open All Channels
seplocked Ships and Modules
blankseplocked Instead of boosting damps....
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

Author Topic

Takeshi Yamato
Posted - 2009.03.12 12:34:00 - [31]
 

Edited by: Takeshi Yamato on 12/03/2009 12:33:59
Quote:
So I believe that forcing a ship closer than its maximum effective range is a method of controlling the battlefield and ensuring that your opponent are not fighting the battle they want.


Does that work out in practice? No. Damps are rarely if ever used.

Naomi Knight
Amarr
Posted - 2009.03.12 12:34:00 - [32]
 

Liang's dreams:
Quote:
The Stiletto has a pretty pitiful locking range already: 31.25km. I recommend not changing it, and thus it would be unaffected by this change.

The Manticore locks at 87.5km, shoots 168km, and is able to be able to be locked down to 11.85/9.89km locking range. With a 15% drop it would target 74.5km and be damped to 8.8/8.4km.

The Raven locks at 93.75km and shoots 250km. With a 15% drop it would target 79.75km and be able to be locked down to 12.65/10.5km.

The Muninn and Zealot both lock at 68.75km and I recommend increasing this by 15% to 80km regardless of what happens with this suggestion.

The Ishtar locks at 75km which I recommend reducing by 15% to 63.75km. I am aware of its drone range bonus, and what that means for it. In order to use it effectively you already have to fit a sensor booster so it becomes a net change of 120km to 102km. I am also aware of what this means for the 'Ishtar Sniper'. The base Ishtar would be damped down to 8.6/7.2km.


So this is another stealth gallente+caldari nerf and matar+amarr boost? Caught you!!!


-Liang Nuren

Fistme
Posted - 2009.03.12 12:48:00 - [33]
 

Edited by: Fistme on 12/03/2009 12:48:08
Change the worthless missile skill bonus on the Lachesis to either a damp optimal or a falloff bonus and we have a good place to start.

McEivalley
Cutting Edge Incorporated
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2009.03.12 14:41:00 - [34]
 

Originally by: Ig Neus
I think that Dampeners are "fine" as they are. Their usefulness depends on the type of gangs fighting and especially their range. Recons generally shine on relatively small gang fights.

If we are talking about a Blaster vs Blaster fight at the undock point of a station, then they are useless. On the other hand, if we are talking at ships fighting at almost their targeting range then a single Arazu can remove from the fight (by reducing their targeting range by 58.57 using a single Dampener) 3 enemies. Even in less perfect situations, removing one Battleship from the fight is usually easy.

Generally, the reason people consider Dampeners not worth the effort to fit them is the current strength of ECM. Currently the main reason not to fly an Arazu is that you can fly a Falcon instead. When this gets nerfed to a point where people consider Rapier, Pilgrim, Arazu and Falcon to be equally viable for small gang all will be fine.


I was about to say "This" and click Post Reply, when I got to the part of the jamwhinning. A falcon is not godly, and a scan res dampner will cover for a falcon missing some cycles on a heavily eccmed ship. Just because you don't know to play Lego, it doesn't mean that others don't build castles out of it.

McEivalley
Cutting Edge Incorporated
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2009.03.12 14:51:00 - [35]
 

Originally by: Naomi Knight
Liang's dreams:
Quote:
The Stiletto has a pretty pitiful locking range already: 31.25km. I recommend not changing it, and thus it would be unaffected by this change.

The Manticore locks at 87.5km, shoots 168km, and is able to be able to be locked down to 11.85/9.89km locking range. With a 15% drop it would target 74.5km and be damped to 8.8/8.4km.

The Raven locks at 93.75km and shoots 250km. With a 15% drop it would target 79.75km and be able to be locked down to 12.65/10.5km.

The Muninn and Zealot both lock at 68.75km and I recommend increasing this by 15% to 80km regardless of what happens with this suggestion.

The Ishtar locks at 75km which I recommend reducing by 15% to 63.75km. I am aware of its drone range bonus, and what that means for it. In order to use it effectively you already have to fit a sensor booster so it becomes a net change of 120km to 102km. I am also aware of what this means for the 'Ishtar Sniper'. The base Ishtar would be damped down to 8.6/7.2km.


