EVE Search - Tracking Disruptors [Devs.. you forgot something]

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Tracking Disruptors [Devs.. you forgot something]

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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)
Rastigan Caldari Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.03 13:47:00 - [31] Blasters are very affected by falloff also.. Guess what Minmatar SUCK IT UP, and hump your targets leg like every Gallente blaster ship has to.. Im so sorry your Nano setup of invulnerability now has a counter....
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.02.03 13:55:00 - [32] Originally by: Aramendel Originally by: Nian Banks This buff to TD has massive implications for Minmatar, its going to effectively shut down all AC boats. Not a pleasant thought. Now its true TD's need this buff but lets be honest, do we really want to obsolete the only viable weapon the Minmatar have? How exactly is does "obsolete" it? You act like every single ship you encounter will have them and minmatar cannot fit them as well. The only ships where minmatar have to rely on the AC range are blaster ships, pulse lasers and short range missiles outrange ACs anyway, so you have to get close for these or flee. "But they have no ships with bonuses for them!" Right. But which ships with bonuses are there? - t1 and t2 amarr EW frigates TD do not effect drones in ANY way. 5 war2 on these (slow) pesky buggers and you have something to salvage - arbitrator Will be pretty dangeous to turret ships now, but more than a blackbird? Not really. Will be more vulnerable to drones as well and unlike it won't be able to counter EW. - pilgrim 4 words: 12k nos/neut range. The falloff reduction will not be of much use for it since it has to get close anyway. - curse Now that will benefit from them quite a bit. Dangerous ship now again. However, guess what: a properly setup huginn will kill a curse. QFT. Stop whining people. -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation
Angelic Eviaran	Posted - 2008.02.03 14:00:00 - [33] Originally by: Rastigan Blasters are very affected by falloff also.. Guess what Minmatar SUCK IT UP, and hump your targets leg like every Gallente blaster ship has to.. Im so sorry your Nano setup of invulnerability now has a counter.... haha qft.
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.03 14:14:00 - [34] Originally by: Angelic Eviaran Originally by: Rastigan Blasters are very affected by falloff also.. Guess what Minmatar SUCK IT UP, and hump your targets leg like every Gallente blaster ship has to.. Im so sorry your Nano setup of invulnerability now has a counter.... haha qft. Good stuff. Can I please have blaster dps and decent tank too, then, since we're supposed to engage at same ranges? Or would you rather play a game where there are multiple viable _different_ styles of combat strategies available? Also big at the nano comment, vaga is already probably easiest to counter out of the big three (one of the counters already being TD, go figure), and the two others aren't affected one bit so end result: nothing much changed, the guy still needs to cry himself to sleep each night due to his own ineptness. Or maybe he flies nano ishtar/sacri himself
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.03 14:35:00 - [35] Originally by: Aramendel You act like every single ship you encounter will have them and minmatar cannot fit them as well. The only ships where minmatar have to rely on the AC range are blaster ships, pulse lasers and short range missiles outrange ACs anyway, so you have to get close for these or flee. " Yep getting webbed in a vaga is an excellent idea because you'll only take more damage from missiles, drones, bs sized guns/long range guns/any guns which had trouble tracking you and lose your main asset which is manouverability.
Rastigan Caldari Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.03 14:43:00 - [36] Medium short range guns , with a 50% optimal and falloff penalty applied.. Heavy Neutron Blaster 2: 1.15op + 3.15fo = 1.15km/4.3km/7.45km ranges for 100%/50%/0% chance to hit. 425mm Autocannon 2: .75op + 5fo = .75km/5.75km/10.75km ranges for 100%/50%/0 chance to hit. Heavy Pulse Laser 2: 3.75op + 2.5fo = 3.75km/6.25km/8.75km ranges for 100%/50%/0% chance to hit.. Autocannons dont seem be the the worst of the lot here, and they still can fire without cap.
