Originally by: Feng SchuiI 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).
Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Feng SchuiI 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).Rabble rabble, maybe you didn't hear that they're getting boosted.-Liang
Originally by: Feng SchuiTroll or just that dense? Yes, I tested them, and yes, they are still crap compared to multi-spec ECMs on a non-ecm ship. And before you ask, yes, I tested on both minmatar, gallente, and amarr close range + far range setups.But you probably don't realize that, since you probably don't log onto sisi?
Originally by: Feng SchuiAnyways, as I said, a multi-spec ECM on my pilgrim will help me avoid more damage than a tracking disruptor, with any script, will.
Originally by: Dromidas ShadowmoonThese 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.
Originally by: GoumindongYes, you do. They are called falloff rigs.Rigs are cheaper to fit in terms of trad-offs than lows and meds. Deal with it.
Originally by: Nian BanksThis 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? Artillery is a laughing stock, so most players went AC for PvP. Its not a matter of adapting, people put all the falloff boosting they can onto their ships, just so they can viably fight, now we reduce their range and cause massive dps reductions in the process. Its not a matter of grinning and taking some extra hits for been close, Minmatar generally can't take those extra hits, hence why people fight at the top end of falloff.I do believe its time that Target Painters got a boost, a reduction to the targets resists would be a good one. If it directly increased dps then its going to help when your fighting in falloff.Also for tracking computers and tracking enhancers, there certainly should be a falloff bonus.Lastly, one of the Minmatar T1 ammunitions should have a falloff bonus, not an optimal bonus. My vote is for a +20% falloff bonus be added to Depleted Uranium. We all know that the minmatar ammunition is far short when it comes to total damage and is spread over multiple damage types so an extra bonus to an ammunition that at small had 8 damage spread over 3 damage types isn't overpowered.Lastly, its time Artillery was rebalanced, its inferior in every way and now that the Amarr are getting a sniping battleship, its time Minmatar were given the option also. It doesn't help that not only does Artillery have a short range, but the minmatar have a woeful targeting range as well.
Originally by: Julius RomanusYes, a TRACKING DISRUPTOR should SHUT DOWN <insert race here's> guns. Get used to it, because it's a beautiful thing when something finally works.
Originally by: Lilith VelkorEdited by: Lilith Velkor on 03/02/2008 06:20:03 Originally by: GoumindongYes, you do. They are called falloff rigs.Rigs are cheaper to fit in terms of trad-offs than lows and meds. Deal with it.Then you'd also say Amarr cap is fine, you just need to fit a couple of CCC rigs? /sarcasm offEdit: Falloff rigs increase powergrid needs, which can lead to problems with grid-hungry artillery, also they tend to be fairly expensive. Apart from that, the point is that the tracking disruptor reduces falloff+optimal while its counterpart module only affects optimal.
Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Julius RomanusYes, a TRACKING DISRUPTOR should SHUT DOWN <insert race here's> guns. Get used to it, because it's a beautiful thing when something finally works.Yes, it should. However a TRACKING COMPUTER should counter a tracking disruptor... which it does not for one race, Minmatar.-Liang
Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Julius RomanusYes, a TRACKING DISRUPTOR should SHUT DOWN <insert race here's> guns. Get used to it, because it's a beautiful thing when something finally works.Yes, it should. However a TRACKING COMPUTER should counter a tracking disruptor... which it does not for one race, Minmatar.-LiangNo, all it means is that the counter is slightly different. Hell falloff rigs are better options than tracking computers because med slots and low slots are more valuable than rig slots.
Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Dromidas ShadowmoonThese 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.Yes, you do. They are called falloff rigs.Rigs are cheaper to fit in terms of trad-offs than lows and meds. Deal with it.
Originally by: Wu JiunAnother script for a tracking computer might be an ok idea not sure about that. On the other hand: would you seriously put a tracking comp on say a vaga - like ever?
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Julius RomanusYes, a TRACKING DISRUPTOR should SHUT DOWN <insert race here's> guns. Get used to it, because it's a beautiful thing when something finally works.Yes, it should. However a TRACKING COMPUTER should counter a tracking disruptor... which it does not for one race, Minmatar.-LiangNo it shouldnt, just like light ecm drones can jam a tier 3 battleship with overloaded eccm. Its balanced now.
Originally by: Nian BanksThis 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?
Originally by: Aramendel Originally by: Nian BanksThis 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 frigatesTD do not effect drones in ANY way. 5 war2 on these (slow) pesky buggers and you have something to salvage- arbitratorWill 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.- pilgrim4 words: 12k nos/neut range. The falloff reduction will not be of much use for it since it has to get close anyway.- curseNow that will benefit from them quite a bit. Dangerous ship now again. However, guess what: a properly setup huginn will kill a curse.
Originally by: RastiganBlasters 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....
Originally by: Angelic Eviaran Originally by: RastiganBlasters 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.
Originally by: AramendelYou 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."
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Originally by: AramendelYou 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.
Originally by: AramendelYou 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.
Originally by: Nian BanksAs 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.
Originally by: AramendelThe minmatar race is not limited to the vaga.
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.
Originally by: AramendelNor does every single ship uses a web.
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Originally by: AramendelThe 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.
Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: AramendelNor 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
Originally by: Trigos TrilobiYes 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:Yep you're correct as far as 1vs1 goes. In a gang the webs, scramblers and TDs will be spread across multiple ships tho.
Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: AramendelNor 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....
Originally by: s4mp3r0r"Hey man, you're mom has a cruise missile".
Originally by: AramendelStop 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: Reto..tds are very good. especially vs vagabonds and interceptors. killing tracking alone is insanely effective..
Originally by: Corphussomeppl fly their ships on their own and not in nano gangs. solopvp is an option in eve.
Originally by: Trigos TrilobiYep you're correct as far as 1vs1 goes. In a gang the webs, scramblers and TDs will be spread across multiple ships tho.
Originally by: Ariel DawnI 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.
Quote:Yes, a very select few Minmatar ships do ok within web-range, but the vast majority of them do not.
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.
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.
Quote:This is a thread about BALANCE.
Originally by: Ariel DawnThis 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.
Originally by: Kagura Nikon(I kno w i know jsut random numbers.. so bear with me)
Originally by: RastiganMedium 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.
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.
Originally by: Kagura NikonThe main problem I see with the change is. Cutting fallof by half and cuttign range by half are very different things.ExampleHAve 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 FalloffNow 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.
Originally by: Dromidas ShadowmoonSleipnirCyclone
Quote:Vagabond
Quote:Muninn
Quote:Stabber
Quote:Tempest (preferably, but they can somewhat tank if not)
Quote:(and obviously interceptors and dictors but they're too short range to hit outside web range anyway)
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 :)
Originally by: Ariel DawnGallente 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.
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?
Originally by: Ariel DawnYou 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?
Originally by: Ariel DawnYou 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.
Quote:And the vast majority of Huginns are setup without a cap injector; simply speed tank all their non-turret DPS.
Quote:Minmatar tanks are relatively poor in comparision to other 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?
Originally by: AramendelI didn't see much people whine about the capuse. That was never a major amarr issue.
Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: AramendelI 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.
Originally by: Ariel DawnA Sleipnir out of web range can orbit at the point where Pulses start missing and ACs still track.
Quote:An XL tank Sleipnir caps out within a minute or so, a Large SB tank Sleipnir cannot burst-tank enough DPS.
Quote:Curse has same midslots as Huginn but does not fit webs; more slots used for LSE/Invul.
Quote:Sleipnir has the same DPS (using Hail) vs an Absolution using Conflag after accounting for falloff.
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.
Originally by: Julius RomanusIts 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.
Originally by: GoumindongThey already do, they're called ambit extension rigs
Originally by: Trigos TrilobiAfter 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?
Originally by: AramendelEdited by: Aramendel on 03/02/2008 22:32:43 Originally by: Ariel DawnA 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.
Originally by: AramendelNot. Really.
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Originally by: GoumindongThey already do, they're called ambit extension rigsYou keep repeating this, but fail to argument how you see rigs vs rigs + med + low + remote counter balanced?
Originally by: Ariel DawnSleipnir 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.
Originally by: Cpt BrankoMantain 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.
Originally by: Ariel DawnSingle bonused TD on a Curse is sufficient to shut down most targets via tracking/nanos or keeping range.
Quote:Amarr Roleplayers?
Originally by: Aramendel Originally by: Trigos TrilobiAfter 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.
Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Ariel DawnSleipnir 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.
Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Originally by: GoumindongThey already do, they're called ambit extension rigsYou 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.
Originally by: Trigos TrilobiLasers get a useful range bonus for using faction range ammo, blasters a moderate one and ACs virtually none.
Originally by: AramendelIf 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.
Originally by: Aramendel Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Originally by: GoumindongThey already do, they're called ambit extension rigsYou 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.
Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Kagura NikonThe main problem I see with the change is. Cutting fallof by half and cuttign range by half are very different things.ExampleHAve 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 FalloffNow 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.
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Originally by: GoumindongThey already do, they're called ambit extension rigsYou 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.
Originally by: Kagura NikonGo back and check the part where i said target were at 7 km. On thsoe conditions twith 8km range damage would be 100%
Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Originally by: GoumindongThey already do, they're called ambit extension rigsYou 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.
Originally by: Dark FlareJesus 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.
Originally by: GoumindongEdited by: Goumindong on 04/02/2008 00:54:17Edited by: Goumindong on 04/02/2008 00:53:15 Originally by: Dark FlareJesus 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.
Originally by: AramendelFirstly, 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.
Originally by: GoumindongOverdrives.
Originally by: GoumindongProjectile 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.
Originally by: GamesguyI'm gonna keep quoting this till the ******s in this thread stop ignoring it. Originally by: RastiganMedium 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.
Originally by: Liang Nuren...
Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Liang Nuren...Oh hey, its misleading graphs to the rescue. What would any bad argument be without them!
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.
Originally by: Alek RowIf you think that TE/TC's improving falloff would overpower ACs on ships with falloff bonus when not disrupted just say so ...
Originally by: GoumindongBut that isnt the total reason why its misleading[no ship bonuses, turret numbers, supplimentary damage, damage types, or fitting is figured]
Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Alek RowIf 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
Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Alek RowIf 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 didThis 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
Originally by: GoumindongIf you are fitting falloff mods onto artillery then you have more problems than getting tracking disrupted.
Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Alek RowIf 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 didThis is the unfortunate part... because it would be overpowered for TD's to affect falloff without a counter in TC's and TE's.-LiangIncorrect.
Originally by: Ariel DawnSo 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?
Originally by: GoumindongNot really, no. Unless amarr ships were as fast[or really faster] than minmitar ships.
Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Liang NurenThis is the unfortunate part... because it would be overpowered for TD's to affect falloff without a counter in TC's and TE's.-LiangIncorrect.
Originally by: Liang NurenThis 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
Originally by: FormulkaTC 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
Originally by: Nian BanksWETHER 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.
Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: Nian BanksWETHER 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.
Originally by: CCP ExplorerI know we have said this before, but this time we really mean itÖ
Originally by: Blutreiter Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: Nian BanksWETHER 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.I call bull****. Falloff is still unaffected by 99% of the ammotypes.Also if you want falloff boni on simple Tracking Computers, I want a damn module to reduce my signature!Because Target Painters increase my sig! Whine! Nerf! Rage!
Originally by: SirDanceAlotOk lets say this one more time for the whiners that still dont understand:TC AFFECTING FALL OFF WOULD BE STUPIDLY OVERPOWERED. ITS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN EVEN WITH THE TD CHANGES. LIVE WITH IT.
Originally by: Nian BanksI call bull****. Falloff is still unaffected by 99% of the ammotypes.Also if you want falloff boni on simple Tracking Computers, I want a damn module to reduce my signature!Because Target Painters increase my sig! Whine! Nerf! Rage!
Originally by: DiomidisTPs ARE A DIRECT AND GLOBAL COUNTER TO TDs! So are Webbers. TP's also indirectly and globally boost scan resolution, tracking, damage etc. for everyone in your gang - and doing it SIMULTANEOUSLY and WITH NO SCRIPTS of each one. USE THEM AND STFU! U already have MORE than enough.
Originally by: Nian BanksNo worries, CCP give this man a module that reduces a ships signature radius. I am 100% for it.Oh and to be honest, though I love TP's, tey arnt worth crap all, infact they are so bad compared to the other ewar that who cares if theres a module that counters it.
Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: DiomidisTPs ARE A DIRECT AND GLOBAL COUNTER TO TDs! So are Webbers. TP's also indirectly and globally boost scan resolution, tracking, damage etc. for everyone in your gang - and doing it SIMULTANEOUSLY and WITH NO SCRIPTS of each one. USE THEM AND STFU! U already have MORE than enough.[email protected]Yeah, beacuse Target Painters affect range.Oh, wait....
Originally by: Blutreiter Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: DiomidisTPs ARE A DIRECT AND GLOBAL COUNTER TO TDs! So are Webbers. TP's also indirectly and globally boost scan resolution, tracking, damage etc. for everyone in your gang - and doing it SIMULTANEOUSLY and WITH NO SCRIPTS of each one. USE THEM AND STFU! U already have MORE than enough.[email protected]Yeah, beacuse Target Painters affect range.Oh, wait.... So what you want is not a counter, it's med-range AC usage.Aren't ACs better in close range anyway?