So this is another stealth gallente+caldari nerf and matar+amarr boost? Caught you!!!


-Liang Nuren


I don't think this is a net gallente nerf Liang proposed, but I agree that this is like the worst nerf proposal if I ever read one. The only thing dampners might need help with is to be used MOAR.

Dampners give an absolute success rate, so they are dampening less. That only means that you need more of them used to do what just one did in the past. Same goes with Jammers, only they have a statistical success rate rather than absolute, due to their effect.

Dampners are as neglected as weapon disruptors by a lot of people and that's just great for me...

(eek... EmbarassedEmbarassedEmbarassed Don't tell anyone YARRRR!!)

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2009.03.12 14:59:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: Naomi Knight
Ah Liang is back so do his stupid ideas. When you already need 2 sensor boosters just to reach your optimal then this idea is realy stupid.


-Liang Nuren, who mastered WAR online and brings back the knowledge to you.


I never mastered WAR, actually. It didn't really last long enough for that, and the system was alot more complicated than Eve. At any rate, the point is to lower range for ships not specifically designed for sniping.

And as usual, you fail to engage your brain before speaking. Can you at least try saying something constructive (even constructive criticism) for once in your life? :)

-Liang

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2009.03.12 15:02:00 - [37]
 

Originally by: Ig Neus
I think that Dampeners are "fine" as they are. Their usefulness depends on the type of gangs fighting and especially their range. Recons generally shine on relatively small gang fights.


Yes, they're 'fine'. 'Fine' as in people don't actually use them. Ever.

Quote:
If we are talking about a Blaster vs Blaster fight at the undock point of a station, then they are useless. On the other hand, if we are talking at ships fighting at almost their targeting range then a single Arazu can remove from the fight (by reducing their targeting range by 58.57 using a single Dampener) 3 enemies. Even in less perfect situations, removing one Battleship from the fight is usually easy.


The problem with your assertion is (as I pointed out in the OP) that nobody *ACTUALLY* fights at their locking range. Most combat happens at 24km. Damps are virtually useless in that range, and are thus largely useless. Removing one battleship from the equation is also not easy, because most of them can still target almost 20km.... yeah, that's useful.

Quote:
Generally, the reason people consider Dampeners not worth the effort to fit them is the current strength of ECM. Currently the main reason not to fly an Arazu is that you can fly a Falcon instead. When this gets nerfed to a point where people consider Rapier, Pilgrim, Arazu and Falcon to be equally viable for small gang all will be fine.


Even if ECM ships were removed from the game entirely you wouldn't see a resurgence of damp ships. You might see curses, and probably quite alot more BS's... but not damps. Their application is far too narrow to justify it.

-Liang

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2009.03.12 15:03:00 - [38]
 

Originally by: Karl Luckner
Edited by: Karl Luckner on 12/03/2009 10:28:46
The targetting range of same tackle frigs is already pretty poor. They don't have the room for sensor enhancements. In short: no, I don't think that idea of yours is all that great.


If you bothered to read (which you didn't), you'd have seen that I specifically said frigs shouldn't have their targeting range lowered. Reading comprehension FTW?!

-Liang

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2009.03.12 15:07:00 - [39]
 

Originally by: NoNah

Actually no, on both concerns. They're less survivable due to their likelyhood of gettinr primaried, inability to avoid taking damage from anything but a single target and general bulkiness. For raw tackling I'd take a ares over an lachesis any day.

And actually it would fix it. It would work in two ways, defensively by negating damage output of snipers and offensively by forcing them to get within disrupt range if they actually want to deal damage still.


The problem with damps being used at fleet ranges is that fleet combat is a really huge mash of ****. Arazus would have to be usable at 230-250km for them to last more than 15 seconds... and thus you'd (again) be better off bringing the sniper mega. :-/

While I don't *object* to the role of 'removing snipers from combat', it doesn't actually do anything for me and I'd never fly an Arazu again. I might actually sell my arazus at that rate.

