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) |
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar Infinity Enterprises Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 00:16:00 -
[91]
Originally by: Goumindong
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.
Go back and check the part where i said target were at 7 km. On thsoe conditions twith 8km range damage would be 100%
------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 00:27:00 -
[92]
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi
Originally by: Goumindong They already do, they're called ambit extension rigs
You keep repeating this, but fail to argument how you see rigs vs rigs + med + low + remote counter balanced?
Secondary rig options are worse than secondary med/low/remote counter options.
Makes sense to spend extra pg and possibly downsize guns for less damage (tho gain some tracking) and put nano in the lows, instead of putting on polycarb for better mass reduction and tracking enhancer which would give same falloff bonus, some tracking and no grid issues (so no -damage due to downsizing). Even if polycarbs would be equal to nanos it might occasionally make sense to use a lowslot for falloff instead of a rig slot due to grid issues etc.
Nope.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 00:32:00 -
[93]
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
Go back and check the part where i said target were at 7 km. On thsoe conditions twith 8km range damage would be 100%
No. In those conditions the weapon with the 16km optimal range would have to change from his short range ammo to his long range ammo.
Yea, a TD wont do much between 0 and 7.5km against a Megapulse Geddon. It wont do much against a Tempest either[10% falloff goes to 25% falloff]
Whop-de-do, you have already won the battle against the long range low tracking ship if you are over half under its optimal.
|
Dark Flare
Caldari StateCorp Insurgency
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 00:39:00 -
[94]
Jesus christ you're a plank Goumindong.
Fit rigs? Oh right yeah. Because you can just change those when you feel like it. And they're totally cheap like tracking computers.
Huginn doesn't have to worry about neuts? How fast do you think it goes with no cap?
Not a heavy nerf to Minmatar? Minmatar have to rely on falloff, because in optimal everything ****s upon them from up high.
I'm currently not too bothered, because I can't see that many people fitting TDs. But if they do start fitting TDs, then Minmatar is going to suffer more than any other race.
|
Trigos Trilobi
Man-Eating Village Idiots
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 00:42:00 -
[95]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi
Originally by: Goumindong They already do, they're called ambit extension rigs
You keep repeating this, but fail to argument how you see rigs vs rigs + med + low + remote counter balanced?
Secondary rig options are worse than secondary med/low/remote counter options.
Makes sense to spend extra pg and possibly downsize guns for less damage (tho gain some tracking) and put nano in the lows, instead of putting on polycarb for better mass reduction and tracking enhancer which would give same falloff bonus, some tracking and no grid issues (so no -damage due to downsizing). Even if polycarbs would be equal to nanos it might occasionally make sense to use a lowslot for falloff instead of a rig slot due to grid issues etc.
Nope.
Admirable, steel solid argumentation. Wanna elaborate a bit, how did the example I gave you not suffice for a situation where falloff rig clearly isn't better than the tracking enhancer should there be a falloff mod on TEs?
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 00:50:00 -
[96]
Overdrives.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 00:52:00 -
[97]
Edited by: Goumindong on 04/02/2008 00:54:17 Edited by: Goumindong on 04/02/2008 00:53:15
Originally by: Dark Flare Jesus christ you're a plank Goumindong.
Fit rigs? Oh right yeah. Because you can just change those when you feel like it. And they're totally cheap like tracking computers.
Huginn doesn't have to worry about neuts? How fast do you think it goes with no cap?
Not a heavy nerf to Minmatar? Minmatar have to rely on falloff, because in optimal everything ****s upon them from up high.
I'm currently not too bothered, because I can't see that many people fitting TDs. But if they do start fitting TDs, then Minmatar is going to suffer more than any other race.
