These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Rubicon 1.3] Remote Sensor Dampeners and the Celestis

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
ASadOldGit
Doomheim
#81 - 2014-02-28 00:36:34 UTC
Taleden wrote:
Batelle wrote:
Taleden wrote:
I know everybody likes to pretend that EVE has no PvE content whatsoever, but as long as you're looking at damping and ewar already, would it be so hard to make NPC ewar obey the same stacking penalties and effective ranges as player ewar? Missions against Serpentis, for example, are just a royal tedious pain because they can damp from 80km away, and it only takes 2 or 3 of them to cut your target range to 20km. And that doesn't even make those missions *hard* per se, it just makes them irritating, which has no gameplay value.


Not really relevant in this thread, but yes, this. Please. But be careful what you ask for, if they look at npc ewar they will most certainly give them scramblers that actually scramble. Hopefully they'll also reduce webs to 60% strength, and add stacking penalties there too.


You know, I wouldn't even mind too much if some (high-level) PvE content involved scramblers. That's a part of the game that people should have to deal with, so as long as they're added in a balanced way (i.e. still possible to survive and solo with proper tank, DPS, and anti-frigate tactics).

One of the main reasons I'm arguing for NPC ewar to behave the same as PC ewar (range, stacking, etc) is because it's stupid and confusing (especially for new players) for the same basic game mechanics to work *completely differently* in a PvE vs PvP context. PvE could help players to learn how to deal with and counter various types of ewar, but right now it doesn't, only because the ewar they see in PvE is completely different from what they'll see in PvP.


Exactly, but I also want to be able to use ewar against NPCs. I want to perma-jam a gurista - purely for revenge, of course.
I hope a balance pass of the entire ewar concept is coming soon, not Soon™.

This signature intentionally left blank for you to fill in at your leisure.
Phaade
LowKey Ops
Shadow Cartel
#82 - 2014-02-28 00:53:34 UTC
So something that reduces lock range / speed needs a nerf, but something that doesn't allow you to lock AT ALL does not?


........what?!?
Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#83 - 2014-02-28 07:14:56 UTC
Phaade wrote:
So something that reduces lock range / speed needs a nerf, but something that doesn't allow you to lock AT ALL does not?


........what?!?

Something that reduces your lock range so low that in many cases it is akin to not being able to lock at all and simultaneously reduces your locking speed to the point that if you do manage to meander in range you still take ages to lock, and manages to do this with 100% efficiency due to not relying on chance based mechanics and (previously) had longer range than ECM is getting nerfed over the chance based mechanics.

I'm not saying ECM is good where it is, and I'm not saying it shouldn't get changed, but I am saying that damps have potential to be far more consistent and effective game breakers than ECM right now.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#84 - 2014-02-28 16:14:58 UTC
Phaade wrote:
So something that reduces lock range / speed needs a nerf, but something that doesn't allow you to lock AT ALL does not?


........what?!?


guess which one of the two works 100% of the time

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#85 - 2014-02-28 16:45:49 UTC
Remote Sensor Dampener II 36000 30000
Phased Muon Sensor Disruptor I 36000 30000

so why is the T2 range the same as the meta 4?? also unless you are changing it has the same effectiveness???
so whats the point of using the T2 version over the meta 4??? this is the same for many modules aswell any chance of changing them??

any thoughts on making modules role based instead of tiers???

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Azotox
Medical Leeches First Come First Served
#86 - 2014-02-28 18:09:08 UTC
It would be great if the T2 EWAR modules had at least 1 visible advantage over the meta 4. Either activation cost like the Sensor Booster II, or maybe different duration? Even less CPU usage would be something to consider.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#87 - 2014-02-28 18:25:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
nvm

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
O2 jayjay
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#88 - 2014-03-01 00:27:52 UTC
I still dont see how damps are OP when you have an EWAR boat that completely keep a ship from locking for several sec/permanently. Are you going to nerf ECM? are you going to buff stacking penalties? Are going to nerf everything else? I cannot stand it when yall make changes. why not just leave it alone? what about smart bombs? going to nerf them? Geezz stop touching the game because your making one race better than the other.