Quote:
The main reason not to change effectiveness is what you have already pointed out - small ships. if you removed 80% locking from a frig it would have to get a tad to close. And you don't really want the scenario where a single damp takes out nearly any ship there is, when it hits. It's simply to close to ECM with more effectiveness and no extra range.


And if you had bothered to read NoNah... ;-)

-Liang

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2009.03.12 15:09:00 - [40]
 

Originally by: daisy dook

Let me add my assumption and why I beleive the 'low' optimal and high fall off has been implemented.

Each ship will try and operate at is maximum effective range unless it is specifically trying to increase its traversal.



This is a false statement, therefore your entire supposition is wrong.

Ships seek to operate at a distance where they can either:
- Escape easily
- Deal the most damage

As such, an Arazu might be able to remove a ship seeking escape from combat, but that's not generally a useful trait.

-Liang

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2009.03.12 15:09:00 - [41]
 

Originally by: Naomi Knight
So this is another stealth gallente+caldari nerf and matar+amarr boost? Caught you!!!


Eh, it would shake things up. It's certainly not a stealth boost to anything except damp ships.

-Liang

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2009.03.12 15:11:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: McEivalley

Dampners give an absolute success rate, so they are dampening less. That only means that you need more of them used to do what just one did in the past. Same goes with Jammers, only they have a statistical success rate rather than absolute, due to their effect.



The problem is actually that it doesn't matter how many damps you throw onto someone - you can never reach the effect you had in the past. Seriously, max skilled bonused ships damp about half as well as a Thrasher did before the patch.

-Liang

Myra2007
Millstone Industries
Posted - 2009.03.12 15:27:00 - [43]
 

If they don't want the damps boosted why would they boost them by reducing targeting ranges?

As for the implications for snipers and such: depending on how you do it specifically its either a nerf or pretty much irrelevant if i am not mistaken. Not sure if i would call those 'interesting' tbh.

And from a personal point of view (if this is one of these if i had one day as dev threads) i think changing stats on all ships and possibly nerfing a lot of people on the way is bad game design. If damps have a problem i'd fix bonuses on the specialized damp ships. Though it sure sounds like on of these really backward changes i've seen ccp do. So who knows. :)

Also did you forget that damps actually have 2 effects? If you nerf my scan resolution i'll kill ya. j/k ofc but whats about that?

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2009.03.12 15:30:00 - [44]
 

So just to be clear, it seems that the major 'complaints' about this idea are:
- It was me who brought it up. Wow... that's really logical thinking there.

- Damps are 'fine', it's just that ECM is so uber. This is false. ECM is really nice, but I don't believe we'd see a great resurgence of damp ships even if ECM was simply removed. Their range of application is too narrow to justify it.

- Frigs need their locking range. True, and I addressed that. Frigs should not have their locking range decreased (by and large) because they need it.

- It would negatively affect sniper BS's. Yes, I know that. I knew it when I made the suggestion, and specifically mentioned it. Sniper BS's would generally just have to take the hit, which would quite possibly lower 'sniping range' a tad. It would affect them all equally, so IMO it would place a greater emphasis on the Rokh as the premier sniping battleship - an emphasis which it should have, and doesn't.

-Liang

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2009.03.12 15:35:00 - [45]
 

Originally by: Myra2007
If they don't want the damps boosted why would they boost them by reducing targeting ranges?


Because it's not 'boosting damps', and it's easier to affect on a ship-by-ship basis how damps affect anyone. I presume the reason they haven't boosted damps is because of the problems with frigs, but I can't say for sure since the only thing they're on the record as saying is 'They're fine'.

Quote:
As for the implications for snipers and such: depending on how you do it specifically its either a nerf or pretty much irrelevant if i am not mistaken. Not sure if i would call those 'interesting' tbh.


I *think* we'd see sniping range lowered from 160 to 150km. Not much of a nerf, and I certainly haven't walked through all the fits possible. Part of the 'interesting' part I would hope for relating to sniper ships would be the dominance of the Rokh.

