These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Nicen Jehr
Subsidy H.R.S.
Xagenic Freymvork
#101 - 2014-03-03 15:48:21 UTC
compare tool: http://i.imgur.com/ddykK34.png

meta 4 already uses less cpu and cap than meta 5/T2. the T2 is cheaper:
eve central T2 damps ~700k
eve central meta 4 damps ~1.6M

if you want the cheaper module and don't care about cap or cpu, get T2.
if you need lower cap/cpu usage, or aren't skilled for t2 damp, get meta 4.

target painters OTOH don't have this cost savings. meta 4 painter 200k, target painter ii 450k. so there is literally no reason to use a t2 painter if meta 4 is available.

Little Things to improve ≡⋁≡ | My Little Things posts
Callic Veratar
#102 - 2014-03-03 18:28:52 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
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.


This is a balance pass on damp strength. What you're mixing up is balancing damps vs module tiericide which should (needs?) to be done on large numbers of modules simultaneously and is a huge undertaking.

The feature creep here is balancing damps to tiericiding damps to tiericiding ewar. The first is a 10 minute change, the second is a week or more, and the third is a full expansion of work.
Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#103 - 2014-03-03 18:34:09 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
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.


There are dozens of modules where meta 4 is equal in effectiveness to t2.

In all likelihood, there will be a sweeping module rebalance that addresses all of these modules at the same time instead of patchwork altering one by one if that module class happens to come up as needing unrelated immediate changes like overall damp nerfs.

Changing one now would also pidgeonhole them into a format of how they would have to change all the other similar meta4/T2 equal modules, or risk coming back at a later patch and change damps again.

Stop sounding like a petulant child. You don't just slap a temporary patch on the issue if applying it is going to make things worse down the road. As you said, doing things right the first time is always a better option.
Yankunytjatjara
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#104 - 2014-03-03 18:38:07 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 :)


Is there any intention to reduce the global module effectiveness, while boosting their effectiveness on specialized ships, to make the modules a bit less powerful on random frigs? Without changing at all specialized ships.

My solo pvp video: Yankunytjude... That attitude! Solo/small gang proposal: Ship Velocity Vectors
Darth Fett
Iris Covenant
The Gorgon Empire
#105 - 2014-03-04 16:47:59 UTC
T2 tracking disruptor optimal: 48,00 km
T2 sensor dampener optimal: 36,00 km
Why nerfing dampeners, while TD stay with old range? Another droneimbas buff? (drones completely immune for TD, turret ships - no) And how about nerf droneimbas? Or you waiting while no other ships remain in EVE, except droneships?
Arla Sarain
#106 - 2014-03-05 12:55:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Arla Sarain
Yankunytjatjara wrote:
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 :)


Is there any intention to reduce the global module effectiveness, while boosting their effectiveness on specialized ships, to make the modules a bit less powerful on random frigs? Without changing at all specialized ships.

I just cannot fathom how people get off on this.

What's the point of being able to fit your ship if all modules but a select few are utterly useless because of your hull choice. Why not just go all the way and have preset classes with preset abilities like every other template korean MMORPG and forget you can fit a ship to fulfill your needs, cos you know, god forbid that random frig is using a damp? You know, like the whole selling point of the fitting screen.
Deacon Abox
Black Eagle5
#107 - 2014-03-05 16:38:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Deacon Abox
Arla Sarain wrote:
Yankunytjatjara wrote:
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 :)


Is there any intention to reduce the global module effectiveness, while boosting their effectiveness on specialized ships, to make the modules a bit less powerful on random frigs? Without changing at all specialized ships.

I just cannot fathom how people get off on this.

What's the point of being able to fit your ship if all modules but a select few are utterly useless because of your hull choice. Why not just go all the way and have preset classes with preset abilities like every other template korean MMORPG and forget you can fit a ship to fulfill your needs, cos you know, god forbid that random frig is using a damp? You know, like the whole selling point of the fitting screen.

