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
Blutreiter Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades	Posted - 2008.02.08 15:57:00 - [391] Originally by: DennoTheHunter 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...[] ...what? Where? 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
Ariel Dawn Beets and Gravy Syndicate	Posted - 2008.02.08 17:12:00 - [392] I completely understand now why Amarr is getting such a massive boost. It's whiners are relentless and will not stop to consider anything that may not be in their favour. TCs increasing falloff on snipers? What a joke compared to the new Apocalypse. I suppose a 5-10 DPS increase at range versus a 60 DPS loss (When using 2 low slots for Gyro/or TE) at close range is too imbalancing in Minmatar's favor. Exactly why would it be wrong to give Minmatar a few extra points of DPS; comparing to the 10-33% effective damage increase Amarr is getting, it does seem rather tame. Oh thats right, because Minmatar isn't Amarr and has no dedicated EVE-O whine crew because they've always adopted to adapt instead of complaining. Efforts such as this thread get quickly burned down by sheer amounts of EFT warriors. My favourite moment in the thread was when someone commented on how 'amarrian roleplayers' using tracking disruptors/computers said they were bad. Thats like saying furries are animal experts. I suggest all Minmatar players train up Amarr and start flying FotM, since it's impossible to convince the clowns, might as well join them and hurry the process of CCP's magical pendulum of over-boost and over-nerf. Huzzah! Curses, Pilgrims, Zealots, Sacs, so many awesome choices.
Blutreiter Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades	Posted - 2008.02.08 17:29:00 - [393] Originally by: Ariel Dawn ...whiners are relentless and will not stop... Exactly why would it be wrong to give Minmatar a few extra points of DPS; comparing to the 10-33% effective damage increase Amarr is getting... My favourite moment in the thread was when someone commented on how 'amarrian roleplayers' using tracking disruptors/computers said they were bad. Thats like saying furries are animal experts. ... So this is now about giving Minmatar more DPS? I think the original whine was that the modified Weapon Disruptors need a countermodule? Why do you need a counter in the first place? Also... wait I need to quote this again. Originally by: Ariel Dawn the 10-33% effective damage increase Amarr is getting Ahahaha! Sorry that my post proceeds to lack a normal comment but this is getting too good to be true And your own comment about amarrian roleplayers which... wait for it... FLY AMARR SHIPS with COMMON AMARR FITTINGS, like Tracking Disruptors! (Oooh shiny!) By chance, are Tracking Disruptors common amarr EW modules? I know why this is all going downhill. Too much whiners. Indeed, you hit the nail on the head. 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
Dromidas Shadowmoon Minmatar 54th Knights Templar Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2008.02.08 17:30:00 - [394] Originally by: Gamesguy 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. Actually, because minmatar t2 ships shield tank, there are less mid slots on minmatar ships to be dedicated to 'utility' than there are low slots on amarr ships to dedicate to 'utility'. mwd, scram, cap booster.. you've already got 3 required-for-pvp modules. Which leaves very little for a shield tank. We could use a low for a TE, but instead of a gyrostab? Well, that would depend on the ship... _______________________________________________ Minmatar will always go faster than you, get over it.
Khanid Venari	Posted - 2008.02.08 18:15:00 - [395] Originally by: Ariel Dawn I completely understand now why Amarr is getting such a massive boost. It's whiners are relentless and will not stop to consider anything that may not be in their favour. TCs increasing falloff on snipers? What a joke compared to the new Apocalypse. I suppose a 5-10 DPS increase at range versus a 60 DPS loss (When using 2 low slots for Gyro/or TE) at close range is too imbalancing in Minmatar's favor. Exactly why would it be wrong to give Minmatar a few extra points of DPS; comparing to the 10-33% effective damage increase Amarr is getting, it does seem rather tame. Oh thats right, because Minmatar isn't Amarr and has no dedicated EVE-O whine crew because they've always adopted to adapt instead of complaining. Efforts such as this thread get quickly burned down by sheer amounts of EFT warriors. My favourite moment in the thread was when someone commented on how 'amarrian roleplayers' using tracking disruptors/computers said they were bad. Thats like saying furries are animal experts. I suggest all Minmatar players train up Amarr and start flying FotM, since it's impossible to convince the clowns, might as well join them and hurry the process of CCP's magical pendulum of over-boost and over-nerf. Huzzah! Curses, Pilgrims, Zealots, Sacs, so many awesome choices. You obviously don't fly amarr that much do you ? Tbh I cross trained from amarr to minmatarr last summer because amarr were utter crap, if they're getting a boost ( ANY boost ) it's a good thing and it wont make them uber ... just maybe ... playable. Every race has it's downsides, and amarr has a lot of them ( caldari are still the worst for small gangs tbh ). And the pilgrim ? IT IS BROKEN, it is utterly useless in small skirmishes where a curse will def outperform it, it's survivability is crap and it's got fitting problems too not to mention the fact that you can't fit a decent enough tank on it to go fight in web range atm. So yeah BOOST THE PILGRIM !!! The only thing you can use it for atm is to kill frigs or very cap-dependant porrly fitted BS's ratting in 0.0 using NPC damage and NOS/NEUT action to break their tanks. But if they web you and they start hitting you with close range guns/missiles ... you're dead. End of story. AMARR BOOST FTW. I fly Minmatarr too as I've mentioned.... P.S. I think that you need to leave the forums alone and go back and sit on the Oisio gate in Hysera and wait for those caracals to jump in and gank them and boast about how omgwtfbbqketchup your pvp skills are.
