|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 05:51:00 -
[1]
Originally by: Dromidas Shadowmoon These are going to affect falloff. UNFORTUNATELY, Tracking Computers don't boost falloff.
This means that minmatar, who rely 99% on falloff, have no means to counter tracking disruptors once they reduce falloff. If you expect minmatar to have any chance against someone with a tracking disruptor, give us the ability to counter it somehow.
Yes, you do. They are called falloff rigs.
Rigs are cheaper to fit in terms of trad-offs than lows and meds. Deal with it.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 07:32:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Lilith Velkor Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 03/02/2008 06:20:03
Originally by: Goumindong
Yes, you do. They are called falloff rigs.
Rigs are cheaper to fit in terms of trad-offs than lows and meds. Deal with it.
Then you'd also say Amarr cap is fine, you just need to fit a couple of CCC rigs?
/sarcasm off
Edit: Falloff rigs increase powergrid needs, which can lead to problems with grid-hungry artillery, also they tend to be fairly expensive. Apart from that, the point is that the tracking disruptor reduces falloff+optimal while its counterpart module only affects optimal.
If you are fitting falloff mods onto artillery then you have more problems than getting tracking disrupted.
However, if the argument was "there are no counters to neutralizers" then "fit CCC rigs" would be a legitimate answer.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 07:35:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Julius Romanus
Yes, a TRACKING DISRUPTOR should SHUT DOWN <insert race here's> guns. Get used to it, because it's a beautiful thing when something finally works.
Yes, it should. However a TRACKING COMPUTER should counter a tracking disruptor... which it does not for one race, Minmatar.
-Liang
No, all it means is that the counter is slightly different. Hell falloff rigs are better options than tracking computers because med slots and low slots are more valuable than rig slots.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 15:37:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Nian Banks
As I see it, most players fit falloff rigs as it is because they are the only reason that decent AC boats have become as effective as they are now, Now that webs can be overloaded, plus many other changes, the falloff rig is no longer a counter but near mandatory for normal play. A counter is something that you would normally only fit to "counter" something. Hence a AC boat would not normally fit a tracking computer. But if it had a falloff bonus then people may fit it to "counter" the new TD.
Also No TD are not meant to shut down all turrets, Perhaps unbonused turrets with no modules or rigs fitted to counter the negative effects but then that's the issue isn't it. For AC's we don't have an effective counter and the optimal range is laughable so we can't fight in that.
Would a pulse or blaster boat ever normally fit tracking computers?
The counter is the same, +15% to the primary boosted stat. Hell, Blaster boats are even MORE screwed since they rely on both falloff and optimal and do not have large amounts of either.
The change is fine. No turret really relies on both optimal and falooff at the same time to be valuable, so the seperate hit on each has no effect on the split counters.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 20:20:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Aramendel Nor does every single ship uses a web.
If 9/10 PVP ships and 8/10 PVE ships fit a web, I'd say that you'd be a complete ****** to chance it.
Strictly speaking, though, it doesn't matter if you feel that we wouldn't fit TC's to a Vagabond - the fact remains that there is no counter to TD's. Bear in mind that I agree that TD's should affect falloff.
It's just that TC's should also affect falloff.
BTW Goum, I like how you're arguing against there being a counter because you feel that it would be inefficient to fit it.
-Liang
No, i am arguing that there is a counter, but you keep ignoring it. The part about efficiency is so that people dont say "whaaaa, rigs"
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 20:31:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Kagura Nikon The main problem I see with the change is. Cutting fallof by half and cuttign range by half are very different things.
Example
HAve Ship a with a 16km RANGE weapon (I kno w i know jsut random numbers.. so bear with me) Ship B hasneglegible range and 16 km Falloff
Now target is at 7 km.
TRack disrupt both in 50%. The 16 km range ship will ahve range 8km. So stil ZERO penalties to hit target. The falloff ship will ahve falloff 8km. So it will be hittign 50% less.
So track disrupting falloff is much more effective than track disrupting range.
This is untrue. The 16km range ship will have a range of 8km and a falloff of 2km and being at 16km they will now be hitting 100% less for a total damage of Zero.
The 16km range ship has to close to 8km in order to do the same DPS he was doing previously.
The 16km falloff ship has to move to 8km in order to do the same DPS as he was doing previously.
This only has no effect on a high optimal range ship when the current engagement range is under half of the optimal range ships optimal and he has no shorter range ammo to change into.
But then again, against high optimal range ships, due to their low tracking, that is exactly where you want to be[right next to them], so you are winning there already.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 21:32:00 -
[7]
Huginns dont active tank, the neuts are pretty inconsequential to it.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 21:36:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Goumindong on 03/02/2008 21:41:11
Originally by: Ariel Dawn
Gallente Blasterships do get the most range reduction from the TD changes. This hurts them if they cannot get into web range far more than Minmatar. The thing is once they ARE in web range it is mostly irrelevant as they can slug them to death with their superior DPS. Minmatar tanks are relatively poor in comparision to other ships. A pest in web range will die to a Mega, a Sleipnir will die to an Astarte/Abso, a Vaga will die to a Diemost/Zealot, etc. When I fly Minmatar, if I'm in web-range (nano or non-nano), then something has gone wrong.
Web range is not 500m or nothing. Web range is 0-10km. If blasterthrons get hurt most from the TD's then within web range you should be keeping them to the edge of it and still out-ranging them.
A sleinpir in web range will not die to an Absolution. A sleinpir in web range has a better chance of killing an absolution that it does outside of web range.
Ruptures, Hurricanes, Muninns, Huginns, Rapiers, all thrive in web range[especially because some of their web range is so long]
Quote:
If falloff is introduced on TDs, then it should also be done on Tracking Computers, Enhancers, and anything else of the sort. Perhaps an increase to the bonus Trajectory Analysis gives as well. Projectile Ambit rigs are not sufficient, or if they are why didn't Amarr fit CCCs on their ships instead of covering the forums with their whines?
CCC's are not counters to your own ship. They would be considered counters to neutralizers though.
