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
Lisento Slaven Amarr The Drekla Consortium New Eve Order	Posted - 2008.02.07 21:22:00 - [361] Originally by: Selia Rain 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. This. The implementation of another falloff boosting module would be extremely beneficial to ships that rely entirely on falloff. It would have to be balanced very carefully even if the mods are stacking penalized. --- Put in space whales!
Dromidas Shadowmoon Minmatar 54th Knights Templar Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2008.02.07 21:55:00 - [362] Edited by: Dromidas Shadowmoon on 07/02/2008 21:57:28 Originally by: Lisento Slaven Originally by: Selia Rain 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. This. The implementation of another falloff boosting module would be extremely beneficial to ships that rely entirely on falloff. It would have to be balanced very carefully even if the mods are stacking penalized. The implementatin of a falloff reducing module would be extremely detrimental to ships that rely entirely on falloff (read: every single minmatar ship). It would have to be balanced very carefully (by introducing the ability to counter being crippled) even if the penalties are affected by stacking. Your argument is the same as mine, new things introduced that affect an entire race or line of ships must be implemented very carefully. Perhaps instead of tracking computers/enhancers (and sensor boosters) increasing the stats they affect, they decrease penalties that get applied. example: 100 scan resolution ship player turns on their sensor booster, which decreases penalty by 25% (arbitrary number) Some guy comes along with a sensor dampener that does -40% scan resolution reduction and uses it on the ship. 40% is his reduction, and the Sensor Booster decreases that by 25%, so the penalty would be 30%. 100 scan resolution would turn into 70 scan resolution, instead of 60 scan resolution. Example2: 2 ships with -40% sensor dampeners use them on the 100 scan resolution ship. 100 would turn to about 40 scan resolution (his sensor booster reduces both other ships penalty to -30% instead of -40%) Something like this could work just as well with falloff or optimal or tracking (or maybe even ECM or web) You could tone AB to being +50% speed and MWD to being +150% and make the AB reduce webbing penalty by 25% and MWD reduce webbing penalty by 50%. (also arbitrarily picked values) This would allow speed tanking to be a viable option while keeping speed from becoming fast enough to avoid an entire fleet. _______________________________________________ Minmatar will always go faster than you, get over it.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.08 03:56:00 - [363] Originally by: Trigos Trilobi 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. Blah blah blah blah Blasters 1 te + 2 dmg > 3 dmg AC 1 te + 2 dmg > 3 dmg lasers 1 te+ 2 dmg ~= 3 dmg[tracking increase increases DPS in short range missiles 1 te +2 dmg < 3 dmg[tranversal is useless] Two >'s, one equal, one worse. Add them up. Originally by: Ariel Dawn Please read. 173 is Vagabond Turret DPS when at Optimal + Falloff. Blah blah blah blah This is disingenious. A ship with 0 optimal and 200km falloff does 39.5% of its listed DPS at its optimal+falloff. A ship with 0km optimal and 1km falloff does 39.5% of its listed dps at its optimal + falloff. Oh **, you increase the falloff by factor of 200 and DPS doesnt go up!!! Yes, it does go up. Originally by:** Dromidas Shadowmoon The implementatin of a falloff reducing module would be extremely detrimental to ships that rely entirely on falloff (read: every single minmatar ship). It would have to be balanced very carefully (by introducing the ability to counter being crippled) even if the penalties are affected by stacking. Incorrect. All it does is let the "turret range ewar" actually affect the range of all turrets.
Gamesguy Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.02.08 04:15:00 - [364] Quote: The implementatin of a falloff reducing module would be extremely detrimental to ships that rely entirely on falloff (read: every single minmatar ship). It would have to be balanced very carefully (by introducing the ability to counter being crippled) even if the penalties are affected by stacking. About as detrimental as an optimal range reducing module against amarr ships that rely entirely on optimal. Whats the matter? Dont like it when the shoe is on the other foot? And the whole nonsense about TCs is just that, nonsense, as if amarr had the midslots to fit TCs to "counter" TDs before. And before you mention TEs, amarr ships have to give up tank to do it, there is no such thing as an "utility lowslot", while there are utility midslots on many 5 midslot ships.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.08 04:22:00 - [365] Edited by: Goumindong on 08/02/2008 04:24:19 Originally by: Ariel Dawn 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. Your inability to provide the Zealot fit in question does lend credibility to the claim that it does not exist. A single LSE vagabond has 6000 EHP or so more than a Zealot. A double about 13k EHP[over twice as much EHP]. A vagabond that only goes 3000m/s has 30k EHP[but why you would fit that i dont know], nearly 400 gun dps with barrage and a falloff of 29km, pluse 128 supplimentary dps. A Zealot with a damage control and 2 eanms has 20k ehp and goes 3km/s. It has no supplimnetary DPS and has no way of defending itself from ships with webs. I would say it does 406 DPS with 5 heavy pulse lasers at 35km with scorch. But it wont. And that is because it has run out of CPU. In fact the 4 HP version has run out of CPU long ago[I say this because using an injector as a cap mod is foolish because you can fit a total of six cap booster 800s in your hold, and this is actually more than normal because you are only using one overdrive. But even then you cant fit 5 HPIIs and 2 damage mods on the proposed setup with an injector and WDII]. This put its final DPS in the supposed setup at 338.75. The point at which this becomes higher than the DPS of the comparable vagabond is at 25.9km. Not to mention that the ship will die to the first decently fast ship it encounters with a web. The 5 turret Zealot has a role now, and can make a pretty strong nano-ship due to its high DPS and long range. But it is not nearly as strong as you are making it out to be.
