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) |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 21:32:00 -
[61]
Huginns dont active tank, the neuts are pretty inconsequential to it.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 21:36:00 -
[62]
Edited by: Goumindong on 03/02/2008 21:41:11
Originally by: Ariel Dawn
Gallente Blasterships do get the most range reduction from the TD changes. This hurts them if they cannot get into web range far more than Minmatar. The thing is once they ARE in web range it is mostly irrelevant as they can slug them to death with their superior DPS. Minmatar tanks are relatively poor in comparision to other ships. A pest in web range will die to a Mega, a Sleipnir will die to an Astarte/Abso, a Vaga will die to a Diemost/Zealot, etc. When I fly Minmatar, if I'm in web-range (nano or non-nano), then something has gone wrong.
Web range is not 500m or nothing. Web range is 0-10km. If blasterthrons get hurt most from the TD's then within web range you should be keeping them to the edge of it and still out-ranging them.
A sleinpir in web range will not die to an Absolution. A sleinpir in web range has a better chance of killing an absolution that it does outside of web range.
Ruptures, Hurricanes, Muninns, Huginns, Rapiers, all thrive in web range[especially because some of their web range is so long]
Quote:
If falloff is introduced on TDs, then it should also be done on Tracking Computers, Enhancers, and anything else of the sort. Perhaps an increase to the bonus Trajectory Analysis gives as well. Projectile Ambit rigs are not sufficient, or if they are why didn't Amarr fit CCCs on their ships instead of covering the forums with their whines?
CCC's are not counters to your own ship. They would be considered counters to neutralizers though.
A counter is something that counteracts something another ship does to you. CCC's do not counteract something other ships do to you, unless by nature of undocking, minmitar ships are automatically turret disrupted for optimal/falloff.
Now if they are, you certianly have me there.
|
Amira Shadowsong
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 21:37:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Ariel Dawn 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?
Its fun to make stuff up? Quoted for comedy.
|
Aramendel
Amarr North Face Force
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 21:38:00 -
[64]
Edited by: Aramendel on 03/02/2008 21:40:19
Originally by: Ariel Dawn 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.
Which "tank"? A LSE2 is the best you have with normal curse setups. You do not really want to try to sell me they armortank?
Quote: And the vast majority of Huginns are setup without a cap injector; simply speed tank all their non-turret DPS.
Correct. A cap injector is by far no unrealistic setup though.
Quote: Minmatar tanks are relatively poor in comparision to other ships.
They aren't. Against blaster ships, yes, against everything else they have better chances in webrange.
For example, care to explain how exactly a sleip will do worse vs an abso in webrange vs out of webrange? That is if you are actually using a real tank on the sleip instead on trying to fit it like a big vaga for what it isn't designed for.
ACs are superior to blasters outside webrange and superior to pluse lasers and shortrange missiles within webrange. They are no "stay outside webrange or die" ships.
Quote: 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?
I didn't see much people whine about the capuse. That was never a major amarr issue.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 21:43:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Aramendel
I didn't see much people whine about the capuse. That was never a major amarr issue.
That isnt quite true. The cap use, especially for low skilled players, is pretty rough.
|
Aramendel
Amarr North Face Force
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 21:47:00 -
[66]
Edited by: Aramendel on 03/02/2008 21:48:49
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Aramendel
I didn't see much people whine about the capuse. That was never a major amarr issue.
That isnt quite true. The cap use, especially for low skilled players, is pretty rough.
Yes, but ship performance is usually balanced for max skills. Amarr is skill intensive, but at high skill lvls the capuse is not really that crippeling.
It can have a pretty big impact on some ships, especially the zealot and aba, but the high capuse isn't really the problem with the first and the latter is one of the amarr ships which are generally fine.
Let me rephrase "whines" into "justified whines".
|
Cpt Branko
The Bloody Red
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 21:49:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Dromidas Shadowmoon These are going to affect falloff. UNFORTUNATELY, Tracking Computers don't boost falloff.
This means that minmatar, who rely 99% on falloff, have no means to counter tracking disruptors once they reduce falloff. If you expect minmatar to have any chance against someone with a tracking disruptor, give us the ability to counter it somehow.
This.
I think the TD change is fine, but TCs should absolutely boost falloff by extension.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Julius Romanus
Amarr Blood Corsair's Blood Blind
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 21:56:00 -
[68]
Edited by: Julius Romanus on 03/02/2008 22:03:23
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Aramendel
I didn't see much people whine about the capuse. That was never a major amarr issue.
That isnt quite true. The cap use, especially for low skilled players, is pretty rough.
Its true, but the 30ft grisley bear of a cap problem, becomes an irish terrier by cap skills at 4, ship skill at 4, and controlled bursts at 4. Which isnt that long into things if directed properly where to skill to not have it happen(I know noobs dont always know on their own what they need skill wise to get what they want in game).
And I'm against TC's affecting falloff. AC's do not need a buff, if nothing else the reaction people had when the resist change was announced over something like a 5-8% increase in dammage for 1 ammo type. Falloff boosted via TC ac's will be too good as far as i'm concerned.
Joke: And you're break the vargur in PVP.
|
Ariel Dawn
Beets and Gravy Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 22:16:00 -
[69]
Edited by: Ariel Dawn on 03/02/2008 22:16:41 Hurf Durf. Reading is fun. A Sleipnir out of web range can orbit at the point where Pulses start missing and ACs still track. An XL tank Sleipnir caps out within a minute or so, a Large SB tank Sleipnir cannot burst-tank enough DPS. Curse has same midslots as Huginn but does not fit webs; more slots used for LSE/Invul. Sleipnir has the same DPS (using Hail) vs an Absolution using Conflag after accounting for falloff. Absolution tanks slightly less DPS than the Sleipnir but is sustainable for as long as 800s are there (along with firing lasers), once the Sleinpir's cap drops it has a significantly worse tank due to cap booster intervals. Assuming both pilots are of equal skill, the Absolution would win if both were under the effects of a TD (or without). Sleipnir could win by exploiting the difference in tracking between ACs/Pulses.
Don't really matter much though as neither of these ships tend to fit webs in the first place nor utility ewar. It was just an example of the Minmatar PvP style. Pulses are slightly better than ACs across ranges, and as they should be for their cap use.
Not going to bother trying to fight against the powerhouse that is known as the Amarrian whine brigade anymore. Impervious to reasoning and experts of ships they've never flown.
Minmatar/Gallente players need a counter-module(s) that increases their falloff with the introduction of the new TD changes as it invalidates a large number of AC ships in the way they are traditionally flown. This would let them adapt to the changes should they so chose to do so. Thats all really. Never actually said to remove falloff from TDs.
PS: Nerf Amarr!
|
Aramendel
Amarr North Face Force
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 22:27:00 -
[70]
Edited by: Aramendel on 03/02/2008 22:33:50
Originally by: Ariel Dawn A Sleipnir out of web range can orbit at the point where Pulses start missing and ACs still track.
Not. Really.
Quote: An XL tank Sleipnir caps out within a minute or so, a Large SB tank Sleipnir cannot burst-tank enough DPS.
You do not need to run it continously.
Quote: Curse has same midslots as Huginn but does not fit webs; more slots used for LSE/Invul.
Only if it uses no EW, aka TDs. In which case the whole TD comment is moot. It's MWD, scram, 2 TD, injector, LSE2.
Quote: Sleipnir has the same DPS (using Hail) vs an Absolution using Conflag after accounting for falloff.
And a far greater dps using phased plasma than the abso using conflag within webrange. The best chances for the sleip is going in. Especially considering the abso will have no web as well.
Originally by: Ariel Dawn [b]Minmatar/Gallente players need a counter-module(s) that increases their falloff with the introduction of the new TD changes as it invalidates a large number of AC ships in the way they are traditionally flown.
Firstly, the "status quo" is no holy balanced thing which has to be preserved.
Secondly, TC/TEs were never a "counter" to TDs. Try asking the amarr roleplayers, i.e. pie, how well that works. It doesn't. The real counter to TDs is exploiting their limitations which are the biggest of all effective EW systems.
|
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 22:33:00 -
[71]
They already do, they're called ambit extension rigs
|
Trigos Trilobi
Man-Eating Village Idiots
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 22:34:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Julius Romanus
Its true, but the 30ft grisley bear of a cap problem, becomes an irish terrier by cap skills at 4, ship skill at 4, and controlled bursts at 4. Which isnt that long into things if directed properly where to skill to not have it happen(I know noobs dont always know on their own what they need skill wise to get what they want in game).
And I'm against TC's affecting falloff. AC's do not need a buff, if nothing else the reaction people had when the resist change was announced over something like a 5-8% increase in dammage for 1 ammo type. Falloff boosted via TC ac's will be too good as far as i'm concerned.
At this time lasers get most benefit out of TC/TE range part, blasters get 'half' benefit and acs next to none. All get equal benefit from +tracking. Tracking disruptors will hurt lasers most, blasters somewhat and ac's next to none. The -tracking script is equally useful (or useless) against each. There's both optimal aswell as falloff rigs with equal effects so we can ignore rigs.
After change, only lasers will get full benefit from TC/TE/remote tracking as before, but all three short range weapon types will be fully penalized by TD range scripts. How is this balanced exactly? I am not opposed to the TD change as such, even though it will make it laughably easy to neuter a vaga for anyone with a spare midslot and <hour worth skill training. I do agree with the OP though that the TC/TE/remote tracking link should follow the same philosophy if TDs are changed, to allow the same selection of fitting options to counter that a laser boat has.
|
Trigos Trilobi
Man-Eating Village Idiots
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 22:36:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Goumindong They already do, they're called ambit extension rigs
You keep repeating this, but fail to argument how you see rigs vs rigs + med + low + remote counter balanced?
|
Aramendel
Amarr North Face Force
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 22:36:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi After change, only lasers will get full benefit from TC/TE/remote tracking as before, but all three short range weapon types will be fully penalized by TD range scripts. How is this balanced exactly?
Lasers get the full effective range reduction by highdamage faction ammo, blasters a moderate one and ACs virtually none.
|
Ariel Dawn
Beets and Gravy Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 22:41:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Aramendel Edited by: Aramendel on 03/02/2008 22:32:43
Originally by: Ariel Dawn A Sleipnir out of web range can orbit at the point where Pulses start missing and ACs still track.
Not. Really.
Quote: An XL tank Sleipnir caps out within a minute or so, a Large SB tank Sleipnir cannot burst-tank enough DPS.
You do not need to run it continously.
Quote: Curse has same midslots as Huginn but does not fit webs; more slots used for LSE/Invul.
Only if it uses no EW, aka TDs. In which case the whole TD comment is moot. It's MWD, scram, 2 TD, injector, LSE2.
Quote: Sleipnir has the same DPS (using Hail) vs an Absolution using Conflag after accounting for falloff.
And a far greater dps using phased plasma than the abso within webrange. The best chances for the sleip is going in. Especially considering the abso will have no web as well.
Originally by: Ariel Dawn [b]Minmatar/Gallente players need a counter-module(s) that increases their falloff with the introduction of the new TD changes as it invalidates a large number of AC ships in the way they are traditionally flown.
Firstly, the "status quo" is no holy balanced thing which has to be preserved.
Secondly, TC/TEs were never a "counter" to TDs. Try asking the amarr roleplayers, i.e. pie, how well that works. It doesn't. The real counter to TDs is exploiting their limitations which are the biggest of all effective EW systems.
Sleipnir cannot sustain it's tank standard T2 fit against an Absolution. An Absolution is hitting a Sleinpir's resistances of 77%EM/69%Thermal (InvulII/DCII) on optimal while a Sleinpir with RF PP is hitting an Absolution on 76%Therm/83%Kin (2EANMII/DCII), doing less DPS from guns if the engagement was @ 50m distance. Throw in falloff. You are wrong.
Single bonused TD on a Curse is sufficient to shut down most targets via tracking/nanos or keeping range. Can't comment really though as I do not know how you fly your Curses nor the rest of your fittings.
Amarr Roleplayers?
Putting falloff on a module is not a definitive counter as well, just like the current TC -> TD relationship. But it lessens the impact and gives players additional options on how to approach such situaitons.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 23:05:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Aramendel
Not. Really.
The correct answer was "really, no"
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 23:06:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi
Originally by: Goumindong They already do, they're called ambit extension rigs
You keep repeating this, but fail to argument how you see rigs vs rigs + med + low + remote counter balanced?
Secondary rig options are worse than secondary med/low/remote counter options.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 23:08:00 -
[78]
Originally by: Ariel Dawn
Sleipnir cannot sustain it's tank standard T2 fit against an Absolution. An Absolution is hitting a Sleinpir's resistances of 77%EM/69%Thermal (InvulII/DCII) on optimal while a Sleinpir with RF PP is hitting an Absolution on 76%Therm/83%Kin (2EANMII/DCII), doing less DPS from guns if the engagement was @ 50m distance. Throw in falloff. You are wrong.
The absolution either doesnt have a web, or cant sujstain its tank nearly as long as the sleipnir. Which can fit an XL booster, equivelent to about a double LAR tank on the absolution. They are different types of tanks with the absolution running hit point based and the sleipnir running repair based. But the sleipnir defintily is advantaged by getting closer.
|
Cpt Branko
The Bloody Red
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 23:11:00 -
[79]
Mantain module parity; make TCs boost falloff+range with range scripts. There are no valid reasons to not do it, and it makes sense logically and makes Minmatar pilots get the same benefits out of TCs with range scripts everyone else does.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 23:18:00 -
[80]
Edited by: Goumindong on 03/02/2008 23:18:29 There are reasons not to do it. Falloff is pretty much a flat damage boost to autocannons, where incrasese in optimal range are not for lasers or blasters, and nor are falloff bonuses for blasters[as much, since they want to operate on the end of their far ranges and never want to operate in the middle]. Then autocannons gain farhter range and damage advantages than they ought to have.
|
|
Julius Romanus
Amarr Blood Corsair's Blood Blind
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 23:18:00 -
[81]
Edited by: Julius Romanus on 03/02/2008 23:18:47
Originally by: Cpt Branko Mantain module parity; make TCs boost falloff+range with range scripts. There are no valid reasons to not do it, and it makes sense logically and makes Minmatar pilots get the same benefits out of TCs with range scripts everyone else does.
Fine. If it does what I think it'll do, It'll just end up getting nerfed back to reality eventually. Let TC's do whatever, I'm not fighting this one out. But the apoc stays as is, to be nerfed in the future if it does what Goumindong thinks it will(to maintain forum pairity ^_^)
|
Aramendel
Amarr North Face Force
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 23:20:00 -
[82]
Originally by: Ariel Dawn Single bonused TD on a Curse is sufficient to shut down most targets via tracking/nanos or keeping range.
And a single web on the huginn is enough to web a single target too. In which case both ships have room for 2 LSE2.
Of cource, huginns usually fit 2 webs because the ability to web 2 targets is rather useful. As is the ability to TD 2 targets for the curse.
Quote: Amarr Roleplayers?
Yes, amarr roleplayers. Aka people who use pure amarr gangs. With the current TDs those are the only targets where fitting them against is really a good idea in the first place. Which their minnie RP foes did. Which means that amarr RP corps have currently the best knowledge how well TD can be countered by TC/TEs.
|
Trigos Trilobi
Man-Eating Village Idiots
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 23:21:00 -
[83]
Originally by: Aramendel
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi After change, only lasers will get full benefit from TC/TE/remote tracking as before, but all three short range weapon types will be fully penalized by TD range scripts. How is this balanced exactly?
Lasers get the full effective range reduction by highdamage faction ammo, blasters a moderate one and ACs virtually none.
Lasers get a useful range bonus for using faction range ammo, blasters a moderate one and ACs virtually none.
I don't see how that's relevant (except maybe if you wanted to prove that lasers have yet another option available to overcome TDs that ACs lack) and even if it is, it sort of balances itself out like I proved above. Acs have by nature rather limited options for changing optimal range. You can put it like you did, that you can use most damaging faction ammo without penalty, but the other side of the coin is that you don't gain much reach for faction long range ammo so that's a mixed blessing.
|
Ariel Dawn
Beets and Gravy Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 23:23:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Ariel Dawn
Sleipnir cannot sustain it's tank standard T2 fit against an Absolution. An Absolution is hitting a Sleinpir's resistances of 77%EM/69%Thermal (InvulII/DCII) on optimal while a Sleinpir with RF PP is hitting an Absolution on 76%Therm/83%Kin (2EANMII/DCII), doing less DPS from guns if the engagement was @ 50m distance. Throw in falloff. You are wrong.
The absolution either doesnt have a web, or cant sujstain its tank nearly as long as the sleipnir. Which can fit an XL booster, equivelent to about a double LAR tank on the absolution. They are different types of tanks with the absolution running hit point based and the sleipnir running repair based. But the sleipnir defintily is advantaged by getting closer.
Neither have a web, was a response to the off-topic statements put fourth. Setups were:
6x HP II
1x 10mn MWD II 1x WD II 1x Medium Electrochem
2x Medium Rep II 2x EANM II 1x DC II 2x Heat Sink II
2x Aux Nano Pump I
5x Hobgob II
versus
7x 220mm II 1x Medium Nos/Neut II
1x 10mn MWD II 1x XL Booster II 1x WD II 1x Invul II 1x Medium Electrochem
3x Gyro II 1x Damage Control II 1x Shadow Serp Co-Proc
1x Anti-Kinetic Shield I 1x Projectile Ambit I
3x Hammer II/2x Hobgob II
Both repair-based. Going from my assumption on a T2 fit Absolution; Sleipnir would lose to it in a straight up fight, but there's nothing stopping it from running away so this particular situation doesn't matter. Plus it has nothing to do with falloff on tracking disruptors.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 23:24:00 -
[85]
Edited by: Goumindong on 03/02/2008 23:25:49 Edited by: Goumindong on 03/02/2008 23:25:05 If neither have a web then the sleipnir REALLY wants to get close to increase the transversal differences.
ed: Nos/neut is useless put something valuable up there like DPS or a gang mod.
there are also probably better rigs to use as well.
|
Aramendel
Amarr North Face Force
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 23:29:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi
Originally by: Goumindong They already do, they're called ambit extension rigs
You keep repeating this, but fail to argument how you see rigs vs rigs + med + low + remote counter balanced?
Secondary rig options are worse than secondary med/low/remote counter options.
Since Goum is not mentioning the key point here:
+ range increase is STACKING PENALIZED.
+ falloff probably too, not sure. If not then FO rigs alone are a FAR bigger "counter" to TDs than range rigs + TCs/TEs are for optimal range base weapons.
So, if + falloff is not stacking penalized the whole "omg unfair!!!11" point is out of the water.
If it is TCs/TEs with + falloff would be still pretty pointless. Because falloff rigs would be a better option. Because they are more effective. The effect of a TE with the 3rd stacking penality after the falloff rigs is basically nil.
|
Aramendel
Amarr North Face Force
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 23:33:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Lasers get a useful range bonus for using faction range ammo, blasters a moderate one and ACs virtually none.
Exept that faction longrango ammo does not outclass t2 longrange ammo. Faction shortrange ammo does outclass t2 shortrange ammo.
|
Cpt Branko
The Bloody Red
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 23:35:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Aramendel
If it is TCs/TEs with + falloff would be still pretty pointless. Because falloff rigs would be a better option. Because they are more effective. The effect of a TE with the 3rd stacking penality after the falloff rigs is basically nil.
Yeah, because I may actually want to use, you know, no rigs? Given that TDs are a 1M midslot module, and TCs are a 1M midslot module (assuming all T2), I would sooner have TDs countered by a 1M midslot module then a 10-15M rig, you see?
'Falloff rigs are better' is not a valid argument for not giving TCs/TEs falloff bonus together with optimal. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Julius Romanus
Amarr Blood Corsair's Blood Blind
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 23:39:00 -
[89]
Originally by: Aramendel
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi
Originally by: Goumindong They already do, they're called ambit extension rigs
You keep repeating this, but fail to argument how you see rigs vs rigs + med + low + remote counter balanced?
Secondary rig options are worse than secondary med/low/remote counter options.
Since Goum is not mentioning the key point here:
+ range increase is STACKING PENALIZED.
+ falloff probably too, not sure. If not then FO rigs alone are a FAR bigger "counter" to TDs than range rigs + TCs/TEs are for optimal range base weapons.
So, if + falloff is not stacking penalized the whole "omg unfair!!!11" point is out of the water.
If it is TCs/TEs with + falloff would be still pretty pointless. Because falloff rigs would be a better option. Because they are more effective. The effect of a TE with the 3rd stacking penality after the falloff rigs is basically nil.
You cant fit optimal range rigs on optimal range guns. The PG spike is too harsh. AC's leave the room for falloff rigs.
But as I've said, I'm not going to oppose a TC buff.
|
Trigos Trilobi
Man-Eating Village Idiots
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 23:40:00 -
[90]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi
Originally by: Goumindong They already do, they're called ambit extension rigs
You keep repeating this, but fail to argument how you see rigs vs rigs + med + low + remote counter balanced?
Secondary rig options are worse than secondary med/low/remote counter options.
Makes sense to spend extra pg and possibly downsize guns for less damage (tho gain some tracking) and put nano in the lows, instead of putting on polycarb for better mass reduction and tracking enhancer which would give same falloff bonus, some tracking and no grid issues (so no -damage due to downsizing). Even if polycarbs would be equal to nanos it might occasionally make sense to use a lowslot for falloff instead of a rig slot due to grid issues etc.
|
|
|
|
|
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 |