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

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Tracking Disruptors [Devs.. you forgot something]

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 20 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Dromidas Shadowmoon Minmatar 54th Knights Templar Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2008.02.03 03:41:00 - [1] These are going to affect falloff. UNFORTUNATELY, Tracking Computers don't boost falloff. This means that minmatar, who rely 99% on falloff, have no means to counter tracking disruptors once they reduce falloff. If you expect minmatar to have any chance against someone with a tracking disruptor, give us the ability to counter it somehow. _______________________________________________ Minmatar will always go faster than you, get over it.
Feng Schui Minmatar The Ninja Coalition	Posted - 2008.02.03 03:50:00 - [2] I think you forgot to actually TEST the damn things before crying about them. For **** sakes, I still prefer using a multi-spec ECM or even an ECM Burst over using a damn tracking disruptor. My ship even has a BONUS for them (TD's). Project: Gank - Solo Pilgrim Video
Liang Nuren The Avalon Foundation	Posted - 2008.02.03 04:09:00 - [3] Originally by: Feng Schui I think you forgot to actually TEST the damn things before crying about them. For **** sakes, I still prefer using a multi-spec ECM or even an ECM Burst over using a damn tracking disruptor. My ship even has a BONUS for them (TD's). Rabble rabble, maybe you didn't hear that they're getting boosted. -Liang -- If it appears that my typing is lazy, I apologize. My hands/wrists hurt. Update: I bought a Datahand for RSI, and I now suck at typing (so I don't post as much)
Feng Schui Minmatar The Ninja Coalition	Posted - 2008.02.03 04:42:00 - [4] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Feng Schui I think you forgot to actually TEST the damn things before crying about them. For **** sakes, I still prefer using a multi-spec ECM or even an ECM Burst over using a damn tracking disruptor. My ship even has a BONUS for them (TD's). Rabble rabble, maybe you didn't hear that they're getting boosted. -Liang Troll 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? Project: Gank - Solo Pilgrim Video
Dromidas Shadowmoon Minmatar 54th Knights Templar Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2008.02.03 04:48:00 - [5] Edited by: Dromidas Shadowmoon on 03/02/2008 04:52:04 Considering 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 ECCM Tracking Disruptor vs Tracking Computer (pre-boost) Sensor Dampener vs Sensor Booster If 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 :) _______________________________________________ Minmatar will always go faster than you, get over it.
Feng Schui Minmatar The Ninja Coalition	Posted - 2008.02.03 05:09:00 - [6] Don't care so much about the curse tbh, just the pilgrim. Anyways.. Level 4 weapon disruption, level 4 turret disruption, in the pilgrim. Falloff or optimal was not affected (or at least, had 0 visible effect on damage taken / average hits) in a "Yay, that nano ship has to come into web range now" type of way. Maintained orbit / range, nothing changed. Of course, if you're not running level 4 / level 5 in your gunnery support skill, yes, you will see a huge change. Of course, you'd die anyways since you don't have any of the basic skill sets. But, I will say, that this change is a nice change for the curse, since it has the slots to use more than 1 (Pilgrim can only afford to use 1). 2 Optimal/Falloff scripted TDs and a Tracking speed scripted TD should be pretty much win against turret ships. (Instead of the 3 damps = win against any ships). Anyways, as I said, a multi-spec ECM on my pilgrim will help me avoid more damage than a tracking disruptor, with any script, will. Project: Gank - Solo Pilgrim Video
Zhulik Abyss Restless Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2008.02.03 05:09:00 - [7] gasp! a stealth missile boost!
Liang Nuren The Avalon Foundation	Posted - 2008.02.03 05:15:00 - [8] Originally by: Feng Schui Troll 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? You know, unless they gave them a 1% falloff effect, I'm pretty sure I'd notice it. Afterall, I notice the damage increase from 10% extra falloff rather dramatically. I can only assume that you're too dense to work out how weapon damage works. -Liang -- If it appears that my typing is lazy, I apologize. My hands/wrists hurt. Update: I bought a Datahand for RSI, and I now suck at typing (so I don't post as much)
Lilith Velkor Minmatar Oyster Colors	Posted - 2008.02.03 05:33:00 - [9] The point the OP was making was simply that there is no way to counter the loss in falloff, while there clearly should be. Originally by: Feng Schui Anyways, as I said, a multi-spec ECM on my pilgrim will help me avoid more damage than a tracking disruptor, with any script, will. Well, I don't fly the Pilgrim myself so I obviously never tried it, but I can't honestly see what a single unbonused multi-spec ECM should jam, except for a frigate maybe, I mean we're talking about a maximum jammer strength of 3 here, unless you put a few distortion amps in the lows, which imho makes no sense for one module. Care to enlighten me?
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.03 05:51:00 - [10] Originally by: Dromidas Shadowmoon These are going to affect falloff. UNFORTUNATELY, Tracking Computers don't boost falloff. This means that minmatar, who rely 99% on falloff, have no means to counter tracking disruptors once they reduce falloff. If you expect minmatar to have any chance against someone with a tracking disruptor, give us the ability to counter it somehow. 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.

Karyuudo Tydraad Caldari Whiskey Pete's Drycleaning Services	Posted - 2008.02.03 06:02:00 - [11] And they don't effect missiles or drones at all. Warning: Tracking disruptor's effectiveness is largely determined by the weapon system it's being used against.
Lilith Velkor Minmatar Oyster Colors	Posted - 2008.02.03 06:09:00 - [12] Originally by: Goumindong 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. Then you'd also say Amarr cap is fine, you just need to fit a couple of CCC rigs? /sarcasm off
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2008.02.03 06:41:00 - [13] This buff to TD has massive implications for Minmatar, its going to effectively shut down all AC boats. Not a pleasant thought. Now its true TD's need this buff but lets be honest, do we really want to obsolete the only viable weapon the Minmatar have? 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.
Julius Romanus Amarr	Posted - 2008.02.03 07:19:00 - [14] Originally by: Nian Banks This buff to TD has massive implications for Minmatar, its going to effectively shut down all AC boats. Not a pleasant thought. Now its true TD's need this buff but lets be honest, do we really want to obsolete the only viable weapon the Minmatar have? 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. Yes, 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.
Marcus TheMartin Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2008.02.03 07:24:00 - [15] But I would like some defense against missiles
Liang Nuren The Avalon Foundation	Posted - 2008.02.03 07:26:00 - [16] Originally by: Julius Romanus Yes, 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 -- If it appears that my typing is lazy, I apologize. My hands/wrists hurt. Update: I bought a Datahand for RSI, and I now suck at typing (so I don't post as much)
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.03 07:32:00 - [17] Originally by: Lilith Velkor Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 03/02/2008 06:20:03 Originally by: Goumindong 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. Then you'd also say Amarr cap is fine, you just need to fit a couple of CCC rigs? /sarcasm off Edit: 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. If you are fitting falloff mods onto artillery then you have more problems than getting tracking disrupted. However, if the argument was "there are no counters to neutralizers" then "fit CCC rigs" would be a legitimate answer.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.03 07:35:00 - [18] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Julius Romanus Yes, 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 No, 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.
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2008.02.03 07:54:00 - [19] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Julius Romanus Yes, 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 No, 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. As I see it, most players fit falloff rigs as it is because they are the only reason that decent AC boats have become as effective as they are now, Now that webs can be overloaded, plus many other changes, the falloff rig is no longer a counter but near mandatory for normal play. A counter is something that you would normally only fit to "counter" something. Hence a AC boat would not normally fit a tracking computer. But if it had a falloff bonus then people may fit it to "counter" the new TD. Also No TD are not meant to shut down all turrets, Perhaps unbonused turrets with no modules or rigs fitted to counter the negative effects but then that's the issue isn't it. For AC's we don't have an effective counter and the optimal range is laughable so we can't fight in that.
Escobar Noreaga Amarr F.R.E.E. Explorer Atrum Tempestas Foedus	Posted - 2008.02.03 09:27:00 - [20] Times are changin, adapt. if ya dont like said change then goto a different race, not that hard to do. Ive gone from Amaar > Caldari > Gall > back to Amaar > Minmatar soon. Self Proclaimed Man of many talents, but master at none. _________

Vanessa Vale	Posted - 2008.02.03 09:41:00 - [21] You know, perhaps given all the recent "movements" it is time to start thinking about training a reaaaaaaaally long skill...
joshmorris Silver Snake Enterprise SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.02.03 12:07:00 - [22] I support the op. If the tracking dis are buffed the tracking comps need to be/ or changed to counter. Uber idea solves all !!
Wu Jiun	Posted - 2008.02.03 12:17:00 - [23] Another 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?
Leandro Salazar The Blackguard Wolves	Posted - 2008.02.03 12:40:00 - [24] Tbh with with the stupid 50% nerf to TCs, falloff rigs are most definitely an alternative if not even superior to tracking comps... Which I happen to find inherently wrong, modules should be stronger than rigs (which they were before CCP decided that TCs were omgwtfpwnoverpowered and cut their balls off...) There is no 'n' in turret There is no 'r' in faction There is no 'a' in Scorpion There is no 'e' in Caldari There is no makeup in rogue drones
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.03 13:02:00 - [25] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Dromidas Shadowmoon These are going to affect falloff. UNFORTUNATELY, Tracking Computers don't boost falloff. This means that minmatar, who rely 99% on falloff, have no means to counter tracking disruptors once they reduce falloff. If you expect minmatar to have any chance against someone with a tracking disruptor, give us the ability to counter it somehow. 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. Falloff rigs vs optimal rigs + a med slot module + a low slot module + remote boosting. You're not going to convince anyone that this is balanced. Also rigs CAN be cheaper I agree, but especially when there's a grid penalty involved and as long as polycarbs are better than the low slot mod it's a bit more complicated.
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.02.03 13:03:00 - [26] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Julius Romanus Yes, 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 No it shouldnt, just like light ecm drones can jam a tier 3 battleship with overloaded eccm. Its balanced now. -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation
Diomidis Amarr Mythos Corp RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.02.03 13:04:00 - [27] Unguided missiles should really be affected by TD's, cause as "un-guided" calculations are taking place into the ship's targeting computing, which TD's are aiming to bug the first place! Dmg or chance to hit should be lowered for unguided Torps/Rockets/HAMs. Ballistic contro units should also be "disrupted" for both guided and un-guided missiles, as the BCU description mention that it adds to guided missile efficiency due to better flight pre-calculation and analysis etc...that's also another "in-ship" thus disrupt-able operation. These changes could add some "anti-Missile" use to TD's with sufficient "scientifically" supported reasons.
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.03 13:29:00 - [28] Originally by: Wu Jiun Another 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? Dunno about a tracking comp, but if tracking enhancers had falloff mod too, it might be an option for 2nd/3rd gyro since falloff on vaga is basically a damage mod, aswell as a counter against TD, not to forget you'd track better and gain a tiny % damage from the extra optimal too. Without running the numbers through tho it's hard to say. Though all this is pretty much a moot point, if the -falloff effect in TD is going to be -50% like the optimal effect, a vaga is going to be screwed like no other ship wether it has one or two +15% falloff mods/rigs on or not.
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.03 13:35:00 - [29] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Julius Romanus Yes, 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 No it shouldnt, just like light ecm drones can jam a tier 3 battleship with overloaded eccm. Its balanced now. Way to go comparing apples to oranges. Chance based system will always have stuff like that happening. Even at 1 billion sensor strength there's a tiny possibility of jam happening and then you could come to forums to whine about it while sounding like you either don't have a clue or just conveniently forget the nature of chance based events because it supports your trolling. TDs aren't chance based though, so what's your point?
Aramendel Amarr North Face Force	Posted - 2008.02.03 13:36:00 - [30] Originally by: Nian Banks This buff to TD has massive implications for Minmatar, its going to effectively shut down all AC boats. Not a pleasant thought. Now its true TD's need this buff but lets be honest, do we really want to obsolete the only viable weapon the Minmatar have? How exactly is does "obsolete" it? You act like every single ship you encounter will have them and minmatar cannot fit them as well. The only ships where minmatar have to rely on the AC range are blaster ships, pulse lasers and short range missiles outrange ACs anyway, so you have to get close for these or flee. "But they have no ships with bonuses for them!" Right. But which ships with bonuses are there? - t1 and t2 amarr EW frigates TD do not effect drones in ANY way. 5 war2 on these (slow) pesky buggers and you have something to salvage - arbitrator Will be pretty dangeous to turret ships now, but more than a blackbird? Not really. Will be more vulnerable to drones as well and unlike it won't be able to counter EW. - pilgrim 4 words: 12k nos/neut range. The falloff reduction will not be of much use for it since it has to get close anyway. - curse Now that will benefit from them quite a bit. Dangerous ship now again. However, guess what: a properly setup huginn will kill a curse.

Rastigan Caldari Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.03 13:47:00 - [31] Blasters are very affected by falloff also.. Guess what Minmatar SUCK IT UP, and hump your targets leg like every Gallente blaster ship has to.. Im so sorry your Nano setup of invulnerability now has a counter....
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.02.03 13:55:00 - [32] Originally by: Aramendel Originally by: Nian Banks This buff to TD has massive implications for Minmatar, its going to effectively shut down all AC boats. Not a pleasant thought. Now its true TD's need this buff but lets be honest, do we really want to obsolete the only viable weapon the Minmatar have? How exactly is does "obsolete" it? You act like every single ship you encounter will have them and minmatar cannot fit them as well. The only ships where minmatar have to rely on the AC range are blaster ships, pulse lasers and short range missiles outrange ACs anyway, so you have to get close for these or flee. "But they have no ships with bonuses for them!" Right. But which ships with bonuses are there? - t1 and t2 amarr EW frigates TD do not effect drones in ANY way. 5 war2 on these (slow) pesky buggers and you have something to salvage - arbitrator Will be pretty dangeous to turret ships now, but more than a blackbird? Not really. Will be more vulnerable to drones as well and unlike it won't be able to counter EW. - pilgrim 4 words: 12k nos/neut range. The falloff reduction will not be of much use for it since it has to get close anyway. - curse Now that will benefit from them quite a bit. Dangerous ship now again. However, guess what: a properly setup huginn will kill a curse. QFT. Stop whining people. -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation
Angelic Eviaran	Posted - 2008.02.03 14:00:00 - [33] Originally by: Rastigan Blasters are very affected by falloff also.. Guess what Minmatar SUCK IT UP, and hump your targets leg like every Gallente blaster ship has to.. Im so sorry your Nano setup of invulnerability now has a counter.... haha qft.
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.03 14:14:00 - [34] Originally by: Angelic Eviaran Originally by: Rastigan Blasters are very affected by falloff also.. Guess what Minmatar SUCK IT UP, and hump your targets leg like every Gallente blaster ship has to.. Im so sorry your Nano setup of invulnerability now has a counter.... haha qft. Good stuff. Can I please have blaster dps and decent tank too, then, since we're supposed to engage at same ranges? Or would you rather play a game where there are multiple viable _different_ styles of combat strategies available? Also big at the nano comment, vaga is already probably easiest to counter out of the big three (one of the counters already being TD, go figure), and the two others aren't affected one bit so end result: nothing much changed, the guy still needs to cry himself to sleep each night due to his own ineptness. Or maybe he flies nano ishtar/sacri himself
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.03 14:35:00 - [35] Originally by: Aramendel You act like every single ship you encounter will have them and minmatar cannot fit them as well. The only ships where minmatar have to rely on the AC range are blaster ships, pulse lasers and short range missiles outrange ACs anyway, so you have to get close for these or flee. " Yep getting webbed in a vaga is an excellent idea because you'll only take more damage from missiles, drones, bs sized guns/long range guns/any guns which had trouble tracking you and lose your main asset which is manouverability.
Rastigan Caldari Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.03 14:43:00 - [36] Medium short range guns , with a 50% optimal and falloff penalty applied.. Heavy Neutron Blaster 2: 1.15op + 3.15fo = 1.15km/4.3km/7.45km ranges for 100%/50%/0% chance to hit. 425mm Autocannon 2: .75op + 5fo = .75km/5.75km/10.75km ranges for 100%/50%/0 chance to hit. Heavy Pulse Laser 2: 3.75op + 2.5fo = 3.75km/6.25km/8.75km ranges for 100%/50%/0% chance to hit.. Autocannons dont seem be the the worst of the lot here, and they still can fire without cap.
Diomidis Amarr Mythos Corp RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.02.03 15:03:00 - [37] Pll should understand that each dmg type has some limitations to balance it's strengths. Sig radius, tracking, fall-off, cap-usage, all are used as balance. Lasers and Hybrids are affected by all the above. Projectiles and missiles use no cap, and above that missiles are "track-less"... So lowering dmg output or boosting sig radius is a must for these weapon types, to lower effective DPS some-how. Otherwise Projectiles would be unbeatable. TD's in-effectiveness vs. projectiles was obvious even before scrips: a Vaga could easily break an Arbitrator, even when the later used 2x TD's, while speed-tanking it's drones quite effectively. A Pilgrim would make no difference, tho it would be easier to tank against a Vaga. Making a ship less effective is hardly a real "Threat" for it, is it? And unlike ECM which tho chance based, can virtually shut off any ship, TD's effects can be fought by lowering transversal, getting closer, webbing your target or even manual navigation. Also TD's cannot and will never break a lock, so a ship that it's faster than you can and will hold you webbed and/or scrammed till help comes to assist in breaking your tank. Damps can break locks, ECM can break locks, TD's can only limit dmg taken from turrets. Ewar included NOS/Neuts, scrams, webs etc still work 100% against a TD equipped ship.
Aramendel Amarr North Face Force	Posted - 2008.02.03 15:12:00 - [38] Edited by: Aramendel on 03/02/2008 15:16:28 Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Originally by: Aramendel You act like every single ship you encounter will have them and minmatar cannot fit them as well. The only ships where minmatar have to rely on the AC range are blaster ships, pulse lasers and short range missiles outrange ACs anyway, so you have to get close for these or flee. Yep getting webbed in a vaga is an excellent idea because you'll only take more damage from missiles, drones, bs sized guns/long range guns/any guns which had trouble tracking you and lose your main asset which is manouverability. The minmatar race is not limited to the vaga. Nor does every single ship uses a web. Especially 3 slot amarr ships quite often prefer an injector over a web and shieldtanking missile ships do not have the slots for them. Its a gamble of cource, but let me introduce you to the rest of eve...
Msobe	Posted - 2008.02.03 15:37:00 - [39] Edited by: Msobe on 03/02/2008 15:39:10 I see two sides to this argument, but they aren't really 100% contradictory. People using two entirely different chains of reasoning come to conflicting conclusions, but there's validity to both view points. Firstly, Minmatar are saying that its OP for TD to impact their fall off, since they have no way to counter the fall off decrease. They do conveniently ignore the fact that as things are, there is no counter to their weapon system, and changing TD's in this way is meant to fix that. They are also "forgetting" that there is no counter for their racial EW, TP's. (Not that TP's are any more amazing than current TD's . . . just that they have no counter. Unless you count a set of Halo imps, which doesn't even fully counter one unbonused TP. And if we aren't counting fall off rigs, there's no way we're considering pirate imps.) Thats not to say that theres no reason to have modules that impact fall off as they do optimal range. After all, it takes both stats to figure out your working range, and as TD's are meant to reduce your actual effective range, perhaps tracking comps and other modules could/should impact fall off. It is, however, a separate issue, and can't be used as an argument that TD's should not work against guns that work in fall off. Secondly, you have Amarr pilots saying stfu l2p. I don't think its really a matter of that - but clearly something was wrong when the race that should be best with TD's was flat out the most vulnerable to it. When AC users say its unbalanced because it can shut down their damage - the same users were great with it shutting down lasers. A module that shuts down turrets would be expected to shut them all down equally. The fact that CCP made this change makes it hard to argue that its unintended. I think the fact they are making it is tantamount to them pointing out that the optimal range reduction is really supposed to be a working range reduction - and since it takes 2 stats to get your working range, TD's need to hit them both. If you think its fair that TD's hit optimal and not fall off, you have to concede it would be exactly as fair for them to hit fall off and not optimal. Making that change would certainly make TP's better from an amarr point of view, but since the idea is game balance, it ought to reduce both. If that change makes further changes needed (to TC, tracking enhancers, scripts, what have you) then that's a totally different story.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.03 15:37:00 - [40] Originally by: Nian Banks As I see it, most players fit falloff rigs as it is because they are the only reason that decent AC boats have become as effective as they are now, Now that webs can be overloaded, plus many other changes, the falloff rig is no longer a counter but near mandatory for normal play. A counter is something that you would normally only fit to "counter" something. Hence a AC boat would not normally fit a tracking computer. But if it had a falloff bonus then people may fit it to "counter" the new TD. Also No TD are not meant to shut down all turrets, Perhaps unbonused turrets with no modules or rigs fitted to counter the negative effects but then that's the issue isn't it. For AC's we don't have an effective counter and the optimal range is laughable so we can't fight in that. Would a pulse or blaster boat ever normally fit tracking computers? The counter is the same, +15% to the primary boosted stat. Hell, Blaster boats are even MORE screwed since they rely on both falloff and optimal and do not have large amounts of either. The change is fine. No turret really relies on both optimal and falooff at the same time to be valuable, so the seperate hit on each has no effect on the split counters.

Jin Entres Malevolent Intervention	Posted - 2008.02.03 16:06:00 - [41] It would be more reasonable to introduce a script for Tracking Disruptors that changes its optimal range disruption to falloff disruption. While welcome, this change seems slightly too effective and such a tradeoff would be reasonable and in line with other scripted modules with singular functions aswell as encourage piloting skill in choosing the most useful script for the situation. --- CEO
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.03 16:14:00 - [42] Originally by: Aramendel The minmatar race is not limited to the vaga. Yes I am aware of that. You claimed that minmatar only rely on AC range against blaster ships, I gave you an example of a minmatar ship that in fact relies on the ac range more often than not and will be totally neutered by 1 unbonused TD. Also ironically the one nanoship that is actually hurt by TDs as they are on tranq now. Quote: Nor does every single ship uses a web. Especially 3 slot amarr ships quite often prefer an injector over a web and shieldtanking missile ships do not have the slots for them. Its a gamble of cource, but let me introduce you to the rest of eve... /edit: And that is ignoring that you will need a med slot for the TD as well. Which makes the chance to encounter a TD and a web on a 3 slot amarr ship or a shieldtanker very very low indeed. And 4 med slot armortankers will have to sacrifice their cap injector. Only 5 med slot armortankers can really fit a TD and web without sacrificing combat performance in other areas. Yep you're correct as far as 1vs1 goes. In a gang the webs, scramblers and TDs will be spread across multiple ships tho.
Liang Nuren The Avalon Foundation	Posted - 2008.02.03 16:27:00 - [43] Originally by: Aramendel Nor does every single ship uses a web. If 9/10 PVP ships and 8/10 PVE ships fit a web, I'd say that you'd be a complete ****** to chance it. Strictly speaking, though, it doesn't matter if you feel that we wouldn't fit TC's to a Vagabond - the fact remains that there is no counter to TD's. Bear in mind that I agree that TD's should affect falloff. It's just that TC's should also affect falloff. BTW Goum, I like how you're arguing against there being a counter because you feel that it would be inefficient to fit it. -Liang -- If it appears that my typing is lazy, I apologize. My hands/wrists hurt. Update: I bought a Datahand for RSI, and I now suck at typing (so I don't post as much)
Diomidis Amarr Mythos Corp RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.02.03 16:29:00 - [44] Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Originally by: Aramendel The minmatar race is not limited to the vaga. Yes I am aware of that. You claimed that minmatar only rely on AC range against blaster ships, I gave you an example of a minmatar ship that in fact relies on the ac range more often than not and will be totally neutered by 1 unbonused TD. Also ironically the one nanoship that is actually hurt by TDs as they are on tranq now. Ehmm...Pulses are supposed to provide range advantages over other short range weapons - at least with T2 Ammo...Minmatar also use speed to avoid dmg taken by other short range dmg dealers. Boosting both the higher speeds and the best effective gang is a bit un-balanced to ask for, as speed is far more effective to dictate range.
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.02.03 16:33:00 - [45] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Aramendel Nor does every single ship uses a web. If 9/10 PVP ships and 8/10 PVE ships fit a web, I'd say that you'd be a complete ****** to chance it. Strictly speaking, though, it doesn't matter if you feel that we wouldn't fit TC's to a Vagabond - the fact remains that there is no counter to TD's. Bear in mind that I agree that TD's should affect falloff. It's just that TC's should also affect falloff. BTW Goum, I like how you're arguing against there being a counter because you feel that it would be inefficient to fit it. -Liang There is also no module to counter 40km webs and TPs wich is minmatar racial ew. You gonna give us something to counter that? There is nothing wrong with this change. TDs will shut down turret ships just like ecm shuts down ships and where eccm is completely useless. -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation
Aramendel Amarr North Face Force	Posted - 2008.02.03 16:44:00 - [46] Edited by: Aramendel on 03/02/2008 16:44:54 Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Yes I am aware of that. You claimed that minmatar only rely on AC range against blaster ships, I gave you an example of a minmatar ship that in fact relies on the ac range more often than not and will be totally neutered by 1 unbonused TD. Also ironically the one nanoship that is actually hurt by TDs as they are on tranq now. No. You gave me the ONE example of a minmatar ship which has to avoid web range. Vaga is the exeption, not the rule. Every single other minmatar ship is either not really effected (huginn) or can, you know, TANK. Contrary to popular opinion minmatar are not limited to speedtanks and do not fall apart instantly. And, no, a vaga is not really hurt by the current TDs unless it chooses to shoot while MWDing. The new TDs will hurt it, although, but I think the vaga could just survive an efficiency reduction vs certain targets. Quote: Yep you're correct as far as 1vs1 goes. In a gang the webs, scramblers and TDs will be spread across multiple ships tho. Stop using all vaga nanogangs maybe then? As you said yourself, the vaga is really the only speedship which is actually hurt by TDs. A mixed force of vagas, ishtars, huginns, nanosac, nanocurses etc will laugh at TDs. ..... Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Aramendel Nor does every single ship uses a web. If 9/10 PVP ships and 8/10 PVE ships fit a web, I'd say that you'd be a complete **** to chance it.... Read the rest of the text you quoted. Web for PvP ships, probably. Web + TD, highly unlikely. But if you think only 20% of all PvE ships are missile ships (or that those fit webs) then we have indeed a **** here, but they certainly aren't the PvErs. Webs are rarely fitted by PvE setups.
Reto The Last Resort	Posted - 2008.02.03 16:44:00 - [47] Originally by: Feng Schui I think you forgot to actually TEST the damn things before crying about them. For ** sakes, I still prefer using a multi-spec ECM or even an ECM Burst over using a damn tracking disruptor. My ship even has a BONUS for them (TD's). i already comented ur post in the official reply thread to the new changes and again i say that u are wrong. tds are very good. especially vs vagabonds and interceptors. killing tracking alone is insanely effective. the range reduction however is in most cases not as good but imo there are always down sides. if u benefit the falloff on tds without giving sufficient counter ability to the affected ships this module will be fotm and consequently on ur ship in 3 of ur 6 medsslots giving u one again an unfair advantage. i say that falloff based turrets have at least a counter using falloff over optimal. they trade overall hitchance and thus damage for this. if u give tds 3 categories to choose from u have an ew form which is usefull against every gun based weapon system and this is by no means fair. everyone should trade a big advantage for a at least as big disadvantage. i say that: -tds are fine. especially if u think of nano curses they literally are unbeatable for turet ships as u EW with ur Hi's (neuts) and meds (TD) and deal dmg indepentant from turret slots (drones) -damps are too weak on the bonused ships. -ecm is balanced. Originally by:** s4mp3r0r "Hey man, you're mom has a cruise missile".
Corphus The NewOrder	Posted - 2008.02.03 16:48:00 - [48] Edited by: Corphus on 03/02/2008 16:48:40 Originally by: Aramendel Stop using all vaga nanogangs maybe then? As you said yourself, the vaga is really the only speedship which is actually hurt by TDs. A mixed force of vagas, ishtars, huginns, nanosac, nanocurses etc will laugh at TDs. someppl fly their ships on their own and not in nano gangs. solopvp is an option in eve. THERE is no way that ccp can allow to simply negating it again and again. i cant believe that the devs are so ignorant to at least a 3rd of the whole playerbase.
Aramendel Amarr North Face Force	Posted - 2008.02.03 16:50:00 - [49] Originally by: Reto ..tds are very good. especially vs vagabonds and interceptors. killing tracking alone is insanely effective.. Yes, because the main job of ceptors is tackling and TDs work fine against t..oh, wait. And if heavy pulses can apparently track a MWDing vaga (at least I keep seeing vaga people claiming that again and again) then a TDed vaga can still hit a target just fine unless he is MWDing. And TD are clearly good because they are very often used and ships with bonuses for them always use them. Riiight.
Aramendel Amarr North Face Force	Posted - 2008.02.03 16:54:00 - [50] Originally by: Corphus someppl fly their ships on their own and not in nano gangs. solopvp is an option in eve. "Hello, my name is Corphus and I have need to train more reading comprehension." Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Yep you're correct as far as 1vs1 goes. In a gang the webs, scramblers and TDs will be spread across multiple ships tho. That was the text I quoted. Notice something? 1v1 is no issue because very few ships can use TDs and webs without gimping themself elsewhere.

Ariel Dawn Beets and Gravy Syndicate	Posted - 2008.02.03 17:21:00 - [51] I am highly enjoying the Amarr/Gallente pilots who have never flown Minmatar before saying to armor-tank Vagabonds and to try out fighting in web range. Please lend a Minmatar character from a friend or train on SiSi before coming out with these claims. Yes, a very select few Minmatar ships do ok within web-range, but the vast majority of them do not. Put your 'I hate Minmatar because they involved more than MWDing into range and shooting when engaging like the other races' and try them. An armor-tanked Vagabond has half the damage (no gyros) and half the tank of a Zealot. It has been tried before and there's a reason they are seen as a comedy fit. A Sleipnir/Tempest/any AC ship forced to fight at the preferred range of Amarr/Gallente will get torn to shreds; less DPS and worse tanks across what you would expect an average fit to be. I mean, seriously? Saying stuff like 'a Huginn will easily beat a Curse' is so insanely biased. Please explain how a ship with 0 capacitor (cannot MWD, cannot web, cannot warp disrupt) and tracking disrupted will kill a ship that outruns the only thing that can actually damage it, being it's drones. It's not possible to LOSE to a Huginn if you have even half a brain when fitting a Curse, let alone the Huginn win. This is a thread about BALANCE. Not your personal vendetta against Minmatar. Stop your bull**** and discuss it. The normal counter of webbing/getting close does not work in the Minmatar situation, and no modules affect falloff. Falloff on TDs is fine as long as there is a counter-option.
Aramendel Amarr North Face Force	Posted - 2008.02.03 18:02:00 - [52] Edited by: Aramendel on 03/02/2008 18:04:38 Originally by: Ariel Dawn I am highly enjoying the Amarr/Gallente pilots who have never flown Minmatar before saying to armor-tank Vagabonds and to try out fighting in web range. The only person who is saying this here is you. If you claim I was stating this show me please. But be prepare to be disappointed. Quote: Yes, a very select few Minmatar ships do ok within web-range, but the vast majority of them do not. Like? As said, outside of ships which are commonly speedtanked - this means the vaga and huginn - minnie ships tank just fine normally. Certainly not significantly worse than their alternatives. Quote: A Sleipnir/Tempest/any AC ship forced to fight at the preferred range of Amarr/Gallente will get torn to shreds; less DPS and worse tanks across what you would expect an average fit to be. As already stated the only weapon system minmatar needs to stay at long range are blasters. But blaster ships are hurt just as hard by the new TDs nor are more likely to use them than minmatar ships. Vs lasers and shortrange missiles not going close is high stupidity. Because those have the range advantage, not ACs. ACs have higher dps, but only at close range. So its either close range or flee/loose, even without TDs. Quote: I mean, seriously? Saying stuff like 'a Huginn will easily beat a Curse' is so insanely biased. Please explain how a ship with 0 capacitor (cannot MWD, cannot web, cannot warp disrupt) and tracking disrupted will kill a ship that outruns the only thing that can actually damage it, being it's drones. It's not possible to LOSE to a Huginn if you have even half a brain when fitting a Curse, let alone the Huginn win. Only a minority of a huginns dps comes from guns. Most of it comes from missiles and drones. And it's dps is around 50% higher than that of a curse. And against the oh-so-dreadful nos/neuts there is a very simple counter - cap injectors. A huginn setup with ACs & HMs, mwd, scram, 1-2 webs, medium injector, 1-2 LSE2. 2 speedmods, PDU in the lows. The curse won't be able to leech the huginn dry, will be virtually standing still with the huginn in kiss the chef range where the efficiency of TDs is nil and the huginn utterly buttraping the curse since it has far higher dps. Quote: This is a thread about BALANCE. Exactly. And for that a basic knowledge of game mechanics as well as reading comprehension is required. Both things which you apparently lack.
Diomidis Amarr Mythos Corp RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.02.03 19:52:00 - [53] Originally by: Ariel Dawn This is a thread about BALANCE. Not your personal vendetta against Minmatar. Stop your bull**** and discuss it. The normal counter of webbing/getting close does not work in the Minmatar situation, and no modules affect falloff. Falloff on TDs is fine as long as there is a counter-option. There is one actually - just like in webbing ur are said to move away, when TD'ed below your range, just, come closer... Yes, a bonused recon or an arbi could make it difficult should they use 2-3 TD's on the same enemy, still the consequences are waaaaay less painful to overcome for that same enemy compared to a single Webber on a Minie Recon, or 1-2 ECM modules on a BB or a Rook etc...
Kagura Nikon Minmatar Infinity Enterprises Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.02.03 20:06:00 - [54] The main problem I see with the change is. Cutting fallof by half and cuttign range by half are very different things. Example HAve Ship a with a 16km RANGE weapon (I kno w i know jsut random numbers.. so bear with me) Ship B hasneglegible range and 16 km Falloff Now target is at 7 km. TRack disrupt both in 50%. The 16 km range ship will ahve range 8km. So stil ZERO penalties to hit target. The falloff ship will ahve falloff 8km. So it will be hittign 50% less. So track disrupting falloff is much more effective than track disrupting range. ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.03 20:20:00 - [55] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Aramendel Nor does every single ship uses a web. If 9/10 PVP ships and 8/10 PVE ships fit a web, I'd say that you'd be a complete ****** to chance it. Strictly speaking, though, it doesn't matter if you feel that we wouldn't fit TC's to a Vagabond - the fact remains that there is no counter to TD's. Bear in mind that I agree that TD's should affect falloff. It's just that TC's should also affect falloff. BTW Goum, I like how you're arguing against there being a counter because you feel that it would be inefficient to fit it. -Liang No, i am arguing that there is a counter, but you keep ignoring it. The part about efficiency is so that people dont say "whaaaa, rigs"
Aramendel Amarr North Face Force	Posted - 2008.02.03 20:23:00 - [56] Edited by: Aramendel on 03/02/2008 20:23:48 Originally by: Kagura Nikon (I kno w i know jsut random numbers.. so bear with me) Main problem highlighted. This is what you get using actual ingame numbers: Originally by: Rastigan Medium short range guns , with a 50% optimal and falloff penalty applied.. Heavy Neutron Blaster 2: 1.15op + 3.15fo = 1.15km/4.3km/7.45km ranges for 100%/50%/0% chance to hit. 425mm Autocannon 2: .75op + 5fo = .75km/5.75km/10.75km ranges for 100%/50%/0 chance to hit. Heavy Pulse Laser 2: 3.75op + 2.5fo = 3.75km/6.25km/8.75km ranges for 100%/50%/0% chance to hit.. Autocannons dont seem be the the worst of the lot here, and they still can fire without cap.
Dromidas Shadowmoon Minmatar 54th Knights Templar Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2008.02.03 20:30:00 - [57] Quote: No. You gave me the ONE example of a minmatar ship which has to avoid web range. Vaga is the exeption, not the rule. Lets see, minmatar ships that have to avoid web range. Sleipnir Vagabond Muninn Cyclone Stabber Tempest (preferably, but they can somewhat tank if not) (and obviously interceptors and dictors but they're too short range to hit outside web range anyway) FYI, you already have a counter to Webs. It's just that everyone already uses them and feels that they are 'part of their ship'. Namely, Afterburners and Microwarpdrives :) There really isn't a counter to target painters, but they also aren't limited to minmatar. The only ships of minmatar that boost target painters never actually fit them (rapier, huginn, and what.. bellicose?) _______________________________________________ Minmatar will always go faster than you, get over it.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.03 20:31:00 - [58] Originally by: Kagura Nikon The main problem I see with the change is. Cutting fallof by half and cuttign range by half are very different things. Example HAve Ship a with a 16km RANGE weapon (I kno w i know jsut random numbers.. so bear with me) Ship B hasneglegible range and 16 km Falloff Now target is at 7 km. TRack disrupt both in 50%. The 16 km range ship will ahve range 8km. So stil ZERO penalties to hit target. The falloff ship will ahve falloff 8km. So it will be hittign 50% less. So track disrupting falloff is much more effective than track disrupting range. This is untrue. The 16km range ship will have a range of 8km and a falloff of 2km and being at 16km they will now be hitting 100% less for a total damage of Zero. The 16km range ship has to close to 8km in order to do the same DPS he was doing previously. The 16km falloff ship has to move to 8km in order to do the same DPS as he was doing previously. This only has no effect on a high optimal range ship when the current engagement range is under half of the optimal range ships optimal and he has no shorter range ammo to change into. But then again, against high optimal range ships, due to their low tracking, that is exactly where you want to be[right next to them], so you are winning there already.
Aramendel Amarr North Face Force	Posted - 2008.02.03 20:53:00 - [59] Edited by: Aramendel on 03/02/2008 20:54:27 Originally by: Dromidas Shadowmoon Sleipnir Cyclone Only if you nano them which is not an optimal setup. When fit for tank they are not worse than the other races field command/tier 1 BCs. (Within logical limits, the nighthawk/ferox have obviously better tanks, but also a good deal lower dps) Quote: Vagabond Was already mentioned. Quote: Muninn Is not much worse in a tank fitting than most other HACs. In a sniper fitting t can outrange TDs. Quote: Stabber Personally I would include it with the vaga since it is its t1 variation. If you want to be technical you got me with that. Quote: Tempest (preferably, but they can somewhat tank if not) Care to explain why exactly you want not to get within webrange vs amarr and caldari BS? They outrange you anyway and you have more dps and tracking than them at closerange, but not outside webrange. Quote: (and obviously interceptors and dictors but they're too short range to hit outside web range anyway) Exactly. There are some longrange ceptor setups vs which TDs work, but the main focus of those is more on tackling in gangs, so disabeling their "dps" isn't really doing much. Quote: FYI, you already have a counter to Webs. It's just that everyone already uses them and feels that they are 'part of their ship'. Namely, Afterburners and Microwarpdrives :) If that is a counter to webs why are falloff rigs no counter to TDs? Both cost you fitting recources and slots.
Ariel Dawn Beets and Gravy Syndicate	Posted - 2008.02.03 21:21:00 - [60] You forget Armendel that despite the Curse's lower DPS (or very similar if you fit launchers), by fitting a cap injector the Huginn's tank will melt far before the Curse does. A single LSE will not cut it. And the vast majority of Huginns are setup without a cap injector; simply speed tank all their non-turret DPS. Curve vs Huginn is not the issue though. Gallente Blasterships do get the most range reduction from the TD changes. This hurts them if they cannot get into web range far more than Minmatar. The thing is once they ARE in web range it is mostly irrelevant as they can slug them to death with their superior DPS. Minmatar tanks are relatively poor in comparision to other ships. A pest in web range will die to a Mega, a Sleipnir will die to an Astarte/Abso, a Vaga will die to a Diemost/Zealot, etc. When I fly Minmatar, if I'm in web-range (nano or non-nano), then something has gone wrong. The Minmatar ships that want to avoid web-range, especially vs Blasterships are: Stabber, Rupture, Hurricane, Bellicose, Cyclone, Sleipnir, Vagabond, Muninn, Huginn, Rapier, Bellicose, all their Frigates/Ceptors (fairly obvious though), Tempest. Claymores and Maelstroms can tank significant amounts of damage and Typhoons can tank well passively. Most of these cruiser/BC sized ships also want to stay at around 11-14km with decent speed as thats the point where it seems Amarrian Pulses seem to start missing often enough while ACs still track. A single TD vs any of these ships forces them to come into web range to do any significant amount of damage. All have approximately equal or worse tanks to their racial counterparts, but the other races are working in optimal instead of falloff in web range, so they're also doing less DPS. Going into web range = great chance to lose your ship as Minmatar. Get that through your heads Amarr players. Easy to see from other players; watch Amarr/Gallente PvP videos and then Minmatar. The latter do not go into web range, no matter how awesome EFT tells you it may be to do so. If falloff is introduced on TDs, then it should also be done on Tracking Computers, Enhancers, and anything else of the sort. Perhaps an increase to the bonus Trajectory Analysis gives as well. Projectile Ambit rigs are not sufficient, or if they are why didn't Amarr fit CCCs on their ships instead of covering the forums with their whines?

Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.03 21:32:00 - [61] Huginns dont active tank, the neuts are pretty inconsequential to it.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.03 21:36:00 - [62] Edited by: Goumindong on 03/02/2008 21:41:11 Originally by: Ariel Dawn Gallente Blasterships do get the most range reduction from the TD changes. This hurts them if they cannot get into web range far more than Minmatar. The thing is once they ARE in web range it is mostly irrelevant as they can slug them to death with their superior DPS. Minmatar tanks are relatively poor in comparision to other ships. A pest in web range will die to a Mega, a Sleipnir will die to an Astarte/Abso, a Vaga will die to a Diemost/Zealot, etc. When I fly Minmatar, if I'm in web-range (nano or non-nano), then something has gone wrong. Web range is not 500m or nothing. Web range is 0-10km. If blasterthrons get hurt most from the TD's then within web range you should be keeping them to the edge of it and still out-ranging them. A sleinpir in web range will not die to an Absolution. A sleinpir in web range has a better chance of killing an absolution that it does outside of web range. Ruptures, Hurricanes, Muninns, Huginns, Rapiers, all thrive in web range[especially because some of their web range is so long] Quote: If falloff is introduced on TDs, then it should also be done on Tracking Computers, Enhancers, and anything else of the sort. Perhaps an increase to the bonus Trajectory Analysis gives as well. Projectile Ambit rigs are not sufficient, or if they are why didn't Amarr fit CCCs on their ships instead of covering the forums with their whines? CCC's are not counters to your own ship. They would be considered counters to neutralizers though. A counter is something that counteracts something another ship does to you. CCC's do not counteract something other ships do to you, unless by nature of undocking, minmitar ships are automatically turret disrupted for optimal/falloff. Now if they are, you certianly have me there.
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2008.02.03 21:37:00 - [63] Originally by: Ariel Dawn You forget Armendel that despite the Curse's lower DPS (or very similar if you fit launchers), by fitting a cap injector the Huginn's tank will melt far before the Curse does. A single LSE will not cut it. And the vast majority of Huginns are setup without a cap injector; simply speed tank all their non-turret DPS. Curve vs Huginn is not the issue though. Gallente Blasterships do get the most range reduction from the TD changes. This hurts them if they cannot get into web range far more than Minmatar. The thing is once they ARE in web range it is mostly irrelevant as they can slug them to death with their superior DPS. Minmatar tanks are relatively poor in comparision to other ships. A pest in web range will die to a Mega, a Sleipnir will die to an Astarte/Abso, a Vaga will die to a Diemost/Zealot, etc. When I fly Minmatar, if I'm in web-range (nano or non-nano), then something has gone wrong. The Minmatar ships that want to avoid web-range, especially vs Blasterships are: Stabber, Rupture, Hurricane, Bellicose, Cyclone, Sleipnir, Vagabond, Muninn, Huginn, Rapier, Bellicose, all their Frigates/Ceptors (fairly obvious though), Tempest. Claymores and Maelstroms can tank significant amounts of damage and Typhoons can tank well passively. Most of these cruiser/BC sized ships also want to stay at around 11-14km with decent speed as thats the point where it seems Amarrian Pulses seem to start missing often enough while ACs still track. A single TD vs any of these ships forces them to come into web range to do any significant amount of damage. All have approximately equal or worse tanks to their racial counterparts, but the other races are working in optimal instead of falloff in web range, so they're also doing less DPS. Going into web range = great chance to lose your ship as Minmatar. Get that through your heads Amarr players. Easy to see from other players; watch Amarr/Gallente PvP videos and then Minmatar. The latter do not go into web range, no matter how awesome EFT tells you it may be to do so. If falloff is introduced on TDs, then it should also be done on Tracking Computers, Enhancers, and anything else of the sort. Perhaps an increase to the bonus Trajectory Analysis gives as well. Projectile Ambit rigs are not sufficient, or if they are why didn't Amarr fit CCCs on their ships instead of covering the forums with their whines? Its fun to make stuff up? Quoted for comedy.
Aramendel Amarr North Face Force	Posted - 2008.02.03 21:38:00 - [64] Edited by: Aramendel on 03/02/2008 21:40:19 Originally by: Ariel Dawn You forget Armendel that despite the Curse's lower DPS (or very similar if you fit launchers), by fitting a cap injector the Huginn's tank will melt far before the Curse does. Which "tank"? A LSE2 is the best you have with normal curse setups. You do not really want to try to sell me they armortank? Quote: And the vast majority of Huginns are setup without a cap injector; simply speed tank all their non-turret DPS. Correct. A cap injector is by far no unrealistic setup though. Quote: Minmatar tanks are relatively poor in comparision to other ships. They aren't. Against blaster ships, yes, against everything else they have better chances in webrange. For example, care to explain how exactly a sleip will do worse vs an abso in webrange vs out of webrange? That is if you are actually using a real tank on the sleip instead on trying to fit it like a big vaga for what it isn't designed for. ACs are superior to blasters outside webrange and superior to pluse lasers and shortrange missiles within webrange. They are no "stay outside webrange or die" ships. Quote: Projectile Ambit rigs are not sufficient, or if they are why didn't Amarr fit CCCs on their ships instead of covering the forums with their whines? I didn't see much people whine about the capuse. That was never a major amarr issue.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.03 21:43:00 - [65] Originally by: Aramendel I didn't see much people whine about the capuse. That was never a major amarr issue. That isnt quite true. The cap use, especially for low skilled players, is pretty rough.
Aramendel Amarr North Face Force	Posted - 2008.02.03 21:47:00 - [66] Edited by: Aramendel on 03/02/2008 21:48:49 Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Aramendel I didn't see much people whine about the capuse. That was never a major amarr issue. That isnt quite true. The cap use, especially for low skilled players, is pretty rough. Yes, but ship performance is usually balanced for max skills. Amarr is skill intensive, but at high skill lvls the capuse is not really that crippeling. It can have a pretty big impact on some ships, especially the zealot and aba, but the high capuse isn't really the problem with the first and the latter is one of the amarr ships which are generally fine. Let me rephrase "whines" into "justified whines".
Cpt Branko The Bloody Red	Posted - 2008.02.03 21:49:00 - [67] Originally by: Dromidas Shadowmoon These are going to affect falloff. UNFORTUNATELY, Tracking Computers don't boost falloff. This means that minmatar, who rely 99% on falloff, have no means to counter tracking disruptors once they reduce falloff. If you expect minmatar to have any chance against someone with a tracking disruptor, give us the ability to counter it somehow. This. I think the TD change is fine, but TCs should absolutely boost falloff by extension. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Julius Romanus Amarr Blood Corsair's Blood Blind	Posted - 2008.02.03 21:56:00 - [68] Edited by: Julius Romanus on 03/02/2008 22:03:23 Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Aramendel I didn't see much people whine about the capuse. That was never a major amarr issue. That isnt quite true. The cap use, especially for low skilled players, is pretty rough. Its true, but the 30ft grisley bear of a cap problem, becomes an irish terrier by cap skills at 4, ship skill at 4, and controlled bursts at 4. Which isnt that long into things if directed properly where to skill to not have it happen(I know noobs dont always know on their own what they need skill wise to get what they want in game). And I'm against TC's affecting falloff. AC's do not need a buff, if nothing else the reaction people had when the resist change was announced over something like a 5-8% increase in dammage for 1 ammo type. Falloff boosted via TC ac's will be too good as far as i'm concerned. Joke: And you're break the vargur in PVP.
Ariel Dawn Beets and Gravy Syndicate	Posted - 2008.02.03 22:16:00 - [69] Edited by: Ariel Dawn on 03/02/2008 22:16:41 Hurf Durf. Reading is fun. A Sleipnir out of web range can orbit at the point where Pulses start missing and ACs still track. An XL tank Sleipnir caps out within a minute or so, a Large SB tank Sleipnir cannot burst-tank enough DPS. Curse has same midslots as Huginn but does not fit webs; more slots used for LSE/Invul. Sleipnir has the same DPS (using Hail) vs an Absolution using Conflag after accounting for falloff. Absolution tanks slightly less DPS than the Sleipnir but is sustainable for as long as 800s are there (along with firing lasers), once the Sleinpir's cap drops it has a significantly worse tank due to cap booster intervals. Assuming both pilots are of equal skill, the Absolution would win if both were under the effects of a TD (or without). Sleipnir could win by exploiting the difference in tracking between ACs/Pulses. Don't really matter much though as neither of these ships tend to fit webs in the first place nor utility ewar. It was just an example of the Minmatar PvP style. Pulses are slightly better than ACs across ranges, and as they should be for their cap use. Not going to bother trying to fight against the powerhouse that is known as the Amarrian whine brigade anymore. Impervious to reasoning and experts of ships they've never flown. Minmatar/Gallente players need a counter-module(s) that increases their falloff with the introduction of the new TD changes as it invalidates a large number of AC ships in the way they are traditionally flown. This would let them adapt to the changes should they so chose to do so. Thats all really. Never actually said to remove falloff from TDs. PS: Nerf Amarr!
Aramendel Amarr North Face Force	Posted - 2008.02.03 22:27:00 - [70] Edited by: Aramendel on 03/02/2008 22:33:50 Originally by: Ariel Dawn A Sleipnir out of web range can orbit at the point where Pulses start missing and ACs still track. Not. Really. Quote: An XL tank Sleipnir caps out within a minute or so, a Large SB tank Sleipnir cannot burst-tank enough DPS. You do not need to run it continously. Quote: Curse has same midslots as Huginn but does not fit webs; more slots used for LSE/Invul. Only if it uses no EW, aka TDs. In which case the whole TD comment is moot. It's MWD, scram, 2 TD, injector, LSE2. Quote: Sleipnir has the same DPS (using Hail) vs an Absolution using Conflag after accounting for falloff. And a far greater dps using phased plasma than the abso using conflag within webrange. The best chances for the sleip is going in. Especially considering the abso will have no web as well. Originally by: Ariel Dawn [b]Minmatar/Gallente players need a counter-module(s) that increases their falloff with the introduction of the new TD changes as it invalidates a large number of AC ships in the way they are traditionally flown. Firstly, the "status quo" is no holy balanced thing which has to be preserved. Secondly, TC/TEs were never a "counter" to TDs. Try asking the amarr roleplayers, i.e. pie, how well that works. It doesn't. The real counter to TDs is exploiting their limitations which are the biggest of all effective EW systems.

Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.03 22:33:00 - [71] They already do, they're called ambit extension rigs
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.03 22:34:00 - [72] Originally by: Julius Romanus Its true, but the 30ft grisley bear of a cap problem, becomes an irish terrier by cap skills at 4, ship skill at 4, and controlled bursts at 4. Which isnt that long into things if directed properly where to skill to not have it happen(I know noobs dont always know on their own what they need skill wise to get what they want in game). And I'm against TC's affecting falloff. AC's do not need a buff, if nothing else the reaction people had when the resist change was announced over something like a 5-8% increase in dammage for 1 ammo type. Falloff boosted via TC ac's will be too good as far as i'm concerned. At this time lasers get most benefit out of TC/TE range part, blasters get 'half' benefit and acs next to none. All get equal benefit from +tracking. Tracking disruptors will hurt lasers most, blasters somewhat and ac's next to none. The -tracking script is equally useful (or useless) against each. There's both optimal aswell as falloff rigs with equal effects so we can ignore rigs. After change, only lasers will get full benefit from TC/TE/remote tracking as before, but all three short range weapon types will be fully penalized by TD range scripts. How is this balanced exactly? I am not opposed to the TD change as such, even though it will make it laughably easy to neuter a vaga for anyone with a spare midslot and <hour worth skill training. I do agree with the OP though that the TC/TE/remote tracking link should follow the same philosophy if TDs are changed, to allow the same selection of fitting options to counter that a laser boat has.
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.03 22:36:00 - [73] Originally by: Goumindong They already do, they're called ambit extension rigs You keep repeating this, but fail to argument how you see rigs vs rigs + med + low + remote counter balanced?
Aramendel Amarr North Face Force	Posted - 2008.02.03 22:36:00 - [74] Originally by: Trigos Trilobi After change, only lasers will get full benefit from TC/TE/remote tracking as before, but all three short range weapon types will be fully penalized by TD range scripts. How is this balanced exactly? Lasers get the full effective range reduction by highdamage faction ammo, blasters a moderate one and ACs virtually none.
Ariel Dawn Beets and Gravy Syndicate	Posted - 2008.02.03 22:41:00 - [75] Originally by: Aramendel Edited by: Aramendel on 03/02/2008 22:32:43 Originally by: Ariel Dawn A Sleipnir out of web range can orbit at the point where Pulses start missing and ACs still track. Not. Really. Quote: An XL tank Sleipnir caps out within a minute or so, a Large SB tank Sleipnir cannot burst-tank enough DPS. You do not need to run it continously. Quote: Curse has same midslots as Huginn but does not fit webs; more slots used for LSE/Invul. Only if it uses no EW, aka TDs. In which case the whole TD comment is moot. It's MWD, scram, 2 TD, injector, LSE2. Quote: Sleipnir has the same DPS (using Hail) vs an Absolution using Conflag after accounting for falloff. And a far greater dps using phased plasma than the abso within webrange. The best chances for the sleip is going in. Especially considering the abso will have no web as well. Originally by: Ariel Dawn [b]Minmatar/Gallente players need a counter-module(s) that increases their falloff with the introduction of the new TD changes as it invalidates a large number of AC ships in the way they are traditionally flown. Firstly, the "status quo" is no holy balanced thing which has to be preserved. Secondly, TC/TEs were never a "counter" to TDs. Try asking the amarr roleplayers, i.e. pie, how well that works. It doesn't. The real counter to TDs is exploiting their limitations which are the biggest of all effective EW systems. Sleipnir cannot sustain it's tank standard T2 fit against an Absolution. An Absolution is hitting a Sleinpir's resistances of 77%EM/69%Thermal (InvulII/DCII) on optimal while a Sleinpir with RF PP is hitting an Absolution on 76%Therm/83%Kin (2EANMII/DCII), doing less DPS from guns if the engagement was @ 50m distance. Throw in falloff. You are wrong. Single bonused TD on a Curse is sufficient to shut down most targets via tracking/nanos or keeping range. Can't comment really though as I do not know how you fly your Curses nor the rest of your fittings. Amarr Roleplayers? Putting falloff on a module is not a definitive counter as well, just like the current TC -> TD relationship. But it lessens the impact and gives players additional options on how to approach such situaitons.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.03 23:05:00 - [76] Originally by: Aramendel Not. Really. The correct answer was "really, no"
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.03 23:06:00 - [77] Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Originally by: Goumindong They already do, they're called ambit extension rigs You keep repeating this, but fail to argument how you see rigs vs rigs + med + low + remote counter balanced? Secondary rig options are worse than secondary med/low/remote counter options.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.03 23:08:00 - [78] Originally by: Ariel Dawn Sleipnir cannot sustain it's tank standard T2 fit against an Absolution. An Absolution is hitting a Sleinpir's resistances of 77%EM/69%Thermal (InvulII/DCII) on optimal while a Sleinpir with RF PP is hitting an Absolution on 76%Therm/83%Kin (2EANMII/DCII), doing less DPS from guns if the engagement was @ 50m distance. Throw in falloff. You are wrong. The absolution either doesnt have a web, or cant sujstain its tank nearly as long as the sleipnir. Which can fit an XL booster, equivelent to about a double LAR tank on the absolution. They are different types of tanks with the absolution running hit point based and the sleipnir running repair based. But the sleipnir defintily is advantaged by getting closer.
Cpt Branko The Bloody Red	Posted - 2008.02.03 23:11:00 - [79] Mantain module parity; make TCs boost falloff+range with range scripts. There are no valid reasons to not do it, and it makes sense logically and makes Minmatar pilots get the same benefits out of TCs with range scripts everyone else does. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.03 23:18:00 - [80] Edited by: Goumindong on 03/02/2008 23:18:29 There are reasons not to do it. Falloff is pretty much a flat damage boost to autocannons, where incrasese in optimal range are not for lasers or blasters, and nor are falloff bonuses for blasters[as much, since they want to operate on the end of their far ranges and never want to operate in the middle]. Then autocannons gain farhter range and damage advantages than they ought to have.

Julius Romanus Amarr Blood Corsair's Blood Blind	Posted - 2008.02.03 23:18:00 - [81] Edited by: Julius Romanus on 03/02/2008 23:18:47 Originally by: Cpt Branko Mantain module parity; make TCs boost falloff+range with range scripts. There are no valid reasons to not do it, and it makes sense logically and makes Minmatar pilots get the same benefits out of TCs with range scripts everyone else does. Fine. If it does what I think it'll do, It'll just end up getting nerfed back to reality eventually. Let TC's do whatever, I'm not fighting this one out. But the apoc stays as is, to be nerfed in the future if it does what Goumindong thinks it will(to maintain forum pairity ^_^)
Aramendel Amarr North Face Force	Posted - 2008.02.03 23:20:00 - [82] Originally by: Ariel Dawn Single bonused TD on a Curse is sufficient to shut down most targets via tracking/nanos or keeping range. And a single web on the huginn is enough to web a single target too. In which case both ships have room for 2 LSE2. Of cource, huginns usually fit 2 webs because the ability to web 2 targets is rather useful. As is the ability to TD 2 targets for the curse. Quote: Amarr Roleplayers? Yes, amarr roleplayers. Aka people who use pure amarr gangs. With the current TDs those are the only targets where fitting them against is really a good idea in the first place. Which their minnie RP foes did. Which means that amarr RP corps have currently the best knowledge how well TD can be countered by TC/TEs.
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.03 23:21:00 - [83] Originally by: Aramendel Originally by: Trigos Trilobi After change, only lasers will get full benefit from TC/TE/remote tracking as before, but all three short range weapon types will be fully penalized by TD range scripts. How is this balanced exactly? Lasers get the full effective range reduction by highdamage faction ammo, blasters a moderate one and ACs virtually none. Lasers get a useful range bonus for using faction range ammo, blasters a moderate one and ACs virtually none. I don't see how that's relevant (except maybe if you wanted to prove that lasers have yet another option available to overcome TDs that ACs lack) and even if it is, it sort of balances itself out like I proved above. Acs have by nature rather limited options for changing optimal range. You can put it like you did, that you can use most damaging faction ammo without penalty, but the other side of the coin is that you don't gain much reach for faction long range ammo so that's a mixed blessing.
Ariel Dawn Beets and Gravy Syndicate	Posted - 2008.02.03 23:23:00 - [84] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Ariel Dawn Sleipnir cannot sustain it's tank standard T2 fit against an Absolution. An Absolution is hitting a Sleinpir's resistances of 77%EM/69%Thermal (InvulII/DCII) on optimal while a Sleinpir with RF PP is hitting an Absolution on 76%Therm/83%Kin (2EANMII/DCII), doing less DPS from guns if the engagement was @ 50m distance. Throw in falloff. You are wrong. The absolution either doesnt have a web, or cant sujstain its tank nearly as long as the sleipnir. Which can fit an XL booster, equivelent to about a double LAR tank on the absolution. They are different types of tanks with the absolution running hit point based and the sleipnir running repair based. But the sleipnir defintily is advantaged by getting closer. Neither have a web, was a response to the off-topic statements put fourth. Setups were: 6x HP II 1x 10mn MWD II 1x WD II 1x Medium Electrochem 2x Medium Rep II 2x EANM II 1x DC II 2x Heat Sink II 2x Aux Nano Pump I 5x Hobgob II versus 7x 220mm II 1x Medium Nos/Neut II 1x 10mn MWD II 1x XL Booster II 1x WD II 1x Invul II 1x Medium Electrochem 3x Gyro II 1x Damage Control II 1x Shadow Serp Co-Proc 1x Anti-Kinetic Shield I 1x Projectile Ambit I 3x Hammer II/2x Hobgob II Both repair-based. Going from my assumption on a T2 fit Absolution; Sleipnir would lose to it in a straight up fight, but there's nothing stopping it from running away so this particular situation doesn't matter. Plus it has nothing to do with falloff on tracking disruptors.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.03 23:24:00 - [85] Edited by: Goumindong on 03/02/2008 23:25:49 Edited by: Goumindong on 03/02/2008 23:25:05 If neither have a web then the sleipnir REALLY wants to get close to increase the transversal differences. ed: Nos/neut is useless put something valuable up there like DPS or a gang mod. there are also probably better rigs to use as well.
Aramendel Amarr North Face Force	Posted - 2008.02.03 23:29:00 - [86] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Originally by: Goumindong They already do, they're called ambit extension rigs You keep repeating this, but fail to argument how you see rigs vs rigs + med + low + remote counter balanced? Secondary rig options are worse than secondary med/low/remote counter options. Since Goum is not mentioning the key point here: + range increase is STACKING PENALIZED. + falloff probably too, not sure. If not then FO rigs alone are a FAR bigger "counter" to TDs than range rigs + TCs/TEs are for optimal range base weapons. So, if + falloff is not stacking penalized the whole "omg unfair!!!11" point is out of the water. If it is TCs/TEs with + falloff would be still pretty pointless. Because falloff rigs would be a better option. Because they are more effective. The effect of a TE with the 3rd stacking penality after the falloff rigs is basically nil.
Aramendel Amarr North Face Force	Posted - 2008.02.03 23:33:00 - [87] Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Lasers get a useful range bonus for using faction range ammo, blasters a moderate one and ACs virtually none. Exept that faction longrango ammo does not outclass t2 longrange ammo. Faction shortrange ammo does outclass t2 shortrange ammo.
Cpt Branko The Bloody Red	Posted - 2008.02.03 23:35:00 - [88] Originally by: Aramendel If it is TCs/TEs with + falloff would be still pretty pointless. Because falloff rigs would be a better option. Because they are more effective. The effect of a TE with the 3rd stacking penality after the falloff rigs is basically nil. Yeah, because I may actually want to use, you know, no rigs? Given that TDs are a 1M midslot module, and TCs are a 1M midslot module (assuming all T2), I would sooner have TDs countered by a 1M midslot module then a 10-15M rig, you see? 'Falloff rigs are better' is not a valid argument for not giving TCs/TEs falloff bonus together with optimal. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Julius Romanus Amarr Blood Corsair's Blood Blind	Posted - 2008.02.03 23:39:00 - [89] Originally by: Aramendel Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Originally by: Goumindong They already do, they're called ambit extension rigs You keep repeating this, but fail to argument how you see rigs vs rigs + med + low + remote counter balanced? Secondary rig options are worse than secondary med/low/remote counter options. Since Goum is not mentioning the key point here: + range increase is STACKING PENALIZED. + falloff probably too, not sure. If not then FO rigs alone are a FAR bigger "counter" to TDs than range rigs + TCs/TEs are for optimal range base weapons. So, if + falloff is not stacking penalized the whole "omg unfair!!!11" point is out of the water. If it is TCs/TEs with + falloff would be still pretty pointless. Because falloff rigs would be a better option. Because they are more effective. The effect of a TE with the 3rd stacking penality after the falloff rigs is basically nil. You cant fit optimal range rigs on optimal range guns. The PG spike is too harsh. AC's leave the room for falloff rigs. But as I've said, I'm not going to oppose a TC buff.
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.03 23:40:00 - [90] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Originally by: Goumindong They already do, they're called ambit extension rigs You keep repeating this, but fail to argument how you see rigs vs rigs + med + low + remote counter balanced? Secondary rig options are worse than secondary med/low/remote counter options. Makes sense to spend extra pg and possibly downsize guns for less damage (tho gain some tracking) and put nano in the lows, instead of putting on polycarb for better mass reduction and tracking enhancer which would give same falloff bonus, some tracking and no grid issues (so no -damage due to downsizing). Even if polycarbs would be equal to nanos it might occasionally make sense to use a lowslot for falloff instead of a rig slot due to grid issues etc.

Kagura Nikon Minmatar Infinity Enterprises Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.02.04 00:16:00 - [91] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Kagura Nikon The main problem I see with the change is. Cutting fallof by half and cuttign range by half are very different things. Example HAve Ship a with a 16km RANGE weapon (I kno w i know jsut random numbers.. so bear with me) Ship B hasneglegible range and 16 km Falloff Now target is at 7 km. TRack disrupt both in 50%. The 16 km range ship will ahve range 8km. So stil ZERO penalties to hit target. The falloff ship will ahve falloff 8km. So it will be hittign 50% less. So track disrupting falloff is much more effective than track disrupting range. This is untrue. The 16km range ship will have a range of 8km and a falloff of 2km and being at 16km they will now be hitting 100% less for a total damage of Zero. The 16km range ship has to close to 8km in order to do the same DPS he was doing previously. The 16km falloff ship has to move to 8km in order to do the same DPS as he was doing previously. This only has no effect on a high optimal range ship when the current engagement range is under half of the optimal range ships optimal and he has no shorter range ammo to change into. But then again, against high optimal range ships, due to their low tracking, that is exactly where you want to be[right next to them], so you are winning there already. Go back and check the part where i said target were at 7 km. On thsoe conditions twith 8km range damage would be 100% ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.04 00:27:00 - [92] Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Originally by: Goumindong They already do, they're called ambit extension rigs You keep repeating this, but fail to argument how you see rigs vs rigs + med + low + remote counter balanced? Secondary rig options are worse than secondary med/low/remote counter options. Makes sense to spend extra pg and possibly downsize guns for less damage (tho gain some tracking) and put nano in the lows, instead of putting on polycarb for better mass reduction and tracking enhancer which would give same falloff bonus, some tracking and no grid issues (so no -damage due to downsizing). Even if polycarbs would be equal to nanos it might occasionally make sense to use a lowslot for falloff instead of a rig slot due to grid issues etc. Nope.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.04 00:32:00 - [93] Originally by: Kagura Nikon Go back and check the part where i said target were at 7 km. On thsoe conditions twith 8km range damage would be 100% No. In those conditions the weapon with the 16km optimal range would have to change from his short range ammo to his long range ammo. Yea, a TD wont do much between 0 and 7.5km against a Megapulse Geddon. It wont do much against a Tempest either[10% falloff goes to 25% falloff] Whop-de-do, you have already won the battle against the long range low tracking ship if you are over half under its optimal.
Dark Flare Caldari StateCorp Insurgency	Posted - 2008.02.04 00:39:00 - [94] Jesus christ you're a plank Goumindong. Fit rigs? Oh right yeah. Because you can just change those when you feel like it. And they're totally cheap like tracking computers. Huginn doesn't have to worry about neuts? How fast do you think it goes with no cap? Not a heavy nerf to Minmatar? Minmatar have to rely on falloff, because in optimal everything ****s upon them from up high. I'm currently not too bothered, because I can't see that many people fitting TDs. But if they do start fitting TDs, then Minmatar is going to suffer more than any other race.
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.04 00:42:00 - [95] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Originally by: Goumindong They already do, they're called ambit extension rigs You keep repeating this, but fail to argument how you see rigs vs rigs + med + low + remote counter balanced? Secondary rig options are worse than secondary med/low/remote counter options. Makes sense to spend extra pg and possibly downsize guns for less damage (tho gain some tracking) and put nano in the lows, instead of putting on polycarb for better mass reduction and tracking enhancer which would give same falloff bonus, some tracking and no grid issues (so no -damage due to downsizing). Even if polycarbs would be equal to nanos it might occasionally make sense to use a lowslot for falloff instead of a rig slot due to grid issues etc. Nope. Admirable, steel solid argumentation. Wanna elaborate a bit, how did the example I gave you not suffice for a situation where falloff rig clearly isn't better than the tracking enhancer should there be a falloff mod on TEs?
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.04 00:50:00 - [96] Overdrives.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.04 00:52:00 - [97] Edited by: Goumindong on 04/02/2008 00:54:17 Edited by: Goumindong on 04/02/2008 00:53:15 Originally by: Dark Flare Jesus christ you're a plank Goumindong. Fit rigs? Oh right yeah. Because you can just change those when you feel like it. And they're totally cheap like tracking computers. Huginn doesn't have to worry about neuts? How fast do you think it goes with no cap? Not a heavy nerf to Minmatar? Minmatar have to rely on falloff, because in optimal everything ****s upon them from up high. I'm currently not too bothered, because I can't see that many people fitting TDs. But if they do start fitting TDs, then Minmatar is going to suffer more than any other race. How are minmitar, with the most supplimentary dps of any turret race, with the most spare med slots to fit turret disruptors, and with the speed to dictate range, going to suffer the worst from a change to tracking disruptors, which go in med slots, hurt turret ships of all sorts equally in terms of range reduction, and are most beneficial to ships that can dictate range? ed: Projectile ambit extensions are not much more expensive than TE or TCs the last time i checked on their prices, 4m each rig, 1m each TE/TC.
Dark Flare Caldari StateCorp Insurgency	Posted - 2008.02.04 01:08:00 - [98] Originally by: Goumindong Edited by: Goumindong on 04/02/2008 00:54:17 Edited by: Goumindong on 04/02/2008 00:53:15 Originally by: Dark Flare Jesus christ you're a plank Goumindong. Fit rigs? Oh right yeah. Because you can just change those when you feel like it. And they're totally cheap like tracking computers. Huginn doesn't have to worry about neuts? How fast do you think it goes with no cap? Not a heavy nerf to Minmatar? Minmatar have to rely on falloff, because in optimal everything ****s upon them from up high. I'm currently not too bothered, because I can't see that many people fitting TDs. But if they do start fitting TDs, then Minmatar is going to suffer more than any other race. How are minmitar, with the most supplimentary dps of any turret race, with the most spare med slots to fit turret disruptors, and with the speed to dictate range, going to suffer the worst from a change to tracking disruptors, which go in med slots, hurt turret ships of all sorts equally in terms of range reduction, and are most beneficial to ships that can dictate range? ed: Projectile ambit extensions are not much more expensive than TE or TCs the last time i checked on their prices, 4m each rig, 1m each TE/TC. Midslots are for shield extenders, because that + speed is all the "tank" we get. And the person USING the td is dictating range. A Vagabond or Sleip, or Broadsword will have to go in close if it's being TDd. And it doesn't hurt all turret ships equally. Gallente are balls out 0 range anyway, so it just means they'll.. uh, still be balls out at zero range. So only 4x as expensive then?
Liang Nuren The Avalon Foundation	Posted - 2008.02.04 01:13:00 - [99] Originally by: Aramendel Firstly, the "status quo" is no holy balanced thing which has to be preserved. Secondly, TC/TEs were never a "counter" to TDs. Try asking the amarr roleplayers, i.e. pie, how well that works. It doesn't. The real counter to TDs is exploiting their limitations which are the biggest of all effective EW systems. Actually, CCP disagrees with you. The ENTIRE REASON that they nerfed TD's by scripting them as directly quoted by the CCP employee that did the balancing was because they are the counter to TC's. TD's counter TC's, and TC's counter TD's. That's the way the game works - according to CCP. Now give me my falloff on the TC and TE. -Liang -- If it appears that my typing is lazy, I apologize. My hands/wrists hurt. Update: I bought a Datahand for RSI, and I now suck at typing (so I don't post as much)
Yargo Metash Minmatar Heimatar Services Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.02.04 01:14:00 - [100] Edited by: Yargo Metash on 04/02/2008 01:19:23 I see where Goum is coming from with that TD thing. If it's so bad, use it! It would make sense for tracking enhancers/comps to add to falloff, I think that would be the next step in buffs for items. Adding rigs seems like a bandaid approach at best. Don't think I'll have anything to worry about according to the math already done on it.

Gamesguy Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.02.04 01:18:00 - [101] I'm gonna keep quoting this till the ****s in this thread stop ignoring it. Originally by:** Rastigan Medium short range guns , with a 50% optimal and falloff penalty applied.. Heavy Neutron Blaster 2: 1.15op + 3.15fo = 1.15km/4.3km/7.45km ranges for 100%/50%/0% chance to hit. 425mm Autocannon 2: .75op + 5fo = .75km/5.75km/10.75km ranges for 100%/50%/0 chance to hit. Heavy Pulse Laser 2: 3.75op + 2.5fo = 3.75km/6.25km/8.75km ranges for 100%/50%/0% chance to hit.. Autocannons dont seem be the the worst of the lot here, and they still can fire without cap.
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.04 01:31:00 - [102] Originally by: Goumindong Overdrives. So hmm, if I want falloff and mass reduction, the answer is to fit overdrives. Why didn't I think of that?
Formulka	Posted - 2008.02.04 01:39:00 - [103] TC boosting falloff isnt just compensation for TDs, but also a buff for ACs with already huge falloff (and of course other turrets) if they dont encounter TDs... ya know - not every gang has Curse/Arbi/Pilgrim or unbonused TDs fitted
Alek Row Minmatar	Posted - 2008.02.04 01:40:00 - [104] Originally by: Goumindong Projectile ambit extensions are not much more expensive than TE or TCs the last time i checked on their prices, 4m each rig, 1m each TE/TC. Goum, that argument sucks, mid slot modules are re-usable, rigs aren't. If you think that TE/TC's improving falloff would overpower ACs on ships with falloff bonus when not disrupted just say so ...
Liang Nuren The Avalon Foundation	Posted - 2008.02.04 02:04:00 - [105] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 04/02/2008 02:05:37 Originally by: Gamesguy I'm gonna keep quoting this till the ****s in this thread stop ignoring it. Originally by:** Rastigan Medium short range guns , with a 50% optimal and falloff penalty applied.. Heavy Neutron Blaster 2: 1.15op + 3.15fo = 1.15km/4.3km/7.45km ranges for 100%/50%/0% chance to hit. 425mm Autocannon 2: .75op + 5fo = .75km/5.75km/10.75km ranges for 100%/50%/0 chance to hit. Heavy Pulse Laser 2: 3.75op + 2.5fo = 3.75km/6.25km/8.75km ranges for 100%/50%/0% chance to hit.. Autocannons dont seem be the the worst of the lot here, and they still can fire without cap. Let's start with how it is rather misleading, ok? For starters, you forgot range ammo. Yeah, so, tell me who's hurt worst? Tell me where the AC WILL BE to deal any damage at all, even with range ammo? Web range. -Liang Ed: Red = Neutron II, Null Blue = Pulse II, Scorch Green = 425 AC II, Barrage -- If it appears that my typing is lazy, I apologize. My hands/wrists hurt. Update: I bought a Datahand for RSI, and I now suck at typing (so I don't post as much)
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.04 02:47:00 - [106] Originally by: Liang Nuren ... Oh hey, its misleading graphs to the rescue. What would any bad argument be without them!
Ariel Dawn Beets and Gravy Syndicate	Posted - 2008.02.04 03:02:00 - [107] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Liang Nuren ... Oh hey, its misleading graphs to the rescue. What would any bad argument be without them! Agreed. The Gallente/Amarr plots should be showing them using their highest-DPS ammunition as they want to be in web-range and wouldn't be using their long-range ammo in an attempt to stay out of it. Comparing it to Barrage M (and then to Hail M) would provide a more accurate reflection on what would happen on Tranquility.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.04 03:15:00 - [108] Originally by: Ariel Dawn Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Liang Nuren ... Oh hey, its misleading graphs to the rescue. What would any bad argument be without them! Agreed. The Gallente/Amarr plots should be showing them using their highest-DPS ammunition as they want to be in web-range and wouldn't be using their long-range ammo in an attempt to stay out of it. Comparing it to Barrage M (and then to Hail M) would provide a more accurate reflection on what would happen on Tranquility. Amarr pilots dont want to be in web range. Range is their advantage. Amarr pilots using MF are in panic mode unless they are shooting at missile ships[which out-range them] But that isnt the total reason why its misleading[no ship bonuses, turret numbers, supplimentary damage, damage types, or fitting is figured]
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.04 03:16:00 - [109] Originally by: Alek Row If you think that TE/TC's improving falloff would overpower ACs on ships with falloff bonus when not disrupted just say so ... I thought i already did
Liang Nuren The Avalon Foundation	Posted - 2008.02.04 03:27:00 - [110] Originally by: Goumindong But that isnt the total reason why its misleading[no ship bonuses, turret numbers, supplimentary damage, damage types, or fitting is figured] It is no more misleading than the post to which it was a response. -Liang -- If it appears that my typing is lazy, I apologize. My hands/wrists hurt. Update: I bought a Datahand for RSI, and I now suck at typing (so I don't post as much)

Liang Nuren The Avalon Foundation	Posted - 2008.02.04 03:28:00 - [111] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Alek Row If you think that TE/TC's improving falloff would overpower ACs on ships with falloff bonus when not disrupted just say so ... I thought i already did This is the unfortunate part... because it would be overpowered for TD's to affect falloff without a counter in TC's and TE's. -Liang -- If it appears that my typing is lazy, I apologize. My hands/wrists hurt. Update: I bought a Datahand for RSI, and I now suck at typing (so I don't post as much)
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.04 03:36:00 - [112] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Alek Row If you think that TE/TC's improving falloff would overpower ACs on ships with falloff bonus when not disrupted just say so ... I thought i already did This is the unfortunate part... because it would be overpowered for TD's to affect falloff without a counter in TC's and TE's. -Liang Incorrect.
Lilith Velkor Minmatar Oyster Colors	Posted - 2008.02.04 04:39:00 - [113] Originally by: Goumindong If you are fitting falloff mods onto artillery then you have more problems than getting tracking disrupted. Agreed, at least when using long range ammo like Tremor. Using high-damage Quake, or even faction Emp, a big part of your range is falloff tho, so to effectively counter being tracking-disrupted they are an option, not for increasing range since at medium range imho the good alpha-damage is more interesting on artillery. I never tried a real sniping setup, and generally don't like arties, so I'm not an expert on that field, however ACs suffer the same PG drawbacks anyway... Besides the point discussed really is that TDs affect both attributes where the counter only affects optimal. I'm not arguing that TDs shouldn't affect falloff, I'm just saying TC/TE should improve falloff too, after all one TC wouldn't counter half a TD anyway, unlike sensor booster and sensor dampener, where the booster is clearly better.
Ariel Dawn Beets and Gravy Syndicate	Posted - 2008.02.04 05:24:00 - [114] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Alek Row If you think that TE/TC's improving falloff would overpower ACs on ships with falloff bonus when not disrupted just say so ... I thought i already did This is the unfortunate part... because it would be overpowered for TD's to affect falloff without a counter in TC's and TE's. -Liang Incorrect. So why is Tracking Computers affecting optimal for Amarr acceptable and falloff for Minmatar not? Minmatar have about the same DPS as Amarr/Gallente (although needing dual damage bonuses as opposed to the latter's one) at optimal range and only decreases as it goes furthur into falloff. Wouldn't introducing falloff onto Tracking Computers help balance the disparity between them? The optimal range of Amarr pulses is pretty much the same as the falloff range as Minmatar autocannons, seems that increasing optimal which does not miss is significantly more powerful than falloff, aye?
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.04 06:18:00 - [115] Edited by: Goumindong on 04/02/2008 06:19:06 Originally by: Ariel Dawn So why is Tracking Computers affecting optimal for Amarr acceptable and falloff for Minmatar not? Minmatar have about the same DPS as Amarr/Gallente (although needing dual damage bonuses as opposed to the latter's one) at optimal range and only decreases as it goes furthur into falloff. Wouldn't introducing falloff onto Tracking Computers help balance the disparity between them? The optimal range of Amarr pulses is pretty much the same as the falloff range as Minmatar autocannons, seems that increasing optimal which does not miss is significantly more powerful than falloff, aye? Not really, no. Unless amarr ships were as fast[or really faster] than minmitar ships.
Lilith Velkor Minmatar Oyster Colors	Posted - 2008.02.04 07:26:00 - [116] Originally by: Goumindong Not really, no. Unless amarr ships were as fast[or really faster] than minmitar ships. What exactly has the speed advantage of minmatar ships to do with the fact that tracking mods lack a falloff effect? Besides not only amarr can (very effectively) use TDs, so it's not a minmatar vs. amarr issue here, the issue is that TC/TE don't work the way they should now that TDs are getting fixed finally.
Cpt Branko The Bloody Red	Posted - 2008.02.04 08:37:00 - [117] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Liang Nuren This is the unfortunate part... because it would be overpowered for TD's to affect falloff without a counter in TC's and TE's. -Liang Incorrect. Incorrect because Goumindong say so? It would be overpowered for TDs to affect falloff without a counter in TC's and TE's. There, I said it in bold tags, now it's more true. Seriously ;) Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Seishi Maru The Black Dawn Gang Mashen T'plak	Posted - 2008.02.04 09:29:00 - [118] Originally by: Formulka TC boosting falloff isnt just compensation for TDs, but also a buff for ACs with already huge falloff (and of course other turrets) if they dont encounter TDs... ya know - not every gang has Curse/Arbi/Pilgrim or unbonused TDs fitted well the boost woudl not need to be on same magnitude. A script to make 12% more falloff would be pretty Okish. So 2 of them woudl more or less cancel 1 TD.
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2008.02.04 09:34:00 - [119] There have been no good valid reasons put forward that go against the request to buff TC's, TE's & TL's to give a falloff, most arguments are wether or not the new TD's will effect minmatar the most. I am of the opinion that it will but lets stop, think and consider one simple truth... WETHER TD's EFFECT THE MINMATAR THE MOST OR NOT IS 100% IRRELEVANT! If TD's effect falloff then so should TC's, TE's & TL's. That is all. BTW... WTB minmatar T1 ammo with a falloff bonus. I have another idea that could be a counter to TD. Boost target painters with tracking, optimal & falloff bonuses against the target with the tp effecting it.
Cpt Branko The Bloody Red	Posted - 2008.02.04 10:01:00 - [120] Originally by: Nian Banks WETHER TD's EFFECT THE MINMATAR THE MOST OR NOT IS 100% IRRELEVANT! If TD's effect falloff then so should TC's, TE's & TL's. That is all. This. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint

Blutreiter Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades	Posted - 2008.02.04 10:10:00 - [121] Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: Nian Banks WETHER TD's EFFECT THE MINMATAR THE MOST OR NOT IS 100% IRRELEVANT! If TD's effect falloff then so should TC's, TE's & TL's. That is all. This. 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! Cogito ergo boom** - I think i'll blow sht up* Originally by: CCP Explorer I know we have said this before, but this time we really mean itÖ
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2008.02.04 10:29:00 - [122] Originally by: Blutreiter Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: Nian Banks WETHER TD's EFFECT THE MINMATAR THE MOST OR NOT IS 100% IRRELEVANT! If TD's effect falloff then so should TC's, TE's & TL's. That is all. This. 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! No 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.
SirDanceAlot	Posted - 2008.02.04 10:39:00 - [123] Ok 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.
Blutreiter Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades	Posted - 2008.02.04 10:42:00 - [124] Originally by: SirDanceAlot Ok 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. This! dances a lot Cogito ergo boom - I think i'll blow sht up* Originally by: CCP Explorer I know we have said this before, but this time we really mean itÖ
Diomidis Amarr Mythos Corp RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.02.04 10:46:00 - [125] Originally by: Nian Banks 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! No 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. So, instead of asking of a better TP which has no counter, you are asking for a worse than the already broken and under-utilized TD or a script that makes it useless as soon as it's fixed? Tell u what: TPs are not useless. It's just that webbers are so overpowered in the Minmatar Recons that no-one cares to fit one instead of a webber So yes plz, nerf webbers and boost TPs a tad "I wan't it all - YEEH YEAHH" "I wan't it all" "And I want it now!"...(tm) whine... Get a grip m8. Nano Gangs with Vagas and Huginns need counters - live with it. And another thought: Ewar is ewar: counters to it should weaken them, not make them useless. So even if TC/TE get a boost, this should be minimal compared to TD's boost, cause already TC/TE >> TD. Just like ECM >> ECCM, as it should be. Now, think a way so that webbers are less effective or have a DIRECT counter as all these wise@#)!$% propose for TD's, and then think way to boost TPs along with their DIRECT counter... Direct counters is the answer...EVE should be as complicated as the Paper/Rock/Scissors - "PRS - Online"Ö
Cpt Branko The Bloody Red	Posted - 2008.02.04 11:07:00 - [126] Originally by: Diomidis TPs 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. LOL@NOOB. Yeah, beacuse Target Painters affect range. Oh, wait.... Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2008.02.04 11:09:00 - [127] Edited by: Amira Shadowsong on 04/02/2008 11:11:25 Edited by: Amira Shadowsong on 04/02/2008 11:09:29 Originally by: Nian Banks No 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. Fail. You also have to give us a counter for 40km webs. A mid slot item that boosts our speed AND makes us more immune to long range webs. How about that? No? Well youre not getting TCs that affect fall off. Its stupidly overpowered. Stop whining, its not gonna happen. edit: TP+long webs is minmatar racial ew, not only TP.
Blutreiter Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades	Posted - 2008.02.04 11:11:00 - [128] Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: Diomidis TPs 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. LOL@NOOB. 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? Cogito ergo boom - I think i'll blow sht up* Originally by: CCP Explorer I know we have said this before, but this time we really mean itÖ
Kagura Nikon Minmatar Infinity Enterprises Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.02.04 11:22:00 - [129] Originally by: Blutreiter Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: Diomidis TPs 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. LOL@NOOB. 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? No. At close range AC are massively overpowered by blasters. AC are medium range guns with good tracking and bad dps. Pulse lasers are medium range with good dps and poor tracking. ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Kykio Caldari The All-Seeing Eye	Posted - 2008.02.04 11:29:00 - [130] Edited by: Kykio on 04/02/2008 11:29:14 Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: Diomidis TPs 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. LOL@NOOB. Yeah, beacuse Target Painters affect range. Oh, wait.... You 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? You just want a module that boost your already good projectiles range while you can use the EMP ammo right? And projectiles won't do more dmg after resist nerf. Oh, wait....

Cpt Branko The Bloody Red	Posted - 2008.02.04 11:35:00 - [131] Originally by: Blutreiter So what you want is not a counter, it's med-range AC usage. Aren't ACs better in close range anyway? (a) People use ACs a lot in 'med-range' already. Using ACs at point blank range is often quite suicidal, especially and particularly versus blasterboats. Why do you think Barrage M is as expensive as it is? Furthermore, ACs with barrage loaded enable you to fend off people trying to stick outside of webrange a lot of the time. (b) You only really want to use ACs in close-range when you're fighting ships which outdamage you at mid-range but don't at close range. What the new TDs are is a uncounterable way to control the other guy's effective range. On the other hand, it's utterly useless for me as a Minmatar pilot to fit TCs and TEs on anything, because there's practically nothing I can do to boost my range except rigs. I used to be fine with this, beacause nobody could touch that unmodifiable range anyway, but since now people can modify it, why can't I modify it as well? Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Sephra Star	Posted - 2008.02.04 11:42:00 - [132] Originally by: Dromidas Shadowmoon Edited by: Dromidas Shadowmoon on 03/02/2008 04:52:04 Considering 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 ECCM Tracking Disruptor vs Tracking Computer (pre-boost) Sensor Dampener vs Sensor Booster If 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 :) Hard to argue with this logic...
Cpt Branko The Bloody Red	Posted - 2008.02.04 11:53:00 - [133] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 04/02/2008 11:55:26 Originally by: Kykio You 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? Well, TPs increase only tracking-related hit chances; and webs are equally effective as TPs which increased your sig radius by 1000% for all the attackers, as far as guns are concerned anyway. TPs don't do absolutely a thing for range, so. Originally by: Kykio You just want a module that boost your already good projectiles range while you can use the EMP ammo right? Whichever modules/rigs you use to boost falloff, Barrage M still outdamages EMP M at 14-15km, making it quite stupid to use EMP M outside of close webrange situations. Even when shooting at 7-8km you will still be using Barrage M. Originally by: Kykio And projectiles won't do more dmg after resist nerf. They will if you're a bad pilot and use sub-par ammo (EMP M on armour tanks or shield tanks is sub-par ammo and will be sub-par ammo post patch) or are shooting Barrage M at shield tanks (again sub-par ammo for the job, but I see it happening if you're trying to stick out of webrange of a shield-tanked ship which isn't that often). In fact, EMP M is the optimal ammo in certain situation, such as shooting untanked ships or hull-tanked ships which happen to not hit very hard so you don't care about range. For everything else, there's PP M (better vs shield tanks) / Fusion M (better vs armour tanks) / Barrage M (better vs armour tanks, better for shooting at any range larger then 2km). Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
DennoTheHunter Caldari Kernkraft 400	Posted - 2008.02.04 12:00:00 - [134] I'm wondering why no one has said anything about TE/TC on amarr ships would be overpowered atm, since they boost the already high optimal range pulses have, giving them godlike range on shortrange guns. If TE/TC will affect falloff too, then i personally think it wouldn't be near as overpowered as proposed or even not affect any kind of ballance at all except to work as a counter to TD. And yes i support the OP's idea _____________________ If I am in a fair fight.... Something went wrong!
Blutreiter Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades	Posted - 2008.02.04 12:02:00 - [135] Edited by: Blutreiter on 04/02/2008 12:04:58 Right. 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. Cogito ergo boom - I think i'll blow sht up* Originally by: CCP Explorer I know we have said this before, but this time we really mean itÖ
Twilight Mourning	Posted - 2008.02.04 12:03:00 - [136] Edited by: Twilight Mourning on 04/02/2008 12:07:09 Originally by: Cpt Branko What the new TDs are is a uncounterable way to control the other guy's effective range. Kinda what the huggins dual webs are? So how about this? So if TCs effect falloff then shouldn't which module do we get that negates webs? =p Not so fun when your Recon is **** is it? Besides... who wastes a slot to ECCM? If you want a dedicated module to counter TDs then how about a module that only negates the effect of TDs? That way you have to waste a slot JUST to counter TDs just the way ECCMs waste a slot JUST to counter ECM? That I could live with.
Seishi Maru The Black Dawn Gang Mashen T'plak	Posted - 2008.02.04 12:09:00 - [137] Originally by: Blutreiter Edited by: Blutreiter on 04/02/2008 12:04:58 Right. 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. Well 2 Track Disruptor do really completely shut down any non point blank weaponry. I really think CCP should make all ewar strong and usable even in a non specialized ship. But the problem becomes people fitting 3 or 4 of them. I would love if ecm was usable again in non specialized ships, but not more than 1 same with dampeners and TD. Woudl add some variation to combat.
Cpt Branko The Bloody Red	Posted - 2008.02.04 12:32:00 - [138] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 04/02/2008 12:33:43 Originally by: Twilight Mourning Originally by: Cpt Branko What the new TDs are is a uncounterable way to control the other guy's effective range. Kinda what the huggins dual webs are? Huggins 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 Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
UGLYUGLY	Posted - 2008.02.04 12:38:00 - [139] Minmatar 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 .
Cpt Branko The Bloody Red	Posted - 2008.02.04 12:42:00 - [140] Originally by: UGLYUGLY 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. ... 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. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint

Twilight Mourning	Posted - 2008.02.04 12:48:00 - [141] Edited by: Twilight Mourning on 04/02/2008 12:51:03 Originally by: Cpt Branko Edited by: Cpt Branko on 04/02/2008 12:33:43 Huggins 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 Damps 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. =p Edit: Posting inside the quote ftl. lol
Jin Entres Malevolent Intervention	Posted - 2008.02.04 12:57:00 - [142] Originally by: Cpt Branko 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 Yeah, people seem to think that this change will hurt Minmatar most while the fact is that Minmatar and Gallente have the most ships with spare utility midslots which are now mostly used for ECCM, double web or sensor boosting but will after this change be used more with Tracking Disruptors. Therefore it hurts Amarr most because the optimal range disruption already hurts them a lot and the additional falloff disruption only adds to it. As it is, Amarr have not suffered from it that much because they haven't been widely used. But now they will be. The consequence will be that armor tanking 5 mid ships will become better: Dominix, Hyperion, Myrmidon, Eos, Tempest, Typhoon, Ishtar and Sacriledge. And among them, the ones fighting in webbing range will be dominant, which is why arguably Gallente benefit from this the most because they do most damage within that range. As a side effect, ECM will also become better as ECCM will be used less, and Caldari benefit from increased use of TD's which they are unaffected by. --- CEO
Ishida Natari	Posted - 2008.02.04 12:59:00 - [143] I'm all for boosting TDs, however I believe it should be done in a way that does not make "one module counter to close range". I do not have problem for recon to use 6 slots to shut down 3 ships, but if many other ships start to fill their remaining slots by TDs, things could get out of hand, especially because this would significantly nerf all the Minmatar close range ships. The bonus to falloff reduction should be very small and be significantly boosted on ewar ships only to preserve the current state where single unbonused module (ECM, Damps) is basically worthless against anything bigger than frigate but bonused and dedicated ships are very viable. Such ship would be one more counter to vaga roaming nano gangs (albeit not deadly to them) and would make the gangs more diverse. It would also make Amarr cruisers more team-oriented (although some would prefer them to be more of a solo pwn mobile as it used to be).
Cpt Branko The Bloody Red	Posted - 2008.02.04 13:02:00 - [144] Originally by: Twilight Mourning Damps 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. =p Edit: Posting inside the quote ftl. lol Only 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? Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
UGLYUGLY	Posted - 2008.02.04 13:05:00 - [145] I have no problem with re balancing TD's so that amarr recons get the same benefits (or if not even a bit better). By reducing the base amount of unbonused TD's but increasing the % bonuses on amarr ships to compensate. This would make them near useless on any ship other than race specific ships.
Twilight Mourning	Posted - 2008.02.04 13:13:00 - [146] Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: Twilight Mourning Damps 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. =p Edit: Posting inside the quote ftl. lol Only 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? I think the issue for me is that TD's are useless against just about every weapon system. Nobody can deny that. Their only point at this juncture is on the Curse/Pilgrim with tracking script to protect the drones. While every other race has EW that is effective in any given situation. TPs work against any ship for the entire fleet. SBs work against any ships locking range. EW can shut down any ship. Of course there are counters to two of these three things. The problem with TDs is that unless you are flying a ship which fights in your optimal (Amarr) or have crap tracking then these are useless. Minmatar and Caldari are pretty much immune (pretty much, not completely). What do they need to counter TDs? Nothing. So while the other three races have EW that can effect anyone effectively Amarr's specialized EW is only useful half the time and for the times when it is there are still coutners for it. This to me has me flying a Curse (which has bonuses to TDs) mostly using damps or ECM. If the TDs screw a couple more races, I'm not going to complain. If you have a better fix, go for it, untill them I'm ok with them boosting TDs in this way.
UGLYUGLY	Posted - 2008.02.04 13:13:00 - [147] Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: Twilight Mourning Damps 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. =p Edit: Posting inside the quote ftl. lol Only 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? I don't, I see a ship that set itself up to deal specifically with another ship, 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, amarr boats bearly have enough to get by with the basics and caldari use theirs for their tank. Armor tanked minmatar ships might have some spare mids.
Ariel Dawn Beets and Gravy Syndicate	Posted - 2008.02.04 13:34:00 - [148] Originally by: UGLYUGLY Minmatar 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.
Aramendel Amarr North Face Force	Posted - 2008.02.04 13:42:00 - [149] Originally by: Cpt Branko Only 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. Same applies for TDs. If the target is within the TD reduced weapon range they do not do anything. And then they can use missiles of all kinds (not only FoFs which are also only available for longrange missile types), drones even if they were in the bay or at another target by the time they got TDed (and you can also recall & redeploy them if needed) and most importantly all kinds of EW - ECM, damps, TDs of your own - and you can also scram and web your target (which makes countering the range based TDs a lot easier. And as a little cream on the top TDs also have a good deal lower effective range than damps. 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 Yes, because gal ships have in general more med slots than minmatar ships, so minmatar are compared to gal ships totally unable to fit them. Like the hurricane, claymore, typhoon, tempest and mealstrom. Right. Hypocrisy much? For 4 slot ships - like the mega, typhoon or cane - a TD will only be fitted on cost of a cap injector. Thats a rather hefty tradeoff. Only 5 slot ships can really fit a TD without gimping themselves elsewhere. The only gal gunboat which can do that is the hyperion - but so can the pest. The other gal ships are all no full gunships, but gunship/droneboat hybrids. ACs are even with a TD on them excellent weapons to kill drones rather fast. It isn't that much of a problem to pull their drone teeth while staying out of their blaster range.
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.02.04 13:42:00 - [150] Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 04/02/2008 13:42:50 Originally by: Ariel Dawn 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. 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. -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation

Cpt Branko The Bloody Red	Posted - 2008.02.04 13:45:00 - [151] Originally by: UGLYUGLY I 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. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
UGLYUGLY	Posted - 2008.02.04 13:46:00 - [152] Originally by: Ariel Dawn Originally by: UGLYUGLY Minmatar 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. Minmatar ammo dosen't change much in the way in range, but it dose change the damage type which is the trade off. As far as i see it, you have the choice to burn close, or burn away. Comparative DPS/Tanks may be the lowest, but you do have the highest base speed. Everything is a trade off
Tsu'ko Valley Forge STELLAR LEGION	Posted - 2008.02.04 13:50:00 - [153] Edited by: Tsu''ko on 04/02/2008 13:50:07 Originally by: Cpt Branko Edited by: Cpt Branko on 04/02/2008 12:46:37 Originally by: UGLYUGLY 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. ... 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 Yeah.. spare midslot, there is a lot of those -especially on amarr ships. Originally by: CCP Wrangler The 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.
Cpt Branko The Bloody Red	Posted - 2008.02.04 13:51:00 - [154] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 04/02/2008 13:52:05 Originally by: Lyria Skydancer 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... Lies. Maelstorm can't tank nearly that well in any full-tackle setup as you make it seem, unless you fit dracira and estamel stuff on it. Sleipnir can tank nice with a XL booster, sure. For a minute at best. Our armour tanked ships, on the other hand, have quite sub-par tanks. Originally by: Lyria Skydancer 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. Increase AC boat damage off the charts? Yeah, right. On ships which have spare mids for it (which are unfortunately only BS-sized ships), it would bring their DPS at range somewhat better, but they already get smeared DPS-wise by Gallente (at close range) and Amarr (at any range). It would enable them to counter TDs better, bringing us to the next point: Originally by: Lyria Skydancer 4. Live with the changes that TDs now work very effectively against prior immune turrets. Well, yeah. It's going to be annoying to see on every blaster-using ship with a spare midslot, but I guess I can always bring more friends to play Originally by: Tsu'ko Yeah.. spare midslot, there is a lot of those -especially on amarr ships. There are on blaster-ships which benefit from the new TDs the most. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.02.04 13:52:00 - [155] Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: UGLYUGLY I 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. I didnt hear anyone, including amarr, whine about how powerful TDs were before... -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.02.04 13:53:00 - [156] Originally by: Cpt Branko There are on blaster-ships which benefit from the new TDs the most. How many blaster ships have 5mids? -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation
Cpt Branko The Bloody Red	Posted - 2008.02.04 13:54:00 - [157] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer I 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. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.02.04 13:56:00 - [158] Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: Lyria Skydancer I 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. I have really no problems with this and I did try to tell this in another post aswell (I hope they change it eventually). But no one is getting TCs that boost fall off... -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation
Ariel Dawn Beets and Gravy Syndicate	Posted - 2008.02.04 13:58:00 - [159] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 04/02/2008 13:42:50 Originally by: Ariel Dawn 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. 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. 1. You're blatantly unaware of Minmatar tanks. A T2 Sleipnir has an excellent burst tank, but beyond the initial 2 minutes all other CS out-tank it unless you use faction/crystals. Maelstrom and Typhoon tanks are fine and were never mentioned as being the ships hurt in this issue. A Tempest will never out-tank an equivalent battleship, nor will any of the smaller/T2 Minmatar ships. 2. How would it kill sniping? Reducing engagement ranges and forcing more fights? 3. 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. 4. 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. Also 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. I 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.
Aramendel Amarr North Face Force	Posted - 2008.02.04 14:02:00 - [160] 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. They are last if you conviniently forget that EVERY minmatar gunship has a ROF bonus while laser ships - with the exeption of the abaddon - all have a capuse reduction, which does not add dps, but brings their capuse to manageable lvls slightly above hybrids. Unless you want to balance ACs depending on their performance on non-minmatar ships the ROF bonus is very much part of ACs raw dps.

