EVE Search - Tracking Disruptors [Devs.. you forgot something]

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Tracking Disruptors [Devs.. you forgot something]

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 :: one page

Author	Topic
DennoTheHunter Caldari Kernkraft 400	Posted - 2008.02.07 06:08:00 - [331] Edited by: DennoTheHunter on 07/02/2008 06:10:35 Originally by: Alek Row ACs still are considered short range weapons, some falloff bonus and rigs can turn ACs in certain ships into effective medium range weapons. You know that Amarr are the queens of Medium range and they don't want to see nobody entering their domain, even when the Minmatar DPS in those ships that fight in falloff is always inferior of what we see in EFT (EFT only calculates optimal Dps if I'm not mistaken). So if minmatar fighting at medium ranges with ac's in falloff and doing less dps than amarr at that range (sometimes as low as only half the damage), doesn't it mean that amarr still a queens of medium ranges? If a remember correctly, Large ac's with Barrage L with max skills and 3x falloff rigs get about 40-45 km falloff. So even if TC/TE do get a falloff boost, this range is the max optimal+falloff range an ac can get, and it only does 50% dmg at that range. Pulses with their longrange ammo get about the same range and can do 100% dmg up to that range while the ac's only can do about 50%. Amarr still have that option to fit TC/TE to improve their optimal even further. So why can't we get TC/TE boosting falloff too? It clearly won't outclass Amarr at these ranges, as AC's will never be as good as pulses at range even with 10x falloff-rigs/TC/TE. Never. _____________________ If I am in a fair fight.... Something went wrong!
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.07 07:44:00 - [332] Originally by: Gamesguy Pray tell, what magical crucifier setup survives 5 warrior IIs? A: One going too fast to track its target.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.07 07:49:00 - [333] Originally by: Ariel Dawn Ahahahahahaha! A Zealot can nano-fit and be flown as a Vagabond with a similar tank, less speed, and far more DPS than the Vagabond can possibly put out. Please show me this dual extended Zealot that still packs a scram. Zealots with 4 turrets were previously out-damaged by vagabonds to about 23km while having much less tank and being much slower. The 5th turret makes it harder for the Zealot to fit its necessary cap mods and limits its ability to defend against ships with webs[previously it could fit a med neut in the spare high]. So while it now can do more DPS than a vagabond[how you get 173 dps out of a 2 gyro vagabond i havent a freaking clue btw, are you loading carbonized lead?], it is still likely an inferior ship.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.07 07:52:00 - [334] Originally by: DennoTheHunter So why can't we get TC/TE boosting falloff too? It clearly won't outclass Amarr at these ranges, as AC's will never be as good as pulses at range even with 10x falloff-rigs/TC/TE. Never. In the short range, more optimal is largly unused. This is why most small gang ships dont fit artillery, beams, or rails. It doesnt matter if the ship can shoot 100km, shooting 100km doesnt do the ship any good. It is the same here. Extending the optimal range of the majority of pulse laser ships does not do ships any good, because range is the least valuable attribute in small gang work. Not so with extending the falloff of AC's[and to a lesser extent blasters]. Because their operating range is so much closer this turns into pretty much a flat damage boost.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.07 08:01:00 - [335] Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Originally by: Lyria Skydancer There have been enough threads about all this with alot of calculations to prove it. Actually unless my memory fails me,I haven't yet seen any real effort by anyone to bring out any numbers to support the claim that falloff mod on TE/TC would overpower acs, and neither has anyone really tried to refute my calculations which seem to point towards completely opposite direction. Perhaps you could provide a link or maybe even look at the numbers I posted in this thread and or explain why they are wrong or meaningless or refute the conclusion I made based on them? What numbers? Its pretty clear that 17.6% is larger than 12.4%.
