| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 20 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Trigos Trilobi
Man-Eating Village Idiots
   |
Posted - 2008.02.05 20:59:00 -
[271]
 Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
You missed the point. Minmatar want TCs to affect fall off, ie they are asking for a counter module that protects them from TDs but it will otherwise also BOOST their damage/range. Unlike ECCM that only works as a protective module and doesnt boost you and is quite the joke amongst modules tbpfh.
I think most people on this thread want TC/TE falloff mod more because of the principle than because it'd be actually useful as a counter or extra damage mod. The math seems to show that TE isntead of 3rd gyro for example will be more of a penalty than a bonus inside usual engagement ranges and quite negligible damage bonus beyond that. Furthermore assuming you'd get the 15% bonus rigs / optimal mods give, you'd need something like 5 mods to counter 1 TD and that's only if the mods weren't stacking penalized which they are.
Now since there's really not even that many ships where you'd fit 3 gyros, I don't see too many people fitting multiple TEs and midslots are equally short supply. Maybe you'd see occasional comedy fits with 4 falloff mods that'd do 20% instead of 5% damage at 35km but aside from that it's hard to think of any realistic fits that would massively benefit from the change.
|
Yargo Metash
Minmatar
Heimatar Services Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.02.05 21:02:00 -
[272]
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi
The main thing I don't agree with you though is that the falloff bonus will not work like you seem to think. For someone playing amarr non-recons the only difference you'll notice after the falloff penalty hits tranquility is that you get TDd a lot more and it will hurt you just like it does now. You don't have the slots to use it yourself, and even if you do, it will not shut down anything except a vaga. Minmatar ships will get in your face as they did before, you take slightly less damage while they crawl into their optimal but since even if you find an amarr ship that can fit both web and td, the minmatar still have speed advantage and they will get into their optimal and there's nothing you can do about it. Once they're there, the only use for the TD is going to be the tracking script that brings their tracking lower to yours so they can't outmaneuver your tracking.
The problem is that so far we've only heard of unbonused TD's having -50% falloff, putting Med's upwards of 75% into their falloff. And tracking is not an issue when you've got them webbed. So technically, if the min's not dead when you've got him in web range at his optimal, then something is wrong.
|
Trigos Trilobi
Man-Eating Village Idiots
|
Posted - 2008.02.05 21:18:00 -
[273]
Edited by: Trigos Trilobi on 05/02/2008 21:19:14
Originally by: Yargo Metash
The problem is that so far we've only heard of unbonused TD's having -50% falloff, putting Med's upwards of 75% into their falloff. And tracking is not an issue when you've got them webbed. So technically, if the min's not dead when you've got him in web range at his optimal, then something is wrong.
Yes that'll be the case if you have the slots both for TD and a web. You win extra time to take advantage of your range. Due to the med slot layouts it'll not be very common though. More likely is that the amarr is the one TD'd and wondering why on earth he was so keen to get this falloff penalty in game that made every minmatar and gallente with extra med fit a TD.
And nods tracking is mostly not an issue, and certainly not during the approach base. Once the faster ship is at its optimal though, it can crawl sufficiently close to work the tracking advantage into his favour. That's why I said the amarr will switch to the tracking script once the minmatar is in his optimal.
|
Magazaki
|
Posted - 2008.02.05 21:21:00 -
[274]
Edited by: Magazaki on 05/02/2008 21:25:36
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi
...now it's the same set of valid targets but slightly increased efficiency against some, and amarr will still be the ones that suffer from them most...
WTF? How is that? I thought the change actually hurt autocannons first, blasters second and artilleries third, wth do lasers have to do with it?? Let alone the fact that they are actually the ones with bonuses for them?
I don't think that TC/TE falloff boost is needed, but I am not strong against it because it will have no effect IMHO. But saying that amarr will be the ones most hurt by the TD boost is, well, kinda off. Minnies are the ones affected the most, followed by Gallente blasterships, followed by the oddball caldari blastership, THEN followed by amarr pulseboats that have the biggest optimal to falloff ratio of them all...
For long range guns they are not a matter anyway, but artilleries would be the first to be affected anyway...