Aramendel Amarr North Face Force	Posted - 2008.02.04 14:05:00 - [161] Originally by: Cpt Branko Said 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). Yes, and compared to that no minnie AC ships have 4 mids or more...oh, wait. Exept the rupture/muninn ALL - freaking ALL exept 2 - minnie gunships of cruiser size or bigger have 4+ meds.
Cpt Branko The Bloody Red	Posted - 2008.02.04 14:12:00 - [162] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 04/02/2008 14:12:21 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. Yeah. When they're double damage bonused. Even then it's not strictly true at BS level, as they still do less DPS (even less EFT DPS, not to mention when counting each ship at his optimal) then torps and blasters, and I'm not 100% sure about pulses really (which at any rate outdamage them at their optimal by a fat margin). At BC level, ACs have the 2nd highest raw DPS of short range guns, when double-damage bonused. Else they do 3rd highest raw DPS... yeah, they outdamage HAMs. I'm not sure of this, though, given that medium HP IIs do very comparable DPS on paper, and certainly do better at their optimal. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Tsu'ko Valley Forge STELLAR LEGION	Posted - 2008.02.04 14:12:00 - [163] Shouldn't Gallente be really happy then? hear people complaining Gallente didn't get any boost got nerfed instaid, is it just me or is minmatar the new amarr in forums? Originally by: CCP Wrangler The 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.
Aramendel Amarr North Face Force	Posted - 2008.02.04 14:17:00 - [164] Originally by: Cpt Branko Yeah. 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.
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.02.04 14:19:00 - [165] Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 04/02/2008 14:20:03 Originally by: Aramendel Originally by: Cpt Branko Yeah. 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. Haha, I think Aramendel wins with K.O. But really, minmatar shouldnt complain. They are getting a EMP ammo boost with the armor+shield resist changes. -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation
Tsu'ko Valley Forge STELLAR LEGION	Posted - 2008.02.04 14:21:00 - [166] Edited by: Tsu''ko on 04/02/2008 14:25:53 Statis Webifier EW is one of the best, not funny when ppl say Minmatar EW (TP) sucks and how useless Huginn is (it's great). Give Amarr Statis Webifier EW or boost TD's like they are doing now seems fair enough. -side note, why Minmatar get statis webifier in the first place, doesn't it suit Amarr more as they are slow and want to use their range advantage? Though then again, Amarr also likes to tank, guess reducing damage taken is valued higher than preventing it from reaching you in the first place. -edit adde side note. Originally by: CCP Wrangler The 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.
Twilight Mourning	Posted - 2008.02.04 14:46:00 - [167] Originally by: Ariel Dawn 2. How would it kill sniping? Reducing engagement ranges and forcing more fights? Reducing range... I think you just answered your own question. Very good. Originally by: Ariel Dawn 3. 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. So you want to match Amarr's range AND be able to chose dmg type AND not have any cap with your weapons? So what you are saying is you want to play EveO on God mode? Originally by: Ariel Dawn 4. 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. Pick your fight? Originally by: Ariel Dawn Also 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. Well, Minmatar can use drones when they have TDs used against them. So it's all good, right? Problem solved. If you have TDs used against you, send out your drones! Originally by: Ariel Dawn I 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. Amarr are happy... you're the one crying about your poor widdle Minmatar... woe is me, I can't PvP, my range is reduced... who's crying now? Doesn't look like Amarr.
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.04 15:26:00 - [168] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 04/02/2008 13:42:50 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... -1 slot compared to other races seems to be pretty common. Of course that can also mean less damage mods in case of armor tanking. 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. Had 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. Quote: 4. Live with the changes that TDs now work very effectively against prior immune turrets. I'll weather the changes just fine I bet. The TE/TC/remote boost thing isn't that huge a deal no matter how it ends since fitting enough +15% mods to counter even 1 TD isn't practical. For real counters, since someone so apptly pointed out that minmatar already have a counter to TDs in target painters, how about adding a range script for TPs. Soo, 15% sig, 15% optimal 15%falloff unscripted, 30% sig or 30%optimal+falloff scripted! Not quite as powerful as a TD but now it would actually be useful on the recons too. Aaaand since we're on our way to make falloff a 'fully adjustable' stat, how about +- falloff faction/t1 ammo. Or might there be a reason why devs originally went this way and left falloff pretty much unmodified except for t2 ammo? The real problem with TDs is webs, not falloff. If webs wouldn't be such an on/off module, and increase tracking 10fold at 10km ranges, amarr could use the -tracking mod on TDs to force minmatar to fight at their terms, ie either further into falloff reducing their dps, or slower so negating the worse tracking on lasers. However, I guess it's just aswell to keep building on a broken foundation and add nonsensical falloff mods etc. To re-iterate, TDs work against all long range guns already. They work against amarr shortrange guns, and to lesser extent blasters also. The poor performance against short range turrets isn't however because of the lack of falloff component, it's the fact that the -tracking penalty is insignificant compared to -90% speed penalty in web ranges. This is exactly the same reason why target painters suck and are for the most part completely obsolete on matar recons with web range bonus.
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.02.04 15:38:00 - [169] Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Had 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. Its not like TDs, that only affected amarr, 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? -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.04 15:57:00 - [170] Edited by: Trigos Trilobi on 04/02/2008 15:58:11 Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Had 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. I just gave you some real numbers on one of the minmatar boats that is maybe the most dependant on falloff, and the numbers weren't "stupidly overpowered", more like "borderline useless". How about instead of this armwaving you give an example of some minmatar boat that would be stupidly overpowered with the advent of +falloff on TC/TE and back it up with some numbers? 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? Fixed it for you. And that's only fixed if you assume TDs don't have a -tracking script too. And yep minmatar will be fine, turret boats will suffer some compared to drone/missile boats, but since minmatar has most spare med slots it's ironically probably going to be amarr that suffers the most from this change. This doesn't make any of my earlier points invalid though. Too bad you chose not to tackle any of the interesting bits.

Aramendel Amarr North Face Force	Posted - 2008.02.04 16:21:00 - [171] Edited by: Aramendel on 04/02/2008 16:21:23 Originally by: Trigos Trilobi -1 slot compared to other races seems to be pretty common. Where? The minnie shieldtankers do not have fewer med slots than other shieldtankers. The minnie armortankers there is only the pest which has fewer lows than all other ships of the same tier - which has in exchange an additional med slot over the other teir 2 armortanker BS which can be used for..like..a TD. The other minnie armortankers have the same amount of low slots as armortankers of the same tier. On two ocassions amarr ships have 1 more - maller vs rupture and geddon vs phoon - but those have either loldps or one medslot less in exchange. And, of cource, compared to the energyuse of lasers minnie ships have 1-2 "build in" CPRs. The only minnie ship which really seems a bit "meh" right now is the muninn, but what is causing that isn't the TD buff, but the eagle buff which basically obsoletes it a sniper which was its only real role.
Torashuu Amarr TALON'S GRIP Green Alliance	Posted - 2008.02.04 16:23:00 - [172] Just to pinch in for the people wishing TD's get a seperate script for Falloff, That would mean: a) Minmatar AC boats are just as screwed as with TD's affecting both optimal and falloff b) Blasters are less affected, they might not have a lot of optimal and falloff, the ratio is closer to 50/50 then with ac's So, adding a 3rd script to affect falloff, would adversly affect minmatar ships more then the current sisi version, because while your AC falloff is still screwed, the blasterboat you fear, and TD back, isn't as affected as much and will kill you if you get closer. Current SiSi TD's however, make it so you can both TD eachother, and the sweet spot where you outrange blasters still excists. Its just a bit closer. Not only that, minmatar ships generaly feature the most utility mids to even fit a TD. So of all races, with current SiSi TD's gallente blaster users have the most reason to complain. But thats just IMHO, as Amarr, Minmatar pilot.
Kagura Nikon Minmatar Infinity Enterprises Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.02.04 16:25:00 - [173] Originally by: Aramendel Edited by: Aramendel on 04/02/2008 14:14:21 ACs 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. ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Aramendel Amarr North Face Force	Posted - 2008.02.04 16:38:00 - [174] Originally by: Kagura Nikon Originally by: Aramendel Edited by: Aramendel on 04/02/2008 14:14:21 ACs 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) vs Pluse laser damagemod / rof * MF ammo damage Calculate it. Be surprised. Feel stupid.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.04 17:02:00 - [175] Originally by: Cpt Branko Using TDs is going to be extremely popular on unbonused short-range ships with a spare midslot, I can already tell you that one. And since most, if not all of these ships are minmitar, what is the problem? Your range adantage against blasters has been extended. Your range deficiency against Amarr has been reduced. The sole reason any minmitar are against this change is because it just might force them into web range and they just might have to risk their ship. Boo hoo.
Yargo Metash Minmatar Heimatar Services Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.02.04 17:03:00 - [176] Originally by: Aramendel AC damagemod / rof * EMP ammo damage / 0.75 (minnie 1st shipbonus) vs Pluse laser damagemod / rof * MF ammo damage Calculate it. Be surprised. Feel stupid. Psst... You forgot falloff range. Also, about the Hail comment, I ran a few graphs on the Turret Guide awhile back comparing 425mm II's with Barrage and Hail, as well as Heavy Neutron II's with Void and heavy Pulses with Conflag. Hail is the blasterboat ammo of the Minnys. I'd hate to see what an AC Munnin would do with it. Or even an AC Ruppy
Kagura Nikon Minmatar Infinity Enterprises Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.02.04 17:05:00 - [177] Edited by: Kagura Nikon on 04/02/2008 17:06:28 Originally by: Aramendel Originally by: Kagura Nikon Originally by: Aramendel Edited by: Aramendel on 04/02/2008 14:14:21 ACs 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) vs Pluse laser damagemod / rof * MF ammo damage Calculate it. Be surprised. Feel stupid. sure. Unbonused Mega PUlse T2 with MF 48 dps Unbonused 800MM T2 with EMP 40 dps. I feel you stupid. And dont start with the "double bonus stuff" those ships have less turrets to account that for. And the rof bonus is rpesend also on amarr ships. So I feel that the only stupid here is not me. ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Kagura Nikon Minmatar Infinity Enterprises Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.02.04 17:13:00 - [178] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Aramendel Originally by: Kagura Nikon Originally by: Aramendel Edited by: Aramendel on 04/02/2008 14:14:21 ACs 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) vs Pluse laser damagemod / rof * MF ammo damage Calculate 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. My answer was on his sentence that said RAW DPS. And on raw DPs AC are far form havign high dps. ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.04 17:20:00 - [179] Originally by: Aramendel Edited 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? I'd say 2/3 battleships + hacs is 'pretty common', given that those ship classes are quite popular. 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. Hmm 48km base + 50% from skills, isn't that more like 72km. Compared to 30km base, 45km with skills for painters. Painters have better falloff though. 50% chance at 104km to make a turret ship totally useless with 1 unbonused module. 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. 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.
Cpt Branko The Bloody Red	Posted - 2008.02.04 17:32:00 - [180] So, if we are talking about a Amarr boost, making the new TDs only useful of Amarr bonused ships (Arbitrator, Pilgrim, Curse, the frigs) is alright with everyone? Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint

Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.02.04 17:34:00 - [181] Originally by: Cpt Branko So, if we are talking about a Amarr boost, making the new TDs only useful of Amarr bonused ships (Arbitrator, Pilgrim, Curse, the frigs) is alright with everyone? I dont think any amarr player would be against that. -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation
Katashi Ishizuka	Posted - 2008.02.04 17:35:00 - [182] I really don't like the way all EW is becoming good only on the ship they are bonused for. It is really reducing the variation of setups that I see in ships in modules, and reducing the flexibility a pilot has in choosing the best way to pilot their ship.
Cpt Branko The Bloody Red	Posted - 2008.02.04 17:43:00 - [183] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 04/02/2008 17:43:43 Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: Cpt Branko So, if we are talking about a Amarr boost, making the new TDs only useful of Amarr bonused ships (Arbitrator, Pilgrim, Curse, the frigs) is alright with everyone? I dont think any amarr player would be against that. Well, changes would be fine provided that is done. Originally by: Katashi I**uka I really don't like the way all EW is becoming good only on the ship they are bonused for. It is really reducing the variation of setups that I see in ships in modules, and reducing the flexibility a pilot has in choosing the best way to pilot their ship. Having 'must fit' EWAR modules is boosting diversity a lot Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Aramendel Amarr North Face Force	Posted - 2008.02.04 17:50:00 - [184] Edited by: Aramendel on 04/02/2008 17:51:01 Originally by: Trigos Trilobi I'd say 2/3 battleships + hacs is 'pretty common', given that those ship classes are quite popular. And that is simply not the case. I showed that already in the part of my post you ignored. Quote: Hmm 48km base + 50% from skills, isn't that more like 72km. Ah, yes, I forgot it was 50%. Was still too much into gun range caculations. Quote: Compared to 30km base, 45km with skills for painters. Painters have better falloff though. And skills which effect it. 45k optimal and 90k falloff. Same stats as damos actually. This gives TDs a very minor (like less than 10% higher sucess chance) advantage from 45k to 80k. Past that they are better. And their higher falloff gives them a far bigger area where they have a good chance to work. TDs become 50% at 108k and 6% at 144k. TPs/damps become 50% at 135k and 6% at 225k. Quote: Clearly it's not ecm or damps, but it's still leaps and bounds better than 50% chance at 135km for 37.5% more tracking. Doesn't change that they cannot reach ship with longrange weapons at their most typical ranges. And for all intents and purposes TPs are no real EW. About as much as a tracking link is "EW". Minnie recons are still pretty nice, though, because 40k webs are extremly powerful. Quote: In any case, you're assuming there will never be rail/arty ships closer than 150km ranges, which is an overly simplistic view and totally unrealistic for cruisers to begin with. Firstly, no, not "closer than 150k". Even at 125k using a TD vs a sniper is more like an desperation move than anything else. And never? No. But the amount of longrange fitted ships you find commonly at 125k+ is far FAR greater than the amount you find at less than 125k. Claiming it effects rails/arties when it in fact only effects small minority of them is..what? Being unfamiliar with their actual performance? Spreading disinformation? Take your pick. Claiming that TDs can effect under certain rare conditions would be correct. Claiming that they generally effect them isn't. Cruiser snipers are usually together with the BS force and picking up tacklers, etc which make a run to your location, they are rarely closer. Neither are they a really important factor. And, again, there is a difference between arties/rails and cruisersized arties/rails.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.04 17:52:00 - [185] Originally by: Kagura Nikon My answer was on his sentence that said RAW DPS. And on raw DPs AC are far form havign high dps. And the true answer is that that is stupid so who cares?
Aramendel Amarr North Face Force	Posted - 2008.02.04 17:53:00 - [186] Originally by: Kagura Nikon My answer was on his sentence that said RAW DPS. And on raw DPs AC are far form havign high dps. Copy-paste: ACs have the 2nd highest raw dps of short range guns. They are last if you conviniently forget that EVERY minmatar gunship has a ROF bonus while laser ships - with the exeption of the abaddon - all have a capuse reduction, which does not add dps, but brings their capuse to manageable lvls slightly above hybrids. Unless you want to balance ACs depending on their performance on non-minmatar ships the ROF bonus is very much part of ACs raw dps
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.04 17:54:00 - [187] Originally by: Aramendel Cruiser snipers are usually together with the BS force and picking up tacklers, etc which make a run to your location, they are rarely closer. Neither are they a really important factor. They are also just as affected by damps because they do not typically have 180km lock ranges when shooting at 100km.
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.04 17:57:00 - [188] Originally by: Cpt Branko So, if we are talking about a Amarr boost, making the new TDs only useful of Amarr bonused ships (Arbitrator, Pilgrim, Curse, the frigs) is alright with everyone? Well that's certainly one option to avoid the likely situation that amarr end up being hurt most because of TDs being more popular. Unlikely to happen though, it's totally inconsistent with the rest of game. Ship bonuses only increase/decrease module properties, they don't introduce new ones. Furthermore it'd really sound like they're acknowledging the falloff penalty is a stupid idea but can't think of anything else so they limit it to recons. Sort of an emergency fix of an emergency fix. So I'm still convinced that proper way to boost TDs and painters is to fix webs. This falloff thing is ill-based and unnecessary and doesn't fix what is really broken. And additionally if you introduce more falloff affecting properties, then you need to also think the TC/TE/remote thing through; what about ammos, should they all have equal falloff penalty/bonus as they have optimal etc.
Yargo Metash Minmatar Heimatar Services Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.02.04 18:02:00 - [189] Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Well that's certainly one option to avoid the likely situation that amarr end up being hurt most because of TDs being more popular. Unlikely to happen though, it's totally inconsistent with the rest of game. Ship bonuses only increase/decrease module properties, they don't introduce new ones. So I'm still convinced that proper way to boost TDs and painters is to fix webs. This falloff thing is ill-based and unnecessary and doesn't fix what is really broken. And additionally if you introduce more falloff affecting properties, then you need to also think the TC/TE/remote thing through; what about ammos, should they all have equal falloff penalty/bonus as they have optimal etc. The way I'm thinking Branko means useful is as in how Minnie recons webs are 'useful.' That is, really really ouch I'm on fire blargh I are ded useful. But otherwise ^ this. TD boost is just harking for a web nerf.
Formulka	Posted - 2008.02.04 18:08:00 - [190] so what about nerfing TDs generally and buffing the bonus for them from amarr recons? mayB something like caldari ones 5%/level -> 15% for arbi, same or 20% for curse, pilgrim and sentinel and according nerf to unbonused ones ...

Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.02.04 18:11:00 - [191] Originally by: Formulka so what about nerfing TDs generally and buffing the bonus for them from amarr recons? mayB something like caldari ones 5%/level -> 15% for arbi, same or 20% for curse, pilgrim and sentinel and according nerf to unbonused ones ... Yeah thats prolly what we all want. -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation
Cpt Branko The Bloody Red	Posted - 2008.02.04 18:13:00 - [192] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 04/02/2008 18:14:20 Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: Formulka so what about nerfing TDs generally and buffing the bonus for them from amarr recons? mayB something like caldari ones 5%/level -> 15% for arbi, same or 20% for curse, pilgrim and sentinel and according nerf to unbonused ones ... Yeah thats prolly what we all want. Yes, that would be an alright move and I think everyone could live with that. Originally by: Trigos Trilobi So I'm still convinced that proper way to boost TDs and painters is to fix webs. What, webs are fine, they're only 26 times more effective then max skilled TPs! Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Liang Nuren The Avalon Foundation	Posted - 2008.02.04 18:22:00 - [193] I love how you guys: - Ignore my absolute proof that a single TD will 100% shut down any AC ship - Blatantly say things like "Nobody will fit TD's anyway..." - Assume that AC boats would all fit a TC Yeah. I've already TKO'd this thread back on page two. It is unbalanced for TD's to affect falloff but TC's and TE's not to. Falloff is important for blasters, but they have ammo that can counter it. Optimal is important for lasers, but they have ammo that can counter it. Falloff is vital to autos, and they do not have an ammo that can counter it. Just because you guys feel that you're getting some sort of karmic revenge against Minmatar (who have been largely immune to the optimal range script) doesn't mean that you should now get a module which has no counter. Yet Goum calls falloff rigs the counter to TD's, and he is only partially correct. Then he says that any longer falloff on AC's would be unbalanced... and he is only partially correct. I COMPLETELY AGREE with TD's getting this boost. It's long overdue... but don't ask for uncounterable ewar. It's like adding a new kind of ECM but leaving out the ECCM for it. -Liang -- If it appears that my typing is lazy, I apologize. My hands/wrists hurt. Update: I bought a Datahand for RSI, and I now suck at typing (so I don't post as much)
DennoTheHunter Caldari Kernkraft 400	Posted - 2008.02.04 18:49:00 - [194] Edited by: DennoTheHunter on 04/02/2008 18:51:45 Originally by: Liang Nuren Yet Goum calls falloff rigs the counter to TD's, and he is only partially correct. Then he says that any longer falloff on AC's would be unbalanced... and he is only partially correct. He's also forgetting the fact that fall off is stacking penatilized. So if you really do have like 2-3 fall off rigs fitted, you basicly won't gain anything from fitting a TC. and i do meet ppl fitting fall off rigs without ppl whining about it's overpowered. Then tell me how can TC then be overpowered again Edit: just to make sure you get it, stacking penalty is the thing that prevents ppl from having uber fall off range. _____________________ If I am in a fair fight.... Something went wrong!
Kadoes Khan	Posted - 2008.02.04 18:50:00 - [195] Originally by: Liang Nuren It is unbalanced for TD's to affect falloff but TC's and TE's not to. It's unbalanced for a ship to have a falloff bonus while using TC/E's while not under the effects of a TD. This is the problem. Yes TD's are to powerful vs ships that fight in falloff, that's not an excuse to apply a band-aid fix that breaks the game just as badly. -=^=- "Someday the world will recognize the genius in my insanity."
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.04 19:02:00 - [196] Originally by: Aramendel Edited by: Aramendel on 04/02/2008 17:51:01 Originally by: Trigos Trilobi I'd say 2/3 battleships + hacs is 'pretty common', given that those ship classes are quite popular. And that is simply not the case. I showed that already in the part of my post you ignored. Yes you showed that there are a lot of minmatar ships which have equal slots to best combination. Lot of people fly tempests and phoons though, and supposedly 99% eve flies vagas. No matter how you're going to twist this, it is 'pretty common' that a minmatar pilot finds himself in a ship that has 1 tank slot less. I know I often do. In any case this particular sidetrack is of little consequence. As multiple people have already pointed out, the whole TD change is more of a boon than a bane for minmatar ships except vaga/stabber wether you have 6 lows or 7. Quote: Quote: Clearly it's not ecm or damps, but it's still leaps and bounds better than 50% chance at 135km for 37.5% more tracking. Doesn't change that they cannot reach ship with longrange weapons at their most typical ranges. And for all intents and purposes TPs are no real EW. About as much as a tracking link is "EW". Minnie recons are still pretty nice, though, because 40k webs are extremly powerful. So you want a boost to amarr EW, while minmatar ew sucks so much it's not even considered EW What'd you think if TPs would give optimal and falloff bonuses also? TPs and TDs are pretty much polar opposites in function except that TPs are perceived as even more useless since they lack the range component. Quote: Firstly, no, not "closer than 150k". Even at 125k using a TD vs a sniper is more like an desperation move than anything else. Still probably better than trying an unbonused multispec. Of course the unbonused multispec will retain it's uselessness at all ranges, while your TD gets better if you can close a bit. You consistently act like you are nailed to the spot while actually quite often ships actually move around quite a bit during an engagement. Quote: And never? No. But the amount of longrange fitted ships you find commonly at 125k+ is far FAR greater than the amount you find at less than 125k. I've seen a lot more arty/rail boats at <100km than >100km. Maybe you should acknowledge the fact that quite a big proportion of the playerbase doesn't do fleet fights? Quote: Cruiser snipers are usually together with the BS force and picking up tacklers, etc which make a run to your location, they are rarely closer. Neither are they a really important factor. See above. Even if you only play Fleet Online, it doesn't change the fact that you'll see quite a few artycanes, rail astartes etc what not when you take a spin through a few gate camps. You'll also see killmail***s sniping with high damage ammo instead of range ammo. Quote:** And, again, there is a difference between arties/rails and cruisersized arties/rails. What's this supposed to mean? I'm not allowed to say that arties are affected by TDs if my arty cane loses half its range?
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.04 19:06:00 - [197] Originally by: Liang Nuren I love how you guys: - Ignore my absolute proof that a single TD will 100% shut down any AC ship Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Kagura Nikon Minmatar Infinity Enterprises Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.02.04 19:10:00 - [198] Well I must say thta if TP woudl give a SMALL (like 10%) range/falloff bonus to anyone firing the painted ship, that woudl be neat and make TP as good as other Ewar. ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Liang Nuren The Avalon Foundation	Posted - 2008.02.04 19:13:00 - [199] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Liang Nuren I love how you guys: - Ignore my absolute proof that a single TD will 100% shut down any AC ship Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Well, chalk up another win for me. -Liang -- If it appears that my typing is lazy, I apologize. My hands/wrists hurt. Update: I bought a Datahand for RSI, and I now suck at typing (so I don't post as much)
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.04 19:50:00 - [200] No really, that is hilarious. An absolute proof that a TD shuts down all AC ships. I would love to see it. Im going to assume it wasnt in this thread, because the one in this thread was thoroughly ripped apart.

DennoTheHunter Caldari Kernkraft 400	Posted - 2008.02.04 20:00:00 - [201] Originally by: Goumindong No really, that is hilarious. An absolute proof that a TD shuts down all AC ships. I would love to see it. Im going to assume it wasnt in this thread, because the one in this thread was thoroughly ripped apart. Tell me how we get that insane range, since stacking penalty does apply. If you won't answer that, then pls tell me why fall off rigs isn't overpowered. _____________________ If I am in a fair fight.... Something went wrong!
Liang Nuren The Avalon Foundation	Posted - 2008.02.04 20:19:00 - [202] Originally by: Goumindong No really, that is hilarious. An absolute proof that a TD shuts down all AC ships. I would love to see it. Im going to assume it wasnt in this thread, because the one in this thread was thoroughly ripped apart. The only thoroughly 'ripped apart' you did for it was take a casual look at it and say "It doesn't support my agenda, so it must be wrong". The simple fact is that we can no more afford to fit TC's than you can, really... but it would be nice if there was a counter. As it stands, you simply gain an uncounterable offensive ewar against minmatar ships - and that's at least as bad as any perceived imbalance that would be caused by minnie ships with falloff TC's. Besides, it's not like you can point at the Zealot and Vagabond anymore... (BTW, I am completely stoked about the Zealot change... needs more fittings though) -Liang -- If it appears that my typing is lazy, I apologize. My hands/wrists hurt. Update: I bought a Datahand for RSI, and I now suck at typing (so I don't post as much)
Katashi Ishizuka	Posted - 2008.02.04 20:23:00 - [203] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Liang Nuren I love how you guys: - Ignore my absolute proof that a single TD will 100% shut down any AC ship Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Well, chalk up another win for me. -Liang Liang your posts are incomprehensible. TDs affect all ships equally, be they Minmatar or Amarr. That ACs were immune to tracking disruption previously was just a sign of imbalance. On top of that, all your counter examples are based on you going into blaster range and melting. Show me the Gallente blaster ship that has 5 mids for mwd, web, scram, injector, and TD.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.04 20:24:00 - [204] Originally by: DennoTheHunter Edited by: DennoTheHunter on 04/02/2008 20:08:39 Originally by: Goumindong No really, that is hilarious. An absolute proof that a TD shuts down all AC ships. I would love to see it. Im going to assume it wasnt in this thread, because the one in this thread was thoroughly ripped apart. Tell me how we get that insane range you say is so overpowered, since stacking penalty does apply. If you won't answer that, then pls tell me why fall off rigs isn't overpowered. Powergrid use. No tracking boost. Falloff rigs are still really damn good.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.04 20:27:00 - [205] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Goumindong No really, that is hilarious. An absolute proof that a TD shuts down all AC ships. I would love to see it. Im going to assume it wasnt in this thread, because the one in this thread was thoroughly ripped apart. The only thoroughly 'ripped apart' you did for it was take a casual look at it and say "It doesn't support my agenda, so it must be wrong". The simple fact is that we can no more afford to fit TC's than you can, really... but it would be nice if there was a counter. As it stands, you simply gain an uncounterable offensive ewar against minmatar ships - and that's at least as bad as any perceived imbalance that would be caused by minnie ships with falloff TC's. Besides, it's not like you can point at the Zealot and Vagabond anymore... (BTW, I am completely stoked about the Zealot change... needs more fittings though) -Liang There is a counter. Falloff rigs. Its not offensive ewar since it doesnt make you die faster. Its not uncounterable you can simply get closer. You can also TD the offending ship to keep your range advantage. But none of this matters to the folks in here, what matters is that you can pvp without risk, always being able to get away very fast.
Liang Nuren The Avalon Foundation	Posted - 2008.02.04 20:30:00 - [206] Originally by: Katashi I**uka Liang your posts are incomprehensible. Thanks, I like the insults too. :p On the flip side, it's only because you aren't bothering to read them. Quote: TDs affect all ships equally, be they Minmatar or Amarr. That ACs were immune to tracking disruption previously was just a sign of imbalance. I don't disagree with this line, but the simple fact is that one imbalance does not merit another. Also, TDs will not affect all ships equally, because Matari ships are not built for the kind of bruising that web range entails. As Goumindong says, there are other things that have to be considered besides the raw fact that AC's will be "equally affected". In the end, this would probably be fine, except for the whole webs being WTF powerful against Minmatar. Quote: On top of that, all your counter examples are based on you going into blaster range and melting. Show me the Gallente blaster ship that has 5 mids for mwd, web, scram, injector, and TD. You seem to be missing the fact that it doesn't have to be just a blaster ship - any ship that has mids can fit a single TD and completely fubar any AC ship. So let's see: Myrmidon Hyperion Drake Scorpion Rokh Raven ... The list really goes on. -Liang -- If it appears that my typing is lazy, I apologize. My hands/wrists hurt. Update: I bought a Datahand for RSI, and I now suck at typing (so I don't post as much)
Aramendel Amarr North Face Force	Posted - 2008.02.04 20:34:00 - [207] Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Yes you showed that there are a lot of minmatar ships which have equal slots to best combination. Lot of people fly tempests and phoons though, and supposedly 99% eve flies vagas. No matter how you're going to twist this, it is 'pretty common' that a minmatar pilot finds himself in a ship that has 1 tank slot less. I know I often do. I specifically went through the ships and showed where this is the case and what counterbalances this. You keep talking of so-and-so many minmatar ships without talking about definite ships. So let me make this crystal clear: LIST THE DISADVANTAGED SHIPS ONE BY ONE BY NAME OR STFU. Did that got through this time? And to repeat: Pest is pretty much the only minmatar ship which has a tanking disadvantage vs its alternative. However it has a med slot advantage. Used correctly this can & will turn its taking disadvantage into an advantage. Phoon has NOT a tanking disadvantage. Phoon 7 lows, dominix 7 lows, geddon 8 lows. The only one which stands out is the geddon which in turn has one med slot less, same points as with the pest apply. And on top of that considering that both ships have the same cap recharge (and the geddons "cap advantage" lasts 20 sec weaponfire top) the geddon would need at least one, probably 2+ CPRs to counter its weapon capuse. Sustainability is part of the tank. Then there is the scorp which is a shield/ecm tank, which is a different mechanic and not really compareable. The vaga is no armortanker, but a speedtanker with a shield based HP buffer. It uses different mechanics than armortankers with different strengths and weaknesses. If successfully webbed its tank is very low, if not it can tank 10+ times the dps other HACs can tank. Evading dps is also "tanking" it. So, please, list your minmatar ships with the "worst tank". Quote: So you want a boost to amarr EW, while minmatar ew sucks so much it's not even considered EW Since you are apparently unable to read let me repeat it to you: Minnie recons are still pretty nice, though, because 40k webs are extremly powerful. Bad bonus (TPs) + very good bonus (40k webs) = good ship The gimpage of TPs is overcompensated by the ownage of 40k webs. The only ship which suffers from TPs is the bellicose, personally I would remove its TP bonus and give it a somewhat reduced web range bonus with 20 or 25k range at max skill. Quote: Still probably better than trying an unbonused multispec. Of course the unbonused multispec will retain it's uselessness at all ranges, while your TD gets better if you can close a bit. Unbonused damps actually. Better than TDs vs snipers from 100k on. Quote: You consistently act like you are nailed to the spot while actually quite often ships actually move around quite a bit during an engagement. Yes, for a short time because they represent a happy "shoot me" sign for enemy anti-support once they move from the main force. Quote: I've seen a lot more arty/rail boats at <100km than >100km. Maybe you should acknowledge the fact that quite a big proportion of the playerbase doesn't do fleet fights? Where? NPCers? Outside of fleet fights the majority of PvP happens at 0-30k. Longrange guns are rather suboptimal for that (outside of flying in gankgangs and killmailwhoring with arties, that is). There you do not need TDs to counter them, you just need to fly close and laugh at them missing. Quote: What's this supposed to mean? I'm not allowed to say that arties are affected by TDs if my arty cane loses half its range? No, you aren't. Because "arties" implies all arties, frig, cruiser, BS sized. And under any circumstances.
Liang Nuren The Avalon Foundation	Posted - 2008.02.04 20:35:00 - [208] Originally by: Goumindong There is a counter. Falloff rigs. Its not offensive ewar since it doesnt make you die faster. It is an offensive ewar in that it affects the users ability to deal damage. ECM, TD's, and Damps are all offensive ewar systems (in that they are used 'offensively'). I can see why someone might call them "defensive" ewar, but I don't necessarily agree. Also, you seem to be forgetting that the Devs directly cited the cause of the TD nerf to be the nerfing of TC's. Thus, if the two are undeniably linked - and thus any boost or nerf to one must by necessity affect the other. Quote: Its not uncounterable you can simply get closer. You can also TD the offending ship to keep your range advantage. Ok, so, getting closer is not an option - regardless of nano ship or not. Matari ships are not made to get into web range and slug it out. Quote: But none of this matters to the folks in here, what matters is that you can pvp without risk, always being able to get away very fast. No, all that matters to the folks in here is that they get to PVP without risk by fitting an uncounterable ewar system that completely removes a whole race from the game. -Liang -- If it appears that my typing is lazy, I apologize. My hands/wrists hurt. Update: I bought a Datahand for RSI, and I now suck at typing (so I don't post as much)
Julius Romanus Amarr Blood Corsair's Blood Blind	Posted - 2008.02.04 20:36:00 - [209] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Katashi I**uka Liang your posts are incomprehensible. Thanks, I like the insults too. :p On the flip side, it's only because you aren't bothering to read them. Quote: TDs affect all ships equally, be they Minmatar or Amarr. That ACs were immune to tracking disruption previously was just a sign of imbalance. I don't disagree with this line, but the simple fact is that one imbalance does not merit another. Also, TDs will not affect all ships equally, because Matari ships are not built for the kind of bruising that web range entails. The rupture, sleip, rifter, cane, and mael are =P
DennoTheHunter Caldari Kernkraft 400	Posted - 2008.02.04 20:48:00 - [210] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: DennoTheHunter Edited by: DennoTheHunter on 04/02/2008 20:08:39 Originally by: Goumindong No really, that is hilarious. An absolute proof that a TD shuts down all AC ships. I would love to see it. Im going to assume it wasnt in this thread, because the one in this thread was thoroughly ripped apart. Tell me how we get that insane range you say is so overpowered, since stacking penalty does apply. If you won't answer that, then pls tell me why fall off rigs isn't overpowered. Powergrid use. No tracking boost. Falloff rigs are still really damn good. TC's gives about the same boost. So you won't get any more boost of a range than you would with fall off rigs. Furthermore it takes away a precoius med-slot and requires some cap to run, not much but it's takes cap. Enlighten me... i can't see why TC boosting falloff is overpowered. The total amount of range will in the end be about the same as using rigs, if you use the same amount of TC's as rigs. Stacking penalty applies, so you can't just fit 3x fall off rigs and 3x TC and laugh at you enemies with ac's shooting at 200+ k's _____________________ If I am in a fair fight.... Something went wrong!

SlaveToEve	Posted - 2008.02.04 21:07:00 - [211] Edited by: SlaveToEve on 04/02/2008 21:07:51 Well 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..
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.02.04 21:32:00 - [212] Originally by: SlaveToEve Hopefully 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. -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.04 21:39:00 - [213] Originally by: Aramendel Edited by: Aramendel on 04/02/2008 20:40:41 Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Yes you showed that there are a lot of minmatar ships which have equal slots to best combination. Lot of people fly tempests and phoons though, and supposedly 99% eve flies vagas. No matter how you're going to twist this, it is 'pretty common' that a minmatar pilot finds himself in a ship that has 1 tank slot less. I know I often do. LIST THE DISADVANTAGED SHIPS ONE BY ONE BY NAME OR STFU. Did that got through this time? Which part of "Lot of people fly tempests and phoons though, and supposedly 99% eve flies vagas." did you have trouble understanding? Or do you not agree that those three ships are not amongst the most common used minmatar ships? If you do agree that those are commonly used ships, which part of "it is 'pretty common' that a minmatar pilot finds himself in a ship that has 1 tank slot less." do you again have trouble understanding? It's really that simple, you just read way too much into a very simple statement, and come out with this jibberjabber about speed tanking and tank advantages and whatnot. Nowhere have I stated that this slot layout on these ships would make minmatar somehow subpar as a whole, in fact I have not commented on its possible effects at all because it was irrelevant. I only saw someone stating that minmatar have just as good tank as everybody else, and pointed out that some common ships have 1 slot less.
Cpt Branko The Bloody Red	Posted - 2008.02.04 21:55:00 - [214] Originally by: Julius Romanus Originally by: Liang Nuren I don't disagree with this line, but the simple fact is that one imbalance does not merit another. Also, TDs will not affect all ships equally, because Matari ships are not built for the kind of bruising that web range entails. The rupture, sleip, rifter, cane, and mael are =P Let'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. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Aramendel Amarr North Face Force	Posted - 2008.02.04 21:56:00 - [215] Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Which 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 just read way too much into a very simple statement You are stating the most minmatar ships have tanking disadvantages. This is not true I explained why. You ignored these explanations repentantly. If you want to wear blinkers and repeat incorrect statements in the vain hope that maybe they get true the 10th time, feel free. I for my part will handle them for what they are: hot air.
Aramendel Amarr North Face Force	Posted - 2008.02.04 22:15:00 - [216] Originally by: Cpt Branko 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. 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. 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. Quote: Hurricane = no, unless plated like mad, a bad way to fly the Hurricane. Same thing. Out of webrange vs myr, within webrange vs drake and harb. 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. Quote: Tempest= no. Aaand again. Vs mega better chances outside webrange, vs geddon, raven better in webrange. Quote: Sleipnir = nope, not really. Yes, really. Unless its an astarte. ---------- In the end it is pretty simple. ACs can outrange / range"tank" blasters. So vs those it is a good idea to stay outside webrange. Vs EVERYTHING ELSE however they cannot rangetank it. Pulses do the same damage to you at 5k and at 15k (ignoring tracking). HAMs / Torps hit just fine till 20k. As do drones. So WHY ON EARTH stay outside webrange vs these targets? - it DOES NOT improve your tank - it DOES reduce your own dps The ONLY reason for this which I can see is that you do not want to take the risk of possibly being unable to flee if things go south (lucky wreckings, reinforcements, faction tank, ...). But that has nothing to do whatsoever with the performance of minnie ships, but everything with the unwillingness to take any risk whatsoever. The only minnie ships which should stay out of webrange generally are speedtank specialized ones (aka vagas), those which have efficiently only a sniper role (muninn) and their EW ships (but that is case for every races ew ships).
Angelic Eviaran	Posted - 2008.02.04 22:21:00 - [217] Originally by: Cpt Branko Let'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. This turned out to be more or less a failed list eh?
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.04 22:23:00 - [218] 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 ship The gimpage of TPs is overcompensated by the ownage of 40k webs. I 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? This is borderline comical too, you bring this web issue up repeatedly to make a point that TPs don't need to get buffed like TDs do, while the only real point i've consistently tried to make in this thread is that TDs don't need to be buffed this way because they aren't broken, it's webbing that is broken and needs fixing. So 10 points for nitpicking at details, 0 for comprehending big picture. 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. I only stated that TDs CAN be used and can be effective against other weapontypes than lasers. I am not even arguing that they are useful very often. I'm just saying that it is false to imply that they are never useful. 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". 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.
Twilight Mourning	Posted - 2008.02.04 22:26:00 - [219] 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[/quote So 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.
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.04 22:40:00 - [220] Originally by: Aramendel Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Which 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? Yes 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. I even agreed on most of it. 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: You are stating the most minmatar ships have tanking disadvantages. 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.

Liang Nuren The Avalon Foundation	Posted - 2008.02.04 23:37:00 - [221] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 04/02/2008 23:38:06 Originally by: Twilight Mourning So 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. Let's start with the fact that both of those are coming from recon ships - whereas in this situation even a single unbonused TD can 100% counter the entire falloff based ship - and the falloff ship cannot counter this effect. 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). -Liang Ed: Pedantic spelling correction -- If it appears that my typing is lazy, I apologize. My hands/wrists hurt. Update: I bought a Datahand for RSI, and I now suck at typing (so I don't post as much)
Cpt Branko The Bloody Red	Posted - 2008.02.05 00:14:00 - [222] Originally by: Aramendel Originally by: Cpt Branko 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. 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. True, partially. But you really very often want to fly it out of webrange regardless. If you must go within webrange, a Thorax is typically the ship you are looking for, definitely not the Rupture. 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. Versus a Brutix/Myrmidon or in any gang situation you really want to fly out of webrange. Versus a Prophecy/Harbringer you really want to fly out of distruptor range and click 'warp to' if you're solo most of the time. Drakes you can't break anyway and they don't care about optimal, and versus a blaster ferox (after it gets its direly needed new gun) you may still want to stick outside of webrange (if you can break it from there). Originally by: Aramendel Quote: Hurricane = no, unless plated like mad, a bad way to fly the Hurricane. Versus a Brutix/Myrmidon, out of webrange, versus a Harbringer/Prophecy inside (since you may be able to beat them up close), versus a Drake/Ferox up close (but you probably won't break a drake). Gang situation - out of webrange. Under concentrated fire you melt redicilously easy. Of course, in case of a 'nano' Hurricane, all out of webrange. 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. Mostly true. Fitting the phoon with a lighter tank and actual guns means you will stick out of webrange, fitting the phoon for tank means you'll stick in. All Tier 1 BS are kindof problematic fitting wise, but Dominixes have the awesome property of being drone-carriers to alleviate this ;) Originally by: Aramendel Quote: Tempest= no. Aaand again. Vs mega better chances outside webrange, vs geddon, raven better in webrange. Versus Mega/Hyperion, outside of webrange. Gang situation? Outside of webrange. Versus Geddon/Raven/etc? Up close and pray, or try to disengage. Originally by: Aramendel Quote: Sleipnir = nope, not really. Yes, really. Unless its an astarte. Yeah, which is the reason Sleipnirs are very often flown with shield extended tanks and speed+damage mods Any gang situation with a Sleipnir going up close will end up quite badly really. They have a OK burst tank, I'll give you that much. As 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? Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Kazuo Ishiguro House of Marbles Zzz	Posted - 2008.02.05 00:14:00 - [223] I thought that this might be a good place to point out that I've updated NB's spreadsheet with scripts, including the falloff effect: http://go-dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/KzIg/beta28bTrinity.zip There are lots of other fixes as well- see the main thread for more details. My research services Spreadsheets: Top speed calculation - Halo Implant stats
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.05 00:17:00 - [224] Originally by: DennoTheHunter TC's gives about the same boost. So you won't get any more boost of a range than you would with fall off rigs. Furthermore it takes away a precoius med-slot and requires some cap to run, not much but it's takes cap. Enlighten me... i can't see why TC boosting falloff is overpowered. The total amount of range will in the end be about the same as using rigs, if you use the same amount of TC's as rigs. Stacking penalty applies, so you can't just fit 3x fall off rigs and 3x TC and laugh at you enemies with ac's shooting at 200+ k's It 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.
The Economist	Posted - 2008.02.05 00:28:00 - [225] Reserving 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.
SlaveToEve	Posted - 2008.02.05 00:42:00 - [226] Originally by: Liang Nuren Edited 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). Quite agree a pilgrim/arbi/curses etc. bonused tracking disruptors should be able to counter turret ships of all kinds, at the moment this isn't so hence there is a need for some kind of fix. However unbonused tracking disruptors should be at least counterable, as someone said a tracking like ECCM type module is one solution. It just needs to be looked at carefully, as a module which just increases falloff would also lead to an inbalance, which is not the aim of the change.
Vanessa Vale	Posted - 2008.02.05 00:46:00 - [227] Originally by: The Economist 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. If anything, it'd undo the nerf heated webs brought to minmatar ships. At the cost of a mid but at least it is something.....
Magazaki	Posted - 2008.02.05 00:47:00 - [228] Originally by: The Economist Reserving 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. Actually, 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. But actually, the matter is simpler in my mind. 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. 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. 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. 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. -----sig----- Originally by: Kaemonn:Signature Originally by: kieron: off duty You dont have to swallow! Win...
Vanessa Vale	Posted - 2008.02.05 00:53:00 - [229] Originally by: Magazaki but they will stealth-boost a weapon that is at the moment balanced, the artillery when sniping. Yes, I hear its very popular due to its unique characteristics of suckitude.
Aramendel Amarr North Face Force	Posted - 2008.02.05 01:01:00 - [230] Originally by: Trigos Trilobi I 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? Exept 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: So 10 points for nitpicking at details, 0 for comprehending big picture. I give that back to you. Quote: I only stated that TDs CAN be used and can be effective against other weapontypes than lasers. You stated that as general statement. Which, as said, is wrong. There is a HUGE difference between something which can be used under certain circumstances and something which can be used generally. In example, an honortanked pest with lvl 1 skills can kill a max skill blasterthron - if the blasterthron is out of ammo. Almost everything can be possible if the right conditions are met. So don't try to wiggle yourself out of that. What is important how realistic or common the circumstances are. And with rails arties the most common place where you meet those are 150k+. Where TDs are useless. 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. Yes and no. It would be technically false, but pointing that out would be nitpicking. Let me explain. 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. 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. So in general if an apsect can be devided into a maior and minor part talking about the maior part usually does not need a clarification, because people assume you were talking about that anyway. Talking about the minor part however usually does for the same reason.

goodby4u Logistic Technologies Incorporated	Posted - 2008.02.05 01:12:00 - [231] FOTM 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. This is what happens when a kestrel with thermal missiles declares war on earth
Dianeces Minmatar Repo Industries	Posted - 2008.02.05 01:14:00 - [232] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: SlaveToEve Hopefully 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. Of course you would. ITT: Bitter Amarr whiner displays a textbook case of Schadenfreude.
Liang Nuren The Avalon Foundation	Posted - 2008.02.05 01:16:00 - [233] Originally by: Magazaki Actually, 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. Ok. Amarrian counters to tracking disruptors: Rigs, TC's, TE's, ammo. Caldari counters to tracking disruptors: Rigs, TC's, TE's, ammo. Gallente counters to tracking disruptors: Rigs, TC's, TE's, ammo. Minmatar counters to tracking disruptors: Rigs, ammo. See the difference? There was an earlier post that said that this is opening a large can of worms, and it's true. However, it's a good can of worms to open. Matari ships should be subject to turret disruption as well. However, they should have the same counters that everyone else has. 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. Simply because something was "immune" to TD's before does not make it ok to break the game in the other direction. 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. I agree that we're not likely to see people fitting TC's on AC boats, but that doesn't mean that there should not be a counter to TD's there. Especially when CCP has gone on the record as specifically stating that TC's and TE's are direct counters for one another. 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. Because then you can point at me and laugh when I come whining how a Myrmidon pwnt me with a single unbonused TD and say, "fit a counter, noob. Ever heard of a TC?" 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. To be honest, Artillery is solidly in last place with the upcoming optimal change to the apoc. -Liang -- If it appears that my typing is lazy, I apologize. My hands/wrists hurt. Update: I bought a Datahand for RSI, and I now suck at typing (so I don't post as much)
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.05 01:18:00 - [234] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: DennoTheHunter TC's gives about the same boost. So you won't get any more boost of a range than you would with fall off rigs. Furthermore it takes away a precoius med-slot and requires some cap to run, not much but it's takes cap. Enlighten me... i can't see why TC boosting falloff is overpowered. The total amount of range will in the end be about the same as using rigs, if you use the same amount of TC's as rigs. Stacking penalty applies, so you can't just fit 3x fall off rigs and 3x TC and laugh at you enemies with ac's shooting at 200+ k's It 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. For 220m acs and EMP ammo and a ship without falloff bonus, the breakpoint after which 1 TE with 15% falloff mod + 2 gyros is better than 3 gyros is at around 9km. With barrage ammo it is at 13-14km. For a vagabond & barrage you'd be talking close to scramble range to make even and past that to benefit. Now, according to your own words, ac ship is always better at close ranges except against blaster boats so it seems by fitting falloff mod instead of 3rd gyro you actually lose damage against anything except blaster ships, and since you'll most likely be at the outskirts of webrange, you lose dps against blasterships too if you have barrage at hand. You do gain some tracking though, but since we're talking webrange, tracking is largely irrelevant except maybe against smaller ships. On arty fit you'll be stacking on range mods anyway, so I guess the falloff is sort of a freebie there. Your dps is going to suck slightly less if you have to engage beyond your optimal. I'm no expert on fleet battles so I don't know if that happens often. Gut instinct would say that if you have to use arties at falloff you should've brought another sniper ship instead and having some extra falloff is not going to change that. If you're talking damage at extreme ranges, yes the 50% increase for nonbonused ship using EMP at 20km sounds big. In reality doing 15% of your max dps instead of 10% isn't going to mean worlds in any scenario, especially since you'd do triple that with barrage. The difference between 2gyro+15falloff TE and 3gyro fit at 20km is much less pronounced, something like 25% more damage (45% of max dps vs 55%). So, from this quick glance it seems the TE with falloff mod instead of 3rd gyro would actually be rather unimpressive instead of overpowered at medium ac ranges. In fact I'd be hard pressed to find a reason to fit one except for using a TE instead of a rig for certain vaga fits.
Aramendel Amarr North Face Force	Posted - 2008.02.05 01:19:00 - [235] Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Yes 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. The very point is that the phoon is NOT worse than the geddon. As said: Sustainability is part of the tank. The geddon has 1 more slot, but also suffers at least the equivalent of 1 CPR, very likely more from its weapon capdrain. So its actual tank - unless it is using projectiles instead lasers - is the same or worse. A tank is not the number of tanking slots alone. And the vaga is a speedtank and can not really be compared to normal tanks. And compared to other speedtanks the vaga has no "disadvantage", it is the best cruiser to speedtank actually. 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. The problem is that with the exeption of the tempest ALL armortanking minnie ships have the same number of low slots as gallente ships of the same tier. The slot disadvantage is only present vs a few amarr ships. And vs those it is countered by the higher capuse of them. So, basically, several (not most) armortanking minmatar ships have a 1 slot disadvantage vs amarr ships. And in turn a tank sustainability advantage. Resulting in no effective tanking disadvantage of them. 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. Firstly, its not "other races", its only amarr. Which as explained results in no effective disadvantage due to their tank sustainability advantage. With the exeption of the pest all armortanking minmatar ships have and identical amount of low slots compared to their gallente equivalent. The same with minnie shieldtankers and caldari shieldtankers. Identical number of med slots. And, again, the HACs do not lack a slot. The vaga is a speedtanker and no armortanker and is because of this not compareable, the muninn has with 5 the same amount of slots as the (new) deimos and sac.
goodby4u Logistic Technologies Incorporated	Posted - 2008.02.05 01:23:00 - [236] Edited by: goodby4u on 05/02/2008 01:23:23 Originally by: Liang Nuren To be honest, Artillery is solidly in last place with the upcoming optimal change to the apoc. -Liang I 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. This is what happens when a kestrel with thermal missiles declares war on earth
Liang Nuren The Avalon Foundation	Posted - 2008.02.05 01:29:00 - [237] Originally by: goodby4u I 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 -- If it appears that my typing is lazy, I apologize. My hands/wrists hurt. Update: I bought a Datahand for RSI, and I now suck at typing (so I don't post as much)
goodby4u Logistic Technologies Incorporated	Posted - 2008.02.05 01:35:00 - [238] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: goodby4u I 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 1)im confused...You werent talking to me...? 2)a sniper tempest with longrange ammo will outrange the TD because TDs have an optimal of 48km and a 24km falloff,if the fight is that close then the range of a snipers ship is a non issue...Tracking?Maybe but thats a whole different discussion,and the sniper tempests(or maelstroms)can get a range of over 170km with a typical sniper fit,most fleet battles never get further then that. This is what happens when a kestrel with thermal missiles declares war on earth
Aramendel Amarr North Face Force	Posted - 2008.02.05 01:35:00 - [239] Originally by: Cpt Branko As 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? About the ship list, correct me if I got it wrong: you generally aggree with me (or at least our disagreements are all only minor), but state that in a gang flying into webrange is no good idea, right? Because they cannot escape when fucus fired. Well, 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. A ship does not only get focus fired when it is webbed. And NO ship can survive focus fire unless it flees. If you try to avoid webrange in a gang it is not because ACs are designed that way, etc, but because you prefer having a smaller chance to die to being more effective with your ship. An hybrid ship could with the same argument use rails instead blasters so they do not have to get into web range and have better chances to flee when in need.
Liang Nuren The Avalon Foundation	Posted - 2008.02.05 01:45:00 - [240] Originally by: goodby4u 1)im confused...You werent talking to me...? Just go re-read my post. The name of the person I was responding to is there - and it is not "goodby4u". ;-) I'm not sure what point you're trying to make about the artillery setups and falloff? No sniper setup will be affected by TD's because they vastly outrange them. Artillery are not special in this. My point relating to the artillery + TC's was that artillery snipers are quite firmly in last place with the apoc change. Adding falloff to TC's would not change that in the slightest. Now, regarding you complaint about the vagabond: falloff bonused AC's are not a valid reason to give anyone an uncounterable Ewar. TC's and TE's are counters to TD's, and should be adjusted to be counters for all races. -Liang -- If it appears that my typing is lazy, I apologize. My hands/wrists hurt. Update: I bought a Datahand for RSI, and I now suck at typing (so I don't post as much)