How are minmitar, with the most supplimentary dps of any turret race, with the most spare med slots to fit turret disruptors, and with the speed to dictate range, going to suffer the worst from a change to tracking disruptors, which go in med slots, hurt turret ships of all sorts equally in terms of range reduction, and are most beneficial to ships that can dictate range?
ed: Projectile ambit extensions are not much more expensive than TE or TCs the last time i checked on their prices, 4m each rig, 1m each TE/TC.
|
Dark Flare
Caldari StateCorp Insurgency
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 01:08:00 -
[98]
Originally by: Goumindong Edited by: Goumindong on 04/02/2008 00:54:17 Edited by: Goumindong on 04/02/2008 00:53:15
Originally by: Dark Flare Jesus christ you're a plank Goumindong.
Fit rigs? Oh right yeah. Because you can just change those when you feel like it. And they're totally cheap like tracking computers.
Huginn doesn't have to worry about neuts? How fast do you think it goes with no cap?
Not a heavy nerf to Minmatar? Minmatar have to rely on falloff, because in optimal everything ****s upon them from up high.
I'm currently not too bothered, because I can't see that many people fitting TDs. But if they do start fitting TDs, then Minmatar is going to suffer more than any other race.
How are minmitar, with the most supplimentary dps of any turret race, with the most spare med slots to fit turret disruptors, and with the speed to dictate range, going to suffer the worst from a change to tracking disruptors, which go in med slots, hurt turret ships of all sorts equally in terms of range reduction, and are most beneficial to ships that can dictate range?
ed: Projectile ambit extensions are not much more expensive than TE or TCs the last time i checked on their prices, 4m each rig, 1m each TE/TC.
Midslots are for shield extenders, because that + speed is all the "tank" we get. And the person USING the td is dictating range. A Vagabond or Sleip, or Broadsword will have to go in close if it's being TDd. And it doesn't hurt all turret ships equally. Gallente are balls out 0 range anyway, so it just means they'll.. uh, still be balls out at zero range.
So only 4x as expensive then?
|
Liang Nuren
The Avalon Foundation
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 01:13:00 -
[99]
Originally by: Aramendel
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.
Actually, CCP disagrees with you. The *ENTIRE REASON* that they nerfed TD's by scripting them as directly quoted by the CCP employee that did the balancing was because they are the counter to TC's.
TD's counter TC's, and TC's counter TD's. That's the way the game works - according to CCP.
Now give me my falloff on the TC and TE.
-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) |
Yargo Metash
Minmatar Heimatar Services Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 01:14:00 -
[100]
Edited by: Yargo Metash on 04/02/2008 01:19:23 I see where Goum is coming from with that TD thing. If it's so bad, use it!
It would make sense for tracking enhancers/comps to add to falloff, I think that would be the next step in buffs for items.
Adding rigs seems like a bandaid approach at best. Don't think I'll have anything to worry about according to the math already done on it.
|
|
Gamesguy
Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 01:18:00 -
[101]
I'm gonna keep quoting this till the ******s in this thread stop ignoring it.
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.
|
Trigos Trilobi
Man-Eating Village Idiots
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 01:31:00 -
[102]
Originally by: Goumindong Overdrives.
So hmm, if I want falloff and mass reduction, the answer is to fit overdrives. Why didn't I think of that?
|
Formulka
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 01:39:00 -
[103]
TC boosting falloff isnt just compensation for TDs, but also a buff for ACs with already huge falloff (and of course other turrets) if they dont encounter TDs... ya know - not every gang has Curse/Arbi/Pilgrim or unbonused TDs fitted
|
Alek Row
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 01:40:00 -
[104]
Originally by: Goumindong Projectile ambit extensions are not much more expensive than TE or TCs the last time i checked on their prices, 4m each rig, 1m each TE/TC.
Goum, that argument sucks, mid slot modules are re-usable, rigs aren't.
If you think that TE/TC's improving falloff would overpower ACs on ships with falloff bonus when not disrupted just say so ...
|
Liang Nuren
The Avalon Foundation
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 02:04:00 -
[105]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 04/02/2008 02:05:37
Originally by: Gamesguy I'm gonna keep quoting this till the ******s in this thread stop ignoring it.
