EVE Search - Put ECMs on the Script crutch

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Put ECMs on the Script crutch

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Siigari Kitawa	Posted - 2008.03.30 04:45:00 - [1] I was out flying with my buddies today roaming. We had a Broadsword, Hurricane and an Arazu. My friend said "We're so awesome, we've got like, your killer tank Broadsword, my awesome dps hurricane and Siig has her.. Arazu." I got sad at this point and said "Well if I was in a Falcon I'd be totally hailed as uber jammer." I realized at that moment that Dampeners have been dealt an unfair blow. They have been relegated to scripts, while ECMs enjoy their full range and full strength... plus a ton of strength modifiers. Damps are not given cool modules to boost their effectiveness like ECMs are, they are given some ** poor rigs though. So I say we put ECMs on the Scripting crutch. I would say let's make those dastardly ECM ships pay for being able to almost indefinitely permajam a ship. The scripts may be as follows: Jamming Strength Increases the strength of the module by 1.5x but reduces optimal range by 50% Jamming Range** Increases the optimal range of the module by 50% but reduces ecm strength by 50%. I think these would be fair changes... so if a ship wanted to jam up a ton of targets he'd have to be in the fray just like the rest of the ships. PS: perhaps 1.5x is too strong and maybe 1.25x is more fair. Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
Erotic Irony	Posted - 2008.03.30 05:04:00 - [2] won't ever happen the chance based nature of ecm coupled with impotent direct damage ecm ships makes the analogy to damps invalid--besides part of your complaint is already possible via heat ___ Eve Players are not very smart. Support Killmail Overhaul
jade ronin	Posted - 2008.03.30 05:04:00 - [3] Originally by: Siigari Kitawa I was out flying with my buddies today roaming. We had a Broadsword, Hurricane and an Arazu. My friend said "We're so awesome, we've got like, your killer tank Broadsword, my awesome dps hurricane and Siig has her.. Arazu." I got sad at this point and said "Well if I was in a Falcon I'd be totally hailed as uber jammer." I realized at that moment that Dampeners have been dealt an unfair blow. They have been relegated to scripts, while ECMs enjoy their full range and full strength... plus a ton of strength modifiers. Damps are not given cool modules to boost their effectiveness like ECMs are, they are given some ** poor rigs though. So I say we put ECMs on the Scripting crutch. I would say let's make those dastardly ECM ships pay for being able to almost indefinitely permajam a ship. The scripts may be as follows: Jamming Strength Increases the strength of the module by 1.5x but reduces optimal range by 50% Jamming Range** Increases the optimal range of the module by 50% but reduces ecm strength by 50%. I think these would be fair changes... so if a ship wanted to jam up a ton of targets he'd have to be in the fray just like the rest of the ships. PS: perhaps 1.5x is too strong and maybe 1.25x is more fair. no .. ecm do not do 2 thing so you cant split it up ... ecm range come form ship bonus no module. if anything give damps a small boost to bring them back up on par with ecms. nerfing things that work as intended because something else got nurfed too much is never the answer.
Siigari Kitawa	Posted - 2008.03.30 05:07:00 - [4] Edited by: Siigari Kitawa on 30/03/2008 05:07:56 Originally by: Erotic Irony won't ever happen the chance based nature of ecm coupled with impotent direct damage ecm ships makes the analogy to damps invalid--besides part of your complaint is already possible via heat You can't overload damps. Besides, overloading is not meant for a fixed-length endeavor. Originally by: jade ronin nerfing things that work as intended because something else got nurfed too much is never the answer. That's how CCP have been doing things lately. Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
Mahn AlNouhm The Bastards	Posted - 2008.03.30 05:39:00 - [5] sigh Nerfing ECM mods, making them scripted the way you suggest would drive ECM from the game on dedicated platforms. You'd still see ecm drones, but no more blackbirds, no more falcons since the cost would be so disproportionately high to its usefulness. Strength is everything on an ECM ship. Range is its only form of tank. If you cut its range in half, ECM boats will die way, way more quickly. As is, in a falcon, you will die if someone looks at you funny. No other recon has to sacrifice as much to be effective at what it does. To illustrate: If you look at the stats on an t2 racial, you'll notice that its actually a pretty weak module. With my skills (close to max jamming skills. Recon 4, sig dispersion 4) with no signal distortion amps I get about 7.7 jam strength with t2 racials on a Falcon, which, to put it in persepctive, is about what I would get if I fit a griffin with t1 sig distortion amps, and t1 racials. The base sensor strength of a cruiser is around 14 or 15. So, 1 jammer would have a 50 percent chance to jam a cruiser. Battleships have a base sensor strength of about 21, so that's a 1 in 3 chance to jam. An dampening ship is way, way stronger than an ECM ship sans distortion amps. In order for the falcon or the rook to work well, it has to completely dedicate every slot in its ship to jamming. This is possible on Caldari recons because of the signal distortion amp. Rather than nerfing ECM, my suggestion would be to provide all forms of EW with a module comparable to the signal distortion amplifier. If a recon wants to dedicate itself to being an EW platform, thereby gimping its other capabilites, then it should be able to do that. . . .