Cpt Branko The Bloody Red Souls	Posted - 2008.02.05 01:47:00 - [241] Originally by: Aramendel Well, 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. Thing 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. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.05 01:55:00 - [242] Originally by: Aramendel Exept 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. Again, that is poor argumentation. 2 ships in game have web range bonuses AND painter bonuses -> it is fair that painters suck. That is what I tried to point out when I asked wether you think sucky TDs are ok since nos/neut on curse rocks. But you go on rant about how webs are universally better than nos/neuts, totally oblivious to the point. Balancing either TPs or TDs based on how good the other ew each racial recon gets is absurd. Get it now? 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. It was more like someone said that cancer only plagues amarr and I said that minmatar and gallente can catch it too. 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. No-one said they found an easy way to counter snipers. I said that TDs work against arty/rail boats. Which they do. This whole obsession with snipers is your own folly. You cannot argue that a TD does not reduce the range from an arty/rail boat. Ergo, they are affected. We can argue to the world's end wether it's applicable in practice, how often and in what position, but that's irrelevant.
goodby4u Logistic Technologies Incorporated	Posted - 2008.02.05 02:02:00 - [243] I see...I saw the "NOT" and thought it was mine This is what happens when a kestrel with thermal missiles declares war on earth
Reto The Last Resort	Posted - 2008.02.05 02:08:00 - [244] 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. -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. -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. 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. my advice: try them out properly before u try to convince ppl of your opinion. it will give u a better base to argument from and will lead to less speculation and rabble. Originally by: s4mp3r0r "Hey man, you're mom has a cruise missile".
Ariel Dawn Beets and Gravy Syndicate	Posted - 2008.02.05 04:09:00 - [245] Originally by: SlaveToEve Edited by: SlaveToEve on 04/02/2008 21:07:51 Well 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.. Yea, and if only it had some sort of cloaking module that let it chose what ships it was going to engage... wait. Falloff on TDs is fine though. Falloff rigs are not a sufficient counter, use up valuable rig slots (which are critical on most matar ships for polys/energy emission rig/anti-kinetic/etc). Fitting the lower/lowest guns even for these rigs takes out a decent chunk of your already comparatively low DPS. Oh, and also for discussions earlier in this thread (all using T1 high-damage ammo with no damage mods): Neutron Blaster Cannon II (Single Damage Bonus)= 70 DPS Mega Pulse Laser II (Single Damage Bonus)= 64 DPS 800mm Repeating Artillery (Damage/RoF Bonus)= 66 DPS Dual-damaged autocannons do pretty much the same DPS as other weapons, but the others also have a second bonus (such as tracking, armor resist or repair amount, etc) and have fewer turrets (asides from the Maelstrom) as well, so the damage difference is fairly significant. Boost the Tempest!
Lydia Brightlance Gallente Blue Sky Inc	Posted - 2008.02.05 08:16:00 - [246] Edited by: Lydia Brightlance on 05/02/2008 08:17:29 First off, I am fine with giving TC/TE a falloff bonus, as long as TDs are upgraded in effectiveness accordingly. Now, as for TDs themselves: ECM: Effectives against all types of ships at long range and affect all offensive ship functions. Dampening: Effectives against all types of ships at (semi) long range and affect all offensive ship functions. Tracking Disruptors: Effective against only certain types of ships at medium-(semi)long range and affects turrets only. Well, seems they have the smallest range, affect the smallest amount of ships and when they do find a ship to be used on they only affect DPS, not other EW/team boost modules. So when they do get to be used they better be more effective then their counterparts. To complete the list. 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.
DennoTheHunter Caldari Kernkraft 400	Posted - 2008.02.05 08:40:00 - [247] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: DennoTheHunter TC's gives about the same boost. So you won't get any more boost of a range than you would with fall off rigs. Furthermore it takes away a precoius med-slot and requires some cap to run, not much but it's takes cap. Enlighten me... i can't see why TC boosting falloff is overpowered. The total amount of range will in the end be about the same as using rigs, if you use the same amount of TC's as rigs. Stacking penalty applies, so you can't just fit 3x fall off rigs and 3x TC and laugh at you enemies with ac's shooting at 200+ k's It 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. Ok 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 off That's far from an overpowered range. _____________________ If I am in a fair fight.... Something went wrong!
Lilith Velkor Minmatar Oyster Colors	Posted - 2008.02.05 09:36:00 - [248] Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 05/02/2008 09:38:33 Originally by: Lydia Brightlance First off, I am fine with giving TC/TE a falloff bonus, as long as TDs are upgraded in effectiveness accordingly. Why should they be upgraded even more? If they reduce falloff by 36% (unbonused T1 TD) while TCs would boost falloff by only 10% (T1 unbonused, assuming falloff boost = range boost), I can't see why it should need more effectiveness. Leaving TCs without a falloff bonus would be horribly imbalanced, since TDs effectively would be an iWin button against most AC boats (yes I fly them, almost exclusively and you really really need that long falloff in most fights, not just on the Vaga, but also AC-Bellicose, AC-Ruppy, AC-Hurricane and AC-Cyclone just to name a few). Remember fighting in falloff is way different from fighting in optimal. Besides its not like everyone will fit TCs on their AC boat, those mids are precious, just having no possibility to counter at all is wrong. Having said that, unlike the other EW types, you can't counter 2-3 TDs with a single TC, you need 3 TCs to even counter a single TD, while you can in fact counter 3 SDs with a single SB, 2-3 ECMs with a single ECCM (granted, its chance based and depends on base sensor strength, so its not the case in every scenario). If anything, they need to be drastically reduced in effectiveness and the Amarr EW / recon ship boni have to be adjusted to get them to the current level of efficiency, or we'll see them on literally any unbonused ship. The point is not that Amarr should not get a powerful EW, imho they should be the only race that can effectively use their racial ewar. 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. Just since you mentioned it, best thing imho would be to leave unbonused TPs for PvE and those fleet battles where missiles actually can reach the target before it pops, and give Minmatar a missile disruption system as racial EW. That way they could play out their speed advantage better without the need to nano every single ship that can be nanoed.
Kagura Nikon Minmatar Infinity Enterprises Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.02.05 09:40:00 - [249] Originally by: goodby4u Edited by: goodby4u on 05/02/2008 01:23:23 Originally by: Liang Nuren To be honest, Artillery is solidly in last place with the upcoming optimal change to the apoc. -Liang I 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. wowowow who is atalkign about 50% falloff bonus? TC give 15% more range.. so that is what people want as bonus to falloff on a falloff script. Simple, ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Twilight Mourning	Posted - 2008.02.05 09:40:00 - [250] Edited by: Twilight Mourning on 05/02/2008 09:42:22 Edited by: Twilight Mourning on 05/02/2008 09:41:38 Edited by: Twilight Mourning on 05/02/2008 09:41:09 Originally by: DennoTheHunter Ok 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 off That'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 = 50.6 Total = 124.2 Optimal 50.6 Falloff Total 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. lol Edit: bad spelling, maybe i should go to bed Edit: sigh more bad spelling

Cpt Branko The Bloody Red Souls	Posted - 2008.02.05 10:08:00 - [251] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 05/02/2008 10:10:25 Originally by: Twilight Mourning Pardon if my math is bad, but you will get the point. 108 optimal 44 falloff. 108 * 1.15 = 124.2 44 * 1.15 = 50.6 Total = 124.2 Optimal 50.6 Falloff Total Range 174.8 from one mod? So, if we will admit your argument that optimal+falloff is your range (well, it is, but you do 50% DPS roughly), it goes from 152KM to 174.8KM. Which is a 15% increase. Strangely enough, TCs give a 15% increase to lasers and rails as well. Now, it cannot be that giving 15% more range to artilleries is imbalanced and giving 15% more range to rails (which happens now, since they're almost all optimal) and lasers (see above) is not imbalanced Scripts for either range or falloff make it imbalanced because weapons where both optimal range and falloff are a significant part of the range (arties) get much less then weapons where you get vastly more optimal range then falloff (lasers, rails). Now, the sense in this was, previously, that falloff range cannot be messed with etc, so , you could live with that in a way. Well, considering that justification is out of the window, what justification do you, in fact, have? Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Liang Nuren The Avalon Foundation	Posted - 2008.02.05 10:09:00 - [252] Originally by: Twilight Mourning Pardon if my math is bad, but you will get the point. 108 optimal 44 falloff. 108 * 1.15 = 124.2 44 * 1.15 = 50.6 Total = 124.2 Optimal 50.6 Falloff Total 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 -- If it appears that my typing is lazy, I apologize. My hands/wrists hurt. Update: I bought a Datahand for RSI, and I now suck at typing (so I don't post as much)
Cpt Branko The Bloody Red Souls	Posted - 2008.02.05 10:12:00 - [253] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Twilight Mourning Pardon if my math is bad, but you will get the point. 108 optimal 44 falloff. 108 * 1.15 = 124.2 44 * 1.15 = 50.6 Total = 124.2 Optimal 50.6 Falloff Total 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 Not only that, but weapon systems which are optimal range based get almost the full 15% now and it's imbalanced that artilleries get anywhere close to that, according to his logic? ;) Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Kykio Caldari The All-Seeing Eye	Posted - 2008.02.05 10:48:00 - [254] Originally by: Liang Nuren Originally by: Twilight Mourning Pardon if my math is bad, but you will get the point. 108 optimal 44 falloff. 108 * 1.15 = 124.2 44 * 1.15 = 50.6 Total = 124.2 Optimal 50.6 Falloff Total 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 Do 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.
Liang Nuren The Avalon Foundation	Posted - 2008.02.05 10:55:00 - [255] Originally by: Kykio Do 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. The alpha isn't so huge when you're in falloff. ;-) -Liang -- If it appears that my typing is lazy, I apologize. My hands/wrists hurt. Update: I bought a Datahand for RSI, and I now suck at typing (so I don't post as much)
DennoTheHunter Caldari Kernkraft 400	Posted - 2008.02.05 11:04:00 - [256] Edited by: DennoTheHunter on 05/02/2008 11:05:18 Originally by: Twilight Mourning Edited by: Twilight Mourning on 05/02/2008 09:42:22 Edited by: Twilight Mourning on 05/02/2008 09:41:38 Edited by: Twilight Mourning on 05/02/2008 09:41:09 Originally by: DennoTheHunter Ok 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 off That'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 = 50.6 Total = 124.2 Optimal 50.6 Falloff Total 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. lol Edit: bad spelling, maybe i should go to bed Edit: sigh more bad spelling I've just done some math on the other top tier snipe guns from the other races, and they get about the same optimal+Fall off range as the 1400mm artie with only one TC boosting fall off too. So in that perspective arties won't get an overpowered range. And as others have already said, optimal + fall off = 50% hit chance, which means you only do 50% of raw dps. That also means you only do 50% of your raw alpha. _____________________ If I am in a fair fight.... Something went wrong!
Aramendel Amarr North Face Force	Posted - 2008.02.05 17:39:00 - [257] Originally by: Cpt Branko Thing 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. In a gang the tackle ability for a BS is rather redundant. IT would be like having frigates as main damage dealer there. So sacrificing it isn'T really an issue there. From the slotdistribution pure blasterboats have no real advantage vs minmatar. Theres the hyp vs the pest, both pure gunboats with 5 slots. The other 5 slot gallente ships are all blaster/drone hybrids and of those only the myr can fit a good tank and hightier guns at the same time.
Aramendel Amarr North Face Force	Posted - 2008.02.05 17:53:00 - [258] Edited by: Aramendel on 05/02/2008 17:55:09 Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Again, 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. Quote: I said that TDs work against arty/rail boats. Which they do. This whole obsession with snipers is your own folly. Same thing as above, you are not really arguing here now anymore but just trolling. 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+. There is a difference between "can work" - a unbonused multispec "can work" against a carrier - and "does work against them relyably".
Aramendel Amarr North Face Force	Posted - 2008.02.05 18:01:00 - [259] 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. Ceptor 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.05 18:54:00 - [260] Originally by: Aramendel Edited by: Aramendel on 05/02/2008 17:55:09 Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Again, 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. You do realize painters and webs compete for same slots on a Huginn? 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? 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. Now, at current state there is practically no reason to fit a painter ever since a web for most purposes has the same effect as a painter, except the effect is doubly stronger and comes with additional benefits. This is actually different from the curse with nos/neuts + TDs, since the slots for those don't conflict. Basically this means that while the usefulness of TDs and nos/neuts is both important for a curse, the usefulness of TPs becomes important to a huginn only after painters become more effective than webs for increasing tracking or after some other painter bonuses are added to the game. At that point the huginn pilot will then have to consider if the additional mobility related benefits for webs are worth more or less than the additional tracking related or some newly added benefits that painters convey and decide how to split his slots. As things are now, and even if painters would double in effect, there would still be little to no reason for a typical huginn to fit one instead of a web. 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. This is even more ridiculous when the said overpowered ew uses the same slot and performs the same function considerably better. This is really not rocket science. Also I'm too lazy to backtrack and check but I'm pretty sure I didn't touch the matter of wether a ship or another is broken due to TPs. I think I might have claimed that TPs as a module are broken. In past I've also been known to claim that webs are the reason TPs AND TDs are weak. The huginn you keep bringing up is a perfect example of how and why. 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. Actually, and just for laughs, it is possible to argue that huginn indeed is broken due to painters already, since it essentially has a bonus for two mods that do pretty much the same thing while the other mod is almost completely made obsolete by the second, ie a wasted bonus.

Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.05 18:59:00 - [261] Edited by: Trigos Trilobi on 05/02/2008 19:01:01 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+. As long as I keep seeing rail astartes, artycanes etc at gate/small gang distances, I sleep my nights soundly knowing that I have empirical evidence that proves your analogy is inaccurate. Lets drop this matter though since I obviously can't convince you that such things exist (and you can't convince me they don't ) and this whole tangent has gone so far from the OP that it's probably a burden for anybody else to read.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.05 19:28:00 - [262] If 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.
Gort Storm Guard Elite	Posted - 2008.02.05 19:32:00 - [263] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer There is also no module to counter 40km webs and TPs wich is minmatar racial ew. You gonna give us something to counter that? There is nothing wrong with this change. TDs will shut down turret ships just like ecm shuts down ships and where eccm is completely useless. 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 -- When in doubt, empty the magazine.
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.05 19:33:00 - [264] Originally by: Aramendel However minmatar recons are not broken (or even weak) because their TP bonus since they have that web bonus to balance them out. The bonus for painters is not balanced due to strong web bonus. It's made obsolete. 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. So you agree that painters even on bonused ships are weak, you justify the poor painter performance because one ship which has a painter bonus has also a powerful web bonus (which ironically for the most part obsoletes the said painter bonus) and your solution is to replace the painter bonuses with more web bonuses. In exactly what way is this solution preferrable to fixing painters instead?
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.05 20:01:00 - [265] Originally by: Goumindong If 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. I'm still curious, as I see it you oppose the falloff mod on TC/TEs due to them overpowering acs (altough funnily enough you earlier said that the rigs are better than the mods would be which seems a bit contradictory), but you didn't specify the ranges where this would be an issue. I posted some numbers earlier comparing 220mm acs with 3gyro vs 2gyro +1te with 15% falloff mod which seemed to point out that for webranges 3 gyros is always better as long as you have barrage available and with barrage the 2gyro+te fit breaks even at 13-14km (for a ship without falloff bonus). Now given that you earlier argued that only ships that an ac boat doesn't want to meet at optimal are blaster boats, and even against blaster boats the best range is at the outskirts of web range, I have hard time coming up with any scenario where the te would actually be beneficial, not to mention overpowering, in any reasonable ac boat fit since as I see it the only imaginable benefit at those ranges would be the tracking bonus, which is largely made insignificant due to mutual webbing. Only useful thing I've come up with so far has been replacing the nano in a 2gyro vaga fit with a TE and the ambit rig with a polycarb. The point being that with extra 40m you then buy bit more speed and tracking. And even that is bit flaky, for common ranges the TE instead of 3rd gyro would barely break even, although I guess the tracking could be useful at times. So, care to elaborate at which ranges do you think acs then become overpowered in your opinion and why?
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.02.05 20:03:00 - [266] Originally by: Gort Originally by: Lyria Skydancer There is also no module to counter 40km webs and TPs wich is minmatar racial ew. You gonna give us something to counter that? There is nothing wrong with this change. TDs will shut down turret ships just like ecm shuts down ships and where eccm is completely useless. 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 You dont think a curse is paper thin and with less speed tank then a huggin? A curse just melts away as soon as it takes fire from pretty much anything, this isnt the good old days where you can slap a several hundred dps shield tank on it and fuel it with nos. TDs are fine with the change. They become efficient against all turrets. -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation
Gibbal Slogspit Amarr	Posted - 2008.02.05 20:24:00 - [267] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: SlaveToEve Hopefully 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....
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.02.05 20:25:00 - [268] Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Originally by: Lyria Skydancer TDs 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 :) People 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. 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. Its fine if they customize TDs for the amarr ew boats. And yeah it should totally mess up minmatar turrets too. -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.02.05 20:27:00 - [269] Originally by: Gibbal Slogspit Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: SlaveToEve Hopefully 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.... You 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. -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.05 20:48:00 - [270] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer People 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. Yep, that's exactly why I'd trade both optimal and future falloff penalties for a missile explosion radius penalty. There is already the tracking penalty to exploit against turret ships, so optimal penalty and the future falloff penalty will not actually increase your maximum applicable targets, it just makes to mod easier to utilize against the same set of targets. The missile explosion radius penalty however adds a whole new line of ships as valid targets making the mod universally more useful. 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. I'd also vouch for a considerable bonus both to -tracking and -explosion radius on the amarr recons since the -tracking at its current level and unbonused is of limited use. It's a good effect though, and a considerable bonus on the dedicated ships would make it just as useful as the falloff bonus will be, and you'd have missile defence too. The 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. Otoh, if the optimal penalty would be replaced with missile penalty you wouldn't have to worry about your optimal getting cut into half. You'd have tracking issues against some targets and you could use TD to ensure you can hit that minmatar ship at 1km, but the -tracking on unbonused ship would need active exploitation and a set of suitable conditions to totally neutralize a target. Everyone could have some missile defence, while missileships might try to counter this with target painters. A curse with sufficient bonus to both the -tracking and -missile radius could be formidable indeed while nonbonused ships would have a bit more marginalized but still useful 'oneslotter'.

Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.05 20:59:00 - [271] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer You 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. I think most people on this thread want TC/TE falloff mod more because of the principle than because it'd be actually useful as a counter or extra damage mod. The math seems to show that TE isntead of 3rd gyro for example will be more of a penalty than a bonus inside usual engagement ranges and quite negligible damage bonus beyond that. Furthermore assuming you'd get the 15% bonus rigs / optimal mods give, you'd need something like 5 mods to counter 1 TD and that's only if the mods weren't stacking penalized which they are. Now since there's really not even that many ships where you'd fit 3 gyros, I don't see too many people fitting multiple TEs and midslots are equally short supply. Maybe you'd see occasional comedy fits with 4 falloff mods that'd do 20% instead of 5% damage at 35km but aside from that it's hard to think of any realistic fits that would massively benefit from the change.
Yargo Metash Minmatar Heimatar Services Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.02.05 21:02:00 - [272] Originally by: Trigos Trilobi The 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. The 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.
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.05 21:18:00 - [273] Edited by: Trigos Trilobi on 05/02/2008 21:19:14 Originally by: Yargo Metash The 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. Yes 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. And nods tracking is mostly not an issue, and certainly not during the approach base. Once the faster ship is at its optimal though, it can crawl sufficiently close to work the tracking advantage into his favour. That's why I said the amarr will switch to the tracking script once the minmatar is in his optimal.
Magazaki	Posted - 2008.02.05 21:21:00 - [274] Edited by: Magazaki on 05/02/2008 21:25:36 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?? Let alone the fact that they are actually the ones with bonuses for them? I don't think that TC/TE falloff boost is needed, but I am not strong against it because it will have no effect IMHO. But saying that amarr will be the ones most hurt by the TD boost is, well, kinda off. Minnies are the ones affected the most, followed by Gallente blasterships, followed by the oddball caldari blastership, THEN followed by amarr pulseboats that have the biggest optimal to falloff ratio of them all... For long range guns they are not a matter anyway, but artilleries would be the first to be affected anyway... -----sig----- Originally by: Kaemonn:Signature Originally by: kieron: off duty You dont have to swallow! Win...
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.05 21:33:00 - [275] 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?? I thought I explained that bit above already :P But in nutshell, the falloff penalty by itself doesn't hurt amarr, but since amarr don't have that many spare med slots, it'll be the minmatar and gallente playing with the new toy and since the optimal penalty is as vicious as it ever was, for an amarr the only visible change in the game is that he gets TDd a lot more.
Yargo Metash Minmatar Heimatar Services Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.02.05 21:34:00 - [276] Edited by: Yargo Metash on 05/02/2008 21:35:02 Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Edited by: Trigos Trilobi on 05/02/2008 21:19:14 Yes 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. Kinda like how Min's racial EW is webs, and everyone with their mother, their sister, their sister's dog, the dogs cousin's nephew's aunt's former roomate are using them As 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.
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.05 21:46:00 - [277] Originally by: Yargo Metash As 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. I 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.
Yargo Metash Minmatar Heimatar Services Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.02.05 21:59:00 - [278] Originally by: Trigos Trilobi I 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. Ooooh, ouch. That would hurt lots of people if 50% for both. And at BS levels the problem is fairly moot, as it doesn't matter if a BS is webbed or not in most cases, it still moves like a hog compared to cruisers. HP's for speed tradeoff. And yeah. Hail is the blaster ammo for minni's.
Aramendel Amarr North Face Force	Posted - 2008.02.05 22:07:00 - [279] Originally by: Trigos Trilobi You 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. So in that aspect there is no difference there really. Nos/neuts do not need mid slots, but their required support modules sure need them. Unless you want to kill your own whole cap as well, that is. 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 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. 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: 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. Please quote where I said that "balancing it is useless"? I never said that they shouldn't be balanced. I said that their weak performance is not making minnie recons useless. And if TPs get boosted then you would have to rebalance the other bonuses of the hug/rap. 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. TPs are imbalanced. Minnie recons aren't. It is impossible to fix one balance without destroying the other balance without changes to the ships. 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. The versiability of a ship very much adds to its performance.
Ariel Dawn Beets and Gravy Syndicate	Posted - 2008.02.05 22:38:00 - [280] 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.

Dromidas Shadowmoon Minmatar 54th Knights Templar Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2008.02.05 22:50:00 - [281] Originally by: goodby4u FOTM 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. TD are already very effective counters vs speed tanked arty ships. You apply the tracking script and I can guarantee my vagabond's guns will never hit you while orbitting (with MWD off). Minmatar guns, especially ones fitting t2 ammo, have terrible tracking. We always have been very vulnerable to TDs. The only ship we've got that can really own in optimal with good tracking is the muninn (and battleships, I suppose, but I don't fly them). a muninn with 425's and t1 faction ammo (the 0% range ones, iirc) do extremely nice damage with amazing tracking. _______________________________________________ Minmatar will always go faster than you, get over it.
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.02.05 23:13:00 - [282] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer 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. Yeah, ECM messes up your drones, they magically deaggro Anyway, ECM only works on specialised ships, there are four different kinds of it and you need to fit a whole rack of them to be effective + put signal distortion amps in lows. Make TDs race-specific and requiring lowslots and specific ships and then we'll talk about shutting down a turret ship (only, like, 75% of EvE) with only one TD. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.05 23:22:00 - [283] 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 >3dmg vs autocannons: 1te+2dmg>3dmg vs lasers: 1te+2dmg=3dmg vs missiles: 3dmg> 1 te +2dmg
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.05 23:37:00 - [284] Edited by: Trigos Trilobi on 05/02/2008 23:38:26 Originally by: Aramendel Originally by: Trigos Trilobi You 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. And 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: 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. That's basically what I said, glad you got it. 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. 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: Please quote where I said that "balancing it is useless"? 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: Quote: "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 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. 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. In last post I spesifically said 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. Which is pretty much the same thing you now offer me as some sort of weird counterargument. 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. I'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. Not to mention each 'belong' to a different race. You could try with damps&scrambles or nos&tds, but of course your analogy then quickly falls apart since tds aren't made obsolete due to nos (and have identical effect) and same is true for damps and scrambles. 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. More accurate analogy would be having bonus both for small nos and med nos.
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.02.05 23:59:00 - [285] Originally by: Goumindong 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. You mean, precisely what it does for Amarr ships right now? Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Ariel Dawn Beets and Gravy Syndicate	Posted - 2008.02.06 00:02:00 - [286] 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 >3dmg vs autocannons: 1te+2dmg>3dmg vs lasers: 1te+2dmg=3dmg vs missiles: 3dmg> 1 te +2dmg In an up-close situation though, either both ships are webbed (tracking isn't important), the other ship webs the Minmatar pilot and controls the transverals (as many Minmatar fits do not fit a web), or neither web each other and both dance around missing shots. I also fail to see how a 7.5% tracking increase will out DPS a 13% damage increase from a 3rd Gyrostabilizer. Could you provide numbers to back up your claim incorporating the DPS differences between 1TE 2Gyro vs 3 Gyro at ranges under 10km?
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.06 05:04:00 - [287] I 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.
Ariel Dawn Beets and Gravy Syndicate	Posted - 2008.02.06 05:33:00 - [288] Originally by: Goumindong I 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.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.06 06:48:00 - [289] Originally by: Ariel Dawn Originally by: Goumindong I 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.
Kagura Nikon Minmatar Infinity Enterprises Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.02.06 08:56:00 - [290] Originally by: Goumindong I 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. this 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. ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough

Aramendel Amarr North Face Force	Posted - 2008.02.06 12:38:00 - [291] Originally by: Trigos Trilobi And 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. It invalidates your "This is actually different from the curse with nos/neuts + TDs, since the slots for those don't conflict." argument. Quote: That's basically what I said, glad you got it. No, it isn't. You said that there are decent huginn fits with TPs, I said there are none. Which isn't exactly news. 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 please where I claim that TPs "need to be weak". Stop trying to twist my words. You should know by now that it does not work. 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. That's rich. Let's take a look at the post where I wrote "The gimpage of TPs is overcompensated by the ownage of 40k webs." shall we? The relevant part is "Minnie recons are still pretty nice, though, because 40k webs are extremly powerful. Bad bonus (TPs) + very good bonus (40k webs) = good ship The gimpage of TPs is overcompensated by the ownage of 40k webs." So, no - let me repeat: NO - I was NOT writing this "in reference to you comparing TDs with TPs" in general, but strictly considering the performance of the huginn/rapier. Which should be blindingly obvious considering the 2 setences before the one you quoted out of context. Either frigging learn to read or stop doing exactly what you accuse me of - misinterpretating my words.
Aramendel Amarr North Face Force	Posted - 2008.02.06 12:39:00 - [292] Originally by: Trigos Trilobi I'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. You 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? 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. But then, as said, you would have to reduce the performance of another aspect of the minnie recons to keep them balanced. If that is the case, however..reread the bolded parts of the quote of yours. 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. Even though ECM and TDs share med slots. If you would redesign TPs so they and webs do not obsolete each other the same would be the case with the minnie recons. They would become more powerful because their versatility would increase.
Aramendel Amarr North Face Force	Posted - 2008.02.06 12:46:00 - [293] Originally by: Kagura Nikon this 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. Not exactly. The dps bonus gets smaller if you move towards optimal from optimal+falloff and larger if you move towards optimal + 2*falloff from optimal+falloff. The falloff curve basically gets stretched by a falloff increase - and the further you go the bigger the (percentual) effect becomes.
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.06 13:25:00 - [294] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Ariel Dawn Originally by: Goumindong I 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. Other weapon types have similar benefits and penalties for fitting a TE at close ranges. You give up the extra damage from a gyro, the falloff/optimal bonus is irrelevant at that point. In fact since ac tracking is better than lasers/blasters unmodded, you already have the advantage against same tier blasters/lasers and hence will hit 100% or atleast better than the other guy so it could be argued that the tracking bonus is less useful to an ac boat than to a laser/blaster boat. Ie, a laser boat compared to acs has long range but low tracking and can negate this penalty with a TE (while also augmenting its range advantage). Ac boat otoh has low range but good tracking, and is evidently overpowered if it can increase its range while also augmenting its tracking advantage? Furthermore, the advantage a 2gyro+TE (unbonused ship, 220mm, barrage) has at 15km against a 3gyro fit is something like 7% including hit quality. This is insignificant, especially since you have virtually no reason to engage at such ranges as you yourself pointed out. For reference, an amarr boat with HPL with te+2hs vs 3hs and scorch gets an effective damage increase between ranges of 24km and 34km, and does staggering triple damage at 30km. 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.
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.02.06 13:40:00 - [295] Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 06/02/2008 13:40:36 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. No do dont try to twist the truth. TCs and TEs give pulses mainly extra range. TCs on an AC boat will primarily give a damage boost in your whole fall off range wich is pretty much ALL your range. 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. -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.02.06 13:47:00 - [296] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer No do dont try to twist the truth. TCs and TEs give pulses mainly extra range. Meaning, ability to use multifreqs (shorter range crystals in general!) at longer range effectively, and more falloff DPS, translation to a DPS boost. Originally by: Lyria Skydancer TCs on an AC boat will primarily give a damage boost in your whole fall off range wich is pretty much ALL your range. So, wait, I don't get this. You're saying, it's fine if TCs make pulses do more DPS (short range crystals at longer range IS more DPS) at range and give Gallente/Caldari some more DPS when firing at range (Null ftw, and with a TC you'll be doing more DPS at range since your optimal will be extended and you will be less in falloff), but they need to ineffective on Minmatar as possible (shortest optimals)? And, yet, Minmatar guns need to be as easy to shutdown as all others using one unbonused module? 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. (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? Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.06 13:58:00 - [297] Originally by: Aramendel You 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? No. I claimed that as long as webs obsolete painters on a huginn, it is irrelevant to a huginn pilot how effective they are since the huginn pilot will will always fit a web instead. I further stated that at the point where painters are boosted to the level where they begin competing for the slot on a huginn, ie they are no longer obsolete, it then and only then becomes relevant, and further that this is not the reason to not boost painters, if it becomes an issue it is logical to then re-evaluate the recon bonuses instead. 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. That is again stricly not the case. Huginn will not be made any more powerful by a tp boost as long as painters still are still made obsolete by webs. This is what I've tried to convey, and this is one of the reasons why I said it is insensible to say that poor performance of TPs is overcompensated by 40km webs. 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. Yes that's what I tried to tell you, ECM + TD bonus is not comparable to painter + web bonus, since web bonus for the most part obsoletes painter bonus unlike ECM vs TD.
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.02.06 14:01:00 - [298] 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... b) You already have the advantage of ammo switch without major impact on your range. You cant have it all. -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.06 14:21:00 - [299] Originally by: Aramendel Originally by: Trigos Trilobi And 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. Actually I was trying to bring you back on 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. No it doesn't. NOS still fits in highs and TDs in meds. The threshold were upping TDs starts affecting curse performance is considerably lower than the threshold where upping TP performance begins affecting Huginn performance. You could look at it this way: If TDs would do same thing as nos/neuts but considerably better, the curse would just get rid of the (some? all?) cap mods and still fit nos/neuts in the highs. If tps would be made so powerful they completely obsoleted webs, the huginn would still only have 2 slots, but would hit TPs instead. Quote: No, it isn't. You said that there are decent huginn fits with TPs, I said there are none. Yep the difference with me and you seems to be that I try to avoid absolutes. Hence I left a little wiggle room for the guy who used triple tps on a bs and popped it with dread torps or the guy who tends to gang with torp ravens a lot. Quote: Quote please where I claim that TPs "need to be weak". "The gimpage of TPs is overcompensated by the ownage of 40k webs." Implies that tps are balanced because webs are good. IMO tps are weak, hence you're arguing that they need to be weak.
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.02.06 14:34:00 - [300] Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 06/02/2008 14:34:19 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. Dude 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. -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation

Alek Row Minmatar Silent Step	Posted - 2008.02.06 15:41:00 - [301] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Dude 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. Oh please, stop being such a parrot. It really dependes on the way TPs are improved. It's possible to improve TPs without destroying balance, even with the current web bonus on Minmatar Recons. What you are saying is something like this: Now that Amarr have TDs at a good state, there is NO REASON to improve Nos/Neuts in Amarr recons, right? wohooo cap boosters forever, or since TDs only work for turrents there is still some margin to improve them? Depends on the way they are improved. Same thing for TPs, imagine that TPs had a (really really really) stupid bonus like: Every minute painted target will loose control of his drones for 3 seconds, making the drones flee at random directions (eerr better make capital ships immune to the effect hehe). Would this make Minmatar Recons overpowered? Even if the effect was only 3 seconds/per minute (a bit more since the drones would take time to come back to the target). And since I'm no balance diva, if this is overpowered just replace it by other stupid bonus that affects slighy one weapon type for a short amount of time, take your pick. There always a way to improve modules without breaking balance (in last case creating/changing other modules/rigs to act as counters). Or don't you want Amarr Recons Nos/Neuts working at better levels without the excessive use of cap boosters ? (I'm assuming there is still a problem with Nos/Neuts on Amarr recons) Great, we want TPs working too, and they really could use some sort of defense EW against one weapon type per example. At the moment Minmatar Recons have one very good Web Bonus with great range, and one terrible TP EW with no defense capabilities, Ammar have a "not so good" NOS/Neut Bonus with great range and nice TD EW with defense/offense capabilites against one weapon type. Just stating "Minmatar Recons would be unbalanced if they improve TPs" it's an imagination critical failure. There is always a way :-P
Ariel Dawn Beets and Gravy Syndicate	Posted - 2008.02.06 17:09:00 - [302] I 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 falloff Vagabond (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.
Dromidas Shadowmoon Minmatar 54th Knights Templar Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2008.02.06 17:28:00 - [303] I don't think most people actually understand what it means to fight in falloff, Ariel :) We can explain and explain, but people will always EFT it and say 'it says 300 dps, and EFT is Eve Fighting Tactician so it must be right!' _______________________________________________ Minmatar will always go faster than you, get over it.
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.02.06 18:22:00 - [304] 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... So it's fine if Amarr can fit other rigs but Minmatar mustn't for some reason? Originally by: Lyria Skydancer b) You already have the advantage of ammo switch without major impact on your range. You cant have it all. - Not true (both T2 ammos have major impact on your range). - This is a disadvantage for any ships trying to shoot at longer range, beacuse it's also quite impossible to extend that range to the same extent other races' T1 ammos can, essentially nullifying itself as a distinct advantage (since it has both a positive side and a negative side). Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.02.06 18:28:00 - [305] Originally by: Ariel Dawn I 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 falloff Vagabond (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. No, 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. -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation
Dianeces Minmatar Repo Industries	Posted - 2008.02.06 18:41:00 - [306] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer No, 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. Shut 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?
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.02.06 18:55:00 - [307] Originally by: Dianeces Shut 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. -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.02.06 18:58:00 - [308] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer No, 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. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.02.06 19:01:00 - [309] Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: Lyria Skydancer No, 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. -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.06 19:07:00 - [310] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: Dianeces 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. +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.

Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.06 19:25:00 - [311] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Dude 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. You clearly have no clue on the subject. I gave ample reasons above why you're wrong. I coincidentally also covered the case why the relation between target painters and webs is rather unique compared to the examples you gave. Hint, 'balance' is not the word that describes that relation. You could try actually addressing the points I made instead of this pointless anti-minmatar/pro-amarr armwaving.
DennoTheHunter Caldari Kernkraft 400	Posted - 2008.02.06 19:28:00 - [312] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: Dianeces Shut 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. So what you're are saying is: Projectiles can get extra range using rigs, so using TC to get more falloff would be overpowered. This means: Pulses can get extra range using rigs, so using TC to get more optimal would be overpowered. From this we can conclude: TC have to get their optimal bonus removed for the sake of balance. _____________________ If I am in a fair fight.... Something went wrong!
Patro	Posted - 2008.02.06 19:34:00 - [313] Patro aggre with denno and poke trigos... U really are a shame for amarr :(
Veryez	Posted - 2008.02.06 19:43:00 - [314] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 06/02/2008 14:34:19 Dude 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. As seen in the advent of Marauders, TP's are better on Caldari ships then on minmatar ships (or didn't you notice that the Golem gets the racial minmatar EW bonus). Webs are fine as they are and TP's are pretty weak except in certain situations. So I believe a far better solution would be removing all TP bonuses from minmatar recons/cruisers and giving instead either 1) A 5% speed boost per level (which is the only minmatar advantage) or 2) A 7.5% agility bonus per level (fitting the hit and run concept) or 3) a tracking bonus on the rapier and a falloff bonus on the Huginn (and the beli should get the web bonus). I believe that the changes will turn TD's into the 'new sensor boosters', and would prefer them to be left alone and amarr recons getting the bonus of reducing falloff and optimal (rather than every ship getting this advantage). Lastly I can't believe the amount of whining over asking for a script for tracking computers to increase falloff. Seriously who uses falloff to consistently fight in other than minmatar? This along with the reduction in explosive shield resistance (since almost every t2 minmatar ship shield tanks) make this upcoming patch much less of a boost to amarr, but a significant nerf to minmatar. But then again why not, CCP always wanted playing minmatar to be playing 'hard mode'.
Dromidas Shadowmoon Minmatar 54th Knights Templar Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2008.02.06 19:47:00 - [315] Edited by: Dromidas Shadowmoon on 06/02/2008 19:50:25 Originally by: Lyria "Jonny JoJo"* Skydancer* 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. Amarr already has rigs that boost their range(Energy Locus Coordinator I) too. And optimal is more effective than falloff. Overpowered, I guess, according to you. Also, there are no rigs which boost damage that doesn't have a stacking penalty with gyrostabs. Unless you're referring to +tracking such as the Energy Metastasis Adjuster I (for lasers) and the projectile one. Don't disguise whines and nerfs as something else :( _______________________________________________ Minmatar will always go faster than you, get over it.
Dianeces Minmatar Repo Industries	Posted - 2008.02.06 19:56:00 - [316] Edited by: Dianeces on 06/02/2008 19:58:09 Edited by: Dianeces on 06/02/2008 19:56:09 Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: Lyria Skydancer No, 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. Would 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
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.02.06 20:19:00 - [317] Originally by: Dianeces Would 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 There 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... -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation
Dianeces Minmatar Repo Industries	Posted - 2008.02.06 20:22:00 - [318] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: Dianeces Would 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 There 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... Thank you, I think I will.
Ariel Dawn Beets and Gravy Syndicate	Posted - 2008.02.06 20:27:00 - [319] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer No, 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. Ahahahahahaha! 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. The fact that the Vagabond is faster can be taken into consideration, but when nano-setup all that matters is being faster than the other guy. Furthurmore, it does not have a vulnerable weapon system like drones compromising a good chunk of it's DPS, and it can be fit to have a strong tank along with it's damage in a standard non-nano fit. I never said that the Vagabond should be doing more DPS than the Zealot. But when your Zealot outdamages a Vagabond at 34km optimal versus a Vagabond at 25km by almost a FACTOR OF TWO, and then complain how increasing the Vagabond's range would completely imbalance it. You, my friend, are full of ****.
Dianeces Minmatar Repo Industries	Posted - 2008.02.06 20:28:00 - [320] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Ill just repeat the summary and thats what Ive told you. Go ahead troll me... Actually, since we're on the topic, can you go ahead and parrot 2+2=5 for me from now on? Since you already do that with nonsense, this shouldn't be too much of a leap.

Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.02.06 20:33:00 - [321] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer 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. I'm complaining about range AND DPS at the same time. They 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. Right 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. You are just trolling, of course, so I can quite expect you to say 'OMG, it was already explained (using totally false logic and no correct math given), read the thread'. So go troll Ships and Modules once more with your anti-Minmatar drivel ;) Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.06 20:44:00 - [322] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer There 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?
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.02.06 22:09:00 - [323] Originally by: Cpt Branko They 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. That is why minmatar ships always are the fastest, sometimes with rediculous amounts, faster then other ships in their class. So they can dictate range. Minmatar are jack of all trades and the AC fall off situation is something that has a good and bad side but its balanced. -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.02.06 22:10:00 - [324] Originally by: Cpt Branko Right 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. Yes, this really needs to be done. And if its done this whole problem wont even be noticed except the rare cases when you encounter some amarr recon. -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation
Alek Row Minmatar Silent Step	Posted - 2008.02.06 22:52:00 - [325] Edited by: Alek Row on 06/02/2008 22:52:33 Originally by: Trigos Trilobi (...) My opinion is that we should have a counter to the TD changes, but I don't know anymore if scripts are the answer, TEs should have a new property, something like x% more falloff when disrupted (and only when disrupted). And now some random values for what I understood: - When you have an optimal of 15km, your dps is x. If you use a TC (optimal script) your optimal goes to 25km and your dps will still be x, the dps at 15km will be inferior to x, since you're bellow optimal. - Falloff is completelly different, your falloff is 20km, if you shoot at 15km your dps will be x, when you increase the falloff to 25km your dps at 15km will always be superior to x, I don't know the percentage, but the more you extend the falloff line more your dps will increase when you shoot at 15km. ACs 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). Just to end... Rigs are not an easy switchable counter, period. TE's should at least atenuate to a certain extent TDs falloff strenght when disrupted. Now someone care to explain why this shouldn't happen? And no, this question is not for you Lyria Skydancer, sorry but I can't stop seeing you as a Goum/Aramendel wannabe (and a really bad one).
Magazaki	Posted - 2008.02.06 23:53:00 - [326] Edited by: Magazaki on 06/02/2008 23:54:21 Now, 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. -----sig----- Originally by: Kaemonn:Signature Originally by: kieron: off duty You dont have to swallow! Win...
Ariel Dawn Beets and Gravy Syndicate	Posted - 2008.02.07 01:11:00 - [327] Originally by: Magazaki Edited by: Magazaki on 06/02/2008 23:54:21 Now, 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. Nice reading comprehension. People have been talking about introducing falloff on modules to be able to counter the effects of falloff on TDs, not to remove the falloff from tracking disruptors.
Reto The Last Resort	Posted - 2008.02.07 02:55:00 - [328] Originally by: Aramendel Ceptor 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: s4mp3r0r "Hey man, you're mom has a cruise missile".
Gamesguy Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.02.07 03:23:00 - [329] Originally by: Reto Originally by: Aramendel Ceptor 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? Pray tell, what magical crucifier setup survives 5 warrior IIs?
haq aan Omega Enterprises Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2008.02.07 04:38:00 - [330] Trigos Trilobi/Alek Row/Ariel Dawn and Dianeges, thank u guys for being calm and on topic. From now on, i ll stop reading what Lyria Skydancer posts on forums about anything. I gave her a chance that she maybe really after balance in Eve. Until i read the argument between Lyria vs Trigos Trilobi/Alek Row/Ariel Dawn/Dianeges and many others on page 11. She had nothing to say after all that wrecking logic. On any reasonable argument , If people beat me that hard, i swear i would apologize from the community and be gone forever. What a lame. I am sorry for her. :/ haq aan Omega

DennoTheHunter Caldari Kernkraft 400	Posted - 2008.02.07 06:08:00 - [331] Edited by: DennoTheHunter on 07/02/2008 06:10:35 Originally by: Alek Row ACs 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). So if minmatar fighting at medium ranges with ac's in falloff and doing less dps than amarr at that range (sometimes as low as only half the damage), doesn't it mean that amarr still a queens of medium ranges? If a remember correctly, Large ac's with Barrage L with max skills and 3x falloff rigs get about 40-45 km falloff. So even if TC/TE do get a falloff boost, this range is the max optimal+falloff range an ac can get, and it only does 50% dmg at that range. Pulses with their longrange ammo get about the same range and can do 100% dmg up to that range while the ac's only can do about 50%. Amarr still have that option to fit TC/TE to improve their optimal even further. So 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. _____________________ If I am in a fair fight.... Something went wrong!
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.07 07:44:00 - [332] Originally by: Gamesguy Pray tell, what magical crucifier setup survives 5 warrior IIs? A: One going too fast to track its target.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.07 07:49:00 - [333] Originally by: Ariel Dawn Ahahahahahaha! 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.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.07 07:52:00 - [334] Originally by: DennoTheHunter So 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.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.07 08:01:00 - [335] Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Originally by: Lyria Skydancer There 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? What numbers? Its pretty clear that 17.6% is larger than 12.4%.
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.02.07 10:24:00 - [336] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 07/02/2008 10:24:55 Originally by: Goumindong 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. 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: Goumindong What 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. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Blutreiter Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades	Posted - 2008.02.07 10:53:00 - [337] Originally by: Cpt Branko Edited by: Cpt Branko on 07/02/2008 10:24:55 Originally by: Goumindong 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. 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: Goumindong What 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. Selective 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? Cogito ergo boom - I think i'll blow sht up* Originally by: CCP Explorer I know we have said this before, but this time we really mean itÖ
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.02.07 11:11:00 - [338] Originally by: Blutreiter 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. 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: Blutreiter Also, 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: Blutreiter 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? Ok, but TDs should have falloff reduction which is half of the optimal reduction to compensate. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.02.07 11:12:00 - [339] Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 07/02/2008 11:11:50 Originally by: Blutreiter Selective 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? This is what I told them and their defense was trolling me. -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation
Blutreiter Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades	Posted - 2008.02.07 11:32:00 - [340] Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: Blutreiter 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. 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: Blutreiter Also, 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: Blutreiter 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? Ok, but TDs should have falloff reduction which is half of the optimal reduction to compensate. sigh Okay first of all, I never claimed anything about what kind of ammo Amarr use together with Goum. Point finger much? Also, Amarr will always try to use Multifreq, except for extreme cap issues or switch to long-range ammo. Else, we wouldn't be able to deal proper damage. Autocannons 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. When Amarr switch to high damage ammo, they lose a LOT of range. Also, TDs worked against energy weapons before this. Show me one single whine that TDs are too good, or tell me one pilot that really wastes a terribly precious medslot on an amarrship, which usually have 2-4 only at most, plus need to fit capmods/RCUs and tank in low on Tracking enhancers and computers, apart from snipers. TDs only getting half the falloff penalty compared to optimal is the most sensible solution anyway. That's where I agree. And you may quote me on that. The reasoning is that falloff is always counted 2 times to get maximum range, and that's all explanation I need. Cogito ergo boom - I think i'll blow sht up* Originally by: CCP Explorer I know we have said this before, but this time we really mean itÖ

Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.02.07 12:05:00 - [341] Originally by: Blutreiter Autocannons 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. No, not really. Do I need to link you the stats of Hail M, Barrage and EMP/Fusion or you can check them out yourself? Hail affects (read: kills) your optimal and falloff range greatly and it is the highest DPS ammo you can get, so yeah, it deals with range. EMP is the highest-damage ammo, but - it does the same DPS and in more spread out damage types then Barrage does. If there was a DPS advantage in using EMP at any range, people would probably use it more, but our high-damage T1 ammo does 11 (small) versus 12 which it does for other races. One of the reasons why Barrage is so popular is the fact our T1 ammo isn't very stellar. I've used Barrage countless times where range was, in fact, no issue and I was at 1.5km range; I just prefer explosive/kinetic to EM/explosive/kinetic, and if someone decides to try to power out of the range I don't have to wait effectively 15s for a reload. This is why Barrage is so popular. Originally by: Blutreiter When 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 tell me one pilot that really wastes a terribly precious medslot on an amarrship, None, but I know plenty of Myrmidon pilots who swear by TDs though. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Blutreiter Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades	Posted - 2008.02.07 12:44:00 - [342] Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: Blutreiter When 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 Cogito ergo boom - I think i'll blow sht up* Originally by: CCP Explorer I know we have said this before, but this time we really mean itÖ
Kagura Nikon Minmatar Infinity Enterprises Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.02.07 14:04:00 - [343] Originally by: Blutreiter Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: Blutreiter When 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 The fact is between T2 ammo and faction short range there is no relevant differences for Amarr and Gallente. For minmatar they are huge. Republic fleet EMP deals far far less damage than hail. So you need to compare Hail as the equivalent to Amarr Navy MS. ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Reto The Last Resort	Posted - 2008.02.07 14:52:00 - [344] Originally by: Gamesguy Originally by: Reto Originally by: Aramendel avoiding pyramid quote 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. Pray tell, what magical crucifier setup survives 5 warrior IIs? i didnt say that a crucifier can survive the onslaught of 5 warrior II indifiniteley. i said that it doesnt die to them if u know what u are doing. some hints: -a crucifier like most other frigates works better the better ur skills are trained -a crusifier is a very good addition to a small frig gang (3-4 frigs). its not a solo frigate. -a crucifier has an targeting range of around 59km -tds have an optimal of around 60km -warrior II travel at max 6300m/s -warrior II deal around 80 explosive dps a setup would be: lo: Micro Auxiliary Power Core I 400mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Emergency Damage Control I med: Tracking Disruptor II, Tracking Speed Disruption Tracking Disruptor II, Tracking Speed Disruption Remote Sensor Dampener II hi: Gatling Modulated Energy Beam I, Multifrequency S Gatling Modulated Energy Beam I, Multifrequency S u have around 4200hp with this setup. ur guns can track warrior II easily. u have the advantage of ur damp which halfens the targeting range of most hacs and cruisers thus letting the drone auto agro nearby frigs rather than u at a 50km+ distance. Originally by: s4mp3r0r "Hey man, you're mom has a cruise missile".
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.07 15:11:00 - [345] Originally by: Goumindong What numbers? Its pretty clear that 17.6% is larger than 12.4%. I'm not disagreeing with the fact that +falloff allows you to make better use of your damage at range. That's kinda the point of a range mod and it is directly comparable to a laser boat whose +optimal allows him to project his damage further. You said that +optimal is useless to a laser boat given the typical engagement ranges. I'm arguing that given the fitting choices you have to make, that is exactly the case for falloff mod on TE/TC. Earlier 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. The main benefit of that falloff is against blaster ships, against which you want to be at the outskirts of web range so you gain the dps advantage. The numbers I posted earlier proved that the benefit of 1te(with falloff mod) instead of 3rd gyro only manifests itself beyond 14km. Given the above preferred ranges, I argued that the benefit is only marginally useful at best and most of the time you'd be worse off. The advantage of gyros over TEs becomes even more obvious if you compare 3gyro vs 3TE. In this case the 3TE fit would do 40% less damage at optimal, equal damage at ~20km and then start outdamaging the 3gyro fit at ranges beyond that. You could argue that combining gyros with TEs beyond that 3rd gyro would be overpowering, but I don't see this a problem since there's heavy tradeoffs to be made in other ship abilities even to fit 3gyros, 4 or 5 lows for damage mods is simply impractical. Not to mention it is not even really that useful, which is evident if you consider that rigs would be in most cases a less valuable slot to use for increasing falloff and you still don't see triple falloff rigged ac boats very often. As for what comes to vaga, 2gyro1rig1te fit would be worse than 3gyro1rig fit up to 23km, so I'd say the benefit from the te on a vaga would be marginally exploitable at best. All this considered, I'm actually somewhat siding with your earlier argument against adding falloff on TE/TC, that they're bit redundant since fitting rigs has lesser opportunity cost except on few odd fits or if you think you need more tracking. Out of curiosity btw, why the sudden change from "useless because rigs are better" to "too good"?
Ariel Dawn Beets and Gravy Syndicate	Posted - 2008.02.07 15:35:00 - [346] Originally by: Goumindong Edited by: Goumindong on 07/02/2008 07:58:17 Originally by: Ariel Dawn Ahahahahahaha! 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 Please 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. At normal engagement ranges @ 18-20km, the Tracking Enhancer/2 Gyrostabilizer Vagabond (should it provide 15% falloff) is doing around 9 DPS more than the 3 Gyrostabilizer Vaga. Under web range, the 3 Gyrostabilizer Vagabond is doing 43 more DPS than TE/2Gyro against most targets, and about the same as the TE/2Gyro against speedy frigates due to tracking. The tradeoff is a large reduction in close-range DPS for a small increase in long-range DPS and both have their advantages/disadvantages. This is using Barrage M. Oh, and your comment about 'not having ever flown the ships' actually made me laugh out loud. You and your comrades bashing Minmatar ships having never flown them, but supposed experts on them. It's really funny mate. Please link me to any instances where you, Lyria, Aramandel are using a Vagabond/Sleipnir/etc, heck, any Minmatar ship with T2 guns fitted. You can't. The Zealot does have fitting issues, but it can be fitted as a nano-ship to go about 3km/s with a capacitor booster and about 3.5k less EHP than a Vagabond. Neut immunity is a valueable ability, and although it may not be as survivable, it also blows the Vagabond out of the water for sheer damage potential. I don't care that the Zealot is so powerful though, just the fact that you flail your arms at the proposal to provide a COUNTER module to something that will seriously affect the entire Minmatar AC gunboat line while completely ignoring the fact that Amarr has ships with far greater range and DPS that can perform a similar role. Its hypocritical to the extreme.
DennoTheHunter Caldari Kernkraft 400	Posted - 2008.02.07 15:48:00 - [347] Edited by: DennoTheHunter on 07/02/2008 15:51:11 Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: DennoTheHunter So 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. I've done some calculations: We use a Dual 650mm AC II with Falloff rigs and max skills. Using EFT numbers: 0x falloff mods 5,4+30 k range 3x falloff mods 5,4+42,5 k range At the range of 20k: 0x faloff mods -> 85% hit chance 3x falloff mods -< 92% hit chance At the range of 20k, using a total of 3 falloff mods only adds up 11,8% more dps at 20k, and makes no gains at optimal. That's actually a bit poor when considering you are using 3 mods for this little gain. For a statement you made earlier: Asuming we are using the same range, 20k, we will see what's best. 3x gyro or 2x gyro and one TE. Again we use Dual 650mm AC II with Barrage on a Tempest. 3x Gyro setup: Raw dps = 104 dps Optimal + Falloff = 5,4 + 30 20k range hit chance = 85% Actual dps = 88,4 dps 2x Gyro and 1x TE setup: Raw dps = 93 dps Optimal + Falloff = 6,2 + 35 20k range hit chance = 90% Actual dps = 83,7 dps So at 20 k using Dual 650mm AC with Barrage at 20k, 3x gyro is actully 5,6% betterthan 2x gyro and 1x tracking enhancer. I do admit that smaller ships will gain more at this range, but since we're talking about minmatar ships, those ships would in many cases be fitted with Shield extenders/speedmods (depending on the slot layout of course). I ask you again. How can TC/TE boosting falloff too in anyway be overpowered? _____________________ If I am in a fair fight.... Something went wrong!
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.02.07 16:08:00 - [348] Originally by: DennoTheHunter I 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. -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.02.07 16:33:00 - [349] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 07/02/2008 16:34:04 Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Why the heck should one race get an extra damage mod in mids and lows that doesnt stack with gyros when others dont? That's why TEs/TCs need to boost falloff, since they already boost damage on lasers and (to some extend) blasters with Null, especially on optimal-bonused ships like the caldari ones. Since now falloff is distruptable, why should Minmatar be the only ones totally shafted in that respect? Basically, hypocrisy much? Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.07 16:37:00 - [350] Edited by: Trigos Trilobi on 07/02/2008 16:37:22 Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: DennoTheHunter I 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. I think he pretty conclusively proved that there's not much point to fit a TE over a gyro over any 'normal pvp range', which incidentally supports the numbers I proved earlier in the thread. I think we can all also agree that fitting a TC is straight out question on pretty much every practical fit to gain a small amount of damage at ranges you don't want to be fighting in the first place, since there's a lot more useful med slots available and (too) many which are considered outright essential. Now, given the numbers in his post and the examples in few of mine earlier in the thread, would you like to elaborate on these 'normal ranges' where fitting a TE would be actually benefical over a gyro, or a TC over a scramble, web, booster, mwd or even the new improved TD? 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. +falloff is just as much a damage mod as is +optimal. The difference is that the damage advantage from +optimal is high over a narrow range band, while the damage advantage gained from falloff is low over a wide range band. I'd personally refer to them both as RANGE mods, though, for obvious reasons. Neither increases your maximum damage output, BOTH allow you to apply all or some of that dps further. They are essentially the two faces of the same coin. So indeed, why should laser boats have a "damage" mod in mids and lows when acs don't?