-----sig-----
Originally by: Kaemonn:Signature
Originally by: kieron: off duty
You dont have to swallow!
Win... |
Trigos Trilobi
Man-Eating Village Idiots
|
Posted - 2008.02.05 21:33:00 -
[275]
Originally by: Magazaki
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi
...now it's the same set of valid targets but slightly increased efficiency against some, and amarr will still be the ones that suffer from them most...
WTF? How is that? I thought the change actually hurt autocannons first, blasters second and artilleries third, wth do lasers have to do with it??
I thought I explained that bit above already :P But in nutshell, the falloff penalty by itself doesn't hurt amarr, but since amarr don't have that many spare med slots, it'll be the minmatar and gallente playing with the new toy and since the optimal penalty is as vicious as it ever was, for an amarr the only visible change in the game is that he gets TDd a lot more.
|
Yargo Metash
Minmatar
Heimatar Services Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.02.05 21:34:00 -
[276]
Edited by: Yargo Metash on 05/02/2008 21:35:02
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi
Edited by: Trigos Trilobi on 05/02/2008 21:19:14
Yes that'll be the case if you have the slots both for TD and a web. You win extra time to take advantage of your range. Due to the med slot layouts it'll not be very common though. More likely is that the amarr is the one TD'd and wondering why on earth he was so keen to get this falloff penalty in game that made every minmatar and gallente with extra med fit a TD.
Kinda like how Min's racial EW is webs, and everyone with their mother, their sister, their sister's dog, the dogs cousin's nephew's aunt's former roomate are using them 
As for Amarr being most TD'd, it will be with the tracking script, not the falloff script. When I ran calculations of 425's with hail/barrage, heavy Neuts' with void and pulses with conflag, the Barrage lost 6000 in falloff while the pulses only lost, I believe it was 1500. That's a LOT of range. Not to mention the pulses optimal was around 11k, while the barrage AC's was only around 5k.
Edit: Err, missed two posts. Oh well. Yes, it'd be Min and Gal disrupting each other to get closer and pwn.
|
Trigos Trilobi
Man-Eating Village Idiots
|
Posted - 2008.02.05 21:46:00 -
[277]
Originally by: Yargo Metash
As for Amarr being most TD'd, it will be with the tracking script, not the falloff script. When I ran calculations of 425's with hail/barrage, heavy Neuts' with void and pulses with conflag, the Barrage lost 6000 in falloff while the pulses only lost, I believe it was 1500. That's a LOT of range. Not to mention the pulses optimal was around 11k, while the barrage AC's was only around 5k.
Edit: Err, missed two posts. Oh well. Yes, it'd be Min and Gal disrupting each other to get closer and pwn.
I believe at their current state there is one script that reduces tracking, and another one that reduces both optimal at falloff at once (since that's the only logical way to do it if you go this route), -50% both with max skills. So max skilled large acs with barrage would be something like 15km falloff with 1 TD applied. This would indicate that at bs level the benefit that amarr can gain with this falloff penalty is even less since the minny bs will already do over 60% of his max damage when he enters web range, hail won't probably be used until at very close range. BSs are slower though. Have to admit though that I've done most my thinking with medium ac numbers at hand so this is just a gut instinct.
|
Yargo Metash
Minmatar
Heimatar Services Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.02.05 21:59:00 -
[278]
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi
I believe at their current state there is one script that reduces tracking, and another one that reduces both optimal at falloff at once (since that's the only logical way to do it if you go this route), -50% both with max skills. So max skilled large acs with barrage would be something like 15km falloff with 1 TD applied. This would indicate that at bs level the benefit that amarr can gain with this falloff penalty is even less since the minny bs will already do over 60% of his max damage when he enters web range, hail won't probably be used until at very close range. BSs are slower though. Have to admit though that I've done most my thinking with medium ac numbers at hand so this is just a gut instinct.
Ooooh, ouch. That would hurt lots of people if 50% for both. And at BS levels the problem is fairly moot, as it doesn't matter if a BS is webbed or not in most cases, it still moves like a hog compared to cruisers. HP's for speed tradeoff. And yeah. Hail is the blaster ammo for minni's.
|
Aramendel
Amarr
North Face Force
|
Posted - 2008.02.05 22:07:00 -
[279]
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi
You do realize painters and webs compete for same slots on a Huginn?
