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

a51 duke1406
Original Sin.
PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
Posted - 2007.11.17 11:56:00 - [61]
 

Good to see CPP have worked it all out, A 92% chance of jamming a battleship as opposed to bringing it to 15k locking range, wow, yes ccp, I understand now ugh

But its good to see people taking a real interest in the changes and putting in alot of work on the maths, now it would be nice if CCP would reply.

Dana Serenity
Caldari
Guerillaz
Posted - 2007.11.17 12:53:00 - [62]
 

Though this thread seems to be solely about RSD's. I'm going to actually be talking about all the script NERFS. First of all I actually agree with you CCP that it would be better to split the double bonuses of such modules and use scripts to get a better singular bonus. What I dont understand is why the hell the singular bonus is so much less than what is currently on TQ? Taking both the loss of the double bonus and the reduction of the singular bonus, this is about 34% as effective as the same module on TQ ATM. WTF!

You have stated that this is balanced due to the opposing module recieving the same nerf (sensor boosters Vs sensor damps) but surely by reducing the effectiveness of such modules makes them less of a viable option for PvP. Do you really want everybody only flying tank/gank ships and not using anything else, surely this would be the start of making PvP boring. Not to mention that sniper setups will be next to useless now with this nerf to boosters and tc's, and using snipers as fire support should be a very viable option for gang combat!

I can see the argument to a degree that in certain situations, having a sensor dampener or tracking disrupter can equal "I win button" but nerfing it to oblivion is not the answer. Surely it would be better to give players a more viable defence, we all know the sensor boosters/tracking computers are not that effective at couteracting the effects of sensor damps/tracking disrupters! How about making it more effective? This can be done without making them overpowered VERY EASILY!

Heres a rough idea which I think would work. It would allow for ewar setups to remain effective while still giving opposing players a viable defence against it (a form of eccm for damps/disrupters) while still allowing sniper setups to be effective and splitting the double bonus currently applicable in Eve;

1) Keep scripts as they are with the only exception being that using them give the same singular bonus as the module currently does on TQ
2) Make Sensor Boosters/Tracking Computers/Tracking Enhancer/Sensor Enhancers have a passive bonus which reduces the effect of incoming Sensor Dampeners/Tracking Disrupters

This would actually make Sensor Boosters/Tracking Computers be reasonably effective against Sensor Damps/Tracking Disrupters because they would act as a form of ECCM and counter them also with the bonus they already get which is now effected by which script is used. Damps & disrupters would still be very effective in PvP but would not be the "I WIN" button that they sometimes are today. Just a rough idea and probably needs a bit more thought but think that this is better than the complete blitznerf on these givern modules thats currently on SISI!

Elmicker
Wreckless Abandon
Posted - 2007.11.17 13:29:00 - [63]
 

Originally by: Princess Jodi
How can a Carrier fight back against even ONE of these ships?


Drone assignment.
Support fleet.

The more pertinent question is "How can an arazu fight back against even ONE ship of any other class". The answer, as provided by a dev, is 4 damps. It currently takes 2 on TQ to lock a target down. If that isn't an unneeded nerf, i don't know what is. 4, even multispec, jammers from a rook will lock any target down with near 100% certainty. Damps are nowhere near 100%.

Kaiji Vincente
Posted - 2007.11.17 17:33:00 - [64]
 

Originally by: Elmicker
The more pertinent question is "How can an arazu fight back against even ONE ship of any other class". The answer, as provided by a dev, is 4 damps. It currently takes 2 on TQ to lock a target down. If that isn't an unneeded nerf, i don't know what is. 4, even multispec, jammers from a rook will lock any target down with near 100% certainty. Damps are nowhere near 100%.


Then I have to question if this Dev has looked at the math on how multiple dampers work. Stacking penalties make a simple "number of ECM mods vs damps" comparison pointless. More than three damps gets you effectively no improvement. Ex:

Hostile with 50km tareting range (Unboosted AF, or Inty with some form of SB)
2 RSD @55% range reduction: 11.7km effective (non-FOF) firing range
3 RSD @55%: 8km effective range
4 RSD @55%: 6.8km effective range

You can play with the numbers as much as you want, but unless the underlying equation or stacking penalties are changed, you're into rapidly diminishing returns on damper #3.

