| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
917
   |
Posted - 2013.01.07 17:15:00 -
[1] - Quote
Maeltstome wrote:
The new ranges i think would make more sense would be:
T1 - 25km
T2 - 30KM
Fac - Up to 33KM
Go away with such moronic values. If anything, ask for deadspace longer points. (R)isk vs reward, you know.
As long as current supercaps exist, you can not really ask an expensive RF point to be merely 10% better than a free tech2 one.
Also, you failed to realize how the core problem is overtanking. Reduce EHP back to normal values and a crapload of issues will get fixed right away - active tanking, for instance.
rektumfreser wrote:1.) Off-grid boosting should be nerfed, thats a pretty known thing for any1, ON-grid boosting should still be worth doing (perhaps with a dimishing effect, more ppl, less buff)
No "perhaps" but "surely". Unlimited gang-boosting is one of the most dumb EVE concepts, second after instant risk-free bridging.
14 |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
917
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 18:56:00 -
[2] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:No, Fon. The problem is that gang links are damn near required to get "reasonable" ranged tackle. I think everyone knows there's a problem when blasters outrange point range.
-Liang
That's like saying that logistics are required to get reasonable tank.
I'm not saying link values are fine (in fact, they are not), but trying to get it down to just values alone (without addressing unlimited boosting - imagine 1 logistics healing 10 ships at a time for the same effect as when healing just 1) is wrong way to go. Because of that unlimited boosting everyone can bring a gang-linking ship without making trade-offs in the fleet composition and that's why it becomes required that the other side brings it, too. Introduce proper mechanics (and then reduce link effects themselves) and then you'll find out that bringing 10 gang boosters into a gang of 20 is not viable, while 1 booster provides pretty minor boosts and thus is no longer mandatory.
Also, yes, range is inflated, but this is mostly due to 2 very simple things: TEs and OP tier3 BCs.
14 |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
917
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 19:34:00 -
[3] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote: It's more like saying that even the shortest range weapons in the game, completely unbonused, outrange an unlinked T2 disruptor.
I don't see that being true. If anything, this may come as a result of CCP's weird policy of constantly giving ships more and more grid/CPU so that they always pick the heavier guns. I remember playing with plain tech1 points (tech2 didn't exist) and don't recall point range as an issue, although there already were scorch and barrage. Neither Blasters nor ACs outrange tech2 points without adding TEs. Which weaponry has got excessive range in your opinion?
14 |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
917
|
Posted - 2013.01.07 19:47:00 -
[4] - Quote
When exactly unlinked tackle became lacking in terms of range?
I, for one, can say exactly when EVE became overtanked. Surely every issue can be traced down to its origin.
14 |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
917
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 05:17:00 -
[5] - Quote
Maeltstome wrote:Fon Revedhort wrote:When exactly unlinked tackle became lacking in terms of range?
I, for one, can say exactly when EVE became overtanked. Surely every issue can be traced down to its origin. When tracking enhancers added 30% falloff to every gun in the game. Did you not read my OP? *sigh* TL;DR replies as usual.
Breaking news: Tracking Enhancers are overpowered!
So you basically insist that a game-breaking module should induce further changes, potentially game breaking as well? That's like asking to increase local tank values because both passive tank and RR logistic tanks are so amazingly OP. Oh, wait - some do suggest.
But how about we fix core issues themselves instead? Otherwise this pseudologic may lead to sheer comedy, where instead of just fixing ASB CCP tries to bring the rest of the EVE in line with that OP crap.
14 |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
917
|
Posted - 2013.01.08 22:15:00 -
[6] - Quote
Maeltstome wrote:Fon Revedhort wrote:Maeltstome wrote:Fon Revedhort wrote:When exactly unlinked tackle became lacking in terms of range?
I, for one, can say exactly when EVE became overtanked. Surely every issue can be traced down to its origin. When tracking enhancers added 30% falloff to every gun in the game. Did you not read my OP? *sigh* TL;DR replies as usual. Breaking news: Tracking Enhancers are overpowered! So you basically insist that a game-breaking module should induce further changes, potentially game breaking as well? That's like asking to increase local tank values because both passive tank and RR logistic tanks are so amazingly OP. Oh, wait - some do suggest. But how about we fix core issues themselves instead? Otherwise this pseudologic may lead to sheer comedy, where instead of just fixing ASB CCP tries to bring the rest of the EVE in line with that OP crap. TE's are balanced. Before they where only good on sniping ships and Amarr.
Balanced? It's a pretty brave statement, given how they provide 30% falloff bonus, exceeding the one of corresponding rigs, which is not the case for optimal range boosting. 15% optimal bonus is balanced, so is the 9.5% tracking one. 30% fallof is plain stupid.
Realistic value is somewhere in between 0% (which was the reason why they were not used much prior Dominion) and current 30% (which is the reason they are used way too much). I'd say, 15% falloff bonus will be pretty good.
14 |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
918
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 21:56:00 -
[7] - Quote
Maeltstome wrote:Fon Revedhort wrote:Maeltstome wrote:Fon Revedhort wrote:Maeltstome wrote:
When tracking enhancers added 30% falloff to every gun in the game. Did you not read my OP? *sigh* TL;DR replies as usual.
Breaking news: Tracking Enhancers are overpowered! So you basically insist that a game-breaking module should induce further changes, potentially game breaking as well? That's like asking to increase local tank values because both passive tank and RR logistic tanks are so amazingly OP. Oh, wait - some do suggest. But how about we fix core issues themselves instead? Otherwise this pseudologic may lead to sheer comedy, where instead of just fixing ASB CCP tries to bring the rest of the EVE in line with that OP crap. TE's are balanced. Before they where only good on sniping ships and Amarr. Balanced? It's a pretty brave statement, given how they provide 30% falloff bonus, exceeding the one of corresponding rigs, which is not the case for optimal range boosting. 15% optimal bonus is balanced, so is the 9.5% tracking one. 30% fallof is plain stupid. Realistic value is somewhere in between 0% (which was the reason why they were not used much prior Dominion) and current 30% (which is the reason they are used way too much). I'd say, 15% falloff bonus will be pretty good. falloff isn't a 1:1 ratio for damage. It's number have to be high to work.
Tell that CCP who gave falloff rigs the same bonus with locus ones. Also, range bonused ships all have 10% per level at max, there are no ships with +20% falloff per level, so v0v. Taking all the things into careful consideration we surely come to conclusion that the only inconsistent one is TE.
14 |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
918
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 22:06:00 -
[8] - Quote
lol, your "range-lacking" tackling now turns into "Machariel falloff bonus ins't high enough" claims. Pretty hillarious.
14 |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
918
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 23:12:00 -
[9] - Quote
It's implied when saying 1:1 falloff/optimal ratio isn't correct. Otherwise the whole logic makes no sense even for forums. Either you find out the 'correct' ratio (out of current TE stats if you consider TE 'balanced') and then apply it everywhere or you don't start these talks at all 
14 |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War
918
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 23:35:00 -
[10] - Quote
The only valid reply on when exactly tackle became lacking of range refers to TE, so it's actually very reasonable to discuss this particular module. Else other contributing factors should be brought into attention. Like range values of neuts and remote reps, drone control range, minimal warp distance and so on.
What you seem to be missing is that the conversation basically evolves as follows:
- taclking is too short-ranged
- ok, why?
- weapons outrange it
- due to what?
- TEs
- fix TEs?
- nah, TEs are irrelevant!!
14 |
| |
|