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.
Let's start with how it is rather misleading, ok? For starters, you forgot range ammo.
Yeah, so, tell me who's hurt worst? Tell me where the AC *WILL BE* to deal any damage at all, even with range ammo? Web range.
-Liang
Ed: Red = Neutron II, Null Blue = Pulse II, Scorch Green = 425 AC II, Barrage -- 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) |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 02:47:00 -
[106]
Originally by: Liang Nuren ...
Oh hey, its misleading graphs to the rescue. What would any bad argument be without them!
|
Ariel Dawn
Beets and Gravy Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 03:02:00 -
[107]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Liang Nuren ...
Oh hey, its misleading graphs to the rescue. What would any bad argument be without them!
Agreed. The Gallente/Amarr plots should be showing them using their highest-DPS ammunition as they want to be in web-range and wouldn't be using their long-range ammo in an attempt to stay out of it. Comparing it to Barrage M (and then to Hail M) would provide a more accurate reflection on what would happen on Tranquility.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 03:15:00 -
[108]
Originally by: Ariel Dawn
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Liang Nuren ...
Oh hey, its misleading graphs to the rescue. What would any bad argument be without them!
Agreed. The Gallente/Amarr plots should be showing them using their highest-DPS ammunition as they want to be in web-range and wouldn't be using their long-range ammo in an attempt to stay out of it. Comparing it to Barrage M (and then to Hail M) would provide a more accurate reflection on what would happen on Tranquility.
Amarr pilots dont want to be in web range. Range is their advantage. Amarr pilots using MF are in panic mode unless they are shooting at missile ships[which out-range them]
But that isnt the total reason why its misleading[no ship bonuses, turret numbers, supplimentary damage, damage types, or fitting is figured]
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 03:16:00 -
[109]
Originally by: Alek Row
If you think that TE/TC's improving falloff would overpower ACs on ships with falloff bonus when not disrupted just say so ...
I thought i already did
|
Liang Nuren
The Avalon Foundation
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 03:27:00 -
[110]
Originally by: Goumindong
But that isnt the total reason why its misleading[no ship bonuses, turret numbers, supplimentary damage, damage types, or fitting is figured]
It is no more misleading than the post to which it was a response.
-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) |
|
Liang Nuren
The Avalon Foundation
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 03:28:00 -
[111]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Alek Row
If you think that TE/TC's improving falloff would overpower ACs on ships with falloff bonus when not disrupted just say so ...
I thought i already did
This is the unfortunate part... because it would be overpowered for TD's to affect falloff without a counter in TC's and TE's.
-Liang -- 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) |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 03:36:00 -
[112]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Alek Row
If you think that TE/TC's improving falloff would overpower ACs on ships with falloff bonus when not disrupted just say so ...
I thought i already did
This is the unfortunate part... because it would be overpowered for TD's to affect falloff without a counter in TC's and TE's.
-Liang
Incorrect.
|
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar Oyster Colors
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 04:39:00 -
[113]
Originally by: Goumindong
If you are fitting falloff mods onto artillery then you have more problems than getting tracking disrupted.
Agreed, at least when using long range ammo like Tremor. Using high-damage Quake, or even faction Emp, a big part of your range is falloff tho, so to effectively counter being tracking-disrupted they are an option, not for increasing range since at medium range imho the good alpha-damage is more interesting on artillery.
I never tried a real sniping setup, and generally don't like arties, so I'm not an expert on that field, however ACs suffer the same PG drawbacks anyway...
Besides the point discussed really is that TDs affect both attributes where the counter only affects optimal.
I'm not arguing that TDs shouldn't affect falloff, I'm just saying TC/TE should improve falloff too, after all one TC wouldn't counter half a TD anyway, unlike sensor booster and sensor dampener, where the booster is clearly better.
|
Ariel Dawn
Beets and Gravy Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 05:24:00 -
[114]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Alek Row
If you think that TE/TC's improving falloff would overpower ACs on ships with falloff bonus when not disrupted just say so ...
