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) |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 17:34:00 -
[181]
Originally by: Cpt Branko So, if we are talking about a Amarr boost, making the new TDs only useful of Amarr bonused ships (Arbitrator, Pilgrim, Curse, the frigs) is alright with everyone?
I dont think any amarr player would be against that. -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation |
Katashi Ishizuka
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 17:35:00 -
[182]
I really don't like the way all EW is becoming good only on the ship they are bonused for. It is really reducing the variation of setups that I see in ships in modules, and reducing the flexibility a pilot has in choosing the best way to pilot their ship.
|
Cpt Branko
The Bloody Red
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 17:43:00 -
[183]
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 04/02/2008 17:43:43
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Originally by: Cpt Branko So, if we are talking about a Amarr boost, making the new TDs only useful of Amarr bonused ships (Arbitrator, Pilgrim, Curse, the frigs) is alright with everyone?
I dont think any amarr player would be against that.
Well, changes would be fine provided that is done.
Originally by: Katashi I****uka
I really don't like the way all EW is becoming good only on the ship they are bonused for. It is really reducing the variation of setups that I see in ships in modules, and reducing the flexibility a pilot has in choosing the best way to pilot their ship.
Having 'must fit' EWAR modules is boosting diversity a lot
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Aramendel
Amarr North Face Force
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 17:50:00 -
[184]
Edited by: Aramendel on 04/02/2008 17:51:01
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi I'd say 2/3 battleships + hacs is 'pretty common', given that those ship classes are quite popular.
And that is simply not the case. I showed that already in the part of my post you ignored.
Quote: Hmm 48km base + 50% from skills, isn't that more like 72km.
Ah, yes, I forgot it was 50%. Was still too much into gun range caculations.
Quote: Compared to 30km base, 45km with skills for painters. Painters have better falloff though.
And skills which effect it. 45k optimal and 90k falloff. Same stats as damos actually. This gives TDs a very minor (like less than 10% higher sucess chance) advantage from 45k to 80k. Past that they are better. And their higher falloff gives them a far bigger area where they have a good chance to work. TDs become 50% at 108k and 6% at 144k. TPs/damps become 50% at 135k and 6% at 225k.
Quote: Clearly it's not ecm or damps, but it's still leaps and bounds better than 50% chance at 135km for 37.5% more tracking.
Doesn't change that they cannot reach ship with longrange weapons at their most typical ranges. And for all intents and purposes TPs are no real EW. About as much as a tracking link is "EW". Minnie recons are still pretty nice, though, because 40k webs are extremly powerful.
Quote: In any case, you're assuming there will never be rail/arty ships closer than 150km ranges, which is an overly simplistic view and totally unrealistic for cruisers to begin with.
Firstly, no, not "closer than 150k". Even at 125k using a TD vs a sniper is more like an desperation move than anything else.
And never? No. But the amount of longrange fitted ships you find commonly at 125k+ is far FAR greater than the amount you find at less than 125k.
Claiming it effects rails/arties when it in fact only effects small minority of them is..what? Being unfamiliar with their actual performance? Spreading disinformation? Take your pick.
Claiming that TDs *can* effect under certain *rare* conditions would be correct. Claiming that they generally effect them isn't.
Cruiser snipers are usually together with the BS force and picking up tacklers, etc which make a run to your location, they are rarely closer. Neither are they a really important factor. And, again, there is a difference between arties/rails and cruisersized arties/rails.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 17:52:00 -
[185]
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
My answer was on his sentence that said RAW DPS. And on raw DPs AC are far form havign high dps.
And the true answer is that that is stupid so who cares?
|
Aramendel
Amarr North Face Force
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 17:53:00 -
[186]
Originally by: Kagura Nikon My answer was on his sentence that said RAW DPS. And on raw DPs AC are far form havign high dps.
Copy-paste:
ACs have the 2nd highest raw dps of short range guns.
They are last if you conviniently forget that EVERY minmatar gunship has a ROF bonus while laser ships - with the exeption of the abaddon - all have a capuse reduction, which does not add dps, but brings their capuse to manageable lvls slightly above hybrids.