Quote:
And from a personal point of view (if this is one of these if i had one day as dev threads) i think changing stats on all ships and possibly nerfing a lot of people on the way is bad game design. If damps have a problem i'd fix bonuses on the specialized damp ships. Though it sure sounds like on of these really backward changes i've seen ccp do. So who knows. :)


I'd love to fix the bonuses on specialized damp ships... but they seem unwilling to do so. And really, the idea struck me as a one-off in a conversation with a friend and I thought about it a few minutes, chased down the implications, and posted it.

In the end, what I'd like to see is damps being generally useful again... because right now I'm better off flying a DPS ship instead of a 'force multiplier'... which means that that multiplier is low indeed!

Quote:
Also did you forget that damps actually have 2 effects? If you nerf my scan resolution i'll kill ya. j/k ofc but whats about that?


No, I didn't forget... I just didn't see any reason to change it.

-Liang

Ig Neus
Posted - 2009.03.12 15:38:00 - [46]
 

Edited by: Ig Neus on 12/03/2009 15:41:16
Edited by: Ig Neus on 12/03/2009 15:38:33
Quote:
The problem with your assertion is (as I pointed out in the OP) that nobody *ACTUALLY* fights at their locking range. Most combat happens at 24km. Damps are virtually useless in that range, and are thus largely useless. Removing one battleship from the equation is also not easy, because most of them can still target almost 20km.... yeah, that's useful.


Oh, you do not have to fight at your locking range to be removed by 3 dampeners. Let me give some examples :

A) Blaster Rokh. Nice ship generally, can use 8 Tech II Neutrons together with a close to 1000 DPS active shield tank, powered by a Cap Injector. With Null (that it will often use since unlike other blaster boats Rokh gets a respectable range with it), its optimal is 17km and falloff is 16km. So it can actually fight well over 20kms. And it should actually often be forced to do so. Its targeting range is 112.5kms. So 3 Dampeners from a rigged Arazu bring this to 15.19kms. Have fun flying ~10kms with a speed of 111m/s until you are useful to your gang again. Of course you could fit a SeBo and/or a MWD and gimp your tank and your capacitor. It all comes to choices.

B) Autocannon Maelstrom. This is even better. Its optimal + Falloff with Barrage is 36kms, so this will also often fight at 25kms+. Its targetting range is 93.75kms. With 3 Dampeners it gets down to 12,65kms. Warping out and back in will probably be faster :P

C) Both of the above are shield tanks so they cannot easily fit a SeBo that would solve their problems. So let's try an Armor Tank, Armageddon or Abaddon, both work. Fitted with Mega Pulses with Scorch they get a range of 45+10. With a SeBo II on them (range script) their targeting ranges are 130kms and 160kms. With our Dampener we take it down to 17,55kms for the Geddon and 21,6kms for the Abaddon. Geddon would actually use another crystal if there was anything to hit at this range, while even the Abaddon is losing a large part of its strength (aka the ridiculous range of Pulses with Scorch).

The interesting part is that all those ships (even the Abaddon with its SeBo) will have a targeting range lower than the range of a (not overloaded) Domination Scrambler, meaning that even if they have a MWD on, the Arazu/Lachesis can actually shut it down, while being out of its range.

Now remember, all those ships are Battleships meaning their base targeting range is relatively big. On a HAC, things get worst. Not to mention what happens to Logistics trying to repair at 70kms.

Someone mentioned that ECM is fine. Well it is as fine as Nanoships were a year ago or as Pulses are now. When something is FotM there is usually a reason for it. ECM would be balanced if you needed 3 Jammers to have a decent chance of Jamming a Battleship. And before the chance based argument comes in, chances are not very important when you can stay at 200kms. I would accept a Falcon able to ALWAYS jam a target (with no ECCM) using 3 Jammers, if its range was 45kms.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2009.03.12 16:20:00 - [47]
 

Originally by: Ig Neus

A) Blaster Rokh. Nice ship generally, can use 8 Tech II Neutrons together with a close to 1000 DPS active shield tank, powered by a Cap Injector. With Null (that it will often use since unlike other blaster boats Rokh gets a respectable range with it), its optimal is 17km and falloff is 16km. So it can actually fight well over 20kms. And it should actually often be forced to do so. Its targeting range is 112.5kms. So 3 Dampeners from a rigged Arazu bring this to 15.19kms. Have fun flying ~10kms with a speed of 111m/s until you are useful to your gang again. Of course you could fit a SeBo and/or a MWD and gimp your tank and your capacitor. It all comes to choices.



