| 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 |
Diomidis
Amarr
Mythos Corp
RAZOR Alliance
    |
Posted - 2008.02.10 01:42:00 -
[421]
 Originally by: Ariel Dawn
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?
A TD is partially disrupting turret dmg. Closing in will make your guns usable, or using TD/TEs will make you track better. TPs can also assist tracking, while webbers can virtually maximize tracking without ANY counters to them...
Haven't seen many Minmatar pilot whining on nerfing their Huginns/Rapiers...
Back to your ECCM scripting idea: since you cannot imagine a Vaga or I don't think of a fleet BS that would ever fit ECCM instead of tank or cap booster or anything other than that actually, it cancels itself.
TDs are not nearly as powerful as u suggest, as they still fail to deal with missiles and drones - and for a 100th time I should remind you that missiles and drones are almost standard fit for most close range minmatar ships that work outside web range, while inside web range TDs are effectively less efficient than TPs...cause close range ships actually fit webbers, minmatar aren't any different.
There is not even the slightest comparison in putting out of the fight a ship using TDs when u compare it to damps or ECM: you can break locks with them ffs.
Are you suggesting that an arbitrator is a better ewar platform than a BB?
Or should we all train for 5x Balmer Curses and leave Rooks to rot in our hangars?
As of CCCs etc, I have to inform you that amarr pilots actually use them - even in PVP fits...that's not new...even with these Amarr ships are condemned to either gang or tank for a prolonged time. And thats a fact.
What is just a speculation is that TDs will become the standard utility slot filler that will ruin every Minmatars day, tho nobody can suggest more than a handfull of ships actually having a spare middle slot - and guess what? Most of them could be Minmatar.
Let me also inform you that an arbitrator with good skills in electronics and cruiser V cannot effectively tracking disrupt a Vaga orbiting at full speed with 2x Balmers. Strafe running - Bomb diving etc surely break any T2 tank in it...tried a million times with a friend. Even webbed the vaga pounches so hard, putting out almost all its "EFT" dps on an arbi - or a pilgrim, no difference - that these ewar ships stand no chance.
Even the weakest BB could jam and evade a Vaga using 2x modules - even with multis. So much for 100% effective, non-chance based AC killing TDs...
|
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr
Dark-Rising
The Dawn of Darkness
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 02:05:00 -
[422]
Originally by: Goumindong
If you are having trouble fitting ACs on any ship then you should shoot yourself in the head.
Fixed. 
--------------------------------------
The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation |
Ariel Dawn
Beets and Gravy Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 03:15:00 -
[423]
Originally by: Goumindong
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.
I suppose that since the Amarrian whine-brigade is now resorting to such attacks that they're running out of false arguments and lies.
And I really do enjoy your selective reading when you 'try' to make a point; all Amarr does is complain how they cannot fit the largest guns on their ships. Guess what, Minmatar cannot fit the largest guns on their ships either, especially with projectile ambit rigs. This goes for the Sleipnir as well. Of course you would know better, having never flown a Minmatar ship before.
Putting falloff on TCs/TEs was a suggestion and thats all. They would not provide a very good counter but help cancel out the effects slightly, just like your suggestion of projectile ambit rigs. Again, if you had read, all I am after is a counter to what a single tracking disruptor does against ships that rely on falloff. An option to fit a module should one chose to do so. This does not have to be falloff on TCs/TEs.
You are against any sort of counter whatsoever. Why is this? Every single ship/ewar/etc has a counter in EVE, but none exist regarding the falloff component on the new tracking disruptors.
Instead of saying 'no, there should be no counter', please tell me any valid and logical reason to which why no counter should be exist (especially in the form of a resistance script on ECCM/whatever module).
|
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr
Dark-Rising
The Dawn of Darkness
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 04:01:00 -
[424]
Originally by: Ariel Dawn
You are against any sort of counter whatsoever. Why is this? Every single ship/ewar/etc has a counter in EVE, but none exist regarding the falloff component on the new tracking disruptors.
TPs have no counter.
Youll say: "but they suck"
I say: ECCM sucks too against ecm.
Youll say: "trolling stuff and lies"
I'll say: I won.