Unless you want to balance ACs depending on their performance on non-minmatar ships the ROF bonus is very much part of ACs raw dps
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 17:54:00 -
[187]
Originally by: Aramendel
Cruiser snipers are usually together with the BS force and picking up tacklers, etc which make a run to your location, they are rarely closer. Neither are they a really important factor.
They are also just as affected by damps because they do not typically have 180km lock ranges when shooting at 100km.
|
Trigos Trilobi
Man-Eating Village Idiots
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 17:57:00 -
[188]
Originally by: Cpt Branko So, if we are talking about a Amarr boost, making the new TDs only useful of Amarr bonused ships (Arbitrator, Pilgrim, Curse, the frigs) is alright with everyone?
Well that's certainly one option to avoid the likely situation that amarr end up being hurt most because of TDs being more popular. Unlikely to happen though, it's totally inconsistent with the rest of game. Ship bonuses only increase/decrease module properties, they don't introduce new ones.
Furthermore it'd really sound like they're acknowledging the falloff penalty is a stupid idea but can't think of anything else so they limit it to recons. Sort of an emergency fix of an emergency fix.
So I'm still convinced that proper way to boost TDs and painters is to fix webs. This falloff thing is ill-based and unnecessary and doesn't fix what is really broken. And additionally if you introduce more falloff affecting properties, then you need to also think the TC/TE/remote thing through; what about ammos, should they all have equal falloff penalty/bonus as they have optimal etc.
|
Yargo Metash
Minmatar Heimatar Services Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 18:02:00 -
[189]
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Well that's certainly one option to avoid the likely situation that amarr end up being hurt most because of TDs being more popular. Unlikely to happen though, it's totally inconsistent with the rest of game. Ship bonuses only increase/decrease module properties, they don't introduce new ones.
So I'm still convinced that proper way to boost TDs and painters is to fix webs. This falloff thing is ill-based and unnecessary and doesn't fix what is really broken. And additionally if you introduce more falloff affecting properties, then you need to also think the TC/TE/remote thing through; what about ammos, should they all have equal falloff penalty/bonus as they have optimal etc.
The way I'm thinking Branko means useful is as in how Minnie recons webs are 'useful.' That is, really really ouch I'm on fire blargh I are ded useful.
But otherwise ^ this. TD boost is just harking for a web nerf.
|
Formulka
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 18:08:00 -
[190]
so what about nerfing TDs generally and buffing the bonus for them from amarr recons? mayB something like caldari ones 5%/level -> 15% for arbi, same or 20% for curse, pilgrim and sentinel and according nerf to unbonused ones ...
|
|
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 18:11:00 -
[191]
Originally by: Formulka so what about nerfing TDs generally and buffing the bonus for them from amarr recons? mayB something like caldari ones 5%/level -> 15% for arbi, same or 20% for curse, pilgrim and sentinel and according nerf to unbonused ones ...
Yeah thats prolly what we all want. -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation |
Cpt Branko
The Bloody Red
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 18:13:00 -
[192]
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 04/02/2008 18:14:20
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Originally by: Formulka so what about nerfing TDs generally and buffing the bonus for them from amarr recons? mayB something like caldari ones 5%/level -> 15% for arbi, same or 20% for curse, pilgrim and sentinel and according nerf to unbonused ones ...
Yeah thats prolly what we all want.
Yes, that would be an alright move and I think everyone could live with that.
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi
So I'm still convinced that proper way to boost TDs and painters is to fix webs.
What, webs are fine, they're only 26 times more effective then max skilled TPs!
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Liang Nuren
The Avalon Foundation
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 18:22:00 -
[193]
I love how you guys: - Ignore my absolute proof that a single TD will 100% shut down any AC ship - Blatantly say things like "Nobody will fit TD's anyway..." - Assume that AC boats would all fit a TC
Yeah. I've already TKO'd this thread back on page two. It is unbalanced for TD's to affect falloff but TC's and TE's not to.
Falloff is important for blasters, but they have ammo that can counter it. Optimal is important for lasers, but they have ammo that can counter it. Falloff is vital to autos, and they do not have an ammo that can counter it.