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.02.07 10:24:00 - [336] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 07/02/2008 10:24:55 Originally by: Goumindong It is the same here. Extending the optimal range of the majority of pulse laser ships does not do ships any good, because range is the least valuable attribute in small gang work. Not so with extending the falloff of AC's[and to a lesser extent blasters]. Because their operating range is so much closer this turns into pretty much a flat damage boost. Jumping in your own mouth Guom? If range is the least valuable, and blasters/ACs suffer from not having it DPS-wise, how is it the least valuable thing? If range is not important, then how is having 13% less DPS (not fitting a third gyrostab and trading it for more range instead) a damage boost? Your logic is horribly skewed at best. Falloff-boosting TEs would only be good if I was shooting at a noticeable range (where other races like Amarr win out anyway) and a disadvantage up close. Originally by: Goumindong What numbers? Its pretty clear that 17.6% is larger than 12.4%. It's clear that 12.4% is larger then 0%, which is what you get at close-range. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail mods@ccpgames.com ~Saint
Blutreiter Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades	Posted - 2008.02.07 10:53:00 - [337] Originally by: Cpt Branko Edited by: Cpt Branko on 07/02/2008 10:24:55 Originally by: Goumindong It is the same here. Extending the optimal range of the majority of pulse laser ships does not do ships any good, because range is the least valuable attribute in small gang work. Not so with extending the falloff of AC's[and to a lesser extent blasters]. Because their operating range is so much closer this turns into pretty much a flat damage boost. Jumping in your own mouth Guom? If range is the least valuable, and blasters/ACs suffer from not having it DPS-wise, how is it the least valuable thing? If range is not important, then how is having 13% less DPS (not fitting a third gyrostab and trading it for more range instead) a damage boost? Your logic is horribly skewed at best. Falloff-boosting TEs would only be good if I was shooting at a noticeable range (where other races like Amarr win out anyway) and a disadvantage up close. Originally by: Goumindong What numbers? Its pretty clear that 17.6% is larger than 12.4%. It's clear that 12.4% is larger then 0%, which is what you get at close-range. Selective logic for the win. Range in small engagements is still not much of an issue because someone always needs to tackle. Also, AC users fight in their falloff. That's not a dogma, that's common routine. Due to the nature of how falloff works, this means you will get higher DPS at the previously same engagement range, which happens to be out of web and inside scrambling range usually. Due to that being a relatively small area, under standard combat circumstances, increasing falloff will provide an effective damageboost. Don't dare to tell me that you will suddenly fight from above scramrange just because you get higher maximum range. Also, even if lasers have high optimal, altering the range of a laser will not change the DPS output at their engagement range. That's the issue between increasing falloff/optimal range. If TCs or TEs should ever recieve a falloff bonus, it should be half of the optimal bonus. More would let them serve as an additional pseudo-damagemod. Comments? Cogito ergo boom - I think i'll blow sht up* Originally by: CCP Explorer I know we have said this before, but this time we really mean itÖ
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.02.07 11:11:00 - [338] Originally by: Blutreiter Also, AC users fight in their falloff. That's not a dogma, that's common routine. Due to the nature of how falloff works, this means you will get higher DPS at the previously same engagement range, which happens to be out of web and inside scrambling range usually. Yes, sometimes. Depends on target and cirrumstances. When the cirrumstances call for getting in webrange, a falloff boosting TE fails to compensate for the lack of the third gyro. Then again; Amarr fight out of webrange if possible themselves. Something enabling you to use multifreq instead of standard for example IS effectively a damage boost in itself, which guom and you won't admit for some reason. Originally by: Blutreiter Also, even if lasers have high optimal, altering the range of a laser will not change the DPS output at their engagement range. If you can use higher-damage crystals at longer range (where you will often want to be in a Amarr ship), it provides a damage boost to you as well, right now. Aside from being a partial counter to TDs, that is. Originally by: Blutreiter If TCs or TEs should ever recieve a falloff bonus, it should be half of the optimal bonus. More would let them serve as an additional pseudo-damagemod. Comments? Ok, but TDs should have falloff reduction which is half of the optimal reduction to compensate. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail mods@ccpgames.com ~Saint
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.02.07 11:12:00 - [339] Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 07/02/2008 11:11:50 Originally by: Blutreiter Selective logic for the win. Range in small engagements is still not much of an issue because someone always needs to tackle. Also, AC users fight in their falloff. That's not a dogma, that's common routine. Due to the nature of how falloff works, this means you will get higher DPS at the previously same engagement range, which happens to be out of web and inside scrambling range usually. Due to that being a relatively small area, under standard combat circumstances, increasing falloff will provide an effective damageboost. Don't dare to tell me that you will suddenly fight from above scramrange just because you get higher maximum range. Also, even if lasers have high optimal, altering the range of a laser will not change the DPS output at their engagement range. That's the issue between increasing falloff/optimal range. If TCs or TEs should ever recieve a falloff bonus, it should be half of the optimal bonus. More would let them serve as an additional pseudo-damagemod. Comments? This is what I told them and their defense was trolling me. -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation
Blutreiter Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades	Posted - 2008.02.07 11:32:00 - [340] Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: Blutreiter Also, AC users fight in their falloff. That's not a dogma, that's common routine. Due to the nature of how falloff works, this means you will get higher DPS at the previously same engagement range, which happens to be out of web and inside scrambling range usually. Yes, sometimes. Depends on target and cirrumstances. When the cirrumstances call for getting in webrange, a falloff boosting TE fails to compensate for the lack of the third gyro. Then again; Amarr fight out of webrange if possible themselves. Something enabling you to use multifreq instead of standard for example IS effectively a damage boost in itself, which guom and you won't admit for some reason. Originally by: Blutreiter Also, even if lasers have high optimal, altering the range of a laser will not change the DPS output at their engagement range. If you can use higher-damage crystals at longer range (where you will often want to be in a Amarr ship), it provides a damage boost to you as well, right now. Aside from being a partial counter to TDs, that is. Originally by: Blutreiter If TCs or TEs should ever recieve a falloff bonus, it should be half of the optimal bonus. More would let them serve as an additional pseudo-damagemod. Comments? Ok, but TDs should have falloff reduction which is half of the optimal reduction to compensate. sigh Okay first of all, I never claimed anything about what kind of ammo Amarr use together with Goum. Point finger much? Also, Amarr will always try to use Multifreq, except for extreme cap issues or switch to long-range ammo. Else, we wouldn't be able to deal proper damage. Autocannons can usually use their highest damage ammo upfront without dealing with range in the first place. The falloff bonus on barrage is pretty unique in the first place, so that's out of discussion. Just because it is used very heavily only attests to the effectiveness of falloff boni on autocannons. When Amarr switch to high damage ammo, they lose a LOT of range. Also, TDs worked against energy weapons before this. Show me one single whine that TDs are too good, or tell me one pilot that really wastes a terribly precious medslot on an amarrship, which usually have 2-4 only at most, plus need to fit capmods/RCUs and tank in low on Tracking enhancers and computers, apart from snipers. TDs only getting half the falloff penalty compared to optimal is the most sensible solution anyway. That's where I agree. And you may quote me on that. The reasoning is that falloff is always counted 2 times to get maximum range, and that's all explanation I need. Cogito ergo boom - I think i'll blow sht up* Originally by: CCP Explorer I know we have said this before, but this time we really mean itÖ

Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.02.07 12:05:00 - [341] Originally by: Blutreiter Autocannons can usually use their highest damage ammo upfront without dealing with range in the first place. The falloff bonus on barrage is pretty unique in the first place, so that's out of discussion. Just because it is used very heavily only attests to the effectiveness of falloff boni on autocannons. No, not really. Do I need to link you the stats of Hail M, Barrage and EMP/Fusion or you can check them out yourself? Hail affects (read: kills) your optimal and falloff range greatly and it is the highest DPS ammo you can get, so yeah, it deals with range. EMP is the highest-damage ammo, but - it does the same DPS and in more spread out damage types then Barrage does. If there was a DPS advantage in using EMP at any range, people would probably use it more, but our high-damage T1 ammo does 11 (small) versus 12 which it does for other races. One of the reasons why Barrage is so popular is the fact our T1 ammo isn't very stellar. I've used Barrage countless times where range was, in fact, no issue and I was at 1.5km range; I just prefer explosive/kinetic to EM/explosive/kinetic, and if someone decides to try to power out of the range I don't have to wait effectively 15s for a reload. This is why Barrage is so popular. Originally by: Blutreiter When Amarr switch to high damage ammo, they lose a LOT of range. Switch to Hail and have 1km optimal and 4-5km falloff and talk to me about losing a LOT of range Originally by: Blutreiter tell me one pilot that really wastes a terribly precious medslot on an amarrship, None, but I know plenty of Myrmidon pilots who swear by TDs though. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail mods@ccpgames.com ~Saint
Blutreiter Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades	Posted - 2008.02.07 12:44:00 - [342] Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: Blutreiter When Amarr switch to high damage ammo, they lose a LOT of range. Switch to Hail and have 1km optimal and 4-5km falloff and talk to me about losing a LOT of range Yep ^^ But again, that's specialized ammo. I was just referring to standard ammo on most cases and that's where amarr have the most range differences between all different races, not only on long-range weapon systems but on pulses as well. But Hail... well Hail rips you a new one if you come into range Cogito ergo boom - I think i'll blow sht up* Originally by: CCP Explorer I know we have said this before, but this time we really mean itÖ
Kagura Nikon Minmatar Infinity Enterprises Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.02.07 14:04:00 - [343] Originally by: Blutreiter Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: Blutreiter When Amarr switch to high damage ammo, they lose a LOT of range. Switch to Hail and have 1km optimal and 4-5km falloff and talk to me about losing a LOT of range Yep ^^ But again, that's specialized ammo. I was just referring to standard ammo on most cases and that's where amarr have the most range differences between all different races, not only on long-range weapon systems but on pulses as well. But Hail... well Hail rips you a new one if you come into range The fact is between T2 ammo and faction short range there is no relevant differences for Amarr and Gallente. For minmatar they are huge. Republic fleet EMP deals far far less damage than hail. So you need to compare Hail as the equivalent to Amarr Navy MS. ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Reto The Last Resort	Posted - 2008.02.07 14:52:00 - [344] Originally by: Gamesguy Originally by: Reto Originally by: Aramendel avoiding pyramid quote a crucifier does not die to a vagabond, its 5 warrior II nor a single launcher if u have half a brain. do not speculate on pvp if u dont know how to setup ur ships correctly or fight as a part of a team. Pray tell, what magical crucifier setup survives 5 warrior IIs? i didnt say that a crucifier can survive the onslaught of 5 warrior II indifiniteley. i said that it doesnt die to them if u know what u are doing. some hints: -a crucifier like most other frigates works better the better ur skills are trained -a crusifier is a very good addition to a small frig gang (3-4 frigs). its not a solo frigate. -a crucifier has an targeting range of around 59km -tds have an optimal of around 60km -warrior II travel at max 6300m/s -warrior II deal around 80 explosive dps a setup would be: lo: Micro Auxiliary Power Core I 400mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Emergency Damage Control I med: Tracking Disruptor II, Tracking Speed Disruption Tracking Disruptor II, Tracking Speed Disruption Remote Sensor Dampener II hi: Gatling Modulated Energy Beam I, Multifrequency S Gatling Modulated Energy Beam I, Multifrequency S u have around 4200hp with this setup. ur guns can track warrior II easily. u have the advantage of ur damp which halfens the targeting range of most hacs and cruisers thus letting the drone auto agro nearby frigs rather than u at a 50km+ distance. Originally by: s4mp3r0r "Hey man, you're mom has a cruise missile".