A counter is something that counteracts something another ship does to you. CCC's do not counteract something other ships do to you, unless by nature of undocking, minmitar ships are automatically turret disrupted for optimal/falloff.
Now if they are, you certianly have me there.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 21:43:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Aramendel
I didn't see much people whine about the capuse. That was never a major amarr issue.
That isnt quite true. The cap use, especially for low skilled players, is pretty rough.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 22:33:00 -
[10]
They already do, they're called ambit extension rigs
|
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 23:05:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Aramendel
Not. Really.
The correct answer was "really, no"
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 23:06:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi
Originally by: Goumindong They already do, they're called ambit extension rigs
You keep repeating this, but fail to argument how you see rigs vs rigs + med + low + remote counter balanced?
Secondary rig options are worse than secondary med/low/remote counter options.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 23:08:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Ariel Dawn
Sleipnir cannot sustain it's tank standard T2 fit against an Absolution. An Absolution is hitting a Sleinpir's resistances of 77%EM/69%Thermal (InvulII/DCII) on optimal while a Sleinpir with RF PP is hitting an Absolution on 76%Therm/83%Kin (2EANMII/DCII), doing less DPS from guns if the engagement was @ 50m distance. Throw in falloff. You are wrong.
The absolution either doesnt have a web, or cant sujstain its tank nearly as long as the sleipnir. Which can fit an XL booster, equivelent to about a double LAR tank on the absolution. They are different types of tanks with the absolution running hit point based and the sleipnir running repair based. But the sleipnir defintily is advantaged by getting closer.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 23:18:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Goumindong on 03/02/2008 23:18:29 There are reasons not to do it. Falloff is pretty much a flat damage boost to autocannons, where incrasese in optimal range are not for lasers or blasters, and nor are falloff bonuses for blasters[as much, since they want to operate on the end of their far ranges and never want to operate in the middle]. Then autocannons gain farhter range and damage advantages than they ought to have.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 23:24:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Goumindong on 03/02/2008 23:25:49 Edited by: Goumindong on 03/02/2008 23:25:05 If neither have a web then the sleipnir REALLY wants to get close to increase the transversal differences.
ed: Nos/neut is useless put something valuable up there like DPS or a gang mod.
there are also probably better rigs to use as well.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 00:27:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi
Originally by: Goumindong They already do, they're called ambit extension rigs
You keep repeating this, but fail to argument how you see rigs vs rigs + med + low + remote counter balanced?
Secondary rig options are worse than secondary med/low/remote counter options.
Makes sense to spend extra pg and possibly downsize guns for less damage (tho gain some tracking) and put nano in the lows, instead of putting on polycarb for better mass reduction and tracking enhancer which would give same falloff bonus, some tracking and no grid issues (so no -damage due to downsizing). Even if polycarbs would be equal to nanos it might occasionally make sense to use a lowslot for falloff instead of a rig slot due to grid issues etc.
Nope.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 00:32:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
Go back and check the part where i said target were at 7 km. On thsoe conditions twith 8km range damage would be 100%
No. In those conditions the weapon with the 16km optimal range would have to change from his short range ammo to his long range ammo.
Yea, a TD wont do much between 0 and 7.5km against a Megapulse Geddon. It wont do much against a Tempest either[10% falloff goes to 25% falloff]
Whop-de-do, you have already won the battle against the long range low tracking ship if you are over half under its optimal.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 00:50:00 -
[18]
Overdrives.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 00:52:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Goumindong on 04/02/2008 00:54:17 Edited by: Goumindong on 04/02/2008 00:53:15
Originally by: Dark Flare Jesus christ you're a plank Goumindong.
Fit rigs? Oh right yeah. Because you can just change those when you feel like it. And they're totally cheap like tracking computers.
Huginn doesn't have to worry about neuts? How fast do you think it goes with no cap?
Not a heavy nerf to Minmatar? Minmatar have to rely on falloff, because in optimal everything ****s upon them from up high.
I'm currently not too bothered, because I can't see that many people fitting TDs. But if they do start fitting TDs, then Minmatar is going to suffer more than any other race.
How are minmitar, with the most supplimentary dps of any turret race, with the most spare med slots to fit turret disruptors, and with the speed to dictate range, going to suffer the worst from a change to tracking disruptors, which go in med slots, hurt turret ships of all sorts equally in terms of range reduction, and are most beneficial to ships that can dictate range?
ed: Projectile ambit extensions are not much more expensive than TE or TCs the last time i checked on their prices, 4m each rig, 1m each TE/TC.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 02:47:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Liang Nuren ...
Oh hey, its misleading graphs to the rescue. What would any bad argument be without them!
|
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 03:15:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Ariel Dawn
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Liang Nuren ...
Oh hey, its misleading graphs to the rescue. What would any bad argument be without them!
Agreed. The Gallente/Amarr plots should be showing them using their highest-DPS ammunition as they want to be in web-range and wouldn't be using their long-range ammo in an attempt to stay out of it. Comparing it to Barrage M (and then to Hail M) would provide a more accurate reflection on what would happen on Tranquility.
Amarr pilots dont want to be in web range. Range is their advantage. Amarr pilots using MF are in panic mode unless they are shooting at missile ships[which out-range them]
But that isnt the total reason why its misleading[no ship bonuses, turret numbers, supplimentary damage, damage types, or fitting is figured]
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 03:16:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Alek Row
If you think that TE/TC's improving falloff would overpower ACs on ships with falloff bonus when not disrupted just say so ...
I thought i already did
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 03:36:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Alek Row
If you think that TE/TC's improving falloff would overpower ACs on ships with falloff bonus when not disrupted just say so ...
I thought i already did
This is the unfortunate part... because it would be overpowered for TD's to affect falloff without a counter in TC's and TE's.