Originally by: BlutreiterSo what you want is not a counter, it's med-range AC usage.Aren't ACs better in close range anyway?
Originally by: Dromidas ShadowmoonEdited by: Dromidas Shadowmoon on 03/02/2008 04:52:04Considering a vast majority of minmatar t2 ships rely on hanging at the edge of falloff (since we don't have real tanks, for the most part), if they can cut down our falloff from 22k-ish to 11k-ish, we will be completely neutralized. Last I checked, tracking disruptors don't have a very short optimal range, and so will never fail.The point isn't that the modules might or might not suck. It's that everything in EVE has a counter.ECM vs ECCMTracking Disruptor vs Tracking Computer (pre-boost)Sensor Dampener vs Sensor BoosterIf they add falloff to tracking disruptor and don't add falloff to tracking computer, there will be an imbalance.I'm not sure you should be the one to call someone whining, considering your sig.. You want a boost for one of the most powerful recons? (curse) I could understand pilgrim, as they suck solo :)
Originally by: KykioYou are the noob branko . What he said is true TP increase turrets hit chance for all of the attackers, oh but it isnt good enough for u ,is it?
Originally by: Kykio You just want a module that boost your already good projectiles range while you can use the EMP ammo right?
Originally by: Kykio And projectiles won't do more dmg after resist nerf.
Originally by: Cpt BrankoWhat the new TDs are is a uncounterable way to control the other guy's effective range.
Originally by: BlutreiterEdited by: Blutreiter on 04/02/2008 12:04:58Right. So what you want is something that works outside webrange, so you can utilize speedtanks.What about trying to kill the guy using the Tracking Disruptors? It's not like they shut down your weapons completely, or do I miss something?Whereas having common modules boosting falloff range would open up a massive box of problems.Edit:We can all see how range disrupting works by applying it on laser turrets nowadays. The only thing that falloff reduction dies is getting this to work on blasters and autocannons as well.Did any amarr player whine about range getting disrupted before? Considering they lost their only real advantage over the other weapon systems - range.
Originally by: Twilight Mourning Originally by: Cpt BrankoWhat the new TDs are is a uncounterable way to control the other guy's effective range. Kinda what the huggins dual webs are?
Originally by: UGLYUGLYReading through this thread all the people that say it will render their ship useless are talking like every ship in eve will be fitted with a full rack of tracking disruptor's. Or is going to run into a curse or pilgrim in every engagement....And the very very simple counter for TD's range script is to burn close, uses no mods .
Originally by: Cpt BrankoEdited by: Cpt Branko on 04/02/2008 12:33:43Huggins don't prevent you from shooting at his engagement range. You can still force away the Huggin/Rapier (which is what I did a number of times in my Hurricane). Of course, once Huggins start fitting TDs, you're screwed, even with just one of them.Anyway, if you look at damps vs sensor boosters, that's how it basically needs to work.Post-patch, damps are way less effective at shutting mid-range ships then falloff & optimal distrupting TDs are - it takes two damps to have a noticeable effect (one is entirely useless) and three to shut it down.I see any ship with a spare midslot not fitting a TD post-patch being stupid; take, for instance, a Myrmidon (which today you can quite reasonably fight in your typical T2-fit Hurricane firing Barrage M outside of webrange as long as he doesn't web you in which case you're screwed); post patch it can simply force you to engage close to heated webrange via one unbonused module
Originally by: Cpt BrankoI see any ship with a spare midslot not fitting a TD post-patch being stupid; take, for instance, a Myrmidon (which today you can quite reasonably fight in your typical T2-fit Hurricane firing Barrage M outside of webrange as long as he doesn't web you in which case you're screwed); post patch it can simply force you to engage close to heated webrange via one unbonused module
Originally by: Twilight MourningDamps effect all weapon systems. So if what you say were to go I would expect the TDs to be able to effect missiles systems too. =pEdit: Posting inside the quote ftl. lol
Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: Twilight MourningDamps effect all weapon systems. So if what you say were to go I would expect the TDs to be able to effect missiles systems too. =pEdit: Posting inside the quote ftl. lolOnly if the target is firing outside of dampened lockrange. Furthermore even if you throw three damps on someone and mostly disable him (short of burning next to you and then locking you), people can always load FOFs. Of course, missiles have sub-par DPS except in case of Torps or heavily bonused HAMs (neither of which have FOF variants so they can be shutdown by ewar, and HAMs don't fit on most T1 caldari ships very well), so they don't worry people that much.Problem is, one (falloff+optimal-reducing) TD is all it takes to give a blasterboat a significant advantage over a AC boat in terms of DPS at practically any range. Do you see the problem now?
Originally by: UGLYUGLYMinmatar boats that used fall off as a means to fight at range use to be immune to the range script of tracking disruptor did that seem fair?Reading through this thread all the people that say it will render their ship useless are talking like every ship in eve will be fitted with a full rack of tracking disruptor's. Or is going to run into a curse or pilgrim in every engagement.If a ship is fitted with TD's and hitting you with range scrips and you can't hit them and you don't want to get close, disengage and run. I thought this is what minmatar specialize at? Hit when you have the advantage and run when you don't.And the very very simple counter for TD's range script is to burn close, uses no mods .
Originally by: Cpt BrankoOnly if the target is firing outside of dampened lockrange. Furthermore even if you throw three damps on someone and mostly disable him (short of burning next to you and then locking you), people can always load FOFs.
Quote:Problem is, one (falloff+optimal-reducing) TD is all it takes to give a blasterboat a significant advantage over a AC boat in terms of DPS at practically any range. Do you see the problem now?...it's a boost to Myrmidon , Eos, Dominix, Megathron, Hyperion
Originally by: Ariel DawnIf TCs/TEs don't get falloff, then I don't see why they should retain their optimal bonuses as well. Those are significantly more imbalanced when compared to falloff as they do not have to deal with a miss chance.
Originally by: UGLYUGLYI don't, I see a ship that set itself up to deal specifically with all Minmatar turret users, all Amarr turret users, all Gallente turret users and all Caldari turret users, that TD would be useless if they came up against a torp raven. Gallente are really the only ships that have mids to "spare" anyways,
Originally by: Ariel Dawn Originally by: UGLYUGLYMinmatar boats that used fall off as a means to fight at range use to be immune to the range script of tracking disruptor did that seem fair?Reading through this thread all the people that say it will render their ship useless are talking like every ship in eve will be fitted with a full rack of tracking disruptor's. Or is going to run into a curse or pilgrim in every engagement.If a ship is fitted with TD's and hitting you with range scrips and you can't hit them and you don't want to get close, disengage and run. I thought this is what minmatar specialize at? Hit when you have the advantage and run when you don't.And the very very simple counter for TD's range script is to burn close, uses no mods . Hey, lets counter the number of different T1 ammo types that affect AC range. Zero. Hail reduces your range by 50%, Barrage increases it by 50%. Thats it. Unlike Amarr players, Minmatar cannot change ammo according to engagement ranges and always have to fight at the exact same distances always. Autocannons are balanced because while they have the lowest raw DPS and even less after factoring falloff, they use no cap and nothing modifies their range.The thing about Minmatar about burning close is that doing so is an excellent way to finish the engagement sans-ship. Comparative DPS/Tanks to other racial equivalents is the lowest of the bunch.If TCs/TEs don't get falloff, then I don't see why they should retain their optimal bonuses as well. Those are significantly more imbalanced when compared to falloff as they do not have to deal with a miss chance.
Originally by: Cpt BrankoEdited by: Cpt Branko on 04/02/2008 12:46:37 Originally by: UGLYUGLYReading through this thread all the people that say it will render their ship useless are talking like every ship in eve will be fitted with a full rack of tracking disruptor's. Or is going to run into a curse or pilgrim in every engagement....And the very very simple counter for TD's range script is to burn close, uses no mods . Using TDs is going to be extremely popular on unbonused short-range ships with a spare midslot, I can already tell you that one.Or on ships which want to be untouchable at range and have means of keeping the opponent at range - I don't see a, say, Huggin pilot fitting a TP over TD regardless of bonuses
Originally by: CCP WranglerThe Amarr are the tanking and ganking floating rods of gold.Amarr simply sit there and charge their lasers, secure in their knowledge that God is on their side.
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer1. There is nothign wrong with the tanks of minmatar ships. Youre blatantly lying if you claim minmatar ships cant hold their own close up. There are stupidly sick tanks like sleipnir and maelstrom and more...
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer3. You cant give fall off boost on TCs because it would increase AC boats damage off the charts. You know this, ccp knows it, we know it. Youre not going to get this overpowered boost.
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer4. Live with the changes that TDs now work very effectively against prior immune turrets.
Originally by: Tsu'koYeah.. spare midslot, there is a lot of those -especially on amarr ships.
Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: UGLYUGLYI don't, I see a ship that set itself up to deal specifically with all Minmatar turret users, all Amarr turret users, all Gallente turret users and all Caldari turret users, that TD would be useless if they came up against a torp raven. Gallente are really the only ships that have mids to "spare" anyways,See what I mean? TCs were already effective versus Amarr and semi-effective versus Gallente/Caldari turretships and did very little versus Minmatar.This increases the number of ships TDs are usable on to practically everyone, makes armour tankers with a spare midslot have a very nifty module to decrease incoming turret DPS from basically all turret ships in game, and boosts TDs against ships which they were effective and partially-effective against before.
Originally by: Cpt BrankoThere are on blaster-ships which benefit from the new TDs the most.
Originally by: Lyria SkydancerI didnt hear anyone, including amarr, whine about how powerful TDs were before...
Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: Lyria SkydancerI didnt hear anyone, including amarr, whine about how powerful TDs were before...Well, if you so want to boost Amarr, make the new TD only effective on bonused Amarr ships and it's fine, because, after the changes, it's the blasterboat which benefits from TDs the most.
Originally by: Lyria SkydancerEdited by: Lyria Skydancer on 04/02/2008 13:42:50 Originally by: Ariel DawnIf TCs/TEs don't get falloff, then I don't see why they should retain their optimal bonuses as well. Those are significantly more imbalanced when compared to falloff as they do not have to deal with a miss chance.1. There is nothign wrong with the tanks of minmatar ships. Youre blatantly lying if you claim minmatar ships cant hold their own close up. There are stupidly sick tanks like sleipnir and maelstrom and more...2. You cant remove TCs opti bonus, youll kill sniping.3. You cant give fall off boost on TCs because it would increase AC boats damage off the charts. You know this, ccp knows it, we know it. Youre not going to get this overpowered boost.4. Live with the changes that TDs now work very effectively against prior immune turrets.
Originally by: Ariel Dawn...Autocannons are balanced because while they have the lowest raw DPS...
Originally by: Cpt BrankoSaid already.Myrmidon/Eos (not strictly blasterboats, but they do use blasters very often and it will complement them very nicely), blaster-fit Dominix, Megathron, Hyperion.Gank-fit Brutix also benefit (no grid for neutrons + cap injection + tank so you might as well protect you from the only nasty thing; people who can hit you outside of your engagement range).
Originally by: Aramendel Originally by: Ariel Dawn...Autocannons are balanced because while they have the lowest raw DPS...Either you have no real clue about what you are talking about or you are deliberatly spreading disinformation.ACs have the 2nd highest raw dps of short range guns.
Originally by: Cpt BrankoYeah. When they're double damage bonused.
Originally by: Aramendel Originally by: Cpt BrankoYeah. When they're double damage bonused. Wrong. AC + ROF bonus raw dps > pulse laser + cap bonus raw dps.Even with EMP vs multifreq.Either get a clue about game mechanics or stop lying.Oh, and nice going with conviniently ignoring my second answer to your moronic "omg blaster ships get buffed vs ac ship" statement.
Originally by: Ariel Dawn2. How would it kill sniping? Reducing engagement ranges and forcing more fights?
Originally by: Ariel Dawn3. Gallente and Amarr racial weapons do a good deal more DPS than Minmatar when all ships are sitting inside their OPTIMAL ranges. Adding falloff to TCs would allow Minmatar's DPS to be closer (but still not near) to Gallente/Amarr and let them match Amarr's pulse range. WHICH DO NOT HAVE TO DEAL WITH FALLOFF.
Originally by: Ariel Dawn4. Again, count the number of available options to increase falloff. 1. Optimal? A great deal more. Using THREE falloff rigs against ONE unbonused Tracking Disruptor still only gives you 81% of your previous range.
Originally by: Ariel DawnAlso Twilight, last time I checked Amarr ships can use drones of different damage types and most have missile slots as well. Not to mention the 12-33% damage boost you guys are about to get.
Originally by: Ariel DawnI thought you Amarr players would be happy with the upcoming changes, but you can't stop complaining can you? A single TD vs a Minmatar AC ship (most of them anyway) removes them from the fight unless they come into web range. Under web range Minmatar ships die, period. You don't fly Minmatar and live off of EFT. Ask ANY Minmatar pilot how they feel pitting their Tempest vs a Mega, Dominix, Apoc within web range, a Sleipnir vs an Astarte/Abso, a Vaga/Muninn vs a Deimos/Ishtar/Sac/Zealot. There is a reason for this, pull your heads out of your collective whining asses and try to figure out why. Bunch of sniveling little ****s the lot of you.