Siigari Kitawa The Aduro Protocol	Posted - 2008.03.30 05:43:00 - [6] So my complaint is what makes it fair for you to have a 100% chance (or very darn close) to jam like, 2 ships permanently while I can only keep targets down to at best a 20km targeting range? (4 t2 damps w/ Sig Sup. 4 and recon 5) And that's ALL FOUR DAMPS. I can't multitask with an Arazu to lock down 2-3 people. Even with a signal booster module, it would still be subject to a stacking penalty so it wouldn't buff that much. See what I mean?
Erotic Irony 0bsession	Posted - 2008.03.30 05:51:00 - [7] Originally by: Siigari Kitawa is what makes it fair for you to have a 100% chance (or very darn close) to jam like, 2 ships permanently while I can only keep targets down to at best a 20km targeting range? (4 t2 damps w/ Sig Sup. 4 and recon 5) lol, the hysterical exaggeration is strong with this one You have recon five but you don't understand anything about chances at all, assume all ECM users are lvl5 super characters and carefully neglect ECCM and remote ECCM? Eve has nothing to do with fairness it has to do with relative parity and tradeoffs. If you're unprepared to deal with a single ECM ship or the possibility of ECM in pvp, don't undock but don't confuse your anxiety with understanding. ___ Eve Players are not very smart. Support Killmail Overhaul
Siigari Kitawa	Posted - 2008.03.30 06:02:00 - [8] Originally by: Erotic Irony Originally by: Siigari Kitawa is what makes it fair for you to have a 100% chance (or very darn close) to jam like, 2 ships permanently while I can only keep targets down to at best a 20km targeting range? (4 t2 damps w/ Sig Sup. 4 and recon 5) lol, the hysterical exaggeration is strong with this one You have recon five but you don't understand anything about chances at all, assume all ECM users are lvl5 super characters and carefully neglect ECCM and remote ECCM? Eve has nothing to do with fairness it has to do with relative parity and tradeoffs. If you're unprepared to deal with a single ECM ship or the possibility of ECM in pvp, don't undock but don't confuse your anxiety with understanding. It's not that I don't understand. I do. I'm going to say, and this is a fair example. My Arazu is guaranteed to damp somebody about 70% down. Guaranteed. Somebody's Falcon is not guaranteed to jam but for every ecm you throw down (with bonuses) your chance to jam increases. Once you have overcome their sensor strength you are almost guaranteed to jam them. Additionally, a jam does not last just 5 seconds, it lasts 20. Twenty seconds is practically an eternity for a PVP pilot, whereas my scan res damps only affect that sort of thing as battleships to frigate lock times. Cmon. Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
Jarimir The Aduro Protocol	Posted - 2008.03.30 06:49:00 - [9] I would have to say that a buff to damps would be better than a nerf to ECM. Sorry Siig. Take Heart, buffs dont cause near as much whining as nerfs. I have heard VERY little whining about the EM/Amarr buff (look at the em armor nerf as a 10% bonus to em damage output). It has encouraged a lot of people to take another look at Amarr ships and has revitalized an underutilized race. I think an ECM nerf will just discourage pilots to use it but not so much encourage people to use damps instead. But a nerf on the other hand... (see above) Also I think that we all can agree that minimized whining is the most desirable effect of ANY content change. *Jarimir emotes
Mahn AlNouhm The Bastards	Posted - 2008.03.30 06:59:00 - [10] Well, IMO, there is a clear imbalance. The imbalance, however, is not that ECM is too strong, its that other forms of EW aren't strong enough (with the exception of Minmitar. Their recons are pretty damn balanced). My recommendation would be to buff damps by providing a signal distiortion type mod that would boost it. You shot down the idea because of a stacking penalty. You're full of it. Signal distortion amps suffer from a stacking penalty, but they are the backbone of ECM sensor strength. The idea is valid. If you want an uber powered damp ship that rivals the falcon in effectiveness, you need to be willing to sacrifice, basically, every capability beyond EW on your ship. That's what falcon pilots do. But, I wanted to address the "what makes it fair" whine. I'm not going to address the numbers you threw out, because they're off the wall and do not accurately reflect what happens in game. The question, really is why isn't my recon as effective as Caldari recons? What