Lady Octavia	Posted - 2008.02.07 16:43:00 - [351] Originally by: Ariel Dawn Please 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).
Dromidas Shadowmoon Minmatar 54th Knights Templar Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2008.02.07 17:11:00 - [352] Originally by: Lady Octavia Originally by: Ariel Dawn Please 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). This 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 _______________________________________________ Minmatar will always go faster than you, get over it.
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.07 17:20:00 - [353] Originally by: Lady Octavia 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. Optimal is immensely more valuable to an arty sniper than falloff. If you're in your falloff, few +15% falloff mods is not going to change the fact that your damage is still subpar and you should've bought a sniper fit with more optimal. Quote: 2nd vargur would be the king of pve oh wait matar as best race in pvp and now pve too !!! Even three falloff mods is not going to do you much good on a vargur, the fact is you'd still do crap dps at anything that orbits you beyond 30km, which is quite a few bs' in pretty much every mission. 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). Tracking is nice, but it is hard to add to the damage calculations since it is so situational. Typical situation where more tracking would be beneficial is at very close range, but then you'd not be benefitting from the +falloff. It is also a lot more complicated than just a simple dps boost. For minmatar, since you typically have speed advantage and since acs have best tracking already compared to same tier other weapons, you'd actually not increase your own dps with additional tracking but you'd have the opportunity to reduce opponents dps. For amarr, a tracking mod would allow the lasers to prevent the ac boat from reducing your dps with his speed and signature advantage to some extent. These examples comparing same size ships with same tier weapons. After you start thinking about different ship sizes, different tier guns and ships with tracking bonuses it gets really complicated. So I'll conclude with the above 'tracking is nice', some times it helps, other times its useless. Obviously its considered less valuable than damage since people fit gyros instead of TEs, and I don't think this is going to change wether TEs will also increase falloff or not. Also you can look at it this way: a laser boat fitting a TE will both increase its range advantage further and reduce the advantage an ac boat has in tracking. An ac boat fitting a TE with falloff mod would augment its tracking advantage and reduce its range disadvantage compared to similar tier laser boat. For TCs its completely pointless since 1 TD (especially with falloff mod) will give you the same relative benefit by reducing your opponents tracking/range, only the effect is a lot more powerful than a TC.
DennoTheHunter Caldari Kernkraft 400	Posted - 2008.02.07 17:38:00 - [354] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: DennoTheHunter I 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. What i found out making these calculations is, if we replace a gyro with a TE at a normal range in a normal pvp scenario, we actually lose dps, thus making TE useless in many normal PVP situations, when trying to mix Gyro's and TE's. As other already have said, if you then take a 3x gyro setup and use like 2 TE's/TC's to up you range and still keep the good dps, you will suffer greatly, as it means you have only a few slots left for things like -> tackling, tanking, speed, cap. So fitting 5+ mods to improve you guns is very impractical, and in many situations makes no sence at all. _____________________ If I am in a fair fight.... Something went wrong!
Lady Octavia	Posted - 2008.02.07 17:45:00 - [355] Originally by: Dromidas Shadowmoon This 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 Your reply is what fails. Pls reread my post i wrote TE there not TC. As TE now: it doesnt use scripts so a falloff mod would be allways apply when fitted + optimal and tracking too. So after the change each sniper would have increased dmg in falloff area and a rokh would lose a little its range advantage because others falloff range is increased(beams too as amarr uses TE more ).
Blutreiter Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades	Posted - 2008.02.07 18:10:00 - [356] Originally by: Ariel Dawn Originally by: Lady Octavia Originally by: Ariel Dawn Please 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. I'll provide you one reason. The first and foremost reason there is. 34km optimal doesn't mean jack if you cannot keep your target tackled and in place. (Right! So let's keep all our ships at 40km away! I'm sure our targets won't move or warp away!) It's called doing proper combat in EVE, not with numbers. I believe Goumindong or someone else already posted some numbers anyway some pages ago. Also, range advantage for energy turrets. RANGE advantage. Means LESS TRACKING. Advantage/disadvantage anyone? Cogito ergo boom - I think i'll blow sht up* Originally by: CCP Explorer I know we have said this before, but this time we really mean itÖ
Lady Octavia	Posted - 2008.02.07 18:14:00 - [357] Originally by: Ariel Dawn The 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...
Selia Rain	Posted - 2008.02.07 18:15:00 - [358] Give 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.
Ariel Dawn Beets and Gravy Syndicate	Posted - 2008.02.07 19:52:00 - [359] Originally by: Lady Octavia Originally by: Ariel Dawn The 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... What are you talking about? The Zealot is getting 5 turrets and is only being used as a comparison in regards to balance. And you should read the thread before making such posts. I compared the within-web range for a Vagabond because the Amarr whine brigade said that the only ships Minmatar want to stay out of web range are Gallente blasterboats and within range for everything else; and that this would be a sufficient counter to the effects of tracking disruptors according to them. Since they're the Minmatar PvP experts, I provided this information. I also compared DPS values at different ranges in a previous post. I suggest reading it; I am not providing range/DPS comparisons based on random distances. Im really confused. Some people say to enter web-range to counter the effects of tracking disruptors affecting falloff, and then others say Minmatar should never enter web range. Also, this thread truley is comedy gold. Some Amarrians complain about how powerful 40km Rapier/Huginn webs are and then when confronted with high-DPS 40km Zealots argue that they can't hold down a target there anyway. Such double standards! Last time I checked Zealots and Minmatar Recons fit the same Warp Disruptors. And unlike you may seem to think, solo PvP is practically non-existent and is entirely gang based (despite the Zealot being superior to the Vagabond nano-fit in that field anyway), what would you rather have as FC in your fleet? A 40km high-DPS moving 3km/s or a 20km ship doing 50% less DPS than the 40km variant but moving 4.5km/s. But of course the retort to this will be one with no actual proof. I brought numbers that seem to imply that falloff on TEs/TCs would be fine and a very insignifican DPS boost (but allow to counter TDs slightly), no real counter has been provided (re-read the thread, no solid #s by the Amarr whiners). Furthermore, exactly why would increasing the DPS of the worst tanking, lowest DPS race be exactly a bad thing? ACs with 2 damage bonuses do less raw DPS at optimal than Blasters/Pulses with one, factor in falloff and the non-specialized slot layouts on Minmatar ships and you've got a pretty ho-hum race. Don't respond without arguments backed by logic and proof. Show me I'm wrong and I'll concede. Don't provide useless chatter about things you know nothing about (IE Amarrian experts on Minmatar ship combat).
Dromidas Shadowmoon Minmatar 54th Knights Templar Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2008.02.07 20:37:00 - [360] I'm glad Ariel Dawn is around to actually devote time to making factual based arguments. :) But everyone knows Amarr is a religious race, which is why all of their arguments and facts are based on faith, not evidence. :( _______________________________________________ Minmatar will always go faster than you, get over it.

Lisento Slaven Amarr The Drekla Consortium New Eve Order	Posted - 2008.02.07 21:22:00 - [361] Originally by: Selia Rain Give 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. --- Put in space whales!
Dromidas Shadowmoon Minmatar 54th Knights Templar Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2008.02.07 21:55:00 - [362] Edited by: Dromidas Shadowmoon on 07/02/2008 21:57:28 Originally by: Lisento Slaven Originally by: Selia Rain Give 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. 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. Your argument is the same as mine, new things introduced that affect an entire race or line of ships must be implemented very carefully. Perhaps instead of tracking computers/enhancers (and sensor boosters) increasing the stats they affect, they decrease penalties that get applied. example: 100 scan resolution ship player turns on their sensor booster, which decreases penalty by 25% (arbitrary number) Some guy comes along with a sensor dampener that does -40% scan resolution reduction and uses it on the ship. 40% is his reduction, and the Sensor Booster decreases that by 25%, so the penalty would be 30%. 100 scan resolution would turn into 70 scan resolution, instead of 60 scan resolution. Example2: 2 ships with -40% sensor dampeners use them on the 100 scan resolution ship. 100 would turn to about 40 scan resolution (his sensor booster reduces both other ships penalty to -30% instead of -40%) Something like this could work just as well with falloff or optimal or tracking (or maybe even ECM or web) You could tone AB to being +50% speed and MWD to being +150% and make the AB reduce webbing penalty by 25% and MWD reduce webbing penalty by 50%. (also arbitrarily picked values) This would allow speed tanking to be a viable option while keeping speed from becoming fast enough to avoid an entire fleet. _______________________________________________ Minmatar will always go faster than you, get over it.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.08 03:56:00 - [363] Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Earlier 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 Blasters 1 te + 2 dmg > 3 dmg AC 1 te + 2 dmg > 3 dmg lasers 1 te+ 2 dmg ~= 3 dmg[tracking increase increases DPS in short range missiles 1 te +2 dmg < 3 dmg[tranversal is useless] Two >'s, one equal, one worse. Add them up. Originally by: Ariel Dawn Please read. 173 is Vagabond Turret DPS when at Optimal + Falloff. Blah blah blah blah This is disingenious. A ship with 0 optimal and 200km falloff does 39.5% of its listed DPS at its optimal+falloff. A ship with 0km optimal and 1km falloff does 39.5% of its listed dps at its optimal + falloff. Oh **, you increase the falloff by factor of 200 and DPS doesnt go up!!! Yes, it does go up. Originally by:** Dromidas Shadowmoon 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. Incorrect. All it does is let the "turret range ewar" actually affect the range of all turrets.
Gamesguy Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.02.08 04:15:00 - [364] 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. About 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. And 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.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.08 04:22:00 - [365] Edited by: Goumindong on 08/02/2008 04:24:19 Originally by: Ariel Dawn 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. Your inability to provide the Zealot fit in question does lend credibility to the claim that it does not exist. A single LSE vagabond has 6000 EHP or so more than a Zealot. A double about 13k EHP[over twice as much EHP]. A vagabond that only goes 3000m/s has 30k EHP[but why you would fit that i dont know], nearly 400 gun dps with barrage and a falloff of 29km, pluse 128 supplimentary dps. A Zealot with a damage control and 2 eanms has 20k ehp and goes 3km/s. It has no supplimnetary DPS and has no way of defending itself from ships with webs. I would say it does 406 DPS with 5 heavy pulse lasers at 35km with scorch. But it wont. And that is because it has run out of CPU. In fact the 4 HP version has run out of CPU long ago[I say this because using an injector as a cap mod is foolish because you can fit a total of six cap booster 800s in your hold, and this is actually more than normal because you are only using one overdrive. But even then you cant fit 5 HPIIs and 2 damage mods on the proposed setup with an injector and WDII]. This put its final DPS in the supposed setup at 338.75. The point at which this becomes higher than the DPS of the comparable vagabond is at 25.9km. Not to mention that the ship will die to the first decently fast ship it encounters with a web. The 5 turret Zealot has a role now, and can make a pretty strong nano-ship due to its high DPS and long range. But it is not nearly as strong as you are making it out to be.
DennoTheHunter Caldari Kernkraft 400	Posted - 2008.02.08 05:47:00 - [366] Originally by: Goumindong Blasters 1 te + 2 dmg > 3 dmg AC 1 te + 2 dmg > 3 dmg lasers 1 te+ 2 dmg ~= 3 dmg[tracking increase increases DPS in short range missiles 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. _____________________ If I am in a fair fight.... Something went wrong!
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.08 06:07:00 - [367] Edited by: Goumindong on 08/02/2008 06:13:34 Originally by: DennoTheHunter Originally by: Goumindong Blasters 1 te + 2 dmg > 3 dmg AC 1 te + 2 dmg > 3 dmg lasers 1 te+ 2 dmg ~= 3 dmg[tracking increase increases DPS in short range missiles 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 friagtes and 10km for cruisers. 2. Tracking is not non-existant.
DennoTheHunter Caldari Kernkraft 400	Posted - 2008.02.08 07:24:00 - [368] Originally by: Goumindong Edited by: Goumindong on 08/02/2008 06:13:34 Originally by: DennoTheHunter Originally by: Goumindong Blasters 1 te + 2 dmg > 3 dmg AC 1 te + 2 dmg > 3 dmg lasers 1 te+ 2 dmg ~= 3 dmg[tracking increase increases DPS in short range missiles 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. From where i come from, battles from 20km and under is a very common range to fight from. In that range 3x gyro will out damage 2x gyro and 1x TE. About tracking... From personal experience tracking is no problem at all in most cases. There's always at least one webbing the target in the fights I've been in, no matter what range I'm in. About the range... Well I've demonstrated that the gain of TC/TE in range is still small, and since the boost is percentage based, smaller ships will gain even less from it, and smaller ships generally have fewer slots, gimping the ship even more by fitting TE/TC in it. There really is no reason not to give TC/TE a falloff boost. _____________________ If I am in a fair fight.... Something went wrong!
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.08 08:21:00 - [369] Edited by: Goumindong on 08/02/2008 08:22:19 Your 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 large amounts of DPS. Falloff should not be added to TC/TE's. Its a range boost, AND a damage boost.
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.08 08:53:00 - [370] Originally by: Goumindong Blasters 1 te + 2 dmg > 3 dmg I'd be interested to hear how you came to this conclusion, unless you mean that crawling webbed through blaster optimal close enough to exploit your tracking advantage is a good idea. Quote: AC 1 te + 2 dmg > 3 dmg This might be true assuming you have speed advantage. Quote: lasers 1 te+ 2 dmg ~= 3 dmg[tracking increase increases DPS in short range Extra tracking only increases your dps if you have trouble tracking. Why would you have trouble tracking against a laser boat since you already have the tracking advantage? Quote: missiles 1 te +2 dmg < 3 dmg[tranversal is useless] Two >'s, one equal, one worse. Add them up. Your "two >'s" would be a lot more convincing if you'd bother to actually support them with some solid argumentation instead of stating them as a fact. Quote: Incorrect. All it does is let the "turret range ewar" actually affect the range of all turrets. Kinda like turret range mods increase range of all turrets? Oh wait.. Cute how you argue that +falloff is a damage mod, but -falloff is a range mod.

Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.08 09:07:00 - [371] 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. Kinda onesided logic. The 3gyro fit has just as much information. He knows he has 3gyros, so he'll always go for optimal against other acs. 4gyro fits are not realistic, against 3gyro fits he gains or loses nothing, and against fits which have TE(s) instead of gyro(s) he'll have the advantage at short range. Arguably it's bit more risky for the TE fit, since he could run to a ship with 3gyros AND enough rigs to overcome his falloff advantage. The 3gyro ship can be pretty confident that he'll practically never meet anyone with more damagemods than him.
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.08 09:42:00 - [372] Originally by: Gamesguy And 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.
Blutreiter Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades	Posted - 2008.02.08 10:24:00 - [373] Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Originally by: Gamesguy And 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. Since 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? Cogito ergo boom - I think i'll blow sht up* Originally by: CCP Explorer I know we have said this before, but this time we really mean itÖ
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.08 10:38:00 - [374] Edited by: Trigos Trilobi on 08/02/2008 10:39:22 Originally by: Blutreiter Since 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? Well 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%.
Blutreiter Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades	Posted - 2008.02.08 10:51:00 - [375] Edited by: Blutreiter on 08/02/2008 10:52:51 Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Edited by: Trigos Trilobi on 08/02/2008 10:39:22 Well 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%. You 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. As for range, if you're getting weapon disrupted just get closer to your enemy. Nothing prevents you from doing damage. Full damage. Since all the previous btching and whining largely centers around autocannons ONLY, please remember we're talking about losing like... what? 7 km off a 20km falloff range? (estimate) With current ship fittings, considering you like to dictate distance with e.g. a nanofit to keep you at your preferred range, don't you think that you can get 7 km closer very VERY fast? As in 4 km/s fast? Less than 2 seconds? 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. Cogito ergo boom* - I think i'll blow sht up* Originally by: CCP Explorer I know we have said this before, but this time we really mean itÖ
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.02.08 11:09:00 - [376] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 08/02/2008 11:15:50 Originally by: Gamesguy About 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. Name one Minmatar ship that doesn't sacrifice something by fitting a TC. Yeah. Tempest. However, fact of the matter is that fitting a TD is a better choice, since TDs are just that more powerful and give you a better comparative advantage. So say hello to the new utility module on ships with spare mids. Guess which ships have spare midslots? Well, it's definitely not Amarr and Minmatar aren't so stellar in that department either except on a few T2 ships (come to think of it, there's massive advantages of fitting one TD on a Huggin/Rapier which previously couldn't really solo a mid-range boat) and the Tempest. Originally by: Gamesguy And 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. I look forward to Myrmidons and stuff with actual extra midslots using TDs en masse versus preety much everyone else 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. I could live with this, but give the Amarr recons/EAF/Arbitrator bigger bonuses to TDs (for example, 10% bonus to TD effectiveness to the Arbitrator/Curse/Pilgrim/EAF) and reduce the base unbonused TD effectiveness to 83% of their current effectiveness (making them have the same effect when used on bonused ships and reduced effect on unbonused ships). Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.08 11:17:00 - [377] Originally by: Blutreiter You 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. Yes it's a relative advantage, that's why the power level difference between TC and TD is relevant and that's why fitting TD instead of TC (on short range fits) is almost always better. Eg, consider that you have 80% of your opponents tracking. If you have speed advantage, both of you will hit 100%. If he has speed advantage, he can exploit your low tracking and reduce the damage you can do to him. If you add 1 tc with 15% tracking, you still have 5% less tracking than him, so either you gain no benefit (you have speed advantage) or you can do closer to your max dps but still miss some. If you instead have a TD and disrupt his tracking, suddenly you have 60% more tracking than him (you have 80% of his base, he now has only 50%). If you have speed advantage, you can considerably lower the dps he can do, if he has speed advantage, you'll both do 100% dps. Quote: As for range, if you're getting weapon disrupted just get closer to your enemy. Nothing prevents you from doing damage. Full damage. Again its a matter of relative advantages. If you have speed advantage, you can choose the range. The one with range advantage can only benefit from that advantage until that speed advantage negates it. This can be a short while or a long while depending on ships and wether we're talking web range or not. If your opponent has both range AND speed advantage, your options are limited to either reducing his range or increasing yours. Consider 10km range on one ship and 20km on other. 1TC gives the underdog 11.5km range, a negligible benefit for most part. 1TD otoh brings the opponent down to 10km range, totally negating his range advantage. Hence, TD is again considerably more useful than TC. Both range and tracking mean nothing by themselves, it's the relation between your range/tracking vs your opponents that gives them any meaning. Hence TC almost always loses to a TD. Note my point was not about wether or not range or tracking disadvantage can be compensated with other means, I was only comparing the two modules in relation to the 'extra med slot' argument brought up in the post that I replied to.
Alek Row Minmatar Silent Step	Posted - 2008.02.08 11:52:00 - [378] Originally by: Goumindong Incorrect. All it does is let the "turret range ewar" actually affect the range of all turrets. This is incorrect since it will not affect equally. Optimal dependent guns have plenty of usable and easy switchable counters, and drones, and missiles, and rigs. Falloff depende guns have drones, missiles and rigs. I understand that increasing the falloff with falloff scripts may be difficult to balance, but I still don't see a reason why shouldn't TCs/TEs have a dynamic property that increases falloff only when the gun is disrupted. And no, I don't want EW immunity, I want to have a chance of fitting something that I can easilly replace later that atenuate TD's effect to a certain extent when I'm fighting in falloff. The inclusion of this new dynamic bonus in current TCs/TEs seems logical but I have no ideia of how hard would be to code this change.
Kagura Nikon Minmatar Infinity Enterprises Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.02.08 11:56:00 - [379] Originally by: Goumindong Edited by: Goumindong on 08/02/2008 08:31:04 Edited by: Goumindong on 08/02/2008 08:22:19 Your 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. That is wrong. Falloff bonus is ONLY a damage boost at a given fixed range. Or ONLY a range boost at a given fixed damage. You cannot use both at same time on its plenitude. You can only use both at same time if using them only partially (for example fight 10% further range when you got 20% extra falloff). And following you same assumption that its both damage and range boost. I must say, Track disruptors cannot affect Falloff, because its both a range penalty and a damage penalty! Both sides of the coin are the same, if its unfair to have falloff bonuses then its unfair to have falloff penalties. ------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Diomidis Amarr Mythos Corp RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.02.08 12:01:00 - [380] Stop reporting imaginary fits with 5x MP II + 3x HS II to prove your weak arguments. Zealot is hard to fit as it is with 4x turrets and 3x heat sinks. It's raw DPS and a buffer EHP tank are much lower than a standard-fitted Vaga that also speed-tanks much better. 1 vs. 1, and the Vaga has the much more dependable DPS from a ML and 5x Drones. That's balance folks. They knew that the Vaga won't track, nor have the effective range of MP...that's why it has missiles and 25m3 drone bay the first place. That's why a Zealot won't get a drone bay at all, despite it's easier to run out of cap, has less EHP, speed and theoretical range. If range was everything, Sniper-Zealots, Muninns and Eagles. But it seams like Vagas are "everything", and blah-blah cannot hide this fact. And FFS, no FC would prefer a Zealot over a Vaga, unless he would setup a cruiser class sniper team. The Vaga is not a dmg dealer, tho it has respectable dps for a nano-gang ship. It can scout, it has superior buffer tank that heals over time passively and comfortably can use thermal drones that really hurt T2 amarrians when it comes to 1vs1... TEs cannot and will never be better than a scripted TC, and neither should ever be more effective than a TD, cause the TD was made to counter TC/TE, and NOT vice versa! TC/TE are not ECCM. TDs affected effectively only 1/4 of the available weapon systems with both it's scripts, even BEFORE scripts that was pretty limiting it's usage. Now it can hurt 3/4 of them, but not at the same time. If you think TDs are going to be so poweful, why not use them yourself? I cannot imagine many ships that would benefit more of TD other than medium sized nano ships, and I believe a Vaga is one of them...just like both ships use webs in your imaginary fights, make both a Vaga and a zealot or whatever use TDs and there u go - things are back to "normal"...

DennoTheHunter Caldari Kernkraft 400	Posted - 2008.02.08 12:19:00 - [381] Edited by: DennoTheHunter on 08/02/2008 12:19:30 Originally by: Goumindong Edited by: Goumindong on 08/02/2008 08:31:04 Edited by: Goumindong on 08/02/2008 08:22:19 Your 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. I think you're getting confused. What i did say is, smaller ships gain even less from TE/TC since they have only halve/quad the falloff, with the exception of ships with range bonus(Note: large ac's only get a 4,5 k boost in falloff for the first falloff mod). Lets make a few calculations with small, medium and large ac's falloff with barrage and max skills. Large AC -> 30 k falloff With 1x falloff mod -> 34,5 k Increase -> 4,5 k Nothing you can brag about and in terms of dps the gain is very little in a normal pvp range (0-20k). Medium AC -> 15 k With 1x falloff mod -> 17,3 k Increase -> 2,3 k Won't make a noticable difference in a normal PvP scenario. Maybe nano ships can use it, but then they either have to sacrifice tank or speed. Small AC -> 7,5 k With 1x falloff mod -> 8,6 k Increase -> 1,1 k That's not worth it especially since small ships have very few slots to play with. That's what i tried to say about range, but you seem to completely have misunderstood me. About hitting, as i said in a normal fight there's always one webbing the enemy, or else you're doing something wrong (unless it's at a belt, planet or something). If you then consider range, at 20 k a falloff mod only increases with 8 % with large ac's, and the dps boost gets smaller as closer you get. If you fight at an even longer range, then your dps gets very low (due to how falloff works) and/or you can't scramble the target. All i'm doing is trying to work out how TC/TE gonna work in a normal everyday pvp scenario, which where it counts. And as far I've found out, TE/TC won't get anywhere near overpowered. So my point of view stands. For me at least all you're post are more or less fail. _____________________ If I am in a fair fight.... Something went wrong!
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.08 13:10:00 - [382] Since it's a slow day at work I found myself contemplating about the argument that +falloff gives more benefit than optimal mod. Turning this around, then, -falloff should be bigger penalty than -optimal. A cig and a bottle of coke later I found myself thinking about the aforementioned relative advantages in terms of old vs new TDs. Old TD: AC+TD vs Blaster -> AC gains increased range and tracking advantage. AC+TD vs Laser -> AC gains bigger tracking advantage, Laser has reduced range advantage. Blaster+TD vs AC -> Blaster gains tracking advantage,ac range advantage reduced insignificantly Blaster+TD vs laser -> Blaster gains bigger tracking advantage, reduced laser range advantage Laser+TD vs AC-> Laser gains tracking advantage and improves its range advantage insignificantly Laser+TD vs blaster -> Laser gains tracking advantage and improves range advantage slightly New TD: AC+TD vs laser -> identical AC+TD vs blaster -> identical Blaster+TD vs AC -> Blaster negates ac range advantage, and gains tracking advantage Blaster+TD vs laser -> identical Laser+TD vs ac -> laser gains tracking advantage, improves range advantage Laser+TD vs blaster -> laser gains tracking advantage, improves range advantage What does it tell us then? First of all, TDs were not broken. Their ineffectiveness stems from webs making exploiting the tracking penalty properly too problematic. The old tds follow a very obvious logic which deals with the relative advantages and disadvantages different weapon types have against each other. Furthermore amarr are somewhat compensated for the easier exploiting of optimal penalty by making totally negating their advantage impossible with only 1 unbonused TD. On new TDs this logic is broken, which manifests itself best when you compare blaster vs ac. In this light my suggestion of replacing optimal penalty with missile explosion radius penalty was bit off the mark. Better idea would be just to add a script for missile explosion radius penalty and keep the optimal penalty. This would genuinely increase the amount of valid targets, instead of just making using TDs easier against same set of targets.
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2008.02.08 13:21:00 - [383] Originally by: Trigos Trilobi .... No, TDs should only be viable on amarr ew ships. This means a serious nerf to their effectiveness but a boost on the dedicated ships. Now youre saying ACs get affected without them being able to do anything about it right? Well, you see amarr ew ships also have nos/neut as an ew, its there to tank them but against a AC boat this doesnt help because THEY WORK WITHOUT CAP. I see no problem in TDs now destroying ACs aswell as blaster and lasers. Its fine.
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.02.08 13:28:00 - [384] Originally by: Amira Shadowsong No, TDs should only be viable on amarr ew ships. This means a serious nerf to their effectiveness but a boost on the dedicated ships. This is absolutely necessary, otherwise we'll be seeing TDs on everyone but Amarr ships, or it is the new 'must have' thing for the spare midslot ships really (being that it would be far more powerful then any other ewar you can fit in just one mid). Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Ariel Dawn Beets and Gravy Syndicate	Posted - 2008.02.08 13:59:00 - [385] Originally by: Diomidis I don't know what I'm talking about Don't tell me to use 'imaginary' fits when your Amarrian friends are doing the same for the Vagabond. It is very very rare to have three Gyrostabilizers on them as well. Fitting a missile launcher on a Vagabond is a horrible idea compared to the module that solves it's most immediate problem (getting webbed by an interceptor) and shows that you either do not fly the ship or if you do, follow the lemmings in the FotM setups. Furthurmore you claim that drones are a dependable source of DPS; last time I checked you can't destroy turrets nor outrun them forever causing them to MWD-Coast-MWD-Coast, etc. Your inability to fit ships properly, again, is not an argument for balance. All 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. Then you talk about some useless junk that shows you haven't read the thread. The general consensus was to add falloff equal to the optimal amounts present on TCs/TEs, not to overbalance them (like the current Amarr changes sadly) in favor of falloff. And 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. Goumindong, I was hoping you'd reply with the clear-cut and logical arguments I recall seeing from you long before these Amarrian changes and raves had affected you. It is impossible for a Vagabond to reach 400 turret DPS using Barrage M, even while sitting at optimal using high-end officer gyrostabilizers and implants, let alone at the real ranges Vagabonds operate at. ___ Really the issue is thus: Amarrian players believe Minmatar ships getting 5-10 more DPS (closer to 15 DPS for battleships) by using a MIDSLOT Tracking Computer (I will assuming Tracking Enhancers are fine as they use up a lowslot that may have been using for a Gyrostabilizer and perform worse in the short-range distances than setups using the latter; hence a fitting decision for the players). Hence, a tracking computer would act as a damage module for a midslot. Tracking 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. Tracking Computers provide a large amount of optimal to Amarr, and a decent amount to Gallente. Tracking Computers provide no range whatsoever to Minmatar ACs due to their non-existant optimal. Therefore, Tracking Computers themselves are imbalanced towards Minmatar due to not providing any benefit whatsoever concerning range and thus adding falloff to them would actually balance the benefits they provide against that which they currently give to Amarr ships (and to a lesser extent Gallente/Caldari). The increase in Minmatar DPS is very slight and only increases it by a few points. It does not add a DPS increase that would cause them to be doing any more than Amarr/Gallente, and requires sacrificing a midslot to do so, which are an extremely vital slot for Minmatards.
Diomidis Amarr Mythos Corp RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.02.08 14:18:00 - [386] Originally by: Ariel Dawn Originally by: Diomidis I don't know what I'm talking about Don't tell me to use 'imaginary' fits when your Amarrian friends are doing the same for the Vagabond I wasn't trying to promo either the Zealot nor the Vaga when referring to imaginary fits. And I know that a Zealot is more viable as a damage dealer if it goes for 3x HS, unlike the Vaga. Read first, flame later... Originally by: Ariel Dawn All 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. All FCs and most "roamers" prefer the Vaga cause its THAT faster in order to speed tank and get in range WAY more effectively, thus being better for tackling. Whether FCs should prefer the Zealot for that matter, is an argument left to be "proven" in-game. That won't make either ship useless, but...the Vaga is surely a more effective tackler.
Diomidis Amarr Mythos Corp RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.02.08 14:46:00 - [387] Edited by: Diomidis on 08/02/2008 14:46:13 Originally by: Ariel Dawn And 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. Hypocrisy is to claim that you "know" and that you "read" (unlike others), when you claim that the vaga is not viable without 2x LSEs, while more viable with an "anti-ceptor" high slot module vs. a launcher...others fly with webbers of their own, others with Cap Boosters, all depriving them of an LSE...your preference proves nothing, neither you offensive attitude. Originally by: Ariel Dawn Tracking 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. Emm...TDs affect all turrets' tracking, but optimal range's reduction for short range weapons was unfavorably unbalanced towards lasers. Stop trying to make ppl laugh when mentioning ammo versatility and lasers vs. ACs...have mercy! All comparisons use T2 ammo with tracking penalties. Vs. a short range faction ammo loaded Zealot a Vaga could speed tank it and bring it down with drones and missiles alone Originally by: Ariel Dawn Tracking Computers provide a large amount of optimal to Amarr, and a decent amount to Gallente. Tracking Computers provide no range whatsoever to Minmatar ACs due to their non-existant optimal. Therefore, Tracking Computers themselves are imbalanced towards Minmatar due to not providing any benefit whatsoever concerning range and thus adding falloff to them would actually balance the benefits they provide against that which they currently give to Amarr ships (and to a lesser extent Gallente/Caldari). The increase in Minmatar DPS is very slight and only increases it by a few points. It does not add a DPS increase that would cause them to be doing any more than Amarr/Gallente, and requires sacrificing a midslot to do so, which are an extremely vital slot Yes, you are right about the TCs...these med-slots are valuable, but sniper BSs other than amarr spare these, and because of fitting needs etc, Amarr BSs find it way more difficult to actually fit TCs CPU wise...more-over the built-in range bonuses in Projectile and Hybrid are far superior than these in Tachyons, moreover on Beams. The so called "range advantage" is there just for pulses and scorch, and really counts for the Zealot and the BSs actually. In fleet battles the fall-off bonus would further increase the built-in artie and railguns' range advantage, favored also by the "easier to spare" mid slots in Minmatar and Gallente BSs, and the limited range of the TD's compaired to ECM and Damps. So, since TC/TEs should be booster for the TD's not to be overpowered, the TDs should at least OPERATE at the ranges in question. So stop thinking short-range only, and realize that you "minor" changers and meh 10-15dps gain due to fall-off increase, is just a side-effect of a vast range increase you are just proposing. I'm up for fall-off bonuses in TC/TEs only if the ammo bonuses or base attributes are re-balanced.go for the "ship-equalization"[:
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.08 15:22:00 - [388] Edited by: Goumindong on 08/02/2008 15:22:58 Originally by: Trigos Trilobi I'd be interested to hear how you came to this conclusion, unless you mean that crawling webbed through blaster optimal close enough to exploit your tracking advantage is a good idea. Why are you in blaster optimal? You dont exploit the tracking against blasters you exploit the falloff. Quote: Extra tracking only increases your dps if you have trouble tracking. Why would you have trouble tracking against a laser boat since you already have the tracking advantage? Because tracking is not a linear function where you can easily attain max hit rate while reducing the hit rate of others. As well, since the hit quality falls off, reducing opponents hit percentage farther than would if you would still be tracking well is optimal play for both 3gyro and 2 gyro/1 te setups. Quote: It's as much a damage boost as +optimal is. Both allow you to project your dps further out, ie increase your range. Only if you typically operate in falloff. Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Kinda onesided logic. The 3gyro fit has just as much information. He knows he has 3gyros, so he'll always go for optimal against other acs. No. This depends on the type of tank he is fitting, and is sub-optimal play anyway. Because getting to optimal is more risky, even against AC ships, leaving the option to flee is smarter. Such with two choices "easier to flee, but no disadvantage" or "harder to flee, but a disadvantage" its clear what choice to make. Originally by: DennoTheHunter What i did say is, smaller ships gain even less from TE/TC since they have only halve/quad the falloff, with the exception of ships with range bonus(Note: large ac's only get a 4,5 k boost in falloff for the first falloff mod). I dont think you understand the concept of "percentage" ill give you a hint. It doesnt matter if you change the ranges involved, the amount better throughout the falloff of a given ship is a steady value. Moving these values towards web/scram range only increases the strengths of the AC ships because within those ranges it is easier to modulate range than it is outside of those ranges.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.08 15:27:00 - [389] Originally by: Ariel Dawn Don't tell me to use 'imaginary' fits when your Amarrian friends are doing the same for the Vagabond. It is very very rare to have three Gyrostabilizers on them as well. Fitting a missile launcher on a Vagabond is a horrible idea compared to the module that solves it's most immediate problem (getting webbed by an interceptor) and shows that you either do not fly the ship or if you do, follow the lemmings in the FotM setups. You cannot fit 6 autocannons on a vagabond, so right after that the best module you are looking at is a missile launcher. Quote: All 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. FCs would rather have a Cerberus because for actual added DPS they add as much or more with more agility and they add ewar which increases the tanks of ships all around, and they have the ability to do DPS that isnt EM. Quote: Goumindong, I was hoping you'd reply with the clear-cut and logical arguments I recall seeing from you long before these Amarrian changes and raves had affected you. It is impossible for a Vagabond to reach 400 turret DPS using Barrage M, even while sitting at optimal using high-end officer gyrostabilizers and implants, let alone at the real ranges Vagabonds operate at. No, its not. 5 220mm IIs with barrage and 3 damage mods is 384 before the launcher and drones. Upgrading some of them to 425s[which you can do on a 2LSE setup] Quote: Really the issue is thus: Amarrian players believe [...] 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. 1. It has nothing to do with Amarran players. It has everything to do with the proper balance of short range ships 2. tracking disruptors work equally against all races except caldari. In fact, worse against minmitar because they traditionally have the most supplementary dps and the most spare med slots with which to fill with tracking disruptors. TD's cut the damage of all ships terribly when used for range. Against Amarr, its near 100% outside of web range, since most will go from hitting to not hitting at all, ever. Quote: Don't tell me to use 'imaginary' fits when your Amarrian friends are doing the same for the Vagabond. What imaginary fits. You are listing things that the Zealot supposedly does better than the vagabond. Such, you take a fit within the same parameters and compare them. Saying that the Zealot has more DPS than the vagabond while having only 3k less EHP and fitting an injector[which the vaga doesnt have] and going 3km/s means we can place those same restrictions on the vaga and see how it performs. If it performs better than the example Zealot, then the example zealot really doesnt have said advantages over the Vagabond. The simple fact is that falloff rigs are just fine and the same counter that TC's and TE's are to Amarr and Gallente for tracking disruptors. And that adding both med slot modules for gallente and Minmitar that extend their reach is delicate. You dont want to fit them and want to ignore them, but they are there and they are still the module you want.
DennoTheHunter Caldari Kernkraft 400	Posted - 2008.02.08 15:49:00 - [390] Originally by: Goumindong The simple fact is that falloff rigs are just fine and the same counter that TC's and TE's are to Amarr and Gallente for tracking disruptors. Plz stop putting that useless argument up again and again. You're basically saying we should remove TC/TE from the game, since every race can get extra optimal, falloff and tracking using rigs. That's a stupid way of balancing things. While we're at it, lets remove: Nanofibers, Overdrives, dmg modules, resistant modules and everything else where there is a rig version of the same attribute. Seriously... Anyway your last reply to me basically said what i partly demonstrated in that post. _____________________ If I am in a fair fight.... Something went wrong!

Blutreiter Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades	Posted - 2008.02.08 15:57:00 - [391] Originally by: DennoTheHunter Originally by: Goumindong The simple fact is that falloff rigs are just fine and the same counter that TC's and TE's are to Amarr and Gallente for tracking disruptors. Plz stop putting that useless argument up again and again. You're basically saying we should remove TC/TE from the game, since every race can get extra optimal, falloff and tracking using rigs. That's a stupid way of balancing things...[] ...what? Where? Cogito ergo boom - I think i'll blow sht up* Originally by: CCP Explorer I know we have said this before, but this time we really mean itÖ
Ariel Dawn Beets and Gravy Syndicate	Posted - 2008.02.08 17:12:00 - [392] I completely understand now why Amarr is getting such a massive boost. It's whiners are relentless and will not stop to consider anything that may not be in their favour. TCs increasing falloff on snipers? What a joke compared to the new Apocalypse. I suppose a 5-10 DPS increase at range versus a 60 DPS loss (When using 2 low slots for Gyro/or TE) at close range is too imbalancing in Minmatar's favor. Exactly why would it be wrong to give Minmatar a few extra points of DPS; comparing to the 10-33% effective damage increase Amarr is getting, it does seem rather tame. Oh thats right, because Minmatar isn't Amarr and has no dedicated EVE-O whine crew because they've always adopted to adapt instead of complaining. Efforts such as this thread get quickly burned down by sheer amounts of EFT warriors. My favourite moment in the thread was when someone commented on how 'amarrian roleplayers' using tracking disruptors/computers said they were bad. Thats like saying furries are animal experts. I suggest all Minmatar players train up Amarr and start flying FotM, since it's impossible to convince the clowns, might as well join them and hurry the process of CCP's magical pendulum of over-boost and over-nerf. Huzzah! Curses, Pilgrims, Zealots, Sacs, so many awesome choices.
Blutreiter Amarr Digital Fury Corporation Digital Renegades	Posted - 2008.02.08 17:29:00 - [393] Originally by: Ariel Dawn ...whiners are relentless and will not stop... Exactly why would it be wrong to give Minmatar a few extra points of DPS; comparing to the 10-33% effective damage increase Amarr is getting... My favourite moment in the thread was when someone commented on how 'amarrian roleplayers' using tracking disruptors/computers said they were bad. Thats like saying furries are animal experts. ... So this is now about giving Minmatar more DPS? I think the original whine was that the modified Weapon Disruptors need a countermodule? Why do you need a counter in the first place? Also... wait I need to quote this again. Originally by: Ariel Dawn the 10-33% effective damage increase Amarr is getting Ahahaha! Sorry that my post proceeds to lack a normal comment but this is getting too good to be true And your own comment about amarrian roleplayers which... wait for it... FLY AMARR SHIPS with COMMON AMARR FITTINGS, like Tracking Disruptors! (Oooh shiny!) By chance, are Tracking Disruptors common amarr EW modules? I know why this is all going downhill. Too much whiners. Indeed, you hit the nail on the head. Cogito ergo boom - I think i'll blow sht up* Originally by: CCP Explorer I know we have said this before, but this time we really mean itÖ
Dromidas Shadowmoon Minmatar 54th Knights Templar Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2008.02.08 17:30:00 - [394] Originally by: Gamesguy 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. About 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. And 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. Actually, because minmatar t2 ships shield tank, there are less mid slots on minmatar ships to be dedicated to 'utility' than there are low slots on amarr ships to dedicate to 'utility'. mwd, scram, cap booster.. you've already got 3 required-for-pvp modules. Which leaves very little for a shield tank. We could use a low for a TE, but instead of a gyrostab? Well, that would depend on the ship... _______________________________________________ Minmatar will always go faster than you, get over it.
Khanid Venari	Posted - 2008.02.08 18:15:00 - [395] Originally by: Ariel Dawn I completely understand now why Amarr is getting such a massive boost. It's whiners are relentless and will not stop to consider anything that may not be in their favour. TCs increasing falloff on snipers? What a joke compared to the new Apocalypse. I suppose a 5-10 DPS increase at range versus a 60 DPS loss (When using 2 low slots for Gyro/or TE) at close range is too imbalancing in Minmatar's favor. Exactly why would it be wrong to give Minmatar a few extra points of DPS; comparing to the 10-33% effective damage increase Amarr is getting, it does seem rather tame. Oh thats right, because Minmatar isn't Amarr and has no dedicated EVE-O whine crew because they've always adopted to adapt instead of complaining. Efforts such as this thread get quickly burned down by sheer amounts of EFT warriors. My favourite moment in the thread was when someone commented on how 'amarrian roleplayers' using tracking disruptors/computers said they were bad. Thats like saying furries are animal experts. I suggest all Minmatar players train up Amarr and start flying FotM, since it's impossible to convince the clowns, might as well join them and hurry the process of CCP's magical pendulum of over-boost and over-nerf. Huzzah! Curses, Pilgrims, Zealots, Sacs, so many awesome choices. You obviously don't fly amarr that much do you ? Tbh I cross trained from amarr to minmatarr last summer because amarr were utter crap, if they're getting a boost ( ANY boost ) it's a good thing and it wont make them uber ... just maybe ... playable. Every race has it's downsides, and amarr has a lot of them ( caldari are still the worst for small gangs tbh ). And the pilgrim ? IT IS BROKEN, it is utterly useless in small skirmishes where a curse will def outperform it, it's survivability is crap and it's got fitting problems too not to mention the fact that you can't fit a decent enough tank on it to go fight in web range atm. So yeah BOOST THE PILGRIM !!! The only thing you can use it for atm is to kill frigs or very cap-dependant porrly fitted BS's ratting in 0.0 using NPC damage and NOS/NEUT action to break their tanks. But if they web you and they start hitting you with close range guns/missiles ... you're dead. End of story. AMARR BOOST FTW. I fly Minmatarr too as I've mentioned.... P.S. I think that you need to leave the forums alone and go back and sit on the Oisio gate in Hysera and wait for those caracals to jump in and gank them and boast about how omgwtfbbqketchup your pvp skills are.
Diomidis Amarr Mythos Corp RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.02.08 19:37:00 - [396] Originally by: Ariel Dawn I completely understand now why Amarr is getting such a massive boost. It's whiners are relentless and will not stop to consider anything that may not be in their favour. TCs increasing falloff on snipers? What a joke compared to the new Apocalypse. I suppose a 5-10 DPS increase at range versus a 60 DPS loss (When using 2 low slots for Gyro/or TE) at close range is too imbalancing in Minmatar's favor. Exactly why would it be wrong to give Minmatar a few extra points of DPS; comparing to the 10-33% effective damage increase Amarr is getting, it does seem rather tame. Oh thats right, because Minmatar isn't Amarr and has no dedicated EVE-O whine crew because they've always adopted to adapt instead of complaining. Efforts such as this thread get quickly burned down by sheer amounts of EFT warriors. My favourite moment in the thread was when someone commented on how 'amarrian roleplayers' using tracking disruptors/computers said they were bad. Thats like saying furries are animal experts. I suggest all Minmatar players train up Amarr and start flying FotM, since it's impossible to convince the clowns, might as well join them and hurry the process of CCP's magical pendulum of over-boost and over-nerf. Huzzah! Curses, Pilgrims, Zealots, Sacs, so many awesome choices. blah-blah-blah...so you jumped on the whine mobile yourself, to see if you'll get lucky? Talking of the Apocalypse: the Apoc had a self repeating bonus: more cap per lvl, less cap usage per lvl...a bit odd combo, don't u think? The TDs where the only bonused defensive ewar that was completely neglected cause of it's limited effectiveness. Similar ewar modules could either shut down the locking capabilities or completely stop the enemy ship. I don't recall the so-called by your arguments "weak" Minie Recons or HASes have similar problems to that of the previous Sac, or the Zealot, cause their actual bonuses are utilized much better in-game. Over-boost, like the Sac you are mentioned, are also limited by range or DPS, unless you think the 19km HAM range with "all to V" EFT skills (imaginary) is overpowered compared to the operating range of a Vaga, more-over that of a Cerb, or the DPS a Sac can boost with HML is sth to call home about... What if the Devs desided that the Amarr propulsion system is different an can AB or MWD far better under the Huginn's webber? Cause that's what u are suggesting: since minmatar relay on fall-off, don't disrupt it... Nice: since Amarrian ships are too week cap-wise to viably fit MWD and slow-boat around with it, make them immune to stasis :P clever thinking...
Wu Jiun	Posted - 2008.02.08 20:38:00 - [397] Originally by: Ariel Dawn right, because Minmatar isn't Amarr and has no dedicated EVE-O whine crew Yes they have their whine crew. And you are giving strong arguments to vote you for president. Originally by: Ariel Dawn because they've always adopted to adapt instead of complaining. Like in this thread, right? Some people.
Aramendel Amarr North Face Force	Posted - 2008.02.08 22:59:00 - [398] Originally by: Trigos Trilobi No it doesn't. NOS still fits in highs and TDs in meds. Copy-Paste: 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. Without that cap warfare kills your own cap while killing that of your target which makes it somewhat pointless. Have fun ignoring that yet again. Quote: Quote: Quote please where I claim that TPs "need to be weak". "The gimpage of TPs is overcompensated by the ownage of 40k webs." Implies that tps are balanced because webs are good. IMO tps are weak, hence you're arguing that they need to be weak. Imnplying != claiming. And nevermind that I am not even doing that there. As said, already: Copy-paste: ---------- That's rich. Let's take a look at the post where I wrote "The gimpage of TPs is overcompensated by the ownage of 40k webs." shall we? The relevant part is "Minnie recons are still pretty nice, though, because 40k webs are extremly powerful. Bad bonus (TPs) + very good bonus (40k webs) = good ship The gimpage of TPs is overcompensated by the ownage of 40k webs." So, no - let me repeat: NO - I was NOT writing this "in reference to you comparing TDs with TPs" in general, but strictly considering the performance of the huginn/rapier. Which should be blindingly obvious considering the 2 setences before the one you quoted out of context. Either frigging learn to read or stop doing exactly what you accuse me of - misinterpretating my words. ---------- Have fun ignoring that again. Seems to be the only thing you are able to in this discussion.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.08 23:37:00 - [399] Edited by: Goumindong on 08/02/2008 23:38:23 Originally by: DennoTheHunter Plz stop putting that useless argument up again and again. You're basically saying we should remove TC/TE from the game, since every race can get extra optimal, falloff and tracking using rigs. That's a stupid way of balancing things. While we're at it, lets remove: Nanofibers, Overdrives, dmg modules, resistant modules and everything else where there is a rig version of the same attribute. Seriously... Anyway your last reply to me basically said what i partly demonstrated in that post. Its only a bad arguement if low teir autocannons suffer range penalties compared to long range autocannons. So just reduce the falloff on d180's by 25% and 220's by 15% and it seems like a good idea. The simple fact is that you cannot downgrade blasters and lasers nearly as easy as you can autocannons. Originally by: Ariel Dawn What a joke compared to the new Apocalypse. That the new Apoc is overpowered is not a justification to make other ships overpowered. Its only a justification for not breaking the Apoc.
Msobe	Posted - 2008.02.09 13:48:00 - [400] Originally by: Ariel Dawn I completely understand now why Amarr is getting such a massive boost. It's whiners are relentless and will not stop to consider anything that may not be in their favour. . . . . .Oh thats right, because Minmatar isn't Amarr and has no dedicated EVE-O whine crew because they've always adopted to adapt instead of complaining. Efforts such as this thread get quickly burned down by sheer amounts of EFT warriors. ... I suggest all Minmatar players train up Amarr and start flying FotM, since it's impossible to convince the clowns, might as well join them and hurry the process of CCP's magical pendulum of over-boost and over-nerf. Huzzah! Curses, Pilgrims, Zealots, Sacs, so many awesome choices. Not sure if I should thank you for a good chuckle, or send you a bill for a new keyboard . . . I blasted coffee out my nose all over the poor thing. So nasty. I feel your pain. Matari pilots are universally a bunch of rugged individualists who would rather adapt and roll with the punches, overcoming adversity armed with nothing more than ingenuity and perseverance. Amarr, just a bunch of whiners and complainers. When Matari pilots had to endure the unfairness of being able to use TD on laser ships, knowing full well that they had very little to fear from the laser ship TDing them (to the extent that laser boat would never bother fit one, anyways), they never complained. Not one peep. They just learned to survive, to adapt, to deal with the fact they could force the Amarr pilot into closer range if he wanted to hit - while at the same time using his superior speed to dictate that range, making it impossible for his opponent to close. It was an extreme hardship, but they suffered in silence. Now that the devs corrected an imbalance on how TD's affected range of different turrets, Matari pilots have rallied, and learned to adapt in a new way. They have out whined the whiners, creating 14 pages of whimpering forum trolling goodness. You wouldn't dream of . . . you know, ummm - playing the game? And learning to adapt? If that means cross training to amarr, go for it. It'll give you something called perspective. It certainly won't make you resistant to TD's like you want . . . if you want that, I'd recommend you look at Caldari. Cuz that is how it was meant to be - TD's shut down turret ships . . . not just laser boats, all of em.