You do realize that nowadays cap warfare on the curse does not really work without either having a cap injector or several cap recharge modules.
So in that aspect there is no difference there really. Nos/neuts do not need mid slots, but their required support modules sure need them. Unless you want to kill your own whole cap as well, that is.
Quote:
You are probably also familiar with the fact that you'd be lucky to find even 1 TP on any decent Huginn fit and on most fits there is none?
I wouldn't classify any huginn fit with a TP as "decent", TBH.
Quote:
If painters would be uptuned, your typical huginn would lose a web for a TP, it wouldn't magically have one extra slot for this actually useful painter. So it's a tradeoff, less webbing (or tank) for TP goodness.
If a single web wouldn't be enough to virtually stop any ship I would aggree with that argumentation. They are however.
The 2nd web most huginns/rapiers use is for redudancy usually.
Quote:
And this is not even that important. Balancing one ew type useless because a recon has other ew type that is perceived (too?) powerful is ridiculous.
Please quote where I said that "balancing it is useless"?
I never said that they shouldn't be balanced. I said that their weak performance is not making minnie recons useless. And if TPs get boosted then you would have to rebalance the other bonuses of the hug/rap.
The point really is that the huginn/rapier as they are now are some of the most useful recons around and really do not need *any* buff. They are totally fine right now. *Just* from their ship performance.
Feel free to claim otherwise and become a laughingstock of any halfway experienced recon pilot.
TPs are imbalanced. Minnie recons aren't.
It is impossible to fix one balance without destroying the other balance without changes to the ships.
And, no, "but they can only use webs or TPs" is a nonsensical argument. With that one a ship which had the full ECM, full damp and full TD bonuses would not be more powerful than a ship which only had the TD bonus.
The versiability of a ship very much adds to its performance.
|
Ariel Dawn
Beets and Gravy Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.02.05 22:38:00 -
[280]
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.
|
|
|
Dromidas Shadowmoon
Minmatar
54th Knights Templar
Dark Matter Coalition
|
Posted - 2008.02.05 22:50:00 -
[281]
Originally by: goodby4u
FOTM will always get nerfed,in saying this it does make sense that ccp makes a tracking disruptor such as this,its a counter for a speed tanking ship that relies on its falloff(rapier sleipnir vagabond huggin to a point).
Now with that information you would think it would be a good idea to make a counter,however that counter SHOULD NOT have a plus affect unless a TD affects it,reason being is if a vaga fits one and its not being TD'd then it would have up to 30km range on falloff,in this we find that vagabonds can affectively hit things outsite neut distance and that also means the only affective weapon against them is a huggin hyena or rapier.
TD are already very effective counters vs speed tanked arty ships. You apply the tracking script and I can guarantee my vagabond's guns will never hit you while orbitting (with MWD off).
Minmatar guns, especially ones fitting t2 ammo, have terrible tracking. We always have been very vulnerable to TDs.
The only ship we've got that can really own in optimal with good tracking is the muninn (and battleships, I suppose, but I don't fly them). a muninn with 425's and t1 faction ammo (the 0% range ones, iirc) do extremely nice damage with amazing tracking.
_______________________________________________
Minmatar will always go faster than you, get over it. |
Cpt Branko
Surge.
Night's Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.02.05 23:13:00 -
[282]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
TDs on bonused ships deserve to totally shut down a turret ships turrets because thats the only thing it does compared to ecm. ECM kills your drones, your own ew effort and ALL your weapons including missiles and neuts.
Yeah, ECM messes up your drones, they magically deaggro 
Anyway, ECM only works on specialised ships, there are four different kinds of it and you need to fit a whole rack of them to be effective + put signal distortion amps in lows.
Make TDs race-specific and requiring lowslots and specific ships and then we'll talk about shutting down a turret ship (only, like, 75% of EvE) with only one TD.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.05 23:22:00 -
[283]
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
|
Trigos Trilobi
Man-Eating Village Idiots
|
Posted - 2008.02.05 23:37:00 -
[284]
Edited by: Trigos Trilobi on 05/02/2008 23:38:26
Originally by: Aramendel
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi
You do realize painters and webs compete for same slots on a Huginn?