-Liang
Incorrect.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 06:18:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Goumindong on 04/02/2008 06:19:06
Originally by: Ariel Dawn
So why is Tracking Computers affecting optimal for Amarr acceptable and falloff for Minmatar not? Minmatar have about the same DPS as Amarr/Gallente (although needing dual damage bonuses as opposed to the latter's one) at optimal range and only decreases as it goes furthur into falloff. Wouldn't introducing falloff onto Tracking Computers help balance the disparity between them? The optimal range of Amarr pulses is pretty much the same as the falloff range as Minmatar autocannons, seems that increasing optimal which does not miss is significantly more powerful than falloff, aye?
Not really, no. Unless amarr ships were as fast[or really faster] than minmitar ships.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 17:02:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Cpt Branko
Using TDs is going to be extremely popular on unbonused short-range ships with a spare midslot, I can already tell you that one.
And since most, if not all of these ships are minmitar, what is the problem? Your range adantage against blasters has been extended. Your range deficiency against Amarr has been reduced.
The sole reason any minmitar are against this change is because it just might force them into web range and they just might have to risk their ship.
Boo hoo.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 17:52:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
My answer was on his sentence that said RAW DPS. And on raw DPs AC are far form havign high dps.
And the true answer is that that is stupid so who cares?
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 17:54:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Aramendel
Cruiser snipers are usually together with the BS force and picking up tacklers, etc which make a run to your location, they are rarely closer. Neither are they a really important factor.
They are also just as affected by damps because they do not typically have 180km lock ranges when shooting at 100km.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 19:06:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Liang Nuren I love how you guys: - Ignore my absolute proof that a single TD will 100% shut down any AC ship
Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 19:50:00 -
[29]
No really, that is hilarious. An absolute proof that a TD shuts down all AC ships.
I would love to see it. Im going to assume it wasnt in this thread, because the one in this thread was thoroughly ripped apart.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 20:24:00 -
[30]
Originally by: DennoTheHunter Edited by: DennoTheHunter on 04/02/2008 20:08:39
Originally by: Goumindong No really, that is hilarious. An absolute proof that a TD shuts down all AC ships.
I would love to see it. Im going to assume it wasnt in this thread, because the one in this thread was thoroughly ripped apart.
Tell me how we get that insane range you say is so overpowered, since stacking penalty does apply. If you won't answer that, then pls tell me why fall off rigs isn't overpowered.
Powergrid use. No tracking boost.
Falloff rigs are still really damn good.
|
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 20:27:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Goumindong No really, that is hilarious. An absolute proof that a TD shuts down all AC ships.
I would love to see it. Im going to assume it wasnt in this thread, because the one in this thread was thoroughly ripped apart.
The only thoroughly 'ripped apart' you did for it was take a casual look at it and say "It doesn't support my agenda, so it must be wrong".
The simple fact is that we can no more afford to fit TC's than you can, really... but it would be nice if there was a counter.
As it stands, you simply gain an uncounterable offensive ewar against minmatar ships - and that's at least as bad as any perceived imbalance that would be caused by minnie ships with falloff TC's.
Besides, it's not like you can point at the Zealot and Vagabond anymore... (BTW, I am completely stoked about the Zealot change... needs more fittings though)
-Liang
There is a counter. Falloff rigs. Its not offensive ewar since it doesnt make you die faster.
Its not uncounterable you can simply get closer. You can also TD the offending ship to keep your range advantage.
But none of this matters to the folks in here, what matters is that you can pvp without risk, always being able to get away very fast.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.05 00:17:00 -
[32]
Originally by: DennoTheHunter
TC's gives about the same boost. So you won't get any more boost of a range than you would with fall off rigs. Furthermore it takes away a precoius med-slot and requires some cap to run, not much but it's takes cap.
Enlighten me... i can't see why TC boosting falloff is overpowered. The total amount of range will in the end be about the same as using rigs, if you use the same amount of TC's as rigs. Stacking penalty applies, so you can't just fit 3x fall off rigs and 3x TC and laugh at you enemies with ac's shooting at 200+ k's
It deals with the tradeoffs on damage mods and tracking mods. 1x TE and 2x dmg > 3x dmg in DPS at most ranges and you get a range bonus when applied as such.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.05 19:28:00 -
[33]
If the problem is falloff on long range setups, the answer is a falloff boost on long range minmatar ammos. It wont make a difference for ACs, but it will for arties.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.05 23:22:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Ariel Dawn
Quote:
Regarding 1 TE + 2 Damage > 3 Damage, but the tradeoff is a fair amount less DPS in those situations where you want to close in as Minmatar (which according to some of the Amarr pilots is almost always). Isn't that what fitting a counter-module is for? Works better in the situation you fit the counter for, but suffers in situations in which it isn't really needed?
Provide counter-argument please dear Amarr whine-brigade.
Because it also provides tracking in those situations where you close and orbit, it provides not only more DPS when far away, but also when up close.
Such that.
Vs blasters; 1te+2dmg >3dmg vs autocannons: 1te+2dmg>3dmg vs lasers: 1te+2dmg=3dmg vs missiles: 3dmg> 1 te +2dmg
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.06 05:04:00 -
[35]
I said its only about equal against amarr.
However, a 15% falloff bonus at the same range assuming 1xfalloff at the original is equal to roughly a 17.6% dps increase at that range. Should actually bit a bit more due to how the tracking calcs work.
Just plug the hit chances into the hit quality formula.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.06 06:48:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Ariel Dawn
Originally by: Goumindong I said its only about equal against amarr.
However, a 15% falloff bonus at the same range assuming 1xfalloff at the original is equal to roughly a 17.6% dps increase at that range. Should actually bit a bit more due to how the tracking calcs work.
Just plug the hit chances into the hit quality formula.
Ah, it does provide an increase of DPS at range, but I was referring to the situations where Minmatar would be doing better by closing in close as so often suggested by others. The increase in ranged DPS would also be associated with an approximately equal loss in DPS than fitting a third gyrostabilizer when fighting within web range.
Unless there is any situation in which transversal is high enough to reduce DPS. In which case you can get similar gains to the falloff boost at range.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.07 07:44:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Gamesguy
Pray tell, what magical crucifier setup survives 5 warrior IIs?