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.07 15:11:00 - [345] Originally by: Goumindong What numbers? Its pretty clear that 17.6% is larger than 12.4%. I'm not disagreeing with the fact that +falloff allows you to make better use of your damage at range. That's kinda the point of a range mod and it is directly comparable to a laser boat whose +optimal allows him to project his damage further. You said that +optimal is useless to a laser boat given the typical engagement ranges. I'm arguing that given the fitting choices you have to make, that is exactly the case for falloff mod on TE/TC. Earlier in this thread it was argued that minmatar ac ships want to be at their optimal against lasers (since lasers have dps advantage at range). Likewise against missiles. The main benefit of that falloff is against blaster ships, against which you want to be at the outskirts of web range so you gain the dps advantage. The numbers I posted earlier proved that the benefit of 1te(with falloff mod) instead of 3rd gyro only manifests itself beyond 14km. Given the above preferred ranges, I argued that the benefit is only marginally useful at best and most of the time you'd be worse off. The advantage of gyros over TEs becomes even more obvious if you compare 3gyro vs 3TE. In this case the 3TE fit would do 40% less damage at optimal, equal damage at ~20km and then start outdamaging the 3gyro fit at ranges beyond that. You could argue that combining gyros with TEs beyond that 3rd gyro would be overpowering, but I don't see this a problem since there's heavy tradeoffs to be made in other ship abilities even to fit 3gyros, 4 or 5 lows for damage mods is simply impractical. Not to mention it is not even really that useful, which is evident if you consider that rigs would be in most cases a less valuable slot to use for increasing falloff and you still don't see triple falloff rigged ac boats very often. As for what comes to vaga, 2gyro1rig1te fit would be worse than 3gyro1rig fit up to 23km, so I'd say the benefit from the te on a vaga would be marginally exploitable at best. All this considered, I'm actually somewhat siding with your earlier argument against adding falloff on TE/TC, that they're bit redundant since fitting rigs has lesser opportunity cost except on few odd fits or if you think you need more tracking. Out of curiosity btw, why the sudden change from "useless because rigs are better" to "too good"?
Ariel Dawn Beets and Gravy Syndicate	Posted - 2008.02.07 15:35:00 - [346] Originally by: Goumindong Edited by: Goumindong on 07/02/2008 07:58:17 Originally by: Ariel Dawn Ahahahahahaha! A Zealot can nano-fit and be flown as a Vagabond with a similar tank, less speed, and far more DPS than the Vagabond can possibly put out. Please show me this dual extended Zealot that still packs a scram. Zealots with 4 turrets were previously out-damaged by vagabonds to about 23km while having much less tank and being much slower. The 5th turret makes it harder for the Zealot to fit its necessary cap mods and limits its ability to defend against ships with webs[previously it could fit a med neut in the spare high]. So while it now can do more DPS than a vagabond[how you get 173 dps out of a 2 gyro vagabond i havent a freaking clue btw, are you loading carbonized lead?], it is still likely an inferior ship. ed: Oh wait, i know how you did it. You did it by not having ever flown the ships and just stuck an arbitrary number out there Please read. 173 is Vagabond Turret DPS when at Optimal + Falloff. 254 after drones. Zealot is doing 456.25 DPS with 60% more range and is not relying on drones damage as a large portion of it. At normal engagement ranges @ 18-20km, the Tracking Enhancer/2 Gyrostabilizer Vagabond (should it provide 15% falloff) is doing around 9 DPS more than the 3 Gyrostabilizer Vaga. Under web range, the 3 Gyrostabilizer Vagabond is doing 43 more DPS than TE/2Gyro against most targets, and about the same as the TE/2Gyro against speedy frigates due to tracking. The tradeoff is a large reduction in close-range DPS for a small increase in long-range DPS and both have their advantages/disadvantages. This is using Barrage M. Oh, and your comment about 'not having ever flown the ships' actually made me laugh out loud. You and your comrades bashing Minmatar ships having never flown them, but supposed experts on them. It's really funny mate. Please link me to any instances where you, Lyria, Aramandel are using a Vagabond/Sleipnir/etc, heck, any Minmatar ship with T2 guns fitted. You can't. The Zealot does have fitting issues, but it can be fitted as a nano-ship to go about 3km/s with a capacitor booster and about 3.5k less EHP than a Vagabond. Neut immunity is a valueable ability, and although it may not be as survivable, it also blows the Vagabond out of the water for sheer damage potential. I don't care that the Zealot is so powerful though, just the fact that you flail your arms at the proposal to provide a COUNTER module to something that will seriously affect the entire Minmatar AC gunboat line while completely ignoring the fact that Amarr has ships with far greater range and DPS that can perform a similar role. Its hypocritical to the extreme.