Diomidis Amarr Mythos Corp RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.02.08 19:37:00 - [396] Originally by: Ariel Dawn I completely understand now why Amarr is getting such a massive boost. It's whiners are relentless and will not stop to consider anything that may not be in their favour. TCs increasing falloff on snipers? What a joke compared to the new Apocalypse. I suppose a 5-10 DPS increase at range versus a 60 DPS loss (When using 2 low slots for Gyro/or TE) at close range is too imbalancing in Minmatar's favor. Exactly why would it be wrong to give Minmatar a few extra points of DPS; comparing to the 10-33% effective damage increase Amarr is getting, it does seem rather tame. Oh thats right, because Minmatar isn't Amarr and has no dedicated EVE-O whine crew because they've always adopted to adapt instead of complaining. Efforts such as this thread get quickly burned down by sheer amounts of EFT warriors. My favourite moment in the thread was when someone commented on how 'amarrian roleplayers' using tracking disruptors/computers said they were bad. Thats like saying furries are animal experts. I suggest all Minmatar players train up Amarr and start flying FotM, since it's impossible to convince the clowns, might as well join them and hurry the process of CCP's magical pendulum of over-boost and over-nerf. Huzzah! Curses, Pilgrims, Zealots, Sacs, so many awesome choices. blah-blah-blah...so you jumped on the whine mobile yourself, to see if you'll get lucky? Talking of the Apocalypse: the Apoc had a self repeating bonus: more cap per lvl, less cap usage per lvl...a bit odd combo, don't u think? The TDs where the only bonused defensive ewar that was completely neglected cause of it's limited effectiveness. Similar ewar modules could either shut down the locking capabilities or completely stop the enemy ship. I don't recall the so-called by your arguments "weak" Minie Recons or HASes have similar problems to that of the previous Sac, or the Zealot, cause their actual bonuses are utilized much better in-game. Over-boost, like the Sac you are mentioned, are also limited by range or DPS, unless you think the 19km HAM range with "all to V" EFT skills (imaginary) is overpowered compared to the operating range of a Vaga, more-over that of a Cerb, or the DPS a Sac can boost with HML is sth to call home about... What if the Devs desided that the Amarr propulsion system is different an can AB or MWD far better under the Huginn's webber? Cause that's what u are suggesting: since minmatar relay on fall-off, don't disrupt it... Nice: since Amarrian ships are too week cap-wise to viably fit MWD and slow-boat around with it, make them immune to stasis :P clever thinking...
Wu Jiun	Posted - 2008.02.08 20:38:00 - [397] Originally by: Ariel Dawn right, because Minmatar isn't Amarr and has no dedicated EVE-O whine crew Yes they have their whine crew. And you are giving strong arguments to vote you for president. Originally by: Ariel Dawn because they've always adopted to adapt instead of complaining. Like in this thread, right? Some people.
Aramendel Amarr North Face Force	Posted - 2008.02.08 22:59:00 - [398] Originally by: Trigos Trilobi No it doesn't. NOS still fits in highs and TDs in meds. Copy-Paste: You do realize that nowadays cap warfare on the curse does not really work without either having a cap injector or several cap recharge modules. Without that cap warfare kills your own cap while killing that of your target which makes it somewhat pointless. Have fun ignoring that yet again. Quote: Quote: Quote please where I claim that TPs "need to be weak". "The gimpage of TPs is overcompensated by the ownage of 40k webs." Implies that tps are balanced because webs are good. IMO tps are weak, hence you're arguing that they need to be weak. Imnplying != claiming. And nevermind that I am not even doing that there. As said, already: Copy-paste: ---------- That's rich. Let's take a look at the post where I wrote "The gimpage of TPs is overcompensated by the ownage of 40k webs." shall we? The relevant part is "Minnie recons are still pretty nice, though, because 40k webs are extremly powerful. Bad bonus (TPs) + very good bonus (40k webs) = good ship The gimpage of TPs is overcompensated by the ownage of 40k webs." So, no - let me repeat: NO - I was NOT writing this "in reference to you comparing TDs with TPs" in general, but strictly considering the performance of the huginn/rapier. Which should be blindingly obvious considering the 2 setences before the one you quoted out of context. Either frigging learn to read or stop doing exactly what you accuse me of - misinterpretating my words. ---------- Have fun ignoring that again. Seems to be the only thing you are able to in this discussion.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.08 23:37:00 - [399] Edited by: Goumindong on 08/02/2008 23:38:23 Originally by: DennoTheHunter 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. Its only a bad arguement if low teir autocannons suffer range penalties compared to long range autocannons. So just reduce the falloff on d180's by 25% and 220's by 15% and it seems like a good idea. The simple fact is that you cannot downgrade blasters and lasers nearly as easy as you can autocannons. Originally by: Ariel Dawn What a joke compared to the new Apocalypse. That the new Apoc is overpowered is not a justification to make other ships overpowered. Its only a justification for not breaking the Apoc.