You are a rather young character. Of course you may have another main (as do I). But whatever,

See, there was a time when everyone fit ecm modules in mids because the modules were ridiculously powerful and the ecm bonuses were smaller in comparison. Then CCP nerfed the base strength of ecm modules and handed out 20% and 30% bonuses to ecm boats. Problem partially solved. Every tom **** and harry no longer sported a multispec in a mid (of course 200km falcons followed, and ecm still preventing locking upon which nearly every effective combat action in the game relies, which remained as problems but that's for a whole nother thread).

However, when in one alliance tournament everyone sported damps in mids. At lightening speed damps got nerfed. But in a different way, with scripts. Damps did not get the ecm treatment. Various intervening changes to the game still leave range/kiting as the most viable tactic for gaining an advantage in a fight. So damps and damp boats became sought after. However, a 7.5% bonus to the module is simply not a big enough difference to prevent the spare mid fit a damp phenomenon in many ranged fleet comps or solo shite like dual damp hookbills or whatever.

So this is why people ask for some ecm module nerf/ecm boat bonus treatments for the other ewar. It fixed the ubiquitous multispec of doom. It can fix the prevalent use of damps and tds in midslot heavy frigs. As for painters pfft. Unless those get radically reworked they will remain a joke in comparison to the other ewar.

Ewar should be a specialty. But presently all the non-ecm ewar is too accessible to anyone. And that results in incongruous fitting of gallente ewar on caldari mid-slot blessed frigs while a gallente ewar boat doesn't add enough umph to make them as valuable as any ecm boat currently is.

Of course what is the latest rebalancing result but more nerfing for damps, still no TD effects on missiles, and nothing new for the runt of the litter, painters. Straight Meanwhile ecm hums along with no alteration.

CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting off button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.

Arla Sarain
#108 - 2014-03-06 08:15:16 UTC
Deacon Abox wrote:
Arla Sarain wrote:
Yankunytjatjara wrote:
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 :)


Is there any intention to reduce the global module effectiveness, while boosting their effectiveness on specialized ships, to make the modules a bit less powerful on random frigs? Without changing at all specialized ships.

I just cannot fathom how people get off on this.

What's the point of being able to fit your ship if all modules but a select few are utterly useless because of your hull choice. Why not just go all the way and have preset classes with preset abilities like every other template korean MMORPG and forget you can fit a ship to fulfill your needs, cos you know, god forbid that random frig is using a damp? You know, like the whole selling point of the fitting screen.

You are a rather young character. Of course you may have another main (as do I). But whatever,

See, there was a time when everyone fit ecm modules in mids because the modules were ridiculously powerful and the ecm bonuses were smaller in comparison. Then CCP nerfed the base strength of ecm modules and handed out 20% and 30% bonuses to ecm boats. Problem partially solved. Every tom **** and harry no longer sported a multispec in a mid (of course 200km falcons followed, and ecm still preventing locking upon which nearly every effective combat action in the game relies, which remained as problems but that's for a whole nother thread).

However, when in one alliance tournament everyone sported damps in mids. At lightening speed damps got nerfed. But in a different way, with scripts. Damps did not get the ecm treatment. Various intervening changes to the game still leave range/kiting as the most viable tactic for gaining an advantage in a fight. So damps and damp boats became sought after. However, a 7.5% bonus to the module is simply not a big enough difference to prevent the spare mid fit a damp phenomenon in many ranged fleet comps or solo shite like dual damp hookbills or whatever.

So this is why people ask for some ecm module nerf/ecm boat bonus treatments for the other ewar. It fixed the ubiquitous multispec of doom. It can fix the prevalent use of damps and tds in midslot heavy frigs. As for painters pfft. Unless those get radically reworked they will remain a joke in comparison to the other ewar.

Ewar should be a specialty. But presently all the non-ecm ewar is too accessible to anyone. And that results in incongruous fitting of gallente ewar on caldari mid-slot blessed frigs while a gallente ewar boat doesn't add enough umph to make them as valuable as any ecm boat currently is.

Of course what is the latest rebalancing result but more nerfing for damps, still no TD effects on missiles, and nothing new for the runt of the litter, painters. Straight Meanwhile ecm hums along with no alteration.


