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 - 2008.02.13 01:12:00 -
[541]
Originally by: Goumindong
Are you familiar with "Venn Diagrams". Just because all A's are B doesnt mean all B's are A.
I don't think Venn has much relevance here. I'm arguing that increasing falloff has exactly the opposite effect of decreasing falloff. I'd be interested to hear how you're going to prove it doesn't.
Quote:
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.
Falloff mods don't allow AC's to gain both a damage boost and a range boost, you're just deliberately trying to muddy to waters. You can either say that +falloff increases the damage you're able to do at a specific range, or you can say that it allows you to project a specific amount of damage further. That doesn't mean you get a damage boost AND a range boost, it just means that there's two different ways to look at how your range bonus manifests itself. Works identically for +optimal too.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.13 01:40:00 -
[542]
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
|
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar Oyster Colors
|
Posted - 2008.02.13 01:52:00 -
[543]
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi
I don't think Venn has much relevance here. I'm arguing that increasing falloff has exactly the opposite effect of decreasing falloff. I'd be interested to hear how you're going to prove it doesn't.
He won't be able to prove it since it lies in the nature of the curve that both effects act exactly opposite to each other.
And the relevance of Venn tends strongly against 0.
Quote: Falloff mods don't allow AC's to gain both a damage boost and a range boost, you're just deliberately trying to muddy to waters. You can either say that +falloff increases the damage you're able to do at a specific range, or you can say that it allows you to project a specific amount of damage further. That doesn't mean you get a damage boost AND a range boost, it just means that there's two different ways to look at how your range bonus manifests itself. Works identically for +optimal too.
This.
Some people won't accept it tho since that would mean The Enemy could gain more range or do more damage at the same range.
On a side note, did anyone bother to check how optimal heavy turrets behave in falloff until they reach maximum falloff range? Check it yourself and you might discover shocking things
|
Trigos Trilobi
Man-Eating Village Idiots
|
Posted - 2008.02.13 02:36:00 -
[544]
Originally by: Goumindong 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
That's incorrect. If we forget crystals for a moment, there's one fundamental difference between reducing optimal and reducing falloff. Reducing falloff is indeed a damage loss for entirety of that range. Reducing optimal is on the other hand a damage reduction only between the old range and new reduced range. Just like adding optimal can be seen as a damage increase between the old optimal and the new increased optimal, and like increasing falloff can be seen as a damage increase over range.
While crystals make this a bit more complicated, you still do end up with certain range bands where laser damage is not reduced, and where it is certainly reduced a lot less than ac damage is, for the aforementioned reason. If lasers would be stuck with only scorch, the difference would be really obvious. Now lasers can compensate at short ranges with short range ammo, and you turn it around and make it sound like a penalty.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.13 02:47:00 -
[545]
Only in situations where the target ship has no optimal and if falloff is a linear decrease in hit chance[it is not].
|
Trigos Trilobi
Man-Eating Village Idiots
|
Posted - 2008.02.13 10:20:00 -
[546]
Originally by: Goumindong Only in situations where the target ship has no optimal and if falloff is a linear decrease in hit chance[it is not].
Wrong.
We already established last page the damage over range envelope change of an optimal based gun hit by TD is quite different from a falloff based gun. Eg. For a TD'd HPL, the damage is not reduced at all until 4.5km after which it is reduced due to switching ammo by a static ~20% for next 5.5km, then not reduced at all for next 3km and then start rapidly tapering off. Compared to AC gun which will have damage reduced starting from the new reduced optimal, hitting ~20% reduction at around 6km and only getting worse after that. Pray tell me what causes this if not the fundamental difference I tried to illustrate above.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.13 11:18:00 -
[547]
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?
|
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar Oyster Colors
|
Posted - 2008.02.13 18:50:00 -
[548]
Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 13/02/2008 18:55:12
Originally by: Goumindong 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?
This is essentially true, due to the nature of the curve, if we compare at a fixed range (pretty pointless imho since we're talking about range extension here), the damage increase is not noticeable at the beginning of falloff, and increases until we reach falloff range, where it starts to move against insignificant again until we reach falloff x2.