Speaking as a blaster pilot: a blaster ship without a MWD is fail. Period. Even a Blokh.

Quote:
B) Autocannon Maelstrom. This is even better. Its optimal + Falloff with Barrage is 36kms, so this will also often fight at 25kms+. Its targetting range is 93.75kms. With 3 Dampeners it gets down to 12,65kms. Warping out and back in will probably be faster :P



Uh, no. We don't intentionally gimp our DPS by flying in deep falloff. Also, AC Mael without MWD = Fail. Again.

Quote:
C) Both of the above are shield tanks so they cannot easily fit a SeBo that would solve their problems. So let's try an Armor Tank, Armageddon or Abaddon, both work. Fitted with Mega Pulses with Scorch they get a range of 45+10. With a SeBo II on them (range script) their targeting ranges are 130kms and 160kms. With our Dampener we take it down to 17,55kms for the Geddon and 21,6kms for the Abaddon. Geddon would actually use another crystal if there was anything to hit at this range, while even the Abaddon is losing a large part of its strength (aka the ridiculous range of Pulses with Scorch).


So there's two reasons for a pulse boat to fit a SeBo:
- Catching small fry on a gate camp
- Expecting damps

Neither of these two seem to be the case. I'm not sure why you're bothering bringing it up, because the idea certainly doesn't make it a requirement to fit, even for the long range of pulse.

Quote:
The interesting part is that all those ships (even the Abaddon with its SeBo) will have a targeting range lower than the range of a (not overloaded) Domination Scrambler, meaning that even if they have a MWD on, the Arazu/Lachesis can actually shut it down, while being out of its range.


So what you're saying is that you can keep someone tackled but you're otherwise useless to your gang. Nice. Why don't you just make the module make you untargetable by anyone you have activated it on for that matter.

Quote:
Now remember, all those ships are Battleships meaning their base targeting range is relatively big. On a HAC, things get worst. Not to mention what happens to Logistics trying to repair at 70kms.


So what you're saying is that damps simply should not work here? Really?

Quote:
Someone mentioned that ECM is fine. Well it is as fine as Nanoships were a year ago or as Pulses are now. When something is FotM there is usually a reason for it. ECM would be balanced if you needed 3 Jammers to have a decent chance of Jamming a Battleship. And before the chance based argument comes in, chances are not very important when you can stay at 200kms. I would accept a Falcon able to ALWAYS jam a target (with no ECCM) using 3 Jammers, if its range was 45kms.


If you would accept that, then you would *also* accept damps making your targeting range *zero* meters. You don't seem to be willing to accept that from your above arguments. That said, ECM is not 'fine', but nor is it as broken as people say.

The biggest problems with ECM:
- The fact that it provides no illusion of the ability to fight back. Simply put, the way it works is frustrating - regardless of efficiency.
- That there is no other truly viable ewar system.

-Liang

Ig Neus
Posted - 2009.03.12 16:44:00 - [48]
 

The answer to the "I can MWD" is that (even if you fit them and according to Battleclinic most setups do not fit them, meaning most players do not) this is no longer an answer as it can be shut down. So in the worst case scenario of a Rokh/Maelstrom with a MWD you will still be able to remove one ship from the battlefield. Removing a minimum of one ship using one ship is ok with me.

I brought the SeBo just to show that even if you expect Dampeners, you cannot easily counter them unless your Battleship has a great targeting range to begin with. But I doubt anyone would fit a SeBo on his Blaster Rokh.