makes it fair is this: I CAN'T DO ANYTHING ELSE. Falcons are one hundered percent specialized. You don't see falcons nanoing it up, whizzing around the fight. You don't see them tanking ungodly amounts of damage. You rarely see them shooting at anything at all. They can't take damage. They have crap align time. They are USELESS outside of their role, which is to provide ECM support, which they are very good at. Your Arazu, until this last patch, was one of the best solo ships in the game. It can still move quite ably. You can deal damage. You aren't pigeonholed into that very specific role. You can fit tackle if you want to. You can handle more than one or two shots, or you can avoid them completely if you're kitted properly. Not so with the Falcon. We don't have that degree of versatility, so CCP wisely decided that to balance our lack of utility in certain areas, they would provide us with excellent capabilities in other areas. THAT is what "makes it fair." If you're willing to dedicate every slot in your ship to EW, then I believe your EW ship should be as good as the Rook or Falcon. But, since you aren't doing that, you can't expect the same degree of performance. But you're not asking for balance, you just want the Falcon to be less than it is so you don't feel so bad about your Arazu. That is not how you achieve balance. . . .
Vaal Erit	Posted - 2008.03.30 07:32:00 - [11] Hmmm, you actually have a good point, even though your first post has jealously rage. The point is that a Falcon can ECM more targets than any other recon. Rapier/Huginn - Close range ships since who cares about webbing if you don't pt the bastard (insta warping him) Use 2 webs which usualy jack up one target. 1-2 targets ewar'd. Curse/Pilgrim - TDs and Neuts. Although TDs only work on gun boats and neuts take a bit to work on bigger targets. Curses use roughly 3 neuts and 2-3 TDs which can mess up 1 target with Tds and 1 with neuts. 1-2 targets ewar'd, maybe 3. Lach/Arazu - Lots of damps. 5 damps on the Lach can mess up 2 targets, with scripts you really need 3 damps to get someone down below 15km. 2 targets ewar'd and not ewar'd very well either due to scripts. Falcon/Rook - MWD, SB, and 5 jammers. Gets about 14 jam strength per racial jammer. I don't fly ECM but I hear ECM str/ enemy ECM str = chance to hit. BS has ~20 strength....Hacs have terrible stength. Since they are racials, you will at least perma-jam 3 targets, and at best, 5 targets. 3-5 targets ECM'd. Okay, now Curses/Huginns/Lachs do have some situations where they cannot be beat, but simply put that in the best situations a falcon will ewar more targets than the other recons. Also ECM has long range jamming, none of the other recons can operate well at 150km without ridiculous officer mods (well maybe damps, I haven't used damps much) So shouldn't the ECM boats be brought inline with other recons in the # of targets and/or range that they can ewar? Also, I am no ECM expert so wrong info may be here and also a cane, arazu and broadsword isn't the best roaming gang, love the use of minmatar ships though :)
Jurgen Cartis Interstellar Corporation of Exploration Nex Eternus	Posted - 2008.03.30 10:08:00 - [12] Edited by: Jurgen Cartis on 30/03/2008 10:12:04 Edited by: Jurgen Cartis on 30/03/2008 10:11:03 Originally by: Vaal Erit So shouldn't the ECM boats be brought inline with other recons in the # of targets and/or range that they can ewar? You forget, the other Recons all have a secondary form of EW they can use (even if it's usually largely ignored, like the Huginn's TP bonus). The other Recons also largely have the option (or role) of holding a target down, which with nanoships so prevalent is very valuable. Most of the other Recons can also be nanofit themselves and have the option to fit things like DCUs, LSEs and such for a small bit of survivability. Nanorecons can actually move, that is their tank along with their EW. The Falcon does not have this option and as such, distance and jamming IS it's tank. Besides, Caldari are the 'range race', it would be a real slap in the face to have Gallente damps outranging them. Heck, if I fit it wierd, one could argue that a Lachesis is capable of EW-ing 5-7 targets (one point each). I'm being facetious here, just trying to point out that numbers aren't everything. Besides, if a Falcon could only jam 1-2 targets in a best case scenario, it would be worthless. The whole point of Falcons is that they can cancel out some number of enemy ships. Why bring a ship