Diomidis Amarr Mythos Corp RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.02.03 15:03:00 - [37] Pll should understand that each dmg type has some limitations to balance it's strengths. Sig radius, tracking, fall-off, cap-usage, all are used as balance. Lasers and Hybrids are affected by all the above. Projectiles and missiles use no cap, and above that missiles are "track-less"... So lowering dmg output or boosting sig radius is a must for these weapon types, to lower effective DPS some-how. Otherwise Projectiles would be unbeatable. TD's in-effectiveness vs. projectiles was obvious even before scrips: a Vaga could easily break an Arbitrator, even when the later used 2x TD's, while speed-tanking it's drones quite effectively. A Pilgrim would make no difference, tho it would be easier to tank against a Vaga. Making a ship less effective is hardly a real "Threat" for it, is it? And unlike ECM which tho chance based, can virtually shut off any ship, TD's effects can be fought by lowering transversal, getting closer, webbing your target or even manual navigation. Also TD's cannot and will never break a lock, so a ship that it's faster than you can and will hold you webbed and/or scrammed till help comes to assist in breaking your tank. Damps can break locks, ECM can break locks, TD's can only limit dmg taken from turrets. Ewar included NOS/Neuts, scrams, webs etc still work 100% against a TD equipped ship.
Aramendel Amarr North Face Force	Posted - 2008.02.03 15:12:00 - [38] Edited by: Aramendel on 03/02/2008 15:16:28 Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Originally by: Aramendel You act like every single ship you encounter will have them and minmatar cannot fit them as well. The only ships where minmatar have to rely on the AC range are blaster ships, pulse lasers and short range missiles outrange ACs anyway, so you have to get close for these or flee. Yep getting webbed in a vaga is an excellent idea because you'll only take more damage from missiles, drones, bs sized guns/long range guns/any guns which had trouble tracking you and lose your main asset which is manouverability. The minmatar race is not limited to the vaga. Nor does every single ship uses a web. Especially 3 slot amarr ships quite often prefer an injector over a web and shieldtanking missile ships do not have the slots for them. Its a gamble of cource, but let me introduce you to the rest of eve...
Msobe	Posted - 2008.02.03 15:37:00 - [39] Edited by: Msobe on 03/02/2008 15:39:10 I see two sides to this argument, but they aren't really 100% contradictory. People using two entirely different chains of reasoning come to conflicting conclusions, but there's validity to both view points. Firstly, Minmatar are saying that its OP for TD to impact their fall off, since they have no way to counter the fall off decrease. They do conveniently ignore the fact that as things are, there is no counter to their weapon system, and changing TD's in this way is meant to fix that. They are also "forgetting" that there is no counter for their racial EW, TP's. (Not that TP's are any more amazing than current TD's . . . just that they have no counter. Unless you count a set of Halo imps, which doesn't even fully counter one unbonused TP. And if we aren't counting fall off rigs, there's no way we're considering pirate imps.) Thats not to say that theres no reason to have modules that impact fall off as they do optimal range. After all, it takes both stats to figure out your working range, and as TD's are meant to reduce your actual effective range, perhaps tracking comps and other modules could/should impact fall off. It is, however, a separate issue, and can't be used as an argument that TD's should not work against guns that work in fall off. Secondly, you have Amarr pilots saying stfu l2p. I don't think its really a matter of that - but clearly something was wrong when the race that should be best with TD's was flat out the most vulnerable to it. When AC users say its unbalanced because it can shut down their damage - the same users were great with it shutting down lasers. A module that shuts down turrets would be expected to shut them all down equally. The fact that CCP made this change makes it hard to argue that its unintended. I think the fact they are making it is tantamount to them pointing out that the optimal range reduction is really supposed to be a working range reduction - and since it takes 2 stats to get your working range, TD's need to hit them both. If you think its fair that TD's hit optimal and not fall off, you have to concede it would be exactly as fair for them to hit fall off and not optimal. Making that change would certainly make TP's better from an amarr point of view, but since the idea is game balance, it ought to reduce both. If that change makes further changes needed (to TC, tracking enhancers, scripts, what have you) then that's a totally different story.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.03 15:37:00 - [40] 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.