Msobe	Posted - 2008.02.09 13:48:00 - [400] Originally by: Ariel Dawn I completely understand now why Amarr is getting such a massive boost. It's whiners are relentless and will not stop to consider anything that may not be in their favour. . . . . .Oh thats right, because Minmatar isn't Amarr and has no dedicated EVE-O whine crew because they've always adopted to adapt instead of complaining. Efforts such as this thread get quickly burned down by sheer amounts of EFT warriors. ... I suggest all Minmatar players train up Amarr and start flying FotM, since it's impossible to convince the clowns, might as well join them and hurry the process of CCP's magical pendulum of over-boost and over-nerf. Huzzah! Curses, Pilgrims, Zealots, Sacs, so many awesome choices. Not sure if I should thank you for a good chuckle, or send you a bill for a new keyboard . . . I blasted coffee out my nose all over the poor thing. So nasty. I feel your pain. Matari pilots are universally a bunch of rugged individualists who would rather adapt and roll with the punches, overcoming adversity armed with nothing more than ingenuity and perseverance. Amarr, just a bunch of whiners and complainers. When Matari pilots had to endure the unfairness of being able to use TD on laser ships, knowing full well that they had very little to fear from the laser ship TDing them (to the extent that laser boat would never bother fit one, anyways), they never complained. Not one peep. They just learned to survive, to adapt, to deal with the fact they could force the Amarr pilot into closer range if he wanted to hit - while at the same time using his superior speed to dictate that range, making it impossible for his opponent to close. It was an extreme hardship, but they suffered in silence. Now that the devs corrected an imbalance on how TD's affected range of different turrets, Matari pilots have rallied, and learned to adapt in a new way. They have out whined the whiners, creating 14 pages of whimpering forum trolling goodness. You wouldn't dream of . . . you know, ummm - playing the game? And learning to adapt? If that means cross training to amarr, go for it. It'll give you something called perspective. It certainly won't make you resistant to TD's like you want . . . if you want that, I'd recommend you look at Caldari. Cuz that is how it was meant to be - TD's shut down turret ships . . . not just laser boats, all of em.

Diomidis Amarr Mythos Corp RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.02.09 14:01:00 - [401] Originally by: Msobe .... Thanks Msobe - couldn't write it better myself... It's like claiming that the rich guy who bankrupts and loses his multi million home is in a worse condition than a "born-homeless" one, cause the first one "knows what his is losing" aka. TD range disruption immunity. Surely, the rich guy will find it more difficult to "adapt", but that won't make him any less fortunate in the end, will it? You cannot claim ignorance of some facts (or laws) to go away breaking them, friend "Minie-lovers"... And stop thinking TD boost as an "Amarr" thing...it's a balance needed vs. the other ewar modules, no aimed to nerf Minmatar, or the Vaga or each and every specific turret boat some rush to compare and "save" vs. the "overpowered" WTFPWN amarrian ships... If it's so, then cross-train to Amarr as Msobe suggested...it's a pity that so-so many EVE players cross-trained for a Vaga...they should go for the WTFPWN Zealot...and fit it with TDs too...
Magazaki	Posted - 2008.02.09 15:15:00 - [402] Originally by: Msobe . . . Could not have put it better myself. -----sig----- Originally by: Kaemonn:Signature Originally by: kieron: off duty You dont have to swallow! Win...
DennoTheHunter Caldari Kernkraft 400	Posted - 2008.02.09 15:40:00 - [403] Edited by: DennoTheHunter on 09/02/2008 15:41:25 Originally by: Goumindong Its only a bad arguement if low teir autocannons suffer range penalties compared to long range autocannons. So just reduce the falloff on d180's by 25% and 220's by 15% and it seems like a good idea. The simple fact is that you cannot downgrade blasters and lasers nearly as easy as you can autocannons. Then you can ask yourself, what do i gain for upgrading my guns? The only real differences between all the ac's is fitting and tracking. The dps difference is really small, where as lasers and blasters can get an ok dmg boost by using higher tier guns. AC's are a complete different kind of gun compared to other guns. None of your arguments have proved that TC/TE really would be overpowered on AC's. We've already proven (or I have at least) that it isn't the range that will get overpowered. TE (not TC) do boost tracking a little, but won't change anything for ships like the Vaga, since you have to stop ship anyway to be able to hit. Other state that it will get overpowered on arties, but fighting in falloff is bad for arties, since it reduces the already low dps, and also reduces the alpha strike. Can't remember the exact numbers, but if TC/TE do get a falloff boost, the optimal+falloff range for highest tier longrange large guns will look like: 1400mm Arties -> 175 k Tachyon Beams -> 165 k 425mm Rails -> 185 k So here we still won't get any overpowered range. Plz tell me how it's overpowered... Use math, pics or just something to back up your claims. _____________________ If I am in a fair fight.... Something went wrong!
DennoTheHunter Caldari Kernkraft 400	Posted - 2008.02.09 15:52:00 - [404] Originally by: Msobe ... I haven't come across any everyday pew pew minmatar setups using TD's, as they know it's only good against lasers, and nothing else really. That's why nobody (or very few) have used them on normal pvp setups. The only thing this thread really is about is should TC/TE have a falloff boost as a counter to TD? If you are certain that so many ships used TD against amarr, then why not fit TC/TE to counter it, since you do have that option? If it's about the slot layout then think again. Do you honestly think that there will be many minmatar ships that would have room for such a module if they boost falloff? Only a few minmatar ships have (Tempest for example), but then again there's also a few Amarr ships (Armageddon should have room enough with it's 8 lowslots, just to make an example). _____________________ If I am in a fair fight.... Something went wrong!