--------------------------------------
The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation |
Ariel Dawn
Beets and Gravy Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 04:17:00 -
[425]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Originally by: Ariel Dawn
You are against any sort of counter whatsoever. Why is this? Every single ship/ewar/etc has a counter in EVE, but none exist regarding the falloff component on the new tracking disruptors.
TPs have no counter.
Halo Set, Skirmish Warfare Link - Evasive Maneuvers, Ragnarok Titan. Mind you, nobody is gonna bust out a Rangarok because of "oh ****, they've got a Bellicose painting!", but the first two are readily available should one have some sort of fear of being hit by target painters.
ECCM does suck against ECM, but it does actually reduce the chance to be jammed by 50%, so it works as a counter. Adding additional uses to ECCM (like TD resistance) would also help make it more useful and less 'suck' as you so aptly put it.
So... yea. I can call you a lier if you would like, but I don't see anything I disagree with there.
|
Steve Clone
Amarr
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 04:22:00 -
[426]
Y do people want Falloff script on TC and TE???
Is it to counter TD???
If yes, How efficient and POPULAR is TD???
I believe TD will be efficient after boost but popular???
If TD is not that popular, what does falloff script do now???
Do they 'conveniently' become a damage-increasing mod??? Y do ppl believe they deserve this falloff boost on CERTAIN ships...
However, if TD becomes popular I say nerf them and boost ship bonus to TD...
|
Dianeces
Minmatar
Repo Industries
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 04:41:00 -
[427]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Originally by: Ariel Dawn
You are against any sort of counter whatsoever. Why is this? Every single ship/ewar/etc has a counter in EVE, but none exist regarding the falloff component on the new tracking disruptors.
TPs have no counter.
Youll say: "but they suck"
I say: ECCM sucks too against ecm.
Youll say: "trolling stuff and lies"
I'll say: I won.
TPs have a counter.
Your subjective experiences do not effect objective reality.
I say: you fail at arguing.
|
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 04:42:00 -
[428]
Originally by: Ariel Dawn
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Originally by: Ariel Dawn
You are against any sort of counter whatsoever. Why is this? Every single ship/ewar/etc has a counter in EVE, but none exist regarding the falloff component on the new tracking disruptors.
TPs have no counter.
Halo Set, Skirmish Warfare Link - Evasive Maneuvers, Ragnarok Titan. Mind you, nobody is gonna bust out a Rangarok because of "oh ****, they've got a Bellicose painting!", but the first two are readily available should one have some sort of fear of being hit by target painters.
You will consider the longest skill grind for a single module to be efficient in the game which remedies not even half of the penalty from a single TP a "counter", but dont consider falloff rigs counters?
 |
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar
Oyster Colors
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 04:42:00 -
[429]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
TPs have no counter.
Youll say: "but they suck"
TPs are vastly different from any other ewar module, imho comparing them to ECM/damps/TDs is, well, lets just say inappropriate.
And they don't suck if you happen to have a few torp ravens around, but thats not even the point, they are offensive ewar while the others are defensive ewar.
The other ewar doesn't suck when used on their own.
Quote:
I say: ECCM sucks too against ecm.
Youll say: "trolling stuff and lies"
They suck against ECM since no one wants to fit them. If you actually use them, they reduce ecm efficiency by around 50%, I wouldn't say this can be descibed as 'sucking' at all.
And before you ask, no I don't fit them either, but everytime I find myself jammed I regret since I know they'd have helped my a great deal.
|
Ruah Piskonit
Amarr
PIE Inc.
Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 04:43:00 -
[430]
Interesting argument.
I happen to agree with Guomingdung.
But if CCP were to release a Falloff scrip for TCs. Would you fit them? My guess would be no.
Lets get this right. TD is a form of E-War. There are two E-War types that don't have a counter in the game that a single mod can fix. Those two are: Webs and Target Painters. Neuts and Nos can be countered with cap-boosters. TDs with TC/TEs, Scram with stab, damp with SB.
So TDs are designed to kill turrets. Why not let TDs be the mod that does that effectivly. If the optimal/falloff is selected on the TD, that means your tracking is not hurt - so you are forced to get close to do damage, but you can still track perfectly well. Remember that most if not all minmatar ships will have a choise to close the orbit or not. So the curse forces you to get closer - and you want a counter? The counter is to orbit closer.
We are not talking about 40km webs here. . .we are talking about forcing someone who is zipping around you at 20km to be forced to 10km. As a tackler, you are not affected, as a solo killing machine, you can either take the risk (don't) or hang there and try to keep the point on the curse (who will be zapping your cap anyway).
----
 |
|
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr
Dark-Rising
The Dawn of Darkness
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 04:44:00 -
[431]
Originally by: Dianeces
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Originally by: Ariel Dawn
You are against any sort of counter whatsoever. Why is this? Every single ship/ewar/etc has a counter in EVE, but none exist regarding the falloff component on the new tracking disruptors.
TPs have no counter.
Youll say: "but they suck"
I say: ECCM sucks too against ecm.
Youll say: "trolling stuff and lies"
I'll say: I won.
TPs have a counter.
Your subjective experiences do not effect objective reality.
I say: you fail at arguing.
If you claim TPs have valid counters I can claim that fall off rigs are enough counters for TDs aswell. I think you fail.
--------------------------------------
The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation |
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 04:45:00 -
[432]
Originally by: Ariel Dawn
And I really do enjoy your selective reading when you 'try' to make a point; all Amarr does is complain how they cannot fit the largest guns on their ships. Guess what, Minmatar cannot fit the largest guns on their ships either, especially with projectile ambit rigs. This goes for the Sleipnir as well. Of course you would know better, having never flown a Minmatar ship before.
The sleipnir has so much freaking powergrid it can fit, at AWU 4 and projectile rigging 5, 7 425II autocannons, an MWD, 2 projectile ambit rigs, and a tech 2 X-L booster
|
Dianeces
Minmatar
Repo Industries
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 04:45:00 -
[433]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Originally by: Dianeces
Your subjective experiences do not effect objective reality.
If you claim TPs have valid counters I can claim that fall off rigs are enough counters for TDs aswell. I think you fail.
|
DennoTheHunter
Caldari
Kernkraft 400
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 04:46:00 -
[434]
Originally by: Goumindong
Uhh, in this thread. Multiple times.
Care to tell me where or link it? i won't scroll through 14 page
Originally by: Goumindong
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.
1. in terms of gang use (which is the realistic use of bs's) Amarr wins as they can dish out high dps at long range. Blasters wastes a lot of time mwd'ing/flying across with drones, and minmatar lose dps due to falloff, which then gets even lower than amarr even when falloffmods are fitted.
2. Agreed
3. Agreed
4. The negative effect is reduced, but yes not completely countered. If the negative effect is reduced a gun is still at least useable.
5. False, have already been proved, unless you like losing tank/speed/tackling/other utility.
6. What is that module called? never heard of it.
7. As i do partly agree on what you say, minmatar will still do less dps than amarr at range anyway unless you have 50 lowslots or something. That's just fact.
Well for you last statement in that post, TE/TC won't push falloff longer than can already be achieved with rigs. The only thing TE/TC gonna make on AC ships, is giving more options. Options that Amarr already have if they care using them.
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
TPs have no counter.
Youll say: "but they suck"
I say: ECCM sucks too against ecm.
Youll say: "trolling stuff and lies"
I'll say: I won.
The reason TP don't have a counter is it's not needed. The effectiveness of TP is so bad, that it really just doesn't make any sence. It just can't lock down other ships like RSD, TD, ECM, web etc.
_____________________
If I am in a fair fight....
Something went wrong! |
Dianeces
Minmatar
Repo Industries
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 04:47:00 -
[435]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Ariel Dawn
And I really do enjoy your selective reading when you 'try' to make a point; all Amarr does is complain how they cannot fit the largest guns on their ships. Guess what, Minmatar cannot fit the largest guns on their ships either, especially with projectile ambit rigs. This goes for the Sleipnir as well. Of course you would know better, having never flown a Minmatar ship before.
The sleipnir has so much freaking powergrid it can fit, at AWU 4 and projectile rigging 5, 7 425II autocannons, an MWD, 2 projectile ambit rigs, and a tech 2 X-L booster
Do you have any of the rigging skills trained to 5? Because I don't, and I don't know of anyone who does. At best, there are probably a handful of people who have taken the time to train that skill, simply because it isn't worth it.
|
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 04:54:00 -
[436]
Originally by: Ariel Dawn
It really does not work and I'm sure you can spend the few seconds required to crunch the numbers to see so yourself. Additionally, how come you do not mention the second rig type I listed? Energy Discharge Elutrations reduce laser capacitor use by -15%/-20% (The T2 variant is very inexpensive). The use of these modules drops your cap use on lasers to less than that of any cap-using weapon. The drawback is the same as your 'solution' of falloff, and any fitting issues that arise on Amarr ships can be solved by simply dropping a tier in guns.
The difference in dropping a teir in guns between minmitar and Amarr is much more significant.
Not only does Amarr gain the least tracking in such a change, but they lose the most optimal range on the race that needs it the most, they lose the most DPS on the race that depends most on DPS[because Amarr win fights be dealing DPS before their opponents close, in order to succeed they need every last bit of DPS and range they can squeeze from their ships, gallente win by closing, and minmitar win by doing the opposite of what the other wants]
Again, i am not sure what the cap use on amarr ships has to do with modules that require a counter. Other ships are not imposing the cap use of lasers upon them. Just as putting autocannons on your ship does not make you automaticially tracking disrupted. Such, talking about a "counter" to laser cap use seems kinda strange when there is no module an opponent is fitting that imposes said cap use evenly against any race of ship.
|
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 05:01:00 -
[437]
Originally by: Dianeces
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Ariel Dawn
And I really do enjoy your selective reading when you 'try' to make a point; all Amarr does is complain how they cannot fit the largest guns on their ships. Guess what, Minmatar cannot fit the largest guns on their ships either, especially with projectile ambit rigs. This goes for the Sleipnir as well. Of course you would know better, having never flown a Minmatar ship before.
The sleipnir has so much freaking powergrid it can fit, at AWU 4 and projectile rigging 5, 7 425II autocannons, an MWD, 2 projectile ambit rigs, and a tech 2 X-L booster
Do you have any of the rigging skills trained to 5? Because I don't, and I don't know of anyone who does. At best, there are probably a handful of people who have taken the time to train that skill, simply because it isn't worth it.
Its only 7 PG over with rigging 4, a 1% PG implant will take care of it easily enough. People dont usually train rigging to five because they dont think the penalties are all that bad. If you want to rig successfully on an Amarran ship you need the rigging and AWU peaked to cram the guns on, let alone anything else.
Keep in mind, she just suggest first Halo sets[cybernetics 5 + half a billion isk] and Skirmish Warfare Gang Modules[Cyb 5, Skirmish Warfare 5, Leadership 5, Warfare Link Spec 4, Skirmish Warfare Spec 5 + 10m isk + a gang at all times] as a counter to target painters. So you will have to excuse me if i dont think a slight skill expendature for a counter on a single ship without dropping down a teir of guns[which is rather painless itself for the autocannon user] is some sort of terrible onus on the part of the command ship pilot.
|
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar
Oyster Colors
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 05:13:00 -
[438]
What about introducing a dedicated counter module to TDs, working like ECCM does for ECM?
Tracking Stabilizer:
Reduces the effect of tracking disruption modules by 50%.
Fitting:
Requires a mid slot, 1 PG and a bit CPU.
Also introduce a similar low slot module in-line with the low slot ECCM.
It doesn't do anything if you are not disrupted (just like ECCM when not jammed, still this one increases your chances against being probed out), but would present a reasonable counter to those if you wan't to sacrifice the slot.
Having said that, it still stands that TC/TE not affecting falloff is complete nonsense since it's effectively a range penalty for falloff based turrets, the only reason why there wasn't a billion whine threads is that you could count on never loosing your falloff. Now that you can, this has to be reviewed (what is done about it is another question).
|
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 05:15:00 -
[439]
Originally by: DennoTheHunter
Care to tell me where or link it? i won't scroll through 14 page
If you wont, why would I?
But the simple answer is that 17.6 is greater than 12.4 and 2 is greater than 1. If the current enviornment before TD's is believed to be balanced then the ending enviornment, no matter how small, would be imbalanced.
Quote:
A list
1. That Amarr battleships are strong in large sized smaller gangs does not mean they have the best battleships in the game. Battleships have been fairly balanced for quite some time, but if there is any estimation as to which is the hands down best, it is either a Gallente or Caldari design that will win the day with the Minmitar not far behind. Both Caldari and Minmitar have longer short range options that do considerable DPS while fewer drawbacks to the Amarran equivelents. Amarran Battleships ability to do what they do in short range engagements is neither unique nor is their ability in that regard all that special. They are good, but they are not nearly the best.
4. Yes, and it is the same for falloff rigs. She clearly doesnt want something that will reduce the effect, because its there, already, in falloff rigs. She wants something that will first and formost increase the strength of ACs, and barring that will make TD's useless.
5. False, 17.6% > 12.4%. The first being the increase in DPS against gallente or when closing with a TE before tracking advantages and the second being the increase in DPS from a 3red gyrostabalizer II. The increase from tracking, while not perfect is still enough when at close range to make up the difference.
6. Projectile Ambit Extension I.
7. Actaully no. Put up a typical graph against an armor tank with ACs and with lasers. You will find that the ACs remain very competitve against lasers until a very long ways out. Shield and structure hit points nullify this advantage, and repairing and armor hit points accentuate this advantage.
Quote:
The reason TP don't have a counter is it's not needed. The effectiveness of TP is so bad, that it really just doesn't make any sence. It just can't lock down other ships like RSD, TD, ECM, web etc.
TD's cant lock down any ships but ships that have no supplimentary DPS either. And the ships most likely to be entirely turret based with little or no supplimentary DPS are Amarr. Furthermore, it doesnt prevent the activation of other modules such as ewar, nor can it in any way prevent a ship from closing futher to counteract the effect of the TD's.
|
Ariel Dawn
Beets and Gravy Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 05:25:00 -
[440]
Edited by: Ariel Dawn on 10/02/2008 05:29:57
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Dianeces
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Ariel Dawn
And I really do enjoy your selective reading when you 'try' to make a point; all Amarr does is complain how they cannot fit the largest guns on their ships. Guess what, Minmatar cannot fit the largest guns on their ships either, especially with projectile ambit rigs. This goes for the Sleipnir as well. Of course you would know better, having never flown a Minmatar ship before.
The sleipnir has so much freaking powergrid it can fit, at AWU 4 and projectile rigging 5, 7 425II autocannons, an MWD, 2 projectile ambit rigs, and a tech 2 X-L booster
Do you have any of the rigging skills trained to 5? Because I don't, and I don't know of anyone who does. At best, there are probably a handful of people who have taken the time to train that skill, simply because it isn't worth it.
Its only 7 PG over with rigging 4, a 1% PG implant will take care of it easily enough. People dont usually train rigging to five because they dont think the penalties are all that bad. If you want to rig successfully on an Amarran ship you need the rigging and AWU peaked to cram the guns on, let alone anything else.
Keep in mind, she just suggest first Halo sets[cybernetics 5 + half a billion isk] and Skirmish Warfare Gang Modules[Cyb 5, Skirmish Warfare 5, Leadership 5, Warfare Link Spec 4, Skirmish Warfare Spec 5 + 10m isk + a gang at all times] as a counter to target painters. So you will have to excuse me if i dont think a slight skill expendature for a counter on a single ship without dropping down a teir of guns[which is rather painless itself for the autocannon user] is some sort of terrible onus on the part of the command ship pilot.
A Sleipnir needs the utility high (nos/neut) as it has no defense against interceptors asides from it's drones and a 2-slot tank is fairly inefficient for any extended period of time. Again, EFT does not provide you all the answers; a Co-Proc is already required for your described setup (unless using faction), using 425s with ambits and the utility slot would also require a RCU and faction Co-Proc. Hey look, the ship has some fitting issues! Imagine that.
The counters to TPs are only an answer to Lyria's statement that none exist while clearly they do. The option is there should they so chose to use it. Speed-tanking is also another indirect counter to TPs, as simply going faster than weapon tracking/explosion velocity will counter-act it's effects. Nobody would care to counter TPs in the first place, but vice-versa this could also be used as an argument to introduce more ways to reduce one's own signature radius since the current available counters are not easy to take advantage of.
Balance should really be looked at with high-end skills; doing so from low-end will lead to disparity at the high-end and skewed numbers.
And you keep on arguing about tangents and digressions without answering the question: why would a counter module/script/etc that reduces the effects of tracking disruptors without increasing any attributes/falloff/etc be imbalanced?
I believe I have asked this question of you a few times already and your only answer was 'no', with the justification being 'no' as well. Can you provide a logical/numerical reasoning?
PS: I stopped arguing for falloff on TCs/TEs a few pages back and only mentioned I still supported the idea. You saying I want to increase Minmatar DPS is just plain wrong. And your numbers are taken out of context anyway; a 5% DPS increase at range with a TE comes at the expensive of a 15+% DPS loss within web range. Total EDPS decreases while the falloff increase means fighting closer towards optimal, so ranged DPS goes up.
|
|
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar
Oyster Colors
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 05:27:00 -
[441]
Originally by: Goumindong
... falloff rigs counter TDs ...
You put this up again and again, but its simply not true. I put a falloff rig on my ship to get more falloff, not to counter a falloff loss, simple as that.
Now I get TDed, I don't counter the effect of the TD, I loose from the falloff I wanted in the first place, while a true counter is not available.
Besides I can't just change rigs like modules, your comparison is simply not valid.
|
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 05:37:00 -
[442]
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
Originally by: Goumindong
... falloff rigs counter TDs ...
You put this up again and again, but its simply not true. I put a falloff rig on my ship to get more falloff, not to counter a falloff loss, simple as that.
Now I get TDed, I don't counter the effect of the TD, I loose from the falloff I wanted in the first place, while a true counter is not available.
Besides I can't just change rigs like modules, your comparison is simply not valid.
Its just as strong a counter as tracking computers and enhancers are. Deal with the fact that the main counter to a ranged based ewar is to change ranges.
|
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar
Oyster Colors
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 05:44:00 -
[443]
Originally by: Goumindong
Its just as strong a counter as tracking computers and enhancers are. Deal with the fact that the main counter to a ranged based ewar is to change ranges.
Wrong.
Just to give an example, I counter to ECM is ECCM. Now we have a small gang engagement, my gang notices that the opposing force has a rook on their side.
The order is given that everyone who was wise enough to carry ECCM in cargo should dock and refit.
Now you say its the same as saying "everyone with a falloff rig in cargo rip your other rigs off and put that on"?
Just accept the fact that a rig is a permanent modification to a ship.
|
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 05:49:00 -
[444]
Originally by: Ariel Dawn
But the sleipnir might be tackled!
Any anyone else can? The sleipnir is the easiest command ship in the game to fit. It requires the least concessions for gang mods, it requires the least concessions for tank, it requires the least concessions for anything. You think you can get 6 of the largest pulse lasers, an mwd, and a 1600rt [or 2 800rt's on the Absolution at all with no fitting mods[impossible with AWU 5, rigging 5], let alone fit anything in the utility high slot? You think you can do that on the astarte which doesnt even have a utility high slot, or the Nighthawk which due to the PG use on HAMs cant even fit a proper fit with its short range weapons period?
Quote:
Speed tanking
Speed tanking does not work by out-tracking your opponents weapons, but out-ranging them.
Quote:
And you keep on arguing about tangents and digressions without answering the question: why would a counter module/script/etc that reduces the effects of tracking disruptors without increasing any attributes/falloff/etc be imbalanced?
You have never once asked this question. But the answer is that the more limited scope of the e-war module means that there must be a more limited counter. ECM has a specialized strong counter while damping has a less specialized, yet still strong counter, and TD's have an even less specialized and still weaker counter.
Unless TD's are going to start affecting missiles, ewar, drones and the rest at the same time as they effect turrets then there is no reason to have a strong counter to it.
|
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 05:52:00 -
[445]
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 10/02/2008 05:45:54
Originally by: Goumindong
Its just as strong a counter as tracking computers and enhancers are. Deal with the fact that the main counter to a ranged based ewar is to change ranges.
Wrong.
Just to give an example, a counter to ECM is ECCM. Now we have a small gang engagement, my gang notices that the opposing force has a rook on their side.
The order is given that everyone who was wise enough to carry ECCM in cargo should dock and refit.
Now you say its the same as saying "everyone with a falloff rig in cargo rip your other rigs off and put that on"?
Just accept the fact that a rig is a permanent modification to a ship, it is a modification of base attributes (of the ships turrets in this case).
ECM is not a range based e-war. Its range independant. You cannot counter-act the power of the rook by getting closer to your target or to the rook.
Just as the strength of sensor boosters is less than ECCM the strength of the td counter is worse than the strength of sensor boosters because damps shut down the entirety of a ships offense outside the damped range.
That the falloff rig is a bit more expensive does not make it less of a counter. Not that you can refit in space without a carrier anyway, in which case, just drop that on the offending gangs head.
|
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar
Oyster Colors
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 05:56:00 -
[446]
Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 10/02/2008 05:56:31
Originally by: Goumindong
Quote:
Speed tanking
Speed tanking does not work by out-tracking your opponents weapons, but out-ranging them.
Last time I flew my interceptor it out-tracked long-range turrets while still being in their effective (often optimal) range.
Same goes for frigates negating tracking of guns when orbiting close (if they are lucky enough not being webbed), they don't even need to be fast to 'speed tank' here.
Quote:
Unless TD's are going to start affecting missiles, ewar, drones and the rest at the same time as they effect turrets then there is no reason to have a strong counter to it.
And this is justified how exactly?
|
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar
Oyster Colors
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 06:02:00 -
[447]
Originally by: Goumindong
That the falloff rig is a bit more expensive does not make it less of a counter. Not that you can refit in space without a carrier anyway, in which case, just drop that on the offending gangs head.
What makes it less of a counter is that it is there to increase range in the first place, not to counter anything. Again, I can't stick a falloff rig where already a falloff rig is to counter TDs.
I could however choose to stick a TC where my web is or a TE where my DC is.
And besides rigs are a tad bit too expensive to exchange at will...
|
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 06:02:00 -
[448]
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
Quote:
Unless TD's are going to start affecting missiles, ewar, drones and the rest at the same time as they effect turrets then there is no reason to have a strong counter to it.
And this is justified how exactly?
What, that more specialized and easier to counter via manuvering ewar has less specialized and weaker counters than the other options?
If the counter was specialized and strong then what good is using the more specialized ewar?
|
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar
Oyster Colors
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 06:09:00 -
[449]
Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 10/02/2008 06:14:31
Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 10/02/2008 06:10:38
Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 10/02/2008 06:09:19
Originally by: Goumindong
What, that more specialized and easier to counter via manuvering ewar has less specialized and weaker counters than the other options?
If the counter was specialized and strong then what good is using the more specialized ewar?
Following that logic it would be useless to use ECM at all since everyone can easily counter it by ECCM.
However, you still forced your enemy to give up a valuable slot for this counter, so it was usefull even if the intended effect is not there.
Edit: Besides needing 4 slots to counter a single module isn't exactly strong in my book.
Edit2: Using maneuvering as a counter is only possible when you are in fact faster as the enemy, now how is a AC battleship faster than a curse for example?
|
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 06:55:00 -
[450]
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
Following that logic it would be useless to use ECM at all since everyone can easily counter it by ECCM.
However, you still forced your enemy to give up a valuable slot for this counter, so it was usefull even if the intended effect is not there.
Edit: Besides needing 4 slots to counter a single module isn't exactly strong in my book.
Edit2: Using maneuvering as a counter is only possible when you are in fact faster as the enemy, now how is a AC battleship faster than a curse for example?
Uhh, in the example above, ECM is the generalized and strong ewar. It has both more applications and carries them out better than TD's. The question was "If TD's can be countered as easily or easier than ECM, then why does anyone fit TD if ECM is stronger?"
Where do you get "4 slots" from?
Its probably not. But that begs the question, should an AC battleship be be killing a curse with its autocannons? Both will be using drones as their primary form of offense. The curses TD's wont stop the tempest from killing its drones without changing to a tracking script. Changing to a tracking script means that the tempest will be able to easily hit the curse.
As well, the tepest has siege, cruise, ham, or heavy launchers with wich it can project dps.
|
|
| 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 |