Jin Entres Malevolent Intervention	Posted - 2008.02.03 16:06:00 - [41] It would be more reasonable to introduce a script for Tracking Disruptors that changes its optimal range disruption to falloff disruption. While welcome, this change seems slightly too effective and such a tradeoff would be reasonable and in line with other scripted modules with singular functions aswell as encourage piloting skill in choosing the most useful script for the situation. --- CEO
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.03 16:14:00 - [42] Originally by: Aramendel The minmatar race is not limited to the vaga. Yes I am aware of that. You claimed that minmatar only rely on AC range against blaster ships, I gave you an example of a minmatar ship that in fact relies on the ac range more often than not and will be totally neutered by 1 unbonused TD. Also ironically the one nanoship that is actually hurt by TDs as they are on tranq now. Quote: Nor does every single ship uses a web. Especially 3 slot amarr ships quite often prefer an injector over a web and shieldtanking missile ships do not have the slots for them. Its a gamble of cource, but let me introduce you to the rest of eve... /edit: And that is ignoring that you will need a med slot for the TD as well. Which makes the chance to encounter a TD and a web on a 3 slot amarr ship or a shieldtanker very very low indeed. And 4 med slot armortankers will have to sacrifice their cap injector. Only 5 med slot armortankers can really fit a TD and web without sacrificing combat performance in other areas. Yep you're correct as far as 1vs1 goes. In a gang the webs, scramblers and TDs will be spread across multiple ships tho.
Liang Nuren The Avalon Foundation	Posted - 2008.02.03 16:27:00 - [43] 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 -- 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)
Diomidis Amarr Mythos Corp RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.02.03 16:29:00 - [44] Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Originally by: Aramendel The minmatar race is not limited to the vaga. Yes I am aware of that. You claimed that minmatar only rely on AC range against blaster ships, I gave you an example of a minmatar ship that in fact relies on the ac range more often than not and will be totally neutered by 1 unbonused TD. Also ironically the one nanoship that is actually hurt by TDs as they are on tranq now. Ehmm...Pulses are supposed to provide range advantages over other short range weapons - at least with T2 Ammo...Minmatar also use speed to avoid dmg taken by other short range dmg dealers. Boosting both the higher speeds and the best effective gang is a bit un-balanced to ask for, as speed is far more effective to dictate range.
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.02.03 16:33:00 - [45] 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 There is also no module to counter 40km webs and TPs wich is minmatar racial ew. You gonna give us something to counter that? There is nothing wrong with this change. TDs will shut down turret ships just like ecm shuts down ships and where eccm is completely useless. -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation
Aramendel Amarr North Face Force	Posted - 2008.02.03 16:44:00 - [46] Edited by: Aramendel on 03/02/2008 16:44:54 Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Yes I am aware of that. You claimed that minmatar only rely on AC range against blaster ships, I gave you an example of a minmatar ship that in fact relies on the ac range more often than not and will be totally neutered by 1 unbonused TD. Also ironically the one nanoship that is actually hurt by TDs as they are on tranq now. No. You gave me the ONE example of a minmatar ship which has to avoid web range. Vaga is the exeption, not the rule. Every single other minmatar ship is either not really effected (huginn) or can, you know, TANK. Contrary to popular opinion minmatar are not limited to speedtanks and do not fall apart instantly. And, no, a vaga is not really hurt by the current TDs unless it chooses to shoot while MWDing. The new TDs will hurt it, although, but I think the vaga could just survive an efficiency reduction vs certain targets. Quote: Yep you're correct as far as 1vs1 goes. In a gang the webs, scramblers and TDs will be spread across multiple ships tho. Stop using all vaga nanogangs maybe then? As you said yourself, the vaga is really the only speedship which is actually hurt by TDs. A mixed force of vagas, ishtars, huginns, nanosac, nanocurses etc will laugh at TDs. ..... 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.... Read the rest of the text you quoted. Web for PvP ships, probably. Web + TD, highly unlikely. But if you think only 20% of all PvE ships are missile ships (or that those fit webs) then we have indeed a **** here, but they certainly aren't the PvErs. Webs are rarely fitted by PvE setups.