-1 to your stupid nerf
O2 jayjay
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#89 - 2014-03-01 00:29:06 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
Remote Sensor Dampener II 36000 30000
Phased Muon Sensor Disruptor I 36000 30000

so why is the T2 range the same as the meta 4?? also unless you are changing it has the same effectiveness???
so whats the point of using the T2 version over the meta 4??? this is the same for many modules aswell any chance of changing them??

any thoughts on making modules role based instead of tiers???


they are too busy nerfing everything
Dr Sraggles
The Covenant of Blood
#90 - 2014-03-01 00:54:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Dr Sraggles
O2 jayjay wrote:
I still dont see how damps are OP when you have an EWAR boat that completely keep a ship from locking for several sec/permanently. Are you going to nerf ECM? are you going to buff stacking penalties? Are going to nerf everything else? I cannot stand it when yall make changes. why not just leave it alone? what about smart bombs? going to nerf them? Geezz stop touching the game because your making one race better than the other.

-1 to your stupid nerf



As it ever occurred to you for a second how ECM jamming actually works as compared to sensor dampening?

A sensor dampening module works identically on a Carrier as it does on a Frigate. And it doesn't matter what racial signal type the carrier has, it will land and reduce targeting range/targeting speed 100% of the time. It is a certainty it will work just like it does in EFT. It will shut down ships more effectively than an ECM jam as there is zero probability that it will fail.

Given the signal strength of ECM if it is of the right racial type it will jam a Frig nearly always, a Cruiser about 50% of the time, a BC about 35% of the time, a BS about 25% of the time and a carrier about 15% of the time.

If it is of the wrong racial type then you can reduce all of those chances by 75%.

What this means is that if the Falcon pilot has bad luck or doesn't have the right racial ECM equipped then none of his jams land on *anything* regardless of skills or ship and a 10mill isk Cruiser sends his 200m Falcon a killmail.

If the opponent has bad luck then he thinks ECM jamming is OP and he hates it without considering that someone just spent *months* training an additional skill to give his gang an edge. This is training the opponent refuses to do other than cry about it.

I am really sick and tired of butthurt people that had bad luck one day crying about how ECM is OP because they died to someone with more specialized SP in a more expensive ship.

"Crowd Control" is part of multiplayer video games. Deal with it.


ps. I don't take part in big fleets and had overlooked the Celestis. It is clearly an overpowered ship if a ~20m isk ship fully fit can shut down a Carrier by reducing it's targeting rage by ~80% while being ~150+ kms away from it. It's just ridiculous.
CW Itovuo
The Executioners
#91 - 2014-03-01 21:36:40 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone.
In Rubicon 1.3 we are making a few small tweaks to Damps and the Celestis cruiser, to lay the groundwork for another damp change that we have planned for a later patch.

Damps are a very powerful EWar that have the ability to create some interesting tactical situations and we feel we are getting very close to hitting the mark with their balance, but they are a little more effective at extreme ranges than we think is appropriate.

In 1.3 we'll be reducing the base optimal range of all damps by 16.66% and reducing the damp range bonus on the Celestis to 7.5% per level.



Thanks and let us know what you think!



I think the Celestis needs a bit of Quid Pro Quo.


Damp strength was reduced in Ruby 1.1 in order to provide OH ability. I don't recall the community clamoring for this "feature". As I see it, this was a stealthy nerf from CCP_Used_Car_Salesman. Show them a shiny "overheat 6%" bauble and they'll never notice the reduction (10%) in standard module effectiveness. The change was promoted under a somewhat broad premise: Ewar is more effective in the long engagment.

With regards to the Celestis, the idea that Ewar is more effective in the long engagement is not entirely true.

The Celestis' usefulness can be easily negated thru time and distance, in such a way that doesn't effect any other Ewar cruiser. Scan Res dampening a target that already has you (or fleetmate) locked is useless, unless you're tag-teaming with a jamming partner. Range dampening a target that's 5k off is pointless in all situations.

All other Ewar cruisers retain their special ability within standard targeting ranges. A blackbird will always have a chance to jam. An Arbitrator will always provide some damage mitigation against guns. A Bellicose will always provide for more consistent applied damage. The longer those ships are on the field, the greater the benefit.

Blackbird: Ewar effective from 0...85k, +80k falloff.
Arbitrator: Ewar effective from 0...72k, +36k falloff.
Bellicose: Ewar effective from 0...45k, +90k falloff.



Reducing the optimal range of the Dampening module itself would probably be OK. As things stand now, a max skilled Vexor pilot fitted with a Damp is effective out to 54k (+90) which is pretty damn good considering there's no bonus to that hull. I might go so far as to say, you should consider reducing the falloff range a smidge as well.

But when it comes to the Celestis, I think you're on the wrong track CCP_Fozzie. The Celestis is designed to be a fleet support ship that provides a unique Ewar function. It should be powerful within it's designated function, certainly more so than another non-bonused ship. Stacking 1, 2, 3 nerfs on to it (plus a 4th yet to be named future change) is simply a step too far.