Minas Reul
Synergy.
Imperial Republic Of the North
Posted - 2007.11.18 11:45:00 - [65]
 

Still no full explanation. Confused

dor amwar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2007.11.18 12:09:00 - [66]
 

don't complain, at least you have something to get nerfed. minmatar have what ... painters Mad

Alpha Type
Gallente
Childhood's End
Posted - 2007.11.19 16:00:00 - [67]
 

Come on CCP! This really needs adressing.


These are 'specialised ships' that have no significant advantage to an unspecialised ship in their own role, and no particular advantage over their unspecialised adversaries trying to counter them.

Increase the bonus to 7.5% per level, at least.

Kransthow
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
Posted - 2007.11.20 03:47:00 - [68]
 

Keep damps The same as they are on speced ships and nerf them on other ships CCP

k thx bi

Kaiji Vincente
Posted - 2007.11.20 04:40:00 - [69]
 

New dev blog on scripted modules here.

Short version: math for how bonuses apply to scriptable EW is/will be different from current mechanics. The example given is for tracking disruptors, but this suggests the picture for Rev 3 gallente EW ships may not be quite so bleak after all.

My suspicion the Devs want to reserve 50% or higher effect strength for specalist ships with advanced skill training is also starting to look vaguely credible.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2007.11.20 04:54:00 - [70]
 

Originally by: Kaiji Vincente
New dev blog on scripted modules here.

Short version: math for how bonuses apply to scriptable EW is/will be different from current mechanics. The example given is for tracking disruptors, but this suggests the picture for Rev 3 gallente EW ships may not be quite so bleak after all.

My suspicion the Devs want to reserve 50% or higher effect strength for specalist ships with advanced skill training is also starting to look vaguely credible.


They claim that on Sisi it should be *already* the way it is on TQ - you just have to choose between lock range and lock speed.

The problem? We get Rigged Max skilled Arazus that damp like half of a T1 unbonused damp on TQ.

Liang

nemississ
Clearly Compensating
Concordiat Alliance
Posted - 2007.11.20 04:58:00 - [71]
 

i should probably throw this out there that not only does the gallente recon get smacked in the face with the damp nerf it also gets smacked with the drone nerf since as much as ccp may want to say but you get highslots most gallente recon pilots use drones as primary dps cause the guns just suck.

Kaiji Vincente
Posted - 2007.11.20 05:19:00 - [72]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren

They claim that on Sisi it should be *already* the way it is on TQ - you just have to choose between lock range and lock speed.

The problem? We get Rigged Max skilled Arazus that damp like half of a T1 unbonused damp on TQ.

Liang


Hence the qualifier, "suggests". The math described in the dev blog is a major departue from how things currently work for calculating damper strength. Hopefully this a result of SiSi module stats being changed before the associated code was updated. (I refuse to give odds on this, however.)

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2007.11.20 05:34:00 - [73]
 

Originally by: Kaiji Vincente
Originally by: Liang Nuren

They claim that on Sisi it should be *already* the way it is on TQ - you just have to choose between lock range and lock speed.

The problem? We get Rigged Max skilled Arazus that damp like half of a T1 unbonused damp on TQ.

Liang


Hence the qualifier, "suggests". The math described in the dev blog is a major departue from how things currently work for calculating damper strength. Hopefully this a result of SiSi module stats being changed before the associated code was updated. (I refuse to give odds on this, however.)


If they're planning on all this coming out in Trinity, that's actually quite likely.

Liang

Yukisa
Posted - 2007.11.20 07:36:00 - [74]
 

Nerfing them on standard ships is logical. Nerfing them on specialized EW ships also is irresponsible.

CCP if you plan on making broad changes, consider the side effects as well.

Minas Reul
Synergy.
Imperial Republic Of the North
Posted - 2007.11.20 09:51:00 - [75]
 

Originally by: Kaiji Vincente
New dev blog on scripted modules here.

Short version: math for how bonuses apply to scriptable EW is/will be different from current mechanics. The example given is for tracking disruptors, but this suggests the picture for Rev 3 gallente EW ships may not be quite so bleak after all.

My suspicion the Devs want to reserve 50% or higher effect strength for specalist ships with advanced skill training is also starting to look vaguely credible.


Yeah, the way they calculated it in the dev blog is the way I did my calcs on the earlier pages of this thread.

Basically it's a lot worse than before, unless you can get your base damp strength significantly above 50%, which the specialised ships should be able to do (but can't). This would make them still worse than before, but not as poor as now.