Furthermore, also due to the nature of the curve, if we apply a penalty to falloff, and compare at the same range (pointless again since we are talking about range decrease), we notice that the damage loss is a lot bigger than the damage gain at the same range we had when increasing falloff (we apply the same penalty and increase factor, lets say both 15%), and further increases once we approach falloff range, at which point it starts to decrease again and move against insignificant until we reach falloff x2.
So, in short words, the damage penalty from a falloff penalty is always much bigger than the damage increase we gain from falloff bonus.
Conclusion: Due to this mechanic, either TDs are unfairly affecting falloff-heavy turrets, or TC/TE affecting falloff are fair as well (remind you the damage gain is much smaller than the damage loss applying same bonus/penalty factor).
However, we should really stop comparing apples to oranges and start to realize that we are talking about range modification here, so give TC/TE the missing falloff modifier and every turret gets the same benefit in range.
|
Liang Nuren
The Avalon Foundation
|
Posted - 2008.02.13 19:04:00 -
[549]
Wow, I'm really surprised that this thread is still going on. The answer is obvious that TC's and TE's must affect falloff as well - otherwise TD's are unnecessarily imbalanced against projectiles (in the same way that projectiles are currently imbalanced against TD's).
It's even more true because ranged AC ammo does not really affect Autocannons... (and Scorch/Null is far less affected by this change than Barrage).
There are no ways around this fact.
-Liang -- If it appears that my typing is lazy, I apologize. My hands/wrists hurt.
Update: I bought a Datahand for RSI, and I now suck at typing (so I don't post as much) |
Aramendel
Amarr North Face Force
|
Posted - 2008.02.14 01:44:00 -
[550]
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi It's so blatantly obvious that balancing two types of EW on a ship where the EW don't share same slots is different than on a ship where the two types of ew compete for same 2-3 slots isn't the same thing, I frankly find it laughable that you bother to claim the opposite....
So, let me get it clear: you claim that the curse cap warfare ability will work just fine without cap injector or cap recharge modules?
Quote: I think the fact that last few posts have been mostly about Huginn is a testament to me not ignoring the context of your comments.
Tryin to evade again, are we? Again you ignore what is written and try to steer the discussion away.
I simply brought up - amongst other things - the fact that while TPs are gimp it does not effect the recon ship balance for already obvious reasons. After which all you kept talking about was that single subdiscussion.
Quote: I sincerely hope you don't work in game design.
I sincerely hope you do not work anywhere were you ignoring facts and trying to evade having to admit you are wrong is causing damage for other people.
|
|
Trigos Trilobi
Man-Eating Village Idiots
|
Posted - 2008.02.14 02:44:00 -
[551]
Originally by: Aramendel
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi It's so blatantly obvious that balancing two types of EW on a ship where the EW don't share same slots is different than on a ship where the two types of ew compete for same 2-3 slots isn't the same thing, I frankly find it laughable that you bother to claim the opposite....
So, let me get it clear: you claim that the curse cap warfare ability will work just fine without cap injector or cap recharge modules?
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?
Now, since you actually totally neglected the three questions I wrote to better illustrate the point in that same post you quoted from, I'll quote them here again, just in case you're actually interested in attacking the point I make, instead of coming up with yet another strawman.
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi
If you fit a maximum amout of TDs on curse, are you still able to fit nos? If you fit a maximum amount of TPs on a huginn, are you still able to fit webs? Is there a difference and is it possible that this difference needs to be taken into consideration when balancing the ships in question and/or the ew types in question?
Just for clarity, I'm not talking about the relative power of curse, huginn, or any of the ew's in question and I'm definitely not talking about cap mods.
Quote: I sincerely hope you do not work anywhere were you ignoring facts and trying to evade having to admit you are wrong is causing damage for other people.