DennoTheHunter Caldari Kernkraft 400	Posted - 2008.02.07 15:48:00 - [347] Edited by: DennoTheHunter on 07/02/2008 15:51:11 Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: DennoTheHunter So why can't we get TC/TE boosting falloff too? It clearly won't outclass Amarr at these ranges, as AC's will never be as good as pulses at range even with 10x falloff-rigs/TC/TE. Never. In the short range, more optimal is largly unused. This is why most small gang ships dont fit artillery, beams, or rails. It doesnt matter if the ship can shoot 100km, shooting 100km doesnt do the ship any good. It is the same here. Extending the optimal range of the majority of pulse laser ships does not do ships any good, because range is the least valuable attribute in small gang work. Not so with extending the falloff of AC's[and to a lesser extent blasters]. Because their operating range is so much closer this turns into pretty much a flat damage boost. I've done some calculations: We use a Dual 650mm AC II with Falloff rigs and max skills. Using EFT numbers: 0x falloff mods 5,4+30 k range 3x falloff mods 5,4+42,5 k range At the range of 20k: 0x faloff mods -> 85% hit chance 3x falloff mods -< 92% hit chance At the range of 20k, using a total of 3 falloff mods only adds up 11,8% more dps at 20k, and makes no gains at optimal. That's actually a bit poor when considering you are using 3 mods for this little gain. For a statement you made earlier: Asuming we are using the same range, 20k, we will see what's best. 3x gyro or 2x gyro and one TE. Again we use Dual 650mm AC II with Barrage on a Tempest. 3x Gyro setup: Raw dps = 104 dps Optimal + Falloff = 5,4 + 30 20k range hit chance = 85% Actual dps = 88,4 dps 2x Gyro and 1x TE setup: Raw dps = 93 dps Optimal + Falloff = 6,2 + 35 20k range hit chance = 90% Actual dps = 83,7 dps So at 20 k using Dual 650mm AC with Barrage at 20k, 3x gyro is actully 5,6% betterthan 2x gyro and 1x tracking enhancer. I do admit that smaller ships will gain more at this range, but since we're talking about minmatar ships, those ships would in many cases be fitted with Shield extenders/speedmods (depending on the slot layout of course). I ask you again. How can TC/TE boosting falloff too in anyway be overpowered? _____________________ If I am in a fair fight.... Something went wrong!
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.02.07 16:08:00 - [348] Originally by: DennoTheHunter I ask you again. How can TC/TE boosting falloff too in anyway be overpowered? You obviously want this change because you KNOW there are minmatar ships you want to put TCs and TEs on. You also admitted they do boost damage in normal pvp ranges and as a side effect also increase your total range. Why the heck should one race get an extra damage mod in mids and lows that doesnt stack with gyros when others dont? You already have damage mods youre sticking in your rig slots on every AC boat and they are called fall off rigs. They dont stack with gyros. Be happy you got those, dont be greedy and ask for more. -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.02.07 16:33:00 - [349] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 07/02/2008 16:34:04 Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Why the heck should one race get an extra damage mod in mids and lows that doesnt stack with gyros when others dont? That's why TEs/TCs need to boost falloff, since they already boost damage on lasers and (to some extend) blasters with Null, especially on optimal-bonused ships like the caldari ones. Since now falloff is distruptable, why should Minmatar be the only ones totally shafted in that respect? Basically, hypocrisy much? Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail mods@ccpgames.com ~Saint
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.07 16:37:00 - [350] Edited by: Trigos Trilobi on 07/02/2008 16:37:22 Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: DennoTheHunter I ask you again. How can TC/TE boosting falloff too in anyway be overpowered? You obviously want this change because you KNOW there are minmatar ships you want to put TCs and TEs on. You also admitted they do boost damage in normal pvp ranges and as a side effect also increase your total range. I think he pretty conclusively proved that there's not much point to fit a TE over a gyro over any 'normal pvp range', which incidentally supports the numbers I proved earlier in the thread. I think we can all also agree that fitting a TC is straight out question on pretty much every practical fit to gain a small amount of damage at ranges you don't want to be fighting in the first place, since there's a lot more useful med slots available and (too) many which are considered outright essential. Now, given the numbers in his post and the examples in few of mine earlier in the thread, would you like to elaborate on these 'normal ranges' where fitting a TE would be actually benefical over a gyro, or a TC over a scramble, web, booster, mwd or even the new improved TD? Quote: Why the heck should one race get an extra damage mod in mids and lows that doesnt stack with gyros when others dont? You already have damage mods youre sticking in your rig slots on every AC boat and they are called fall off rigs. They dont stack with gyros. Be happy you got those, dont be greedy and ask for more. +falloff is just as much a damage mod as is +optimal. The difference is that the damage advantage from +optimal is high over a narrow range band, while the damage advantage gained from falloff is low over a wide range band. I'd personally refer to them both as RANGE mods, though, for obvious reasons. Neither increases your maximum damage output, BOTH allow you to apply all or some of that dps further. They are essentially the two faces of the same coin. So indeed, why should laser boats have a "damage" mod in mids and lows when acs don't?