A: One going too fast to track its target.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.07 07:49:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Ariel Dawn
Ahahahahahaha! A Zealot can nano-fit and be flown as a Vagabond with a similar tank, less speed, and far more DPS than the Vagabond can possibly put out.
Please show me this dual extended Zealot that still packs a scram.
Zealots with 4 turrets were previously out-damaged by vagabonds to about 23km while having much less tank and being much slower.
The 5th turret makes it harder for the Zealot to fit its necessary cap mods and limits its ability to defend against ships with webs[previously it could fit a med neut in the spare high].
So while it now can do more DPS than a vagabond[how you get 173 dps out of a 2 gyro vagabond i havent a freaking clue btw, are you loading carbonized lead?], it is still likely an inferior ship.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.07 07:52:00 -
[39]
Originally by: DennoTheHunter
So why can't we get TC/TE boosting falloff too? It clearly won't outclass Amarr at these ranges, as AC's will never be as good as pulses at range even with 10x falloff-rigs/TC/TE. Never.
In the short range, more optimal is largly unused. This is why most small gang ships dont fit artillery, beams, or rails. It doesnt matter if the ship can shoot 100km, shooting 100km doesnt do the ship any good.
It is the same here. Extending the optimal range of the majority of pulse laser ships does not do ships any good, because range is the least valuable attribute in small gang work. Not so with extending the falloff of AC's[and to a lesser extent blasters]. Because their operating range is so much closer this turns into pretty much a flat damage boost.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.07 08:01:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
There have been enough threads about all this with alot of calculations to prove it.
Actually unless my memory fails me,I haven't yet seen any real effort by anyone to bring out any numbers to support the claim that falloff mod on TE/TC would overpower acs, and neither has anyone really tried to refute my calculations which seem to point towards completely opposite direction. Perhaps you could provide a link or maybe even look at the numbers I posted in this thread and or explain why they are wrong or meaningless or refute the conclusion I made based on them?
What numbers?
Its pretty clear that 17.6% is larger than 12.4%.
|
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 03:56:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi
Earlier in this thread it was argued that minmatar ac ships want to be at their optimal against lasers (since lasers have dps advantage at range). Likewise against missiles. Blah blah blah blah
Blasters 1 te + 2 dmg > 3 dmg AC 1 te + 2 dmg > 3 dmg lasers 1 te+ 2 dmg ~= 3 dmg[tracking increase increases DPS in short range missiles 1 te +2 dmg < 3 dmg[tranversal is useless]
Two >'s, one equal, one worse. Add them up.
Originally by: Ariel Dawn
Please read. 173 is Vagabond Turret DPS when at Optimal + Falloff. Blah blah blah blah
This is disingenious. A ship with 0 optimal and 200km falloff does 39.5% of its listed DPS at its optimal+falloff. A ship with 0km optimal and 1km falloff does 39.5% of its listed dps at its optimal + falloff.
Oh ****, you increase the falloff by factor of 200 and DPS doesnt go up!!!
Yes, it does go up.
Originally by: Dromidas Shadowmoon
The implementatin of a falloff reducing module would be extremely detrimental to ships that rely entirely on falloff (read: every single minmatar ship). It would have to be balanced very carefully (by introducing the ability to counter being crippled) even if the penalties are affected by stacking.
Incorrect. All it does is let the "turret range ewar" actually affect the range of all turrets.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 04:22:00 -
[42]
Edited by: Goumindong on 08/02/2008 04:24:19
Originally by: Ariel Dawn
Your inability to fit a Zealot does not a proper argument for balance make. The ship in question is the new 5-turret version currently on SiSi and will in all likeliness make it to Tranq.
Your inability to provide the Zealot fit in question does lend credibility to the claim that it does not exist.
A single LSE vagabond has 6000 EHP or so more than a Zealot. A double about 13k EHP[over twice as much EHP]. A vagabond that only goes 3000m/s has 30k EHP[but why you would fit that i dont know], nearly 400 gun dps with barrage and a falloff of 29km, pluse 128 supplimentary dps.
A Zealot with a damage control and 2 eanms has 20k ehp and goes 3km/s. It has no supplimnetary DPS and has no way of defending itself from ships with webs. I would say it does 406 DPS with 5 heavy pulse lasers at 35km with scorch. But it wont. And that is because it has run out of CPU. In fact the 4 HP version has run out of CPU long ago[I say this because using an injector as a cap mod is foolish because you can fit a total of six cap booster 800s in your hold, and this is actually more than normal because you are only using one overdrive. But even then you cant fit 5 HPIIs and 2 damage mods on the proposed setup with an injector and WDII]. This put its final DPS in the supposed setup at 338.75. The point at which this becomes higher than the DPS of the comparable vagabond is at 25.9km.
Not to mention that the ship will die to the first decently fast ship it encounters with a web.
The 5 turret Zealot has a role now, and can make a pretty strong nano-ship due to its high DPS and long range. But it is not nearly as strong as you are making it out to be.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 06:07:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Goumindong on 08/02/2008 06:13:34
Originally by: DennoTheHunter
Originally by: Goumindong
Blasters 1 te + 2 dmg > 3 dmg AC 1 te + 2 dmg > 3 dmg lasers 1 te+ 2 dmg ~= 3 dmg[tracking increase increases DPS in short range missiles 1 te +2 dmg < 3 dmg[tranversal is useless]
Why do you keep saying that? I've proved the exact oppesite a few post back. Ok they give more tracking too, but in that range both targets are webbed anyway, so tracking in none existant, making that argument useless.
1. you didnt prove that. You showed that at 20km there is a 3.5% advantage for an AC pest using barrage at maxed skills. But the TE ship will not want to fight close to another AC ship because he knows he has the falloff mod giving him the advantage at range. And the 3 gyro ship has no such information and so has no preference. Keep in mind that this puts this threshold at 5km for friagtes and 10km for cruisers. 2. Tracking is not non-existant.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 08:21:00 -
[44]
Edited by: Goumindong on 08/02/2008 08:22:19 Your second to last paragraph makes less than zero sense with regards to the previous. You just said that battles below the 20km were common then you said that smaller ships which have falloffs in those ranges gain less from falloff rigs than ships that dont.