DennoTheHunter Caldari Kernkraft 400	Posted - 2008.02.08 05:47:00 - [366] Originally by: Goumindong Blasters 1 te + 2 dmg > 3 dmg AC 1 te + 2 dmg > 3 dmg lasers 1 te+ 2 dmg ~= 3 dmg[tracking increase increases DPS in short range missiles 1 te +2 dmg < 3 dmg[tranversal is useless] Why do you keep saying that? I've proved the exact oppesite a few post back. Ok they give more tracking too, but in that range both targets are webbed anyway, so tracking in none existant, making that argument useless. _____________________ If I am in a fair fight.... Something went wrong!
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.08 06:07:00 - [367] Edited by: Goumindong on 08/02/2008 06:13:34 Originally by: DennoTheHunter Originally by: Goumindong Blasters 1 te + 2 dmg > 3 dmg AC 1 te + 2 dmg > 3 dmg lasers 1 te+ 2 dmg ~= 3 dmg[tracking increase increases DPS in short range missiles 1 te +2 dmg < 3 dmg[tranversal is useless] Why do you keep saying that? I've proved the exact oppesite a few post back. Ok they give more tracking too, but in that range both targets are webbed anyway, so tracking in none existant, making that argument useless. 1. you didnt prove that. You showed that at 20km there is a 3.5% advantage for an AC pest using barrage at maxed skills. But the TE ship will not want to fight close to another AC ship because he knows he has the falloff mod giving him the advantage at range. And the 3 gyro ship has no such information and so has no preference. Keep in mind that this puts this threshold at 5km for friagtes and 10km for cruisers. 2. Tracking is not non-existant.
DennoTheHunter Caldari Kernkraft 400	Posted - 2008.02.08 07:24:00 - [368] Originally by: Goumindong Edited by: Goumindong on 08/02/2008 06:13:34 Originally by: DennoTheHunter Originally by: Goumindong Blasters 1 te + 2 dmg > 3 dmg AC 1 te + 2 dmg > 3 dmg lasers 1 te+ 2 dmg ~= 3 dmg[tracking increase increases DPS in short range missiles 1 te +2 dmg < 3 dmg[tranversal is useless] Why do you keep saying that? I've proved the exact oppesite a few post back. Ok they give more tracking too, but in that range both targets are webbed anyway, so tracking in none existant, making that argument useless. 1. you didnt prove that. You showed that at 20km there is a 3.5% advantage for an AC pest using barrage at maxed skills. But the TE ship will not want to fight close to another AC ship because he knows he has the falloff mod giving him the advantage at range. And the 3 gyro ship has no such information and so has no preference. Keep in mind that this puts this threshold at 5km for frigates and 10km for cruisers. 2. Tracking is not non-existant. From where i come from, battles from 20km and under is a very common range to fight from. In that range 3x gyro will out damage 2x gyro and 1x TE. About tracking... From personal experience tracking is no problem at all in most cases. There's always at least one webbing the target in the fights I've been in, no matter what range I'm in. About the range... Well I've demonstrated that the gain of TC/TE in range is still small, and since the boost is percentage based, smaller ships will gain even less from it, and smaller ships generally have fewer slots, gimping the ship even more by fitting TE/TC in it. There really is no reason not to give TC/TE a falloff boost. _____________________ If I am in a fair fight.... Something went wrong!
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.08 08:21:00 - [369] Edited by: Goumindong on 08/02/2008 08:22:19 Your second to last paragraph makes less than zero sense with regards to the previous. You just said that battles below the 20km were common then you said that smaller ships which have falloffs in those ranges gain less from falloff rigs than ships that dont. From experience. Hitting isnt an issue, but the issue is how much you hit. Small changes make large differences which become large amounts of DPS. Falloff should not be added to TC/TE's. Its a range boost, AND a damage boost.
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.08 08:53:00 - [370] Originally by: Goumindong Blasters 1 te + 2 dmg > 3 dmg I'd be interested to hear how you came to this conclusion, unless you mean that crawling webbed through blaster optimal close enough to exploit your tracking advantage is a good idea. Quote: AC 1 te + 2 dmg > 3 dmg This might be true assuming you have speed advantage. Quote: lasers 1 te+ 2 dmg ~= 3 dmg[tracking increase increases DPS in short range Extra tracking only increases your dps if you have trouble tracking. Why would you have trouble tracking against a laser boat since you already have the tracking advantage? Quote: missiles 1 te +2 dmg < 3 dmg[tranversal is useless] Two >'s, one equal, one worse. Add them up. Your "two >'s" would be a lot more convincing if you'd bother to actually support them with some solid argumentation instead of stating them as a fact. Quote: Incorrect. All it does is let the "turret range ewar" actually affect the range of all turrets. Kinda like turret range mods increase range of all turrets? Oh wait.. Cute how you argue that +falloff is a damage mod, but -falloff is a range mod.

Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.08 09:07:00 - [371] Originally by: Goumindong But the TE ship will not want to fight close to another AC ship because he knows he has the falloff mod giving him the advantage at range. And the 3 gyro ship has no such information and so has no preference. Kinda onesided logic. The 3gyro fit has just as much information. He knows he has 3gyros, so he'll always go for optimal against other acs. 4gyro fits are not realistic, against 3gyro fits he gains or loses nothing, and against fits which have TE(s) instead of gyro(s) he'll have the advantage at short range. Arguably it's bit more risky for the TE fit, since he could run to a ship with 3gyros AND enough rigs to overcome his falloff advantage. The 3gyro ship can be pretty confident that he'll practically never meet anyone with more damagemods than him.
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.08 09:42:00 - [372] Originally by: Gamesguy And before you mention TEs, amarr ships have to give up tank to do it, there is no such thing as an "utility lowslot", while there are utility midslots on many 5 midslot ships. Yep, a considerable part of minmatar ships actually at the moment flies with completely empty low slots since they don't have to fit damage, tank or speed mods. Also fitting a TC in the mids is not going to be realistic for any short range boat, wether or not TC has falloff mod. Buffed up TD is going to give you same relative benefit, but triple strength.
Blutreiter Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades	Posted - 2008.02.08 10:24:00 - [373] Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Originally by: Gamesguy And before you mention TEs, amarr ships have to give up tank to do it, there is no such thing as an "utility lowslot", while there are utility midslots on many 5 midslot ships. Yep, a considerable part of minmatar ships actually at the moment flies with completely empty low slots since they don't have to fit damage, tank or speed mods. Also fitting a TC in the mids is not going to be realistic for any short range boat, wether or not TC has falloff mod. Buffed up TD is going to give you same relative benefit, but triple strength. Since you're so fond of demanding numbers as proof or dismissing them as necessary, can you back up that triple strength argument with some values? 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
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.08 10:38:00 - [374] Edited by: Trigos Trilobi on 08/02/2008 10:39:22 Originally by: Blutreiter Since you're so fond of demanding numbers as proof or dismissing them as necessary, can you back up that triple strength argument with some values? Well I'm actually at work and unable to check exact numbers now so the 'triple effect' was just wild guess more than exact number. However if you consider ships with equal tracking, increasing your tracking by 15% gives you 15% relative tracking advantage, while decreasing your opponents by 50% gives you 100% relative advantage. So that'd be over 6 times relative advantage with TD instead of TC. Assuming TC is +15% range/falloff. That's also the reason why TE/TCs are largely irrelevant as a counter, you'd need 4+ mods to counter 1 TD, and that's only if there was no stacking penalty. You'd need a +100% positive mod to counter that 1 TD with -50%.
Blutreiter Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades	Posted - 2008.02.08 10:51:00 - [375] Edited by: Blutreiter on 08/02/2008 10:52:51 Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Edited by: Trigos Trilobi on 08/02/2008 10:39:22 Well I'm actually at work and unable to check exact numbers now so the 'triple effect' was just wild guess more than exact number. However if you consider ships with equal tracking, increasing your tracking by 15% gives you 15% relative tracking advantage, while decreasing your opponents by 50% gives you 100% relative advantage. So that'd be over 6 times relative advantage with TD instead of TC. Assuming TC is +15% range/falloff. That's also the reason why TE/TCs are largely irrelevant as a counter, you'd need 4+ mods to counter 1 TD, and that's only if there was no stacking penalty. You'd need a +100% positive mod to counter that 1 TD with -50%. You still forget one thing and that's actual application. All those theories are fine and dandy but I know for one, that there is in fact a sweet spot with tracking, apart from wrecking hits -> you can track or you can't. So that's a VERY relative advantage. I found out the hard way that even with 2 tracking disruptors against a turret boat, you're toast if you rely on that and it closes in on you. As for range, if you're getting weapon disrupted just get closer to your enemy. Nothing prevents you from doing damage. Full damage. Since all the previous btching and whining largely centers around autocannons ONLY, please remember we're talking about losing like... what? 7 km off a 20km falloff range? (estimate) With current ship fittings, considering you like to dictate distance with e.g. a nanofit to keep you at your preferred range, don't you think that you can get 7 km closer very VERY fast? As in 4 km/s fast? Less than 2 seconds? I still say, no falloff boni on tracking enhancers and computers (which you won't fit anyway on any common fitting as you said) and give Tracking disruptors half the falloff penalty than optimal, which would translate to equal range reduction in both cases. 