EVE Search - Q: So How Much Will Arazu Actually Damp

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Q: So How Much Will Arazu Actually Damp

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Mc Fraser	Posted - 2007.11.30 07:11:00 - [1] in sisi atm my dam peffectivness is 74.something. This is with arazu , recon 4 , 2 damp rigs and support skills at lvl4. how much would be the effectivness lets say damping range. in sisi ?
Vahetaja	Posted - 2007.11.30 09:53:00 - [2] im also wondering
Dante Reborn Dark Destiny Inc. TALIONIS ALLIANCE	Posted - 2007.11.30 10:06:00 - [3] High 40's i beleave, really sucks
Cybrex	Posted - 2007.11.30 10:11:00 - [4] this is like a very big nerf :S i dont understand ccp. lets make damps useless and ecm back to wtfpwn. this doesnt solve anything. they should boost efectivness on spec ships lice arazu/lachesis and curse/pilgrim ... minni ships are actually ok even after the patch ...
Aira Phlux Trinity Nova	Posted - 2007.11.30 10:33:00 - [5] OK I just checked he figures and as far as damping targeting range, its been nerfed by about a third. So Arazu's will need to use 3 damps on a target to achieve what 2 damps used to. On a side note you now have to choose between scan res and targetting effect but I think that is fairly minimal effect anyway. What this nerf does do, is stops non damper ships getting a lot of EW for very few slots. I agree this did slap the "real" damper ships pretty hard though - they could do with a ship bonus to compensate really. As for the return of ECM, I don't know. Its not unreal for it to be Caldari's "ace in the sleeve", plenty of other races have "aces". Just weird because of the back track. Save Eve-TV!
Theron Gyrow Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2007.11.30 10:34:00 - [6] Base damp strength = 17%. Script multiplies one strength by two, the other by zero. Cruiser skill gives +25% Support skill at level 4 gives +20% Each rig gives +5% Thus, lock range reduction = 0.1721.251.21.051.05 = 0.562275. 1st damp = 56% reduction to locking range. 2nd damp = 0.8756% = 49% 3rd damp = 0.5756% = 32% 4th damp = 0.2856% = 16% With three damps, the locking range reduction is about 85%. With four, 87%. Scorpion with one sensor booster set to locking range with 4 damps on it can lock to about 23.5km. Rook with same: 39km. Raven without sensor booster: 12km. Hey, this looks almost usable, except that it requires four damps and two damp rigs. Without rigs that's 16km, with just three damps 18km. Note that if there are any enemy ships within that range, the Raven can fight against those as if there was no EW being used against it at all. Summa summarum: leave the damp ship home, bring a damage dealer. -- Gradient forum
Eleana Tomelac Gallente Through the Looking Glass	Posted - 2007.11.30 10:40:00 - [7] On a lachesis with range scripts, I had -51% when I used it during the desync tests. So, I have 4 in the skill that improves damp efficiency (signal suppression?), used no rigs and the damps were phased muon (same stats as T2). The recon skill doesn't change the damp effectivenes. I think that on TQ I was close to -66 or -68%. So, it goes for 1/2 instead of my old 1/3, I hope we can get back to this efficiency with rigs. -- Pocket drone carriers (tm) enthousiast ! Say hello to my tiny friends !