From experience. Hitting isnt an issue, but the issue is how much you hit. Small changes make large differences which become large amounts of DPS.
Falloff should not be added to TC/TE's. Its a range boost, AND a damage boost.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 15:22:00 -
[45]
Edited by: Goumindong on 08/02/2008 15:22:58
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi
I'd be interested to hear how you came to this conclusion, unless you mean that crawling webbed through blaster optimal close enough to exploit your tracking advantage is a good idea.
Why are you in blaster optimal? You dont exploit the tracking against blasters you exploit the falloff.
Quote:
Extra tracking only increases your dps if you have trouble tracking. Why would you have trouble tracking against a laser boat since you already have the tracking advantage?
Because tracking is not a linear function where you can easily attain max hit rate while reducing the hit rate of others. As well, since the hit quality falls off, reducing opponents hit percentage farther than would if you would still be tracking well is optimal play for both 3gyro and 2 gyro/1 te setups.
Quote:
It's as much a damage boost as +optimal is. Both allow you to project your dps further out, ie increase your range.
Only if you typically operate in falloff.
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi
Kinda onesided logic. The 3gyro fit has just as much information. He knows he has 3gyros, so he'll always go for optimal against other acs.
No. This depends on the type of tank he is fitting, and is sub-optimal play anyway. Because getting to optimal is more risky, even against AC ships, leaving the option to flee is smarter.
Such with two choices "easier to flee, but no disadvantage" or "harder to flee, but a disadvantage" its clear what choice to make.
Originally by: DennoTheHunter
What i did say is, smaller ships gain even less from TE/TC since they have only halve/quad the falloff, with the exception of ships with range bonus(Note: large ac's only get a 4,5 k boost in falloff for the first falloff mod).
I dont think you understand the concept of "percentage"
ill give you a hint. It doesnt matter if you change the ranges involved, the amount better throughout the falloff of a given ship is a steady value. Moving these values towards web/scram range only increases the strengths of the AC ships because within those ranges it is easier to modulate range than it is outside of those ranges.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 15:27:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Ariel Dawn
Don't tell me to use 'imaginary' fits when your Amarrian friends are doing the same for the Vagabond. It is very very rare to have three Gyrostabilizers on them as well. Fitting a missile launcher on a Vagabond is a horrible idea compared to the module that solves it's most immediate problem (getting webbed by an interceptor) and shows that you either do not fly the ship or if you do, follow the lemmings in the FotM setups.
You cannot fit 6 autocannons on a vagabond, so right after that the best module you are looking at is a missile launcher.
Quote:
All FCs would prefer Zealots for actual added DPS in a nano-gang. Vagabonds perform better at the role of tackling because of their slightly better shield-based (recharging) buffer tank and the fact that they operate within disruptor range anyway.
FCs would rather have a Cerberus because for actual added DPS they add as much or more with more agility and they add ewar which increases the tanks of ships all around, and they have the ability to do DPS that isnt EM.
Quote:
Goumindong, I was hoping you'd reply with the clear-cut and logical arguments I recall seeing from you long before these Amarrian changes and raves had affected you. It is impossible for a Vagabond to reach 400 turret DPS using Barrage M, even while sitting at optimal using high-end officer gyrostabilizers and implants, let alone at the real ranges Vagabonds operate at.
No, its not. 5 220mm IIs with barrage and 3 damage mods is 384 before the launcher and drones. Upgrading some of them to 425s[which you can do on a 2LSE setup]
Quote:
Really the issue is thus: Amarrian players believe [...] TDs cut Minmatar DPS massively when they are operating outside of web range (near 75% DPS loss) and they have no ammo-switching solution like Amarr.
1. It has nothing to do with Amarran players. It has everything to do with the proper balance of short range ships
2. tracking disruptors work equally against all races except caldari. In fact, worse against minmitar because they traditionally have the most supplementary dps and the most spare med slots with which to fill with tracking disruptors. TD's cut the damage of all ships terribly when used for range. Against Amarr, its near 100% outside of web range, since most will go from hitting to not hitting at all, ever.
Quote:
Don't tell me to use 'imaginary' fits when your Amarrian friends are doing the same for the Vagabond.
What imaginary fits. You are listing things that the Zealot supposedly does better than the vagabond. Such, you take a fit within the same parameters and compare them. Saying that the Zealot has more DPS than the vagabond while having only 3k less EHP and fitting an injector[which the vaga doesnt have] and going 3km/s means we can place those same restrictions on the vaga and see how it performs. If it performs better than the example Zealot, then the example zealot really doesnt have said advantages over the Vagabond.
The simple fact is that falloff rigs are just fine and the same counter that TC's and TE's are to Amarr and Gallente for tracking disruptors. And that adding both med slot modules for gallente and Minmitar that extend their reach is delicate. You dont want to fit them and want to ignore them, but they are there and they are still the module you want.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.08 23:37:00 -
[47]
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.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 18:07:00 -
[48]
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.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 21:17:00 -
[49]
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 -
[50]
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.
|
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 00:15:00 -
[51]
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.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 00:51:00 -
[52]
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.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 04:42:00 -
[53]
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?
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 04:45:00 -
[54]
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
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 04:54:00 -
[55]
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 -
[56]
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.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 05:15:00 -
[57]
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.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 05:37:00 -
[58]
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.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 05:49:00 -
[59]
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 -
[60]
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.
|
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 06:02:00 -
[61]
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?
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 06:55:00 -
[62]
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.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 15:13:00 -
[63]
Edited by: Goumindong on 10/02/2008 15:13:51
Originally by: DennoTheHunter
So at 20 k using Dual 650mm AC with Barrage at 20k, 3x gyro is actully 5,6% betterthan 2x gyro and 1x tracking enhancer. ------
So it only makes sence to fit TC/TE for increasing you dps, IF you want to lose other mods, like tank or tackling, since replacing a gyro with such a mod decreases your dps at a realistic range.