Just because you guys feel that you're getting some sort of karmic revenge against Minmatar (who have been largely immune to the optimal range script) doesn't mean that you should now get a module which has no counter.
Yet Goum calls falloff rigs the counter to TD's, and he is only partially correct. Then he says that any longer falloff on AC's would be unbalanced... and he is only partially correct.
I *COMPLETELY AGREE* with TD's getting this boost. It's long overdue... but don't ask for uncounterable ewar. It's like adding a new kind of ECM but leaving out the ECCM for 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) |
DennoTheHunter
Caldari Kernkraft 400
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 18:49:00 -
[194]
Edited by: DennoTheHunter on 04/02/2008 18:51:45
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Yet Goum calls falloff rigs the counter to TD's, and he is only partially correct. Then he says that any longer falloff on AC's would be unbalanced... and he is only partially correct.
He's also forgetting the fact that fall off is stacking penatilized. So if you really do have like 2-3 fall off rigs fitted, you basicly won't gain anything from fitting a TC. and i do meet ppl fitting fall off rigs without ppl whining about it's overpowered.
Then tell me how can TC then be overpowered again
Edit: just to make sure you get it, stacking penalty is the thing that prevents ppl from having uber fall off range. _____________________
If I am in a fair fight.... Something went wrong! |
Kadoes Khan
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 18:50:00 -
[195]
Originally by: Liang Nuren It is unbalanced for TD's to affect falloff but TC's and TE's not to.
It's unbalanced for a ship to have a falloff bonus while using TC/E's while not under the effects of a TD. This is the problem. Yes TD's are to powerful vs ships that fight in falloff, that's not an excuse to apply a band-aid fix that breaks the game just as badly. -=^=- "Someday the world will recognize the genius in my insanity." |
Trigos Trilobi
Man-Eating Village Idiots
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 19:02:00 -
[196]
Originally by: Aramendel Edited by: Aramendel on 04/02/2008 17:51:01
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi I'd say 2/3 battleships + hacs is 'pretty common', given that those ship classes are quite popular.
And that is simply not the case. I showed that already in the part of my post you ignored.
Yes you showed that there are a lot of minmatar ships which have equal slots to best combination. Lot of people fly tempests and phoons though, and supposedly 99% eve flies vagas. No matter how you're going to twist this, it is 'pretty common' that a minmatar pilot finds himself in a ship that has 1 tank slot less. I know I often do.
In any case this particular sidetrack is of little consequence. As multiple people have already pointed out, the whole TD change is more of a boon than a bane for minmatar ships except vaga/stabber wether you have 6 lows or 7.
Quote:
Quote: Clearly it's not ecm or damps, but it's still leaps and bounds better than 50% chance at 135km for 37.5% more tracking.
Doesn't change that they cannot reach ship with longrange weapons at their most typical ranges. And for all intents and purposes TPs are no real EW. About as much as a tracking link is "EW". Minnie recons are still pretty nice, though, because 40k webs are extremly powerful.
So you want a boost to amarr EW, while minmatar ew sucks so much it's not even considered EW What'd you think if TPs would give optimal and falloff bonuses also? TPs and TDs are pretty much polar opposites in function except that TPs are perceived as even more useless since they lack the range component.
Quote:
Firstly, no, not "closer than 150k". Even at 125k using a TD vs a sniper is more like an desperation move than anything else.
Still probably better than trying an unbonused multispec. Of course the unbonused multispec will retain it's uselessness at all ranges, while your TD gets better if you can close a bit. You consistently act like you are nailed to the spot while actually quite often ships actually move around quite a bit during an engagement.
Quote: And never? No. But the amount of longrange fitted ships you find commonly at 125k+ is far FAR greater than the amount you find at less than 125k.
I've seen a lot more arty/rail boats at <100km than >100km. Maybe you should acknowledge the fact that quite a big proportion of the playerbase doesn't do fleet fights?
Quote: Cruiser snipers are usually together with the BS force and picking up tacklers, etc which make a run to your location, they are rarely closer. Neither are they a really important factor.
