate at a comparable range, since its effect is range and is range dependant. In closing atleast on a dampener spec'ed ship a dampeners Optimal range should be around 80-100k or better. once the range issue is fixed, all the attempts to take dampeners off non specced ships will make more sense, and i belive be complete while allowing specced ships to operate in their role. Thank you
Macan Nakal	Posted - 2008.08.14 05:11:00 - [213] Good software is as much responding to feedback as it is the result of design. By feedback I do not necessarily mean listening to us gamers whine - there are more objective metrics. The nerfbat being applied to RSD's was sensible, because I think we all agree a "must have" module is not game enriching. However I now note that I never see the Maulus or Celestis in game - Both these craft are of course Tech I RSD bonused. There are two possible conclusions to why. Firstly players are irational or secondly they fulfill no useful function. It might be sensible to tweak RSD ship bonuses and then use the objective metric I refer to - count the bonused ships in play (you should have the tools to do this ?). If the numbers increase to a point where heterogeneity is increased - then you have succeded if evry Incursus Vexor is replaced by Maulus Celestis then the nerf bat needs re-applying. I don't expect the design team to lay out their methodology for us - this is after all a game, a little mystery is fun but I think the treatment of RSDs smacks of response to whining without due regard to consequences or analysis of outcomes. All in all a great game - I am staggered that a project of such complexity works with such a low level of crashes.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: [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.