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 - 2008.02.08 11:09:00 - [376] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 08/02/2008 11:15:50 Originally by: Gamesguy About as detrimental as an optimal range reducing module against amarr ships that rely entirely on optimal. Whats the matter? Dont like it when the shoe is on the other foot? And the whole nonsense about TCs is just that, nonsense, as if amarr had the midslots to fit TCs to "counter" TDs before. Name one Minmatar ship that doesn't sacrifice something by fitting a TC. Yeah. Tempest. However, fact of the matter is that fitting a TD is a better choice, since TDs are just that more powerful and give you a better comparative advantage. So say hello to the new utility module on ships with spare mids. Guess which ships have spare midslots? Well, it's definitely not Amarr and Minmatar aren't so stellar in that department either except on a few T2 ships (come to think of it, there's massive advantages of fitting one TD on a Huggin/Rapier which previously couldn't really solo a mid-range boat) and the Tempest. Originally by: Gamesguy And before you mention TEs, amarr ships have to give up tank to do it, there is no such thing as an "utility lowslot", while there are utility midslots on many 5 midslot ships. I look forward to Myrmidons and stuff with actual extra midslots using TDs en masse versus preety much everyone else Quote: I still say, no falloff boni on tracking enhancers and computers (which you won't fit anyway on any common fitting as you said) and give Tracking disruptors half the falloff penalty than optimal, which would translate to equal range reduction in both cases. I could live with this, but give the Amarr recons/EAF/Arbitrator bigger bonuses to TDs (for example, 10% bonus to TD effectiveness to the Arbitrator/Curse/Pilgrim/EAF) and reduce the base unbonused TD effectiveness to 83% of their current effectiveness (making them have the same effect when used on bonused ships and reduced effect on unbonused ships). Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail mods@ccpgames.com ~Saint
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.08 11:17:00 - [377] Originally by: Blutreiter You still forget one thing and that's actual application. All those theories are fine and dandy but I know for one, that there is in fact a sweet spot with tracking, apart from wrecking hits -> you can track or you can't. So that's a VERY relative advantage. I found out the hard way that even with 2 tracking disruptors against a turret boat, you're toast if you rely on that and it closes in on you. Yes it's a relative advantage, that's why the power level difference between TC and TD is relevant and that's why fitting TD instead of TC (on short range fits) is almost always better. Eg, consider that you have 80% of your opponents tracking. If you have speed advantage, both of you will hit 100%. If he has speed advantage, he can exploit your low tracking and reduce the damage you can do to him. If you add 1 tc with 15% tracking, you still have 5% less tracking than him, so either you gain no benefit (you have speed advantage) or you can do closer to your max dps but still miss some. If you instead have a TD and disrupt his tracking, suddenly you have 60% more tracking than him (you have 80% of his base, he now has only 50%). If you have speed advantage, you can considerably lower the dps he can do, if he has speed advantage, you'll both do 100% dps. Quote: As for range, if you're getting weapon disrupted just get closer to your enemy. Nothing prevents you from doing damage. Full damage. Again its a matter of relative advantages. If you have speed advantage, you can choose the range. The one with range advantage can only benefit from that advantage until that speed advantage negates it. This can be a short while or a long while depending on ships and wether we're talking web range or not. If your opponent has both range AND speed advantage, your options are limited to either reducing his range or increasing yours. Consider 10km range on one ship and 20km on other. 1TC gives the underdog 11.5km range, a negligible benefit for most part. 1TD otoh brings the opponent down to 10km range, totally negating his range advantage. Hence, TD is again considerably more useful than TC. Both range and tracking mean nothing by themselves, it's the relation between your range/tracking vs your opponents that gives them any meaning. Hence TC almost always loses to a TD. Note my point was not about wether or not range or tracking disadvantage can be compensated with other means, I was only comparing the two modules in relation to the 'extra med slot' argument brought up in the post that I replied to.
Alek Row Minmatar Silent Step	Posted - 2008.02.08 11:52:00 - [378] Originally by: Goumindong Incorrect. All it does is let the "turret range ewar" actually affect the range of all turrets. This is incorrect since it will not affect equally. Optimal dependent guns have plenty of usable and easy switchable counters, and drones, and missiles, and rigs. Falloff depende guns have drones, missiles and rigs. I understand that increasing the falloff with falloff scripts may be difficult to balance, but I still don't see a reason why shouldn't TCs/TEs have a dynamic property that increases falloff only when the gun is disrupted. And no, I don't want EW immunity, I want to have a chance of fitting something that I can easilly replace later that atenuate TD's effect to a certain extent when I'm fighting in falloff. The inclusion of this new dynamic bonus in current TCs/TEs seems logical but I have no ideia of how hard would be to code this change.