You do realize that nowadays cap warfare on the curse does not really work without either having a cap injector or several cap recharge modules.
And this invalidates the point that balancing target painters based on Huginn web performance (when painters are made obsolete by webs and share a same slot) is stupid exactly how?
Quote:
Quote:
You are probably also familiar with the fact that you'd be lucky to find even 1 TP on any decent Huginn fit and on most fits there is none?
I wouldn't classify any huginn fit with a TP as "decent", TBH.
That's basically what I said, glad you got it.
Quote:
If a single web wouldn't be enough to virtually stop any ship I would aggree with that argumentation. They are however.
The 2nd web most huginns/rapiers use is for redudancy usually.
As I said, as long as TPs are weaker than webs, the huginn will fit 2 webs since web does everything painter does better, and then some. How does this support your claim that TPs need to be weak because webs are good?
Quote:
Please quote where I said that "balancing it is useless"?
That was worded badly, by "... balancing one ew useless ..." I essentially meant that it's a bad argument to claim that poor performance for TPs is somehow justified because webs are too powerful. And that refers to your original comment:
Quote:
"The gimpage of TPs is overcompensated by the ownage of 40k webs."
Note that the comment was in reference to me comparing TDs with TPs.
Then you go on and rant
Quote:
The point really is that the huginn/rapier as they are now are some of the most useful recons around and really do not need *any* buff. They are totally fine right now. *Just* from their ship performance.
Feel free to claim otherwise and become a laughingstock of any halfway experienced recon pilot.
The point really is that you (purposefully?) misinterpret my words and come to weird conclusions assuming I have claimed something I have not and go on to quote irrelevant bits here and there while providing little to no arguments against any of my real points.
In last post I spesifically said
Quote:
And yep, huginn is not broken because of painters and I have not claimed it is. What I've tried to point out is that your reasoning that painters should be sucky because huginn has a nice web bonus is illogical at best. If webbers and painters used different slots, you might have more of a case, but even then the proper action would be changing the recon bonuses instead of keeping one ew useless because the other is too powerful on that 1 ship that has bonuses for both.
Which is pretty much the same thing you now offer me as some sort of weird counterargument.
Quote:
And, no, "but they can only use webs or TPs" is a nonsensical argument. With that one a ship which had the full ECM, full damp and full TD bonuses would not be more powerful than a ship which only had the TD bonus.
I'm not even sure what you're trying to refute here, I just hope it's not the last bit which starts something like "and just for laughs".
In any case comparing ECM, damps and TDs with web vs painters is bad analogy. The latter three are not made obsolete by each other and each have own distinctive characteristics and applications. Not to mention each 'belong' to a different race. You could try with damps&scrambles or nos&tds, but of course your analogy then quickly falls apart since tds aren't made obsolete due to nos (and have identical effect) and same is true for damps and scrambles.
I don't think you can argue that the main benefit from painter is basically +tracking. A side effect of web slowing your target down to 10% is basically a bucketload more +tracking for all intents and purposes. -> web obsoletes painter. More accurate analogy would be having bonus both for small nos and med nos.
|
Cpt Branko
Surge.
Night's Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.02.05 23:59:00 -
[285]
Originally by: Goumindong
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.
You mean, precisely what it does for Amarr ships right now? 
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Ariel Dawn
Beets and Gravy Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.02.06 00:02:00 -
[286]
Originally by: Goumindong
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
In an up-close situation though, either both ships are webbed (tracking isn't important), the other ship webs the Minmatar pilot and controls the transverals (as many Minmatar fits do not fit a web), or neither web each other and both dance around missing shots. I also fail to see how a 7.5% tracking increase will out DPS a 13% damage increase from a 3rd Gyrostabilizer. Could you provide numbers to back up your claim incorporating the DPS differences between 1TE 2Gyro vs 3 Gyro at ranges under 10km?
|
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.06 05:04:00 -
[287]
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.
|
Ariel Dawn
Beets and Gravy Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.02.06 05:33:00 -
[288]
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.
|
Goumindong
Amarr
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.06 06:48:00 -
[289]
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.