Yeah. Cos ECM is ridiculous in its own light. 20sec of no locking or anything until the EWAR ship is dead or loses range.

EWAR in general is - press button -> apply disruption. "GF lads I showed up on grid and pressed 3 buttons to damp you into 5km targetting range". The issue isn't their strength. It's the application.

And weren't Caldari EWAR specialists by lore? I would assume that's far beyond just cornering themselves into a single EWAR doctrine. Surely they'd have knowledge and understanding of all forms of electronic attacks. Hence, is it that awful that you get the midslot-blessed caldari frigs fitting sensor damps and losing out on crucial shield extenders or some other common midslot mod?
I doubt it.
It's just another fitting.

I am a young character but this round and round rollercoasting of numbers is something I'm familiar from too many games. It doesn't achieve anything. You'll get ewar nerfed for a year. Then someone else will point that it sucks and it will come back.

EWAR could have been akin to data/relci site hacking. Boom. Potential.
O2 jayjay
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#109 - 2014-03-06 12:46:59 UTC
LEAVE DAMPS ALONE! YOU DONE ENOUGH ALREADY.
Ax Pym
Doomheim
#110 - 2014-03-11 19:40:48 UTC
The Celestis can't maintain a range damp, and hit the target with guns, both! Where is the imbalance? And what is so complicated about it? How bad is this for Gallente Recon? The skills for those ships take a long time to train, and are a specialization.

I'm sure CCP nerfed the Celestis and Remote Sensor Dampeners long ago, reversed the change, and now are retracing their steps. Just the other day, I said to another player whom stopped playing years ago, then resumed with a new character, 'some things never change'.

IMO, the only sensible response to the Celestis (and Gallente Recon), maintaining a range damp, (forever and always) is the dispatch of a ship to COUNTER it (like a Griffin or a Kitsune), or the dispatch of a ship to destroy it. A well rounded comprehension of the game, and the same in your fleet, is where rebalancing considerations need to begin and end, for the most part.

Bringing to range frigates and destroyers, also requires a navigation ability, like maintaining the transversal velocity. Then drones are problematic. So, get a smartbomb!

I would like to see CCP developing more phenomena in space, like anomalies. Admittedly, they did pretty well at this, over the years, until now.

I feel bad for players whom trained for Remote Sensor Dampening, the Celestis, and Gallente Recon. I didn't, this time. In all fairness to them, I want to admit, I trained for flexibility through rebalancing (for instance, I hold level 3 mastery in all Electronic Warfare variants).

Otherwise, if you're unable to completely understand the game, and/or unable to reach other players to formulate a rounded fleet, many 'Electronics and Sensor Upgrades' modules are available to increase targeting range and speed. Maybe you will feel better, if you can hit the Celestis before it warps away.

I just hope this doesn't place the Celestis, and the Gallente Recon ships, maintaining a range damp, within typical scram range. Who know what you are after. Didn't anyone ever tell you, we learn from our mistakes?

axpymlives.tumblr.com
Ax Pym
Doomheim
#111 - 2014-03-11 20:01:54 UTC
You're probably making the Celestis (and even Gallente Recon) into a suicide ship. I trained a Destroyer skill to level 5. And I would gladly place an interdiction sphere. But I'm not suicide dampening, in this game, no. That's all I have to say, now.

axpymlives.tumblr.com
Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#112 - 2014-03-11 20:21:47 UTC
Ax Pym wrote:
You're probably making the Celestis (and even Gallente Recon) into a suicide ship. I trained a Destroyer skill to level 5. And I would gladly place an interdiction sphere. But I'm not suicide dampening, in this game, no. That's all I have to say, now.



You apparently don't realize just how insanely strong and long range a well fit Celestis backed up with information warefare links was. When deployed in bulk, they were rendering quite a few fleets completely useless by the simple fact that a Celestis could chill out at 100km and damp down a target to under 8% of their lock range. As in a max 250km lock range ship could then lock down to 20 KM. It was ridiculous.
Arla Sarain
#113 - 2014-03-11 21:08:29 UTC
Quote:
We have another change to Damps that we plan to put in a later patch, and this tweak should both lay the groundwork for that change and help keep Damps balanced in the meantime.
- http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/rubicon-1.3-balance-round-up

What does this refer to?
Ax Pym
Doomheim
#114 - 2014-03-11 21:27:20 UTC
Anhenka wrote:
Ax Pym wrote:
You're probably making the Celestis (and even Gallente Recon) into a suicide ship. I trained a Destroyer skill to level 5. And I would gladly place an interdiction sphere. But I'm not suicide dampening, in this game, no. That's all I have to say, now.



