open All Channels
seplocked Test Server Feedback
blankseplocked Remote Sensor Dampener Ship Bonuses
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8

Author Topic

Elmicker
Wreckless Abandon
Posted - 2007.11.13 02:36:00 - [31]
 

Originally by: Arana Tellen
I already have caldari cruiser working up YARRRR!!


♥s Caldari Cruiser 5. Now to work on those ECM skills.

Devian 666
Transmetropolitan
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.

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.

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.

Sleepkevert
Amarr
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.

Alpha Type
Gallente
Childhood's End
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!!!

Mortis Tyrathlion
Veto.
Veto Corp
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...YARRRR!!

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
Childhood's End
Posted - 2007.11.14 09:58:00 - [40]
 

Still no response?

Varrakk
Menace ll Society
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
Gallente
Wormhole Raiders
Posted - 2007.11.14 12:08:00 - [42]
 

Edited by: Aenigma on 14/11/2007 12:39:46
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+5*0.2)
Signal Dispersion 5: x(1+0.5*0.05)
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 used against a battleship, the chance on not getting 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.

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!

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
STK Scientific
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.

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.

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.

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
Cutting Edge Incorporated
RAZOR Alliance
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.

Kaiji Vincente
Posted - 2007.11.17 01:22:00 - [58]
 

Edited by: Kaiji Vincente on 17/11/2007 01:35:03
Edited by: Kaiji Vincente on 17/11/2007 01:34:12
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.

Edit:
*I may have goofed slightly by assuming TQ vs. SiSi has no impact on undamped targeting range.

PCX339
STK Scientific
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.


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

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