Reto The Last Resort	Posted - 2008.02.03 16:44:00 - [47] Originally by: Feng Schui I think you forgot to actually TEST the damn things before crying about them. For ** sakes, I still prefer using a multi-spec ECM or even an ECM Burst over using a damn tracking disruptor. My ship even has a BONUS for them (TD's). i already comented ur post in the official reply thread to the new changes and again i say that u are wrong. tds are very good. especially vs vagabonds and interceptors. killing tracking alone is insanely effective. the range reduction however is in most cases not as good but imo there are always down sides. if u benefit the falloff on tds without giving sufficient counter ability to the affected ships this module will be fotm and consequently on ur ship in 3 of ur 6 medsslots giving u one again an unfair advantage. i say that falloff based turrets have at least a counter using falloff over optimal. they trade overall hitchance and thus damage for this. if u give tds 3 categories to choose from u have an ew form which is usefull against every gun based weapon system and this is by no means fair. everyone should trade a big advantage for a at least as big disadvantage. i say that: -tds are fine. especially if u think of nano curses they literally are unbeatable for turet ships as u EW with ur Hi's (neuts) and meds (TD) and deal dmg indepentant from turret slots (drones) -damps are too weak on the bonused ships. -ecm is balanced. Originally by:** s4mp3r0r "Hey man, you're mom has a cruise missile".
Corphus The NewOrder	Posted - 2008.02.03 16:48:00 - [48] Edited by: Corphus on 03/02/2008 16:48:40 Originally by: Aramendel Stop using all vaga nanogangs maybe then? As you said yourself, the vaga is really the only speedship which is actually hurt by TDs. A mixed force of vagas, ishtars, huginns, nanosac, nanocurses etc will laugh at TDs. someppl fly their ships on their own and not in nano gangs. solopvp is an option in eve. THERE is no way that ccp can allow to simply negating it again and again. i cant believe that the devs are so ignorant to at least a 3rd of the whole playerbase.
Aramendel Amarr North Face Force	Posted - 2008.02.03 16:50:00 - [49] Originally by: Reto ..tds are very good. especially vs vagabonds and interceptors. killing tracking alone is insanely effective.. Yes, because the main job of ceptors is tackling and TDs work fine against t..oh, wait. And if heavy pulses can apparently track a MWDing vaga (at least I keep seeing vaga people claiming that again and again) then a TDed vaga can still hit a target just fine unless he is MWDing. And TD are clearly good because they are very often used and ships with bonuses for them always use them. Riiight.
Aramendel Amarr North Face Force	Posted - 2008.02.03 16:54:00 - [50] Originally by: Corphus someppl fly their ships on their own and not in nano gangs. solopvp is an option in eve. "Hello, my name is Corphus and I have need to train more reading comprehension." Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Yep you're correct as far as 1vs1 goes. In a gang the webs, scramblers and TDs will be spread across multiple ships tho. That was the text I quoted. Notice something? 1v1 is no issue because very few ships can use TDs and webs without gimping themself elsewhere.
Ariel Dawn Beets and Gravy Syndicate	Posted - 2008.02.03 17:21:00 - [51] I am highly enjoying the Amarr/Gallente pilots who have never flown Minmatar before saying to armor-tank Vagabonds and to try out fighting in web range. Please lend a Minmatar character from a friend or train on SiSi before coming out with these claims. Yes, a very select few Minmatar ships do ok within web-range, but the vast majority of them do not. Put your 'I hate Minmatar because they involved more than MWDing into range and shooting when engaging like the other races' and try them. An armor-tanked Vagabond has half the damage (no gyros) and half the tank of a Zealot. It has been tried before and there's a reason they are seen as a comedy fit. A Sleipnir/Tempest/any AC ship forced to fight at the preferred range of Amarr/Gallente will get torn to shreds; less DPS and worse tanks across what you would expect an average fit to be. I mean, seriously? Saying stuff like 'a Huginn will easily beat a Curse' is so insanely biased. Please explain how a ship with 0 capacitor (cannot MWD, cannot web, cannot warp disrupt) and tracking disrupted will kill a ship that outruns the only thing that can actually damage it, being it's drones. It's not possible to LOSE to a Huginn if you have even half a brain when fitting a Curse, let alone the Huginn win. This is a thread about BALANCE. Not your personal vendetta against Minmatar. Stop your bull**** and discuss it. The normal counter of webbing/getting close does not work in the Minmatar situation, and no modules affect falloff. Falloff on TDs is fine as long as there is a counter-option.
Aramendel Amarr North Face Force	Posted - 2008.02.03 18:02:00 - [52] Edited by: Aramendel on 03/02/2008 18:04:38 Originally by: Ariel Dawn I am highly enjoying the Amarr/Gallente pilots who have never flown Minmatar before saying to armor-tank Vagabonds and to try out fighting in web range. The only person who is saying this here is you. If you claim I was stating this show me please. But be prepare to be disappointed. Quote: Yes, a very select few Minmatar ships do ok within web-range, but the vast majority of them do not. Like? As said, outside of ships which are commonly speedtanked - this means the vaga and huginn - minnie ships tank just fine normally. Certainly not significantly worse than their alternatives. Quote: A Sleipnir/Tempest/any AC ship forced to fight at the preferred range of Amarr/Gallente will get torn to shreds; less DPS and worse tanks across what you would expect an average fit to be. As already stated the only weapon system minmatar needs to stay at long range are blasters. But blaster ships are hurt just as hard by the new TDs nor are more likely to use them than minmatar ships. Vs lasers and shortrange missiles not going close is high stupidity. Because those have the range advantage, not ACs. ACs have higher dps, but only at close range. So its either close range or flee/loose, even without TDs. Quote: I mean, seriously? Saying stuff like 'a Huginn will easily beat a Curse' is so insanely biased. Please explain how a ship with 0 capacitor (cannot MWD, cannot web, cannot warp disrupt) and tracking disrupted will kill a ship that outruns the only thing that can actually damage it, being it's drones. It's not possible to LOSE to a Huginn if you have even half a brain when fitting a Curse, let alone the Huginn win. Only a minority of a huginns dps comes from guns. Most of it comes from missiles and drones. And it's dps is around 50% higher than that of a curse. And against the oh-so-dreadful nos/neuts there is a very simple counter - cap injectors. A huginn setup with ACs & HMs, mwd, scram, 1-2 webs, medium injector, 1-2 LSE2. 2 speedmods, PDU in the lows. The curse won't be able to leech the huginn dry, will be virtually standing still with the huginn in kiss the chef range where the efficiency of TDs is nil and the huginn utterly buttraping the curse since it has far higher dps. Quote: This is a thread about BALANCE. Exactly. And for that a basic knowledge of game mechanics as well as reading comprehension is required. Both things which you apparently lack.
Diomidis Amarr Mythos Corp RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.02.03 19:52:00 - [53] Originally by: Ariel Dawn This is a thread about BALANCE. Not your personal vendetta against Minmatar. Stop your bull**** and discuss it. The normal counter of webbing/getting close does not work in the Minmatar situation, and no modules affect falloff. Falloff on TDs is fine as long as there is a counter-option. There is one actually - just like in webbing ur are said to move away, when TD'ed below your range, just, come closer... Yes, a bonused recon or an arbi could make it difficult should they use 2-3 TD's on the same enemy, still the consequences are waaaaay less painful to overcome for that same enemy compared to a single Webber on a Minie Recon, or 1-2 ECM modules on a BB or a Rook etc...
Kagura Nikon Minmatar Infinity Enterprises Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.02.03 20:06:00 - [54] 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. ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.03 20:20:00 - [55] 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"
Aramendel Amarr North Face Force	Posted - 2008.02.03 20:23:00 - [56] Edited by: Aramendel on 03/02/2008 20:23:48 Originally by: Kagura Nikon (I kno w i know jsut random numbers.. so bear with me) Main problem highlighted. This is what you get using actual ingame numbers: Originally by: Rastigan Medium short range guns , with a 50% optimal and falloff penalty applied.. Heavy Neutron Blaster 2: 1.15op + 3.15fo = 1.15km/4.3km/7.45km ranges for 100%/50%/0% chance to hit. 425mm Autocannon 2: .75op + 5fo = .75km/5.75km/10.75km ranges for 100%/50%/0 chance to hit. Heavy Pulse Laser 2: 3.75op + 2.5fo = 3.75km/6.25km/8.75km ranges for 100%/50%/0% chance to hit.. Autocannons dont seem be the the worst of the lot here, and they still can fire without cap.
Dromidas Shadowmoon Minmatar 54th Knights Templar Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2008.02.03 20:30:00 - [57] Quote: No. You gave me the ONE example of a minmatar ship which has to avoid web range. Vaga is the exeption, not the rule. Lets see, minmatar ships that have to avoid web range. Sleipnir Vagabond Muninn Cyclone Stabber Tempest (preferably, but they can somewhat tank if not) (and obviously interceptors and dictors but they're too short range to hit outside web range anyway) FYI, you already have a counter to Webs. It's just that everyone already uses them and feels that they are 'part of their ship'. Namely, Afterburners and Microwarpdrives :) There really isn't a counter to target painters, but they also aren't limited to minmatar. The only ships of minmatar that boost target painters never actually fit them (rapier, huginn, and what.. bellicose?) _______________________________________________ Minmatar will always go faster than you, get over it.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.03 20:31:00 - [58] 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.
Aramendel Amarr North Face Force	Posted - 2008.02.03 20:53:00 - [59] Edited by: Aramendel on 03/02/2008 20:54:27 Originally by: Dromidas Shadowmoon Sleipnir Cyclone Only if you nano them which is not an optimal setup. When fit for tank they are not worse than the other races field command/tier 1 BCs. (Within logical limits, the nighthawk/ferox have obviously better tanks, but also a good deal lower dps) Quote: Vagabond Was already mentioned. Quote: Muninn Is not much worse in a tank fitting than most other HACs. In a sniper fitting t can outrange TDs. Quote: Stabber Personally I would include it with the vaga since it is its t1 variation. If you want to be technical you got me with that. Quote: Tempest (preferably, but they can somewhat tank if not) Care to explain why exactly you want not to get within webrange vs amarr and caldari BS? They outrange you anyway and you have more dps and tracking than them at closerange, but not outside webrange. Quote: (and obviously interceptors and dictors but they're too short range to hit outside web range anyway) Exactly. There are some longrange ceptor setups vs which TDs work, but the main focus of those is more on tackling in gangs, so disabeling their "dps" isn't really doing much. Quote: FYI, you already have a counter to Webs. It's just that everyone already uses them and feels that they are 'part of their ship'. Namely, Afterburners and Microwarpdrives :) If that is a counter to webs why are falloff rigs no counter to TDs? Both cost you fitting recources and slots.
Ariel Dawn Beets and Gravy Syndicate	Posted - 2008.02.03 21:21:00 - [60] You forget Armendel that despite the Curse's lower DPS (or very similar if you fit launchers), by fitting a cap injector the Huginn's tank will melt far before the Curse does. A single LSE will not cut it. And the vast majority of Huginns are setup without a cap injector; simply speed tank all their non-turret DPS. Curve vs Huginn is not the issue though. 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. The Minmatar ships that want to avoid web-range, especially vs Blasterships are: Stabber, Rupture, Hurricane, Bellicose, Cyclone, Sleipnir, Vagabond, Muninn, Huginn, Rapier, Bellicose, all their Frigates/Ceptors (fairly obvious though), Tempest. Claymores and Maelstroms can tank significant amounts of damage and Typhoons can tank well passively. Most of these cruiser/BC sized ships also want to stay at around 11-14km with decent speed as thats the point where it seems Amarrian Pulses seem to start missing often enough while ACs still track. A single TD vs any of these ships forces them to come into web range to do any significant amount of damage. All have approximately equal or worse tanks to their racial counterparts, but the other races are working in optimal instead of falloff in web range, so they're also doing less DPS. Going into web range = great chance to lose your ship as Minmatar. Get that through your heads Amarr players. Easy to see from other players; watch Amarr/Gallente PvP videos and then Minmatar. The latter do not go into web range, no matter how awesome EFT tells you it may be to do so. 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?

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

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.