Originally by: Lyria SkydancerEdited by: Lyria Skydancer on 04/02/2008 13:42:501. There is nothign wrong with the tanks of minmatar ships. Youre blatantly lying if you claim minmatar ships cant hold their own close up. There are stupidly sick tanks like sleipnir and maelstrom and more...
Quote:3. You cant give fall off boost on TCs because it would increase AC boats damage off the charts. You know this, ccp knows it, we know it. Youre not going to get this overpowered boost.
Quote:4. Live with the changes that TDs now work very effectively against prior immune turrets.
Originally by: Trigos TrilobiHad you actually bothered to check any numbers, you wouldn't have to sound so clueless.For example, if the option is to add either a 3rd gyro or a TE with 15% falloff on a vagabond which already has 1 ambit rig installed, the 3rd gyro outdamages the TE out to 23km or so. Assuming you have to tackle which is often case for a vaga, the only benefit from the +falloff on TE is that you outdamage the 3gyro fit beyond 12km ranges when target disrupted. Off the charts, yeah right. If the ships had infinite slots available, then you might actually have a point. With the current limitations in place though, the only thing you might expect realistically to happen if TE/TCs/remotes had falloff component is that someone might occasionally fit a TE on vaga instead of an ambit rig to avoid downsizing guns, and fleet tempests would suck slightly less if they have to work in falloff. Which frankly now that amarrs are getting a decent long range sniper too might not even be a bad thing.
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: Trigos TrilobiHad you actually bothered to check any numbers, you wouldn't have to sound so clueless.For example, if the option is to add either a 3rd gyro or a TE with 15% falloff on a vagabond which already has 1 ambit rig installed, the 3rd gyro outdamages the TE out to 23km or so. Assuming you have to tackle which is often case for a vaga, the only benefit from the +falloff on TE is that you outdamage the 3gyro fit beyond 12km ranges when target disrupted. Off the charts, yeah right. If the ships had infinite slots available, then you might actually have a point. With the current limitations in place though, the only thing you might expect realistically to happen if TE/TCs/remotes had falloff component is that someone might occasionally fit a TE on vaga instead of an ambit rig to avoid downsizing guns, and fleet tempests would suck slightly less if they have to work in falloff. Which frankly now that amarrs are getting a decent long range sniper too might not even be a bad thing. Vagabond is a stupid example. There are some minmatar ships that would have stupidly overpowered damage/range ratio. Dont play dumb.
Quote:Its not like TDs, that only affected amarr, Matar arty boats, Gallente/Caldari rail boats, were counter-able. Amarr never had enough slots to dream of fitting a TC. Did you hear whole amarr whine squads go berzerk on the forums about that? ECM is not really viably countrable either, ECCM sucks. Minmatar will be fine, k?
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi-1 slot compared to other races seems to be pretty common.
Originally by: AramendelEdited by: Aramendel on 04/02/2008 14:14:21ACs have the 2nd highest raw dps of short range guns.
Originally by: Kagura Nikon Originally by: AramendelEdited by: Aramendel on 04/02/2008 14:14:21ACs have the 2nd highest raw dps of short range guns.LOL lets see. Torps higher damage, blaster higher damage, Pulse laser higher damage. Oo right it has more DPS than smartbombs.
Originally by: Cpt BrankoUsing TDs is going to be extremely popular on unbonused short-range ships with a spare midslot, I can already tell you that one.
Originally by: AramendelAC damagemod / rof * EMP ammo damage / 0.75 (minnie 1st shipbonus)vsPluse laser damagemod / rof * MF ammo damageCalculate it. Be surprised. Feel stupid.
Originally by: Aramendel Originally by: Kagura Nikon Originally by: AramendelEdited by: Aramendel on 04/02/2008 14:14:21ACs have the 2nd highest raw dps of short range guns.LOL lets see. Torps higher damage, blaster higher damage, Pulse laser higher damage. Oo right it has more DPS than smartbombs.AC damagemod / rof * EMP ammo damage / 0.75 (minnie 1st shipbonus)vsPluse laser damagemod / rof * MF ammo damageCalculate it. Be surprised. Feel stupid.
Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Aramendel Originally by: Kagura Nikon Originally by: AramendelEdited by: Aramendel on 04/02/2008 14:14:21ACs have the 2nd highest raw dps of short range guns.LOL lets see. Torps higher damage, blaster higher damage, Pulse laser higher damage. Oo right it has more DPS than smartbombs.AC damagemod / rof * EMP ammo damage / 0.75 (minnie 1st shipbonus)vsPluse laser damagemod / rof * MF ammo damageCalculate it. Be surprised. Feel stupid.Its a better argument to say"DPS where it matters" Because against the majority of ships AC's have a real damage advantage due to damage type, even against passivly tanked ships. They only have a real disadvantage agaisnt shield tanks and the only shield tanks of note which will still takle you are held by Caldari and Minmitar.Also, all minmitar ships either have higher amounts of effective turrets, more supplimentary DPS than the competitor, or both.Saying that ACs do less damage than pulse lasers may be true, right up until you actually put those weapons on ships, fit out the rest of the ship, and start shooting.
Originally by: AramendelEdited by: Aramendel on 04/02/2008 16:39:28 Originally by: Trigos Trilobi-1 slot compared to other races seems to be pretty common.Where?
Quote: Originally by: Trigos Trilobi...Matar arty boats, Gallente/Caldari rail boats...Fixed it for you.How can you effect what you cannot reach?TDs have the lowest effective range of all EW. Chancebased from 60k on. Past 100k their success chance gets so small that activating them is not worth the energy they use.
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi...Matar arty boats, Gallente/Caldari rail boats...Fixed it for you.
Originally by: Cpt BrankoSo, 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?
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: Cpt BrankoSo, 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.
Originally by: Katashi I****ukaI 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.
Originally by: Trigos TrilobiI'd say 2/3 battleships + hacs is 'pretty common', given that those ship classes are quite popular.
Quote:Hmm 48km base + 50% from skills, isn't that more like 72km.
Quote:Compared to 30km base, 45km with skills for painters. Painters have better falloff though.
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.
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.
Originally by: Kagura NikonMy answer was on his sentence that said RAW DPS. And on raw DPs AC are far form havign high dps.
Originally by: AramendelCruiser 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.
Originally by: Trigos TrilobiWell 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.
Originally by: Formulkaso what about nerfing TDs generally and buffing the bonus for them from amarr recons? mayB something like caldari ones5%/level -> 15% for arbi, same or 20% for curse, pilgrim and sentinel and according nerf to unbonused ones ...
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: Formulkaso what about nerfing TDs generally and buffing the bonus for them from amarr recons? mayB something like caldari ones5%/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.
Originally by: Trigos TrilobiSo I'm still convinced that proper way to boost TDs and painters is to fix webs.
Originally by: Liang NurenYet 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.
Originally by: Liang NurenIt is unbalanced for TD's to affect falloff but TC's and TE's not to.
Originally by: AramendelEdited by: Aramendel on 04/02/2008 17:51:01 Originally by: Trigos TrilobiI'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: 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:Firstly, no, not "closer than 150k". Even at 125k using a TD vs a sniper is more like an desperation move than anything else.
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.
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.
Quote:And, again, there is a difference between arties/rails and cruisersized arties/rails.
Originally by: Liang NurenI love how you guys:- Ignore my absolute proof that a single TD will 100% shut down any AC ship
Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Liang NurenI love how you guys:- Ignore my absolute proof that a single TD will 100% shut down any AC shipAh ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Originally by: GoumindongNo 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.
Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Liang NurenI love how you guys:- Ignore my absolute proof that a single TD will 100% shut down any AC shipAh ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haWell, chalk up another win for me.-Liang
Originally by: DennoTheHunterEdited by: DennoTheHunter on 04/02/2008 20:08:39 Originally by: GoumindongNo 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.
Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: GoumindongNo 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
Originally by: Katashi I****ukaLiang your posts are incomprehensible.
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.
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.
Originally by: Trigos TrilobiYes 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.
Quote:So you want a boost to amarr EW, while minmatar ew sucks so much it's not even considered EW
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.
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.
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?
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?
Originally by: GoumindongThere is a counter. Falloff rigs. Its not offensive ewar since it doesnt make you die faster.
Quote:Its not uncounterable you can simply get closer. You can also TD the offending ship to keep your range advantage.
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.
Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Katashi I****ukaLiang 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.
Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: DennoTheHunterEdited by: DennoTheHunter on 04/02/2008 20:08:39 Originally by: GoumindongNo 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.
Originally by: SlaveToEveHopefully tracking computers will get a script for falloff as well, to give a counter..
Originally by: AramendelEdited by: Aramendel on 04/02/2008 20:40:41 Originally by: Trigos TrilobiYes 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.LIST THE DISADVANTAGED SHIPS ONE BY ONE BY NAME OR STFU.Did that got through this time?
Originally by: Julius Romanus Originally by: Liang NurenI 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
Originally by: Liang NurenI 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.
Originally by: Trigos TrilobiWhich part of "Lot of people fly tempests and phoons though, and supposedly 99% eve flies vagas." did you have trouble understanding?
Quote:you just read way too much into a very simple statement
Originally by: Cpt BrankoRupture = no, not really - taking a Rupture in webrange versus a lot of ships is a good way to die, unless 1600mm RT plated, where it has the agility of a BC.
Quote:Cyclone = Hell no. Only successful way to fly a Cyclone I've found relies on sticking out of webrange as much as possible. You cannot handle the punishement short-range ships deal for any reasonable lenght of time.
Quote:Hurricane = no, unless plated like mad, a bad way to fly the Hurricane.
Quote:Typhoon = not really. While you have a good tank, you have utterly crap DPS at the same time due to fitting, and with a gankier fit you don't tank well. Grid prohibits dual-rep with any sort of sensible weapon systems.
Quote:Tempest= no.
Quote:Sleipnir = nope, not really.
Originally by: Cpt BrankoLet's do the whole stupid line-up (of worthwhile ships, at least) and discuss webrange.Rifter = yeah, but preferably at a comfortable 2km+ versus a blaster-frig.Stabber = obviously not, lol.Rupture = no, not really - taking a Rupture in webrange versus a lot of ships is a good way to die, unless 1600mm RT plated, where it has the agility of a BC.Cyclone = Hell no. Only successful way to fly a Cyclone I've found relies on sticking out of webrange as much as possible. You cannot handle the punishement short-range ships deal for any reasonable lenght of time.Hurricane = no, unless plated like mad, a bad way to fly the Hurricane.Typhoon = not really. While you have a good tank, you have utterly crap DPS at the same time due to fitting, and with a gankier fit you don't tank well. Grid prohibits dual-rep with any sort of sensible weapon systems.Tempest= no.Malestorm = yes, maybe.T2:Jaguar/Wolf = like all frigs, you have to go in webrange. Meh.Sabre = not versus any bigger stuff, it's a dictor anyway.Vagabond = LOL, no.Munnin = it's a arty sniper. So, no. Cannot be armour-tanked as well as the other HACs, doesn't have midslots for shield tank with any PvP gear.Broadsword = yes, this ship can quite comfortably go into webrange. Whew, we finally have a cruiser-sized webrange fighter other then the 1600mm rupture.Sleipnir = nope, not really. Claymore = Yeah. it's a fleet command. It tanks. You'll fly a Sleipnir for ganking people though.
Originally by: Aramendel 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 shipThe gimpage of TPs is overcompensated by the ownage of 40k webs.
Quote: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: 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.If you mean cruiser arties say "cruiser arties" if you mean frig, cruiser, BS arties at any ranges say "arties".
Originally by: Liang NurenAs 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.-Liang[/quoteSo how is this any worse than the Minmatar's uncounterable 40k Webs? Or the uncounterable Minmatar's TPs? Yes I know one is quite worse than the other... they are still uncounterable. And in the right situation TPs CAN be very deadly.
Originally by: Aramendel Originally by: Trigos TrilobiWhich part of "Lot of people fly tempests and phoons though, and supposedly 99% eve flies vagas." did you have trouble understanding?Are you unable to read posts past the first 2 lines?I explained in detail *twice* why those ships either do not suffer tanking limitations at all or have other means to overcome them in detail.So essentially you are simply ignoring what you do not like?
Quote:You are stating the most minmatar ships have tanking disadvantages.
Originally by: Twilight MourningSo how is this any worse than the Minmatar's uncounterable 40k Webs? Or the uncounterable Minmatar's TPs? Yes I know one is quite worse than the other... they are still uncounterable. And in the right situation TPs CAN be very deadly.
Originally by: Aramendel Originally by: Cpt BrankoRupture = no, not really - taking a Rupture in webrange versus a lot of ships is a good way to die, unless 1600mm RT plated, where it has the agility of a BC.Welcome to t1 cruisers. They die to a lot of ships. The rupture is however in now way less "tanky" as a throax (which HAS to fly in webrange vs every single target) and has still a far far better tank/gank performance than the maller or moa.