Kagura Nikon Minmatar Infinity Enterprises Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.02.08 11:56:00 - [379] Originally by: Goumindong Edited by: Goumindong on 08/02/2008 08:31:04 Edited by: Goumindong on 08/02/2008 08:22:19 Your second to last paragraph makes less than zero sense with regards to the previous. You just said that battles below the 20km were common then you said that smaller ships which have falloffs in those ranges gain less from falloff rigs than ships that dont. From experience. Hitting isnt an issue, but the issue is how much you hit. Small changes make large differences which become significant percentages of DPS. Falloff should not be added to TC/TE's. Its a range boost, AND a damage boost. That is wrong. Falloff bonus is ONLY a damage boost at a given fixed range. Or ONLY a range boost at a given fixed damage. You cannot use both at same time on its plenitude. You can only use both at same time if using them only partially (for example fight 10% further range when you got 20% extra falloff). And following you same assumption that its both damage and range boost. I must say, Track disruptors cannot affect Falloff, because its both a range penalty and a damage penalty! Both sides of the coin are the same, if its unfair to have falloff bonuses then its unfair to have falloff penalties. ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Diomidis Amarr Mythos Corp RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.02.08 12:01:00 - [380] Stop reporting imaginary fits with 5x MP II + 3x HS II to prove your weak arguments. Zealot is hard to fit as it is with 4x turrets and 3x heat sinks. It's raw DPS and a buffer EHP tank are much lower than a standard-fitted Vaga that also speed-tanks much better. 1 vs. 1, and the Vaga has the much more dependable DPS from a ML and 5x Drones. That's balance folks. They knew that the Vaga won't track, nor have the effective range of MP...that's why it has missiles and 25m3 drone bay the first place. That's why a Zealot won't get a drone bay at all, despite it's easier to run out of cap, has less EHP, speed and theoretical range. If range was everything, Sniper-Zealots, Muninns and Eagles. But it seams like Vagas are "everything", and blah-blah cannot hide this fact. And FFS, no FC would prefer a Zealot over a Vaga, unless he would setup a cruiser class sniper team. The Vaga is not a dmg dealer, tho it has respectable dps for a nano-gang ship. It can scout, it has superior buffer tank that heals over time passively and comfortably can use thermal drones that really hurt T2 amarrians when it comes to 1vs1... TEs cannot and will never be better than a scripted TC, and neither should ever be more effective than a TD, cause the TD was made to counter TC/TE, and NOT vice versa! TC/TE are not ECCM. TDs affected effectively only 1/4 of the available weapon systems with both it's scripts, even BEFORE scripts that was pretty limiting it's usage. Now it can hurt 3/4 of them, but not at the same time. If you think TDs are going to be so poweful, why not use them yourself? I cannot imagine many ships that would benefit more of TD other than medium sized nano ships, and I believe a Vaga is one of them...just like both ships use webs in your imaginary fights, make both a Vaga and a zealot or whatever use TDs and there u go - things are back to "normal"...

DennoTheHunter Caldari Kernkraft 400	Posted - 2008.02.08 12:19:00 - [381] Edited by: DennoTheHunter on 08/02/2008 12:19:30 Originally by: Goumindong Edited by: Goumindong on 08/02/2008 08:31:04 Edited by: Goumindong on 08/02/2008 08:22:19 Your second to last paragraph makes less than zero sense with regards to the previous. You just said that battles below the 20km were common then you said that smaller ships which have falloffs in those ranges gain less from falloff rigs than ships that dont. From experience. Hitting isnt an issue, but the issue is how much you hit. Small changes make large differences which become significant percentages of DPS. Falloff should not be added to TC/TE's. Its a range boost, AND a damage boost. I think you're getting confused. What i did say is, smaller ships gain even less from TE/TC since they have only halve/quad the falloff, with the exception of ships with range bonus(Note: large ac's only get a 4,5 k boost in falloff for the first falloff mod). Lets make a few calculations with small, medium and large ac's falloff with barrage and max skills. Large AC -> 30 k falloff With 1x falloff mod -> 34,5 k Increase -> 4,5 k Nothing you can brag about and in terms of dps the gain is very little in a normal pvp range (0-20k). Medium AC -> 15 k With 1x falloff mod -> 17,3 k Increase -> 2,3 k Won't make a noticable difference in a normal PvP scenario. Maybe nano ships can use it, but then they either have to sacrifice tank or speed. Small AC -> 7,5 k With 1x falloff mod -> 8,6 k Increase -> 1,1 k That's not worth it especially since small ships have very few slots to play with. That's what i tried to say about range, but you seem to completely have misunderstood me. About hitting, as i said in a normal fight there's always one webbing the enemy, or else you're doing something wrong (unless it's at a belt, planet or something). If you then consider range, at 20 k a falloff mod only increases with 8 % with large ac's, and the dps boost gets smaller as closer you get. If you fight at an even longer range, then your dps gets very low (due to how falloff works) and/or you can't scramble the target. All i'm doing is trying to work out how TC/TE gonna work in a normal everyday pvp scenario, which where it counts. And as far I've found out, TE/TC won't get anywhere near overpowered. So my point of view stands. For me at least all you're post are more or less fail. _____________________ If I am in a fair fight.... Something went wrong!