You'll have more luck convincing someone he is wrong if you actually attack his arguments instead of strawmen of your own design.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.14 03:03:00 -
[552]
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
|
Trigos Trilobi
Man-Eating Village Idiots
|
Posted - 2008.02.14 13:01:00 -
[553]
Originally by: Goumindong 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
So you too decided to ignore the point I was trying to make and hop on the straw man train and even top it with a personal insult, way to go! I'm actually a bit surprised considering I've got quite a few good, constructive and pretty much on the point arguments from you before with enough poking.
I'm not arguing that cap mods don't limit the amount of TDs that is practical to fit on a curse. My argument was way more general than that, although I did mention the cap mods as an example of a way that a dev could go around limiting the advantage fitting the two ew types in two different racks has over the two ew types sharing a rack. So the cap mod issue really is tangentual at best for the point I tried to make. Which was that boosting target painters is only relevant to huginn once they are better than webs, or provide some unique benefit that is worth losing a web for. Unlike for curse, where target disruptors only compete with nos/neut support modules, not the nos/neuts themselves.
The easiest way to see why this is different, and what I tried to illustrate with my three questions which you too decided to totally ignore, is to consider a situation where the benefits from a target disruptor would completely overshadow the utility from nos/neuts. At this point curse would still be able to fit nos/neuts (without cap mods, obviously), while in a similar situation a huginn would fit no webs at all.
So I am not saying cap mods are useless for a curse, I'm not saying curse is useless, I am not commenting on curse / huginn performance at all, the only point I tried to make was that due to the ew slot requirements there is a difference that needs to be taken in account when you consider balancing the ships in question and their respective ews/bonuses. The cap mods you and aramendel bring up are an example of how to limit the advantage of having your ew fit in two racks instead of one, it is not a proof that there isn't an advantage.
|
Cpt Branko
Surge. Night's Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.02.14 13:04:00 -
[554]
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.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Trigos Trilobi
Man-Eating Village Idiots
|
Posted - 2008.02.14 13:11:00 -
[555]
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.
I tend to agree that this TD boost is kinda ill-conceived for an amarr boost. Minmatar/gallente will be the ones reaping the benefits while amarr just gets to be on the receiving end a lot more than before.
|
Cpt Branko
Surge. Night's Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.02.14 13:31:00 -
[556]
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 14/02/2008 13:32:29
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi
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.
I tend to agree that this TD boost is kinda ill-conceived for an amarr boost. Minmatar/gallente will be the ones reaping the benefits while amarr just gets to be on the receiving end a lot more than before.
Really, the only Minmatar ship which gets significant benefit out of using TDs itself is the Tempest, where it will become standard procedure to fit it; it happens to have that extra slot to use it. Other then that, a Huggin/Rapier could use it to try to solo ships it previously couldn't (such as Minmatar/Amarr BCs).
This effectively makes them better solo ships with a wider array of possible targets (which they quite definitely do not need).
On the other hand, given how often turret ships are used in PvP, the new TD is generally the best thing to fit to a the final midslot in the Myrmidon/Eos/Hyperion/Dominix/Ishtar.
Four midslot armour-tankers are typically best with a cap injector in the fourth midslot, and the falloff-reducing TD is undisputably the best possible addition for a fifth midslot.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Magazaki
|
Posted - 2008.02.14 13:48:00 -
[557]
Originally by: Cpt Branko Can we at least agree on that TDs only need to be really effective on Amarr recons/Arbitrator/EAFs?
Personally, I do not. Because I like strong EW that can conceivably take the place of your tank if you so choose.
But that is kind of a personal opinion, no? Each person playing here would like a different kind of relative balance between tank/gank/EW, and actually noone is more correct than the next...
So I'd say let's keep the argument at "since TD's are boosted shout TC/TE's be as well" which actually has more practical merit... -----sig-----
Originally by: Kaemonn:Signature
Originally by: kieron: off duty You dont have to swallow!
Win... |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.14 15:38:00 -
[558]
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
|
Dromidas Shadowmoon
Minmatar 54th Knights Templar Dark Matter Coalition
|
Posted - 2008.02.16 14:06:00 -
[559]
Originally by: Goumindong
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
Only a buff of our t1 ships then. T2 ships are all shield tank, which means no medium slots if they're planning on tackling.