Lady Octavia	Posted - 2008.02.07 16:43:00 - [351] Originally by: Ariel Dawn Please read. 173 is Vagabond Turret DPS when at Optimal + Falloff. 254 after drones. Zealot is doing 456.25 DPS with 60% more range and is not relying on drones damage as a large portion of it. What kind of zealot is that ?? Ive tried to make a fit which can do what you wrote but I failed. So pls enlight me what fit does that zealot have? Oh and who wants falloff for TE just remaind this arty-s has a huge falloff too it could cause that arty-s would out range other snipers with similar dmg while using no cap and easy to fit arty-s. 2nd vargur would be the king of pve oh wait matar as best race in pvp and now pve too !!! Those who think TE TC needs a falloff mod , just want to make their matari ships overpowered!!! Btw i dont fly matar ships but most matar use EMP + barrage/tremor and most of their fits uses tc/te . And pls add tracking bonus from TE in your dmg calculations --> it gives more hits(more dps) if your guns at near their tracking limit,so with adding a falloff boni it would do increase dps even more(i think much more than a 3rd gyro would do).
Dromidas Shadowmoon Minmatar 54th Knights Templar Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2008.02.07 17:11:00 - [352] Originally by: Lady Octavia Originally by: Ariel Dawn Please read. 173 is Vagabond Turret DPS when at Optimal + Falloff. 254 after drones. Zealot is doing 456.25 DPS with 60% more range and is not relying on drones damage as a large portion of it. What kind of zealot is that ?? Ive tried to make a fit which can do what you wrote but I failed. So pls enlight me what fit does that zealot have? Oh and who wants falloff for TE just remaind this arty-s has a huge falloff too it could cause that arty-s would out range other snipers with similar dmg while using no cap and easy to fit arty-s. 2nd vargur would be the king of pve oh wait matar as best race in pvp and now pve too !!! Those who think TE TC needs a falloff mod , just want to make their matari ships overpowered!!! Btw i dont fly matar ships but most matar use EMP + barrage/tremor and most of their fits uses tc/te . And pls add tracking bonus from TE in your dmg calculations --> it gives more hits(more dps) if your guns at near their tracking limit,so with adding a falloff boni it would do increase dps even more(i think much more than a 3rd gyro would do). This post is fail. Artys working in falloff would be unbelievably laughable. Nobody would use a falloff script on their TC over an optimal script while using artillery because they would have worse performance :P _______________________________________________ Minmatar will always go faster than you, get over it.
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.07 17:20:00 - [353] Originally by: Lady Octavia Oh and who wants falloff for TE just remaind this arty-s has a huge falloff too it could cause that arty-s would out range other snipers with similar dmg while using no cap and easy to fit arty-s. Optimal is immensely more valuable to an arty sniper than falloff. If you're in your falloff, few +15% falloff mods is not going to change the fact that your damage is still subpar and you should've bought a sniper fit with more optimal. Quote: 2nd vargur would be the king of pve oh wait matar as best race in pvp and now pve too !!! Even three falloff mods is not going to do you much good on a vargur, the fact is you'd still do crap dps at anything that orbits you beyond 30km, which is quite a few bs' in pretty much every mission. Quote: Those who think TE TC needs a falloff mod , just want to make their matari ships overpowered!!! Btw i dont fly matar ships but most matar use EMP + barrage/tremor and most of their fits uses tc/te . And pls add tracking bonus from TE in your dmg calculations --> it gives more hits(more dps) if your guns at near their tracking limit,so with adding a falloff boni it would do increase dps even more(i think much more than a 3rd gyro would do). Tracking is nice, but it is hard to add to the damage calculations since it is so situational. Typical situation where more tracking would be beneficial is at very close range, but then you'd not be benefitting from the +falloff. It is also a lot more complicated than just a simple dps boost. For minmatar, since you typically have speed advantage and since acs have best tracking already compared to same tier other weapons, you'd actually not increase your own dps with additional tracking but you'd have the opportunity to reduce opponents dps. For amarr, a tracking mod would allow the lasers to prevent the ac boat from reducing your dps with his speed and signature advantage to some extent. These examples comparing same size ships with same tier weapons. After you start thinking about different ship sizes, different tier guns and ships with tracking bonuses it gets really complicated. So I'll conclude with the above 'tracking is nice', some times it helps, other times its useless. Obviously its considered less valuable than damage since people fit gyros instead of TEs, and I don't think this is going to change wether TEs will also increase falloff or not. Also you can look at it this way: a laser boat fitting a TE will both increase its range advantage further and reduce the advantage an ac boat has in tracking. An ac boat fitting a TE with falloff mod would augment its tracking advantage and reduce its range disadvantage compared to similar tier laser boat. For TCs its completely pointless since 1 TD (especially with falloff mod) will give you the same relative benefit by reducing your opponents tracking/range, only the effect is a lot more powerful than a TC.