About the ECM/RSD comparison, if things were as I said they should be (3 ECMs = 100% chance at 45 kms), Gallente Recons would have a weaker form of Ewar but they also have a second bonused Ewar (Scramblers) and better tank. Not to mention that I meant to say 3 Racial ECMs. :P

fivetide humidyear
Gallente
Fool Mental Junket
Posted - 2009.03.12 16:51:00 - [49]
 

Edited by: fivetide humidyear on 12/03/2009 16:53:17
Originally by: Ig Neus
The answer to the "I can MWD" is that (even if you fit them and according to Battleclinic most setups do not fit them, meaning most players do not) this is no longer an answer as it can be shut down.


battleclinic setups are worse than most you see on here.

blaster ships without mwd are just not very good.

damps need a slight boost to effectiveness, azazu is nice at the moment because of passive shield tanking, blasters and scrambler range. sadly nothing to do with damps

fake edit - liang, welcome back mate, you'll find not a lot has changed wrt posting

Myra2007
Millstone Industries
Posted - 2009.03.12 17:05:00 - [50]
 

Well this topic is approaching the usual falcon/pulse bs whine rapidly.

On another note: i just recently added the zu/lach to my toolset (though i still miss t2 hybrid guns so can't really fly it atm) so i say a boost is in oder. Laughing

Though to be honest it was the last recon i was missing and training it is a product of

a) having nothing else to train really
b) for sake of completeness
c) specifically to tackle ships in deadspace and only do that

Those ships really have some niches like lowsec gatecamping (hics are a strong contender though) and as mentioned deadspace tackling (where you will usually be decloaked on entering and need every bit of disruptor range).

None of them has anything to do with damps of course. If the **** hits the fan people in hics and lachs are the first to be told to enter a "real combat ship". Well at least thats how the people i fly with do it (and thats lowsec mind you hics can be pretty useful with their bubble in a 0.0 environment).

The only recon thats comparably niche as those two is the pilgrim. Curse though with the new strength of tracking disruptors (think falloff disruption and web nerf) is spot on if you ask me. Neuts are still largely overrated though.

Anyway what was i saying? Yeah right, damps boost them my falcon gets old. Very Happy

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2009.03.12 17:08:00 - [51]
 

Originally by: fivetide humidyear
Edited by: fivetide humidyear on 12/03/2009 16:53:17
Originally by: Ig Neus
The answer to the "I can MWD" is that (even if you fit them and according to Battleclinic most setups do not fit them, meaning most players do not) this is no longer an answer as it can be shut down.


battleclinic setups are worse than most you see on here.

blaster ships without mwd are just not very good.

damps need a slight boost to effectiveness, azazu is nice at the moment because of passive shield tanking, blasters and scrambler range. sadly nothing to do with damps

fake edit - liang, welcome back mate, you'll find not a lot has changed wrt posting


Hey Five... it's great to see you friend. Pass along my hellos to old friends, and I hope the family is well. We should chat sometime. :)

-Liang


Ms Massacre
Amarr
Posted - 2009.03.12 17:12:00 - [52]
 

Originally by: Naomi Knight
Ah Liang is back so do his stupid ideas. When you already need 2 sensor boosters just to reach your optimal then this idea is realy stupid.


-Liang Nuren, who mastered WAR online and brings back the knowledge to you.



I for one welcome our new Liang Nuren overlord.


Wb liang. And most simple solution is to just boost damp bonus on dedicated boats. If you need 2 sensor boosters its because you've fit your ship in such a way that you've dedicated it to one thing. Its kind of like saying "i needed 2 fittings mods to make my set up work." You made a sacrifice, deal with it.

McEivalley
Cutting Edge Incorporated
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2009.03.12 17:13:00 - [53]
 

Edited by: McEivalley on 12/03/2009 17:22:10
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: McEivalley

Dampners give an absolute success rate, so they are dampening less. That only means that you need more of them used to do what just one did in the past. Same goes with Jammers, only they have a statistical success rate rather than absolute, due to their effect.



The problem is actually that it doesn't matter how many damps you throw onto someone - you can never reach the effect you had in the past. Seriously, max skilled bonused ships damp about half as well as a Thrasher did before the patch.

-Liang


It doesn't matter how many torpedoes you shoot nowadays, they still can't get to the ranges they had in the past. It doesn't matter how many cycles of jammer you spend on a remote ECCMed rokh, it would still snipe the hell out of you and you'll die. I've falcon friends carrying a dampner and res scripts in their sensor boosters, and guess what happens to rival falcons... yeah, perma-jam-time YARRRR!!