Originally by: Aramendel Quote:Cyclone = Hell no. Only successful way to fly a Cyclone I've found relies on sticking out of webrange as much as possible. You cannot handle the punishement short-range ships deal for any reasonable lenght of time.Vs the brutix, no. Vs the prophecy and ferox, hell yes.
Originally by: Aramendel Quote:Hurricane = no, unless plated like mad, a bad way to fly the Hurricane.
Originally by: Aramendel Quote:Typhoon = not really. While you have a good tank, you have utterly crap DPS at the same time due to fitting, and with a gankier fit you don't tank well. Grid prohibits dual-rep with any sort of sensible weapon systems.Welcome to the geddon and dominix.
Originally by: Aramendel Quote:Tempest= no.Aaand again. Vs mega better chances outside webrange, vs geddon, raven better in webrange.
Originally by: Aramendel Quote:Sleipnir = nope, not really.Yes, really. Unless its an astarte.
Originally by: DennoTheHunterTC'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
Originally by: Liang NurenEdited by: Liang Nuren on 04/02/2008 You seem to be missing the point: I'm not asking for the TC to completely counter bonused TD's, merely unbonused TD's. I am strongly in favor of powerful ewar (even of the Amarr variety).
Originally by: The EconomistSo is it ok to have an ew module which (in part) has no counter? One problem of course is also that if ccp were to create a falloff boosting module/script it could overpower minmatar weapons (and 425mm rails), which could then mean weapons with a lot of falloff would be nerfed, which in turn makes the new falloff module a must-fit simply to get back to "normal" standards.As I said, I'll wait and see how the module works in practice, but it all seems like a can of worms to me.
Originally by: The EconomistReserving judgement till I see them in action....however....My first reaction to hearing about this change was that CCP are going against their own stated logic.CCP: Activated mods that affect 2 attributes at once are inherently overpowered and always have been so we're nerfing them.Yet now they change tracking disruptors so that they affect two attributes, one of which being falloff which has no boosting module and can therefore not be countered. Does this matter, is it unbalanced? I'm not sure. However just for the sake of comparison: Damps/Sensor Boosters, ECM/ECCM, Tracking Disruptors/Tracking Computers....oh wait you can't boost falloff! (yes I'm being pedantic)So is it ok to have an ew module which (in part) has no counter? One problem of course is also that if ccp were to create a falloff boosting module/script it could overpower minmatar weapons (and 425mm rails), which could then mean weapons with a lot of falloff would be nerfed, which in turn makes the new falloff module a must-fit simply to get back to "normal" standards.As I said, I'll wait and see how the module works in practice, but it all seems like a can of worms to me.
Originally by: Kaemonn:Signature Originally by: kieron: off dutyYou dont have to swallow!
Originally by: kieron: off dutyYou dont have to swallow!
Originally by: Magazakibut they will stealth-boost a weapon that is at the moment balanced, the artillery when sniping.
Originally by: Trigos TrilobiI dunno why you keep bringing up webs as some sort of counterbalance for poor TPs. I brought up painters because they belong to the same family as TDs; webs & neuts & scrambles on recons are a whole different issue. Or should we extend your logic so that TDs are ok because nos/neuts on curse rock?
Quote:So 10 points for nitpicking at details, 0 for comprehending big picture.
Quote:I only stated that TDs CAN be used and can be effective against other weapontypes than lasers.
Quote:Now that's impressive. Does that actually make sense even for yourself or are you just trying to nitpick on details and look smug?...Using your own logic, when someone says "TDs don't affect arties" (I think the original statement I replied to was somewhere along the lines that TDs only affect lasers, but in regards to arties that implies the same thing) he must mean all arties, frig, cruiser, bs sized and under any circumstances. Ergo, that statement is logically false given the above hurricane example.
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: SlaveToEveHopefully tracking computers will get a script for falloff as well, to give a counter..I hope it also works like eccm. It doesnt boost your fall off but only protects you from losing fall off. Just like ecm and eccm relation.
Originally by: MagazakiActually, as stated before, there is a counter, but it is a rig, and not a module. And, you could also use the point of view that says both falloff and optimal are range variables.
Quote:Tracking disruptors sucked badly, and they are getting a boost. What is more, they are getting a boost against what they needed it mostly, ships they should be affecting (minmatar turretships) but they didn't. That's good in my book, cause they are getting boosted, not OVERLY boosted but something that needed doing.
Quote:Apart from that, the matter of tracking computers is academic. Simply put, no autocannon boat that I can conceive of will use a tracking computer anyway. However, I can think of LOTS of reasons for it to fit a falloff rig. And this is the "counter" module for the tracking disruptor.
Quote:Why bother with tracking computers boosting falloff then? I don't know, no-one is gonna use them thus anyway because falloff rigs are better for AC boats.
Quote:But I can think of a good reason NOT to boost tracking computers to give falloff.They would give Artillery platforms an advantage they do not need by boosting their range even further, while rails and beams would be at a disadvantage they do not need. So, they will not provide any counter whatsoever to the "hurt" guys - who normally already fit falloff rigs - because no close range ship will fit a TC, but they will stealth-boost a weapon that is at the moment balanced, the artillery when sniping.
Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: DennoTheHunterTC'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'sIt deals with the tradeoffs on damage mods and tracking mods. 1x TE and 2x dmg > 3x dmg in DPS at most ranges and you get a range bonus when applied as such.
Originally by: Trigos TrilobiYes I read the whole bunch about tempest having an extra mid, phoon on par with domi (which is a drone carrier though) and worse than amarr and vaga being a speed tank.
Quote:I just fail to see how showcasing the different ways the ships have to cope with 1 less tank slot somehow invalidates the point I made, the very fact that they have that 1 slot less.
Quote:I did not state "most minmatar have tanking disadvantages".I'll quote the comment that got this started: Originally by: Trigos Trilobi-1 slot compared to other races seems to be pretty common.I later on went to explain what I meant with this statement, we both came to the same conclusion that tempest and the hacs lack a tank slot (on typhoon we don't agree I guess) and I consider them 'common ships', and they were the ships I was thinking about when I wrote that comment.
Originally by: Liang NurenTo be honest, Artillery is solidly in last place with the upcoming optimal change to the apoc.-Liang
Originally by: goodby4uI was actually talking about acs on a vaga,i believe it gets a 22km falloff with barrage and if you have a mod that gives 50% or so to falloff that=30km.
Quote:As for arts,yeah but with bses that use artillery the range of the said arts will outrange the TDs.
Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: goodby4uI was actually talking about acs on a vaga,i believe it gets a 22km falloff with barrage and if you have a mod that gives 50% or so to falloff that=30km.I wasn't responding to you, so I'm not real sure what you were talking about. Quote:As for arts,yeah but with bses that use artillery the range of the said arts will outrange the TDs.The range of all sniper ships will outrange the TD's...... !-Liang
Originally by: Cpt BrankoAs for 'not willing to take any risk whatsoever' - well, guess what, Minmatar ships typically stand better with damage then actual tank, especially the double-damage bonused ones (like, the Hurricane). Do you want the high-DPS ships in your gang to stay where the entire gang can pound them?While, yes, you can only really range-tank blasters (which are very common), often the optimal way to fly a Minmatar ship in gang is to stay at a certain range and only get in if it is required/safe to do so. You certainly don't want the damage-dealers to take serious fire first, do you?
Originally by: goodby4u1)im confused...You werent talking to me...?
Originally by: AramendelWell, the thing is: with that argument blasterships should die whenever they are in a gang. Most actually do not have a superior tank than minmatar ships.
Originally by: AramendelExept nos/neuts are not as useful as 40k webs.Why is pretty simple: nos neuts have an alternative - normal dps - while 40k webs have no alterntive.To elaborate, if your gang can destroy a target before its cap gets leeched dry by your the nos/neuts did nothing, zero, zip, zilch. They were not needed.This is also the reason why amarr recons are better in solo-small groups while minnie recons are a pretty useful addition to your gang no matter how big it is.
Quote:Lets say you see a big "CURE FOR CANCER!" headline in a newspaper at page 1. But upon reading it you find out that it was for cancer in spiders. With no help whatsoever for human cancer treatment research.As result you would be annoyed why they made such a misleading headline. The point is that if there is no further detail in a statement people usually assume that its about the most obvous/important aspect of that. In this case, human cancer.
Quote:To get back to EVE, if someone says "I have found a great easy way to counter snipers!" people who see this will think he is speaking of BS snipers. Because those are by a large margin the most used & important snipers. If it would then turn out that he was talking about frigate snipers..well.
Originally by: Aramendel 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.
Originally by: SlaveToEveEdited by: SlaveToEve on 04/02/2008 21:07:51Well here's hoping the change makes the pilgrim useful at last and it's long overdue this ship has some use. Vs Ac's currently there's just no point flying the pilgrim.Hopefully tracking computers will get a script for falloff as well, to give a counter..
Originally by: Lydia BrightlanceFirst off, I am fine with giving TC/TE a falloff bonus, as long as TDs are upgraded in effectiveness accordingly.
Quote:Target Painters: Absolutely crap except in very specific circumstances (combined with torps, dreadnoughts or fights that are very skewed in ship sizes). They need a better use/redesign.
Originally by: goodby4uEdited by: goodby4u on 05/02/2008 01:23:23 Originally by: Liang NurenTo be honest, Artillery is solidly in last place with the upcoming optimal change to the apoc.-LiangI was actually talking about acs on a vaga,i believe it gets a 22km falloff with barrage and if you have a mod that gives 50% or so to falloff that=30km.As for arts,yeah but with bses that use artillery the range of the said arts will outrange the TDs.
Originally by: DennoTheHunterOk lets assume we have a tempest with max skills. We fit dual 650m AC's on it. with Barrage L we will then have a fall off of 30 km. If TC's were to have a fall off boost, it will probably be the same as the optiaml bonus, that will mean a boost of 15%.If we fit one as you said in your post, we will have a fall off of:30 * 1,15 = 34,5 km fall offThat's far from an overpowered range.
Originally by: Twilight MourningPardon if my math is bad, but you will get the point.108 optimal 44 falloff.108 * 1.15 = 124.2 44 * 1.15 = 50.6Total = 124.2 Optimal 50.6 FalloffTotal Range 174.8 from one mod?
Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Twilight MourningPardon if my math is bad, but you will get the point.108 optimal 44 falloff.108 * 1.15 = 124.2 44 * 1.15 = 50.6Total = 124.2 Optimal 50.6 FalloffTotal Range 174.8 from one mod?You do realize that at optimal + falloff you're dealing half damage on already the lowest DPS sniping ships in the game?-Liang
Originally by: KykioDo you realize that arty-s are ment to be the least damaging guns and have issues with falloff? Thats why it has huge alpha and uses no cap, it is balanced.
Originally by: Twilight MourningEdited by: Twilight Mourning on 05/02/2008 09:42:22Edited by: Twilight Mourning on 05/02/2008 09:41:38Edited by: Twilight Mourning on 05/02/2008 09:41:09 Originally by: DennoTheHunterOk lets assume we have a tempest with max skills. We fit dual 650m AC's on it. with Barrage L we will then have a fall off of 30 km. If TC's were to have a fall off boost, it will probably be the same as the optiaml bonus, that will mean a boost of 15%.If we fit one as you said in your post, we will have a fall off of:30 * 1,15 = 34,5 km fall offThat's far from an overpowered range.Then of course you have 1400 Howitzer Artillery... Don't forget in order for the TC to work, and not be broken in the other direction, it will have a bonus to falloff and optimal. For the 650 which has an optimal of 5.4 and falloff of 30 this is negligable. On the 1400mm... well let's see.Pardon if my math is bad, but you will get the point.108 optimal 44 falloff.108 * 1.15 = 124.2 44 * 1.15 = 50.6Total = 124.2 Optimal 50.6 FalloffTotal Range 174.8 from one mod?If there were scripts to chose for either falloff or optimal then I could see this being semi-doable. Just wanted to toss that out there.Edit: bad math, knew it would happen at 4am. lolEdit: bad spelling, maybe i should go to bedEdit: *sigh* more bad spelling
Originally by: Cpt BrankoThing is, they mostly do have somewhat better tanks, case in point being Brutix/Myrmidon in BC class, Megathron/Hyperion is BS class (while the Maelstorm can pull the same thing, it has to sacrifice full tackle ability to do so) which enable them to do this better.These ships are more suited to actual in your face fighting then Minmatar ships are.Should they (blasterboats) be given falloff-killing TDs, it'd quite break the balance.
Originally by: Trigos TrilobiAgain, that is poor argumentation. 2 ships in game have web range bonuses AND painter bonuses -> it is fair that painters suck.
Quote:I said that TDs work against arty/rail boats. Which they do. This whole obsession with snipers is your own folly.
Originally by: Reto-ppl use ceptors as assault ships in small roaming gangs. some ceptors have a mean punch and tds help to counter this.exp: crusader, taranis, claw.
Quote:-a vagabond which has 2 td II applied from a crucifier frigate wont hit u if u keep ur transeversal above a certain level depending on ur signature radius.
Quote:u took a lot of time replying, quoting and forum-fu battling a lot of ppl here vouching for your point of view but urself claim not to use tds on bonused ships due to their sheer uselessness.
Originally by: AramendelEdited by: Aramendel on 05/02/2008 17:55:09 Originally by: Trigos TrilobiAgain, that is poor argumentation. 2 ships in game have web range bonuses AND painter bonuses -> it is fair that painters suck.No. Painters are an horrible "EW" system. And the point isn't "web range bonuses", it is STRONG web range bonuses. The next more powerful web range bonus outside of the minnie EW ship line is +50%. The recons have +300%.However minmatar recons are not broken (or even weak) because their TP bonus since they have that web bonus to balance them out.If you would make painters more powerful you would break minnie recons balancewise, they would have to get their webbonus reduced then considerably.AS I ALREADY SAID the only ships which are essentially broken by the TPs weak performance are the t1 minnie EW ships, vigil and belli. A good solution for thos would be to give them weaker web bonuses then the t2 ships instead of the TP bonuses.YOu might wanna stop doing exactly what you try to accuse me of: stop nitpicking and and look at the big picture.
Originally by: Aramendel Quote:I said that TDs work against arty/rail boats. Which they do. This whole obsession with snipers is your own folly. Something which works against rails/arties, but only when they are not at sniping positions is about as useful as something which counters ACs/Blasters, but only at ranges of 30k+.
Originally by: Lyria SkydancerThere 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.
Originally by: AramendelHowever minmatar recons are not broken (or even weak) because their TP bonus since they have that web bonus to balance them out.
Quote:AS I ALREADY SAID the only ships which are essentially broken by the TPs weak performance are the t1 minnie EW ships, vigil and belli. A good solution for thos would be to give them weaker web bonuses then the t2 ships instead of the TP bonuses.
Originally by: GoumindongIf the problem is falloff on long range setups, the answer is a falloff boost on long range minmatar ammos. It wont make a difference for ACs, but it will for arties.
Originally by: Gort Originally by: Lyria SkydancerThere 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.You mention the counter to 40km webs and TPs, yourself. It's ECM, either modules or drones. But TP is really a red herring. It's right up there with ECM Bursts in the PvP hall of fame.... And 40km webs come from ships with all the resilience of a square of therapeutic paper.G
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Originally by: Lyria SkydancerTDs are fine with the change. They become efficient against all turrets.I think it's a poor change. I'd much rather take TDs with missile explosion radius penalty instead of optimal and falloff penalty. That way TDs would be usable against a lot more targets, now it's the same set of valid targets but slightly increased efficiency against some, and amarr will still be the ones that suffer from them most. And there wouldn't be need to speculate about changes to TE/TCs either :)
Originally by: Lyria SkydancerTDs are fine with the change. They become efficient against all turrets.
Originally by: Gibbal Slogspit Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: SlaveToEveHopefully tracking computers will get a script for falloff as well, to give a counter..I hope it also works like eccm. It doesnt boost your fall off but only protects you from losing fall off. Just like ecm and eccm relation.Quite a silly comparison really, ECM working for non-turret boats and all....
Originally by: Lyria SkydancerPeople wont sacrifice a mid slot for a TD when it doesnt work against all weapons, everyone will just stick ecm-drones in their bay and be done with it. Yeah its pretty damn effective.
Quote:The best solution would be to boost dedicated ships TD bonus and to nerf TDs so the effectiveness stays the same for the bonused ships, just like they did with ecm. They should still however affect fall off. TDs on bonused ships deserve to totally shut down a turret ships turrets because thats the only thing it does compared to ecm. ECM kills your drones, your own ew effort and ALL your weapons including missiles and neuts.
Originally by: Lyria SkydancerYou missed the point. Minmatar want TCs to affect fall off, ie they are asking for a counter module that protects them from TDs but it will otherwise also BOOST their damage/range. Unlike ECCM that only works as a protective module and doesnt boost you and is quite the joke amongst modules tbpfh.
Originally by: Trigos TrilobiThe main thing I don't agree with you though is that the falloff bonus will not work like you seem to think. For someone playing amarr non-recons the only difference you'll notice after the falloff penalty hits tranquility is that you get TDd a lot more and it will hurt you just like it does now. You don't have the slots to use it yourself, and even if you do, it will not shut down anything except a vaga. Minmatar ships will get in your face as they did before, you take slightly less damage while they crawl into their optimal but since even if you find an amarr ship that can fit both web and td, the minmatar still have speed advantage and they will get into their optimal and there's nothing you can do about it. Once they're there, the only use for the TD is going to be the tracking script that brings their tracking lower to yours so they can't outmaneuver your tracking.
Originally by: Yargo MetashThe problem is that so far we've only heard of unbonused TD's having -50% falloff, putting Med's upwards of 75% into their falloff. And tracking is not an issue when you've got them webbed. So technically, if the min's not dead when you've got him in web range at his optimal, then something is wrong.
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi...now it's the same set of valid targets but slightly increased efficiency against some, and amarr will still be the ones that suffer from them most...
Originally by: Magazaki Originally by: Trigos Trilobi...now it's the same set of valid targets but slightly increased efficiency against some, and amarr will still be the ones that suffer from them most...WTF? How is that? I thought the change actually hurt autocannons first, blasters second and artilleries third, wth do lasers have to do with it??
Originally by: Trigos TrilobiEdited by: Trigos Trilobi on 05/02/2008 21:19:14Yes that'll be the case if you have the slots both for TD and a web. You win extra time to take advantage of your range. Due to the med slot layouts it'll not be very common though. More likely is that the amarr is the one TD'd and wondering why on earth he was so keen to get this falloff penalty in game that made every minmatar and gallente with extra med fit a TD.
Originally by: Yargo MetashAs for Amarr being most TD'd, it will be with the tracking script, not the falloff script. When I ran calculations of 425's with hail/barrage, heavy Neuts' with void and pulses with conflag, the Barrage lost 6000 in falloff while the pulses only lost, I believe it was 1500. That's a LOT of range. Not to mention the pulses optimal was around 11k, while the barrage AC's was only around 5k.Edit: Err, missed two posts. Oh well. Yes, it'd be Min and Gal disrupting each other to get closer and pwn.
Originally by: Trigos TrilobiI believe at their current state there is one script that reduces tracking, and another one that reduces both optimal at falloff at once (since that's the only logical way to do it if you go this route), -50% both with max skills. So max skilled large acs with barrage would be something like 15km falloff with 1 TD applied. This would indicate that at bs level the benefit that amarr can gain with this falloff penalty is even less since the minny bs will already do over 60% of his max damage when he enters web range, hail won't probably be used until at very close range. BSs are slower though. Have to admit though that I've done most my thinking with medium ac numbers at hand so this is just a gut instinct.
Originally by: Trigos TrilobiYou do realize painters and webs compete for same slots on a Huginn?
Quote:You are probably also familiar with the fact that you'd be lucky to find even 1 TP on any decent Huginn fit and on most fits there is none?
Quote:If painters would be uptuned, your typical huginn would lose a web for a TP, it wouldn't magically have one extra slot for this actually useful painter. So it's a tradeoff, less webbing (or tank) for TP goodness.
Quote:And this is not even that important. Balancing one ew type useless because a recon has other ew type that is perceived (too?) powerful is ridiculous.
Quote:Regarding 1 TE + 2 Damage > 3 Damage, but the tradeoff is a fair amount less DPS in those situations where you want to close in as Minmatar (which according to some of the Amarr pilots is almost always). Isn't that what fitting a counter-module is for? Works better in the situation you fit the counter for, but suffers in situations in which it isn't really needed?
Originally by: goodby4uFOTM will always get nerfed,in saying this it does make sense that ccp makes a tracking disruptor such as this,its a counter for a speed tanking ship that relies on its falloff(rapier sleipnir vagabond huggin to a point).Now with that information you would think it would be a good idea to make a counter,however that counter SHOULD NOT have a plus affect unless a TD affects it,reason being is if a vaga fits one and its not being TD'd then it would have up to 30km range on falloff,in this we find that vagabonds can affectively hit things outsite neut distance and that also means the only affective weapon against them is a huggin hyena or rapier.
Originally by: Lyria SkydancerTDs on bonused ships deserve to totally shut down a turret ships turrets because thats the only thing it does compared to ecm. ECM kills your drones, your own ew effort and ALL your weapons including missiles and neuts.
Originally by: Ariel Dawn Quote:Regarding 1 TE + 2 Damage > 3 Damage, but the tradeoff is a fair amount less DPS in those situations where you want to close in as Minmatar (which according to some of the Amarr pilots is almost always). Isn't that what fitting a counter-module is for? Works better in the situation you fit the counter for, but suffers in situations in which it isn't really needed?Provide counter-argument please dear Amarr whine-brigade.
Originally by: Aramendel Originally by: Trigos TrilobiYou do realize painters and webs compete for same slots on a Huginn?You do realize that nowadays cap warfare on the curse does not really work without either having a cap injector or several cap recharge modules.
Quote: Quote:You are probably also familiar with the fact that you'd be lucky to find even 1 TP on any decent Huginn fit and on most fits there is none?I wouldn't classify any huginn fit with a TP as "decent", TBH.
Quote:If a single web wouldn't be enough to virtually stop any ship I would aggree with that argumentation. They are however.The 2nd web most huginns/rapiers use is for redudancy usually.
Quote:Please quote where I said that "balancing it is useless"?
Quote:"The gimpage of TPs is overcompensated by the ownage of 40k webs."
Quote:The point really is that the huginn/rapier as they are now are some of the most useful recons around and really do not need *any* buff. They are totally fine right now. *Just* from their ship performance.Feel free to claim otherwise and become a laughingstock of any halfway experienced recon pilot.
Quote:And yep, huginn is not broken because of painters and I have not claimed it is. What I've tried to point out is that your reasoning that painters should be sucky because huginn has a nice web bonus is illogical at best. If webbers and painters used different slots, you might have more of a case, but even then the proper action would be changing the recon bonuses instead of keeping one ew useless because the other is too powerful on that 1 ship that has bonuses for both.
Quote:And, no, "but they can only use webs or TPs" is a nonsensical argument. With that one a ship which had the full ECM, full damp and full TD bonuses would not be more powerful than a ship which only had the TD bonus.
Originally by: GoumindongBecause it also provides tracking in those situations where you close and orbit, it provides not only more DPS when far away, but also when up close.
Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Ariel Dawn Quote:Regarding 1 TE + 2 Damage > 3 Damage, but the tradeoff is a fair amount less DPS in those situations where you want to close in as Minmatar (which according to some of the Amarr pilots is almost always). Isn't that what fitting a counter-module is for? Works better in the situation you fit the counter for, but suffers in situations in which it isn't really needed?Provide counter-argument please dear Amarr whine-brigade.Because it also provides tracking in those situations where you close and orbit, it provides not only more DPS when far away, but also when up close.Such that.Vs blasters; 1te+2dmg >3dmgvs autocannons: 1te+2dmg>3dmgvs lasers: 1te+2dmg=3dmgvs missiles: 3dmg> 1 te +2dmg
Originally by: GoumindongI said its only about equal against amarr.However, a 15% falloff bonus at the same range assuming 1xfalloff at the original is equal to roughly a 17.6% dps increase at that range. Should actually bit a bit more due to how the tracking calcs work.Just plug the hit chances into the hit quality formula.
Originally by: Ariel Dawn Originally by: GoumindongI said its only about equal against amarr.However, a 15% falloff bonus at the same range assuming 1xfalloff at the original is equal to roughly a 17.6% dps increase at that range. Should actually bit a bit more due to how the tracking calcs work.Just plug the hit chances into the hit quality formula.Ah, it does provide an increase of DPS at range, but I was referring to the situations where Minmatar would be doing better by closing in close as so often suggested by others. The increase in ranged DPS would also be associated with an approximately equal loss in DPS than fitting a third gyrostabilizer when fighting within web range.
Originally by: Trigos TrilobiAnd this invalidates the point that balancing target painters based on Huginn web performance (when painters are made obsolete by webs and share a same slot) is stupid exactly how?
Quote:That's basically what I said, glad you got it.
Quote:As I said, as long as TPs are weaker than webs, the huginn will fit 2 webs since web does everything painter does better, and then some. How does this support your claim that TPs need to be weak because webs are good?
Quote:That was worded badly, by "... balancing one ew useless ..." I essentially meant that it's a bad argument to claim that poor performance for TPs is somehow justified because webs are too powerful. And that refers to your original comment:"The gimpage of TPs is overcompensated by the ownage of 40k webs."Note that the comment was in reference to me comparing TDs with TPs. Then you go on and rant "The point really is that the huginn/rapier as they are now are some of the most useful recons around and really do not need *any* buff. They are totally fine right now. *Just* from their ship performance.Feel free to claim otherwise and become a laughingstock of any halfway experienced recon pilot."The point really is that you (purposefully?) misinterpret my words and come to weird conclusions assuming I have claimed something I have not and go on to quote irrelevant bits here and there while providing little to no arguments against any of my real points.
Originally by: Trigos TrilobiI'm not even sure what you're trying to refute here, I just hope it's not the last bit which starts something like "and just for laughs". In any case comparing ECM, damps and TDs with web vs painters is bad analogy. The latter three are not made obsolete by each other and each have own distinctive characteristics and applications....I don't think you can argue that the main benefit from painter is basically +tracking. A side effect of web slowing your target down to 10% is basically a bucketload more +tracking for all intents and purposes. -> web obsoletes painter.
Originally by: Kagura Nikonthis is only true at range+ falloff. At nearer anyh of the edges the DPS increase is much smaller because the falloff curve in graph is not a stright line.
Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Ariel Dawn Originally by: GoumindongI said its only about equal against amarr.However, a 15% falloff bonus at the same range assuming 1xfalloff at the original is equal to roughly a 17.6% dps increase at that range. Should actually bit a bit more due to how the tracking calcs work.Just plug the hit chances into the hit quality formula.Ah, it does provide an increase of DPS at range, but I was referring to the situations where Minmatar would be doing better by closing in close as so often suggested by others. The increase in ranged DPS would also be associated with an approximately equal loss in DPS than fitting a third gyrostabilizer when fighting within web range.Unless there is any situation in which transversal is high enough to reduce DPS. In which case you can get similar gains to the falloff boost at range.
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi So both do have the increased damage at ranges, acs have slight increase over a long range while lasers have a huge increase over a short band. For both weapon types the point where the extra optimal/falloff becomes meaningful over fitting a gyro is arguably beyond their useful range so largely insignificant. As is evident in the case of lasers if you look at how many pulse fits have TE instead of HS fitted.
Originally by: Lyria SkydancerNo do dont try to twist the truth. TCs and TEs give pulses mainly extra range.
Originally by: Lyria SkydancerTCs on an AC boat will primarily give a damage boost in your whole fall off range wich is pretty much ALL your range.
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer No we dont need to give AC boats means to boost their damage that doesnt stack with gyros, you already have fall off rigs dont push the envelope.
Originally by: AramendelYou claimed essentially that boosting TPs to that extend that they represent a viable Alternative to the Huginns/rapiers web would not make those ships stronger because they share the same module slot. Right?
Quote:If that is not that case and you in fact agree with me that the minnie recons would be made more powerful if TPs would be boosted then we both misunderstood each other and all is fine.
Quote:A ship with the full TD & ECM bonuses would be more powerful than a TD ship alone. It could i.e. fit caldari ECM to deal with most missile and ECM ships and fit TDs to counter turret ships. It would be altogether more versatile, and es result, more powerful.
Originally by: Cpt Branko(a) Falloff rigs (and modules would be) are stacking penalized, so fitting rigs + TCs with falloff boost wouldn't be worth it.(b) Excuse me, so I have to rig my ships to get the bonus which others can get via tracking computers? WTF?
Originally by: Aramendel Originally by: Trigos TrilobiAnd this invalidates the point that balancing target painters based on Huginn web performance (when painters are made obsolete by webs and share a same slot) is stupid exactly how?Nice try in evading the point.
Quote:It invalidates your "This is actually different from the curse with nos/neuts + TDs, since the slots for those don't conflict." argument.
Quote:No, it isn't. You said that there are decent huginn fits with TPs, I said there are none.
Quote:Quote please where I claim that TPs "need to be weak".
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi[Implies that tps are balanced because webs are good. IMO tps are weak, hence you're arguing that they need to be weak.
Originally by: Lyria SkydancerDude sure you can boost TPs if we cut web range bonus to half. You clearly have no idea how powerful ranged webs are as ew. This is called balance. You couldnt give a ship ecm + nos ew bonus either for example or web + nos. You are obviously just trying to overpower the minmatar recons.
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: Cpt Branko(a) Falloff rigs (and modules would be) are stacking penalized, so fitting rigs + TCs with falloff boost wouldn't be worth it.(b) Excuse me, so I have to rig my ships to get the bonus which others can get via tracking computers? WTF?a) People would fit other rigs...
Originally by: Lyria Skydancerb) You already have the advantage of ammo switch without major impact on your range. You cant have it all.
Originally by: Ariel DawnI still don't see why increasing Minmatar ranged DPS is much of an issue, Amarr already have a significantly longer range using long range ammos and do not worry about falloff:For example:New Zealot (3 HS) = 456.25 DPS with 34km optimal and 5km falloffVagabond (1 'Falloff' TE, 2 Gyro) = 173.5 DPS with 2.7 optimal and 26.45km falloff when at optimal + falloff, 254.5 after drones. DPS within optimal (closing situation) is 347, 428 after drones.A Vagabond does less DPS than a Zealot at 2.7km than a Zealot at 34km, a good amount of which is drone-based. Both EM and EXP tend to be the lowest resists across all ships averaged according to killboard datamining. A Vagabond using Hail is doing 522 DPS including drones at 1.4km optimal while a Zealot using it's T2 high damage ammo is doing 581.25 DPS at 11km.Vagabond (3 Gyro) = 195 DPS with 2.7 optimal and 23km falloff when at optimal + falloff. At the range of TE + 2 Gyro (2.7km+26.45km) it is doing 165.75 DPS (5.75 less), but has 390 at 2.7km, 471 after drones. This is a difference of 43 more than TE + 2 Gyro.The situations under 10km that involve a webber, the 3Gyro option performs better than TE/2Gyro by a large amount when tracking is minimal, but the TE/2Gyro does more DPS against situations where both targets are web-free and moving at high speeds. Overall, the difference between the two possibilities if falloff was to be introduced onto tracking enhancers would not really be overpowered because of the reduction of close-ranged killing power (the drawback). Long ranged DPS would be increased by a tiny fraction, but also promote variety in setups and provide a small counter to the effects of a falloff tracking disruptor. Feel free to test it out yourself with the online tracking/dps guide this website provides.Furthermore, claiming that the Vagabond would have an imbalanced DPS at range when compared to the new Zealot (and saying it is fine) seems very very biased considering the massive difference in damage output and range between the two ships.
Originally by: Lyria SkydancerNo, no, no. Dont compare Zealot to a Vagabond. They are completely different. Zealot ONLY has its guns as weapons and while fitting for gank cant even fit a moderate tank on it and is pretty much a glass cannon that goes 1700m/s. It dominates mid range with pulses, yes and its supposed to.Vagabond has very high speed as tank and evasive protection and also has drones so its protected against interceptor tackling.If you think vagabond should be doing any dps near the zealot in mid range you are dreaming. Vagabond is fine as it is now and Zealot will be fine with 5 turrets aswell. This minmatar whine isnt called for and is only up for display to promote stupidly overpowered boosts to projectiles while trying to disguise it as a "fix". No, you wont get it.
Originally by: DianecesShut up. Your blatant anti-Minmatar trolling under the guise of "fixing" Amarr and "balance" is getting old. Anytime anybody suggests something that doesn't benefit Amarr more than every other race, you and the rest of the whine brigade scream bloody murder that the devs would dare show any love to any of the other races. Guess what? The rest of us had to listen to you constantly ***** and moan even after the Devs said they were looking into Amarr problem. And yet when we want something that isn't even remotely overpowered, despite all your assertions to the contrary, we can't have it?
Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: Lyria SkydancerNo, no, no. Dont compare Zealot to a Vagabond. They are completely different. Zealot ONLY has its guns as weapons and while fitting for gank cant even fit a moderate tank on it and is pretty much a glass cannon that goes 1700m/s. It dominates mid range with pulses, yes and its supposed to.Vagabond has very high speed as tank and evasive protection and also has drones so its protected against interceptor tackling.If you think vagabond should be doing any dps near the zealot in mid range you are dreaming. Vagabond is fine as it is now and Zealot will be fine with 5 turrets aswell. This minmatar whine isnt called for and is only up for display to promote stupidly overpowered boosts to projectiles while trying to disguise it as a "fix". No, you wont get it.Basically anti-Minmatar trolling and a load of rubbish all rolled in one post. Also 'supposed to dominate mid-range' and 'does more DPS at practically *any* range' are two very different things.
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: DianecesYou already have rigs that boost your damage and range without stacking with gyros, so for the sake of balance we wouldnt like you to have additional damage mods in mids and lows in forms of TDs and TEs. Yeah it would be overpowered. Dont disguise it as something else please.+Falloff doesn't boost damage, it boosts the range where you can apply (part) of that damage. Similarly, +optimal boosts the range where a laserboat can apply its damage, only the envelope is different, ie you gain a considerably higher benefit for a shorter range band. As I presented above, a nonrange bonused HPL with scorch will gain a relative damage increase between 24km and 34km from fitting a TE instead of a HS. At 30km It'll do a whopping three times more damage with 2HS+TE fit instead of 3HS. As you can see, you already have this bonus you think will be overpowered for minmatar.
Originally by: DianecesYou already have rigs that boost your damage and range without stacking with gyros, so for the sake of balance we wouldnt like you to have additional damage mods in mids and lows in forms of TDs and TEs. Yeah it would be overpowered. Dont disguise it as something else please.
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: DianecesShut up. Your blatant anti-Minmatar trolling under the guise of "fixing" Amarr and "balance" is getting old. Anytime anybody suggests something that doesn't benefit Amarr more than every other race, you and the rest of the whine brigade scream bloody murder that the devs would dare show any love to any of the other races. Guess what? The rest of us had to listen to you constantly ***** and moan even after the Devs said they were looking into Amarr problem. And yet when we want something that isn't even remotely overpowered, despite all your assertions to the contrary, we can't have it?You already have rigs that boost your damage and range without stacking with gyros, so for the sake of balance we wouldnt like you to have additional damage mods in mids and lows in forms of TDs and TEs. Yeah it would be overpowered. Dont disguise it as something else please.
Originally by: Lyria SkydancerEdited by: Lyria Skydancer on 06/02/2008 14:34:19Dude sure you can boost TPs if we cut web range bonus to half. You clearly have no idea how powerful ranged webs are as ew. This is called balance. You couldnt give a ship ecm + nos ew bonus either for example or web + nos. You are obviously just trying to overpower the minmatar recons.
Originally by: Lyria "Jonny JoJo" SkydancerYou already have rigs that boost your damage and range without stacking with gyros, so for the sake of balance we wouldnt like you to have additional damage mods in mids and lows in forms of TDs and TEs. Yeah it would be overpowered. Dont disguise it as something else please.
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: Lyria SkydancerNo, no, no. Dont compare Zealot to a Vagabond. They are completely different. Zealot ONLY has its guns as weapons and while fitting for gank cant even fit a moderate tank on it and is pretty much a glass cannon that goes 1700m/s. It dominates mid range with pulses, yes and its supposed to.Vagabond has very high speed as tank and evasive protection and also has drones so its protected against interceptor tackling.If you think vagabond should be doing any dps near the zealot in mid range you are dreaming. Vagabond is fine as it is now and Zealot will be fine with 5 turrets aswell. This minmatar whine isnt called for and is only up for display to promote stupidly overpowered boosts to projectiles while trying to disguise it as a "fix". No, you wont get it.Basically anti-Minmatar trolling and a load of rubbish all rolled in one post. Also 'supposed to dominate mid-range' and 'does more DPS at practically *any* range' are two very different things.You complaining about range vs dps? Go compare the new eagle to the vagabond/zealot and you might have a point...Also Im pretty sure there have already been alot of points and calculations made to show you that TDs/TEs affecting fall off is a bad idea balance wise, you choose to ignore these and thats not my fault.
Originally by: DianecesWould this be the same math that has convinced you ECCM is totally useless? Or is it a different type of alternative math? 2+2=5, amirite?Edit: Failquoting ITT
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: DianecesWould this be the same math that has convinced you ECCM is totally useless? Or is it a different type of alternative math? 2+2=5, amirite?Edit: Failquoting ITTThere have been enough threads about all this with alot of calculations to prove it. If you havent looked into it, dont understand it or simply ignore it, Im not going to be arsed to repeat it. Ill just repeat the summary and thats what Ive told you. Go ahead troll me...
Originally by: Lyria SkydancerIll just repeat the summary and thats what Ive told you. Go ahead troll me...
Originally by: Lyria SkydancerYou complaining about range vs dps? Go compare the new eagle to the vagabond/zealot and you might have a point...Also Im pretty sure there have already been alot of points and calculations made to show you that TDs/TEs affecting fall off is a bad idea balance wise, you choose to ignore these and thats not my fault.
Originally by: Lyria SkydancerThere have been enough threads about all this with alot of calculations to prove it.
Originally by: Cpt BrankoThey completely ignore the fact that Gallente (somewhat), Caldari (much more!) and specifically Amarr have much better options at modifying their range (and DPS!) with TCs/TEs ; this used to be offset by the fact you could TD Amarr range very effectively and Caldari/Gallente range a less effectively.Meaning, it used to be balanced.
Originally by: Cpt BrankoRight now, it's not balanced, at all. So, boost TCs/TEs to fix falloff as well, nerf TDs to hell on all unbonused ships and give amarr recons/etc a bigger bonus.
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi(...)
Originally by: MagazakiEdited by: Magazaki on 06/02/2008 23:54:21Now, then, I *can* accept any and all arguments that say boost tracking computers/enhancers because they need a counter.But asking for a nerf to tracking disruptors, before they even got a boost? For crying out loud, right now they SUCK. They'll be usable.If you wanna cry "nerf", at least wait till they're tested. It's not as if the only thing you will encounter is tracking disruptors. Get real. They will be more effective against some ship, well, GOOD. I'm not against the existence of a counter to them either. But asking for a pre-nerf? No way... Not until they are tried and tested.And the fact that they will be effective against Vagabonds in particular is not a reason to nerf them for crying out loud. In fact, the fact that a few select ships are practically immune to this optimal range decrease and also the fact that TD's are underpowered as hell at the moment is rather the reason that they're getting this good, called for, boost.
Originally by: AramendelCeptor wolfpacks attack soliatry targets, not equal gangs (due to obvious reasons). They will simply swarm and kill you, 1-2 TDs will not be of much use vs them.With his guns. 5 war2 and his missile launcher will kill it easily. EW frigs cannot speedtank drone efficiently and have no real conventional tank.I did? Quote please. I would be highly surprised by this considering I actually did multiple times what you "advice" me to do. Hell, I even got myself a bunch of cosmos maximum efficiency TDs like 6 month ago to see if I could make them viaable if I maximize their efficiency. I couldn't.
Originally by: Reto Originally by: AramendelCeptor wolfpacks attack soliatry targets, not equal gangs (due to obvious reasons). They will simply swarm and kill you, 1-2 TDs will not be of much use vs them.With his guns. 5 war2 and his missile launcher will kill it easily. EW frigs cannot speedtank drone efficiently and have no real conventional tank.I did? Quote please. I would be highly surprised by this considering I actually did multiple times what you "advice" me to do. Hell, I even got myself a bunch of cosmos maximum efficiency TDs like 6 month ago to see if I could make them viaable if I maximize their efficiency. I couldn't.rubish! ppl who have balls fight equal groups (for obvious reasons) even in friggangs. dont speculate about pvp situations u never took part in.a crucifier does not die to a vagabond, its 5 warrior II nor a single launcher if u have half a brain. do not speculate on pvp if u dont know how to setup ur ships correctly or fight as a part of a team.u bought cosmos tds and didnt had success using em. u know that the price does not determines performance and u also know that a module alone does not decide a battle.what were ur exact expectations form ur investment?
Originally by: Alek RowACs still are considered short range weapons, some falloff bonus and rigs can turn ACs in certain ships into effective medium range weapons.You know that Amarr are the queens of Medium range and they don't want to see nobody entering their domain, even when the Minmatar DPS in those ships that fight in falloff is always inferior of what we see in EFT (EFT only calculates optimal Dps if I'm not mistaken).
Originally by: GamesguyPray tell, what magical crucifier setup survives 5 warrior IIs?
Originally by: Ariel DawnAhahahahahaha! A Zealot can nano-fit and be flown as a Vagabond with a similar tank, less speed, and far more DPS than the Vagabond can possibly put out.
Originally by: DennoTheHunterSo why can't we get TC/TE boosting falloff too? It clearly won't outclass Amarr at these ranges, as AC's will never be as good as pulses at range even with 10x falloff-rigs/TC/TE. Never.
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Originally by: Lyria SkydancerThere have been enough threads about all this with alot of calculations to prove it. Actually unless my memory fails me,I haven't yet seen any real effort by anyone to bring out any numbers to support the claim that falloff mod on TE/TC would overpower acs, and neither has anyone really tried to refute my calculations which seem to point towards completely opposite direction.Perhaps you could provide a link or maybe even look at the numbers I posted in this thread and or explain why they are wrong or meaningless or refute the conclusion I made based on them?
Originally by: GoumindongIt is the same here. Extending the optimal range of the majority of pulse laser ships does not do ships any good, because range is the least valuable attribute in small gang work. Not so with extending the falloff of AC's[and to a lesser extent blasters]. Because their operating range is so much closer this turns into pretty much a flat damage boost.
Originally by: GoumindongWhat numbers?Its pretty clear that 17.6% is larger than 12.4%.
Originally by: Cpt BrankoEdited by: Cpt Branko on 07/02/2008 10:24:55 Originally by: GoumindongIt is the same here. Extending the optimal range of the majority of pulse laser ships does not do ships any good, because range is the least valuable attribute in small gang work. Not so with extending the falloff of AC's[and to a lesser extent blasters]. Because their operating range is so much closer this turns into pretty much a flat damage boost.Jumping in your own mouth Guom?If range is the least valuable, and blasters/ACs suffer from not having it DPS-wise, how is it the least valuable thing? If range is not important, then how is having 13% less DPS (not fitting a third gyrostab and trading it for more range instead) a damage boost? Your logic is horribly skewed at best. Falloff-boosting TEs would only be good if I was shooting at a noticeable range (where other races like Amarr win out anyway) and a disadvantage up close. Originally by: GoumindongWhat numbers?Its pretty clear that 17.6% is larger than 12.4%.It's clear that 12.4% is larger then 0%, which is what you get at close-range.
Originally by: BlutreiterAlso, AC users fight in their falloff. That's not a dogma, that's common routine. Due to the nature of how falloff works, this means you will get higher DPS at the previously same engagement range, which happens to be out of web and inside scrambling range usually.
Originally by: BlutreiterAlso, even if lasers have high optimal, altering the range of a laser will not change the DPS output at their engagement range.
Originally by: BlutreiterIf TCs or TEs should ever recieve a falloff bonus, it should be half of the optimal bonus. More would let them serve as an additional pseudo-damagemod.Comments?
Originally by: BlutreiterSelective logic for the win.Range in small engagements is still not much of an issue because someone always needs to tackle.Also, AC users fight in their falloff. That's not a dogma, that's common routine. Due to the nature of how falloff works, this means you will get higher DPS at the previously same engagement range, which happens to be out of web and inside scrambling range usually.Due to that being a relatively small area, under standard combat circumstances, increasing falloff will provide an effective damageboost.Don't dare to tell me that you will suddenly fight from above scramrange just because you get higher maximum range.Also, even if lasers have high optimal, altering the range of a laser will not change the DPS output at their engagement range.That's the issue between increasing falloff/optimal range.If TCs or TEs should ever recieve a falloff bonus, it should be half of the optimal bonus. More would let them serve as an additional pseudo-damagemod.Comments?
Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: BlutreiterAlso, AC users fight in their falloff. That's not a dogma, that's common routine. Due to the nature of how falloff works, this means you will get higher DPS at the previously same engagement range, which happens to be out of web and inside scrambling range usually.Yes, sometimes. Depends on target and cirrumstances. When the cirrumstances call for getting in webrange, a falloff boosting TE fails to compensate for the lack of the third gyro.Then again; Amarr fight out of webrange if possible themselves. Something enabling you to use multifreq instead of standard for example IS effectively a damage boost in itself, which guom and you won't admit for some reason. Originally by: BlutreiterAlso, even if lasers have high optimal, altering the range of a laser will not change the DPS output at their engagement range.If you can use higher-damage crystals at longer range (where you will often want to be in a Amarr ship), it provides a damage boost to you as well, right now. Aside from being a partial counter to TDs, that is. Originally by: BlutreiterIf TCs or TEs should ever recieve a falloff bonus, it should be half of the optimal bonus. More would let them serve as an additional pseudo-damagemod.Comments?Ok, but TDs should have falloff reduction which is half of the optimal reduction to compensate.
Originally by: BlutreiterAutocannons can usually use their highest damage ammo upfront without dealing with range in the first place. The falloff bonus on barrage is pretty unique in the first place, so that's out of discussion. Just because it is used very heavily only attests to the effectiveness of falloff boni on autocannons.
Originally by: BlutreiterWhen Amarr switch to high damage ammo, they lose a LOT of range.
Originally by: Blutreitertell me one pilot that really wastes a terribly precious medslot on an amarrship,
Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: BlutreiterWhen Amarr switch to high damage ammo, they lose a LOT of range.Switch to Hail and have 1km optimal and 4-5km falloff and talk to me about losing a LOT of range
Originally by: Blutreiter Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: BlutreiterWhen Amarr switch to high damage ammo, they lose a LOT of range.Switch to Hail and have 1km optimal and 4-5km falloff and talk to me about losing a LOT of range Yep ^^But again, that's specialized ammo. I was just referring to standard ammo on most cases and that's where amarr have the most range differences between all different races, not only on long-range weapon systems but on pulses as well.But Hail... well Hail rips you a new one if you come into range
Originally by: Gamesguy Originally by: Reto Originally by: Aramendelavoiding pyramid quotea crucifier does not die to a vagabond, its 5 warrior II nor a single launcher if u have half a brain. do not speculate on pvp if u dont know how to setup ur ships correctly or fight as a part of a team.Pray tell, what magical crucifier setup survives 5 warrior IIs?
Originally by: Reto Originally by: Aramendelavoiding pyramid quotea crucifier does not die to a vagabond, its 5 warrior II nor a single launcher if u have half a brain. do not speculate on pvp if u dont know how to setup ur ships correctly or fight as a part of a team.
Originally by: Aramendelavoiding pyramid quote
Originally by: GoumindongEdited by: Goumindong on 07/02/2008 07:58:17 Originally by: Ariel DawnAhahahahahaha! A Zealot can nano-fit and be flown as a Vagabond with a similar tank, less speed, and far more DPS than the Vagabond can possibly put out.Please show me this dual extended Zealot that still packs a scram.Zealots with 4 turrets were previously out-damaged by vagabonds to about 23km while having much less tank and being much slower.The 5th turret makes it harder for the Zealot to fit its necessary cap mods and limits its ability to defend against ships with webs[previously it could fit a med neut in the spare high]. So while it now can do more DPS than a vagabond[how you get 173 dps out of a 2 gyro vagabond i havent a freaking clue btw, are you loading carbonized lead?], it is still likely an inferior ship.ed: Oh wait, i know how you did it. You did it by not having ever flown the ships and just stuck an arbitrary number out there
Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: DennoTheHunterSo why can't we get TC/TE boosting falloff too? It clearly won't outclass Amarr at these ranges, as AC's will never be as good as pulses at range even with 10x falloff-rigs/TC/TE. Never.In the short range, more optimal is largly unused. This is why most small gang ships dont fit artillery, beams, or rails. It doesnt matter if the ship can shoot 100km, shooting 100km doesnt do the ship any good.It is the same here. Extending the optimal range of the majority of pulse laser ships does not do ships any good, because range is the least valuable attribute in small gang work. Not so with extending the falloff of AC's[and to a lesser extent blasters]. Because their operating range is so much closer this turns into pretty much a flat damage boost.
Originally by: DennoTheHunterI ask you again. How can TC/TE boosting falloff too in anyway be overpowered?
Originally by: Lyria SkydancerWhy the heck should one race get an extra damage mod in mids and lows that doesnt stack with gyros when others dont?
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: DennoTheHunterI ask you again. How can TC/TE boosting falloff too in anyway be overpowered?You obviously want this change because you KNOW there are minmatar ships you want to put TCs and TEs on. You also admitted they do boost damage in normal pvp ranges and as a side effect also increase your total range.
Quote:Why the heck should one race get an extra damage mod in mids and lows that doesnt stack with gyros when others dont? You already have damage mods youre sticking in your rig slots on every AC boat and they are called fall off rigs. They dont stack with gyros. Be happy you got those, dont be greedy and ask for more.
Originally by: Ariel DawnPlease read. 173 is Vagabond Turret DPS when at Optimal + Falloff. 254 after drones. Zealot is doing 456.25 DPS with 60% more range and is not relying on drones damage as a large portion of it.
Originally by: Lady Octavia Originally by: Ariel DawnPlease read. 173 is Vagabond Turret DPS when at Optimal + Falloff. 254 after drones. Zealot is doing 456.25 DPS with 60% more range and is not relying on drones damage as a large portion of it. What kind of zealot is that ?? Ive tried to make a fit which can do what you wrote but I failed. So pls enlight me what fit does that zealot have?Oh and who wants falloff for TE just remaind this arty-s has a huge falloff too it could cause that arty-s would out range other snipers with similar dmg while using no cap and easy to fit arty-s.2nd vargur would be the king of pve oh wait matar as best race in pvp and now pve too !!! Those who think TE TC needs a falloff mod , just want to make their matari ships overpowered!!!Btw i dont fly matar ships but most matar use EMP + barrage/tremor and most of their fits uses tc/te . And pls add tracking bonus from TE in your dmg calculations --> it gives more hits(more dps) if your guns at near their tracking limit,so with adding a falloff boni it would do increase dps even more(i think much more than a 3rd gyro would do).
Originally by: Lady OctaviaOh and who wants falloff for TE just remaind this arty-s has a huge falloff too it could cause that arty-s would out range other snipers with similar dmg while using no cap and easy to fit arty-s.
Quote:2nd vargur would be the king of pve oh wait matar as best race in pvp and now pve too !!!
Quote:Those who think TE TC needs a falloff mod , just want to make their matari ships overpowered!!!Btw i dont fly matar ships but most matar use EMP + barrage/tremor and most of their fits uses tc/te . And pls add tracking bonus from TE in your dmg calculations --> it gives more hits(more dps) if your guns at near their tracking limit,so with adding a falloff boni it would do increase dps even more(i think much more than a 3rd gyro would do).
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: DennoTheHunterI ask you again. How can TC/TE boosting falloff too in anyway be overpowered?You obviously want this change because you KNOW there are minmatar ships you want to put TCs and TEs on. You also admitted they do boost damage in normal pvp ranges and as a side effect also increase your total range. Why the heck should one race get an extra damage mod in mids and lows that doesnt stack with gyros when others dont? You already have damage mods youre sticking in your rig slots on every AC boat and they are called fall off rigs. They dont stack with gyros. Be happy you got those, dont be greedy and ask for more.
Originally by: Dromidas ShadowmoonThis post is fail. Artys working in falloff would be unbelievably laughable. Nobody would use a falloff script on their TC over an optimal script while using artillery because they would have worse performance :P
Originally by: Ariel Dawn Originally by: Lady Octavia Originally by: Ariel DawnPlease read. 173 is Vagabond Turret DPS when at Optimal + Falloff. 254 after drones. Zealot is doing 456.25 DPS with 60% more range and is not relying on drones damage as a large portion of it. What kind of zealot is that ?? Ive tried to make a fit which can do what you wrote but I failed. So pls enlight me what fit does that zealot have?Your inability to fit a Zealot does not a proper argument for balance make. The ship in question is the new 5-turret version currently on SiSi and will in all likeliness make it to Tranq.Can an Amarrian player explain to me why a 34km optimal range (or 40km with a TC/TE) doing full DPS on a ship that can be setup very similarly (albeight slower) is not overpowered while a ship with 23km falloff (or 26km using a TE) doing HALF of the Amarrian counterpart is not imbalanced?But this is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Instead of all the useless counter arguments provided by the Amarr players, run some numbers. I already have but they went ignored for some reason.Compare a 3 Gyrostabilizer Vagabond to a 1 Tracking Enhancer 2 Gyrostabilizer Vagabond at their optimal ranges, and at 18km using Barrage M at all ranges. Use the EVE player guide to incorporate the tracking bonus as well. You will find the 'HUEG DAMAGEG BOOST' in the order of 4-8 DPS at range while losing 40+ DPS under 10km, but see this yourself.Stop posting baseless arguments and come back with real numbers and proof. More arm waving will lead to no real conclusion to this discussion.
Originally by: Lady Octavia Originally by: Ariel DawnPlease read. 173 is Vagabond Turret DPS when at Optimal + Falloff. 254 after drones. Zealot is doing 456.25 DPS with 60% more range and is not relying on drones damage as a large portion of it. What kind of zealot is that ?? Ive tried to make a fit which can do what you wrote but I failed. So pls enlight me what fit does that zealot have?
Originally by: Ariel DawnThe ship in question is the new 5-turret version currently on SiSi....Stop posting baseless arguments and come back with real numbers and proof. More arm waving will lead to no real conclusion to this discussion.
Originally by: Lady Octavia Originally by: Ariel DawnThe ship in question is the new 5-turret version currently on SiSi....Stop posting baseless arguments and come back with real numbers and proof. More arm waving will lead to no real conclusion to this discussion.I like when ppl say to use real datas then they use SISI ships in their arguments. Oh and you say vaga dps is **** at 20km (because there ac suck and vagas only fight at this range???) then comparing TE against gyro it suddenly within 10km(because there TE cant offer much).Summary you compare vaga vs other ships at range where vaga should not fight, and compare TE against gyro where vaga should not fight eighter, nice...
Originally by: Selia RainGive tracking computers a falloff script, problem solved?Of course, this would be a major boost to all minmatar dps platforms, it would become the -must fit- midslot item for your autopest, mael, hurricane, and vargur(perhaps more), boosting battleship and even cruiser falloff to obscene ranges when used in conjunction with barrage. Admittedly, you can do this with rigs already, but if the script was available, you'd be able to use tank, speed, or damage/rof rigs instead. Also you could fit without sacrificing powergrid to the rig gods, which falloff rigs force you to, even with high skills.Vaga with 2x TC II and falloff scripts and a falloff rig? Sure, your tank suffers slightly(and by slightly I mean...), but hey, you can hit at 40km with autos!Infact, fit 2 on your gank mega and watch them squirm as you beat them down like a blasterrokh, only with massive dps! Amazing!In other words, I actually support the idea of some falloff boosting module, but it really would have to be balanced carefully.
Originally by: Lisento Slaven Originally by: Selia RainGive tracking computers a falloff script, problem solved?Of course, this would be a major boost to all minmatar dps platforms, it would become the -must fit- midslot item for your autopest, mael, hurricane, and vargur(perhaps more), boosting battleship and even cruiser falloff to obscene ranges when used in conjunction with barrage. Admittedly, you can do this with rigs already, but if the script was available, you'd be able to use tank, speed, or damage/rof rigs instead. Also you could fit without sacrificing powergrid to the rig gods, which falloff rigs force you to, even with high skills.Vaga with 2x TC II and falloff scripts and a falloff rig? Sure, your tank suffers slightly(and by slightly I mean...), but hey, you can hit at 40km with autos!Infact, fit 2 on your gank mega and watch them squirm as you beat them down like a blasterrokh, only with massive dps! Amazing!In other words, I actually support the idea of some falloff boosting module, but it really would have to be balanced carefully.This. The implementation of another falloff boosting module would be extremely beneficial to ships that rely entirely on falloff. It would have to be balanced very carefully even if the mods are stacking penalized.
Originally by: Trigos TrilobiEarlier in this thread it was argued that minmatar ac ships want to be at their optimal against lasers (since lasers have dps advantage at range). Likewise against missiles. Blah blah blah blah
Originally by: Ariel DawnPlease read. 173 is Vagabond Turret DPS when at Optimal + Falloff. Blah blah blah blah
Originally by: Dromidas ShadowmoonThe implementatin of a falloff reducing module would be extremely detrimental to ships that rely entirely on falloff (read: every single minmatar ship). It would have to be balanced very carefully (by introducing the ability to counter being crippled) even if the penalties are affected by stacking.
Quote:The implementatin of a falloff reducing module would be extremely detrimental to ships that rely entirely on falloff (read: every single minmatar ship). It would have to be balanced very carefully (by introducing the ability to counter being crippled) even if the penalties are affected by stacking.
Originally by: Ariel DawnYour inability to fit a Zealot does not a proper argument for balance make. The ship in question is the new 5-turret version currently on SiSi and will in all likeliness make it to Tranq.
Originally by: GoumindongBlasters 1 te + 2 dmg > 3 dmgAC 1 te + 2 dmg > 3 dmglasers 1 te+ 2 dmg ~= 3 dmg[tracking increase increases DPS in short rangemissiles 1 te +2 dmg < 3 dmg[tranversal is useless]
Originally by: DennoTheHunter Originally by: GoumindongBlasters 1 te + 2 dmg > 3 dmgAC 1 te + 2 dmg > 3 dmglasers 1 te+ 2 dmg ~= 3 dmg[tracking increase increases DPS in short rangemissiles 1 te +2 dmg < 3 dmg[tranversal is useless]Why do you keep saying that? I've proved the exact oppesite a few post back. Ok they give more tracking too, but in that range both targets are webbed anyway, so tracking in none existant, making that argument useless.
Originally by: GoumindongEdited by: Goumindong on 08/02/2008 06:13:34 Originally by: DennoTheHunter Originally by: GoumindongBlasters 1 te + 2 dmg > 3 dmgAC 1 te + 2 dmg > 3 dmglasers 1 te+ 2 dmg ~= 3 dmg[tracking increase increases DPS in short rangemissiles 1 te +2 dmg < 3 dmg[tranversal is useless]Why do you keep saying that? I've proved the exact oppesite a few post back. Ok they give more tracking too, but in that range both targets are webbed anyway, so tracking in none existant, making that argument useless.1. you didnt prove that. You showed that at 20km there is a 3.5% advantage for an AC pest using barrage at maxed skills. But the TE ship will not want to fight close to another AC ship because he knows he has the falloff mod giving him the advantage at range. And the 3 gyro ship has no such information and so has no preference. Keep in mind that this puts this threshold at 5km for frigates and 10km for cruisers.2. Tracking is not non-existant.
Originally by: GoumindongBlasters 1 te + 2 dmg > 3 dmg
Quote:AC 1 te + 2 dmg > 3 dmg
Quote:lasers 1 te+ 2 dmg ~= 3 dmg[tracking increase increases DPS in short range
Quote:missiles 1 te +2 dmg < 3 dmg[tranversal is useless]Two >'s, one equal, one worse. Add them up.
Quote:Incorrect. All it does is let the "turret range ewar" actually affect the range of all turrets.
Originally by: Goumindong But the TE ship will not want to fight close to another AC ship because he knows he has the falloff mod giving him the advantage at range. And the 3 gyro ship has no such information and so has no preference.
Originally by: GamesguyAnd before you mention TEs, amarr ships have to give up tank to do it, there is no such thing as an "utility lowslot", while there are utility midslots on many 5 midslot ships.
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Originally by: GamesguyAnd before you mention TEs, amarr ships have to give up tank to do it, there is no such thing as an "utility lowslot", while there are utility midslots on many 5 midslot ships.Yep, a considerable part of minmatar ships actually at the moment flies with completely empty low slots since they don't have to fit damage, tank or speed mods. Also fitting a TC in the mids is not going to be realistic for any short range boat, wether or not TC has falloff mod. Buffed up TD is going to give you same relative benefit, but triple strength.
Originally by: BlutreiterSince you're so fond of demanding numbers as proof or dismissing them as necessary, can you back up that triple strength argument with some values?
Originally by: Trigos TrilobiEdited by: Trigos Trilobi on 08/02/2008 10:39:22Well I'm actually at work and unable to check exact numbers now so the 'triple effect' was just wild guess more than exact number. However if you consider ships with equal tracking, increasing your tracking by 15% gives you 15% relative tracking advantage, while decreasing your opponents by 50% gives you 100% relative advantage. So that'd be over 6 times relative advantage with TD instead of TC. Assuming TC is +15% range/falloff.That's also the reason why TE/TCs are largely irrelevant as a counter, you'd need 4+ mods to counter 1 TD, and that's only if there was no stacking penalty. You'd need a +100% positive mod to counter that 1 TD with -50%.
Originally by: GamesguyAbout as detrimental as an optimal range reducing module against amarr ships that rely entirely on optimal.Whats the matter? Dont like it when the shoe is on the other foot? And the whole nonsense about TCs is just that, nonsense, as if amarr had the midslots to fit TCs to "counter" TDs before.
Quote:I still say, no falloff boni on tracking enhancers and computers (which you won't fit anyway on any common fitting as you said) and give Tracking disruptors half the falloff penalty than optimal, which would translate to equal range reduction in both cases.
Originally by: BlutreiterYou still forget one thing and that's actual application. All those theories are fine and dandy but I know for one, that there is in fact a sweet spot with tracking, apart from wrecking hits -> you can track or you can't. So that's a VERY relative advantage. I found out the hard way that even with 2 tracking disruptors against a turret boat, you're toast if you rely on that and it closes in on you.
Quote:As for range, if you're getting weapon disrupted just get closer to your enemy. Nothing prevents you from doing damage. Full damage.
Originally by: GoumindongIncorrect. All it does is let the "turret range ewar" actually affect the range of all turrets.
Originally by: GoumindongEdited by: Goumindong on 08/02/2008 08:31:04Edited by: Goumindong on 08/02/2008 08:22:19Your second to last paragraph makes less than zero sense with regards to the previous. You just said that battles below the 20km were common then you said that smaller ships which have falloffs in those ranges gain less from falloff rigs than ships that dont.From experience. Hitting isnt an issue, but the issue is how much you hit. Small changes make large differences which become significant percentages of DPS.Falloff should not be added to TC/TE's. Its a range boost, AND a damage boost.
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi....
Originally by: Amira ShadowsongNo, TDs should only be viable on amarr ew ships. This means a serious nerf to their effectiveness but a boost on the dedicated ships.
Originally by: DiomidisI don't know what I'm talking about
Originally by: Ariel Dawn Originally by: DiomidisI don't know what I'm talking aboutDon't tell me to use 'imaginary' fits when your Amarrian friends are doing the same for the Vagabond
Originally by: Ariel DawnAll FCs would prefer Zealots for actual added DPS in a nano-gang. Vagabonds perform better at the role of tackling because of their slightly better shield-based (recharging) buffer tank and the fact that they operate within disruptor range anyway.
Originally by: Ariel DawnAnd I will be using tracking disruptors myself should they be introduced as their current version on SiSi on certain ships. A Vagabond using it's midslots for ewar instead of a buffer tank is a great way to be sent on a trip to the market as soon as anything sneezes at you. And the comparisons I use are what Amarrian players brought up as 'arguments'; neither ship would be using tracking disruptors in a real fight but they do serve a point as showing how hypocritical the Amarrian players are when they argue that a Vagabond going from 175 to 180-185 turret DPS at 18-20km (while dropping 45-50 DPS within web range) is imbalanced while their own HAC-equivalent can reach almost 500 DPS at 40km optimal.
Originally by: Ariel DawnTracking Disruptors work against all turret based races. Gallente are affected if they cannot close the range. Amarr also suffer, but have incredibly long ranges and can instantly change their ammo type to mostly nullify the range-effect of Tracking Disruptors. TDs cut Minmatar DPS massively when they are operating outside of web range (near 75% DPS loss) and they have no ammo-switching solution like Amarr.