You apparently don't realize just how insanely strong and long range a well fit Celestis backed up with information warefare links was. When deployed in bulk, they were rendering quite a few fleets completely useless by the simple fact that a Celestis could chill out at 100km and damp down a target to under 8% of their lock range. As in a max 250km lock range ship could then lock down to 20 KM. It was ridiculous.


Okay, perhaps you're making a good point. But, I'm not sure whether you read my post immediately before that which you quoted. Therein, I'm not sure, an incapacity, of one fleet, to suppress or destroy a particular ship of another fleet, requires a rebalancing. One fleet may be poorly comprised, compared to other.

Balance in the Celestis and Remote Sensor Dampeners (which are hand in hand) , involves the dampening strength compared to a reasonable range of her guns. The dampened range of the opponents ship, shouldn't be an issue for rebalancing.

Why can't a fleet take out the Celestis, at 100km from the dampened target?

Finally, the Eve-Uni ship database classifies the Celestis, as a high priority ECM target, and Gallente Recon as highest.

axpymlives.tumblr.com
Deacon Abox
Black Eagle5
#115 - 2014-03-11 23:18:56 UTC
Anhenka wrote:
Ax Pym wrote:
You're probably making the Celestis (and even Gallente Recon) into a suicide ship. I trained a Destroyer skill to level 5. And I would gladly place an interdiction sphere. But I'm not suicide dampening, in this game, no. That's all I have to say, now.



You apparently don't realize just how insanely strong and long range a well fit Celestis backed up with information warefare links was. When deployed in bulk, they were rendering quite a few fleets completely useless by the simple fact that a Celestis could chill out at 100km and damp down a target to under 8% of their lock range. As in a max 250km lock range ship could then lock down to 20 KM. It was ridiculous.

So why are the damps and damp ships nerfed and not an overall nerf to the relevant information links?What? That would have actually have killed two birds with one stone.Blink

CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, [u]please[/u] give us a persisting off button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals.

Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#116 - 2014-03-11 23:46:06 UTC
Deacon Abox wrote:
Anhenka wrote:
Ax Pym wrote:
You're probably making the Celestis (and even Gallente Recon) into a suicide ship. I trained a Destroyer skill to level 5. And I would gladly place an interdiction sphere. But I'm not suicide dampening, in this game, no. That's all I have to say, now.



You apparently don't realize just how insanely strong and long range a well fit Celestis backed up with information warefare links was. When deployed in bulk, they were rendering quite a few fleets completely useless by the simple fact that a Celestis could chill out at 100km and damp down a target to under 8% of their lock range. As in a max 250km lock range ship could then lock down to 20 KM. It was ridiculous.

So why are the damps and damp ships nerfed and not an overall nerf to the relevant information links?What? That would have actually have killed two birds with one stone.Blink


Because that would nerf the other forms of ECM besides damps that those links can effect. Jamming ECM is weak overall, and TD's are situationally useful and entirely ineffective VS drone ships along with not having range bonuses on the t1 cruiser hull. Neither of those forms need nerfing as bad as the Celestis needs it.

Overall the combination of racial bonused crusier + racial ECM results in the celestis being far far more effective overall. It cannot be easily countered with ECCM, it's not situationally effective like TD's, and a single Celestis can easily shut down any single ship, up to and including locking a double Sebo Carrier down to under 50 Km lock range.
Ax Pym
Doomheim
#117 - 2014-03-12 03:50:33 UTC
Anhenka wrote:
Deacon Abox wrote:
Anhenka wrote:
Ax Pym wrote:
You're probably making the Celestis (and even Gallente Recon) into a suicide ship. I trained a Destroyer skill to level 5. And I would gladly place an interdiction sphere. But I'm not suicide dampening, in this game, no. That's all I have to say, now.