Diomidis Amarr Mythos Corp RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.02.09 14:01:00 - [401] Originally by: Msobe .... Thanks Msobe - couldn't write it better myself... It's like claiming that the rich guy who bankrupts and loses his multi million home is in a worse condition than a "born-homeless" one, cause the first one "knows what his is losing" aka. TD range disruption immunity. Surely, the rich guy will find it more difficult to "adapt", but that won't make him any less fortunate in the end, will it? You cannot claim ignorance of some facts (or laws) to go away breaking them, friend "Minie-lovers"... And stop thinking TD boost as an "Amarr" thing...it's a balance needed vs. the other ewar modules, no aimed to nerf Minmatar, or the Vaga or each and every specific turret boat some rush to compare and "save" vs. the "overpowered" WTFPWN amarrian ships... If it's so, then cross-train to Amarr as Msobe suggested...it's a pity that so-so many EVE players cross-trained for a Vaga...they should go for the WTFPWN Zealot...and fit it with TDs too...
Magazaki	Posted - 2008.02.09 15:15:00 - [402] Originally by: Msobe . . . Could not have put it better myself. -----sig----- Originally by: Kaemonn:Signature Originally by: kieron: off duty You dont have to swallow! Win...
DennoTheHunter Caldari Kernkraft 400	Posted - 2008.02.09 15:40:00 - [403] Edited by: DennoTheHunter on 09/02/2008 15:41:25 Originally by: Goumindong Its only a bad arguement if low teir autocannons suffer range penalties compared to long range autocannons. So just reduce the falloff on d180's by 25% and 220's by 15% and it seems like a good idea. The simple fact is that you cannot downgrade blasters and lasers nearly as easy as you can autocannons. Then you can ask yourself, what do i gain for upgrading my guns? The only real differences between all the ac's is fitting and tracking. The dps difference is really small, where as lasers and blasters can get an ok dmg boost by using higher tier guns. AC's are a complete different kind of gun compared to other guns. None of your arguments have proved that TC/TE really would be overpowered on AC's. We've already proven (or I have at least) that it isn't the range that will get overpowered. TE (not TC) do boost tracking a little, but won't change anything for ships like the Vaga, since you have to stop ship anyway to be able to hit. Other state that it will get overpowered on arties, but fighting in falloff is bad for arties, since it reduces the already low dps, and also reduces the alpha strike. Can't remember the exact numbers, but if TC/TE do get a falloff boost, the optimal+falloff range for highest tier longrange large guns will look like: 1400mm Arties -> 175 k Tachyon Beams -> 165 k 425mm Rails -> 185 k So here we still won't get any overpowered range. Plz tell me how it's overpowered... Use math, pics or just something to back up your claims. _____________________ If I am in a fair fight.... Something went wrong!
DennoTheHunter Caldari Kernkraft 400	Posted - 2008.02.09 15:52:00 - [404] Originally by: Msobe ... I haven't come across any everyday pew pew minmatar setups using TD's, as they know it's only good against lasers, and nothing else really. That's why nobody (or very few) have used them on normal pvp setups. The only thing this thread really is about is should TC/TE have a falloff boost as a counter to TD? If you are certain that so many ships used TD against amarr, then why not fit TC/TE to counter it, since you do have that option? If it's about the slot layout then think again. Do you honestly think that there will be many minmatar ships that would have room for such a module if they boost falloff? Only a few minmatar ships have (Tempest for example), but then again there's also a few Amarr ships (Armageddon should have room enough with it's 8 lowslots, just to make an example). _____________________ If I am in a fair fight.... Something went wrong!
Magazaki	Posted - 2008.02.09 16:14:00 - [405] Originally by: DennoTheHunter Originally by: Msobe ... The only thing this thread really is about is should TC/TE have a falloff boost as a counter to TD? Indeed, and it seems to have been derailed a few times, thanks for noting. Should they have a falloff boost? Maybe, maybe not. Probably it wouldn't break anything too much. Should they have a falloff boost as a counter to TD's? Well, let me see. For Arties,Rails,Beams, no need for counter as it is the optimal reduction that hurts these anyway and not the fallof. So boosting TC/TE falloff would have no effect as a counter to TD's For Autocannons,Pulses,Blasters, nobody will ever fit a TC/TE whatever anyone may claim here. The could partially work as a counter, but they will not. Anyone that would conceivably fit a TC/TE and would benefit from a falloff boost, will already have fit falloff rigs anyway, and the TC/TE falloff boost will add no further benefit. So in my opinion, a TC/TE falloff boost would have no effect as a counter. Fortunately, there is also nothing that I can conceive off that would be shifted out of balance anyway by such an implementation. Thus, I would tend to say that it does not matter either way. If it would make people happy to believe it helps, good for them. If it enables some people to use TC's instead of falloff rigs, good for them too, still nothing is out of balance. So, really, does arguing strongly against this idea have much effect? No. I only posted here strongly against some ideas that said the TD's boost shouldn't happen. -----sig----- Originally by: Kaemonn:Signature Originally by: kieron: off duty You dont have to swallow! Win...
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.09 18:07:00 - [406] Originally by: DennoTheHunter Plz tell me how it's overpowered... Use math, pics or just something to back up your claims. I did. You ignored it.
DennoTheHunter Caldari Kernkraft 400	Posted - 2008.02.09 18:16:00 - [407] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: DennoTheHunter Plz tell me how it's overpowered... Use math, pics or just something to back up your claims. I did. You ignored it. Where, if i may ask? _____________________ If I am in a fair fight.... Something went wrong!
Ariel Dawn Beets and Gravy Syndicate	Posted - 2008.02.09 18:46:00 - [408] Originally by: Msobe Stuff Har. Please point out any threads prior to this one that had any serious and repeated complaints about Minmatar and/or requests to boost them. They are very few and far in between. Now do an EVE-Search on the phrase 'boost Amarr'. You get so many returned queries that its like typing '**' into Google. You say a 14 page thread regarding the introduction of a counter to an upcoming change is whining; exactly what is multiple-hundred page threads regarding boosting an ENTIRE race that already has the best battleships/capitals/T2 ships in the game. Your guns use capacitor? Gasp! I guess there's a drawback for being the hardest-hitting and most resilient race in the game. My input into this thread about how saying Minmatar players will adapt whilst complaining about TDs may seem hypocritical; I'm firstly going to be using them myself because of how powerful they will be (and have bought 300 Balmer TDs before they jumped up 4x in price ) and that I'm arguing for a look into the balance of the availability of counter modules to tracking disruptors, not to boost Minmatar. The fact that it would slightly raise ranged-Minmatar DPS is mostly a non-issue once you run the numbers yourself. It doesn't actually raise their raw DPS and adds less total damage than half an unbonused/unskilled Acolyte I. An insignificant increase at the cost of a module slot. Having a reduced optimal can be countered by Tracking Computers/Enhancers. Having a reduced falloff can be countered by nothing. Amarr can COUNTER Tracking Disruptors. Minmatar cannot. Amarr get huge range increases from Tracking Computers ontop of their already very long range. Minmatar get no range increase. Amarr can swap out ammo-types instantly and chose the best ammo for engagement range. Minmatar have either -50%, 0%, or +50% ammo. Explosive is also the first armor resist hole plugged, EM is never raised unless EANM setups. Very few Minmatar would rather fit a Tracking Computer (if it had falloff) in favour of the new Tracking Disruptor either, since the bonus of a TC under a TD is practically nothing anyway. This is not about boosting Minmatar (or nerfing Amarr). Flame all you want, I have no fear from lemmings. This is about providing a counter to a module change that will cripple a race's play style; everything else in EVE has a counter other than falloff being affected by Tracking Disruptors. A counter-module does not necessarily mean introducing falloff onto TCs/TEs either.** Adding a script to an existing electronic warfare module (such as ECCM) that prevents falloff/optimal reduction instead of simply increasing them is a good alternative solution. Thats all there is to it, and if you fail to see that, then there really is nothing further to say. I don't have an agenda, nor a special attachment to Minmatar ships. I just want to argue balance. Comparisions of Minmatar to Amarr best show the differences because they're two extremes on falloff vs optimal. How is EVE supposed to get out of a cycle of over-nerfs and over-boosts when people play favorites at the expense of other races? It just encourages more of the same from CCP and leads to bickering and flaming like this thread. So how about it? Add an optimal/falloff reduction resistance effect onto ECCM that uses a script. Adds more utility to a fairly unpopular module to fit that is only single use, and does not provide a Minmatar boost in anyway whatsoever DPS wise, and also performs the same effect for Gallente/Amarr. Maybe even using the useless ECCM - Omni modules instead of racial ECCM so the sensor strength boost is not as much, to circumvent any complaints from the ECM users. Seems like a decent idea to me; any complaints/problems/issues about it that I've missed?
Diomidis Amarr Mythos Corp RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.02.09 20:04:00 - [409] Edited by: Diomidis on 09/02/2008 20:11:27 Originally by: Ariel Dawn So how about it? Add an optimal/falloff reduction resistance effect onto ECCM that uses a script. Adds more utility to a fairly unpopular module to fit that is only single use, and does not provide a Minmatar boost in anyway whatsoever DPS wise, and also performs the same effect for Gallente/Amarr. Maybe even using the useless ECCM - Omni modules instead of racial ECCM so the sensor strength boost is not as much, to circumvent any complaints from the ECM users. Seems like a decent idea to me; any complaints/problems/issues about it that I've missed? That's a totally different approach than the OP suggests and seemed you applauded in your previous posts. The huge difference comes from the fact that ECCM is an under-utilized module that's used purely for ECCM -> defence. TC/TE are offensive electronics, used to aid turrets, not to fight back on TDs, ECM etc. TD's are meant to disrupt turret efficiency, taking TCs/TEs in count. No, you cannot compare it to SBs vs. Damps, cause Damps can break locks and make small ships totally useless in 1vs.1 situations - at least with bonuses. Should you read my previous posts, you could see that my "objection" to the OP is not about the Vaga, which will surely suffer by the TD, but can actually use it for their advantage when hunting Ratters. My objection is about real pvp situations, where TC/TEs are commonly used in each and every viable fitting: sniping BSs for fleet fights. There you can easily see that with similar skills, artilleries out-range and out-dmg lasers (both tachyons and beams) by a considerable margin. Adding 1 TC with optimal script, closes the gap a bit, but the Arties still out-range and out-dmg Lasers by a considerable amount. Should these scrips also add to the fall-off range of each turret, the gap would be much wider, in favor of projectile turrets. Each sniping Tempest would have a similar range to that of a Rokh or that of the "overpowered" new Apoc, with a huge alpha and no cap usage. DPS is also very good, and slightly worse than that of an Abaddon for example, still the huge alphas of roughly +40% dmg along with range is what realy counts in fleet battles, where few ships last more than 1-2 volleys. Higher DPS can never overcome this gap. Considering that the TDs have a max range close to the 100km margin, while fleet fights are commenced out to roughly 150+km, few can claim that TE/TCs actually need to be rebalanced. Even without them, T2 long range turrets with the appropriate ammo can out-range TD using support ships. Should the TD's have ranges similar to that of ECM or even damps on recons, we could consider it as a viable excuse. That's why a "resistance to TD" module is totally different than a TC/TE fall-off increase script, and whoever fails to understand it is just a whiner. P.S. Nothing personal Ariel Dawn - I liked ur idea, sincerely. Do not underestimate lemmings tho...
Ariel Dawn Beets and Gravy Syndicate	Posted - 2008.02.09 20:36:00 - [410] Originally by: Diomidis That's a totally different approach than the OP suggests and seemed you applauded in your previous posts. The huge difference comes from the fact that ECCM is an under-utilized module that's used purely for ECCM -> defence. TC/TE are offensive electronics, used to aid turrets, not to fight back on TDs, ECM etc. TD's are meant to disrupt turret efficiency, taking TCs/TEs in count. No, you cannot compare it to SBs vs. Damps, cause Damps can break locks and make small ships totally useless in 1vs.1 situations - at least with bonuses. Should you read my previous posts, you could see that my "objection" to the OP is not about the Vaga, which will surely suffer by the TD, but can actually use it for their advantage when hunting Ratters. My objection is about real pvp situations, where TC/TEs are commonly used in each and every viable fitting: sniping BSs for fleet fights. There you can easily see that with similar skills, artilleries out-range and out-dmg lasers (both tachyons and beams) by a considerable margin. Adding 1 TC with optimal script, closes the gap a bit, but the Arties still out-range and out-dmg Lasers by a considerable amount. Should these scrips also add to the fall-off range of each turret, the gap would be much wider, in favor of projectile turrets. Each sniping Tempest would have a similar range to that of a Rokh or that of the "overpowered" new Apoc, with a huge alpha and no cap usage. DPS is also very good, and slightly worse than that of an Abaddon for example, still the huge alphas of roughly +40% dmg along with range is what realy counts in fleet battles, where few ships last more than 1-2 volleys. Higher DPS can never overcome this gap. Considering that the TDs have a max range close to the 100km margin, while fleet fights are commenced out to roughly 150+km, few can claim that TE/TCs actually need to be rebalanced. Even without them, T2 long range turrets with the appropriate ammo can out-range TD using support ships. Should the TD's have ranges similar to that of ECM or even damps on recons, we could consider it as a viable excuse. That's why a "resistance to TD" module is totally different than a TC/TE fall-off increase script, and whoever fails to understand it is just a whiner. Well, regarding long-ranged sniping setups: 1400mm II(Tempest) has 36 DPS, 108 optimal 44 falloff (152 total) Tachyon Beam II(Geddon) has 40 DPS, 119 optimal 25 falloff (144 total) Mind, Minmatar ships have more mid-slots to dedicate to Tracking Computers than Amarr so they would be performing better overall than their Amarrian counterparts (other than the Apocalypse; but thats a dedicated sniping boat now), and the volley-capability of Minmatar sniping ships is entirely dependent on the number of participants in the fight. I am not very experienced in regards to long-range sniping ships (I usually flew tackling/close range ships in such engagements), but I believe in most situations the FCs will warp-in at the optimal range of their fleet ignoring falloff. Putting falloff on TCs/TEs, I still believe would be a decent solution for the short-range issues as it has it's own drawbacks in comparison to alternative uses for the slots they occupy, but it seems that this proposal has two sides of a fence with no middle ground regarding it. My arguments for it still stand, but I am arguing for a counter, not a 'Minmatar boost'. A TD-resistance module or effect put on a pre-existing module achieves the same objective that is my goal regarding this thread despite the two ideas being completely different. I was arguing for TCs/TEs because frankly those arguing against it seemed to have a fairly blatant agenda against Minmatar and favoritism for Amarr, which is not a good way to approach balance issues. Tracking Disruptors do have about the same range as Sensor Dampeners (TDs having more optimal while SDs more falloff); its just ECM that is out of line with this, mostly due to ship bonuses.

Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.09 21:17:00 - [411] Originally by: DennoTheHunter Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: DennoTheHunter Plz tell me how it's overpowered... Use math, pics or just something to back up your claims. I did. You ignored it. Where, if i may ask? Uhh, in this thread. Multiple times.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.09 21:39:00 - [412] Edited by: Goumindong on 09/02/2008 21:40:38 Edited by: Goumindong on 09/02/2008 21:40:05 Originally by: Ariel Dawn ... 1. Amarr do not have the best battleships[They are neither the hardest hitting[gallente], or most resiliant[Caldari]] 2. Amarr do not have the ability to choose range as you so say[in fact, they have less options in the short range , with -50% or +50% being the only reasonable choices] 3. Percentile increases in damage are only low when initial DPS is low, but still produce similar increases in effectiveness. 4. You cannot counter TDs with tracking computers 5. The fact that it would raise minmitar DPS and range and tracking is an issue. 6. A countermodule, by your definition, already exists 7. The range increase from tracking computers is not "huge" it never has been, it never will be. Furthermore, Amarr are in the least able position to exploit said range. While minmitar are in the best. If you want a counter-module. Then falloff rigs are going to be sufficient. If you dont want a counter module, but want to boost minmitar at the expense of gallente, then TEs and TC's get falloff on them.
Diomidis Amarr Mythos Corp RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.02.09 22:02:00 - [413] Originally by: Ariel Dawn Well, regarding long-ranged sniping setups: 1400mm II(Tempest) has 36 DPS, 108 optimal 44 falloff (152 total) Tachyon Beam II(Geddon) has 40 DPS, 119 optimal 25 falloff (144 total) Nicely put, tho you fail to compensate for the Alpha Strike aka Single Volley dmg difference. Tempest does 458dmg per volley with Tremor L, a Geddon does 273dmg per volley of each Tachyon...ouch! With fleets of 50,100 or hundreds of BSs in each side, +59% per volley dmg cannot be matched by DPS. DPS win over time, while each and every BS that will be called as primary target will pop in less time than 2-3 volleys need to be fired (the first one is instant), so DPS never makes up for it, unless we are talking of small numbers or 1vs1 = not so common sniping situations. And that's without considering dmg mods, fitting limitations etc that lead to Tempests with more dmg mods in average that magnify the difference. Originally by: Ariel Dawn I believe in most situations the FCs will warp-in at the optimal range of their fleet ignoring falloff. No, you are wrong. Unless FCs will try to out-range the enemy fleet using Rokhs or the new Apoc, fleet battles rarely commence futher than 150-160km apart each fleet. Originally by: Ariel Dawn My arguments for it still stand, but I am arguing for a counter, not a 'Minmatar boost'. A TD-resistance module or effect put on a pre-existing module achieves the same objective that is my goal regarding this thread despite the two ideas being completely different. I was arguing for TCs/TEs because frankly those arguing against it seemed to have a fairly blatant agenda against Minmatar and favoritism for Amarr, which is not a good way to approach balance issues. You have to understand that TDs are the "counter", not vise versa. They have to be more powerful than the turrets they disrupt + the sub-systems aiding them, or there is no reason for them to exist. Till now, the only short-range turret based weapon systems affected by both TDs "penalties" where Lasers. That surely needed a balancing change. It would be fair to ask for a fall-off boost via TC/TEs only if the TDs massively hurt one turret type unlike others. But it doesn't cause the Projectiles have ammo types that already compensate to increase range, and numbers prove that Projectiles need no module or ship bonus in order to out-range other weapon systems as they are. Should TC/TEs be altered to counter TD boost, so should the Ammo range bonuses be lowered in order to keep the balance as it is today - or kind like today, otherwise lasers will be massively out-ranged and out-ganged considering slot layouts and current fleet fight mechanics, unless everyone uses the Apoc that is, but that's not an answer. Originally by: Ariel Dawn Tracking Disruptors do have about the same range as Sensor Dampeners (TDs having more optimal while SDs more falloff) True. But lets compile these numbers and each module's effectiveness in a fleet battle: The TD disrupts a large projectile weapon with 170km range...range is cutted down to 100km roughly, in range of shooting the ewar ship. That's without anything more than 1x TC. When using Tracking disruption script, a 1400mm howitzer should have trouble track anything that moves with a hi transversal. But guess what: it doesn't matter, cause the main target which 99% will be a big, slow plated BS at 150km will hardly have a transversal worth to speak of, so TD or not, the sniper will hit, and hit hard! ---------------------------------------------------- A Single, unbonused Dampener can cut its locking range in half, making it unable to lock , thus fire at all! Even when the scan resolution is damped, the primary target may never get to lock before it pops under concentrated fire. The same goes for ECM. So hardly a comparison, since it's "partially disrupt turret dmg dealing under circumstances" vs. prevent locking = no scramming, ewaring, dmg dealing even with missiles etc.
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.02.09 22:06:00 - [414] Originally by: Goumindong Edited by: Goumindong on 09/02/2008 21:40:38 Edited by: Goumindong on 09/02/2008 21:40:05 Originally by: Ariel Dawn ... 1. Amarr do not have the best battleships[They are neither the hardest hitting[gallente], or most resiliant[Caldari]] 2. Amarr do not have the ability to choose range as you so say[in fact, they have less options in the short range , with -50% or +50% being the only reasonable choices] 3. Percentile increases in damage are only low when initial DPS is low, but still produce similar increases in effectiveness. 4. You cannot counter TDs with tracking computers 5. The fact that it would raise minmitar DPS and range and tracking is an issue. 6. A countermodule, by your definition, already exists 7. The range increase from tracking computers is not "huge" it never has been, it never will be. Furthermore, Amarr are in the least able position to exploit said range. While minmitar are in the best. If you want a counter-module. Then falloff rigs are going to be sufficient. If you dont want a counter module, but want to boost minmitar at the expense of gallente, then TEs and TC's get falloff on them. Ive given up on ariel. She just doesnt listen. -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation
Ariel Dawn Beets and Gravy Syndicate	Posted - 2008.02.09 22:26:00 - [415] Edited by: Ariel Dawn on 09/02/2008 22:34:15 Originally by: Goumindong Amarrian ... Exactly the kind of lemming I was talking about. And I especially like your last point. Amarr having capacitor problems? Take your own advice and use Capacitor Control Circuit/Energy Discharge Elutriation rigs. This 'counters' your racial problem. Don't make a thousand+ posts complaining otherwise or stop being a hypocrite. And read, lemming, read. I said that I think falloff on TCs/TEs is fine, but that I want a solution/counter available, and that it doesn't necessarily have to be in the form of falloff bonuses. Why are you still arguing about falloff on TCs/TEs instead of proposing or providing discussion on another way to provide a counter to the issue that will not 'overpower' Minmatar. Adding a Tracking Disruptor resistance script to ECCM (or similarly underused module) provides a counter available to all races and does not boost them in any way. Unless you are saying that there should be absolutely no way for a Minmatar AC ship or Gallente Blastership to counter tracking disruptors removal of falloff. The 'fact' of the matter is that you are completely biased against Minmatar with no regard for balance. Shouldn't you be busy posting in threads complaining about how terrible Amarr are when you don't actually play the game? Also Diomindis, Amarr ships significantly out-range Minmatar battleship short-range weapons (Large Pulse = 45km optimal, 10km falloff, Large ACs = 5.4km optimal, 30km falloff) which is a very powerful ability when your BS does not have to close distance like Gallente and to a lesser extent Minmatar, while they are pretty much the same in long-range. Furthurmore, they always are using optimal while ACs are always in falloff, so the difference in damage is fairly significant, especially when a dual-damage bonused AC does about the same DPS as a single-damage bonused Pulse; with Amarr ships tending to have more turret slots as well.
Ariel Dawn Beets and Gravy Syndicate	Posted - 2008.02.09 22:51:00 - [416] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Ive given up on ariel. She just doesnt listen. Ah, I must apologize Lyria. I ignore things written by ignorant children by habit. Please make sure to inform me when you make a post containing any sort of real information and I will be sure to read it. If it is good enough, perhaps I may give you a sticker to add to your notebook, doesn't that sound swell? Looking forward to reading one of your posts! -AD
Diomidis Amarr Mythos Corp RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.02.09 23:32:00 - [417] Edited by: Diomidis on 09/02/2008 23:35:55 Edited by: Diomidis on 09/02/2008 23:34:37 Originally by: Ariel Dawn Also Diomindis, Amarr ships significantly out-range Minmatar battleship short-range weapons (Large Pulse = 45km optimal, 10km falloff, Large ACs = 5.4km optimal, 30km falloff) which is a very powerful ability when your BS does not have to close distance like Gallente and to a lesser extent Minmatar, while they are pretty much the same in long-range. Furthurmore, they always are using optimal while ACs are always in falloff, so the difference in damage is fairly significant, especially when a dual-damage bonused AC does about the same DPS as a single-damage bonused Pulse; with Amarr ships tending to have more turret slots as well. That's true. And That's why CCP balances thing a bit, by giving ACs the edge vs. pulses in max DPS. Also the typical projectile turret has way less demanding fitting requirements compared to the equiv laser turret, and Minmatar BSs are way more flexible to fit MWDs and webs to make the most out of their limited range, and cap-less weapons. They can also fit X-L shield boosters along with a full rack of weapons, while the amarrian vessels have to go for a buffer armor tank, unable to fit even an L armor repairer...active tanking is a domi-thing Fitting needs rule-out the low slot advantage in amarr BSs cause you don't have the PG, CPU or both to fit a full rack of either pulses or Tachyons and an competitive active armor tank, so ships like the tempest or maelstrom can actually both active shield and buffer armor tank via rigs and plates, and use MWD to dictate range with cap to spare. CPU is also limiting your max TC/TE and dmg mod utilization in amarr BS, so 3x HS setups are not as viable as ppl suggest via EFT numbers. Surely less viable than 3x Guros in most situations. It's all about compromises and it's quite balanced in close range fits IMHO when you add resistances vs. available dmg types, cap usage etc. in the equation.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.10 00:15:00 - [418] Originally by: Ariel Dawn Exactly the kind of lemming I was talking about. And I especially like your last point. Amarr having capacitor problems? Take your own advice and use Capacitor Control Circuit/Energy Discharge Elutriation rigs. This 'counters' your racial problem. Don't make a thousand+ posts complaining otherwise or stop being a hypocrite. 1. I am not sure where i bought up Amarran capacitor 2. I am not sure what Amarran capacitor has to do with adversarial modules. CCCs and SMCs are definitly counters to NOS/Neuts et all. I dont recall saying they werent... Quote: And read, lemming, read. I said that I think falloff on TCs/TEs is fine, but that I want a solution/counter available, and that it doesn't necessarily have to be in the form of falloff bonuses. Why are you still arguing about falloff on TCs/TEs instead of proposing or providing discussion on another way to provide a counter to the issue that will not 'overpower' Minmatar. Because one already exists. They are called "Projectile Ambit Extension I's" Quote: The 'fact' of the matter is that you are completely biased against Minmatar with no regard for balance. Shouldn't you be busy posting in threads complaining about how terrible Amarr are when you don't actually play the game? What? Quote: Also Diomindis, Amarr ships significantly out-range Minmatar battleship short-range weapons (Large Pulse = 45km optimal, 10km falloff, Large ACs = 5.4km optimal, 30km falloff) which is a very powerful ability when your BS does not have to close distance like Gallente and to a lesser extent Minmatar, while they are pretty much the same in long-range. Furthurmore, they always are using optimal while ACs are always in falloff, so the difference in damage is fairly significant, especially when a dual-damage bonused AC does about the same DPS as a single-damage bonused Pulse; with Amarr ships tending to have more turret slots as well. And minmitar ships do more DPS with more supplimentary dps[which advantages small gang engagements since it lets ships get more DPS out of stronger tanks], while having large volley damage to help in larger gang engagements. Furthermore minmitar ships typicially shoot against armor tanks which increase their effective DPS compared to Amarr shooting against armor tanks. This does leave minmitar disadvantaged against Caldari, but it increases their strength against Amarr who are shooting against their racial resist [70% right now], while they are shooting against a racial resist at 20%(which means that via damage types the minmitar is doing 2.6 times more than amarr against armor tanks). A duouble-damage bonused AC does not do "about as much" as a single damage bonused laser. It does more. This is why the double damage bonused ships have less turrets than their competitors.[The real second bonus is the extra high slot]. Its not nearly so cut and dry as you are claiming. A counter module exists there is no need to add TD reduction onto ECCM or on anything else. There is no need to add falloff to TC or TEs.
Ariel Dawn Beets and Gravy Syndicate	Posted - 2008.02.10 00:23:00 - [419] I agree with most of your points Diomidis mostly, and that Amarrian BSes do have trouble fitting active tanks and work very well plated due to their range superiority. The things I disagree with I won't bother mentioning because they really have no relation to this thread and will lead to further pointless flaming. The thing I agree with 100% though is compromises and balance. Hence the issues in this thread, there is no compromise ships that rely heavily on falloff and do not perform as well in web range can use in their fitting to counter the effects of a tracking disruptor. A single module shutting a ship down with no recourse is not really fair; even ECM can require multiple modules to remove someone from a fight, and unlike ECM, a tracking disruptor never fails. Having TD resistance as a script on ECCM modules would promote the use of a single-purpose counter module that currently serves no other purpose whilst using up a valuable midslot. Are there any problems with this idea?
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.10 00:51:00 - [420] Originally by: Ariel Dawn Goumindong. Projectile Ambit Rigs are vastly insufficient at countering tracking disruptors. Using three of these rigs will bring you to 81% of your normal falloff when under the effects of a single unbonused tracking disruptor. Furthermore, they take up valuable rig slots that are critical to a large number of Minmatar setups and substantially increase PG requirements of ACs. ACs are only easy to fit on a few ships, such as the Maelstrom or Hurricane, increasing the powergrid requirements on other ship types such as the Typhoon, Tempest, Vagabond, Sleipnir, etc essentially forces the usage of the smallest tier gun. If projectile ambit rigs are insufficient to counter TD's then what good is putting falloff on TC/TEs? Are med/low slots not as valauble? If you are having throuble fitting ACs on ships like the phoon and vaga then you should train up AWU to 4. If you are having trouble fitting ACs on the SLEIPNIR then you should shoot yourself in the head.

Diomidis Amarr Mythos Corp RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.02.10 01:42:00 - [421] Originally by: Ariel Dawn A single module shutting a ship down with no recourse is not really fair; even ECM can require multiple modules to remove someone from a fight, and unlike ECM, a tracking disruptor never fails. Having TD resistance as a script on ECCM modules would promote the use of a single-purpose counter module that currently serves no other purpose whilst using up a valuable midslot. Are there any problems with this idea? A TD is partially disrupting turret dmg. Closing in will make your guns usable, or using TD/TEs will make you track better. TPs can also assist tracking, while webbers can virtually maximize tracking without ANY counters to them... Haven't seen many Minmatar pilot whining on nerfing their Huginns/Rapiers... Back to your ECCM scripting idea: since you cannot imagine a Vaga or I don't think of a fleet BS that would ever fit ECCM instead of tank or cap booster or anything other than that actually, it cancels itself. TDs are not nearly as powerful as u suggest, as they still fail to deal with missiles and drones - and for a 100th time I should remind you that missiles and drones are almost standard fit for most close range minmatar ships that work outside web range, while inside web range TDs are effectively less efficient than TPs...cause close range ships actually fit webbers, minmatar aren't any different. There is not even the slightest comparison in putting out of the fight a ship using TDs when u compare it to damps or ECM: you can break locks with them ffs. Are you suggesting that an arbitrator is a better ewar platform than a BB? Or should we all train for 5x Balmer Curses and leave Rooks to rot in our hangars? As of CCCs etc, I have to inform you that amarr pilots actually use them - even in PVP fits...that's not new...even with these Amarr ships are condemned to either gang or tank for a prolonged time. And thats a fact. What is just a speculation is that TDs will become the standard utility slot filler that will ruin every Minmatars day, tho nobody can suggest more than a handfull of ships actually having a spare middle slot - and guess what? Most of them could be Minmatar. Let me also inform you that an arbitrator with good skills in electronics and cruiser V cannot effectively tracking disrupt a Vaga orbiting at full speed with 2x Balmers. Strafe running - Bomb diving etc surely break any T2 tank in it...tried a million times with a friend. Even webbed the vaga pounches so hard, putting out almost all its "EFT" dps on an arbi - or a pilgrim, no difference - that these ewar ships stand no chance. Even the weakest BB could jam and evade a Vaga using 2x modules - even with multis. So much for 100% effective, non-chance based AC killing TDs...
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.02.10 02:05:00 - [422] Originally by: Goumindong If you are having trouble fitting ACs on any ship then you should shoot yourself in the head. Fixed. -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation
Ariel Dawn Beets and Gravy Syndicate	Posted - 2008.02.10 03:15:00 - [423] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Ariel Dawn Goumindong. Projectile Ambit Rigs are vastly insufficient at countering tracking disruptors. Using three of these rigs will bring you to 81% of your normal falloff when under the effects of a single unbonused tracking disruptor. Furthermore, they take up valuable rig slots that are critical to a large number of Minmatar setups and substantially increase PG requirements of ACs. ACs are only easy to fit on a few ships, such as the Maelstrom or Hurricane, increasing the powergrid requirements on other ship types such as the Typhoon, Tempest, Vagabond, Sleipnir, etc essentially forces the usage of the smallest tier gun. If projectile ambit rigs are insufficient to counter TD's then what good is putting falloff on TC/TEs? Are med/low slots not as valauble? If you are having throuble fitting ACs on ships like the phoon and vaga then you should train up AWU to 4. If you are having trouble fitting ACs on the SLEIPNIR then you should shoot yourself in the head. I suppose that since the Amarrian whine-brigade is now resorting to such attacks that they're running out of false arguments and lies. And I really do enjoy your selective reading when you 'try' to make a point; all Amarr does is complain how they cannot fit the largest guns on their ships. Guess what, Minmatar cannot fit the largest guns on their ships either, especially with projectile ambit rigs. This goes for the Sleipnir as well. Of course you would know better, having never flown a Minmatar ship before. Putting falloff on TCs/TEs was a suggestion and thats all. They would not provide a very good counter but help cancel out the effects slightly, just like your suggestion of projectile ambit rigs. Again, if you had read, all I am after is a counter to what a single tracking disruptor does against ships that rely on falloff. An option to fit a module should one chose to do so. This does not have to be falloff on TCs/TEs. You are against any sort of counter whatsoever. Why is this? Every single ship/ewar/etc has a counter in EVE, but none exist regarding the falloff component on the new tracking disruptors. Instead of saying 'no, there should be no counter', please tell me any valid and logical reason to which why no counter should be exist (especially in the form of a resistance script on ECCM/whatever module).
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.02.10 04:01:00 - [424] Originally by: Ariel Dawn You are against any sort of counter whatsoever. Why is this? Every single ship/ewar/etc has a counter in EVE, but none exist regarding the falloff component on the new tracking disruptors. TPs have no counter. Youll say: "but they suck" I say: ECCM sucks too against ecm. Youll say: "trolling stuff and lies" I'll say: I won. -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation
Ariel Dawn Beets and Gravy Syndicate	Posted - 2008.02.10 04:17:00 - [425] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: Ariel Dawn You are against any sort of counter whatsoever. Why is this? Every single ship/ewar/etc has a counter in EVE, but none exist regarding the falloff component on the new tracking disruptors. TPs have no counter. Halo Set, Skirmish Warfare Link - Evasive Maneuvers, Ragnarok Titan. Mind you, nobody is gonna bust out a Rangarok because of "oh ****, they've got a Bellicose painting!", but the first two are readily available should one have some sort of fear of being hit by target painters. ECCM does suck against ECM, but it does actually reduce the chance to be jammed by 50%, so it works as a counter. Adding additional uses to ECCM (like TD resistance) would also help make it more useful and less 'suck' as you so aptly put it. So... yea. I can call you a lier if you would like, but I don't see anything I disagree with there.
Steve Clone Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2008.02.10 04:22:00 - [426] Y do people want Falloff script on TC and TE??? Is it to counter TD??? If yes, How efficient and POPULAR is TD??? I believe TD will be efficient after boost but popular??? If TD is not that popular, what does falloff script do now??? Do they 'conveniently' become a damage-increasing mod??? Y do ppl believe they deserve this falloff boost on CERTAIN ships... However, if TD becomes popular I say nerf them and boost ship bonus to TD...
Dianeces Minmatar Repo Industries	Posted - 2008.02.10 04:41:00 - [427] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: Ariel Dawn You are against any sort of counter whatsoever. Why is this? Every single ship/ewar/etc has a counter in EVE, but none exist regarding the falloff component on the new tracking disruptors. TPs have no counter. Youll say: "but they suck" I say: ECCM sucks too against ecm. Youll say: "trolling stuff and lies" I'll say: I won. TPs have a counter. Your subjective experiences do not effect objective reality. I say: you fail at arguing.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.10 04:42:00 - [428] Originally by: Ariel Dawn Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: Ariel Dawn You are against any sort of counter whatsoever. Why is this? Every single ship/ewar/etc has a counter in EVE, but none exist regarding the falloff component on the new tracking disruptors. TPs have no counter. Halo Set, Skirmish Warfare Link - Evasive Maneuvers, Ragnarok Titan. Mind you, nobody is gonna bust out a Rangarok because of "oh ****, they've got a Bellicose painting!", but the first two are readily available should one have some sort of fear of being hit by target painters. You will consider the longest skill grind for a single module to be efficient in the game which remedies not even half of the penalty from a single TP a "counter", but dont consider falloff rigs counters?
Lilith Velkor Minmatar Oyster Colors	Posted - 2008.02.10 04:42:00 - [429] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer TPs have no counter. Youll say: "but they suck" TPs are vastly different from any other ewar module, imho comparing them to ECM/damps/TDs is, well, lets just say inappropriate. And they don't suck if you happen to have a few torp ravens around, but thats not even the point, they are offensive ewar while the others are defensive ewar. The other ewar doesn't suck when used on their own. Quote: I say: ECCM sucks too against ecm. Youll say: "trolling stuff and lies" They suck against ECM since no one wants to fit them. If you actually use them, they reduce ecm efficiency by around 50%, I wouldn't say this can be descibed as 'sucking' at all. And before you ask, no I don't fit them either, but everytime I find myself jammed I regret since I know they'd have helped my a great deal.
Ruah Piskonit Amarr PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris	Posted - 2008.02.10 04:43:00 - [430] Interesting argument. I happen to agree with Guomingdung. But if CCP were to release a Falloff scrip for TCs. Would you fit them? My guess would be no. Lets get this right. TD is a form of E-War. There are two E-War types that don't have a counter in the game that a single mod can fix. Those two are: Webs and Target Painters. Neuts and Nos can be countered with cap-boosters. TDs with TC/TEs, Scram with stab, damp with SB. So TDs are designed to kill turrets. Why not let TDs be the mod that does that effectivly. If the optimal/falloff is selected on the TD, that means your tracking is not hurt - so you are forced to get close to do damage, but you can still track perfectly well. Remember that most if not all minmatar ships will have a choise to close the orbit or not. So the curse forces you to get closer - and you want a counter? The counter is to orbit closer. We are not talking about 40km webs here. . .we are talking about forcing someone who is zipping around you at 20km to be forced to 10km. As a tackler, you are not affected, as a solo killing machine, you can either take the risk (don't) or hang there and try to keep the point on the curse (who will be zapping your cap anyway). ----

Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.02.10 04:44:00 - [431] Originally by: Dianeces Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: Ariel Dawn You are against any sort of counter whatsoever. Why is this? Every single ship/ewar/etc has a counter in EVE, but none exist regarding the falloff component on the new tracking disruptors. TPs have no counter. Youll say: "but they suck" I say: ECCM sucks too against ecm. Youll say: "trolling stuff and lies" I'll say: I won. TPs have a counter. Your subjective experiences do not effect objective reality. I say: you fail at arguing. If you claim TPs have valid counters I can claim that fall off rigs are enough counters for TDs aswell. I think you fail. -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.10 04:45:00 - [432] Originally by: Ariel Dawn And I really do enjoy your selective reading when you 'try' to make a point; all Amarr does is complain how they cannot fit the largest guns on their ships. Guess what, Minmatar cannot fit the largest guns on their ships either, especially with projectile ambit rigs. This goes for the Sleipnir as well. Of course you would know better, having never flown a Minmatar ship before. The sleipnir has so much freaking powergrid it can fit, at AWU 4 and projectile rigging 5, 7 425II autocannons, an MWD, 2 projectile ambit rigs, and a tech 2 X-L booster
Dianeces Minmatar Repo Industries	Posted - 2008.02.10 04:45:00 - [433] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: Dianeces Your subjective experiences do not effect objective reality. If you claim TPs have valid counters I can claim that fall off rigs are enough counters for TDs aswell. I think you fail.
DennoTheHunter Caldari Kernkraft 400	Posted - 2008.02.10 04:46:00 - [434] Originally by: Goumindong Uhh, in this thread. Multiple times. Care to tell me where or link it? i won't scroll through 14 page Originally by: Goumindong 1. Amarr do not have the best battleships[They are neither the hardest hitting[gallente], or most resiliant[Caldari]] 2. Amarr do not have the ability to choose range as you so say[in fact, they have less options in the short range , with -50% or +50% being the only reasonable choices] 3. Percentile increases in damage are only low when initial DPS is low, but still produce similar increases in effectiveness. 4. You cannot counter TDs with tracking computers 5. The fact that it would raise minmitar DPS and range and tracking is an issue. 6. A countermodule, by your definition, already exists 7. The range increase from tracking computers is not "huge" it never has been, it never will be. Furthermore, Amarr are in the least able position to exploit said range. While minmitar are in the best. If you want a counter-module. Then falloff rigs are going to be sufficient. If you dont want a counter module, but want to boost minmitar at the expense of gallente, then TEs and TC's get falloff on them. 1. in terms of gang use (which is the realistic use of bs's) Amarr wins as they can dish out high dps at long range. Blasters wastes a lot of time mwd'ing/flying across with drones, and minmatar lose dps due to falloff, which then gets even lower than amarr even when falloffmods are fitted. 2. Agreed 3. Agreed 4. The negative effect is reduced, but yes not completely countered. If the negative effect is reduced a gun is still at least useable. 5. False, have already been proved, unless you like losing tank/speed/tackling/other utility. 6. What is that module called? never heard of it. 7. As i do partly agree on what you say, minmatar will still do less dps than amarr at range anyway unless you have 50 lowslots or something. That's just fact. Well for you last statement in that post, TE/TC won't push falloff longer than can already be achieved with rigs. The only thing TE/TC gonna make on AC ships, is giving more options. Options that Amarr already have if they care using them. Originally by: Lyria Skydancer TPs have no counter. Youll say: "but they suck" I say: ECCM sucks too against ecm. Youll say: "trolling stuff and lies" I'll say: I won. The reason TP don't have a counter is it's not needed. The effectiveness of TP is so bad, that it really just doesn't make any sence. It just can't lock down other ships like RSD, TD, ECM, web etc. _____________________ If I am in a fair fight.... Something went wrong!
Dianeces Minmatar Repo Industries	Posted - 2008.02.10 04:47:00 - [435] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Ariel Dawn And I really do enjoy your selective reading when you 'try' to make a point; all Amarr does is complain how they cannot fit the largest guns on their ships. Guess what, Minmatar cannot fit the largest guns on their ships either, especially with projectile ambit rigs. This goes for the Sleipnir as well. Of course you would know better, having never flown a Minmatar ship before. The sleipnir has so much freaking powergrid it can fit, at AWU 4 and projectile rigging 5, 7 425II autocannons, an MWD, 2 projectile ambit rigs, and a tech 2 X-L booster Do you have any of the rigging skills trained to 5? Because I don't, and I don't know of anyone who does. At best, there are probably a handful of people who have taken the time to train that skill, simply because it isn't worth it.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.10 04:54:00 - [436] Originally by: Ariel Dawn It really does not work and I'm sure you can spend the few seconds required to crunch the numbers to see so yourself. Additionally, how come you do not mention the second rig type I listed? Energy Discharge Elutrations reduce laser capacitor use by -15%/-20% (The T2 variant is very inexpensive). The use of these modules drops your cap use on lasers to less than that of any cap-using weapon. The drawback is the same as your 'solution' of falloff, and any fitting issues that arise on Amarr ships can be solved by simply dropping a tier in guns. The difference in dropping a teir in guns between minmitar and Amarr is much more significant. Not only does Amarr gain the least tracking in such a change, but they lose the most optimal range on the race that needs it the most, they lose the most DPS on the race that depends most on DPS[because Amarr win fights be dealing DPS before their opponents close, in order to succeed they need every last bit of DPS and range they can squeeze from their ships, gallente win by closing, and minmitar win by doing the opposite of what the other wants] Again, i am not sure what the cap use on amarr ships has to do with modules that require a counter. Other ships are not imposing the cap use of lasers upon them. Just as putting autocannons on your ship does not make you automaticially tracking disrupted. Such, talking about a "counter" to laser cap use seems kinda strange when there is no module an opponent is fitting that imposes said cap use evenly against any race of ship.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.10 05:01:00 - [437] Originally by: Dianeces Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Ariel Dawn And I really do enjoy your selective reading when you 'try' to make a point; all Amarr does is complain how they cannot fit the largest guns on their ships. Guess what, Minmatar cannot fit the largest guns on their ships either, especially with projectile ambit rigs. This goes for the Sleipnir as well. Of course you would know better, having never flown a Minmatar ship before. The sleipnir has so much freaking powergrid it can fit, at AWU 4 and projectile rigging 5, 7 425II autocannons, an MWD, 2 projectile ambit rigs, and a tech 2 X-L booster Do you have any of the rigging skills trained to 5? Because I don't, and I don't know of anyone who does. At best, there are probably a handful of people who have taken the time to train that skill, simply because it isn't worth it. Its only 7 PG over with rigging 4, a 1% PG implant will take care of it easily enough. People dont usually train rigging to five because they dont think the penalties are all that bad. If you want to rig successfully on an Amarran ship you need the rigging and AWU peaked to cram the guns on, let alone anything else. Keep in mind, she just suggest first Halo sets[cybernetics 5 + half a billion isk] and Skirmish Warfare Gang Modules[Cyb 5, Skirmish Warfare 5, Leadership 5, Warfare Link Spec 4, Skirmish Warfare Spec 5 + 10m isk + a gang at all times] as a counter to target painters. So you will have to excuse me if i dont think a slight skill expendature for a counter on a single ship without dropping down a teir of guns[which is rather painless itself for the autocannon user] is some sort of terrible onus on the part of the command ship pilot.
Lilith Velkor Minmatar Oyster Colors	Posted - 2008.02.10 05:13:00 - [438] What about introducing a dedicated counter module to TDs, working like ECCM does for ECM? Tracking Stabilizer: Reduces the effect of tracking disruption modules by 50%. Fitting: Requires a mid slot, 1 PG and a bit CPU. Also introduce a similar low slot module in-line with the low slot ECCM. It doesn't do anything if you are not disrupted (just like ECCM when not jammed, still this one increases your chances against being probed out), but would present a reasonable counter to those if you wan't to sacrifice the slot. Having said that, it still stands that TC/TE not affecting falloff is complete nonsense since it's effectively a range penalty for falloff based turrets, the only reason why there wasn't a billion whine threads is that you could count on never loosing your falloff. Now that you can, this has to be reviewed (what is done about it is another question).
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.10 05:15:00 - [439] Originally by: DennoTheHunter Care to tell me where or link it? i won't scroll through 14 page If you wont, why would I? But the simple answer is that 17.6 is greater than 12.4 and 2 is greater than 1. If the current enviornment before TD's is believed to be balanced then the ending enviornment, no matter how small, would be imbalanced. Quote: A list 1. That Amarr battleships are strong in large sized smaller gangs does not mean they have the best battleships in the game. Battleships have been fairly balanced for quite some time, but if there is any estimation as to which is the hands down best, it is either a Gallente or Caldari design that will win the day with the Minmitar not far behind. Both Caldari and Minmitar have longer short range options that do considerable DPS while fewer drawbacks to the Amarran equivelents. Amarran Battleships ability to do what they do in short range engagements is neither unique nor is their ability in that regard all that special. They are good, but they are not nearly the best. 4. Yes, and it is the same for falloff rigs. She clearly doesnt want something that will reduce the effect, because its there, already, in falloff rigs. She wants something that will first and formost increase the strength of ACs, and barring that will make TD's useless. 5. False, 17.6% > 12.4%. The first being the increase in DPS against gallente or when closing with a TE before tracking advantages and the second being the increase in DPS from a 3red gyrostabalizer II. The increase from tracking, while not perfect is still enough when at close range to make up the difference. 6. Projectile Ambit Extension I. 7. Actaully no. Put up a typical graph against an armor tank with ACs and with lasers. You will find that the ACs remain very competitve against lasers until a very long ways out. Shield and structure hit points nullify this advantage, and repairing and armor hit points accentuate this advantage. Quote: The reason TP don't have a counter is it's not needed. The effectiveness of TP is so bad, that it really just doesn't make any sence. It just can't lock down other ships like RSD, TD, ECM, web etc. TD's cant lock down any ships but ships that have no supplimentary DPS either. And the ships most likely to be entirely turret based with little or no supplimentary DPS are Amarr. Furthermore, it doesnt prevent the activation of other modules such as ewar, nor can it in any way prevent a ship from closing futher to counteract the effect of the TD's.
Ariel Dawn Beets and Gravy Syndicate	Posted - 2008.02.10 05:25:00 - [440] Edited by: Ariel Dawn on 10/02/2008 05:29:57 Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Dianeces Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Ariel Dawn And I really do enjoy your selective reading when you 'try' to make a point; all Amarr does is complain how they cannot fit the largest guns on their ships. Guess what, Minmatar cannot fit the largest guns on their ships either, especially with projectile ambit rigs. This goes for the Sleipnir as well. Of course you would know better, having never flown a Minmatar ship before. The sleipnir has so much freaking powergrid it can fit, at AWU 4 and projectile rigging 5, 7 425II autocannons, an MWD, 2 projectile ambit rigs, and a tech 2 X-L booster Do you have any of the rigging skills trained to 5? Because I don't, and I don't know of anyone who does. At best, there are probably a handful of people who have taken the time to train that skill, simply because it isn't worth it. Its only 7 PG over with rigging 4, a 1% PG implant will take care of it easily enough. People dont usually train rigging to five because they dont think the penalties are all that bad. If you want to rig successfully on an Amarran ship you need the rigging and AWU peaked to cram the guns on, let alone anything else. Keep in mind, she just suggest first Halo sets[cybernetics 5 + half a billion isk] and Skirmish Warfare Gang Modules[Cyb 5, Skirmish Warfare 5, Leadership 5, Warfare Link Spec 4, Skirmish Warfare Spec 5 + 10m isk + a gang at all times] as a counter to target painters. So you will have to excuse me if i dont think a slight skill expendature for a counter on a single ship without dropping down a teir of guns[which is rather painless itself for the autocannon user] is some sort of terrible onus on the part of the command ship pilot. A Sleipnir needs the utility high (nos/neut) as it has no defense against interceptors asides from it's drones and a 2-slot tank is fairly inefficient for any extended period of time. Again, EFT does not provide you all the answers; a Co-Proc is already required for your described setup (unless using faction), using 425s with ambits and the utility slot would also require a RCU and faction Co-Proc. Hey look, the ship has some fitting issues! Imagine that. The counters to TPs are only an answer to Lyria's statement that none exist while clearly they do. The option is there should they so chose to use it. Speed-tanking is also another indirect counter to TPs, as simply going faster than weapon tracking/explosion velocity will counter-act it's effects. Nobody would care to counter TPs in the first place, but vice-versa this could also be used as an argument to introduce more ways to reduce one's own signature radius since the current available counters are not easy to take advantage of. Balance should really be looked at with high-end skills; doing so from low-end will lead to disparity at the high-end and skewed numbers. And you keep on arguing about tangents and digressions without answering the question: why would a counter module/script/etc that reduces the effects of tracking disruptors without increasing any attributes/falloff/etc be imbalanced? I believe I have asked this question of you a few times already and your only answer was 'no', with the justification being 'no' as well. Can you provide a logical/numerical reasoning? PS: I stopped arguing for falloff on TCs/TEs a few pages back and only mentioned I still supported the idea. You saying I want to increase Minmatar DPS is just plain wrong. And your numbers are taken out of context anyway; a 5% DPS increase at range with a TE comes at the expensive of a 15+% DPS loss within web range. Total EDPS decreases while the falloff increase means fighting closer towards optimal, so ranged DPS goes up.