DennoTheHunter Caldari Kernkraft 400	Posted - 2008.02.07 17:38:00 - [354] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: DennoTheHunter I ask you again. How can TC/TE boosting falloff too in anyway be overpowered? You obviously want this change because you KNOW there are minmatar ships you want to put TCs and TEs on. You also admitted they do boost damage in normal pvp ranges and as a side effect also increase your total range. Why the heck should one race get an extra damage mod in mids and lows that doesnt stack with gyros when others dont? You already have damage mods youre sticking in your rig slots on every AC boat and they are called fall off rigs. They dont stack with gyros. Be happy you got those, dont be greedy and ask for more. What i found out making these calculations is, if we replace a gyro with a TE at a normal range in a normal pvp scenario, we actually lose dps, thus making TE useless in many normal PVP situations, when trying to mix Gyro's and TE's. As other already have said, if you then take a 3x gyro setup and use like 2 TE's/TC's to up you range and still keep the good dps, you will suffer greatly, as it means you have only a few slots left for things like -> tackling, tanking, speed, cap. So fitting 5+ mods to improve you guns is very impractical, and in many situations makes no sence at all. _____________________ If I am in a fair fight.... Something went wrong!
Lady Octavia	Posted - 2008.02.07 17:45:00 - [355] Originally by: Dromidas Shadowmoon This post is fail. Artys working in falloff would be unbelievably laughable. Nobody would use a falloff script on their TC over an optimal script while using artillery because they would have worse performance :P Your reply is what fails. Pls reread my post i wrote TE there not TC. As TE now: it doesnt use scripts so a falloff mod would be allways apply when fitted + optimal and tracking too. So after the change each sniper would have increased dmg in falloff area and a rokh would lose a little its range advantage because others falloff range is increased(beams too as amarr uses TE more ).
Blutreiter Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades	Posted - 2008.02.07 18:10:00 - [356] Originally by: Ariel Dawn Originally by: Lady Octavia Originally by: Ariel Dawn Please read. 173 is Vagabond Turret DPS when at Optimal + Falloff. 254 after drones. Zealot is doing 456.25 DPS with 60% more range and is not relying on drones damage as a large portion of it. What kind of zealot is that ?? Ive tried to make a fit which can do what you wrote but I failed. So pls enlight me what fit does that zealot have? Your inability to fit a Zealot does not a proper argument for balance make. The ship in question is the new 5-turret version currently on SiSi and will in all likeliness make it to Tranq. Can an Amarrian player explain to me why a 34km optimal range (or 40km with a TC/TE) doing full DPS on a ship that can be setup very similarly (albeight slower) is not overpowered while a ship with 23km falloff (or 26km using a TE) doing HALF of the Amarrian counterpart is not imbalanced? But this is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Instead of all the useless counter arguments provided by the Amarr players, run some numbers. I already have but they went ignored for some reason. Compare a 3 Gyrostabilizer Vagabond to a 1 Tracking Enhancer 2 Gyrostabilizer Vagabond at their optimal ranges, and at 18km using Barrage M at all ranges. Use the EVE player guide to incorporate the tracking bonus as well. You will find the 'HUEG DAMAGEG BOOST' in the order of 4-8 DPS at range while losing 40+ DPS under 10km, but see this yourself. Stop posting baseless arguments and come back with real numbers and proof. More arm waving will lead to no real conclusion to this discussion. I'll provide you one reason. The first and foremost reason there is. 34km optimal doesn't mean jack if you cannot keep your target tackled and in place. (Right! So let's keep all our ships at 40km away! I'm sure our targets won't move or warp away!) It's called doing proper combat in EVE, not with numbers. I believe Goumindong or someone else already posted some numbers anyway some pages ago. Also, range advantage for energy turrets. RANGE advantage. Means LESS TRACKING. Advantage/disadvantage anyone? Cogito ergo boom - I think i'll blow sht up* Originally by: CCP Explorer I know we have said this before, but this time we really mean itÖ
Lady Octavia	Posted - 2008.02.07 18:14:00 - [357] Originally by: Ariel Dawn The ship in question is the new 5-turret version currently on SiSi.... Stop posting baseless arguments and come back with real numbers and proof. More arm waving will lead to no real conclusion to this discussion. I like when ppl say to use real datas then they use SISI ships in their arguments. Oh and you say vaga dps is **** at 20km (because there ac suck and vagas only fight at this range???) then comparing TE against gyro it suddenly within 10km(because there TE cant offer much). Summary you compare vaga vs other ships at range where vaga should not fight, and compare TE against gyro where vaga should not fight eighter, nice...