Magazaki	Posted - 2008.02.09 16:14:00 - [405] Originally by: DennoTheHunter Originally by: Msobe ... The only thing this thread really is about is should TC/TE have a falloff boost as a counter to TD? Indeed, and it seems to have been derailed a few times, thanks for noting. Should they have a falloff boost? Maybe, maybe not. Probably it wouldn't break anything too much. Should they have a falloff boost as a counter to TD's? Well, let me see. For Arties,Rails,Beams, no need for counter as it is the optimal reduction that hurts these anyway and not the fallof. So boosting TC/TE falloff would have no effect as a counter to TD's For Autocannons,Pulses,Blasters, nobody will ever fit a TC/TE whatever anyone may claim here. The could partially work as a counter, but they will not. Anyone that would conceivably fit a TC/TE and would benefit from a falloff boost, will already have fit falloff rigs anyway, and the TC/TE falloff boost will add no further benefit. So in my opinion, a TC/TE falloff boost would have no effect as a counter. Fortunately, there is also nothing that I can conceive off that would be shifted out of balance anyway by such an implementation. Thus, I would tend to say that it does not matter either way. If it would make people happy to believe it helps, good for them. If it enables some people to use TC's instead of falloff rigs, good for them too, still nothing is out of balance. So, really, does arguing strongly against this idea have much effect? No. I only posted here strongly against some ideas that said the TD's boost shouldn't happen. -----sig----- Originally by: Kaemonn:Signature Originally by: kieron: off duty You dont have to swallow! Win...
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.09 18:07:00 - [406] Originally by: DennoTheHunter Plz tell me how it's overpowered... Use math, pics or just something to back up your claims. I did. You ignored it.
DennoTheHunter Caldari Kernkraft 400	Posted - 2008.02.09 18:16:00 - [407] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: DennoTheHunter Plz tell me how it's overpowered... Use math, pics or just something to back up your claims. I did. You ignored it. Where, if i may ask? _____________________ If I am in a fair fight.... Something went wrong!
Ariel Dawn Beets and Gravy Syndicate	Posted - 2008.02.09 18:46:00 - [408] Originally by: Msobe Stuff Har. Please point out any threads prior to this one that had any serious and repeated complaints about Minmatar and/or requests to boost them. They are very few and far in between. Now do an EVE-Search on the phrase 'boost Amarr'. You get so many returned queries that its like typing '**' into Google. You say a 14 page thread regarding the introduction of a counter to an upcoming change is whining; exactly what is multiple-hundred page threads regarding boosting an ENTIRE race that already has the best battleships/capitals/T2 ships in the game. Your guns use capacitor? Gasp! I guess there's a drawback for being the hardest-hitting and most resilient race in the game. My input into this thread about how saying Minmatar players will adapt whilst complaining about TDs may seem hypocritical; I'm firstly going to be using them myself because of how powerful they will be (and have bought 300 Balmer TDs before they jumped up 4x in price ) and that I'm arguing for a look into the balance of the availability of counter modules to tracking disruptors, not to boost Minmatar. The fact that it would slightly raise ranged-Minmatar DPS is mostly a non-issue once you run the numbers yourself. It doesn't actually raise their raw DPS and adds less total damage than half an unbonused/unskilled Acolyte I. An insignificant increase at the cost of a module slot. Having a reduced optimal can be countered by Tracking Computers/Enhancers. Having a reduced falloff can be countered by nothing. Amarr can COUNTER Tracking Disruptors. Minmatar cannot. Amarr get huge range increases from Tracking Computers ontop of their already very long range. Minmatar get no range increase. Amarr can swap out ammo-types instantly and chose the best ammo for engagement range. Minmatar have either -50%, 0%, or +50% ammo. Explosive is also the first armor resist hole plugged, EM is never raised unless EANM setups. Very few Minmatar would rather fit a Tracking Computer (if it had falloff) in favour of the new Tracking Disruptor either, since the bonus of a TC under a TD is practically nothing anyway. This is not about boosting Minmatar (or nerfing Amarr). Flame all you want, I have no fear from lemmings. This is about providing a counter to a module change that will cripple a race's play style; everything else in EVE has a counter other than falloff being affected by Tracking Disruptors. A counter-module does not necessarily mean introducing falloff onto TCs/TEs either.** Adding a script to an existing electronic warfare module (such as ECCM) that prevents falloff/optimal reduction instead of simply increasing them is a good alternative solution. Thats all there is to it, and if you fail to see that, then there really is nothing further to say. I don't have an agenda, nor a special attachment to Minmatar ships. I just want to argue balance. Comparisions of Minmatar to Amarr best show the differences because they're two extremes on falloff vs optimal. How is EVE supposed to get out of a cycle of over-nerfs and over-boosts when people play favorites at the expense of other races? It just encourages more of the same from CCP and leads to bickering and flaming like this thread. So how about it? Add an optimal/falloff reduction resistance effect onto ECCM that uses a script. Adds more utility to a fairly unpopular module to fit that is only single use, and does not provide a Minmatar boost in anyway whatsoever DPS wise, and also performs the same effect for Gallente/Amarr. Maybe even using the useless ECCM - Omni modules instead of racial ECCM so the sensor strength boost is not as much, to circumvent any complaints from the ECM users. Seems like a decent idea to me; any complaints/problems/issues about it that I've missed?