Actually its about 3.5% before any tracking related losses which increase this number even without the tracking bonus applied.
Use the hit quality formula before you start quoting DPS.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 15:51:00 -
[64]
Originally by: DennoTheHunter list
1. And many other fleets of unique ships would still beat you.
4. Falloff rigs and TE/TC's provide different functions. One allows long range ships to operate at ranges where their tracking deficiencies are not a major hinderance to them. Energy weapon optimal rigs do not provide such ability. Falloff rigs work to increase the range of a short range weapon system.
5. 17.6% is the increase in DPS at falloff for any ship that recieves a boost of falloff of 15%. 12.4% is the increase in DPS from a 3rd stacked gyrostabalizer.
6. What?
7. No, you cant. But what you can do is balance damage types and damage done based on these values and the weapons each ship will be using. Where-in laser using ships will be armor tanking, where-in blaster using ships will be armor tanking. Where-in AC using ships will be using either, but will always have a much higher EM resistance than typicial giving them a natural resistance against the effects more than a laser ship has against their weapons[plus damage changing ability]. So when AC ships complain that they get out-damaged by lasers, they only really get out-damaged against passive plated setups on the battleship level when not flying a typhoon or Maelstrom, or when shooting at a Caldari ship[while ignoring the spare med slots for ewar]. In roughly three out of four of the other situations there is not a damage advantage and in an fight against each other there is a flat advantage that extends far beyond the assumed range.
"if you really did" what? And what does this have to do with falloff on AC's?
As for the strength of it. Yes, increasing the range while increasing the damage against all ships with little to no penalties in the short range against all ships except heavy missile users is a flat boost to a weapon system that does not need it.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 15:59:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Cpt Branko
Falloff-based guns now simply have more disadvantages - aside from lower DPS at range then optimal based guns, they have less options of boosting their effective operating range and now have no advantages (like being immune to distrupting) which they used to have. And if Guom insists that a module which gives you the equivalent effect of a third gyrostab is overpowered because Minmatar fight in falloff and it boosts damage in falloff, how can he not complain about a module which can, without ship bonuses, flat out remove two-three gyrostabs at the engagement ranges he is talking about?
Are you kidding?
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 17:56:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Ariel Dawn
Originally by: Goumindong
As for the strength of it. Yes, increasing the range while increasing the damage against all ships with little to no penalties in the short range against all ships except heavy missile users is a flat boost to a weapon system that does not need it.
Wait, what? How exactly is having 17.8% less DPS in the short range by not fitting a second Gyrostabilizer in favor of a Tracking Enhancer 'little to no penalty'. The TE gives you very very little benefit at such ranges and is blown out of the water by Gyrostabilizers in terms of raw damage. This is when neither of the ships is webbed; as soon as one is webbed (or both), tracking becomes 10x (or 100x better).
12.4% ignoring tracking.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 18:04:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Cpt Branko
Originally by: Goumindong Are you kidding?
Are you trolling?
'Rigs are a counter, be happy.' and 'TE would be better for DPS then a third gyrostab' are what you've been parroting throught the whole thread.
If TEs boosting falloff would be overpowered, how exactly the falloff-reducing TD isn't overpowered?
Especially given the amount of modules you would need to counter just one unbonused TD (in this respect, it blows ECM out of the water, since ECM ONLY works on specialised fits and just one module helps you combat that specialised fit greatly).
Because the game does not work if bonuses and effects applied to others were weaker or equal to the effect that can be applied counter to ones self. It takes a 6-7 slot tank plus rigs to nullify the effect of three damage mods. It takes many more ECCMs than ECM mods to keep yourself safe from jamming. It takes two sensor boosters to counter one from a sensor dampening ship.
Combine this with the paradigm that the more specialized E-war types, I.E. the ones that only affect turrets and not any other aspects of a ship[compared to ECM which shuts down all offensive modules, and damps which shut down all offensive modules outside of a specific range or time frame], get a less strong counter, and combined with the simple [near] unaviodable mechanic that non-damaging modules do not scale as well as damaging modules due to saturation and overlapping effects means that yes. Not only are rigs just fine for AC's to boost their falloff, but TD's being a general range reduction at their current strength are not overpowered.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 19:27:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Ariel Dawn
Not against Minmatar. A Vagabond under the effects of a single tracking disruptor loses over 200 DPS when operating at the same current 16-18km area (or face getting hit by an overloaded web). Getting in close is not an option for ships like the Stabber, Vaga, Tempest against many targets, etc since they do not have the DPS or tank of other racial equivalents.
Also Goumindong, I do not think you want people using the hit quality guide to see DPS when working in falloff with tracking increases. Most people do not even know that being in falloff alone reduces your hit quality regardless of tracking, so the DPS numbers that most people think that Minmatar have are actually a fair amount lower. This information isn't anywhere on EVE-O so people don't know, and you helped find this out on SHC.
The information is in one of the stickied threads at the top of the forum.
I do want people using the hit quality formula. Why would i not?
Getting in close is only not an option for those ships when the pilot wants to take no risk. It is not anyones fault but their own that they have problems against ships with longer ranges if they will not exploit those ships weaknesses.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 19:46:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Ariel Dawn ...
A stabber wont beat a thorax, rupture, vexor, or arbitrator in the short range. The rupture and thorax are the same and shoter range than the stabber, the vexor and arbitrator are weaker in the long range since they have to keep their drones alive. I said use the ships strengths, not "be an idiot".
This Tempest will beat a mega/domi/hyp/geddon/abaddon in either the long or short range
6x 800mm II[barrage], 2x siege II[CN Ex torps] mwd, web, scram, balmer, balmer 1600, 1600, eanm, eanm, dc, gyro 3x trimarks.