If you do make changes to the ship bonuses, please consider giving it something to compensate.


Consider buffing the strength-specific Dampening rigs, so pilots can compromise tank to gain better Ewar. Inverted Signal Field Projector I from 5% to 7.5% and the Tech II version from 7.5% to 15%. Or reduce the calibration cost, so that two tech II's can bet fitted.

The Celestis has never been a DPS monster, but the recent PG changes to Rapid Light missiles makes it very difficult to fit 1600 plate, MWD and RLML's. CA-1, CA-2, EG-603 implants, plus a Reactor Control II makes it work... barely.

Some additional drone capacity/range/speed/bandwidth/tracking would always be welcome.
Cordo Draken
ABOS Industrial Enterprises
#92 - 2014-03-01 22:59:52 UTC
Really, More E-war Nerfs for the whiners? What good is a Remote Dampener if your enemy can still snipe you? All the E-war has been batted down enough... FFS, leave it alone already.

Instead, how about creating new models for the HACs and Command Ships that have now inherited the stupid models of the game. That would be a far better improvement.

Stop bending the game to the whiners, because all they want to bring is DPS and not have to think about countering anything else, thus killing Strategy. Seriously.

Whomever said, "You only get one shot to make a good impression," was utterly wrong. I've made plenty of great impressions with my Autocannons 
Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#93 - 2014-03-02 06:58:12 UTC
CW Itovuo wrote:

I think the Celestis needs a bit of Quid Pro Quo.


Damp strength was reduced in Ruby 1.1 in order to provide OH ability. I don't recall the community clamoring for this "feature". As I see it, this was a stealthy nerf from CCP_Used_Car_Salesman. Show them a shiny "overheat 6%" bauble and they'll never notice the reduction (10%) in standard module effectiveness. The change was promoted under a somewhat broad premise: Ewar is more effective in the long engagment.

With regards to the Celestis, the idea that Ewar is more effective in the long engagement is not entirely true.

The Celestis' usefulness can be easily negated thru time and distance, in such a way that doesn't effect any other Ewar cruiser. Scan Res dampening a target that already has you (or fleetmate) locked is useless, unless you're tag-teaming with a jamming partner. Range dampening a target that's 5k off is pointless in all situations.

All other Ewar cruisers retain their special ability within standard targeting ranges. A blackbird will always have a chance to jam. An Arbitrator will always provide some damage mitigation against guns. A Bellicose will always provide for more consistent applied damage. The longer those ships are on the field, the greater the benefit.

Blackbird: Ewar effective from 0...85k, +80k falloff.
Arbitrator: Ewar effective from 0...72k, +36k falloff.
Bellicose: Ewar effective from 0...45k, +90k falloff.



Not totally sure where you're getting your numbers, as the Blackbird is 0...70+78 with perfect skills and 0...90+78 with links, though the other two are right.
The Celestis on the other hand is currently effective from 0... 81+135 falloff with perfect skills and 0...103+135 with links, or in other words has more range than any other EWar. Even after the nerf it will have 74.25km optimal (36km base T2 * 1.5 [Long Distance Jamming V] * 1.375 [Gallente Cruiser V]), or in other words more than any other ship while still having some damn good falloff at half of what it currently is (67.5km). It'll still have the range advantage over all opposition.

Also, maybe you might consider damping something else in that case then. Instead of trying to jam the brawlers that are all up in your brawlers faces, how about damping their logi, forcing it to move into range of your brawlers and risk taking extreme amounts of damage in order to be able to keep theirs alive at all, and then on top of that you can scanres damp them to make it hard for them to relock when they finally get into range.

Target switching also completely fucks over logi when they're heavily scanres damped.

Other EWar can be useless in comparison. Target painters make their ships easier for the enemy logi to lock and mitigate the damage. Jamming is sporadic and random, only sometimes working, and even a fleet of Blackbirds may only be able to keep a few dozen logi from locking, and an equal number (even of T1 logi cruisers) will have the logi in the advantage.

CW Itovuo wrote:

Reducing the optimal range of the Dampening module itself would probably be OK. As things stand now, a max skilled Vexor pilot fitted with a Damp is effective out to 54k (+90) which is pretty damn good considering there's no bonus to that hull. I might go so far as to say, you should consider reducing the falloff range a smidge as well.