Diomidis Amarr Mythos Corp RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.02.09 20:04:00 - [409] Edited by: Diomidis on 09/02/2008 20:11:27 Originally by: Ariel Dawn So how about it? Add an optimal/falloff reduction resistance effect onto ECCM that uses a script. Adds more utility to a fairly unpopular module to fit that is only single use, and does not provide a Minmatar boost in anyway whatsoever DPS wise, and also performs the same effect for Gallente/Amarr. Maybe even using the useless ECCM - Omni modules instead of racial ECCM so the sensor strength boost is not as much, to circumvent any complaints from the ECM users. Seems like a decent idea to me; any complaints/problems/issues about it that I've missed? That's a totally different approach than the OP suggests and seemed you applauded in your previous posts. The huge difference comes from the fact that ECCM is an under-utilized module that's used purely for ECCM -> defence. TC/TE are offensive electronics, used to aid turrets, not to fight back on TDs, ECM etc. TD's are meant to disrupt turret efficiency, taking TCs/TEs in count. No, you cannot compare it to SBs vs. Damps, cause Damps can break locks and make small ships totally useless in 1vs.1 situations - at least with bonuses. Should you read my previous posts, you could see that my "objection" to the OP is not about the Vaga, which will surely suffer by the TD, but can actually use it for their advantage when hunting Ratters. My objection is about real pvp situations, where TC/TEs are commonly used in each and every viable fitting: sniping BSs for fleet fights. There you can easily see that with similar skills, artilleries out-range and out-dmg lasers (both tachyons and beams) by a considerable margin. Adding 1 TC with optimal script, closes the gap a bit, but the Arties still out-range and out-dmg Lasers by a considerable amount. Should these scrips also add to the fall-off range of each turret, the gap would be much wider, in favor of projectile turrets. Each sniping Tempest would have a similar range to that of a Rokh or that of the "overpowered" new Apoc, with a huge alpha and no cap usage. DPS is also very good, and slightly worse than that of an Abaddon for example, still the huge alphas of roughly +40% dmg along with range is what realy counts in fleet battles, where few ships last more than 1-2 volleys. Higher DPS can never overcome this gap. Considering that the TDs have a max range close to the 100km margin, while fleet fights are commenced out to roughly 150+km, few can claim that TE/TCs actually need to be rebalanced. Even without them, T2 long range turrets with the appropriate ammo can out-range TD using support ships. Should the TD's have ranges similar to that of ECM or even damps on recons, we could consider it as a viable excuse. That's why a "resistance to TD" module is totally different than a TC/TE fall-off increase script, and whoever fails to understand it is just a whiner. P.S. Nothing personal Ariel Dawn - I liked ur idea, sincerely. Do not underestimate lemmings tho...
Ariel Dawn Beets and Gravy Syndicate	Posted - 2008.02.09 20:36:00 - [410] Originally by: Diomidis That's a totally different approach than the OP suggests and seemed you applauded in your previous posts. The huge difference comes from the fact that ECCM is an under-utilized module that's used purely for ECCM -> defence. TC/TE are offensive electronics, used to aid turrets, not to fight back on TDs, ECM etc. TD's are meant to disrupt turret efficiency, taking TCs/TEs in count. No, you cannot compare it to SBs vs. Damps, cause Damps can break locks and make small ships totally useless in 1vs.1 situations - at least with bonuses. Should you read my previous posts, you could see that my "objection" to the OP is not about the Vaga, which will surely suffer by the TD, but can actually use it for their advantage when hunting Ratters. My objection is about real pvp situations, where TC/TEs are commonly used in each and every viable fitting: sniping BSs for fleet fights. There you can easily see that with similar skills, artilleries out-range and out-dmg lasers (both tachyons and beams) by a considerable margin. Adding 1 TC with optimal script, closes the gap a bit, but the Arties still out-range and out-dmg Lasers by a considerable amount. Should these scrips also add to the fall-off range of each turret, the gap would be much wider, in favor of projectile turrets. Each sniping Tempest would have a similar range to that of a Rokh or that of the "overpowered" new Apoc, with a huge alpha and no cap usage. DPS is also very good, and slightly worse than that of an Abaddon for example, still the huge alphas of roughly +40% dmg along with range is what realy counts in fleet battles, where few ships last more than 1-2 volleys. Higher DPS can never overcome this gap. Considering that the TDs have a max range close to the 100km margin, while fleet fights are commenced out to roughly 150+km, few can claim that TE/TCs actually need to be rebalanced. Even without them, T2 long range turrets with the appropriate ammo can out-range TD using support ships. Should the TD's have ranges similar to that of ECM or even damps on recons, we could consider it as a viable excuse. That's why a "resistance to TD" module is totally different than a TC/TE fall-off increase script, and whoever fails to understand it is just a whiner. Well, regarding long-ranged sniping setups: 1400mm II(Tempest) has 36 DPS, 108 optimal 44 falloff (152 total) Tachyon Beam II(Geddon) has 40 DPS, 119 optimal 25 falloff (144 total) Mind, Minmatar ships have more mid-slots to dedicate to Tracking Computers than Amarr so they would be performing better overall than their Amarrian counterparts (other than the Apocalypse; but thats a dedicated sniping boat now), and the volley-capability of Minmatar sniping ships is entirely dependent on the number of participants in the fight. I am not very experienced in regards to long-range sniping ships (I usually flew tackling/close range ships in such engagements), but I believe in most situations the FCs will warp-in at the optimal range of their fleet ignoring falloff. Putting falloff on TCs/TEs, I still believe would be a decent solution for the short-range issues as it has it's own drawbacks in comparison to alternative uses for the slots they occupy, but it seems that this proposal has two sides of a fence with no middle ground regarding it. My arguments for it still stand, but I am arguing for a counter, not a 'Minmatar boost'. A TD-resistance module or effect put on a pre-existing module achieves the same objective that is my goal regarding this thread despite the two ideas being completely different. I was arguing for TCs/TEs because frankly those arguing against it seemed to have a fairly blatant agenda against Minmatar and favoritism for Amarr, which is not a good way to approach balance issues. Tracking Disruptors do have about the same range as Sensor Dampeners (TDs having more optimal while SDs more falloff); its just ECM that is out of line with this, mostly due to ship bonuses.

Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.09 21:17:00 - [411] Originally by: DennoTheHunter Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: DennoTheHunter Plz tell me how it's overpowered... Use math, pics or just something to back up your claims. I did. You ignored it. Where, if i may ask? Uhh, in this thread. Multiple times.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.09 21:39:00 - [412] Edited by: Goumindong on 09/02/2008 21:40:38 Edited by: Goumindong on 09/02/2008 21:40:05 Originally by: Ariel Dawn ... 1. Amarr do not have the best battleships[They are neither the hardest hitting[gallente], or most resiliant[Caldari]] 2. Amarr do not have the ability to choose range as you so say[in fact, they have less options in the short range , with -50% or +50% being the only reasonable choices] 3. Percentile increases in damage are only low when initial DPS is low, but still produce similar increases in effectiveness. 4. You cannot counter TDs with tracking computers 5. The fact that it would raise minmitar DPS and range and tracking is an issue. 6. A countermodule, by your definition, already exists 7. The range increase from tracking computers is not "huge" it never has been, it never will be. Furthermore, Amarr are in the least able position to exploit said range. While minmitar are in the best. If you want a counter-module. Then falloff rigs are going to be sufficient. If you dont want a counter module, but want to boost minmitar at the expense of gallente, then TEs and TC's get falloff on them.
Diomidis Amarr Mythos Corp RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.02.09 22:02:00 - [413] Originally by: Ariel Dawn Well, regarding long-ranged sniping setups: 1400mm II(Tempest) has 36 DPS, 108 optimal 44 falloff (152 total) Tachyon Beam II(Geddon) has 40 DPS, 119 optimal 25 falloff (144 total) Nicely put, tho you fail to compensate for the Alpha Strike aka Single Volley dmg difference. Tempest does 458dmg per volley with Tremor L, a Geddon does 273dmg per volley of each Tachyon...ouch! With fleets of 50,100 or hundreds of BSs in each side, +59% per volley dmg cannot be matched by DPS. DPS win over time, while each and every BS that will be called as primary target will pop in less time than 2-3 volleys need to be fired (the first one is instant), so DPS never makes up for it, unless we are talking of small numbers or 1vs1 = not so common sniping situations. And that's without considering dmg mods, fitting limitations etc that lead to Tempests with more dmg mods in average that magnify the difference. Originally by: Ariel Dawn I believe in most situations the FCs will warp-in at the optimal range of their fleet ignoring falloff. No, you are wrong. Unless FCs will try to out-range the enemy fleet using Rokhs or the new Apoc, fleet battles rarely commence futher than 150-160km apart each fleet. Originally by: Ariel Dawn My arguments for it still stand, but I am arguing for a counter, not a 'Minmatar boost'. A TD-resistance module or effect put on a pre-existing module achieves the same objective that is my goal regarding this thread despite the two ideas being completely different. I was arguing for TCs/TEs because frankly those arguing against it seemed to have a fairly blatant agenda against Minmatar and favoritism for Amarr, which is not a good way to approach balance issues. You have to understand that TDs are the "counter", not vise versa. They have to be more powerful than the turrets they disrupt + the sub-systems aiding them, or there is no reason for them to exist. Till now, the only short-range turret based weapon systems affected by both TDs "penalties" where Lasers. That surely needed a balancing change. It would be fair to ask for a fall-off boost via TC/TEs only if the TDs massively hurt one turret type unlike others. But it doesn't cause the Projectiles have ammo types that already compensate to increase range, and numbers prove that Projectiles need no module or ship bonus in order to out-range other weapon systems as they are. Should TC/TEs be altered to counter TD boost, so should the Ammo range bonuses be lowered in order to keep the balance as it is today - or kind like today, otherwise lasers will be massively out-ranged and out-ganged considering slot layouts and current fleet fight mechanics, unless everyone uses the Apoc that is, but that's not an answer. Originally by: Ariel Dawn Tracking Disruptors do have about the same range as Sensor Dampeners (TDs having more optimal while SDs more falloff) True. But lets compile these numbers and each module's effectiveness in a fleet battle: The TD disrupts a large projectile weapon with 170km range...range is cutted down to 100km roughly, in range of shooting the ewar ship. That's without anything more than 1x TC. When using Tracking disruption script, a 1400mm howitzer should have trouble track anything that moves with a hi transversal. But guess what: it doesn't matter, cause the main target which 99% will be a big, slow plated BS at 150km will hardly have a transversal worth to speak of, so TD or not, the sniper will hit, and hit hard! ---------------------------------------------------- A Single, unbonused Dampener can cut its locking range in half, making it unable to lock , thus fire at all! Even when the scan resolution is damped, the primary target may never get to lock before it pops under concentrated fire. The same goes for ECM. So hardly a comparison, since it's "partially disrupt turret dmg dealing under circumstances" vs. prevent locking = no scramming, ewaring, dmg dealing even with missiles etc.