The ship will have much more EHP/dps relative to the Geddon and abaddon due to damage types. The ship will have much more range compared to the domi/hyp/mega.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 20:51:00 -
[70]
Edited by: Goumindong on 10/02/2008 20:52:37
Originally by: Ariel Dawn
Nothing is stopping the other ships from using TDs making the Tempest's DPS pathetic at long range. Dominix, Hyperion, Abaddon (if no MWD) can do so. Tempest vs Geddon, it would win if not at a gate/station. If it comes into the range of the Geddon, it will be shredded (especially after the massive Amarr boost in the form of an EM reduction) with the Geddon doing 340+ more DPS. Also more useful in a gang-situation due to it's large range advantage. Using Heavy Neuts over Siege Missiles is a better setup anyway as it's far more effective vs smaller ships, nanos, etc, and that requires a cap-booster midslot.
Unless these ships start using weapons that dont use cap, and suddenly gain 1-2 med slots then yea, there isnt anything stooping thse from using TD's.
However, since they dont have 1-2 more slots and DO use weapons that use cap, there ceritanly is stuff stopping thse ships from using TD's. With 1 TD on each, the Pest is still up a TD but it has two webs and can use the generally reduced range to win. With 2 TD's they run out of cap because they need to mwd into range and use their guns which use cap.
A 1 gyro tempest with Hail does about 950 DPS. A 3 heat sink Geddon with AN MF M does about 1150. That is 250 more DPS, but the tempest is doing explosive and the Geddon is doing mostly Em and thermal.
A tri-hardened geddon, domi, and hyperion is foolish. But if they do, change to EMP and do the same thing you were doing earlier.
A hyperion cannot do 1100 dps, tank 1000 dps and NOT be shredded by TD's[if it can even put up the tank numbers with that much dps, which i dont think it can]. It is not significantly faster that its momentum will carry it through if the tempest is smart, as well, tanking that much requires huge amounts of cap which mean the long burn on the mwd is going to be dangerous.
I am not sure what a Geddon is doing dictating range on a tepest, nor am i sure what activly tanked Abaddon or Geddon has a chance against two TD's on them from a tesmpest[because the tempest will move to 9.5km while putting the TD's on and the Geddon/Abaddon will be forced to use scorch, hitting 90% of the tempests resist on armor while the tempest is doing as much DPS [841, 6km opt+30km falloff =95%+ hit rate], except its all explosive and kinetic.
|
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.12 03:38:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi
it is then not true that OPTIMAL REDUCTION = DAMAGE REDUCTION FOR LASERS
which means that you're actually vouching for TDs to be MORE effective on acs than on any other type of turret.
Only if lasers operate a significant amount of time in falloff. When they typicially do not.
E.G. lets take an extreme. A ship with 20km optimal and 0km falloff.
At 15km a 15% range boost is not a damage boost.
At 15km, a tracking disruptor is a 100% reduction in dps for the lasers.
The larger that Falloff is and the lower that optimal is the more this moves to the other direction where a falloff boost is a damage boost and a falloff reduction is a damage reduction.
The farther you get to high optimal/low falloff the more an optimal increase does not produce a damage increase[with sufficiently long ranged ammo at high damage levels] and the more a TD produces a damage decrease.
Pulse lasers, with scorch [22 base damage vs 24 on multifrequency with +50% range verus -50% range on MF meaning that only conflag, faction MF, Xray, and Gamma deal more DPS than scorch], fulfill all of these situations with high optimal, low falloff[even worse when downgrading], and high damage long range ammo that more or less obsoletes downgrading crystals to increase DPS with optimal increases.
This produces the highest area where optimal/falloff increases do not increase DPS and where optimal/falloff decreases do decrease dps.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.12 04:51:00 -
[72]
Edited by: Goumindong on 12/02/2008 04:51:48
Originally by: Cpt Branko
WTF? Do you ever fly Minmatar? Adequate drone bays? You mean, less then Gallente in every case
OMG you have less missiles than Caldari too! OH noes!
Quote:
LOL.
Effect on blasterboats: now you want to stick at 1.5km instead of 3km (if you're going to get to 3km, you'll get to 1.5km easy) to achieve your max DPS.
Effect on AC ships: you need to stick at 8km (webrange!) instead of 16km to get 50% of your DPS.
Hmmm, who is hit harder?
Neutron blaster cannon has opt+falloff at 13km. Bringing this under web range allows longer ranged ships to more easily dictate range as the ships slow down. This means that blasters are hurt more by the TD's since it increases the time for them to close.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.12 05:50:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
This is the point I care about. Hurricane vs. Myrmidon, if you kite the Myrm and finish his drones (avoiding web range like the plague), it won't deal much damage. For this to work however, you largely rely on your falloff range (read: working at the edge of falloff, which is 15-18km depending on skills/rigs).
Now if the myrm puts a single TD on you, you have to enter webrange, which is a really bad idea, because the myrm tanks better and deals more damage.
See my point? It has however nothing to do with the original topic, its the reason why TDs need to get nerfed and the amarr ewar ships their bonuses adjusted so they aren't viable on any ship
Only when it has its drones. Otherwise it tanks better, but does a whole lot less DPS[for various reasons]
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.12 06:22:00 -
[74]
Edited by: Goumindong on 12/02/2008 06:23:32
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
kiting the myrmidon
Only when it has its drones. Otherwise it tanks better, but does a whole lot less DPS[for various reasons]
Congratulations, you just unveiled the ancient art of defeating the myrm in a hurricane.
Read the second paragraph of the quoted section which claims that the hurricane doesnt want to get into web range of the Myrm. It wont matter when the myrms drones are killed.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.12 18:12:00 -
[75]
Edited by: Goumindong on 12/02/2008 18:15:02
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi ...
Yes. I am not sure why you are saying these things if you are attempting to refute my posts.
The range at which an optimal boost becomes a damage bonus for lasers and the range at which an optimal boost becomes a damage bonus for autocannons is vastly different.
So for medium lasers the range at which you gain a damage bonus is from 7.5km to 11km And from 22km to 27km.[how you got 14km, i am not sure. And most of that isnt applicable anyway since you would be changing crystals every second]. All of these areas where a boost exists are far far under 1/2 fallof, so a TE is never better than a third damage mod until you are outside of 25km.