But when it comes to the Celestis, I think you're on the wrong track CCP_Fozzie. The Celestis is designed to be a fleet support ship that provides a unique Ewar function. It should be powerful within it's designated function, certainly more so than another non-bonused ship. Stacking 1, 2, 3 nerfs on to it (plus a 4th yet to be named future change) is simply a step too far.


If you do make changes to the ship bonuses, please consider giving it something to compensate.


Consider buffing the strength-specific Dampening rigs, so pilots can compromise tank to gain better Ewar. Inverted Signal Field Projector I from 5% to 7.5% and the Tech II version from 7.5% to 15%. Or reduce the calibration cost, so that two tech II's can bet fitted.

The Celestis has never been a DPS monster, but the recent PG changes to Rapid Light missiles makes it very difficult to fit 1600 plate, MWD and RLML's. CA-1, CA-2, EG-603 implants, plus a Reactor Control II makes it work... barely.

Some additional drone capacity/range/speed/bandwidth/tracking would always be welcome.

Neat, the Blackbird (the closest comparison to the Celestis in the effectiveness/way the EWar works) is even more difficult to fit in a similar manner, not even coming close with it still being 5% over with 3 RLML's, an MWD, a 1600 plate, an RCU, and the CA-1, CA-2 and EG-605.

And it has much worse drone capabilities. And Barely scrapes 111 DPS (furies) with those 3 RLMLs.

I'm really not seeing why this nerf is so wrong. It still leaves the Celestis in a good place with the highest optimal, a good falloff, and it's really not too terribly hard to fit. It just can't do everything at once. I'd hate it if the Celestis could fit anywhere near proper damage. Getting damped to 10km locking range and having it kite you at 20 while putting out damage would be stupid as ****.
Baneken
Arctic Light Inc.
Arctic Light
#94 - 2014-03-02 10:20:14 UTC
For years it was the case of ECM is fine fit ECCM's and now it's damps are fine fit SEBO's when someone is finally using damps again.

I got laughed in fleets with my Keres until I damped and scrambled a ratting BS to 30km's range and could had kept it there about forever. Cool

Go figure. Roll
masternerdguy
Doomheim
#95 - 2014-03-03 01:37:07 UTC
aetherguy881 wrote:
ECM needs fixed before any other ewar is changed.


I agree, the original Falcon and original ECM mechanics needs to return.

Those were the glory days of EVE.

Things are only impossible until they are not.
scimichar
Deep Hole Explorers of New Eden
#96 - 2014-03-03 06:38:50 UTC
Baneken wrote:
For years it was the case of ECM is fine fit ECCM's and now it's damps are fine fit SEBO's when someone is finally using damps again.

I got laughed in fleets with my Keres until I damped and scrambled a ratting BS to 30km's range and could had kept it there about forever. Cool

Go figure. Roll



A BS wouldn't have been able to hit your keres anyway.
Henry Plantgenet
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#97 - 2014-03-03 10:12:41 UTC
Why mention the Shadow Serpentis remote Sensor Dampener if it's not seeded in game, and never will be seeded in game?
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#98 - 2014-03-03 11:09:43 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
Remote Sensor Dampener II 36000 30000
Phased Muon Sensor Disruptor I 36000 30000

so why is the T2 range the same as the meta 4?? also unless you are changing it has the same effectiveness???
so whats the point of using the T2 version over the meta 4??? this is the same for many modules aswell any chance of changing them??

any thoughts on making modules role based instead of tiers???

We'd like to address some of these issues but this change is specifically adjusting the balance of the Damp group as a whole and we don't want to complicate it by feature creeping :)


Henry Plantgenet wrote:
Why mention the Shadow Serpentis remote Sensor Dampener if it's not seeded in game, and never will be seeded in game?

Never say never.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#99 - 2014-03-03 12:25:44 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

Henry Plantgenet wrote:
Why mention the Shadow Serpentis remote Sensor Dampener if it's not seeded in game, and never will be seeded in game?

Never say never.



So are they getting added to the loot tables for Shadow Serpentis rats or not. Cause you're just teasing me with that statement!
Valterra Craven
#100 - 2014-03-03 14:28:54 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:

We'd like to address some of these issues but this change is specifically adjusting the balance of the Damp group as a whole and we don't want to complicate it by feature creeping :)


So let me get this straight, you are going to nerf these models and while you are working on them and have time allotted to them, you aren't going to fix the problem between meta 4 and t2 for that group... that makes no logical sense. But I guess this is CCP and you guys still haven't figured out that doing things right the first time is always the better option.