I thought i already did
This is the unfortunate part... because it would be overpowered for TD's to affect falloff without a counter in TC's and TE's.
-Liang
Incorrect.
So why is Tracking Computers affecting optimal for Amarr acceptable and falloff for Minmatar not? Minmatar have about the same DPS as Amarr/Gallente (although needing dual damage bonuses as opposed to the latter's one) at optimal range and only decreases as it goes furthur into falloff. Wouldn't introducing falloff onto Tracking Computers help balance the disparity between them? The optimal range of Amarr pulses is pretty much the same as the falloff range as Minmatar autocannons, seems that increasing optimal which does not miss is significantly more powerful than falloff, aye?
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 06:18:00 -
[115]
Edited by: Goumindong on 04/02/2008 06:19:06
Originally by: Ariel Dawn
So why is Tracking Computers affecting optimal for Amarr acceptable and falloff for Minmatar not? Minmatar have about the same DPS as Amarr/Gallente (although needing dual damage bonuses as opposed to the latter's one) at optimal range and only decreases as it goes furthur into falloff. Wouldn't introducing falloff onto Tracking Computers help balance the disparity between them? The optimal range of Amarr pulses is pretty much the same as the falloff range as Minmatar autocannons, seems that increasing optimal which does not miss is significantly more powerful than falloff, aye?
Not really, no. Unless amarr ships were as fast[or really faster] than minmitar ships.
|
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar Oyster Colors
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 07:26:00 -
[116]
Originally by: Goumindong
Not really, no. Unless amarr ships were as fast[or really faster] than minmitar ships.
What exactly has the speed advantage of minmatar ships to do with the fact that tracking mods lack a falloff effect?
Besides not only amarr can (very effectively) use TDs, so it's not a minmatar vs. amarr issue here, the issue is that TC/TE don't work the way they should now that TDs are getting fixed finally.
|
Cpt Branko
The Bloody Red
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 08:37:00 -
[117]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Liang Nuren
This is the unfortunate part... because it would be overpowered for TD's to affect falloff without a counter in TC's and TE's.
-Liang
Incorrect.
Incorrect because Goumindong say so?
It would be overpowered for TDs to affect falloff without a counter in TC's and TE's.
There, I said it in bold tags, now it's more true. Seriously ;)
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Seishi Maru
The Black Dawn Gang Mashen T'plak
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 09:29:00 -
[118]
Originally by: Formulka TC boosting falloff isnt just compensation for TDs, but also a buff for ACs with already huge falloff (and of course other turrets) if they dont encounter TDs... ya know - not every gang has Curse/Arbi/Pilgrim or unbonused TDs fitted
well the boost woudl not need to be on same magnitude. A script to make 12% more falloff would be pretty Okish. So 2 of them woudl more or less cancel 1 TD.
|
Nian Banks
Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 09:34:00 -
[119]
There have been no good valid reasons put forward that go against the request to buff TC's, TE's & TL's to give a falloff, most arguments are wether or not the new TD's will effect minmatar the most. I am of the opinion that it will but lets stop, think and consider one simple truth...
WETHER TD's EFFECT THE MINMATAR THE MOST OR NOT IS 100% IRRELEVANT!
If TD's effect falloff then so should TC's, TE's & TL's. That is all.
BTW... WTB minmatar T1 ammo with a falloff bonus.
I have another idea that could be a counter to TD. Boost target painters with tracking, optimal & falloff bonuses against the target with the tp effecting it.
|
Cpt Branko
The Bloody Red
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 10:01:00 -
[120]
Originally by: Nian Banks
WETHER TD's EFFECT THE MINMATAR THE MOST OR NOT IS 100% IRRELEVANT!
If TD's effect falloff then so should TC's, TE's & TL's. That is all.
This. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
|
|
|
|
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 |