For autocannons, the range at which you get a damage boost is far higher,[from about 1.5 to 24km] and the range at which you gain a significant damage boost is also far higher[from about 4-6km and above 10km]
surely you can see the difference between "never gets a damage boost within typical engagement range over an other mod, and only gets a damage boost within a 5km area" and "Gets a damage boost within the majority of typical engagement range over an other mod"
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.12 19:38:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi
surely you can see the difference between "damage reduced within the majority of typical engagement range" and "damage reduced on the far end of typical engagement range".
That would only be true if TD's did not also reduce optimal.
There are pretty much two ranges for pulse lasers. MF range, which is between 0km and 10km. And Scorch range which is between 10km and 26km.
Now, the ranges at which a 40% reduction in optimal and falloff reduce DPS for lasers is from 4.5km to 10km. And from 13km to 26km.
So there are two areas, one below 4.5km and one between 10 and 13km where damage is not reduced.
The profile for where it does not reduce DPS is sufficiently small to not be noticeable in comparison to ACs and blasters.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.12 22:18:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi
You're talking about what, ~20% max reduction between 4.5km and 10? ACs reach 20% reduction at 6km or so and only more reduction beyond that. Yep you could say the 'profile is not noticeable' if you think it in terms of wether there is a reduction or not, but if you think about real dps values there suddenly is quite a noticeable difference in profiles.
About that yea, and then huge damage reductions after 13km.[which is were laser users want to be]
The fact of the matter is that now all ships are affected by TD's equally, they all lose precicely 40% of their range. But not all ships are affected by +falloff and +optimal boosts equally, due to the nature of falloff.
And if you dont want to use the counters available[getting close, fitting falloff rigs, drones and missiles], then too bad.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.12 23:47:00 -
[78]
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi
It is also where laser boat is not going to be due to generally being the slowest brick on the grid and everybody else preferring shorter range against a laser boat. So basically laserboat doesn't lose anything much due to -optimal script. It is not a whole lot different than a laserboat using a -tracking script against an ac boat either. Each is robbed of their advantage. Where did we need that -falloff mod again?
Range is an advantage of ACs'. Its their advantage against blasters along with damage type. Tracking and damage type are the advantage against lasers.
If you have a laser ship that far under its optimal then what do you care of the TD isnt reducing its optimal range, change to tracking, you've won already.
Quote:
If both acs and lasers lose precisely 40% of range due to tds, then they would also gain precisely 15% range from a falloff modded TE/TC. If +falloff mod is somehow 'better' than +optimal mod, then logically -falloff mod is also 'worse' than -optimal. No matter how many times you repeat it, it is not possible for -falloff&-optimal be perfectly comparable if +falloff&+optimal is not. Hence, it's either going to be "TD's affect all ships equally" OR "TC/TE with falloff mods don't affect all ships equally". You can't have both.
Are you familiar with "Venn Diagrams". Just because all A's are B doesnt mean all B's are A.
Falloff mods allow AC's to gain both a damage boost and a range boost over their entire specturm. I.E you get a damage mod and a tracking mod. Falloff disruption reduces range and forces all participants to do the same thing, reduce range by 40%, and maintains the same dynamics between the weapons.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.12 23:54:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Alek Row
Paint it as you want, the number and quality of counters to TDs are not the same when you compare the TD effects to optimal/falloff.
The numver of counters is irrelevent when you consider the quality of the counters.
P.S. +falloff rigs and +optimal rigs are not options for laser ships or blaster ships. For blaster ships its because with 1/2 of their range in falloff and 1/2 in optimal they gain half from either and because the downsizing requires cuts the range of those weapons by at least as much as the rigs add. For lasers its the same except they also lose a staggering amount of DPS.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.13 01:40:00 -
[80]
I literally just explained why it wasnt.
+optimal = damage boost from 26-30km for lasers +falloff boost = damage boost from 10-25km for ACs.
- optimal = damage loss for near entirety of range - falloff = damage loss for near entirety of range
|
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.13 02:47:00 -
[81]
Only in situations where the target ship has no optimal and if falloff is a linear decrease in hit chance[it is not].
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.13 11:18:00 -
[82]
And, at the same time, you have also claimed that the damage increase from +falloff mods is not significant until you are fairly deep into falloff.
So which is it?
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.14 03:03:00 -
[83]
Edited by: Goumindong on 14/02/2008 03:03:13
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi
I can't quite comprehend how you can translate that quote into "the curse cap warfare ability will work just fine without cap injector or cap recharge modules". Do you read the stuff you're replying to at all?
Cap mods go in the med slots you dummy. If you need cap mods to run the ew, then the ew is competing for med slots with the TD's
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.14 15:38:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Cpt Branko Edited by: Cpt Branko on 14/02/2008 13:04:53 Can we at least agree on that TDs only need to be really effective on Amarr recons/Arbitrator/EAFs?
If it's a Amarr EW boost, then making it a Amarr-only EW boost, not a boost to all the five-midslot armour tankers which Amarr has none of.
Why? Do you want a minmatar nerf?
Strong TD's are a minmitar buff, since they have the most med slots
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.17 20:33:00 -
[85]
Originally by: Magazaki Edited by: Magazaki on 17/02/2008 13:55:22
Originally by: Dromidas Shadowmoon This is also going to help caldari and anyone that uses missiles, as well.
I keep hearing this over and over, and it wasn't true the first time I did. The ONLY, and I do mean the ONLY damage type flexible Caldari ship is the Raven, all the others missileships lose *at least* a 25% bonus to switch to something other than kinetic, and fully half of the ships are gunships anyway. A 25% penalty for a 10% bonus? Right...
In fact, only the Raven, Khanid and a few minnies are damage-neutral. Wanna count and see which race benefits the most? That's right, the one the boost was intended for.
Other ships than the raven lose between 15-20% of missile dps dpending on the skill level of the character yes.
Minmitar are unable to change damage types in the entirety. Amarr drop 30-40% of their gun DPS and have to refit their ship. Gallente have to do the same with guns and its about similar with drones.
|
|
|
|