Complex Potential
Soliders Of Eve
Atlas Alliance
Posted - 2007.11.20 13:18:00 - [76]
 

/signed

And a friendly bump. Let's keep this issue in the public eye.

Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
Posted - 2007.11.20 15:01:00 - [77]
 

Edited by: Hugh Ruka on 20/11/2007 15:08:24
I have to agree that the ARM script idea is a NERF.

I have signal dispersion 5, recon 5, cald cruiser 5 and cald BS 5, so I am just smiling as an ECM pilot. But I think it is only a short lived smile ...

Halving the Sensor Booster module effect and scripting the RSDs would be the best solution (without scripting or changing TDs and TCs). However given the current situation, TDs need a fallof reduction scripts.

And all the scripted reducing EW mods need the specialised ship bonuses altered by as much as 50% increase.

Come to think about it, scripting ECM would be cool. But that would be a HUGE boost to ECM, as I can switch from multispec to racial jammer on the fly (in the ideal scenario).

There are a few more elegant solutions then ARM scripts available, but seems the DEVs are out of sensible ideas.

Sorry for the inconsistent rant above. Ideal solution for me:

Tie the module end effect to sensor strength relation between ships. Like it works for ECM (kind of). This adds realism to the game, as it is only logical that you need to have more power output to overcome another ships sensors than they have themselves.

This would make ECCM/backup arrays the resistance modules and SBs, TCs the effect mitigating modules. Which in the end simplifies fitting and calculations. Also the recon ships with their inherently high base sensor strength are already set up for their role.

Kaiji Vincente
Posted - 2007.11.20 16:41:00 - [78]
 

Originally by: Minas Reul
Originally by: Kaiji Vincente
New dev blog on scripted modules here.

Short version: math for how bonuses apply to scriptable EW is/will be different from current mechanics. The example given is for tracking disruptors, but this suggests the picture for Rev 3 gallente EW ships may not be quite so bleak after all.

My suspicion the Devs want to reserve 50% or higher effect strength for specalist ships with advanced skill training is also starting to look vaguely credible.


Yeah, the way they calculated it in the dev blog is the way I did my calcs on the earlier pages of this thread.

Basically it's a lot worse than before, unless you can get your base damp strength significantly above 50%, which the specialised ships should be able to do (but can't). This would make them still worse than before, but not as poor as now.


I seem to have forgotten that SiSi has RSD II at 34% effect with script. Whoops. If we bump the ship-based bonus amount, the numbers become:

No bonus (for comparison):
0.34*1.25 = 0.425 or 42.5% (max skill)
At 5%/level:
0.34*1.25 = 0.425 or 42.5% (ship only)
0.34*1.25*1.25 = 0.53125 or 53.1% (max skill)
At 7.5%/level:
0.34*1.375 = .4675 or 46.75% (ship only)
0.34*1.375*1.25 = 0.584 or 58.4% (max skill)
At 10%/level:
0.34*1.5 = 0.51 or 51% (ship only)
0.34*1.5*1.25 = 0.6375 or 63.75% (max skill)

Conclusion: Mallus, Celestis, and their Tech II descendants need their damp strength bonus doubled to retain a significant fraction of their current mojo. Anything higher and you've got them hitting well above 50% per module without training signal supression to 4 or 5.

SoldierOfJustice
Infortunatus Eventus
Posted - 2007.11.20 18:52:00 - [79]
 

/signed

The original post by Minas Reul makes sense. But am afraid CCP wont change anything.

Here is the last picture taken of the devs after the nerfs were decided:

Devs

I am looking forward to play WoW when the new patch is applied and eve is ruined Very Happy.

britchie
Gallente
The Phoenix Rising
FreeFall Securities
Posted - 2007.11.20 20:23:00 - [80]
 

I hope the bonus increases on the specialized ships, but i can still effectively tackle someone with an arazu the way it is atm on sisi. Dont forget about the warp disrupter range too guys. But the celestis will probably need an increase to be as good as a blackbird.

James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2007.11.20 21:56:00 - [81]
 

Originally by: Aenigma

I won't draw any conclusions to RSDs from this, but I'd really like to hear why the devs think that ECM is not a 'sure thing' on a well-skilled character. Even with just 2 multispectral jammers used against a battleship, the chance on not getting a jam in 2 cycles is only 9%.