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar
Infinity Enterprises
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.02.06 08:56:00 -
[290]
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.
this is only true at range+ falloff. At nearer anyh of the edges the DPS increase is much smaller because the falloff curve in graph is not a stright line.
-------------------------------------------------
If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
|
|
|
Aramendel
Amarr
North Face Force
|
Posted - 2008.02.06 12:38:00 -
[291]
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi
And this invalidates the point that balancing target painters based on Huginn web performance (when painters are made obsolete by webs and share a same slot) is stupid exactly how?
Nice try in evading the point.
It invalidates your "This is actually different from the curse with nos/neuts + TDs, since the slots for those don't conflict." argument.
Quote:
That's basically what I said, glad you got it.
No, it isn't. You said that there are decent huginn fits with TPs, I said there are none.
Which isn't exactly news.
Quote:
As I said, as long as TPs are weaker than webs, the huginn will fit 2 webs since web does everything painter does better, and then some. How does this support your claim that TPs need to be weak because webs are good?
Quote please where I claim that TPs "need to be weak".
Stop trying to twist my words. You should know by now that it does not work.
Quote:
That was worded badly, by "... balancing one ew useless ..." I essentially meant that it's a bad argument to claim that poor performance for TPs is somehow justified because webs are too powerful. And that refers to your original comment:
"The gimpage of TPs is overcompensated by the ownage of 40k webs."
Note that the comment was in reference to me comparing TDs with TPs.
Then you go on and rant
"The point really is that the huginn/rapier as they are now are some of the most useful recons around and really do not need *any* buff. They are totally fine right now. *Just* from their ship performance.
Feel free to claim otherwise and become a laughingstock of any halfway experienced recon pilot."
The point really is that you (purposefully?) misinterpret my words and come to weird conclusions assuming I have claimed something I have not and go on to quote irrelevant bits here and there while providing little to no arguments against any of my real points.
That's rich. Let's take a look at the post where I wrote
"The gimpage of TPs is overcompensated by the ownage of 40k webs."
shall we? The relevant part is
"Minnie recons are still pretty nice, though, because 40k webs are extremly powerful.
Bad bonus (TPs) + very good bonus (40k webs) = good ship
The gimpage of TPs is overcompensated by the ownage of 40k webs."
So, no - let me repeat: NO - I was NOT writing this "in reference to you comparing TDs with TPs" in general, but strictly considering the performance of the huginn/rapier. Which should be blindingly obvious considering the 2 setences before the one you quoted out of context.
Either frigging learn to read or stop doing exactly what you accuse me of - misinterpretating my words.
|
Aramendel
Amarr
North Face Force
|
Posted - 2008.02.06 12:39:00 -
[292]
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi
I'm not even sure what you're trying to refute here, I just hope it's not the last bit which starts something like "and just for laughs".
In any case comparing ECM, damps and TDs with web vs painters is bad analogy. The latter three are not made obsolete by each other and each have own distinctive characteristics and applications.
...
I don't think you can argue that the main benefit from painter is basically +tracking. A side effect of web slowing your target down to 10% is basically a bucketload more +tracking for all intents and purposes. -> web obsoletes painter.
You claimed essentially that boosting TPs to that extend that they represent a viable alternative to the Huginns/rapiers web would not make those ships stronger because they share the same module slot. Right?
If that is not that case and you in fact agree with me that the minnie recons would be made more powerful if TPs would be boosted then we both misunderstood each other and all is fine.
But then, as said, you would have to reduce the performance of another aspect of the minnie recons to keep them balanced.
If that is the case, however..reread the bolded parts of the quote of yours.
A ship with the full TD & ECM bonuses would be more powerful than a TD ship alone. It could i.e. fit caldari ECM to deal with most missile and ECM ships and fit TDs to counter turret ships. It would be altogether more versatile, and es result, more powerful.
Even though ECM and TDs share med slots.