that cancels out 1 enemy rather than a gank ship? Or a Rapier to hold them down so your slower ships can melt them? Rapier/Huginn webs AND TPs Curse/Pilgrim TDs AND Neuts Lachesis/Arazu damps AND scrams Falcon/Rook jams AND uhh. . . jams some more? Some of the above could use some love, of course. TPs are kind of myeh right now (or more accurately, webs are just THAT much better). The Pilgrim has problems with web range outranging its nos/neuts (and web > TDs) and the nos nerf, and the Gallente Recons have slowly been chipped away at. The WCS nerf made their ability to put multiple points on a target at range much less valuable, then damps got the nerfbat (and they really did need it) but the Recons were not accordingly buffed. They should probably give ECCM some secondary effect. There's at least a REASON to fit Sensor Boosters and Tracking Computers and MWDs that's completely unrelated to countering EW. ECCM is useless if you aren't attacked by jammers, which I think is part of why people don't fit it. I don't know, more available locked targets? Slightly improved targeting, similar to a Signal Amplifier? -------------------- ICE Blueprint Sales FIRST!! -Yipsilanti Pfft. Never such a thing as a "last chance". ;) -Rauth
Ort Lofthus Wildlands Heavy Technologies FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2008.03.30 10:33:00 - [13] Originally by: Jurgen Cartis They should probably give ECCM some secondary effect. There's at least a REASON to fit Sensor Boosters and Tracking Computers and MWDs that's completely unrelated to countering EW. ECCM is useless if you aren't attacked by jammers, which I think is part of why people don't fit it. I don't know, more available locked targets? Slightly improved targeting, similar to a Signal Amplifier? This TBH. If an ECCM could be fitted with a script that negated its +sensor strength and instead gave half the scan res bonus of a sensor booster, I would fit it often. As it is now, mid slots are too valuable to use on something that might be useful if you fight a specific thing.
space bear	Posted - 2008.03.30 10:54:00 - [14] If you really think about it, ECM actually does two things: 1. it makes you loose all your already acquired target locks. 2. it prevents you trying to acquire another lock for 20 seconds.
Rawr Cristina	Posted - 2008.03.30 11:15:00 - [15] Edited by: Rawr Cristina on 30/03/2008 11:15:27 Considering how weak the dedicated ECM ships are, I'm not too sure they need a nerf. Yes a Falcon uncloaking at the right moment is going to change the tide of a fight, but a single volley from an Abaddon is often enough to pop it in a lot of cases. Biggest inherent problem with ECM is that favours those with more numbers over anything really. Fighting outnumbered is one thing, but fighting outnumbered when the enemy has ECM is rarely suicide. I'd say they were working as intended, on dedicated ECM ships. I still think ECM Drones need a hit with the nerfbat though ... Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
maralt	Posted - 2008.03.30 11:32:00 - [16] Originally by: Siigari Kitawa I was out flying with my buddies today roaming. We had a Broadsword, Hurricane and an Arazu. My friend said "We're so awesome, we've got like, your killer tank Broadsword, my awesome dps hurricane and Siig has her.. Arazu." I got sad at this point and said "Well if I was in a Falcon I'd be totally hailed as uber jammer." I realized at that moment that Dampeners have been dealt an unfair blow. They have been relegated to scripts, while ECMs enjoy their full range and full strength... plus a ton of strength modifiers. Damps are not given cool modules to boost their effectiveness like ECMs are, they are given some ** poor rigs though. So I say we put ECMs on the Scripting crutch. I would say let's make those dastardly ECM ships pay for being able to almost indefinitely permajam a ship. The scripts may be as follows: Jamming Strength Increases the strength of the module by 1.5x but reduces optimal range by 50% Jamming Range** Increases the optimal range of the module by 50% but reduces ecm strength by 50%. I think these would be fair changes... so if a ship wanted to jam up a ton of targets he'd have to be in the fray just like the rest of the ships. PS: perhaps 1.5x is too strong and maybe 1.25x is more fair. Make them a 100% guaranteed jam at optimal like damps and id go for that. Btw i fly a falcon and even using racial a jam is not 100% even with rigs and mods boosting t2 racial jammers to over 10.5 str.