Because the average battleship will pop you in 1 cycle, or at the very least unleash 150dps or so of drones on your untanked ship. Which as you quite correctly point out happens 30% of the time, if you're using 2 jammers, on a max skilled character.

Ulstan
Posted - 2007.11.20 22:40:00 - [82]
 

OP makes solid, good points, and backs it up with data. Excellent.

Altaic Bits
Posted - 2007.11.21 10:00:00 - [83]
 

This really needs to happen.

Salacir Khan
Amarr
Gunship Diplomacy
Posted - 2007.11.21 10:23:00 - [84]
 

Edited by: Salacir Khan on 21/11/2007 10:23:07
All this counts also for Tracking Disruptors.
I really wasnt aware that anyone would consider TDs an overpowerd Mod that needed a nerf :(

I dont like to complain about changes in game balances, but this one just goes too far into the wrong direction.

Nerfing EWar in general would be ok. Nerfing Recons in general would be ok.
(not that i think that this would be necessary, but we could adjust to it and play on)
But nerfing Ewar in a way, so it renders the special attributes of Recons kinda useless is just wrong imo.
The Solution to this is so simple : Bigger Boni for Ewar Mods on Recons -> Everythings fine.

I hope CCP will have a look into this before Trinity goes live.
If not I pedition they give the Pilgrim a bigger Cargohold and a Bonus for Mining or salvaging.... :/





Minas Reul
Synergy.
Imperial Republic Of the North
Posted - 2007.11.21 16:38:00 - [85]
 

Originally by: Salacir Khan
Edited by: Salacir Khan on 21/11/2007 10:23:07
All this counts also for Tracking Disruptors.
I really wasnt aware that anyone would consider TDs an overpowerd Mod that needed a nerf :(

I dont like to complain about changes in game balances, but this one just goes too far into the wrong direction.

Nerfing EWar in general would be ok. Nerfing Recons in general would be ok.
(not that i think that this would be necessary, but we could adjust to it and play on)
But nerfing Ewar in a way, so it renders the special attributes of Recons kinda useless is just wrong imo.
The Solution to this is so simple : Bigger Boni for Ewar Mods on Recons -> Everythings fine.

I hope CCP will have a look into this before Trinity goes live.
If not I pedition they give the Pilgrim a bigger Cargohold and a Bonus for Mining or salvaging.... :/


Exactly. Though I never mentioned it, it certainly should be obvious that TD specced ships need an increased bonus too, especially since the passive low-slot module for tracking is not as weak compared to the midslot module as is the case for sensor boosting. Pretty much all of my previous maths only needs a few changes to show how useless the TD ship bonus presently is.

Quite how CCP hopes for these types of ewar to be powerful specialisms (as ECM is), I have no idea.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2007.11.21 18:41:00 - [86]
 

Edited by: Liang Nuren on 21/11/2007 18:41:57
Originally by: Minas Reul

Quite how CCP hopes for these types of ewar to be powerful specialisms (as ECM is), I have no idea.



I don't think they do, actually. I think they're looking to nerf the variety of ewar that's available and effective in game. This makes it easier to "counter" ewar - because nobody likes to just sit there and die.

Quote from another post of mine:

Quote:

4. Rework the Ewar system so that there is a single strong form of ewar (ECM). This lets people feel more comfortable fitting a counter to "all ewar".

*snipped*

With respect to point 4, let's face it: it's no fun to sit there and never shoot back. This is what ewar does - it makes you just die, and it ****es lots of people off. But, what's the practical difference between having an ewar tank and a OMGWTFUBER tank? Well, the only real difference is that you could choose to shoot someone else with wtf tank, and ewar prevents that.

Ewar is "no fun" to the bruiser pilots, so they're nerfing it - by nerfing variety. At least, this is my opinion.

For supporting evidence, CCP Zulupark says that "for parity, it just doesn't make sense not to script Tracking Disruptors", and "We've looked at the modules on Sisi and we feel that they are balanced correctly now".

CCP feels that TD's and Damps are *fine* at this point - when obviously with a Curse/Pilgrim/Arazu/Lachesis you won't even be able to completely lock down a single ship of the appropriate type.

OTOH, the Falcon/Rook/Scorpion are locking down 3-4 ships regularly (this is where they should have been all along, tbqfh though).