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.02.09 22:06:00 - [414] Originally by: Goumindong Edited by: Goumindong on 09/02/2008 21:40:38 Edited by: Goumindong on 09/02/2008 21:40:05 Originally by: Ariel Dawn ... 1. Amarr do not have the best battleships[They are neither the hardest hitting[gallente], or most resiliant[Caldari]] 2. Amarr do not have the ability to choose range as you so say[in fact, they have less options in the short range , with -50% or +50% being the only reasonable choices] 3. Percentile increases in damage are only low when initial DPS is low, but still produce similar increases in effectiveness. 4. You cannot counter TDs with tracking computers 5. The fact that it would raise minmitar DPS and range and tracking is an issue. 6. A countermodule, by your definition, already exists 7. The range increase from tracking computers is not "huge" it never has been, it never will be. Furthermore, Amarr are in the least able position to exploit said range. While minmitar are in the best. If you want a counter-module. Then falloff rigs are going to be sufficient. If you dont want a counter module, but want to boost minmitar at the expense of gallente, then TEs and TC's get falloff on them. Ive given up on ariel. She just doesnt listen. -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation
Ariel Dawn Beets and Gravy Syndicate	Posted - 2008.02.09 22:26:00 - [415] Edited by: Ariel Dawn on 09/02/2008 22:34:15 Originally by: Goumindong Amarrian ... Exactly the kind of lemming I was talking about. And I especially like your last point. Amarr having capacitor problems? Take your own advice and use Capacitor Control Circuit/Energy Discharge Elutriation rigs. This 'counters' your racial problem. Don't make a thousand+ posts complaining otherwise or stop being a hypocrite. And read, lemming, read. I said that I think falloff on TCs/TEs is fine, but that I want a solution/counter available, and that it doesn't necessarily have to be in the form of falloff bonuses. Why are you still arguing about falloff on TCs/TEs instead of proposing or providing discussion on another way to provide a counter to the issue that will not 'overpower' Minmatar. Adding a Tracking Disruptor resistance script to ECCM (or similarly underused module) provides a counter available to all races and does not boost them in any way. Unless you are saying that there should be absolutely no way for a Minmatar AC ship or Gallente Blastership to counter tracking disruptors removal of falloff. The 'fact' of the matter is that you are completely biased against Minmatar with no regard for balance. Shouldn't you be busy posting in threads complaining about how terrible Amarr are when you don't actually play the game? Also Diomindis, Amarr ships significantly out-range Minmatar battleship short-range weapons (Large Pulse = 45km optimal, 10km falloff, Large ACs = 5.4km optimal, 30km falloff) which is a very powerful ability when your BS does not have to close distance like Gallente and to a lesser extent Minmatar, while they are pretty much the same in long-range. Furthurmore, they always are using optimal while ACs are always in falloff, so the difference in damage is fairly significant, especially when a dual-damage bonused AC does about the same DPS as a single-damage bonused Pulse; with Amarr ships tending to have more turret slots as well.