You apparently don't realize just how insanely strong and long range a well fit Celestis backed up with information warefare links was. When deployed in bulk, they were rendering quite a few fleets completely useless by the simple fact that a Celestis could chill out at 100km and damp down a target to under 8% of their lock range. As in a max 250km lock range ship could then lock down to 20 KM. It was ridiculous.

So why are the damps and damp ships nerfed and not an overall nerf to the relevant information links?What? That would have actually have killed two birds with one stone.Blink


Because that would nerf the other forms of ECM besides damps that those links can effect. Jamming ECM is weak overall, and TD's are situationally useful and entirely ineffective VS drone ships along with not having range bonuses on the t1 cruiser hull. Neither of those forms need nerfing as bad as the Celestis needs it.

Overall the combination of racial bonused crusier + racial ECM results in the celestis being far far more effective overall. It cannot be easily countered with ECCM, it's not situationally effective like TD's, and a single Celestis can easily shut down any single ship, up to and including locking a double Sebo Carrier down to under 50 Km lock range.


A Celestis should shut down any single ship. What I don't understand is why a fleet can't shut down the Celestis.

But, I'm not winning any argument here. That was not point. Since the Celestis was first fielded in this game, and players and CCP began to comprehend the power of it, it became the nerf whipping boy. A combat vessel should be powerful, not shorn of all purpose. IMO, if a fleet can't stop a powerful Celestis, there is something wrong with that fleet.

My opinion is clearly worthless here, at this point. But I expressed it anyway.

axpymlives.tumblr.com
Oswald Bolke
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#118 - 2014-03-12 13:29:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Oswald Bolke
Kaerakh wrote:
Nerfing an already under used ewar system makes me more likely to continue to under use an already under used system.


^^this guy gets it.

Now that 2-3 Ewar that get into fleet are even less effective, and get blapped even easier

Meanwhile....Logi runs wild, Kite ships have a field day etc. etc. etc




and to people who complain about lock ranges: Boo-effen- hoo, get in there an brawl then! I see so many kitey fleets out there that im sure are driven mad that suddenly they have to do something different to counter
Valterra Craven
#119 - 2014-03-12 13:33:29 UTC
Callic Veratar wrote:


This is a balance pass on damp strength. What you're mixing up is balancing damps vs module tiericide which should (needs?) to be done on large numbers of modules simultaneously and is a huge undertaking.


I understand the difference between a balance pass and module tiericide. I'm also fully aware of the massive changes that need to be done to modules in this game.

Callic Veratar wrote:

The feature creep here is balancing damps to tiericiding damps to tiericiding ewar. The first is a 10 minute change, the second is a week or more, and the third is a full expansion of work.


Changing values slightly on one module is not a week change. Changing values slightly on 5 modules is not a week change. If there is enough time to change the strength of 5 modules or more, then there is enough time to boost them relative to their counterparts.
Valterra Craven
#120 - 2014-03-12 13:37:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
Nicen Jehr wrote:
compare tool: http://i.imgur.com/ddykK34.png

meta 4 already uses less cpu and cap than meta 5/T2. the T2 is cheaper:
eve central T2 damps ~700k
eve central meta 4 damps ~1.6M

if you want the cheaper module and don't care about cap or cpu, get T2.
if you need lower cap/cpu usage, or aren't skilled for t2 damp, get meta 4.

target painters OTOH don't have this cost savings. meta 4 painter 200k, target painter ii 450k. so there is literally no reason to use a t2 painter if meta 4 is available.



Do you see where the targeting range, max res, and optimal are exactly the same for t2 and meta 4? If there is no performance benefit to using t2 then why would you? You get the exact same performance for higher cap usage and fittings and no bonus over meta 4 to performance. About the only reason people fit t2 damps is because they are too dumb to see the difference. The fact that t2 mods are cheaper than meta 4 only highlights the problem since its means that meta 4 are in higher demand, which is a backwards situation to be in to begin with.