Liang

Ed: Screwed up the quote boxes

Minas Reul
Synergy.
Imperial Republic Of the North
Posted - 2007.11.21 21:02:00 - [87]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 21/11/2007 18:41:57
Originally by: Minas Reul

Quite how CCP hopes for these types of ewar to be powerful specialisms (as ECM is), I have no idea.



I don't think they do, actually. I think they're looking to nerf the variety of ewar that's available and effective in game. This makes it easier to "counter" ewar - because nobody likes to just sit there and die.

Quote from another post of mine:

Quote:

4. Rework the Ewar system so that there is a single strong form of ewar (ECM). This lets people feel more comfortable fitting a counter to "all ewar".

*snipped*

With respect to point 4, let's face it: it's no fun to sit there and never shoot back. This is what ewar does - it makes you just die, and it ****es lots of people off. But, what's the practical difference between having an ewar tank and a OMGWTFUBER tank? Well, the only real difference is that you could choose to shoot someone else with wtf tank, and ewar prevents that.

Ewar is "no fun" to the bruiser pilots, so they're nerfing it - by nerfing variety. At least, this is my opinion.

For supporting evidence, CCP Zulupark says that "for parity, it just doesn't make sense not to script Tracking Disruptors", and "We've looked at the modules on Sisi and we feel that they are balanced correctly now".

CCP feels that TD's and Damps are *fine* at this point - when obviously with a Curse/Pilgrim/Arazu/Lachesis you won't even be able to completely lock down a single ship of the appropriate type.

OTOH, the Falcon/Rook/Scorpion are locking down 3-4 ships regularly (this is where they should have been all along, tbqfh though).



Liang

Ed: Screwed up the quote boxes


If that is the intention, (and I doubt it , seeing as the recon and EAF class would need a thorough overhaul first), then I would expect CCP to say more than 'it's okay because RSDs/TDs are a sure thing and ECM isn't', which is entirely misleading.

SoldierOfJustice
Infortunatus Eventus
Posted - 2007.11.21 23:19:00 - [88]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 21/11/2007 18:41:57
Originally by: Minas Reul

Quite how CCP hopes for these types of ewar to be powerful specialisms (as ECM is), I have no idea.



I don't think they do, actually. I think they're looking to nerf the variety of ewar that's available and effective in game. This makes it easier to "counter" ewar - because nobody likes to just sit there and die.



You're not making any sense. The whole point in EW is to neutralize enemy ships in the battlefield, meaning enemy ships are rendered useless and put out of the battle untill their time comes Twisted Evil. If EW isnt able to do that then it shouldnt be in the game at all. Simple as that. If ECM doesnt work then why have it in game? Damps dont work they why have them in game?

I really dont see why damps and tracking disruptors are hit so hard just because some stupid players dont want to die to a ship using those. If the argument is that not all ships should be able to use them, then fine, reduce the power of the modules and boost the specialized ship bonuses so the mods are still usable on those ships.

If I meet a falcon I expect to be jammed, if I meet an arazu/pilgrim I better be dampened or tracking disrupted. CCP, If those ships dont work, then FFS remove them to make it easier for your devs to make the game actully work. My problem in eve isnt that I got dampened and left out, but that I cant see the enemy before its too late. Even more could be mentionened about how CCP wants to have less blobs, well, with no EW then numbers are the only way to stand up to blobs.

Darwin would be dissapointed if he sees how you are de-evolving!

Minas Reul
Synergy.
Imperial Republic Of the North
Posted - 2007.11.22 19:14:00 - [89]
 

Originally by: SoldierOfJustice
If I meet a falcon I expect to be jammed, if I meet an arazu/pilgrim I better be dampened or tracking disrupted. CCP, If those ships dont work, then FFS remove them to make it easier for your devs to make the game actully work. My problem in eve isnt that I got dampened and left out, but that I cant see the enemy before its too late. Even more could be mentionened about how CCP wants to have less blobs, well, with no EW then numbers are the only way to stand up to blobs.

Darwin would be dissapointed if he sees how you are de-evolving!


Very true, and while the power of damps was being abused by non-specced ships, it was for solo work mainly. With that now countered via the planned changes, something needs to be done to put damps back in place as a blob-breaker, and boosting specced ships is part of that.

Percunust
Posted - 2007.11.24 23:48:00 - [90]
 

/signed


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