Amastat Caldari Dark Invaders Minuit.	Posted - 2007.12.01 01:41:00 - [8] Edited by: Amastat on 01/12/2007 01:42:15 I'm not entirely sure about standard tech 1 dampeners but I ran the numbers for t2 dampeners and in a way it is a nerf, but not as bad as most people think, in some ways it may damps perform better. Ok - lets say you had 4 dampeners on a standard ship with no bonuses. You have signal supression at level V. This would be on pre-trinity. The target has a scan res/range of 100 and t2 damps have a base value of 48% dampener strength: --- -- B = Base strength S = Skill effect D = B * S = Actual dampening strength T = Target range/scan res --- -- B * S = D 0.48 * 1.25 = 0.6 Ok now because there is four sensor damps we have to repeat this formula four times: (1 - D) * T = new range/scan res 1. (1 - 0.6) * 100 = 40 2. (1 - 0.6) * 40 = 16 3. (1 - 0.6) * 16 = 6.4 4. (1 - 0.6) * 6.4 = 2.56 The target now has a scan resolution of 2.56mm, and a maximum targeting range of 2,560m. This was in total a 97.44% drop. Now, let's look at SiSi t2 damps. Same rules apply, but the dampeners have a base strength of 30% instead: B * S = D 0.30 * 1.25 = 0.375 1. (1 - 0.375) * 100 = 62.5 2. (1 - 0.375) * 62.5 = 39.0625 3. (1 - 0.375) * 39.0625 = 24.4140625 4. (1 - 0.375) * 24.4140625 = 15.2587890625 The target now has a scan resolution of 15.25mm, and a maximum targeting range of 15,250m. This was in total a 84.75% drop, a 12.69% worse then the old sensor dampeners. Ok, here is the thing that doesn't make it all seem as bad as it looks. We are not taking into account the new scripts. Let's put two range scripts and two scan res scripts into the 4 dampeners evenly: --- -- Sc = Script bonus N = The new actual dampening strength --- -- This is applying to scan res... (B * S) * Sc = N (0.30 * 1.25) * 2 = 0.75 This is applying to targeting range... (B * S) * Sc = N (0.30 * 1.25) * 2 = 0.75 OK - lets calculate the first two dampeners set up to hit scan resolution. There is only two dampeners so we only need to do this formula twice: 1. (1 - 0.75) * 100 = 25 2. (1 - 0.75) * 62.5 = 6.25 And now the range... 1. (1 - 0.75) * 100 = 25 2. (1 - 0.75) * 62.5 = 6.25 The target now has a scan resolution of 6.25mm, and a maximum targeting range of 6,250m. This was in total a 93.75% drop. This is only 3.69% worse then the old sensor dampeners. If the sensor damps have no loaded scripts they are obviously going to suck. Now, it would depend on... ship, circumstance, and your opponent. This could suck at times, however it could be a deadly weapon I feel. I think CCP is trying to make dampeners less powerful, however turn them into a more specialized weapon. In a stealth bomber on pre-trinity I use dampeners to ensure that I don't die, bombers obviously have a very short lifespan if someone is able to lock and open fire on you. I preferably would have to use 3 of my slots for damps that can depend on to keep me alive in EVE's brutal PvP environments. At present I can sensor dampen both the scan res/range on my target down by 87.79% if I use all 3 damps on the same guy. Let's say I dampened a nasty interceptor who is getting too close for my taste, he has a scan resolution of 1000mm. The range effect on the damps is obviously not going to be any help, however the res would be, it drops his scan res down to 122.1mm; to put it simply, he has the locking potential of a battleship. I should be fine but it's cutting it close if he has boosters or help. Ok, If I'm using the NEW damps, loaded with scan res scripts, I can drop his scan res down instead by 94.93%, the pesky interceptor's scan res is now down to 50.653mm instead. He locks at the same speed as a heavy industrial ship, or a capital ship. This is very good and should make a stealth bomber pilot feel more secure. It also enables me to not have to worry about attacking something at no closer then 40-50km for safety. I can now come in at closer range and lock down a bigger ship with less worry and more immediate damage. "All warfare is based on deception... we must seem unable...seem inactive...and crush him " - Sun Tzu, the Art of War
Amastat Caldari Dark Invaders Minuit.	Posted - 2007.12.01 01:48:00 - [9] Edited by: Amastat on 01/12/2007 01:48:52 Also to add onto things, even without scripts, it seems that there is only 13% difference between the two. Also, the Arazu I have not flown, but if I did I imagine I would make it a fast ship capable of attacking at long range with disruptors, really strong damps, and maybe some long range drones and rails for ranged firepower, however it's a recon cruiser I'm not very worry about having it deal damage; I'd fly a HAC instead if I wanted that. If u used range scripts on that, similar situation as my bomber, it would work exceedingly well I would imagine. You can make the range on your target VERY easily go from 250km down to like 5km I'm pretty sure. If I don't need the range negating effect, thats fine, I can just switch the scripts. "All warfare is based on deception... we must seem unable...seem inactive...and crush him " - Sun Tzu, the Art of War
Captain Agemman Minmatar Legio Ultra	Posted - 2007.12.01 03:08:00 - [10] Originally by: Cybrex ... minni ships are actually ok even after the patch ... Oh really? I can't remember the last time a saw a Minmatar Recon with a bonused racial EW module fitted - a target painter. The webbifying is not the racial EW. It is the secondary effect, like the warp disruption bonus on gallente recons, which was not modified. So if anything, the gallente recons are now at the same point as the minmatar ones have been all the time - good secondary effect, but fitting non-racial EW if any. Which seems actually ok to quote yourself.