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.08 13:10:00 - [382] Since it's a slow day at work I found myself contemplating about the argument that +falloff gives more benefit than optimal mod. Turning this around, then, -falloff should be bigger penalty than -optimal. A cig and a bottle of coke later I found myself thinking about the aforementioned relative advantages in terms of old vs new TDs. Old TD: AC+TD vs Blaster -> AC gains increased range and tracking advantage. AC+TD vs Laser -> AC gains bigger tracking advantage, Laser has reduced range advantage. Blaster+TD vs AC -> Blaster gains tracking advantage,ac range advantage reduced insignificantly Blaster+TD vs laser -> Blaster gains bigger tracking advantage, reduced laser range advantage Laser+TD vs AC-> Laser gains tracking advantage and improves its range advantage insignificantly Laser+TD vs blaster -> Laser gains tracking advantage and improves range advantage slightly New TD: AC+TD vs laser -> identical AC+TD vs blaster -> identical Blaster+TD vs AC -> Blaster negates ac range advantage, and gains tracking advantage Blaster+TD vs laser -> identical Laser+TD vs ac -> laser gains tracking advantage, improves range advantage Laser+TD vs blaster -> laser gains tracking advantage, improves range advantage What does it tell us then? First of all, TDs were not broken. Their ineffectiveness stems from webs making exploiting the tracking penalty properly too problematic. The old tds follow a very obvious logic which deals with the relative advantages and disadvantages different weapon types have against each other. Furthermore amarr are somewhat compensated for the easier exploiting of optimal penalty by making totally negating their advantage impossible with only 1 unbonused TD. On new TDs this logic is broken, which manifests itself best when you compare blaster vs ac. In this light my suggestion of replacing optimal penalty with missile explosion radius penalty was bit off the mark. Better idea would be just to add a script for missile explosion radius penalty and keep the optimal penalty. This would genuinely increase the amount of valid targets, instead of just making using TDs easier against same set of targets.
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2008.02.08 13:21:00 - [383] Originally by: Trigos Trilobi .... No, TDs should only be viable on amarr ew ships. This means a serious nerf to their effectiveness but a boost on the dedicated ships. Now youre saying ACs get affected without them being able to do anything about it right? Well, you see amarr ew ships also have nos/neut as an ew, its there to tank them but against a AC boat this doesnt help because THEY WORK WITHOUT CAP. I see no problem in TDs now destroying ACs aswell as blaster and lasers. Its fine.
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.02.08 13:28:00 - [384] Originally by: Amira Shadowsong No, TDs should only be viable on amarr ew ships. This means a serious nerf to their effectiveness but a boost on the dedicated ships. This is absolutely necessary, otherwise we'll be seeing TDs on everyone but Amarr ships, or it is the new 'must have' thing for the spare midslot ships really (being that it would be far more powerful then any other ewar you can fit in just one mid). Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail mods@ccpgames.com ~Saint
Ariel Dawn Beets and Gravy Syndicate	Posted - 2008.02.08 13:59:00 - [385] Originally by: Diomidis I don't know what I'm talking about Don't tell me to use 'imaginary' fits when your Amarrian friends are doing the same for the Vagabond. It is very very rare to have three Gyrostabilizers on them as well. Fitting a missile launcher on a Vagabond is a horrible idea compared to the module that solves it's most immediate problem (getting webbed by an interceptor) and shows that you either do not fly the ship or if you do, follow the lemmings in the FotM setups. Furthurmore you claim that drones are a dependable source of DPS; last time I checked you can't destroy turrets nor outrun them forever causing them to MWD-Coast-MWD-Coast, etc. Your inability to fit ships properly, again, is not an argument for balance. All FCs would prefer Zealots for actual added DPS in a nano-gang. Vagabonds perform better at the role of tackling because of their slightly better shield-based (recharging) buffer tank and the fact that they operate within disruptor range anyway. Then you talk about some useless junk that shows you haven't read the thread. The general consensus was to add falloff equal to the optimal amounts present on TCs/TEs, not to overbalance them (like the current Amarr changes sadly) in favor of falloff. And I will be using tracking disruptors myself should they be introduced as their current version on SiSi on certain ships. A Vagabond using it's midslots for ewar instead of a buffer tank is a great way to be sent on a trip to the market as soon as anything sneezes at you. And the comparisons I use are what Amarrian players brought up as 'arguments'; neither ship would be using tracking disruptors in a real fight but they do serve a point as showing how hypocritical the Amarrian players are when they argue that a Vagabond going from 175 to 180-185 turret DPS at 18-20km (while dropping 45-50 DPS within web range) is imbalanced while their own HAC-equivalent can reach almost 500 DPS at 40km optimal. Goumindong, I was hoping you'd reply with the clear-cut and logical arguments I recall seeing from you long before these Amarrian changes and raves had affected you. It is impossible for a Vagabond to reach 400 turret DPS using Barrage M, even while sitting at optimal using high-end officer gyrostabilizers and implants, let alone at the real ranges Vagabonds operate at. ___ Really the issue is thus: Amarrian players believe Minmatar ships getting 5-10 more DPS (closer to 15 DPS for battleships) by using a MIDSLOT Tracking Computer (I will assuming Tracking Enhancers are fine as they use up a lowslot that may have been using for a Gyrostabilizer and perform worse in the short-range distances than setups using the latter; hence a fitting decision for the players). Hence, a tracking computer would act as a damage module for a midslot. Tracking Disruptors work against all turret based races. Gallente are affected if they cannot close the range. Amarr also suffer, but have incredibly long ranges and can instantly change their ammo type to mostly nullify the range-effect of Tracking Disruptors. TDs cut Minmatar DPS massively when they are operating outside of web range (near 75% DPS loss) and they have no ammo-switching solution like Amarr. Tracking Computers provide a large amount of optimal to Amarr, and a decent amount to Gallente. Tracking Computers provide no range whatsoever to Minmatar ACs due to their non-existant optimal. Therefore, Tracking Computers themselves are imbalanced towards Minmatar due to not providing any benefit whatsoever concerning range and thus adding falloff to them would actually balance the benefits they provide against that which they currently give to Amarr ships (and to a lesser extent Gallente/Caldari). The increase in Minmatar DPS is very slight and only increases it by a few points. It does not add a DPS increase that would cause them to be doing any more than Amarr/Gallente, and requires sacrificing a midslot to do so, which are an extremely vital slot for Minmatards.