See above. Even if you only play Fleet Online, it doesn't change the fact that you'll see quite a few artycanes, rail astartes etc what not when you take a spin through a few gate camps. You'll also see killmail*****s sniping with high damage ammo instead of range ammo.
Quote:
And, again, there is a difference between arties/rails and cruisersized arties/rails.
What's this supposed to mean? I'm not allowed to say that arties are affected by TDs if my arty cane loses half its range?
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 19:06:00 -
[197]
Originally by: Liang Nuren I love how you guys: - Ignore my absolute proof that a single TD will 100% shut down any AC ship
Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar Infinity Enterprises Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 19:10:00 -
[198]
Well I must say thta if TP woudl give a SMALL (like 10%) range/falloff bonus to anyone firing the painted ship, that woudl be neat and make TP as good as other Ewar.
------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
|
Liang Nuren
The Avalon Foundation
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 19:13:00 -
[199]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Liang Nuren I love how you guys: - Ignore my absolute proof that a single TD will 100% shut down any AC ship
Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Well, chalk up another win for me.
-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 19:50:00 -
[200]
No really, that is hilarious. An absolute proof that a TD shuts down all AC ships.
I would love to see it. Im going to assume it wasnt in this thread, because the one in this thread was thoroughly ripped apart.
|
|
DennoTheHunter
Caldari Kernkraft 400
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 20:00:00 -
[201]
Originally by: Goumindong No really, that is hilarious. An absolute proof that a TD shuts down all AC ships.
I would love to see it. Im going to assume it wasnt in this thread, because the one in this thread was thoroughly ripped apart.
Tell me how we get that insane range, since stacking penalty does apply. If you won't answer that, then pls tell me why fall off rigs isn't overpowered. _____________________
If I am in a fair fight.... Something went wrong! |
Liang Nuren
The Avalon Foundation
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 20:19:00 -
[202]
Originally by: Goumindong No really, that is hilarious. An absolute proof that a TD shuts down all AC ships.
I would love to see it. Im going to assume it wasnt in this thread, because the one in this thread was thoroughly ripped apart.
The only thoroughly 'ripped apart' you did for it was take a casual look at it and say "It doesn't support my agenda, so it must be wrong".
The simple fact is that we can no more afford to fit TC's than you can, really... but it would be nice if there was a counter.
As it stands, you simply gain an uncounterable offensive ewar against minmatar ships - and that's at least as bad as any perceived imbalance that would be caused by minnie ships with falloff TC's.
Besides, it's not like you can point at the Zealot and Vagabond anymore... (BTW, I am completely stoked about the Zealot change... needs more fittings though)
-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) |
Katashi Ishizuka
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 20:23:00 -
[203]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Liang Nuren I love how you guys: - Ignore my absolute proof that a single TD will 100% shut down any AC ship
Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Well, chalk up another win for me.
-Liang
Liang your posts are incomprehensible. TDs affect all ships equally, be they Minmatar or Amarr. That ACs were immune to tracking disruption previously was just a sign of imbalance.
On top of that, all your counter examples are based on you going into blaster range and melting. Show me the Gallente blaster ship that has 5 mids for mwd, web, scram, injector, and TD.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 20:24:00 -
[204]
Originally by: DennoTheHunter Edited by: DennoTheHunter on 04/02/2008 20:08:39
Originally by: Goumindong No really, that is hilarious. An absolute proof that a TD shuts down all AC ships.
I would love to see it. Im going to assume it wasnt in this thread, because the one in this thread was thoroughly ripped apart.
Tell me how we get that insane range you say is so overpowered, since stacking penalty does apply. If you won't answer that, then pls tell me why fall off rigs isn't overpowered.
Powergrid use. No tracking boost.
Falloff rigs are still really damn good.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 20:27:00 -
[205]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Goumindong No really, that is hilarious. An absolute proof that a TD shuts down all AC ships.
I would love to see it. Im going to assume it wasnt in this thread, because the one in this thread was thoroughly ripped apart.
The only thoroughly 'ripped apart' you did for it was take a casual look at it and say "It doesn't support my agenda, so it must be wrong".