_______________________________________________ Minmatar will always go faster than you, get over it. |
Amira Shadowsong
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.02.16 14:27:00 -
[560]
Edited by: Amira Shadowsong on 16/02/2008 14:27:43
Originally by: Goumindong 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?
Haha owned.
Seriously dont argue with gomindong, he knows what hes talking about and has prolly twice the iq of most eve players.
|
|
Nian Banks
Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir
|
Posted - 2008.02.16 15:14:00 -
[561]
Edited by: Nian Banks on 16/02/2008 15:14:57
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong Edited by: Amira Shadowsong on 16/02/2008 14:27:43
Originally by: Goumindong 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?
Haha owned.
Seriously dont argue with gomindong, he knows what hes talking about and has prolly twice the iq of most eve players.
That can be taken two ways mate! Either your full of it and so is Guo, which Gou has proven a few times over the months to be a possibility yet I am not too sure about yourself, Or the majority of EvE players have low IQ's.
Given the options I would say they are both likely and probably not mutually exclusive of each other.
As for the part about Gou, well I do believe we all have the same disease that Gou has. Tho on this thread Gou has exceeded most in his "Full-of-it-O'Meter" tm
Given that Minmatar are meant to be the brute strength, not so crash hot at the electronics Race. Is it so wrong that they had the option to shoot a little harder than before? With the rebalance a while back that increased all ships hitpoints, minmatar weapons took a heavy indirect nerf and now artillery is all but relegated to PvE, So yes AC's could do with a little improvement. Just to make it fair as Minmatar have been left out in the cold when it comes to Snipers. Oh and the Sniper nerf just recently didn't help either...
Give us some more options to increase falloff. Its not exactly a game breaking request, its actually quite modest.
|
Eaterof Children
|
Posted - 2008.02.16 16:21:00 -
[562]
Originally by: Nian Banks Given that Minmatar are meant to be the brute strength
Minmatar are the WHAAAATTTT??????
|
Amira Shadowsong
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.02.16 16:53:00 -
[563]
Edited by: Amira Shadowsong on 16/02/2008 16:53:07
Originally by: Nian Banks With the rebalance a while back that increased all ships hitpoints, minmatar weapons took a heavy indirect nerf and now artillery is all but relegated to PvE, So yes AC's could do with a little improvement.
Uhm amarr still havent seen any cap boosts across the board for the increased hit points of all ships. Minmatar ACs are getting a huge boost to EMP ammo with the tank nerf. I think minmatar just wanna hop on the amarr-boost train without any real justification.
Its incredible how minmatar that are gaining boosts with the next patch are whining more then gallente whined when ccp just months ago aoe-nerf batted their whole race.
|
Dromidas Shadowmoon
Minmatar 54th Knights Templar Dark Matter Coalition
|
Posted - 2008.02.17 11:46:00 -
[564]
Edited by: Dromidas Shadowmoon on 17/02/2008 11:46:58
Originally by: Amira Shadowsong Edited by: Amira Shadowsong on 16/02/2008 16:53:07
Originally by: Nian Banks With the rebalance a while back that increased all ships hitpoints, minmatar weapons took a heavy indirect nerf and now artillery is all but relegated to PvE, So yes AC's could do with a little improvement.
Uhm amarr still havent seen any cap boosts across the board for the increased hit points of all ships. Minmatar ACs are getting a huge boost to EMP ammo with the tank nerf. I think minmatar just wanna hop on the amarr-boost train without any real justification.
Its incredible how minmatar that are gaining boosts with the next patch are whining more then gallente whined when ccp just months ago aoe-nerf batted their whole race.
How is arguing that a game balance issue will arise after modifying a module considered "more whining than gallente" ?
The only ammo that is getting a boost for minmatar is the t1 ammo, our t2 ammo (which is pretty much what everyone uses) is exp and kinetic. The slowboating crapships that people fly with 1600 plates are the only ones that actually use emp regularily. Amarr is getting the em boost on ALL of their ammo, t1 and t2. You can't really compare the two.