Deva Blackfire	Posted - 2008.03.30 11:38:00 - [17] Originally by: maralt Make them a 100% guaranteed jam at optimal like damps and id go for that. Btw i fly a falcon and even using racial a jam is not 100% even with rigs and mods boosting t2 racial jammers to over 10.5 str. Sure. As soon as "100% chance" is at 15 km optimal tops.
maralt The seers of truth	Posted - 2008.03.30 11:41:00 - [18] Originally by: Deva Blackfire Originally by: maralt Make them a 100% guaranteed jam at optimal like damps and id go for that. Btw i fly a falcon and even using racial a jam is not 100% even with rigs and mods boosting t2 racial jammers to over 10.5 str. Sure. As soon as "100% chance" is at 15 km optimal tops. I think the same optimal as damps would be a more balanced reduction considering the op's post.
Deva Blackfire D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.03.30 11:45:00 - [19] Originally by: maralt Originally by: Deva Blackfire Originally by: maralt Make them a 100% guaranteed jam at optimal like damps and id go for that. Btw i fly a falcon and even using racial a jam is not 100% even with rigs and mods boosting t2 racial jammers to over 10.5 str. Sure. As soon as "100% chance" is at 15 km optimal tops. I think the same optimal as damps would be a more balanced reduction considering the op's post. I think arazu/lachesis can not perma-disable 4-7 ships at once
maralt	Posted - 2008.03.30 11:51:00 - [20] Edited by: maralt on 30/03/2008 11:53:54 Originally by: Deva Blackfire Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 30/03/2008 11:46:13 Originally by: maralt Originally by: Deva Blackfire Originally by: maralt Make them a 100% guaranteed jam at optimal like damps and id go for that. Btw i fly a falcon and even using racial a jam is not 100% even with rigs and mods boosting t2 racial jammers to over 10.5 str. Sure. As soon as "100% chance" is at 15 km optimal tops. I think the same optimal as damps would be a more balanced reduction considering the op's post. I think arazu/lachesis can not perma-disable 4-7 ships at once EDIT: i edited my previous post, worth reading it too :) And your saying that the falcon can 100% do that?. Nope it has a chance to disable 4-7 ships in range for 20 secs while the lach/arazu is 100% guaranteed to damp any ship in range permanently. Its a trade off although damps need unerfing as i love flying both the arazu and falcon. PS: scripts suck and should be removed and used as bog paper in a elephants dysentery clinic.
Deva Blackfire	Posted - 2008.03.30 11:58:00 - [21] "chance"? My falcon has a bit over 14 str on racials. That means i can PERMANENTLY jam half of the HACs (and ofc smaller ships) in this game. Even against battleships its jam chance is high enough to enable me to almost perma jam 3 battleships during combat (yes i know how chance based system works - and against for ex. geddon i have 97% to keep him offlined each cycle - its enough for me to call it permanent). And like i said before: does arazu/lache have even CHANCE to do so? From what i saw it can barely keep 1 (maybe 2 ships if it has lots of luck) disabled - thats ofc unless they decide to close a bit. Falcon just creates 150km "you cant do anything" sphere on ships he decides to jam.
maralt	Posted - 2008.03.30 12:13:00 - [22] Originally by: Deva Blackfire "chance"? My falcon has a bit over 14 str on racials. That means i can PERMANENTLY jam half of the HACs (and ofc smaller ships) in this game. Even against battleships its jam chance is high enough to enable me to almost perma jam 3 battleships during combat (yes i know how chance based system works - and against for ex. geddon i have 97% to keep him offlined each cycle - its enough for me to call it permanent). And like i said before: does arazu/lache have even CHANCE to do so? From what i saw it can barely keep 1 (maybe 2 ships if it has lots of luck) disabled - thats ofc unless they decide to close a bit. Falcon just creates 150km "you cant do anything" sphere on ships he decides to jam. But as ppl have said that is all it can do and it needs to be 100% fitted and setup to do that while every other recon has other options while being able to do its e-war job. Boost other recon ships by all means but quit bringing out the nerf bat every time players learn a good way/fit to use a ship.