Selia Rain	Posted - 2008.02.07 18:15:00 - [358] Give tracking computers a falloff script, problem solved? Of course, this would be a major boost to all minmatar dps platforms, it would become the -must fit- midslot item for your autopest, mael, hurricane, and vargur(perhaps more), boosting battleship and even cruiser falloff to obscene ranges when used in conjunction with barrage. Admittedly, you can do this with rigs already, but if the script was available, you'd be able to use tank, speed, or damage/rof rigs instead. Also you could fit without sacrificing powergrid to the rig gods, which falloff rigs force you to, even with high skills. Vaga with 2x TC II and falloff scripts and a falloff rig? Sure, your tank suffers slightly(and by slightly I mean...), but hey, you can hit at 40km with autos! Infact, fit 2 on your gank mega and watch them squirm as you beat them down like a blasterrokh, only with massive dps! Amazing! In other words, I actually support the idea of some falloff boosting module, but it really would have to be balanced carefully.
Ariel Dawn Beets and Gravy Syndicate	Posted - 2008.02.07 19:52:00 - [359] Originally by: Lady Octavia Originally by: Ariel Dawn The ship in question is the new 5-turret version currently on SiSi.... Stop posting baseless arguments and come back with real numbers and proof. More arm waving will lead to no real conclusion to this discussion. I like when ppl say to use real datas then they use SISI ships in their arguments. Oh and you say vaga dps is **** at 20km (because there ac suck and vagas only fight at this range???) then comparing TE against gyro it suddenly within 10km(because there TE cant offer much). Summary you compare vaga vs other ships at range where vaga should not fight, and compare TE against gyro where vaga should not fight eighter, nice... What are you talking about? The Zealot is getting 5 turrets and is only being used as a comparison in regards to balance. And you should read the thread before making such posts. I compared the within-web range for a Vagabond because the Amarr whine brigade said that the only ships Minmatar want to stay out of web range are Gallente blasterboats and within range for everything else; and that this would be a sufficient counter to the effects of tracking disruptors according to them. Since they're the Minmatar PvP experts, I provided this information. I also compared DPS values at different ranges in a previous post. I suggest reading it; I am not providing range/DPS comparisons based on random distances. Im really confused. Some people say to enter web-range to counter the effects of tracking disruptors affecting falloff, and then others say Minmatar should never enter web range. Also, this thread truley is comedy gold. Some Amarrians complain about how powerful 40km Rapier/Huginn webs are and then when confronted with high-DPS 40km Zealots argue that they can't hold down a target there anyway. Such double standards! Last time I checked Zealots and Minmatar Recons fit the same Warp Disruptors. And unlike you may seem to think, solo PvP is practically non-existent and is entirely gang based (despite the Zealot being superior to the Vagabond nano-fit in that field anyway), what would you rather have as FC in your fleet? A 40km high-DPS moving 3km/s or a 20km ship doing 50% less DPS than the 40km variant but moving 4.5km/s. But of course the retort to this will be one with no actual proof. I brought numbers that seem to imply that falloff on TEs/TCs would be fine and a very insignifican DPS boost (but allow to counter TDs slightly), no real counter has been provided (re-read the thread, no solid #s by the Amarr whiners). Furthermore, exactly why would increasing the DPS of the worst tanking, lowest DPS race be exactly a bad thing? ACs with 2 damage bonuses do less raw DPS at optimal than Blasters/Pulses with one, factor in falloff and the non-specialized slot layouts on Minmatar ships and you've got a pretty ho-hum race. Don't respond without arguments backed by logic and proof. Show me I'm wrong and I'll concede. Don't provide useless chatter about things you know nothing about (IE Amarrian experts on Minmatar ship combat).
Dromidas Shadowmoon Minmatar 54th Knights Templar Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2008.02.07 20:37:00 - [360] I'm glad Ariel Dawn is around to actually devote time to making factual based arguments. :) But everyone knows Amarr is a religious race, which is why all of their arguments and facts are based on faith, not evidence. :( _______________________________________________ Minmatar will always go faster than you, get over it.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.