If you would redesign TPs so they and webs do not obsolete each other the same would be the case with the minnie recons. They would become more powerful because their versatility would increase.
|
Aramendel
Amarr
North Face Force
|
Posted - 2008.02.06 12:46:00 -
[293]
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
this is only true at range+ falloff. At nearer anyh of the edges the DPS increase is much smaller because the falloff curve in graph is not a stright line.
Not exactly.
The dps bonus gets smaller if you move towards optimal from optimal+falloff and larger if you move towards optimal + 2*falloff from optimal+falloff.
The falloff curve basically gets stretched by a falloff increase - and the further you go the bigger the (percentual) effect becomes.
|
Trigos Trilobi
Man-Eating Village Idiots
|
Posted - 2008.02.06 13:25:00 -
[294]
Originally by: Goumindong
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.
Other weapon types have similar benefits and penalties for fitting a TE at close ranges. You give up the extra damage from a gyro, the falloff/optimal bonus is irrelevant at that point.
In fact since ac tracking is better than lasers/blasters unmodded, you already have the advantage against same tier blasters/lasers and hence will hit 100% or atleast better than the other guy so it could be argued that the tracking bonus is less useful to an ac boat than to a laser/blaster boat. Ie, a laser boat compared to acs has long range but low tracking and can negate this penalty with a TE (while also augmenting its range advantage). Ac boat otoh has low range but good tracking, and is evidently overpowered if it can increase its range while also augmenting its tracking advantage?
Furthermore, the advantage a 2gyro+TE (unbonused ship, 220mm, barrage) has at 15km against a 3gyro fit is something like 7% including hit quality. This is insignificant, especially since you have virtually no reason to engage at such ranges as you yourself pointed out.
For reference, an amarr boat with HPL with te+2hs vs 3hs and scorch gets an effective damage increase between ranges of 24km and 34km, and does staggering triple damage at 30km.
So both do have the increased damage at ranges, acs have slight increase over a long range while lasers have a huge increase over a short band. For both weapon types the point where the extra optimal/falloff becomes meaningful over fitting a gyro is arguably beyond their useful range so largely insignificant. As is evident in the case of lasers if you look at how many pulse fits have TE instead of HS fitted.
|
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr
Dark-Rising
The Dawn of Darkness
|
Posted - 2008.02.06 13:40:00 -
[295]
Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 06/02/2008 13:40:36
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi
So both do have the increased damage at ranges, acs have slight increase over a long range while lasers have a huge increase over a short band. For both weapon types the point where the extra optimal/falloff becomes meaningful over fitting a gyro is arguably beyond their useful range so largely insignificant. As is evident in the case of lasers if you look at how many pulse fits have TE instead of HS fitted.
No do dont try to twist the truth. TCs and TEs give pulses mainly extra range. TCs on an AC boat will primarily give a damage boost in your whole fall off range wich is pretty much ALL your range. No we dont need to give AC boats means to boost their damage that doesnt stack with gyros, you already have fall off rigs dont; push the envelope.
--------------------------------------
The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation |
Cpt Branko
Surge.
Night's Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.02.06 13:47:00 -
[296]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
No do dont try to twist the truth. TCs and TEs give pulses mainly extra range.
Meaning, ability to use multifreqs (shorter range crystals in general!) at longer range effectively, and more falloff DPS, translation to a DPS boost.
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
TCs on an AC boat will primarily give a damage boost in your whole fall off range wich is pretty much ALL your range.
So, wait, I don't get this. You're saying, it's fine if TCs make pulses do more DPS (short range crystals at longer range IS more DPS) at range and give Gallente/Caldari some more DPS when firing at range (Null ftw, and with a TC you'll be doing more DPS at range since your optimal will be extended and you will be less in falloff), but they need to ineffective on Minmatar as possible (shortest optimals)?
And, yet, Minmatar guns need to be as easy to shutdown as all others using one unbonused module?
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
No we dont need to give AC boats means to boost their damage that doesnt stack with gyros, you already have fall off rigs dont push the envelope.
(a) Falloff rigs (and modules would be) are stacking penalized, so fitting rigs + TCs with falloff boost wouldn't be worth it.
(b) Excuse me, so I have to rig my ships to get the bonus which others can get via tracking computers? WTF?