Not to mention the em boost is a GAME BALANCE boost, not a race boost. This is also going to help caldari and anyone that uses missiles, as well. The only one NOT benefiting is perhaps gallente. It would be more accurate to say its a gallente nerf. _______________________________________________ Minmatar will always go faster than you, get over it. |
Cpt Branko
Surge. Night's Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.02.17 11:56:00 -
[565]
EMP (M and S, don't fly BS) is used by lazy people, so it's a boost to the bad/T1 minmatar pilot.
I use it for shooting haulers, drakes and feroxes, frigs and such junk, simply because Barrage M is too expensive for killing crapships.
If you have to shoot armour tanks, Fusion>EMP. If you have to shoot shield tanks, PP>EMP typically (except if shooting caldari T2 frigs which don't have slotspace for fixing their EM resist).
Post-patch, EMP will compete slightly better with PP for shooting shield tanks. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Magazaki
|
Posted - 2008.02.17 13:54:00 -
[566]
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. -----sig-----
Originally by: Kaemonn:Signature
Originally by: kieron: off duty You dont have to swallow!
Win... |
Msobe
|
Posted - 2008.02.17 14:51:00 -
[567]
They boosted the damage type, not the weapon system that suffers for using it. Do the math - a 10% drop in resists is not at all the same as a 10% increase in damage. Think about untanked armor resists going from 60% to 50%. A hit for 100 was doing 40 damage, now its doing 50. Thats not a 10% increase, its a 25% increase. Which matches your ships damage bonus. You may (just may) find using EM missiles makes sense sometimes now.
They hope it does - they specifically made a broad change like that to fix the damage type itself instead of fixing lasers as was commonly being requested. They want to see us using EM missiles, drones, and smartbombs. This change helps anyone who can use EM damage - and Caldari certainly can.
|
Magazaki
|
Posted - 2008.02.17 19:21:00 -
[568]
Originally by: Msobe You may (just may) find using EM missiles makes sense sometimes now... ...This change helps anyone who can use EM damage - and Caldari certainly can.
You are correct 100%. But in this case, Gallente droneships are gettin the same boost as Caldari (maybe bigger? Can't be arsed to check drone damage difference).
The point was mainly against the opinion that said EM lowered resist is a bigger boost to caldari than to anyone else, while in fact EVERYONE benefits from it.
Amarr first (lasers), minmatar second (faction emp on guns), caldari missiles and gallente drones next (can switch damage to EM if they want), then gallente gunships (guns but have a meaningful amount of drones tha just COULD be EM), and Caldari gunships the last (neither enough drones nor missiles) of the train as far as boosting is concerned.
I.e. the main point was that someone that argues that this was a Caldari boost is plain wrong. -----sig-----
Originally by: Kaemonn:Signature
Originally by: kieron: off duty You dont have to swallow!
Win... |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.17 20:33:00 -
[569]
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.
|
Daelin Blackleaf
|
Posted - 2008.02.17 22:42:00 -
[570]
Admittedly-Biased Thread Summary:
Originally by: Goumindong
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.
Originally by: Gamesguy
Quote: 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.
About as detrimental as an optimal range reducing module against amarr ships that rely entirely on optimal.
Whats the matter? Dont like it when the shoe is on the other foot? And the whole nonsense about TCs is just that, nonsense, as if amarr had the midslots to fit TCs to "counter" TDs before.
And before you mention TEs, amarr ships have to give up tank to do it, there is no such thing as an "utility lowslot", while there are utility midslots on many 5 midslot ships.
Originally by: Goumindong
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.
Originally by: Ruah Piskonit I really fail to see the problem here, even after reading every post.
I've yet to see any of these points realistically refuted.
I'd like to add that my only concern regarding TD's is that they will be overused much as damps and ECM were in their day, and of course the race seeing the greatest advantage from this will be Minmatar.
If they are overused (compared to other forms of EW on non-specialized ships) this will lead to CCP realizing 6 months later and nerfing them to the point of uselessness so that even Amarr Recons don't bother with them (again). I don't fancy watching TD's go through the whole process ECM went through.
|
|
|
|
|
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 |