The simple fact is that we can no more afford to fit TC's than you can, really... but it would be nice if there was a counter.
As it stands, you simply gain an uncounterable offensive ewar against minmatar ships - and that's at least as bad as any perceived imbalance that would be caused by minnie ships with falloff TC's.
Besides, it's not like you can point at the Zealot and Vagabond anymore... (BTW, I am completely stoked about the Zealot change... needs more fittings though)
-Liang
There is a counter. Falloff rigs. Its not offensive ewar since it doesnt make you die faster.
Its not uncounterable you can simply get closer. You can also TD the offending ship to keep your range advantage.
But none of this matters to the folks in here, what matters is that you can pvp without risk, always being able to get away very fast.
|
Liang Nuren
The Avalon Foundation
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 20:30:00 -
[206]
Originally by: Katashi I****uka
Liang your posts are incomprehensible.
Thanks, I like the insults too. :p On the flip side, it's only because you aren't bothering to read them.
Quote: TDs affect all ships equally, be they Minmatar or Amarr. That ACs were immune to tracking disruption previously was just a sign of imbalance.
I don't disagree with this line, but the simple fact is that one imbalance does not merit another. Also, TDs will not affect all ships equally, because Matari ships are not built for the kind of bruising that web range entails.
As Goumindong says, there are other things that have to be considered besides the raw fact that AC's will be "equally affected".
In the end, this would probably be fine, except for the whole webs being WTF powerful against Minmatar.
Quote: On top of that, all your counter examples are based on you going into blaster range and melting. Show me the Gallente blaster ship that has 5 mids for mwd, web, scram, injector, and TD.
You seem to be missing the fact that it doesn't have to be just a blaster ship - any ship that has mids can fit a single TD and completely fubar any AC ship.
So let's see: Myrmidon Hyperion Drake Scorpion Rokh Raven ...
The list really goes on.
-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 - 2008.02.04 20:34:00 -
[207]
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi
Yes you showed that there are a lot of minmatar ships which have equal slots to best combination. Lot of people fly tempests and phoons though, and supposedly 99% eve flies vagas. No matter how you're going to twist this, it is 'pretty common' that a minmatar pilot finds himself in a ship that has 1 tank slot less. I know I often do.
I specifically went through the ships and showed where this is the case and what counterbalances this. You keep talking of so-and-so many minmatar ships without talking about definite ships. So let me make this crystal clear:
LIST THE DISADVANTAGED SHIPS ONE BY ONE BY NAME OR STFU.
Did that got through this time?
And to repeat:
Pest is pretty much the only minmatar ship which has a tanking disadvantage vs its alternative. However it has a med slot advantage. Used correctly this can & will turn its taking disadvantage into an advantage.
Phoon has NOT a tanking disadvantage. Phoon 7 lows, dominix 7 lows, geddon 8 lows. The only one which stands out is the geddon which in turn has one med slot less, same points as with the pest apply. And on top of that considering that both ships have the same cap recharge (and the geddons "cap advantage" lasts 20 sec weaponfire top) the geddon would need at least one, probably 2+ CPRs to counter its weapon capuse. Sustainability is part of the tank. Then there is the scorp which is a shield/ecm tank, which is a different mechanic and not really compareable.
The vaga is no armortanker, but a speedtanker with a shield based HP buffer. It uses different mechanics than armortankers with different strengths and weaknesses. If successfully webbed its tank is very low, if not it can tank 10+ times the dps other HACs can tank. Evading dps is also "tanking" it.
So, please, list your minmatar ships with the "worst tank".
Quote: So you want a boost to amarr EW, while minmatar ew sucks so much it's not even considered EW
Since you are apparently unable to read let me repeat it to you: Minnie recons are still pretty nice, though, because 40k webs are extremly powerful.
Bad bonus (TPs) + very good bonus (40k webs) = good ship The gimpage of TPs is overcompensated by the ownage of 40k webs.
The only ship which suffers from TPs is the bellicose, personally I would remove its TP bonus and give it a somewhat reduced web range bonus with 20 or 25k range at max skill.
Quote: Still probably better than trying an unbonused multispec. Of course the unbonused multispec will retain it's uselessness at all ranges, while your TD gets better if you can close a bit.
Unbonused damps actually. Better than TDs vs snipers from 100k on.
Quote: You consistently act like you are nailed to the spot while actually quite often ships actually move around quite a bit during an engagement.
Yes, for a short time because they represent a happy "shoot me" sign for enemy anti-support once they move from the main force.
Quote: I've seen a lot more arty/rail boats at <100km than >100km. Maybe you should acknowledge the fact that quite a big proportion of the playerbase doesn't do fleet fights?
Where? NPCers? Outside of fleet fights the majority of PvP happens at 0-30k. Longrange guns are rather suboptimal for that (outside of flying in gankgangs and killmailwhoring with arties, that is). There you do not need TDs to counter them, you just need to fly close and laugh at them missing.
Quote: What's this supposed to mean? I'm not allowed to say that arties are affected by TDs if my arty cane loses half its range?
No, you aren't. Because "arties" implies all arties, frig, cruiser, BS sized. And under any circumstances.
|
Liang Nuren
The Avalon Foundation
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 20:35:00 -
[208]
Originally by: Goumindong There is a counter. Falloff rigs. Its not offensive ewar since it doesnt make you die faster.
It is an offensive ewar in that it affects the users ability to deal damage. ECM, TD's, and Damps are all offensive ewar systems (in that they are used 'offensively'). I can see why someone might call them "defensive" ewar, but I don't necessarily agree.
Also, you seem to be forgetting that the Devs directly cited the cause of the TD nerf to be the nerfing of TC's. Thus, if the two are undeniably linked - and thus any boost or nerf to one must by necessity affect the other.
Quote: Its not uncounterable you can simply get closer. You can also TD the offending ship to keep your range advantage.
Ok, so, getting closer is not an option - regardless of nano ship or not. Matari ships are not made to get into web range and slug it out.
Quote: But none of this matters to the folks in here, what matters is that you can pvp without risk, always being able to get away very fast.
No, all that matters to the folks in here is that they get to PVP without risk by fitting an uncounterable ewar system that completely removes a whole race from the game.
-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) |
Julius Romanus
Amarr Blood Corsair's Blood Blind
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 20:36:00 -
[209]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Katashi I****uka
Liang your posts are incomprehensible.
Thanks, I like the insults too. :p On the flip side, it's only because you aren't bothering to read them.
Quote: TDs affect all ships equally, be they Minmatar or Amarr. That ACs were immune to tracking disruption previously was just a sign of imbalance.
I don't disagree with this line, but the simple fact is that one imbalance does not merit another. Also, TDs will not affect all ships equally, because Matari ships are not built for the kind of bruising that web range entails.
The rupture, sleip, rifter, cane, and mael are =P
|
DennoTheHunter
Caldari Kernkraft 400
|
Posted - 2008.02.04 20:48:00 -
[210]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: DennoTheHunter Edited by: DennoTheHunter on 04/02/2008 20:08:39
Originally by: Goumindong No really, that is hilarious. An absolute proof that a TD shuts down all AC ships.
I would love to see it. Im going to assume it wasnt in this thread, because the one in this thread was thoroughly ripped apart.
Tell me how we get that insane range you say is so overpowered, since stacking penalty does apply. If you won't answer that, then pls tell me why fall off rigs isn't overpowered.
Powergrid use. No tracking boost.
Falloff rigs are still really damn good.
TC's gives about the same boost. So you won't get any more boost of a range than you would with fall off rigs. Furthermore it takes away a precoius med-slot and requires some cap to run, not much but it's takes cap.
Enlighten me... i can't see why TC boosting falloff is overpowered. The total amount of range will in the end be about the same as using rigs, if you use the same amount of TC's as rigs. Stacking penalty applies, so you can't just fit 3x fall off rigs and 3x TC and laugh at you enemies with ac's shooting at 200+ k's _____________________
If I am in a fair fight.... Something went wrong! |
|
|
|
|
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 |