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Trigos Trilobi
Man-Eating Village Idiots
|
Posted - 2008.02.06 13:58:00 -
[297]
Originally by: Aramendel
You claimed essentially that boosting TPs to that extend that they represent a viable Alternative to the Huginns/rapiers web would not make those ships stronger because they share the same module slot. Right?
No. I claimed that as long as webs obsolete painters on a huginn, it is irrelevant to a huginn pilot how effective they are since the huginn pilot will will always fit a web instead. I further stated that at the point where painters are boosted to the level where they begin competing for the slot on a huginn, ie they are no longer obsolete, it then and only then becomes relevant, and further that this is not the reason to not boost painters, if it becomes an issue it is logical to then re-evaluate the recon bonuses instead.
Quote:
If that is not that case and you in fact agree with me that the minnie recons would be made more powerful if TPs would be boosted then we both misunderstood each other and all is fine.
That is again stricly not the case. Huginn will not be made any more powerful by a tp boost as long as painters still are still made obsolete by webs. This is what I've tried to convey, and this is one of the reasons why I said it is insensible to say that poor performance of TPs is overcompensated by 40km webs.
Quote:
A ship with the full TD & ECM bonuses would be more powerful than a TD ship alone. It could i.e. fit caldari ECM to deal with most missile and ECM ships and fit TDs to counter turret ships. It would be altogether more versatile, and es result, more powerful.
Yes that's what I tried to tell you, ECM + TD bonus is not comparable to painter + web bonus, since web bonus for the most part obsoletes painter bonus unlike ECM vs TD.
|
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr
Dark-Rising
The Dawn of Darkness
|
Posted - 2008.02.06 14:01:00 -
[298]
Originally by: Cpt Branko
(a) Falloff rigs (and modules would be) are stacking penalized, so fitting rigs + TCs with falloff boost wouldn't be worth it.
(b) Excuse me, so I have to rig my ships to get the bonus which others can get via tracking computers? WTF?
a) People would fit other rigs...
b) You already have the advantage of ammo switch without major impact on your range. You cant have it all.
--------------------------------------
The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation |
Trigos Trilobi
Man-Eating Village Idiots
|
Posted - 2008.02.06 14:21:00 -
[299]
Originally by: Aramendel
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi
And this invalidates the point that balancing target painters based on Huginn web performance (when painters are made obsolete by webs and share a same slot) is stupid exactly how?
Nice try in evading the point.
Actually I was trying to bring you back on the point.
Quote:
It invalidates your "This is actually different from the curse with nos/neuts + TDs, since the slots for those don't conflict." argument.
No it doesn't. NOS still fits in highs and TDs in meds. The threshold were upping TDs starts affecting curse performance is considerably lower than the threshold where upping TP performance begins affecting Huginn performance. You could look at it this way: If TDs would do same thing as nos/neuts but considerably better, the curse would just get rid of the (some? all?) cap mods and still fit nos/neuts in the highs. If tps would be made so powerful they completely obsoleted webs, the huginn would still only have 2 slots, but would hit TPs instead.
Quote:
No, it isn't. You said that there are decent huginn fits with TPs, I said there are none.
Yep the difference with me and you seems to be that I try to avoid absolutes. Hence I left a little wiggle room for the guy who used triple tps on a bs and popped it with dread torps or the guy who tends to gang with torp ravens a lot.
Quote:
Quote please where I claim that TPs "need to be weak".
"The gimpage of TPs is overcompensated by the ownage of 40k webs."
Implies that tps are balanced because webs are good. IMO tps are weak, hence you're arguing that they need to be weak.
|
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr
Dark-Rising
The Dawn of Darkness
|
Posted - 2008.02.06 14:34:00 -
[300]
Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 06/02/2008 14:34:19
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi
[
Implies that tps are balanced because webs are good. IMO tps are weak, hence you're arguing that they need to be weak.
Dude sure you can boost TPs if we cut web range bonus to half. You clearly have no idea how powerful ranged webs are as ew. This is called balance. You couldnt give a ship ecm + nos ew bonus either for example or web + nos. You are obviously just trying to overpower the minmatar recons.
--------------------------------------
The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 20 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |