| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
   |
Posted - 2011.01.04 16:40:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: Grimpak
It is pretty much an (extreme) example of how things are on the short range weapons: pulses do less 10% damage to hit up to 300% farther than blasters.
This suggests either increasing the damage or range of blasters. But either option causes problems - increasing blaster range just makes them ripoffs of ACs or pulses, while the necessary increase in blaster damage would probably be excessive. In my mind, the problem is not really that blasters aren't good enough in AC/laser territory, it's that ACs and lasers are too good in blaster territory. But that train of thought leads to nerfs, and that isn't really what the community wants to hear. I mean, how would you react if CCP proposed reverting the old pulse tracking boost and cut tracking by 20%?
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2011.01.05 12:18:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Gypsio III on 05/01/2011 12:25:20
He's saying that fitting nanofibres and TEs will give you more applied damage than magstabs will. But that logical progression of that line of argument is that you shouldn't be using blasters in the first place...
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2011.01.05 14:10:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Whitehound
Originally by: Gypsio III
But that logical progression of that line of argument is that you shouldn't be using blasters in the first place...
No. The argument stops there.
It is, again, only the stupid who do not know where to stop. You have the same problem with blasters. You do not know when to stop increasing the damage output.
Give an argument why not to fit 7 mag stabs on a Megathron, if you think mag stabs are the best modules to fit with blasters. You cannot, because you do not know where to stop and you would end saying that 7 mag stabs is the best Megathron fit.
Amirite?
I've no idea, because you're not making any sense. It may be an oblique reference to stacking penalties, but I've NFI, tbh.
I do recall that you're the guy who confused the damage mitigation mechanics of turrets with those of missiles, however, so, well, this could be a long and confusing thread.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2011.01.05 14:52:00 -
[4]
Your memory is faulty.
Originally by: Whitehound
No. Turrets can hit a moving target with peak DPS, or not. Missiles can never hit a moving target with peak DPS.
...is incorrect, and obviously so.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2011.01.05 16:21:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Gypsio III on 05/01/2011 16:23:04
Originally by: Whitehound
Originally by: Gypsio III
Originally by: Whitehound
No. Turrets can hit a moving target with peak DPS, or not. Missiles can never hit a moving target with peak DPS.
...is incorrect, and obviously so.
It is correct. Missiles always get their maximum damage reduced when a target is moving. Turrets can hit a moving target with peak DPS, or not.
Okay. You're probably trolling, but you're doing sufficiently subtly that it's still worthwhile explaining this to other people. Let's do the easy bit first.
Quote:
Missiles always get their maximum damage reduced when a target is moving.
A missile of explosion radius 100 m that hits a target of sig 100 m will do full damage if the target is travelling slower than the missile's explosion velocity.
That's it, it really is that simple. This is quite easy to achieve in practice and it is common for missiles to do full damage to a moving target.
Originally by: Whitehound
Turrets can hit a moving target with peak DPS, or not.
First of all, this quote makes no sense. Taken literally, you're stating that one of the two eventualities will occur. Well, thanks for that, Einstein.
A turret can only do full damage when transversal is zero. When transversal exists, some damage is lost because of imperfect tracking. With the right combination of tracking and transversal, the loss can be very large, or it can be very small - but it still exists mathematically. Since transversal is a product of movement, any movement leads to a loss of turret damage.
The only exception is where the movement is directly away or towards the target/firer, such that transversal remains zero. But this perfect situation is basically impossible to achieve - with the result that there is always a small transversal and a corresponding loss of damage.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2011.01.05 17:27:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Whitehound
No. Turrets have a weapon signature and if the weapon signature is smaller than the target's signature will they do full damage, too.
This is hopeless.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2011.01.07 15:21:00 -
[7]
Er Whitehound, since you don't even know how tracking works, I don't think people are going to be too interested in your withheld fitting advice. 
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2011.01.08 21:31:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
Minmatar is more than just the Vagabond. The armor tankers are definitely not out-of-webrange kiters, their effective range apart from the battleships is inside web range.
Hang on, what armour tankers? Typhoon. Anything else? Rupture and Tempest are more shield these days, surely?
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2011.01.08 22:28:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Zemkhoff
If you'd been awake for the last year or two, you'd know that people use the deimos as a sniperhac when they can't use a muninn or zealot.
Fit please? I can't seem to make one that isn't unspeakably bad.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2011.01.10 20:25:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Pod Amarr
Actually that is not a problem of the tracking of the guns per se.
If both the Vindicator and the vigilant were using 90 % + Scram they would be moving really at snail's pace.
In this scenario it becomes a target signature radius vs the Blaster Signature radius. a Painter would have helped.
It's amazing how many people don't understand how tracking works, eh? 
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2011.01.10 21:06:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Whitehound
Originally by: Gypsio III
It's amazing how many people don't understand how tracking works, eh?
What I find amazing is the amount of people who proof you wrong by having an understanding compared to those who do not and only troll you.
"Prove you wrong", I think you mean. And you appear to be saying that you are trolling me, since you also don't understand tracking. But we knew this.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2011.01.27 09:32:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Gypsio III on 27/01/2011 09:34:31
Originally by: Katarlia Simov
For rails to be balanced, there needs to be a re-balance of all long range guns. Their extra range is useless (and in fact unobtainable to non-rokhs) and so its not fair to balance them with it.
Hardly. Sufficient range means that they can use CN Iridium instead of Spike, getting the same DPS as Spike but with much greater tracking, and the option of switching to higher-damage ammo at closer range.
Giving rails more range should be a viable way of fixing them, as it would increase their DPS and tracking at range, while not changing their DPS close up.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2011.01.27 14:15:00 -
[13]
That's lame, even by your standards, Naomi. 
For snipers, more range = more DPS because range bonuses are damage bonuses. Plus the massive tracking boost that you get from switching from Spike to CN Iridium, and it helps on cap use too. You just need to have sufficient range to be able to use Iridum in the first place. This isn't a complicated concept.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2011.01.27 22:04:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Altaica Amur
1/2
While you're correct that a range bonus allows rails to get better tracking it cannot provide better DPS so long as t2 ammo remains unchanged. The 50% range bonus on the Rokh is wiped away completely by moving away from the 80% range bonus to spike, if you use anything less rangy then Iridum you'll hit less far then a megathron using spike and even using DG ammo you'll still have gained no DPS whatsoever compared to using spike on a Rokh.
Basically all that you get out of trying to turn your range advantage into a dps advantage is tracking and of the two dps is a far larger weakness for the Rokh. If you want your statements to be true Gypsio III then t2 ammo will have to be either massively nerfed or removed from the game.
All of this is correct. And I have no objection to giving rails a DPS boost - the damage is lacklustre - I was simply talking in terms of range. However... a large enough range boost would enable the use of Lead and even Thorium (CF Eagle) instead of Iridium at a certain range, giving more DPS than Spike. I don't know whether such a rail range boost is actually sensible though.
For example, a triple-MFS, triple-TC Rokh gets 415 DPS at 133/58 km with CN Thorium, and 321 DPS with Spike. What optimal should the Thorium Rokh have for rails to be considered "fixed"? Or if the DPS of Thorium is not enough, then CN Uranium gives 461 DPS at 114/58 km. A 10% range boost would take these to 146/58 km and 125/58 km... 20% to 150/58 km and 137/58 km. Is this sensible? I supposed the other question here is what effect this has on the Megathron.
|
| |
|