Diomidis Amarr Mythos Corp RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.02.08 14:18:00 - [386] Originally by: Ariel Dawn Originally by: Diomidis I don't know what I'm talking about Don't tell me to use 'imaginary' fits when your Amarrian friends are doing the same for the Vagabond I wasn't trying to promo either the Zealot nor the Vaga when referring to imaginary fits. And I know that a Zealot is more viable as a damage dealer if it goes for 3x HS, unlike the Vaga. Read first, flame later... Originally by: Ariel Dawn All FCs would prefer Zealots for actual added DPS in a nano-gang. Vagabonds perform better at the role of tackling because of their slightly better shield-based (recharging) buffer tank and the fact that they operate within disruptor range anyway. All FCs and most "roamers" prefer the Vaga cause its THAT faster in order to speed tank and get in range WAY more effectively, thus being better for tackling. Whether FCs should prefer the Zealot for that matter, is an argument left to be "proven" in-game. That won't make either ship useless, but...the Vaga is surely a more effective tackler.
Diomidis Amarr Mythos Corp RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.02.08 14:46:00 - [387] Edited by: Diomidis on 08/02/2008 14:46:13 Originally by: Ariel Dawn And I will be using tracking disruptors myself should they be introduced as their current version on SiSi on certain ships. A Vagabond using it's midslots for ewar instead of a buffer tank is a great way to be sent on a trip to the market as soon as anything sneezes at you. And the comparisons I use are what Amarrian players brought up as 'arguments'; neither ship would be using tracking disruptors in a real fight but they do serve a point as showing how hypocritical the Amarrian players are when they argue that a Vagabond going from 175 to 180-185 turret DPS at 18-20km (while dropping 45-50 DPS within web range) is imbalanced while their own HAC-equivalent can reach almost 500 DPS at 40km optimal. Hypocrisy is to claim that you "know" and that you "read" (unlike others), when you claim that the vaga is not viable without 2x LSEs, while more viable with an "anti-ceptor" high slot module vs. a launcher...others fly with webbers of their own, others with Cap Boosters, all depriving them of an LSE...your preference proves nothing, neither you offensive attitude. Originally by: Ariel Dawn Tracking Disruptors work against all turret based races. Gallente are affected if they cannot close the range. Amarr also suffer, but have incredibly long ranges and can instantly change their ammo type to mostly nullify the range-effect of Tracking Disruptors. TDs cut Minmatar DPS massively when they are operating outside of web range (near 75% DPS loss) and they have no ammo-switching solution like Amarr. Emm...TDs affect all turrets' tracking, but optimal range's reduction for short range weapons was unfavorably unbalanced towards lasers. Stop trying to make ppl laugh when mentioning ammo versatility and lasers vs. ACs...have mercy! All comparisons use T2 ammo with tracking penalties. Vs. a short range faction ammo loaded Zealot a Vaga could speed tank it and bring it down with drones and missiles alone Originally by: Ariel Dawn Tracking Computers provide a large amount of optimal to Amarr, and a decent amount to Gallente. Tracking Computers provide no range whatsoever to Minmatar ACs due to their non-existant optimal. Therefore, Tracking Computers themselves are imbalanced towards Minmatar due to not providing any benefit whatsoever concerning range and thus adding falloff to them would actually balance the benefits they provide against that which they currently give to Amarr ships (and to a lesser extent Gallente/Caldari). The increase in Minmatar DPS is very slight and only increases it by a few points. It does not add a DPS increase that would cause them to be doing any more than Amarr/Gallente, and requires sacrificing a midslot to do so, which are an extremely vital slot Yes, you are right about the TCs...these med-slots are valuable, but sniper BSs other than amarr spare these, and because of fitting needs etc, Amarr BSs find it way more difficult to actually fit TCs CPU wise...more-over the built-in range bonuses in Projectile and Hybrid are far superior than these in Tachyons, moreover on Beams. The so called "range advantage" is there just for pulses and scorch, and really counts for the Zealot and the BSs actually. In fleet battles the fall-off bonus would further increase the built-in artie and railguns' range advantage, favored also by the "easier to spare" mid slots in Minmatar and Gallente BSs, and the limited range of the TD's compaired to ECM and Damps. So, since TC/TEs should be booster for the TD's not to be overpowered, the TDs should at least OPERATE at the ranges in question. So stop thinking short-range only, and realize that you "minor" changers and meh 10-15dps gain due to fall-off increase, is just a side-effect of a vast range increase you are just proposing. I'm up for fall-off bonuses in TC/TEs only if the ammo bonuses or base attributes are re-balanced.go for the "ship-equalization"[:
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.08 15:22:00 - [388] Edited by: Goumindong on 08/02/2008 15:22:58 Originally by: Trigos Trilobi I'd be interested to hear how you came to this conclusion, unless you mean that crawling webbed through blaster optimal close enough to exploit your tracking advantage is a good idea. Why are you in blaster optimal? You dont exploit the tracking against blasters you exploit the falloff. Quote: Extra tracking only increases your dps if you have trouble tracking. Why would you have trouble tracking against a laser boat since you already have the tracking advantage? Because tracking is not a linear function where you can easily attain max hit rate while reducing the hit rate of others. As well, since the hit quality falls off, reducing opponents hit percentage farther than would if you would still be tracking well is optimal play for both 3gyro and 2 gyro/1 te setups. Quote: It's as much a damage boost as +optimal is. Both allow you to project your dps further out, ie increase your range. Only if you typically operate in falloff. Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Kinda onesided logic. The 3gyro fit has just as much information. He knows he has 3gyros, so he'll always go for optimal against other acs. No. This depends on the type of tank he is fitting, and is sub-optimal play anyway. Because getting to optimal is more risky, even against AC ships, leaving the option to flee is smarter. Such with two choices "easier to flee, but no disadvantage" or "harder to flee, but a disadvantage" its clear what choice to make. Originally by: DennoTheHunter What i did say is, smaller ships gain even less from TE/TC since they have only halve/quad the falloff, with the exception of ships with range bonus(Note: large ac's only get a 4,5 k boost in falloff for the first falloff mod). I dont think you understand the concept of "percentage" ill give you a hint. It doesnt matter if you change the ranges involved, the amount better throughout the falloff of a given ship is a steady value. Moving these values towards web/scram range only increases the strengths of the AC ships because within those ranges it is easier to modulate range than it is outside of those ranges.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.08 15:27:00 - [389] Originally by: Ariel Dawn Don't tell me to use 'imaginary' fits when your Amarrian friends are doing the same for the Vagabond. It is very very rare to have three Gyrostabilizers on them as well. Fitting a missile launcher on a Vagabond is a horrible idea compared to the module that solves it's most immediate problem (getting webbed by an interceptor) and shows that you either do not fly the ship or if you do, follow the lemmings in the FotM setups. You cannot fit 6 autocannons on a vagabond, so right after that the best module you are looking at is a missile launcher. Quote: All FCs would prefer Zealots for actual added DPS in a nano-gang. Vagabonds perform better at the role of tackling because of their slightly better shield-based (recharging) buffer tank and the fact that they operate within disruptor range anyway. FCs would rather have a Cerberus because for actual added DPS they add as much or more with more agility and they add ewar which increases the tanks of ships all around, and they have the ability to do DPS that isnt EM. Quote: Goumindong, I was hoping you'd reply with the clear-cut and logical arguments I recall seeing from you long before these Amarrian changes and raves had affected you. It is impossible for a Vagabond to reach 400 turret DPS using Barrage M, even while sitting at optimal using high-end officer gyrostabilizers and implants, let alone at the real ranges Vagabonds operate at. No, its not. 5 220mm IIs with barrage and 3 damage mods is 384 before the launcher and drones. Upgrading some of them to 425s[which you can do on a 2LSE setup] Quote: Really the issue is thus: Amarrian players believe [...] TDs cut Minmatar DPS massively when they are operating outside of web range (near 75% DPS loss) and they have no ammo-switching solution like Amarr. 1. It has nothing to do with Amarran players. It has everything to do with the proper balance of short range ships 2. tracking disruptors work equally against all races except caldari. In fact, worse against minmitar because they traditionally have the most supplementary dps and the most spare med slots with which to fill with tracking disruptors. TD's cut the damage of all ships terribly when used for range. Against Amarr, its near 100% outside of web range, since most will go from hitting to not hitting at all, ever. Quote: Don't tell me to use 'imaginary' fits when your Amarrian friends are doing the same for the Vagabond. What imaginary fits. You are listing things that the Zealot supposedly does better than the vagabond. Such, you take a fit within the same parameters and compare them. Saying that the Zealot has more DPS than the vagabond while having only 3k less EHP and fitting an injector[which the vaga doesnt have] and going 3km/s means we can place those same restrictions on the vaga and see how it performs. If it performs better than the example Zealot, then the example zealot really doesnt have said advantages over the Vagabond. The simple fact is that falloff rigs are just fine and the same counter that TC's and TE's are to Amarr and Gallente for tracking disruptors. And that adding both med slot modules for gallente and Minmitar that extend their reach is delicate. You dont want to fit them and want to ignore them, but they are there and they are still the module you want.
DennoTheHunter Caldari Kernkraft 400	Posted - 2008.02.08 15:49:00 - [390] Originally by: Goumindong The simple fact is that falloff rigs are just fine and the same counter that TC's and TE's are to Amarr and Gallente for tracking disruptors. Plz stop putting that useless argument up again and again. You're basically saying we should remove TC/TE from the game, since every race can get extra optimal, falloff and tracking using rigs. That's a stupid way of balancing things. While we're at it, lets remove: Nanofibers, Overdrives, dmg modules, resistant modules and everything else where there is a rig version of the same attribute. Seriously... Anyway your last reply to me basically said what i partly demonstrated in that post. _____________________ If I am in a fair fight.... Something went wrong!

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.