Kurogauna	Posted - 2007.12.01 03:16:00 - [11] I used damp ships in combo with a friend in ecm burst trash ship ... So im interested in locking time, not the range - Real men tank hull.
Amastat Caldari Dark Invaders Minuit.	Posted - 2007.12.01 05:15:00 - [12] I checked over the numbers and apparently the amount of dampeners in your setup you are using will have an effect on the performance. 4 of the new dampeners is the best setup, It would have less penalty, however if you have 2, or for some reason 6 or 8 damps, you will have a more drop in performance compared to the old damps. I'm afraid the only setup is 4 damps, it's close to pre-trinity damps. Any other situation does have a greater loss in performance, however I do still feel that you don't always need both, specialization will make you perform better then you ever could have before. As I said, I think CCP is trying to make them less over powered, however retain some of it, and make it a more specialized weapon. Also if you took the time with the proper skills you could get a single damp on a Arazu to dampen for 99%. You need Signal Supression V, Recon IV, and just a single Inverted Field Projector I rig. (I Think) Formula: Tech 2 Damp + Script + Signal Suppression V + Recon IV + Rig 30% > 60% > 75% > 90% > 99% I could be wrong though, the calculations may not work in this manner, however I see no indication why not - however this in effect creates a problem... it's unspeakable. It seems overpowered now because you can dampen someone down by 99% with just 2 damps >.> Previously the Arazu could only achieve with max of 96.5% reduction... Using 6 damps. "All warfare is based on deception... we must seem unable...seem inactive...and crush him " - Sun Tzu, the Art of War
XLR Eight Viziam	Posted - 2007.12.01 05:54:00 - [13] Arazu with ECM FTW, then everyone train Caldary. That's what I call balance, good job !
Aenigma Griefwatch	Posted - 2007.12.01 10:25:00 - [14] Originally by: Amastat Math You forgot the effect of stacking penalties. I did calculations with stacking penalties. The results are here: Link You might want to rework some of your conclusions. BattleClinic \| Griefwatch
Theron Gyrow Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2007.12.01 11:38:00 - [15] Originally by: Aenigma Originally by: Amastat Math You forgot the effect of stacking penalties. I did calculations with stacking penalties. The results are here: Link You might want to rework some of your conclusions. What he said. Amastat, I'm afraid that pretty much everything in your calculations are wrong. In addition to the lack of stacking penalties, you forgot that currently the damp effects are calculated differently (for max-skilled non-spec ship the damp percentage of T2 damp is 1-(1-0.48)(1-0.25) = 0.61 = 61%, not 0.481.25 - although that's how damps will be calculated in Trinity 3), and the base value of a scripted T2 damp is 34%, not 30%. -- Gradient forum
Grimpak Gallente Trinity Nova	Posted - 2007.12.01 11:57:00 - [16] Edited by: Grimpak on 01/12/2007 11:59:34 http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/grimpak/lol_dampners.JPG left from right: T2 damps on arazu with no rigs, lvl4 recon and support skills and no scripts (considering that the scripts are +100%/-100%, I reckon that they will hit the 51% in range). unbonused T2 damps unbonused T1 damps edit: omfg chribba doesn't like hot-linkin' --- planetary interaction idea!
Amastat Caldari Dark Invaders Minuit.	Posted - 2007.12.01 13:06:00 - [17] We'll I could of sworn they set the t2 damps to 30% last I was on, I'm sure of that, however I have logged in and it seems they nerfed it again to 17%. That sucks :( "All warfare is based on deception... we must seem unable...seem inactive...and crush him " - Sun Tzu, the Art of War
Grimpak Gallente Trinity Nova	Posted - 2007.12.01 13:40:00 - [18] Originally by: Amastat We'll I could of sworn they set the t2 damps to 30% last I was on, I'm sure of that, however I have logged in and it seems they nerfed it again to 17%. That sucks :( that's the problem CCP, besides the 50% nerf that will incur on the introduction of the ARM scripts, also dropped the efficiency of them by 30%. damp rigs were also nerfed aswell, or so I heard. --- planetary interaction idea!

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

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