Dampners pre-nerf were overpowered, as non-bonused ships could still dampen you so hard, while bonus-blessed platforms would make you wish you were jammed. So yeah, Overpowering them back is a big no-no imho. It's very fine right where it is and that's where it should stay.

Edit- Just wanted to add that if a certain tactic doesn't suit your pallet, yet works, it doesn't mean that a module should be changed in order for it to suit what you think is the best way to fly something. Dampening boats now cannot solo reliably, which is fine. They never really were meant to do so, much like falcons should never solo either. Their EWAR is a bit weaker than jamming - true, but then again they are more flexible in fit and usage than a falcon.

And if someone missed the point - I'm not whinning on falcons here. I'm just remarking how false are these attempts to state that either of the current EWAR in discussion needs a nerf or OPing.

Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
Posted - 2009.03.12 17:55:00 - [54]
 

make SDAs affect all EW modules effectivnes ... problem solved ..

Wannabehero
Wayward Ventures
Posted - 2009.03.12 18:48:00 - [55]
 

Originally by: Hugh Ruka
make SDAs affect all EW modules effectivnes ... problem solved ..


A good idea in practice, however you know CCP would just reduce the strength of damps, tracking disruptors, and target painters by 20% to compensate Mad

IMO, all EW should have a variable effect. Not necessarily on/off like ECM or falloff mechanics, but if your damp had a chance to reduce scan res/range by anywhere from 30-70%, recalculated each cycle, instead of an example flat 50%, it would making using EW a bit more unpredictable and potentially fun.

Kuzya Morozov
Gallente
Capital Construction Research
Posted - 2009.03.12 19:06:00 - [56]
 

This is a pretty ******ed idea, no offense. Nerf every ship in the game to boost damps? Boost the effectiveness of damps a little bit, and make ECM use scripts for range/increased jam chance. Problem solved.

Pac SubCom
True Creation
The 0rphanage
Posted - 2009.03.12 19:06:00 - [57]
 

Edited by: Pac SubCom on 12/03/2009 19:10:51
Recons do not have to damp enemy ships below 24 km if their scram range is not 24 but 48+? Often a single damp is enough. Gallente have drones and can kill targets beyond 24km.

Ships coming closer can be dealt with by using blasters. Gallente drone ships generally have a hybrid damage bonus while blaster ships have a very good drone complement. All ships can fight close and far.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2009.03.12 19:23:00 - [58]
 

Originally by: Kuzya Morozov
This is a pretty ******ed idea, no offense. Nerf every ship in the game to boost damps? Boost the effectiveness of damps a little bit, and make ECM use scripts for range/increased jam chance. Problem solved.


You're not thinking the idea through - you're just spewing an anti 'nerf' line. I don't disagree with the simple solution, but CCP has stated that they're not interested in the simple solution.

-Liang

Megan Maynard
Minmatar
Navigators of the Abyss
Posted - 2009.03.12 19:25:00 - [59]
 

Minmatar all ready have a pitiful range to begin with.

Please don't nerf it anymore then it is.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2009.03.12 19:27:00 - [60]
 

Originally by: Pac SubCom
Edited by: Pac SubCom on 12/03/2009 19:10:51
Recons do not have to damp enemy ships below 24 km if their scram range is not 24 but 48+? Often a single damp is enough. Gallente have drones and can kill targets beyond 24km.

Ships coming closer can be dealt with by using blasters. Gallente drone ships generally have a hybrid damage bonus while blaster ships have a very good drone complement. All ships can fight close and far.


Often a single damp will be enough to make someone unable to lock you, but that is often of very little use to your gang (someone has to get in there and actually kill them). And regarding your drones killing targets beyond 24km... sure, but you have no prayer of recalling the only damage you have.

Also, the Arazu can't really damp anyone down far enough that they're forced even into the *arazu's* blaster range. All things considered, you either haven't a clue what you're talking about or you're expressing yourself poorly. Try again.

-Liang


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only