Deva Blackfire	Posted - 2008.03.30 12:17:00 - [23] Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 30/03/2008 12:18:36 IIRC falcon has missile launcher hardpoints? And it has 7 mids so can fit different tools? Its only because people CAN maximize their uber-state to jam even more targets. Yeh falcon working with tackling stuff etc at close range would work but why put 3 jammers when you can put 6 and leave tackling to someone else. Anwyays ecm (or maybe falcon coz this is most unbalanced recon atm) state is like nanophoon before: to counter it you need specific recon (arazu/lache with damp range rigs + sensor booster) or other falcon. To counter nanophoon you needed specific recon (extended + injected huginn) or another nanophoon. EDIT: And i say NO to boosting other recons. They were worst addition to game standing just next ot capital ships. If ever balance recons they should be toned down to "disable" 1-2 ships not all of em to kill whole gang. 1 cruiser to counter 1 cruiser. Not 1 cruiser to counter whatever enemy brings.
maralt	Posted - 2008.03.30 12:37:00 - [24] Edited by: maralt on 30/03/2008 12:38:21 Originally by: Deva Blackfire Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 30/03/2008 12:18:36 IIRC falcon has missile launcher hardpoints? And it has 7 mids so can fit different tools? Its only because people CAN maximize their uber-state to jam even more targets. Yeh falcon working with tackling stuff etc at close range would work but why put 3 jammers when you can put 6 and leave tackling to someone else. Anwyays ecm (or maybe falcon coz this is most unbalanced recon atm) state is like nanophoon before: to counter it you need specific recon (arazu/lache with damp range rigs + sensor booster) or other falcon. To counter nanophoon you needed specific recon (extended + injected huginn) or another nanophoon. EDIT: And i say NO to boosting other recons. They were worst addition to game standing just next ot capital ships. If ever balance recons they should be toned down to "disable" 1-2 ships not all of em to kill whole gang. 1 cruiser to counter 1 cruiser. Not 1 cruiser to counter whatever enemy brings. Theres no point talking to some body why reaches for the nerf bat every time players find a gr8 way of using a ship or module. And its not like ppl cannot specifically fit eccm units to match the specifically fitted falcon but nobody wants to use up a slot for that although they will happily use sensor boosters. A look at eve after ppl have nerfed every thing they do not want to fit a counter on there ship to deal with will be just like the old space invaders but with 2 sets of invaders facing each other blobbing and blipping away with no variation allowed in fits.
Deva Blackfire	Posted - 2008.03.30 12:58:00 - [25] When one ship is counter to everything then its imbalanced. And yes thats how you balance games - find what is abused and fix it.
maralt	Posted - 2008.03.30 13:05:00 - [26] Originally by: Deva Blackfire When one ship is counter to everything then its imbalanced. And yes thats how you balance games - find what is abused and fix it. 1 ship totally and specifically fitted for that single job (and still not 100% guaranteed even with perfect skills) VS ships not fitted to counter it when they easily could be (1 single module) is not an imbalanced mechanic.
Deva Blackfire	Posted - 2008.03.30 13:14:00 - [27] Hmmm.... curse fit to tracking disrupt: disables only half of ships in this game (and still even with 6x TD you cant disable more like 3 ships) arazu/lache fit for dampening and even with 7 damps you can only disable 2-3 ships (if you try to disable more they can either lock far or lock fast) rapier - 6 webs 6 ships that are slowed down but can fight back falcon - 7 ships that are disabled and can go afk (around 4 ships if they are battleships)
maralt	Posted - 2008.03.30 13:17:00 - [28] Originally by: Deva Blackfire Hmmm.... curse fit to tracking disrupt: disables only half of ships in this game (and still even with 6x TD you cant disable more like 3 ships) arazu/lache fit for dampening and even with 7 damps you can only disable 2-3 ships (if you try to disable more they can either lock far or lock fast) rapier - 6 webs 6 ships that are slowed down but can fight back falcon - 7 ships that are disabled and can go afk (around 4 ships if they are battleships) eccm tyvm nn bb.
Deva Blackfire D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.03.30 13:23:00 - [29] So oyu can counter curse w/o tracking mods (or even injector). You can counter arazu w/o sensor boosters. Same for huginn/rap. But ONLY falcon needs SPECIFIC module to counter it?
maralt The seers of truth	Posted - 2008.03.30 13:25:00 - [30] Originally by: Deva Blackfire So oyu can counter curse w/o tracking mods (or even injector). You can counter arazu w/o sensor boosters. Same for huginn/rap. But ONLY falcon needs SPECIFIC module to counter it? Im not sure i understand what your getting at pls explain.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: 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.