Ariel Dawn Beets and Gravy Syndicate	Posted - 2008.02.09 22:51:00 - [416] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Ive given up on ariel. She just doesnt listen. Ah, I must apologize Lyria. I ignore things written by ignorant children by habit. Please make sure to inform me when you make a post containing any sort of real information and I will be sure to read it. If it is good enough, perhaps I may give you a sticker to add to your notebook, doesn't that sound swell? Looking forward to reading one of your posts! -AD
Diomidis Amarr Mythos Corp RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.02.09 23:32:00 - [417] Edited by: Diomidis on 09/02/2008 23:35:55 Edited by: Diomidis on 09/02/2008 23:34:37 Originally by: Ariel Dawn Also Diomindis, Amarr ships significantly out-range Minmatar battleship short-range weapons (Large Pulse = 45km optimal, 10km falloff, Large ACs = 5.4km optimal, 30km falloff) which is a very powerful ability when your BS does not have to close distance like Gallente and to a lesser extent Minmatar, while they are pretty much the same in long-range. Furthurmore, they always are using optimal while ACs are always in falloff, so the difference in damage is fairly significant, especially when a dual-damage bonused AC does about the same DPS as a single-damage bonused Pulse; with Amarr ships tending to have more turret slots as well. That's true. And That's why CCP balances thing a bit, by giving ACs the edge vs. pulses in max DPS. Also the typical projectile turret has way less demanding fitting requirements compared to the equiv laser turret, and Minmatar BSs are way more flexible to fit MWDs and webs to make the most out of their limited range, and cap-less weapons. They can also fit X-L shield boosters along with a full rack of weapons, while the amarrian vessels have to go for a buffer armor tank, unable to fit even an L armor repairer...active tanking is a domi-thing Fitting needs rule-out the low slot advantage in amarr BSs cause you don't have the PG, CPU or both to fit a full rack of either pulses or Tachyons and an competitive active armor tank, so ships like the tempest or maelstrom can actually both active shield and buffer armor tank via rigs and plates, and use MWD to dictate range with cap to spare. CPU is also limiting your max TC/TE and dmg mod utilization in amarr BS, so 3x HS setups are not as viable as ppl suggest via EFT numbers. Surely less viable than 3x Guros in most situations. It's all about compromises and it's quite balanced in close range fits IMHO when you add resistances vs. available dmg types, cap usage etc. in the equation.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.10 00:15:00 - [418] Originally by: Ariel Dawn Exactly the kind of lemming I was talking about. And I especially like your last point. Amarr having capacitor problems? Take your own advice and use Capacitor Control Circuit/Energy Discharge Elutriation rigs. This 'counters' your racial problem. Don't make a thousand+ posts complaining otherwise or stop being a hypocrite. 1. I am not sure where i bought up Amarran capacitor 2. I am not sure what Amarran capacitor has to do with adversarial modules. CCCs and SMCs are definitly counters to NOS/Neuts et all. I dont recall saying they werent... Quote: And read, lemming, read. I said that I think falloff on TCs/TEs is fine, but that I want a solution/counter available, and that it doesn't necessarily have to be in the form of falloff bonuses. Why are you still arguing about falloff on TCs/TEs instead of proposing or providing discussion on another way to provide a counter to the issue that will not 'overpower' Minmatar. Because one already exists. They are called "Projectile Ambit Extension I's" Quote: The 'fact' of the matter is that you are completely biased against Minmatar with no regard for balance. Shouldn't you be busy posting in threads complaining about how terrible Amarr are when you don't actually play the game? What? Quote: Also Diomindis, Amarr ships significantly out-range Minmatar battleship short-range weapons (Large Pulse = 45km optimal, 10km falloff, Large ACs = 5.4km optimal, 30km falloff) which is a very powerful ability when your BS does not have to close distance like Gallente and to a lesser extent Minmatar, while they are pretty much the same in long-range. Furthurmore, they always are using optimal while ACs are always in falloff, so the difference in damage is fairly significant, especially when a dual-damage bonused AC does about the same DPS as a single-damage bonused Pulse; with Amarr ships tending to have more turret slots as well. And minmitar ships do more DPS with more supplimentary dps[which advantages small gang engagements since it lets ships get more DPS out of stronger tanks], while having large volley damage to help in larger gang engagements. Furthermore minmitar ships typicially shoot against armor tanks which increase their effective DPS compared to Amarr shooting against armor tanks. This does leave minmitar disadvantaged against Caldari, but it increases their strength against Amarr who are shooting against their racial resist [70% right now], while they are shooting against a racial resist at 20%(which means that via damage types the minmitar is doing 2.6 times more than amarr against armor tanks). A duouble-damage bonused AC does not do "about as much" as a single damage bonused laser. It does more. This is why the double damage bonused ships have less turrets than their competitors.[The real second bonus is the extra high slot]. Its not nearly so cut and dry as you are claiming. A counter module exists there is no need to add TD reduction onto ECCM or on anything else. There is no need to add falloff to TC or TEs.
Ariel Dawn Beets and Gravy Syndicate	Posted - 2008.02.10 00:23:00 - [419] I agree with most of your points Diomidis mostly, and that Amarrian BSes do have trouble fitting active tanks and work very well plated due to their range superiority. The things I disagree with I won't bother mentioning because they really have no relation to this thread and will lead to further pointless flaming. The thing I agree with 100% though is compromises and balance. Hence the issues in this thread, there is no compromise ships that rely heavily on falloff and do not perform as well in web range can use in their fitting to counter the effects of a tracking disruptor. A single module shutting a ship down with no recourse is not really fair; even ECM can require multiple modules to remove someone from a fight, and unlike ECM, a tracking disruptor never fails. Having TD resistance as a script on ECCM modules would promote the use of a single-purpose counter module that currently serves no other purpose whilst using up a valuable midslot. Are there any problems with this idea?
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.10 00:51:00 - [420] Originally by: Ariel Dawn Goumindong. Projectile Ambit Rigs are vastly insufficient at countering tracking disruptors. Using three of these rigs will bring you to 81% of your normal falloff when under the effects of a single unbonused tracking disruptor. Furthermore, they take up valuable rig slots that are critical to a large number of Minmatar setups and substantially increase PG requirements of ACs. ACs are only easy to fit on a few ships, such as the Maelstrom or Hurricane, increasing the powergrid requirements on other ship types such as the Typhoon, Tempest, Vagabond, Sleipnir, etc essentially forces the usage of the smallest tier gun. If projectile ambit rigs are insufficient to counter TD's then what good is putting falloff on TC/TEs? Are med/low slots not as valauble? If you are having throuble fitting ACs on ships like the phoon and vaga then you should train up AWU to 4. If you are having trouble fitting ACs on the SLEIPNIR then you should shoot yourself in the head.

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.