Lilith Velkor Minmatar Oyster Colors	Posted - 2008.02.10 05:27:00 - [441] Originally by: Goumindong ... falloff rigs counter TDs ... You put this up again and again, but its simply not true. I put a falloff rig on my ship to get more falloff, not to counter a falloff loss, simple as that. Now I get TDed, I don't counter the effect of the TD, I loose from the falloff I wanted in the first place, while a true counter is not available. Besides I can't just change rigs like modules, your comparison is simply not valid.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.10 05:37:00 - [442] Originally by: Lilith Velkor Originally by: Goumindong ... falloff rigs counter TDs ... You put this up again and again, but its simply not true. I put a falloff rig on my ship to get more falloff, not to counter a falloff loss, simple as that. Now I get TDed, I don't counter the effect of the TD, I loose from the falloff I wanted in the first place, while a true counter is not available. Besides I can't just change rigs like modules, your comparison is simply not valid. Its just as strong a counter as tracking computers and enhancers are. Deal with the fact that the main counter to a ranged based ewar is to change ranges.
Lilith Velkor Minmatar Oyster Colors	Posted - 2008.02.10 05:44:00 - [443] Originally by: Goumindong Its just as strong a counter as tracking computers and enhancers are. Deal with the fact that the main counter to a ranged based ewar is to change ranges. Wrong. Just to give an example, I counter to ECM is ECCM. Now we have a small gang engagement, my gang notices that the opposing force has a rook on their side. The order is given that everyone who was wise enough to carry ECCM in cargo should dock and refit. Now you say its the same as saying "everyone with a falloff rig in cargo rip your other rigs off and put that on"? Just accept the fact that a rig is a permanent modification to a ship.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.10 05:49:00 - [444] Originally by: Ariel Dawn But the sleipnir might be tackled! Any anyone else can? The sleipnir is the easiest command ship in the game to fit. It requires the least concessions for gang mods, it requires the least concessions for tank, it requires the least concessions for anything. You think you can get 6 of the largest pulse lasers, an mwd, and a 1600rt [or 2 800rt's on the Absolution at all with no fitting mods[impossible with AWU 5, rigging 5], let alone fit anything in the utility high slot? You think you can do that on the astarte which doesnt even have a utility high slot, or the Nighthawk which due to the PG use on HAMs cant even fit a proper fit with its short range weapons period? Quote: Speed tanking Speed tanking does not work by out-tracking your opponents weapons, but out-ranging them. Quote: And you keep on arguing about tangents and digressions without answering the question: why would a counter module/script/etc that reduces the effects of tracking disruptors without increasing any attributes/falloff/etc be imbalanced? You have never once asked this question. But the answer is that the more limited scope of the e-war module means that there must be a more limited counter. ECM has a specialized strong counter while damping has a less specialized, yet still strong counter, and TD's have an even less specialized and still weaker counter. Unless TD's are going to start affecting missiles, ewar, drones and the rest at the same time as they effect turrets then there is no reason to have a strong counter to it.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.10 05:52:00 - [445] Originally by: Lilith Velkor Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 10/02/2008 05:45:54 Originally by: Goumindong Its just as strong a counter as tracking computers and enhancers are. Deal with the fact that the main counter to a ranged based ewar is to change ranges. Wrong. Just to give an example, a counter to ECM is ECCM. Now we have a small gang engagement, my gang notices that the opposing force has a rook on their side. The order is given that everyone who was wise enough to carry ECCM in cargo should dock and refit. Now you say its the same as saying "everyone with a falloff rig in cargo rip your other rigs off and put that on"? Just accept the fact that a rig is a permanent modification to a ship, it is a modification of base attributes (of the ships turrets in this case). ECM is not a range based e-war. Its range independant. You cannot counter-act the power of the rook by getting closer to your target or to the rook. Just as the strength of sensor boosters is less than ECCM the strength of the td counter is worse than the strength of sensor boosters because damps shut down the entirety of a ships offense outside the damped range. That the falloff rig is a bit more expensive does not make it less of a counter. Not that you can refit in space without a carrier anyway, in which case, just drop that on the offending gangs head.
Lilith Velkor Minmatar Oyster Colors	Posted - 2008.02.10 05:56:00 - [446] Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 10/02/2008 05:56:31 Originally by: Goumindong Quote: Speed tanking Speed tanking does not work by out-tracking your opponents weapons, but out-ranging them. Last time I flew my interceptor it out-tracked long-range turrets while still being in their effective (often optimal) range. Same goes for frigates negating tracking of guns when orbiting close (if they are lucky enough not being webbed), they don't even need to be fast to 'speed tank' here. Quote: Unless TD's are going to start affecting missiles, ewar, drones and the rest at the same time as they effect turrets then there is no reason to have a strong counter to it. And this is justified how exactly?
Lilith Velkor Minmatar Oyster Colors	Posted - 2008.02.10 06:02:00 - [447] Originally by: Goumindong That the falloff rig is a bit more expensive does not make it less of a counter. Not that you can refit in space without a carrier anyway, in which case, just drop that on the offending gangs head. What makes it less of a counter is that it is there to increase range in the first place, not to counter anything. Again, I can't stick a falloff rig where already a falloff rig is to counter TDs. I could however choose to stick a TC where my web is or a TE where my DC is. And besides rigs are a tad bit too expensive to exchange at will...
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.10 06:02:00 - [448] Originally by: Lilith Velkor Quote: Unless TD's are going to start affecting missiles, ewar, drones and the rest at the same time as they effect turrets then there is no reason to have a strong counter to it. And this is justified how exactly? What, that more specialized and easier to counter via manuvering ewar has less specialized and weaker counters than the other options? If the counter was specialized and strong then what good is using the more specialized ewar?
Lilith Velkor Minmatar Oyster Colors	Posted - 2008.02.10 06:09:00 - [449] Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 10/02/2008 06:14:31 Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 10/02/2008 06:10:38 Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 10/02/2008 06:09:19 Originally by: Goumindong What, that more specialized and easier to counter via manuvering ewar has less specialized and weaker counters than the other options? If the counter was specialized and strong then what good is using the more specialized ewar? Following that logic it would be useless to use ECM at all since everyone can easily counter it by ECCM. However, you still forced your enemy to give up a valuable slot for this counter, so it was usefull even if the intended effect is not there. Edit: Besides needing 4 slots to counter a single module isn't exactly strong in my book. Edit2: Using maneuvering as a counter is only possible when you are in fact faster as the enemy, now how is a AC battleship faster than a curse for example?
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.10 06:55:00 - [450] Originally by: Lilith Velkor Following that logic it would be useless to use ECM at all since everyone can easily counter it by ECCM. However, you still forced your enemy to give up a valuable slot for this counter, so it was usefull even if the intended effect is not there. Edit: Besides needing 4 slots to counter a single module isn't exactly strong in my book. Edit2: Using maneuvering as a counter is only possible when you are in fact faster as the enemy, now how is a AC battleship faster than a curse for example? Uhh, in the example above, ECM is the generalized and strong ewar. It has both more applications and carries them out better than TD's. The question was "If TD's can be countered as easily or easier than ECM, then why does anyone fit TD if ECM is stronger?" Where do you get "4 slots" from? Its probably not. But that begs the question, should an AC battleship be be killing a curse with its autocannons? Both will be using drones as their primary form of offense. The curses TD's wont stop the tempest from killing its drones without changing to a tracking script. Changing to a tracking script means that the tempest will be able to easily hit the curse. As well, the tepest has siege, cruise, ham, or heavy launchers with wich it can project dps.

Lilith Velkor Minmatar Oyster Colors	Posted - 2008.02.10 08:11:00 - [451] Originally by: Goumindong Uhh, in the example above, ECM is the generalized and strong ewar. It has both more applications and carries them out better than TD's. The question was "If TD's can be countered as easily or easier than ECM, then why does anyone fit TD if ECM is stronger?" Two sided coin, if ECCM is fitted and successfully used, nothing happens at all (sure you can just put a lot more ECM modules on the target, thats not the point), while a similar strength module against TDs (reducing effect by 50%) only reduces the negative effects, but it is still there. We can argue forever what is better, but it boils down to that its just a matter of taste what you favor more. Quote: Where do you get "4 slots" from? This was referring to the topic of the thread, giving TCs the falloff effect. If a single TD module gives a penalty of 40%, and the TC only boosts by 15%, to completely nullify the effect I'm estimating around 4 modules taking stacking penalty into account. Correct me if I'm wrong. Quote: Its probably not. But that begs the question, should an AC battleship be be killing a curse with its autocannons? Both will be using drones as their primary form of offense. The curses TD's wont stop the tempest from killing its drones without changing to a tracking script. Changing to a tracking script means that the tempest will be able to easily hit the curse. If I'd be the Curse, I'd use my drones to eliminate the drone threat first, but you're right about missiles, bad example, not that its much of a dps output compared to the ACs but its there and works.
Diomidis Amarr Mythos Corp RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.02.10 12:48:00 - [452] Originally by: Lilith Velkor Two sided coin, if ECCM is fitted and successfully used, nothing happens at all (sure you can just put a lot more ECM modules on the target, thats not the point), while a similar strength module against TDs (reducing effect by 50%) only reduces the negative effects, but it is still there. Then again, if the counter to TDs is less likely to be used than ECCM is already, where exactly is the problem having it? We can argue forever what is better, but it boils down to that its just a matter of taste what you favor more. Edit: Clearly ECM is the 'better' ewar regarding its effect on the target, but also the counter effect is much more efficient. No, ECCM is way less efficient than ppl want to describe it to be. ECCM reduces the chance of you being jammed via ECM modules, and chances are really in favor with an ECM bonused ship in failing to do so. A successful jam = 100% jam, and nothing can be done for it...nothing compairable to a small gimp in range or tracking that can be countered by closing in or lowering transversal. So should you like to introduce a module like ECCM that counters ONLY the possible fall-off reduction ewar, that's fine with me...less ppl will use it than those using ECCM now = very few. On the contrary TC/TEs are widely used and each and every script can make them from strong to overpowered when their effect is not reduced via TD ewar, so...
Lilith Velkor Minmatar Oyster Colors	Posted - 2008.02.10 13:15:00 - [453] Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 10/02/2008 13:24:47 Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 10/02/2008 13:20:25 Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 10/02/2008 13:16:23 Originally by: Diomidis No, ECCM is way less efficient than ppl want to describe it to be. ECCM reduces the chance of you being jammed via ECM modules, and chances are really in favor with an ECM bonused ship in failing to do so. Midslot ECCM infact decreases your chances of being jammed by almost 50%. Blackbird using maxed out multispec has a 46% chance to get a successful jam on a hurricane without ECCM, with ECCM they drop to 23%. The difference here is simply the dedicated ECM ships have quite a few modules they can put on a single target, still if they have to dedicate more modules on you this means they can't jam as many targets. Edit: To clarify, if you are alone against a dedicated ECM ship and it doesnt make much difference, in larger groups having the blackbird jam 2 ships or only 1 makes a difference. Quote: A successful jam = 100% jam, and nothing can be done for it...nothing compairable to a small gimp in range or tracking that can be countered by closing in or lowering transversal. Thats what I mean by two sided coin, a failed cycle has no effect on the target, while reducing the TD effect still leaves the target with a penalty. Quote: So should you like to introduce a module like ECCM that counters ONLY the possible fall-off reduction ewar, that's fine with me...less ppl will use it than those using ECCM now = very few. Imho this would be the best solution, although it should also cover the optimal range effect for obvious reasons, its not only minmatar turrets that are affected. Edit2: My proposal here as already lined out would be to introduce similar modules as the ECCM and sensor backup arrays, same fitting requirements and same effective reduction in effect of TDs, that is -49% for t2 midslot module for example. Regardless of this will happen or not, the TD still needs to be nerfed and the amarr ewar ships given the appropriate bonus increase to compensate, otherwise the majority of ships using it will probably not be amarr.
DennoTheHunter Caldari Kernkraft 400	Posted - 2008.02.10 13:38:00 - [454] Originally by: Goumindong Quote: A list 1. That Amarr battleships are strong in large sized smaller gangs does not mean they have the best battleships in the game. Battleships have been fairly balanced for quite some time, but if there is any estimation as to which is the hands down best, it is either a Gallente or Caldari design that will win the day with the Minmitar not far behind. Both Caldari and Minmitar have longer short range options that do considerable DPS while fewer drawbacks to the Amarran equivelents. Amarran Battleships ability to do what they do in short range engagements is neither unique nor is their ability in that regard all that special. They are good, but they are not nearly the best. 4. Yes, and it is the same for falloff rigs. She clearly doesnt want something that will reduce the effect, because its there, already, in falloff rigs. She wants something that will first and formost increase the strength of ACs, and barring that will make TD's useless. 5. False, 17.6% > 12.4%. The first being the increase in DPS against gallente or when closing with a TE before tracking advantages and the second being the increase in DPS from a 3red gyrostabalizer II. The increase from tracking, while not perfect is still enough when at close range to make up the difference. 6. Projectile Ambit Extension I. 7. Actaully no. Put up a typical graph against an armor tank with ACs and with lasers. You will find that the ACs remain very competitve against lasers until a very long ways out. Shield and structure hit points nullify this advantage, and repairing and armor hit points accentuate this advantage. 1. I Would happily engage any fleet in a fleet of abaddons, but this is off topic so nvm. 4. I can say the same thing for laser rigs, so CCP plz remove TC/TE as they have no use in this game... according to Goumindong... 5. Where do you get these numbers from? If you're refering to tracking then: In a fleet the primaries should be webbed anyway, so no way to utilize the tiny tracking advantage there. In solo fights it maybe could be possible to use the advantage, but then TD does a much better job in giving you the tracking advantage. 6. Energy Locus Coordinater I 7. You can't balance a whole game on armor tanks only. That there is more armor tankers than shield tankers, is just an unfortunate part of the game, since med slots need to have so many other slots than shield mods. If you really did then: A. Increasing the dps is going to give lasers a far too high raw dps, making them extremely overpowered against anything else than armor tanks. B. Replacing their dmg types with explosive/kinetic, and shieldtankers gonna be imba. I've asked you before and i do it again.. What why is it overpowered by introducing TC/TE with falloff bonus. _____________________ If I am in a fair fight.... Something went wrong!
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.02.10 13:45:00 - [455] Originally by: DennoTheHunter I've asked you before and i do it again.. What why is it overpowered by introducing TC/TE with falloff bonus. And its been explained in 100 threads a 100 times? It will work as a damage mod for AC boats and its penalty wont stack with gyros. And friggin no, its not the same as increasing optimal because AC damage is balanced in their fall off and not at their optimal. Is anything getting through? -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation
DennoTheHunter Caldari Kernkraft 400	Posted - 2008.02.10 13:48:00 - [456] Originally by: Goumindong That the falloff rig is a bit more expensive does not make it less of a counter. Not that you can refit in space without a carrier anyway, in which case, just drop that on the offending gangs head. Actually a TE/TC only costs a fraction of a rig, making it possible for new players and poor ppl to fit a counter vs TD's aswell. Plz don't balance a game only taking rich ppl into account. Not everyone can brag about having 200 mil + in their wallet. _____________________ If I am in a fair fight.... Something went wrong!
DennoTheHunter Caldari Kernkraft 400	Posted - 2008.02.10 13:51:00 - [457] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: DennoTheHunter I've asked you before and i do it again.. What why is it overpowered by introducing TC/TE with falloff bonus. And its been explained in 100 threads a 100 times? It will work as a damage mod for AC boats and its penalty wont stack with gyros. And friggin no, its not the same as increasing optimal because AC damage is balanced in their fall off and not at their optimal. Is anything getting through? The boost is very small, and unless you don't care about tackling, speed, tank etc, makes no sence to fit anyway as my calculations have proven. And it's not a dmg increase. It's just partly negating the penalty of fighting in falloff. It won't increase any raw dps. _____________________ If I am in a fair fight.... Something went wrong!
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.02.10 13:55:00 - [458] Originally by: DennoTheHunter Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: DennoTheHunter I've asked you before and i do it again.. What why is it overpowered by introducing TC/TE with falloff bonus. And its been explained in 100 threads a 100 times? It will work as a damage mod for AC boats and its penalty wont stack with gyros. And friggin no, its not the same as increasing optimal because AC damage is balanced in their fall off and not at their optimal. Is anything getting through? The boost is very small, and unless you don't care about tackling, speed, tank etc, makes no sence to fit anyway as my calculations have proven. And it's not a dmg increase. It's just partly negating the penalty of fighting in falloff. It won't increase any raw dps. I suggest you go look at how ACs work in the tracking guide. Paint some pretty pictures on the last page and maybe youll understand how they work. -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation
DennoTheHunter Caldari Kernkraft 400	Posted - 2008.02.10 14:00:00 - [459] I do understand how the work. And to remind you of the numbers here they are: ------ Asuming we are using the same range, 20k, we will see what's best. 3x gyro or 2x gyro and one TE. Again we use Dual 650mm AC II with Barrage on a Tempest. 3x Gyro setup: Raw dps = 104 dps Optimal + Falloff = 5,4 + 30 20k range hit chance = 85% Actual dps = 88,4 dps 2x Gyro and 1x TE setup: Raw dps = 93 dps Optimal + Falloff = 6,2 + 35 20k range hit chance = 90% Actual dps = 83,7 dps So at 20 k using Dual 650mm AC with Barrage at 20k, 3x gyro is actully 5,6% betterthan 2x gyro and 1x tracking enhancer. ------ So it only makes sence to fit TC/TE for increasing you dps, IF you want to lose other mods, like tank or tackling, since replacing a gyro with such a mod decreases your dps at a realistic range. _____________________ If I am in a fair fight.... Something went wrong!
DennoTheHunter Caldari Kernkraft 400	Posted - 2008.02.10 14:11:00 - [460] Edited by: DennoTheHunter on 10/02/2008 14:14:24 And to add a last calculation: Using the same setup as before, just with 3x Gyro and 1x TE: Raw dps = 104 dps Optimal + Falloff = 6,2 + 35 20k range hit chance = 90% Actual dps = 93,6 dps Compared to the 3x Gyro setup there's an increase of only 5,9% dps at 20 k, which in no way is overpowered. And as i've stated before it only negates the negative side of falloff. It does not increase the raw dps, so using this setup, you will NEVER get more then 104 dps with TC/TE. _____________________ If I am in a fair fight.... Something went wrong!

Kaian Voskhod	Posted - 2008.02.10 14:36:00 - [461] May i suggest some zulu pork with your whine ?
DennoTheHunter Caldari Kernkraft 400	Posted - 2008.02.10 14:50:00 - [462] Originally by: Kaian Voskhod May i suggest some zulu pork with your whine ? A nice steak would be fine thx :) Anyway i'm just trying to prove my point using numbers as much as i can. Numbers imo don't lie. A statement can, and in many cases will lie. _____________________ If I am in a fair fight.... Something went wrong!
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.10 15:13:00 - [463] Edited by: Goumindong on 10/02/2008 15:13:51 Originally by: DennoTheHunter So at 20 k using Dual 650mm AC with Barrage at 20k, 3x gyro is actully 5,6% betterthan 2x gyro and 1x tracking enhancer. ------ So it only makes sence to fit TC/TE for increasing you dps, IF you want to lose other mods, like tank or tackling, since replacing a gyro with such a mod decreases your dps at a realistic range. Actually its about 3.5% before any tracking related losses which increase this number even without the tracking bonus applied. Use the hit quality formula before you start quoting DPS.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.10 15:51:00 - [464] Originally by: DennoTheHunter list 1. And many other fleets of unique ships would still beat you. 4. Falloff rigs and TE/TC's provide different functions. One allows long range ships to operate at ranges where their tracking deficiencies are not a major hinderance to them. Energy weapon optimal rigs do not provide such ability. Falloff rigs work to increase the range of a short range weapon system. 5. 17.6% is the increase in DPS at falloff for any ship that recieves a boost of falloff of 15%. 12.4% is the increase in DPS from a 3rd stacked gyrostabalizer. 6. What? 7. No, you cant. But what you can do is balance damage types and damage done based on these values and the weapons each ship will be using. Where-in laser using ships will be armor tanking, where-in blaster using ships will be armor tanking. Where-in AC using ships will be using either, but will always have a much higher EM resistance than typicial giving them a natural resistance against the effects more than a laser ship has against their weapons[plus damage changing ability]. So when AC ships complain that they get out-damaged by lasers, they only really get out-damaged against passive plated setups on the battleship level when not flying a typhoon or Maelstrom, or when shooting at a Caldari ship[while ignoring the spare med slots for ewar]. In roughly three out of four of the other situations there is not a damage advantage and in an fight against each other there is a flat advantage that extends far beyond the assumed range. "if you really did" what? And what does this have to do with falloff on AC's? As for the strength of it. Yes, increasing the range while increasing the damage against all ships with little to no penalties in the short range against all ships except heavy missile users is a flat boost to a weapon system that does not need it.
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.02.10 15:52:00 - [465] Originally by: DennoTheHunter Asuming we are using the same range, 20k, we will see what's best. 3x gyro or 2x gyro and one TE. Again we use Dual 650mm AC II with Barrage on a Tempest. 3x Gyro setup: Raw dps = 104 dps Optimal + Falloff = 5,4 + 30 20k range hit chance = 85% Actual dps = 88,4 dps 2x Gyro and 1x TE setup: Raw dps = 93 dps Optimal + Falloff = 6,2 + 35 20k range hit chance = 90% Actual dps = 83,7 dps So at 20 k using Dual 650mm AC with Barrage at 20k, 3x gyro is actully 5,6% betterthan 2x gyro and 1x tracking enhancer. . Assuming tracking is no issue (and very often it won't be) this is correct. The results in close range combat (webrange) are even more skewed in 3rd gyrostab favour; so essentially the only point of fitting a TE instead of a third gyrostab is to negate tracking distruption somewhat and boost DPS when shooting at extreme falloff (where you practically do no DPS anyway, shooting at over 40% of your optimal+falloff range isn't a very hot move unless you absolutely must do it). At any rate, very few Minmatar ships fit three gyrostabs right now, certain Maelstorm and Sleipnir fits and gank/nano Hurricanes being the only ones I can remember off hand. You certainly wouldn't see mass usage of TEs if you gave them falloff to be on par with TDs. And I guarantee you will see a LOT of TDs given how effective unbonused TDs will be. Take for instance a, say, Huggin/Rapier trying to solo; as it is now it will not solo a Hurricane/Cyclone/etc because, well, these ships can fire and do marginal DPS up to T2 distruptor range. Now it only needs one TD to effectively disable said ships and prevent them from touching it. Take Myrmidons, for example; they have five slots leaving one slot for random EWAR or whatever - the key to beating a Myrmidon pilot in other BCs is playing on superior range until you depose of its drones. Negated with just one TD. Take the Hyperion; you could only try to match one in any Minmatar ship by playing on the range game (although it does reach out and touch you at decent ranges with Null L provided he has T2 guns); now, one TD and problem solved. In the end, every five-midslot armour tanker WILL be packing a TD, because given the prevalence of turret-based ships in EvE, it will be stupid not to fit one. Even over a falloff-boosting TC. Previously TDs were really effective as drone/smaller ship protection (tracking scripts) or to kill Amarr and partially Caldari (which are often optimal bonused) gunships as well as people who use long-range guns, and was less effective on Gallente (often falloff bonused) and especially Minmatar. This used to be fine, because falloff-shooting people were always doing less DPS at range and there were less options for boosting falloff (rigs really) then boosting optimal (rigs, TCs and TEs). Falloff-based guns now simply have more disadvantages - aside from lower DPS at range then optimal based guns, they have less options of boosting their effective operating range and now have no advantages (like being immune to distrupting) which they used to have. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.10 15:59:00 - [466] Originally by: Cpt Branko Falloff-based guns now simply have more disadvantages - aside from lower DPS at range then optimal based guns, they have less options of boosting their effective operating range and now have no advantages (like being immune to distrupting) which they used to have. And if Guom insists that a module which gives you the equivalent effect of a third gyrostab is overpowered because Minmatar fight in falloff and it boosts damage in falloff, how can he not complain about a module which can, without ship bonuses, flat out remove two-three gyrostabs at the engagement ranges he is talking about? Are you kidding?
Ariel Dawn Beets and Gravy Syndicate	Posted - 2008.02.10 16:03:00 - [467] Originally by: Goumindong As for the strength of it. Yes, increasing the range while increasing the damage against all ships with little to no penalties in the short range against all ships except heavy missile users is a flat boost to a weapon system that does not need it. Wait, what? How exactly is having 17.8% less DPS in the short range by not fitting a second Gyrostabilizer in favor of a Tracking Enhancer 'little to no penalty'. The TE gives you very very little benefit at such ranges and is blown out of the water by Gyrostabilizers in terms of raw damage. This is when neither of the ships is webbed; as soon as one is webbed (or both), tracking becomes 10x (or 100x better).
Ruah Piskonit Amarr PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris	Posted - 2008.02.10 16:06:00 - [468] Exacly, you can counter any TD affect to your falloff by closing range. If you want to keep your range, then you need to fit the rig (i.e. specilize your ship). I really fail to see the problem here, even after reading every post. Now if this 'buff', which is more a matter of equating falloff as being the racial equivilant (with variation) to optimal, were the begining of a 'boost sensor dampener' thread - I would be syympathetic. ----
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.02.10 16:15:00 - [469] Originally by: Goumindong Are you kidding? Are you trolling? 'Rigs are a counter, be happy.' and 'TE would be better for DPS then a third gyrostab' are what you've been parroting throught the whole thread. If TEs boosting falloff would be overpowered, how exactly the falloff-reducing TD isn't overpowered? Especially given the amount of modules you would need to counter just one unbonused TD (in this respect, it blows ECM out of the water, since ECM ONLY works on specialised fits and just one module helps you combat that specialised fit greatly). Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.02.10 16:19:00 - [470] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 10/02/2008 16:19:24 Originally by: Ruah Piskonit If the Amarr have a specilized ship that is designed to counter the range effects of ships - would it not be in the TDs design to affect falloff as well? The problem is that TDs are effective even if you fit just one module on a non-bonused ship, the problem isn't Amarr recons which are built, fit and bonused for tracking distruption. Look at how ECM works; it's almost useless fitting a single multispec in a spare midslot, yet it is very potent on a Caldari Recon with a jamming-oriented fit. Dampening? Even worse, it's next to completely pointless to put one damp in a spare midslot. If TDs are going to be a very powerful turret counter, they can't be 'chuck this in your spare mid and counter turret users', they have to require ship bonuses and significant fitting sacrifices to work well. Which is really what annoys me the most about the intended TD changes. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint

Feng Schui Minmatar The Ninja Coalition	Posted - 2008.02.10 16:40:00 - [471] Edited by: Feng Schui on 10/02/2008 16:41:03 You do realize that 1 tracking disruptor (even with the changes), and a bonused ship, sucks, right? no, seriously, play with it on sisi.. they still suck. edit: maybe a curse, using 3 of them (2 optimal disruptions, and a tracking speed disruption), might be useful, for taking out one turret ship out of the entire fleet, whereas, a falcon can reliably take out what, 6? 8? depending on how its fit. Project: Gank - Solo Pilgrim Video
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.10 17:56:00 - [472] Originally by: Ariel Dawn Originally by: Goumindong As for the strength of it. Yes, increasing the range while increasing the damage against all ships with little to no penalties in the short range against all ships except heavy missile users is a flat boost to a weapon system that does not need it. Wait, what? How exactly is having 17.8% less DPS in the short range by not fitting a second Gyrostabilizer in favor of a Tracking Enhancer 'little to no penalty'. The TE gives you very very little benefit at such ranges and is blown out of the water by Gyrostabilizers in terms of raw damage. This is when neither of the ships is webbed; as soon as one is webbed (or both), tracking becomes 10x (or 100x better). 12.4% ignoring tracking.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.10 18:04:00 - [473] Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: Goumindong Are you kidding? Are you trolling? 'Rigs are a counter, be happy.' and 'TE would be better for DPS then a third gyrostab' are what you've been parroting throught the whole thread. If TEs boosting falloff would be overpowered, how exactly the falloff-reducing TD isn't overpowered? Especially given the amount of modules you would need to counter just one unbonused TD (in this respect, it blows ECM out of the water, since ECM ONLY works on specialised fits and just one module helps you combat that specialised fit greatly). Because the game does not work if bonuses and effects applied to others were weaker or equal to the effect that can be applied counter to ones self. It takes a 6-7 slot tank plus rigs to nullify the effect of three damage mods. It takes many more ECCMs than ECM mods to keep yourself safe from jamming. It takes two sensor boosters to counter one from a sensor dampening ship. Combine this with the paradigm that the more specialized E-war types, I.E. the ones that only affect turrets and not any other aspects of a ship[compared to ECM which shuts down all offensive modules, and damps which shut down all offensive modules outside of a specific range or time frame], get a less strong counter, and combined with the simple [near] unaviodable mechanic that non-damaging modules do not scale as well as damaging modules due to saturation and overlapping effects means that yes. Not only are rigs just fine for AC's to boost their falloff, but TD's being a general range reduction at their current strength are not overpowered.
Ariel Dawn Beets and Gravy Syndicate	Posted - 2008.02.10 18:59:00 - [474] Originally by: Feng Schui Edited by: Feng Schui on 10/02/2008 16:41:03 You do realize that 1 tracking disruptor (even with the changes), and a bonused ship, sucks, right? Not against Minmatar. A Vagabond under the effects of a single tracking disruptor loses over 200 DPS when operating at the same current 16-18km area (or face getting hit by an overloaded web). Getting in close is not an option for ships like the Stabber, Vaga, Tempest against many targets, etc since they do not have the DPS or tank of other racial equivalents. Also Goumindong, I do not think you want people using the hit quality guide to see DPS when working in falloff with tracking increases. Most people do not even know that being in falloff alone reduces your hit quality regardless of tracking, so the DPS numbers that most people think that Minmatar have are actually a fair amount lower. This information isn't anywhere on EVE-O so people don't know, and you helped find this out on SHC.
Feng Schui Minmatar The Ninja Coalition	Posted - 2008.02.10 19:10:00 - [475] Originally by: Ariel Dawn Not against Minmatar. A Vagabond under the effects of a single tracking disruptor loses over 200 DPS when operating at the same current 16-18km area (or face getting hit by an overloaded web). Getting in close is not an option for ships like the Stabber, Vaga, Tempest against many targets, etc since they do not have the DPS or tank of other racial equivalents. The game is all about that little orbit button. I have yet to actually see a vagabond NOT orbit me while my TD is on him. Project: Gank - Solo Pilgrim Video
Ariel Dawn Beets and Gravy Syndicate	Posted - 2008.02.10 19:20:00 - [476] Originally by: Feng Schui Originally by: Ariel Dawn Not against Minmatar. A Vagabond under the effects of a single tracking disruptor loses over 200 DPS when operating at the same current 16-18km area (or face getting hit by an overloaded web). Getting in close is not an option for ships like the Stabber, Vaga, Tempest against many targets, etc since they do not have the DPS or tank of other racial equivalents. The game is all about that little orbit button. I have yet to actually see a vagabond NOT orbit me while my TD is on him. Well, against a Pilgrim coming in close means cap-death and webbed. Pilgrim switches to tracking scripts and orbits the Vagabond as close as possible. Vagabond pilot is off to the market for a new ship. A large number of Vagabond pilots aren't particularly good at flying them either (I believe it is the #1 most destroyed HAC in EVE according to CCP's released data), so your particular experiences may differ. Tracking Disruptors doing this to Minmatar are fine, and nobody has called for the removal of falloff from TDs. It's just that there is no existing counter (Ambit rigs are as much a counter as Elutration rigs are for Amarr) to the falloff reducing effect.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.10 19:27:00 - [477] Originally by: Ariel Dawn Not against Minmatar. A Vagabond under the effects of a single tracking disruptor loses over 200 DPS when operating at the same current 16-18km area (or face getting hit by an overloaded web). Getting in close is not an option for ships like the Stabber, Vaga, Tempest against many targets, etc since they do not have the DPS or tank of other racial equivalents. Also Goumindong, I do not think you want people using the hit quality guide to see DPS when working in falloff with tracking increases. Most people do not even know that being in falloff alone reduces your hit quality regardless of tracking, so the DPS numbers that most people think that Minmatar have are actually a fair amount lower. This information isn't anywhere on EVE-O so people don't know, and you helped find this out on SHC. The information is in one of the stickied threads at the top of the forum. I do want people using the hit quality formula. Why would i not? Getting in close is only not an option for those ships when the pilot wants to take no risk. It is not anyones fault but their own that they have problems against ships with longer ranges if they will not exploit those ships weaknesses.
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.02.10 19:32:00 - [478] Originally by: Goumindong Getting in close is only not an option for those ships when the pilot wants to take no risk. It is not anyones fault but their own that they have problems against ships with longer ranges if they will not exploit those ships weaknesses. QFT. Fit your ship like a man and use its powers. -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation
Ariel Dawn Beets and Gravy Syndicate	Posted - 2008.02.10 19:40:00 - [479] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: Goumindong Getting in close is only not an option for those ships when the pilot wants to take no risk. It is not anyones fault but their own that they have problems against ships with longer ranges if they will not exploit those ships weaknesses. QFT. Fit your ship like a man and use its powers. Please tell me a Stabber setup that will beat a Thorax/Vexor/Arbitrator/Rupture/etc in the close-range. Please tell me a Vagabond that will beat a Zealot/Sac/Deimos/Ishtar in the close range. Please tell me a Tempest that will beat a Megathron/Dominix/Hyperion/Armageddon/Abaddon in the close range. The Minmatar advantage is speed and maneuverability with a fairly equal mix of tank and gank. Close range means you are ignoring your advantage and are facing ships that will either out-gank you (Gallente) or out-tank you (Amarr) because you are playing into THEIR advantage. I would gladly close range if such ships had the option of doing so and winning. Since you keep insisting this is possible, please play the Minmatar and post a setup for these particular ships that will defeat a counterpart at close range. I'll post the Amarr/Gallente standard setups that will counter it.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.10 19:46:00 - [480] Originally by: Ariel Dawn ... A stabber wont beat a thorax, rupture, vexor, or arbitrator in the short range. The rupture and thorax are the same and shoter range than the stabber, the vexor and arbitrator are weaker in the long range since they have to keep their drones alive. I said use the ships strengths, not "be an idiot". This Tempest will beat a mega/domi/hyp/geddon/abaddon in either the long or short range 6x 800mm II[barrage], 2x siege II[CN Ex torps] mwd, web, scram, balmer, balmer 1600, 1600, eanm, eanm, dc, gyro 3x trimarks. The ship will have much more EHP/dps relative to the Geddon and abaddon due to damage types. The ship will have much more range compared to the domi/hyp/mega.

Ariel Dawn Beets and Gravy Syndicate	Posted - 2008.02.10 20:29:00 - [481] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Ariel Dawn ... A stabber wont beat a thorax, rupture, vexor, or arbitrator in the short range. The rupture and thorax are the same and shoter range than the stabber, the vexor and arbitrator are weaker in the long range since they have to keep their drones alive. I said use the ships strengths, not "be an idiot". This Tempest will beat a mega/domi/hyp/geddon/abaddon in either the long or short range 6x 800mm II[barrage], 2x siege II[CN Ex torps] mwd, web, scram, balmer, balmer 1600, 1600, eanm, eanm, dc, gyro 3x trimarks. The ship will have much more EHP/dps relative to the Geddon and abaddon due to damage types. The ship will have much more range compared to the domi/hyp/mega. Nothing is stopping the other ships from using TDs making the Tempest's DPS pathetic at long range. Dominix, Hyperion, Abaddon (if no MWD) can do so. Tempest vs Geddon, it would win if not at a gate/station. If it comes into the range of the Geddon, it will be shredded (especially after the massive Amarr boost in the form of an EM reduction) with the Geddon doing 340+ more DPS. Also more useful in a gang-situation due to it's large range advantage. Using Heavy Neuts over Siege Missiles is a better setup anyway as it's far more effective vs smaller ships, nanos, etc, and that requires a cap-booster midslot. And thats just concerning plated-BS setups. A tri-hardened Hyperion, Dominix, Geddon, etc will have explosive as no more a resist hole than EM. These ships can tank more DPS than the plated Tempest can do actively while dishing out a similar amount. And un-plated they're significantly faster than the Tempest and will catch it easily. A Hyperion will completely mutilate a plated Tempest considering it puts out 1100 DPS and tanks 1000 DPS. The momentum from MWDing into it will carry it under TD range. A Dominix can use it's own TDs and orbit the slow Tempest, having to tank the fearsome DPS of some drones and 2 unbonused/unmodded Siege Launchers. An Abaddon fitting smaller guns and an active tank will only die to the Tempest if the pilot goes afk for a long period of time, a Geddon can do likewise, or move out to 45km (since everyone in EVE flies with honor and warp outs are forbidden!) and still out-DPS the Tempest if the 'pest was at 5km. Nerf Minmatar.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.10 20:51:00 - [482] Edited by: Goumindong on 10/02/2008 20:52:37 Originally by: Ariel Dawn Nothing is stopping the other ships from using TDs making the Tempest's DPS pathetic at long range. Dominix, Hyperion, Abaddon (if no MWD) can do so. Tempest vs Geddon, it would win if not at a gate/station. If it comes into the range of the Geddon, it will be shredded (especially after the massive Amarr boost in the form of an EM reduction) with the Geddon doing 340+ more DPS. Also more useful in a gang-situation due to it's large range advantage. Using Heavy Neuts over Siege Missiles is a better setup anyway as it's far more effective vs smaller ships, nanos, etc, and that requires a cap-booster midslot. Unless these ships start using weapons that dont use cap, and suddenly gain 1-2 med slots then yea, there isnt anything stooping thse from using TD's. However, since they dont have 1-2 more slots and DO use weapons that use cap, there ceritanly is stuff stopping thse ships from using TD's. With 1 TD on each, the Pest is still up a TD but it has two webs and can use the generally reduced range to win. With 2 TD's they run out of cap because they need to mwd into range and use their guns which use cap. A 1 gyro tempest with Hail does about 950 DPS. A 3 heat sink Geddon with AN MF M does about 1150. That is 250 more DPS, but the tempest is doing explosive and the Geddon is doing mostly Em and thermal. A tri-hardened geddon, domi, and hyperion is foolish. But if they do, change to EMP and do the same thing you were doing earlier. A hyperion cannot do 1100 dps, tank 1000 dps and NOT be shredded by TD's[if it can even put up the tank numbers with that much dps, which i dont think it can]. It is not significantly faster that its momentum will carry it through if the tempest is smart, as well, tanking that much requires huge amounts of cap which mean the long burn on the mwd is going to be dangerous. I am not sure what a Geddon is doing dictating range on a tepest, nor am i sure what activly tanked Abaddon or Geddon has a chance against two TD's on them from a tesmpest[because the tempest will move to 9.5km while putting the TD's on and the Geddon/Abaddon will be forced to use scorch, hitting 90% of the tempests resist on armor while the tempest is doing as much DPS [841, 6km opt+30km falloff =95%+ hit rate], except its all explosive and kinetic.
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.10 20:54:00 - [483] Originally by: Aramendel 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. Without that cap warfare kills your own cap while killing that of your target which makes it somewhat pointless. Have fun ignoring that yet again. It's so blatantly obvious that balancing two types of EW on a ship where the EW don't share same slots is different than on a ship where the two types of ew compete for same 2-3 slots isn't the same thing, I frankly find it laughable that you bother to claim the opposite. If you can't see the difference from balancing point of view between being able to fit a full rack of both types of ew vs having to choose a full rack of either or some combination of both, I sincerely hope you don't work in game design. The cap mods you keep bringing up are more of an example of how it is possible to limit this advantage, rather than an argument of there not being an advantage in the first place. But, just to make it even simpler, these three questions should even better illustrate the point I'm trying to make: If you fit a maximum amout of TDs on curse, are you still able to fit nos? If you fit a maximum amount of TPs on a huginn, are you still able to fit webs? Is there a difference and is it possible that this difference needs to be taken into consideration when balancing the ships in question and/or the ew types in question? Quote: Have fun ignoring that again. Seems to be the only thing you are able to in this discussion. I think the fact that last few posts have been mostly about Huginn is a testament to me not ignoring the context of your comments.
Ruah Piskonit Amarr PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris	Posted - 2008.02.10 22:21:00 - [484] wait, you are shifting the argument. We are talking about TDs here, not recon balance - and don't even start to use the Rapier/Huggin as a balancing tool against the curse, the Rapier/Huggin are great ships - not worthy of any whine. Now, I'm going to call the 200dps reduction from a single TD on an unbonused ship on a Vega - thats too high. The reality is though - you can still close the range if you want and take the risk. If not, you can hang out there at 15 - 20km and be a heavy tackler. Or. . .Just accept that there are 5 ships in the game that can counter you - four of them are recons. EW affects all ships, so do Damps and Webs, TDs are very specilized - they are supposed to shut down turrets. The 'optimal range' people (blaster, rails, lasers) have never complained about TDs, hell, even blaster pilots have not complained about their tracking being killed when TDs had the duel effect. So you think AC/Artis should be an exception? Projectiles are the only guns with variable damage type, the only guns that don't use cap. There is no point cutting the optimal range on a gun that has a 3000m optimal and a 15k falloff. The fact that falloff should be affected, by the same mod as optimal, means that particular script is working as it is supposed to against all turret types. I don't see blaster pilots crying about their optimal being killed, I don't see Caldari rail pilots whining about what a TD does to them. . .but if the vega is suddenly foced to come close against a TD fitted ship. . .thats a valuable mid slot that someone dedicated to shut you down. Or would you rather speed and agility get nurfed to hell? I mean seriously, we all know this current fad is not going to last - this lets you continue to be a fast tackler, but kills your dps. THe curse still can't kill you or run from you. . . ----
Diomidis Amarr Mythos Corp RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.02.10 22:48:00 - [485] Originally by: Ruah Piskonit . .Just accept that there are 5 ships in the game that can counter you - four of them are recons...but if the vaga is suddenly forced to come close against a TD fitted ship. . .thats a valuable mid slot that someone dedicated to shut you down. Pll that find that the single mid-slot a TC requires is that "valuable" and scarce to find in Minmatar ships - and the Vaga especially - that demand that single module should promote tracking, optimal and fall-off range. Yet they take for granted that suddenly each and every opponent of Matari ships will definitely find an empty "utility" slot for one (or more) TDs to make all ACs useless (lol), and in case of confronting a Vaga also fit a web! Get real ffs...
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.10 23:29:00 - [486] Originally by: Ruah Piskonit wait, you are shifting the argument. We are talking about TDs here, not recon balance - and don't even start to use the Rapier/Huggin as a balancing tool against the curse, the Rapier/Huggin are great ships - not worthy of any whine. Well in all honesty it was not I who brought up recons. And yep I recognize myself my dialogue with aramendel has drifted way off topic days ago and that line of conversation is probably not worth following further, atleast not in this thread. Quote: EW affects all ships, so do Damps and Webs, TDs are very specilized - they are supposed to shut down turrets. The 'optimal range' people (blaster, rails, lasers) have never complained about TDs, hell, even blaster pilots have not complained about their tracking being killed when TDs had the duel effect. So you think AC/Artis should be an exception? You see, I'm not against buffing TDs. I just think this is a poor way to do it because TDs really are not broken. There's a really nice logic into the split with optimal & tracking and +falloff mod is just a clumsy bandaid and the real problem is that webbing as it is almost completely devalues tracking. Quote: Projectiles are the only guns with variable damage type, the only guns that don't use cap. There is no point cutting the optimal range on a gun that has a 3000m optimal and a 15k falloff. The fact that falloff should be affected, by the same mod as optimal, means that particular script is working as it is supposed to against all turret types. I see this quite the opposite. I think adding the falloff penalty to TDs breaks the logic by which the module seems to be designed. True, there's no point cutting the optimal from an ac, but cutting down the tracking does make perfect sense. Laser vs ac laser has range advantage, ac has tracking advantage. Each can use TD against the other to reduce (or reverse in case of tracking) the advantage. Quote: Or would you rather speed and agility get nurfed to hell? How'd you get to the conclusion that it'll be one or the other?
Ruah Piskonit Amarr PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris	Posted - 2008.02.11 02:59:00 - [487] There are two aspects to TDs, optimal (essentially range) and tracking - to include falloff as a range modifier is only natural. Yes, it does weaken projectiles, just as the mod is designed to weaken every turret type. I sincerely belive that not thinking of falloff as essentially being the same as optimal in the sense that both are about operational range was an oversight in the initial design of TDs. To put falloff and optimal under the same script design clearly indicates that TDs that are set up to reduce the operational range of turrets are to affect all turret types. To include falloff as a TC/TE catagory within the optimal scrip would mean there is a double effect for artillery (I know of no AC setup that uses TCs and TEs. That is potentially unbalanced. The negative effects however need to cope with the nature of ACs and falloff. Now I know I am getting repetitious, but TDs are designed to work on all turrets in two ways - range and tracking. This allows the mod to function as it is supposed to. This does not mean that you lose your lock (as with ECM and SDs) it just means that you have two choises - get closer (range) or lower your transversal (tracking). Now the weakness of the mod is apparent already - you can be proactive in countering the effects. Its not about fitting a mod as SDs and ECM are because those mods have no counter outside of a mod, with TDs though you can choose to close range or slow down - or not bother with either and keep the curse/pilgrim/arbitrator scrambled. You see, you have the power to counter the mod through skill. . . On the point of speed nurfes - I was only implying that it seems CCP is hesitant to nurf nano/speed - a common feature in AC fitted ships (nano, seph, etc.) - this kind of feature seems like a good way to balance that: you can go fast, but you cannot go fast and use turrets effectivly - essentially this mod as a whole is a form of retroactivly steming the power of gank and speed setups. Of course it does not work with all ships - but I like how CCP is not just nurfing the problem (and thats a whole different issue) but working to boost mods that can affect that form of combat. Buffs are always better then nurfs - and I say that not because TDs are Amarr racial, but because I am sick and tired of nurfs. ----
Lilith Velkor Minmatar Oyster Colors	Posted - 2008.02.11 06:05:00 - [488] Originally by: Ruah Piskonit (...) it just means that you have two choises - get closer (range) or lower your transversal (tracking). (...) with TDs though you can choose to close range or slow down - or not bother with either and keep the curse/pilgrim/arbitrator scrambled. You see, you have the power to counter the mod through skill. . . True for the arbitrator, but closing in or lowering transversal will only work on the curse / pilgrim if the pilot was kind enough to not nano his ship to hell and back or I'm flying a vaga / rapier / huggin. Quote: Its not about fitting a mod as SDs and ECM are because those mods have no counter outside of a mod, SDs are facing the same problem, either they choose locktime scripts which only delays the targeting time (useless if you dont have a buddy with ECM nearby), or they choose lockrange, in this case you can counter by closing in. Same for a combination of both. Still there is a (very effective) module to counter, a sensor booster, which has a pretty nice benefit even if you're not SDed. Just compare SB and SD, I can really feel why the gallente ewar pilots are p*ssed.
Ruah Piskonit Amarr PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris	Posted - 2008.02.11 07:15:00 - [489] Edited by: Ruah Piskonit on 11/02/2008 07:20:52 Originally by: Lilith Velkor Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 11/02/2008 06:37:50 Quote: To include falloff as a TC/TE catagory within the optimal scrip would mean there is a double effect for artillery (I know of no AC setup that uses TCs and TEs. That is potentially unbalanced. The negative effects however need to cope with the nature of ACs and falloff. So I'm getting this right, for TDs optimal+falloff are counting as operational range, while for TC/TE only optimal counts as operational range? Total range for artillery guns is optimal+falloff, in fact this is the case for every turret out there, so if both can be reduced its only logical both can be increased by TC/TE, or else artillery suffer more from TDs (using T1 ammo falloff is a large part of their range, even more with high damage t2, for t2 long range its still more than 1/3) which would be imbalanced. Yes, but I suspect most people here are not concerned with the effect on artillery but on ACs. For Artillery boats, TC/TEs will counter the optimal portion of the TD effect, the falloff bit will have to be countered with a rig. I suppose to counter a specilized and rare mod takes more to counter. The point is however, if TC/TEs added to both optimal and falloff - which is what is being proposed here - then Minmatar ships would be reciving a double bonus. Lets look at this from the Minmatar perspective: There is a bonus that dictates - pretty much - whether you fit ACs or Arti on your ships. While these are just guidelines, most players abide by them: The Vegabond and Sleph both have a falloff bonus, this is a clear sign that these ships are meant to be AC boats. The Munin on the other hand has an optimal range bonus, which is what makes it an Arti boat. Which one fits SB/SE/TC/TEs? The Munin. TDs in their current form are only half effective however against the Munin because of the high falloff. The SB are usually with lock time scripts, and the TEs are usually with tracking scripts because artillery track very poorly. I have never seen these mods on a Vegabond (I'm sure it will happen eventually) or a Sleph (unless its a 740II setup. . .) Against these AC boats, TDs are very ineffective - they track very well already and they have almost no optimal range. Now if falloff was a modified by optimal - then maby TDs would be ok without the falloff effect, but because such high falloff ignores the short optimal to such an extent - the TD has practically no effect. So while every other turret should be fearful of TDs (which they are) ACs, and to a lesser extent Arti can ignore its effects. . .well that needed to change. To ask for TC/TEs to have a falloff modifyer as well as the normal optimal modifyer would constitute a buff far greater then the TD buff. Thats what people have been saying all along. Thats why the rig argument was brought up. IF you truly feel that TDs are a danger, drop that Aux. Thruster or Polycarb rig and fit a falloff rig. Fitting a TD is a sacrifice with little effect on anything but turrets - the tradeoff is fair. ----
Lilith Velkor Minmatar Oyster Colors	Posted - 2008.02.11 08:01:00 - [490] Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 11/02/2008 08:02:04 Originally by: Ruah Piskonit Yes, but I suspect most people here are not concerned with the effect on artillery but on ACs. For Artillery boats, TC/TEs will counter the optimal portion of the TD effect, the falloff bit will have to be countered with a rig. I suppose to counter a specilized and rare mod takes more to counter. A rig is not a counter, it is a modification of base attributes, this has already been discussed. Fact is artillery loose more total / effective range when TDed, this is not balanced, especially when using mid-range ammunition. Quote: Thats what people have been saying all along. Thats why the rig argument was brought up. IF you truly feel that TDs are a danger, drop that Aux. Thruster or Polycarb rig and fit a falloff rig. Fitting a TD is a sacrifice with little effect on anything but turrets - the tradeoff is fair. Not every minmatar ship that is viable to be fitted with ACs has a falloff bonus, e.g. Hurricane. Lets see, no Aux. Thruster or Polycarb I could replace, I could however replace a projectile damage rig, or a falloff rig. Yes TC/TE do nothing for AC boats, but falloff rigs are not a solution, especially not if they are already there.

Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.02.11 09:38:00 - [491] Originally by: Lilith Velkor And I'm not talking about a nano-recon using a TD here, I'm talking about a myrmidon for example I can't kite anymore no matter what I do, moving closer is no option either. This. I don't mind Amarr recons/EAF/Arbitrator being effective at using TDs to mess up gunships; however, things like the Myrmidon can quite easily use one in the spare midslot which they do have and you lose any possible way of killing it with a Minmatar ship, since, whee, your racial advantage has been negated by one spare midslot in a ship not bonused for it. So, if TDs are going to get boosted in the falloff respect, then nerf them to half efficency and give Amarr recons/Arbitrator/EAF a 20% boost to TD effects and nobody will whine about these mods. Ah, well. Battlecruisers are a race-independent skill so I might very well fly one of the ugly things myself. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Ruah Piskonit Amarr PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris	Posted - 2008.02.11 09:42:00 - [492] Well, I guess we simply disagree, I have seen Guomingdung and several others try to explain to you how this is balanced considering that TDs are supposed to screw up your turrets. You rely on falloff more, falloff needed to be hurt as much as other turrets. If that is not enough of an explination - then I guess I will resort to what has been said to me countless times 'adapt'. I don't expect you to turn and run from me because of TDs anytime soon. ----
Lilith Velkor Minmatar Oyster Colors	Posted - 2008.02.11 09:57:00 - [493] Originally by: Ruah Piskonit Edited by: Ruah Piskonit on 11/02/2008 09:51:17 I would not be too worried about Myrmidons (and Gallente with extra mid sslots in general) being effective with TDs. I have tested it on SiSi and it did not stop the vegabond from tackling the Myrmidon. Infact, thats really the whole point as to why this is not as terrible as you may think - you are not forced to close range - if the Myrmidon wants to do that, it would still fit a SD with range script - its more effective and fores you to close range to even lock. 1) vagabond != hurricane 2) a SD forcing either vagabond or hurricane to close range? are you serious? did you check the SD stats?
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.02.11 10:00:00 - [494] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 11/02/2008 10:00:21 Originally by: Ruah Piskonit I would not be too worried about Myrmidons (and Gallente with extra mid sslots in general) being effective with TDs. I have tested it on SiSi and it did not stop the vegabond from tackling the Myrmidon. Because all Minmatar T1 ships get falloff bonuses? Oh, wait, none do. Test it versus a Hurricane, not a Vagabond. Originally by: Ruah Piskonit Infact, thats really the whole point as to why this is not as terrible as you may think - you are not forced to close range - if the Myrmidon wants to do that, it would still fit a SD with range script - its more effective and fores you to close range to even lock. Not really. A single SD with range script will not force my range in a, for example, Hurricane/Cyclone/Rupture to 13km. It's going to be more like 20+km in worst case I have bad lockrange skills and the other guy has good damp skills. Damps aren't very effective on unbonused ships, and aren't very effective with just one of them. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Diomidis Amarr Mythos Corp RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.02.11 11:34:00 - [495] Originally by: Lilith Velkor A rig is not a counter, it is a modification of base attributes, this has already been discussed. So does ECCM. Modifies a base attribute. It's used for your (the OP supporters' I mean) arguments and comparisons tho. Originally by: Lilith Velkor Fact is artillery loose more total / effective range when TDed, this is not balanced, especially when using mid-range ammunition. The fact that Artillery turrets have huge volley dmg (alpha strike), and can keep on firing using zero cap, while the autocannons' firing also cannot be stopped by a Curse or Pilrim via cap drainage, implies that they should have a weakness compared to other turret based weapon systems. Originally by: Lilith Velkor Edit: Falloff rigs generally make very little sense on artillery fits btw, so for the sake of balance this should be adressed by TC and TE. As said already, projectile ammo already have a built in "range" bonus. Using T1 ammo the differences between medium Pulses, ACs and Blasters is very-very low for the first two, with minmatar vessels heaving more available cap and base speed to dictate range, plus mid-slots for both scram and webifiers. Also degrading medium AC turrets in search of an easiest to fit setup, DPS loss is hilariously low, and practically there is no range penalty - always compared to other turret weapon platforms. Range is NOT what Minmatar ships lack. But TD effectiveness against Projectile turrets lacks for sure. If you want TC/TEs to affect fall-off, you should admit that base attributes for given ammo types should also be changed. If it's unfair for the TD's to cut range out of both optimal + fall-off against arties, why is it fair for arties to gain range out of both optimal + fall-off with TE/TCs, while at the same time being by no means short-ranged or gimped compared to other long range turrets? Isn't there a contradiction that self-opposes your arguments?
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.02.11 11:59:00 - [496] Originally by: Diomidis The fact that Artillery turrets have huge volley dmg (alpha strike), and can keep on firing using zero cap, while the autocannons' firing also cannot be stopped by a Curse or Pilrim via cap drainage, implies that they should have a weakness compared to other turret based weapon systems. Also have crappy DPS, crappy tracking (they're vastly worse then beams and somewhat worse tracking then rails), have crappy alpha unless firing at pure optimal and its range is harder to modify then other guns because a part of it is falloff which you can't do anything about, which reduces your effective DPS and alpha. Of course, they don't require no cap, so a curse with 150km neuts can't shut you down Yes, Minmatar short-range guns - Autocannons - are quite good and very balanced. Minmatar long range guns are quite crap really. However, since long range guns are for sniping, and I don't really care about sniping, and things like Myrmidons fitting TDs are hardly a issue in fleet fights, let's keep artillery discussion for another thread. What I'm trying to say is this; ships (primarily blasterboats) with a single spare midslot will nullify the range advantage of Minmatar T1 ships (yes, I realise falloff-bonused ships can fight under a single TD), and suddenly there's preety much nothing you can do to fight them given their short-range superiority. Do you see the issue here? Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Diomidis Amarr Mythos Corp RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.02.11 14:12:00 - [497] Originally by: Cpt Branko Also have crappy DPS, crappy tracking (they're vastly worse then beams and somewhat worse tracking then rails), have crappy alpha unless firing at pure optimal and its range is harder to modify then other guns because a part of it is falloff which you can't do anything about, which reduces your effective DPS and alpha. Effective DPS for snipers are all about alphas, and Projectiles rule at it. Originally by: Cpt Branko Of course, they don't require no cap, so a curse with 150km neuts can't shut you down Of course "effective" DPS of other sniping platforms really hurt when capping out that soon as-soon-as they warp into the battlefield... And off course it's not funny to fail understanding that the "curse-factor" was refering to ACs, not projectiles, tho it's still a fact for both. Originally by: Cpt Branko Yes, Minmatar short-range guns - Autocannons - are quite good and very balanced. Minmatar long range guns are quite crap really. When - at last - autocannons will be range disrupt-able, yes, I agree that they'll balance a bit. Otherwise no, I've given a few reasons why ACs are NOT that balanced as they are. Also do not forget the fact that most Minmatar boats used for PvP have also adequate missile and drone DPS capabilities. These are "remembered" when we read matari whines on how difficult is for them to get the most out of their ships etc skill-wise. Somehow the fact of TD immunity of these TD independant DPS capabilities existance is comfortably ignored when it comes to these latest whines... However, since long range guns are for sniping, and I don't really care about sniping, and things like Myrmidons fitting TDs are hardly a issue in fleet fights, let's keep artillery discussion for another thread. Originally by: Cpt Branko What I'm trying to say is this; ships (primarily blasterboats) with a single spare midslot will nullify the range advantage of Minmatar T1 ships (yes, I realise falloff-bonused ships can fight under a single TD), and suddenly there's preety much nothing you can do to fight them given their short-range superiority. Do you see the issue here? Ehm...again you say that ships with shorter range than yours will exploit TDs to make Minmatar useless...well... What makes you believe that Minmatar short range fits cannot make room for a TD when all other races will standardize it's use? Using a TD yourself will help you retain your range advantage. Also the "Myrmidon short range fight example": a Myrm has to be countered by either out-running it or killing it's drones. Range was never an issue while killing orbiting drones - was it? Before the TD nerf was it much easier for a Minmatar ship to go for a head on point blank attack on a tanking beast like the myrm?
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.11 15:33:00 - [498] Originally by: Ruah Piskonit There are two aspects to TDs, optimal (essentially range) and tracking - to include falloff as a range modifier is only natural. Yes, it does weaken projectiles, just as the mod is designed to weaken every turret type. I sincerely belive that not thinking of falloff as essentially being the same as optimal in the sense that both are about operational range was an oversight in the initial design of TDs. I love it how you think one thing is an 'oversight in design' for TDs but not for TE/TCs. I think the reason that there aren't many falloff affecting mods is intentional design. It has to do with how the advantages of different turret types are spread out. Blasters have best dps, lasers have best range and acs have tracking along with falloff to allow them be the jack of all trades, not being the best at any range but being able to exploit the disadvantages of the other turret types. The TD effect on other weapon types is quite different than with ACs, since the falloff penalty completely changes the nature of the weapon. Quote: To include falloff as a TC/TE catagory within the optimal scrip would mean there is a double effect for artillery (I know of no AC setup that uses TCs and TEs. That is potentially unbalanced. The negative effects however need to cope with the nature of ACs and falloff. If you consider that arties have lower optimal but additional falloff compared to other types, you see that arties actually aren't getting an equal benefit with only +optimal on TEs. That is if we go by the same logic you used with TDs. In reality though, nobody cares about falloff when we're talking snipers, either you have enough optimal or you suck, few falloff mods isn't going to change that. So for snipers, wether there is +falloff on TE/TC isn't going to change anything. Quote: Now I know I am getting repetitious, but TDs are designed to work on all turrets in two ways - range and tracking. Well that is just you guessing. I personally think that TDs are designed to work on all turrets - either by reducing range or tracking, not necessarily both. This is because between different turret types there's always either -optimal or -tracking to exploit, it's just that current webbing mechanics devalue the -tracking. Quote: This allows the mod to function as it is supposed to. Fixing webbing would allow it to function as it is supposed to, now they just gave it an additional bonus as sort of an emergency band aid. Quote: On the point of speed nurfes - I was only implying that it seems CCP is hesitant to nurf nano/speed - a common feature in AC fitted ships (nano, seph, etc.) - this kind of feature seems like a good way to balance that: you can go fast, but you cannot go fast and use turrets effectivly - essentially this mod as a whole is a form of retroactivly steming the power of gank and speed setups. Umm, -tracking already achieves the "you cannot go fast and use turrets effectively". Furthermore this whole thing is kinda amusing since AC boats (or vaga, because, lets face it, that's the ship you seem to hate with a passion and why you keep bringing the nanoship issue up repeatedly while it has relatively little to do with the matter) are atm the only nanoships that have to slow down to hit, again, due to tracking. So -tracking already achieves the effect you're talking about. You're just not satisfied with reducing his speed, you also want an idiot-proof way to reduce his dps on the same module. Quote: Of course it does not work with all ships - but I like how CCP is not just nurfing the problem (and thats a whole different issue) but working to boost mods that can affect that form of combat. Buffs are always better then nurfs - and I say that not because TDs are Amarr racial, but because I am sick and tired of nurfs. I'd much rather like CCP fixing the real problem instead of band aiding the symptoms with illogical and unnecessary extra mods
Ruah Piskonit Amarr PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris	Posted - 2008.02.11 19:52:00 - [499] Originally by: Trigos Trilobi I love it how you think one thing is an 'oversight in design' for TDs but not for TE/TCs. I think the reason that there aren't many falloff affecting mods is intentional design. It has to do with how the advantages of different turret types are spread out. Blasters have best dps, lasers have best range and acs have tracking along with falloff to allow them be the jack of all trades, not being the best at any range but being able to exploit the disadvantages of the other turret types. The TD effect on other weapon types is quite different than with ACs, since the falloff penalty completely changes the nature of the weapon. First off, IÆm not buying the æjack of all tradesÆ crap. Secondly, ACs have three major advantages that other turrets donÆt: variable damage types (range dependent I know), capless, and extreme falloff. Now TDs shut hamper all the other turret types û why not ACs û especially considering their already huge advantages. The increased optimal does affect ACs less then they do lasers or rails û but an increased optimal already has a positive effect on your overall dps because you will be less deep into falloff û that is the effect of TC/TE. Of course TDs are supposed to change the ænatureÆ of ACs û they are called Turret Disruptors û Acs should be affected the same. So you have an opposition û the more you argue that optimal does not matter û the more you are proving that falloff modifier should be included (and it will) in the TD optimal/falloff range disruption. And the more you argue that TE/TCs should have both bonusÆ the more you are saying that ACs need the buff. Because lasers and blasters gain very little from a falloff buff while ACs do actually gain a considerable amount of DPS from an optimal boost. Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Well that is just you guessing. I personally think that TDs are designed to work on all turrets - either by reducing range or tracking, not necessarily both. This is because between different turret types there's always either -optimal or -tracking to exploit, it's just that current webbing mechanics devalue the -tracking. I am not guessing, I am saying flat out û Turret Disruptors should affect all turrets. If a weapons system is dependent on optimal, that should be affected same as falloff. Having a single turret type that is practically untouched by TDs is creating exceptions. ACs fight in falloff most of the time, so the effects of TDs is limited. Increasing optimal however can mean a significant boost in DPS for ACs û thatÆs where the disparity lies. Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Umm, -tracking already achieves the "you cannot go fast and use turrets effectively". Furthermore this whole thing is kinda amusing since AC boats (or vaga, because, lets face it, that's the ship you seem to hate with a passion and why you keep bringing the nanoship issue up repeatedly while it has relatively little to do with the matter) are atm the only nanoships that have to slow down to hit, again, due to tracking. So -tracking already achieves the effect you're talking about. You're just not satisfied with reducing his speed, you also want an idiot-proof way to reduce his dps on the same module. I made an off handed statement that this type of change was preferable to a speed nurf. Every subsequent statement on the matter has been a response. I think mods that force ships to take risks in order to make a kill to be good û as it stands risk to reward in regards to nano-ships is a little borked atm, and changes like this allow ships to continue to go fast but kill their dps û a very fair trade. Yes, the tracking script does affect ACs (which have the highest tracking), the issue however is that the other script fails to affect ACs in any meaningful way û thatÆs the problem. Adding falloff to TC/TEs is not a æreal fixÆ û curiously, what is the real problem? As I see it, a sspecilized ECM mod not affecting a particular ----
Lilith Velkor Minmatar Oyster Colors	Posted - 2008.02.11 20:00:00 - [500] Originally by: Diomidis The fact that Artillery turrets have huge volley dmg (alpha strike), and can keep on firing using zero cap, while the autocannons' firing also cannot be stopped by a Curse or Pilrim via cap drainage, implies that they should have a weakness compared to other turret based weapon systems. The weakness compared to other turrets is that a large part of their range is falloff, most of their range for ACs in fact. Just like lasers can conveniently modify their optimal range for the weakness of heavy cap usage (agreed, a little too heavy cap usage, but this is not the point here). Quote: As said already, projectile ammo already have a built in "range" bonus. Using T1 ammo the differences between medium Pulses, ACs and Blasters is very-very low for the first two, with minmatar vessels heaving more available cap and base speed to dictate range, plus mid-slots for both scram and webifiers. There is no range bonus on t1 projectile ammo. Using t1 ammo pulse lasers can, unlike ACs, greatly vary their range at the expense on dps, while ACs can loose dps and not gain any significant range. Yes they can choose between different mixes of damage types, I know. Amarr ships generally have less med slots and can't afford a webifier, they can however adapt to any range by changing ammo. The ships and fighting concepts are different, amarr have freedom to modify their weapon range while minmatar have speed to modify range to their advantage. Yes the grass is always greener on the other side. Quote: If you want TC/TEs to affect fall-off, you should admit that base attributes for given ammo types should also be changed. Well, if you ask me the t1 projectile ammo should be balanced to provide at least a little falloff modifier given ACs are heavy on falloff, maybe 30% falloff / 70% optimal. But thats just me, guess I'll get flamed to hell for this Currently there is no benefit for switching to less damaging ammo to gain a bit range on ACs, so you only use EMP or PP, nothing else, while barrage with its tracking penalty is used to gain range but nullifies the freedom of damage type selection people like to name as a great advantage to projectiles. Quote: If it's unfair for the TD's to cut range out of both optimal + fall-off against arties, why is it fair for arties to gain range out of both optimal + fall-off with TE/TCs, while at the same time being by no means short-ranged or gimped compared to other long range turrets? Isn't there a contradiction that self-opposes your arguments? I could ask the same, if it's fair for TDs to cut both, why is it unfair TE/TC boost both? Just to make it clear, I'm not against the proposed TD change, imho optimal+falloff together are a turrets range, thats why the both should be affected in both cases. As it is now, optimal heavy turrets have a greater benefit using these modules, while otherwise all turrets would benefit the same.

Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.02.11 20:08:00 - [501] Originally by: Lilith Velkor I could ask the same, if it's fair for TDs to cut both, why is it unfair TE/TC boost both? This has been explained and calculated for several pages, but I guess we shouldnt underestimate thickness of craniums: FALL-OFF BOOST = DAMAGE BOOST FOR ACs. This damage boost in the ordinary engagement range (where the damage of ACs is balanced, ie out in fall out) doesnt stack with gyros. So yea its a bad friggin idea to give minmatar mids and lows to use even more damage mods when they already have fall off rigs to do this. Be happy you have those at all tbh because THATs an oversight of ccp. -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation
Lilith Velkor Minmatar Oyster Colors	Posted - 2008.02.11 20:22:00 - [502] Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 11/02/2008 20:23:07 Originally by: Lyria Skydancer stuff You mean the several pages where it turned out the damage boost is nearly insignificant given reasonable fits? Somehow I get the strong impression you are pretty good at selective reading.
Diomidis Amarr Mythos Corp RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.02.11 21:36:00 - [503] Originally by: Lilith Velkor I could ask the same, if it's fair for TDs to cut both, why is it unfair TE/TC boost both? Just to make it clear, I'm not against the proposed TD change, imho optimal+falloff together are a turrets range, thats why the both should be affected in both cases. As it is now, optimal heavy turrets have a greater benefit using these modules, while otherwise all turrets would benefit the same. It's true that optimal and fall-off ranges are connected by physical law. It's also a matter of common sense that the further a projectile (think "bullet") travels, the less chances it has to hit it's target, and the lesser damage it will inflict to it if it actually hits it. In order to make things easier for the game engine, CCP has over-simplified this with the 50% chance & 50% dmg reduction when you shout something in fall-off range. This generalization seams unfair when you are close to your optimal, but makes up for it when you go to the optimal + 1x fall-off extremes. Now, to the TD effect: When you track-disrupt a turret, the -50% formula for fighting in fall-off should change, in both maximum dmg and hitting chance. Why? Cause for a given tracking disruption -> aka forced mistake in aiming, each bullet or laser beam derails more-and-more away from the direct hitting path the further it travels. But it doesn't change as it should: it remains 50% for the max dmg, and the critical hits are also there regardless of TDs...and the turret with the higher ROF and with the longest fall-off range loses way less EFFECTIVE DPS than any turret within it's optimal, regardless of range when under TD effect despite any physical laws implying the opposite for each and every case. Lasers are losing to a TD way more in turms of max range and max DPS than Projectiles or Blasters do. WAY more. -------- And I'm re-writing my humble opinion on this entire OP/thread: If someone should whine more about TD getting a double "optimal and falloff" range reduction, she/he should be an Amarr pilot. Despite the fact that TDs are an Amarrian "racial ewar specialization", no-one whines about the Pilgrim/Curse/Arbitrator line of ships becoming overpowered suddenly: simply because they cannot oppose the fact that bonused webs, ECM modules and dampeners are hugely more effective in shutting down or making easy prey out of enemy ships. What "hurts" minmatar pilots, and especially ships like the Vaga - 90% of the OP supporters brings up as an example - is that suddenly weapon range becomes a real issue for it, cause unlike other weapon platforms the range disruption effect on them was practically inexistent. But as stated by an OP "believer", it's only human trying Stating tracking was an issue because of the existing TD mechanics - before and after scripting - is a more or less a lie when it comes to anything smaller than a BS. And BSs like the Mega overcome such things with their built in bonuses + TC/TE mechanics anyways. Adequate testing with Vagas versus the Arbitrator line proved that even 2x TDs cannot effectively disrupt damage inflicted by a Vaga's 220mm ACs. TDs' penalties are nothing compared to the transversal the Vaga adds itself into the equation. Once it slows down a bit, it can shred a 1600mm plated Arbitrator to pieces pretty fast. After easily speed-tanking and killin one by one its drones that is. The same can be said even for a Pilgrim: even if the Vaga cannot kill it, it can pin it down forever, take its time to kill the recon's drones = all its DPS and then move in for the kill at point blank. A Curse might trouble it, still few curses fit more then 1x TD nowadays, and in general TD tracking disruption is the last thing that will hurt the Vaga in such a fight. So it's just range that NEVER bothered you before, despite ammo or turret tier you are feared of. It's not balance. Just like using the only cap-less turrets never bothered you to ask for a re-balance, so did the immunity to range disruption.
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.02.11 21:46:00 - [504] Originally by: Lilith Velkor Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 11/02/2008 21:06:16 Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 11/02/2008 20:41:20 Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 11/02/2008 20:23:07 Originally by: Lyria Skydancer stuff You mean the several pages where it turned out the damage boost is nearly insignificant given reasonable fits and ranges? Somehow I get the strong impression you are pretty good at selective reading. Edit: Seriously, I don't see where I should put all those extra damage mods without severely gimping my setup in other aspects. Im the one thats reading selectively? There are significant impacts you just ignore it to overpower your ships. -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.11 21:55:00 - [505] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer This has been explained and calculated for several pages Geez, you almost make it sound like you've actually contributed to the thread in any other form than oneliners based on "because I say so". Quote: FALL-OFF BOOST = DAMAGE BOOST FOR ACs. by that logic it'll then be true: FALL-OFF REDUCTION = DAMAGE REDUCTION FOR ACs. and since I'm guessing you're not going to sign OPTIMAL BOOST = DAMAGE BOOST FOR LASERS it is then not true that OPTIMAL REDUCTION = DAMAGE REDUCTION FOR LASERS which means that you're actually vouching for TDs to be MORE effective on acs than on any other type of turret. You see, the problem with all this "falloff is too powerful in TEs but ok in TDs" point of view is that that's a bunch of hypocrisy. Since we're talking about a value that is only important in relation to the opponents respective values and has no meaning by itself, it is simply not possible that decreasing it is somehow comparable to optimal while increasing it is not.
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.02.11 22:08:00 - [506] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 11/02/2008 22:09:45 Originally by: Diomidis A Curse might murder it in a brutal fashion it, still few curses fit more then 1x TD nowadays, and in general TD tracking disruption is the last thing that will hurt the Vaga in such a fight. Had to fix it for you. Anyway, ok, boost the TDs - but on bonused ships only - because, as it stands, this is more a boost to 5-midslot gallente ships then anything else really. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.11 22:27:00 - [507] Originally by: Ruah Piskonit Secondly, ACs have three major advantages that other turrets donÆt: variable damage types (range dependent I know), capless, and extreme falloff. Actually I'd say tracking is the main advantage along with the falloff, cap use and damage types are irrelevant for discussing TDs. And out of those falloff is just an inferior range mod to optimal, it serves its purpose though. Quote: So you have an opposition û the more you argue that optimal does not matter û the more you are proving that falloff modifier should be included (and it will) in the TD optimal/falloff range disruption. And the more you argue that TE/TCs should have both bonusÆ the more you are saying that ACs need the buff. Because lasers and blasters gain very little from a falloff buff while ACs do actually gain a considerable amount of DPS from an optimal boost. So basically you're arguing that optimal boost on ACs is a considerable dps boost, while optimal reduction on ACs is not a considerable dps reduction. Quote: I am not guessing, I am saying flat out û Turret Disruptors should affect all turrets. And they do. On some the the more useful effect is -optimal, on others it is -tracking. I can't believe how many bought that mumbo jumbo of "making TDs useful against more targets" when in reality it is only going to be bit easier to use against exactly same set of targets. Quote: ACs fight in falloff most of the time, so the effects of TDs is limited. Increasing optimal however can mean a significant boost in DPS for ACs û thatÆs where the disparity lies. Disparity lies in the fact that +optimal cannot have a significant effect if -optimal doesn't either. Add in the mix that +optimal bonuses are typically at about +15% / module while the reduction effect we're talking about is -50%/module and your argument is absurd at best. Quote: Yes, the tracking script does affect ACs (which have the highest tracking), the issue however is that the other script fails to affect ACs in any meaningful way û thatÆs the problem. I'd say halving the speed a ship can orbit you and still deal damage is pretty meaningful, especially since the effect you wanted to achieve in the post i was replying into was "you cannot go fast and use turrets effectively".
Diomidis Amarr Mythos Corp RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.02.11 22:36:00 - [508] Originally by: Trigos Trilobi FALL-OFF REDUCTION = DAMAGE REDUCTION FOR ACs. No. That's not true. Tracking disruptors affect weather it hits within optimal + fall-off ranges for all turrets. Not how hard it will hit. The fall-off 50% dmg reduction formula is TD-independent. Originally by: Trigos Trilobi which means that you're actually vouching for TDs to be MORE effective on acs than on any other type of turret. They are not more effective. The higher the initial max range, the heavier the penalty in absolute values, still max range can never be reduced more than -50% Optimal independent of the -50% fall-off. Should the % penalty be higher for fall-off than optimal, then ACs would be affective unfairly. Examples: Imaginary turret: 10km Optimal + 10km Fall-off = 20km max range ---> after TD -50% Optimal & -50% Fall-off disruption = 5km opt + 5km opt = 50% of initial max range - no dmg reduction for the new max range. Vaga with 220mm + Barrage (max skills) - 2.7km opt + 23km fall-off = 25.7km max ---> after TD range disruption = 1.35km opt + 11.5km fall-off = 12.85km max range = 50% of initial max range - 12.85km range loss - no dmg reduction for the new max range. Zealot with Heavy Pulse II + Scorch ((max skills) - 39km opt + 5km fall-off = 44km max ---> after TD range disruption = 19.5km opt + 2.5km fall-off = 22 km max range = 50% of initial max range - 22km range loss - no dmg reduction for the new max range. So for whichever turret you choose, and whatever the balance between the fall-off and the optimal values, the range reduction is the SAME for all. At 50% of the initial attribute for the given ammo type. Dmg difference is NOT of an issue when you are fighting in fall-off xtremes. It's surely important when you are separating the thin red line between optimal and fall-off, something only lasers/pulses out of the short range pack need to what's out for. Blasters always fight in fall-off unless they manage to web and approach to point blank ranges. ACs are in fact the only turret type that actually DOESN'T know what optimal is, so there is no dmg reductions. Is either you are in range and track, or you are not. Originally by: Trigos Trilobi You see, the problem with all this "falloff is too powerful in TEs but ok in TDs" point of view is that that's a bunch of hypocrisy. Since we're talking about a value that is only important in relation to the opponents respective values and has no meaning by itself, it is simply not possible that decreasing it is somehow comparable to optimal while increasing it is not. Yes, I agree that its hypocritical when you are bringing up minmatar ships, cause as written 100 times before, ships that actually fit TC/TEs in numbers like sniping BSs, don't have the fall-off / optimal ratio of an Autocannon.
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.11 23:07:00 - [509] Originally by: Diomidis Originally by: Trigos Trilobi FALL-OFF REDUCTION = DAMAGE REDUCTION FOR ACs. No. That's not true. Tracking disruptors affect weather it hits within optimal + fall-off ranges for all turrets. Not how hard it will hit. The fall-off 50% dmg reduction formula is TD-independent. You quoted the one line out of context which makes me think you probably missed my point. I replied to someone claiming +falloff = +dmg. that means that logically -falloff = -damage. The other usual claim in this thread is that +optimal is not +damage like +falloff is and from there we can deduct that -optimal is not -damage either. Hence -> Originally by: Trigos Trilobi which means that you're actually vouching for TDs to be MORE effective on acs than on any other type of turret. Quote: They are not more effective. The higher the initial max range, the heavier the penalty in absolute values, still max range can never be reduced more than -50% Optimal independent of the -50% fall-off. Should the % penalty be higher for fall-off than optimal, then ACs would be affective unfairly. Judging from the examples etc which I didn't quote, what you're trying to prove here is essentially that since some turrets are more optimal based and some more falloff, a -50optimal/-50falloff double mod is the most logical way to have a fair range disabling module. I'll skip the fact that falloff is an inferior range mod compared to optimal, but then since you here deal with both as range mods and give them equal weight, how is it suddenly then not just as fair for a +range mod (TC/TE) to increase both in equal percentage? As I said earlier: Originally by: Trigos Trilobi You see, the problem with all this "falloff is too powerful in TEs but ok in TDs" point of view is that that's a bunch of hypocrisy. Since we're talking about a value that is only important in relation to the opponents respective values and has no meaning by itself, it is simply not possible that decreasing it is somehow comparable to optimal while increasing it is not.
Lilith Velkor Minmatar Oyster Colors	Posted - 2008.02.11 23:13:00 - [510] Originally by: Diomidis But it doesn't change as it should: it remains 50% for the max dmg, and the critical hits are also there regardless of TDs...and the turret with the higher ROF and with the longest fall-off range loses way less EFFECTIVE DPS than any turret within it's optimal, regardless of range when under TD effect despite any physical laws implying the opposite for each and every case. Lasers are losing to a TD way more in turms of max range and max DPS than Projectiles or Blasters do. WAY more. Hmm, comparing 800mm Repeating Artillery II (Barrage) to Mega Pulse II (Scorch) both disrupted by one TD at typical ranges from 15-30km I think the laser is better off in terms of damage dealt, yet it has more range to begin with so this might be a problematic comparison in itself. At least the turret tracking guide suggests me so. As for max range, both loose exactly the same amount of their initital ranges (if we agree optimal+falloff=total range). Quote: And I'm re-writing my humble opinion on this entire OP/thread: If someone should whine more about TD getting a double "optimal and falloff" range reduction, she/he should be an Amarr pilot. This might be true indeed, more so if it remains that they are equally effective to use on every ship. Quote: Despite the fact that TDs are an Amarrian "racial ewar specialization", no-one whines about the Pilgrim/Curse/Arbitrator line of ships becoming overpowered suddenly: simply because they cannot oppose the fact that bonused webs, ECM modules and dampeners are hugely more effective in shutting down or making easy prey out of enemy ships. Well, imho they are pretty much in line with minmatar (TP could use some buff or even be exchanged tho) and caldari, still gallente are being shafted tbh, with the common use of sensor boosters and the inefficiency of damps they are the least effective recons, tackling can be done by interceptors as well, maybe the cloaked warping tackler is a nice feature, but still... On a side note, I think the neut bonus is far more interesting than the TD on them, especially on the curse, still they can field both, in fact they are pretty nice recons. Quote: Stating tracking was an issue because of the existing TD mechanics - before and after scripting - is a more or less a lie when it comes to anything smaller than a BS. And BSs like the Mega overcome such things with their built in bonuses + TC/TE mechanics anyways. Adequate testing with Vagas versus the Arbitrator line proved that even 2x TDs cannot effectively disrupt damage inflicted by a Vaga's 220mm ACs. TDs' penalties are nothing compared to the transversal the Vaga adds itself into the equation. Once it slows down a bit, it can shred a 1600mm plated Arbitrator to pieces pretty fast. After easily speed-tanking and killin one by one its drones that is. The same can be said even for a Pilgrim: even if the Vaga cannot kill it, it can pin it down forever, take its time to kill the recon's drones = all its DPS and then move in for the kill at point blank. A Curse might trouble it, still few curses fit more then 1x TD nowadays, and in general TD tracking disruption is the last thing that will hurt the Vaga in such a fight. Arbitrator vs Vagabond should be resulting in a dead Arbitrator, its a HAC vs a T1 cruiser after all. Well a pilgrim will have its problems and might even die, still with some luck and a skilled pilot he might take out the vagabond, using a TD with tracking script the usual vagabond fit will have severe trouble taking out the drones since it cant web them. But after all its not a combat recon and he's facing a HAC, this should mean trouble. The curse however should make short work of the vagabond any day or force him to a really hasty retreat, unless he managed to forget fitting neuts somehow. A vaga pilot with half a brain won't engage one tho I guess.

Lilith Velkor Minmatar Oyster Colors	Posted - 2008.02.11 23:33:00 - [511] Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 11/02/2008 23:34:58 Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Im the one thats reading selectively? There are significant impacts, you just ignore it to overpower your ships. I'm don't want to overpower anything, I'm just thinking its odd the way those particular modules work. At the edge of falloff its a certain effect, but then damage is that low there its hardly a massive boost justifying giving up a slot for it. Realistically you'll try to be at half falloff if you can, there a TC translates to what, around 4%? Hardly enough to give up a slot for imho. Edit: As I said, I seriously couldn't think of anything I'd give up for it, given slots are limited and every module I replace with the new shiny damage mod gimps the setup far too much to justify the small effect it has.
Diomidis Amarr Mythos Corp RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.02.12 00:39:00 - [512] Edited by: Diomidis on 12/02/2008 00:40:52 Originally by: Lilith Velkor Arbitrator vs Vagabond should be resulting in a dead Arbitrator, its a HAC vs a T1 cruiser after all. True - Yet the TD bonus is the same in the Arbitrator Hull line of ships, regardless being T1 or T2. So TD efficiency can be valued using either. And so, the fact remains that the Vaga can still be fast enough to pretty much speed tank medium drones and keep up tracking vs. 2x bonused TDs. And that's with real-life skills on both sides. Not imaginary all-to-V EFT "facts". Originally by: Lilith Velkor Well a pilgrim will have its problems and might even die, still with some luck and a skilled pilot he might take out the vagabond, using a TD with tracking script the usual vagabond fit will have severe trouble taking out the drones since it cant web them. But after all its not a combat recon and he's facing a HAC, this should mean trouble. A Pilgrim is less likely to fit 2x TDs than an Arbitrator. 1x TD is not enough to protect medium drones from a Vaga...as the Vaga accelerates into a fast orbit keeping the Pilgrim scrammed, it's drones and ML can take care of the pilgrims drones one-by-one. Even the turrets can track good enough for this, as the "opposing" drones try to keep up by approaching = lowering effective transversal. Even with barrage 220s alone could be enough to take em down despite the TD... Try it with sth fast and cheap -> Valkyries T2 for example. Originally by: Lilith Velkor The curse however should make short work of the vagabond any day or force him to a really hasty retreat, unless he managed to forget fitting neuts somehow. A vaga pilot with half a brain won't engage one tho I guess. That's why you all overreacting! The Vaga, unless u screw sth up can flee most of the times. A TD cannot prevent it, that's why it cannot do more than disrupt 40-60% of its total DPS at 20km. And that's skill and fitting dependent of course, yet it retains some good ~80-100 dps with drones and 25 dps with missiles. Forgeting that manual navigation could also effectively reduce transversal to a point that the TD effect is minimal. As for ppl mentioning blaster boats nullifying any AC boat advantage in close fights: I do not see that. Even without TDs, which not-range-bonused AC boat is realistically favored range and speed wise vs. a blaster boat of the same class and/or tier? Should there be a range advantage, don't Gallente blaster platforms rely more on their turrets' DPS than Minmatar do, having split weapon platforms and adequate drone bays? Each minmatar boat idealy loses less when TD'd compared to the average blaster boat of the same class.
Lilith Velkor Minmatar Oyster Colors	Posted - 2008.02.12 03:20:00 - [513] Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 12/02/2008 03:32:38 Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 12/02/2008 03:26:02 Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 12/02/2008 03:22:27 Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 12/02/2008 03:21:24 It's not about a vaga, I don't fly a vaga and probably never will because I don't like the ship at all, so I couldn't care less. Originally by: Diomidis Vaga vs. Arbi Arbitrator dies, TD or not. Its balanced that way. Quote: Pilgrim vs. Vaga Pilgrim most likely will loose, if he really knows what he's doing depending on his fit he'll eventually force the Vaga off, it most likely wont be able to kill it. This also is balanced, its a force recon, not a solopwnmobile HAC-destroyer. Quote: Even with barrage 220s alone could be enough to take em down despite the TD... No, probably not. They are tracking better than other guns but not that good. Barrage has already a 25% tracking penalty, he'd need to web them to score decent hits with turrets. And about Curse vs. Vaga, if he is really foolish enough to enter neut range (which is far more than the vagas gun or missile range), he wont speed tank anything. The TD is not the key to kill it, its the neuts. Its good that way and balanced, the Curse is one of the few ships the Vaga pilot should really be afraid of. Quote: As for ppl mentioning blaster boats nullifying any AC boat advantage in close fights: I do not see that. Even without TDs, which not-range-bonused AC boat is realistically favored range and speed wise vs. a blaster boat of the same class and/or tier? Should there be a range advantage, don't Gallente blaster platforms rely more on their turrets' DPS than Minmatar do, having split weapon platforms and adequate drone bays? Each minmatar boat idealy loses less when TD'd compared to the average blaster boat of the same class. This is the point I care about. Hurricane vs. Myrmidon, if you kite the Myrm and finish his drones (avoiding web range like the plague), it won't deal much damage. For this to work however, you largely rely on your falloff range (read: working at the edge of falloff, which is 15-18km depending on skills/rigs). Now if the myrm puts a single TD on you, you have to enter webrange, which is a really bad idea, because the myrm tanks better and deals more damage. See my point? It has however nothing to do with the original topic, its the reason why TDs need to get nerfed and the amarr ewar ships their bonuses adjusted so they aren't viable on any ship
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.12 03:38:00 - [514] Originally by: Trigos Trilobi it is then not true that OPTIMAL REDUCTION = DAMAGE REDUCTION FOR LASERS which means that you're actually vouching for TDs to be MORE effective on acs than on any other type of turret. Only if lasers operate a significant amount of time in falloff. When they typicially do not. E.G. lets take an extreme. A ship with 20km optimal and 0km falloff. At 15km a 15% range boost is not a damage boost. At 15km, a tracking disruptor is a 100% reduction in dps for the lasers. The larger that Falloff is and the lower that optimal is the more this moves to the other direction where a falloff boost is a damage boost and a falloff reduction is a damage reduction. The farther you get to high optimal/low falloff the more an optimal increase does not produce a damage increase[with sufficiently long ranged ammo at high damage levels] and the more a TD produces a damage decrease. Pulse lasers, with scorch [22 base damage vs 24 on multifrequency with +50% range verus -50% range on MF meaning that only conflag, faction MF, Xray, and Gamma deal more DPS than scorch], fulfill all of these situations with high optimal, low falloff[even worse when downgrading], and high damage long range ammo that more or less obsoletes downgrading crystals to increase DPS with optimal increases. This produces the highest area where optimal/falloff increases do not increase DPS and where optimal/falloff decreases do decrease dps.
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.02.12 03:52:00 - [515] Originally by: Lilith Velkor This is the point I care about. Hurricane vs. Myrmidon, if you kite the Myrm and finish his drones (avoiding web range like the plague), it won't deal much damage. For this to work however, you largely rely on your falloff range (read: working at the edge of falloff, which is 15-18km depending on skills/rigs). Now if the myrm puts a single TD on you, you have to enter webrange, which is a really bad idea, because the myrm tanks better and deals more damage. See my point? It has however nothing to do with the original topic, its the reason why TDs need to get nerfed and the amarr ewar ships their bonuses adjusted so they aren't viable on any ship This. Of course, the Amarr whiner brigade don't really care about anything except Amarr and wants to nerf the entire game, but I see TDs more used on blasterboats to force people in their webrange by just one unbonused mod, then on the midslot-abundant Amarr ship (barring the pilgrim/curse which are likely to use one). Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Felix Dzerzhinsky legion of qui Black Star Alliance	Posted - 2008.02.12 03:58:00 - [516] Originally by: Cpt Branko Of course, the Amarr whiner brigade don't really care about anything except Amarr and wants to nerf the entire game, but I see TDs more used on blasterboats to force people in their webrange by just one unbonused mod, then on the midslot-abundant Amarr ship (barring the pilgrim/curse which are likely to use one). I think the point being made is - TDs already have a major effect on lasers and rails and to a lesser extent, blasters, while ACs have been, untill this change goes live, have been immune to its effects. I don't see this as a whine but a defense of the changes and an opposition to the proposed changes by the OP.
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.02.12 04:03:00 - [517] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 12/02/2008 04:06:12 Edited by: Cpt Branko on 12/02/2008 04:04:54 Originally by: Diomidis Originally by: Lilith Velkor The curse however should make short work of the vagabond any day or force him to a really hasty retreat, unless he managed to forget fitting neuts somehow. A vaga pilot with half a brain won't engage one tho I guess. That's why you all overreacting! The Vaga, unless u screw sth up can flee most of the times. A TD cannot prevent it, that's why it cannot do more than disrupt 40-60% of its total DPS at 20km. And that's skill and fitting dependent of course, yet it retains some good ~80-100 dps with drones and 25 dps with missiles. Forgeting that manual navigation could also effectively reduce transversal to a point that the TD effect is minimal. ....!!! Do we even play the same game? No Vagabond pilot will ever, ever go near a Curse if he can help it. Reason? Capdeath followed by a very rapid actual death. I think you have no clue what you're talking about really. Originally by: Diomidis As for ppl mentioning blaster boats nullifying any AC boat advantage in close fights: I do not see that. Even without TDs, which not-range-bonused AC boat is realistically favored range and speed wise vs. a blaster boat of the same class and/or tier? ALL of them? Rifter,Stabber,Rupture,Cyclone,Hurricane,Typhoon and Tempest. Wait, the Maelstorm only does better range-wise. I mean, LOL. I cannot believe anyone doesn't actually know this sort of thing. Did you ever ever fly Minmatar in combat? Originally by: Diomidis Should there be a range advantage, don't Gallente blaster platforms rely more on their turrets' DPS than Minmatar do, having split weapon platforms and adequate drone bays? WTF? Do you ever fly Minmatar? Adequate drone bays? You mean, less then Gallente in every case However, yes, some of Minmatar ships have missiles as additional DPS - but Gallente have bigger dronebays as a rule even on gunships. Originally by: Diomidis Each minmatar boat idealy loses less when TD'd compared to the average blaster boat of the same class. LOL. Effect on blasterboats: now you want to stick at 1.5km instead of 3km (if you're going to get to 3km, you'll get to 1.5km easy) to achieve your max DPS. Effect on AC ships: you need to stick at 8km (webrange!) instead of 16km to get 50% of your DPS. Hmmm, who is hit harder? Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Lilith Velkor Minmatar Oyster Colors	Posted - 2008.02.12 04:16:00 - [518] Originally by: Felix Dzerzhinsky I think the point being made is - TDs already have a major effect on lasers and rails and to a lesser extent, blasters, while ACs have been, untill this change goes live, have been immune to its effects. I don't see this as a whine but a defense of the changes and an opposition to the proposed changes by the OP. Tbh I don't see where the OP is questioning the proposed changes, in fact most if not all posters who are supporting the OPs idea are actually supporting the proposed change as well. The whole point discussed is that lasers (just an example since its an extreme) which largely rely on optimal are able to slightly counter the TD effects by the use of certain modules, while ACs and Artillery which rely mostly or to a considerable ammount on falloff are not or only to a considerable lesser extend. The thing I notice in this thread is that some people categorically want to rule out any possible form of counter to their now properly working ewar for falloff-heavy turrets, which I can't really see why except for overpowering this ewar against projectiles. Maybe just propose something different what works if you don't like the proposal? Ruling out any possibility by principle however is a bit cheesy imho.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.12 04:51:00 - [519] Edited by: Goumindong on 12/02/2008 04:51:48 Originally by: Cpt Branko WTF? Do you ever fly Minmatar? Adequate drone bays? You mean, less then Gallente in every case OMG you have less missiles than Caldari too! OH noes! Quote: LOL. Effect on blasterboats: now you want to stick at 1.5km instead of 3km (if you're going to get to 3km, you'll get to 1.5km easy) to achieve your max DPS. Effect on AC ships: you need to stick at 8km (webrange!) instead of 16km to get 50% of your DPS. Hmmm, who is hit harder? Neutron blaster cannon has opt+falloff at 13km. Bringing this under web range allows longer ranged ships to more easily dictate range as the ships slow down. This means that blasters are hurt more by the TD's since it increases the time for them to close.
Lilith Velkor Minmatar Oyster Colors	Posted - 2008.02.12 05:24:00 - [520] Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 12/02/2008 05:25:45 Originally by: Diomidis Yes, I agree that its hypocritical when you are bringing up minmatar ships, cause as written 100 times before, ships that actually fit TC/TEs in numbers like sniping BSs, don't have the fall-off / optimal ratio of an Autocannon. For artillery its actually, depending on ammunition type, 30% (tremor) 40% (emp), or 60% (quake) roughly. Quite a considerable ammount.

Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.12 05:50:00 - [521] Originally by: Lilith Velkor This is the point I care about. Hurricane vs. Myrmidon, if you kite the Myrm and finish his drones (avoiding web range like the plague), it won't deal much damage. For this to work however, you largely rely on your falloff range (read: working at the edge of falloff, which is 15-18km depending on skills/rigs). Now if the myrm puts a single TD on you, you have to enter webrange, which is a really bad idea, because the myrm tanks better and deals more damage. See my point? It has however nothing to do with the original topic, its the reason why TDs need to get nerfed and the amarr ewar ships their bonuses adjusted so they aren't viable on any ship Only when it has its drones. Otherwise it tanks better, but does a whole lot less DPS[for various reasons]
Lilith Velkor Minmatar Oyster Colors	Posted - 2008.02.12 05:54:00 - [522] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Lilith Velkor kiting the myrmidon Only when it has its drones. Otherwise it tanks better, but does a whole lot less DPS[for various reasons] Congratulations, you just unveiled the ancient art of defeating the myrm in a hurricane.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.12 06:22:00 - [523] Edited by: Goumindong on 12/02/2008 06:23:32 Originally by: Lilith Velkor Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Lilith Velkor kiting the myrmidon Only when it has its drones. Otherwise it tanks better, but does a whole lot less DPS[for various reasons] Congratulations, you just unveiled the ancient art of defeating the myrm in a hurricane. Read the second paragraph of the quoted section which claims that the hurricane doesnt want to get into web range of the Myrm. It wont matter when the myrms drones are killed.
Diomidis Amarr Mythos Corp RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.02.12 13:41:00 - [524] Originally by: Cpt Branko ....!!! Do we even play the same game? No Vagabond pilot will ever, ever go near a Curse if he can help it. Reason? Capdeath followed by a very rapid actual death. I think you have no clue what you're talking about really. So it flees...I Don't see any contradictions...train up your reading skills a bit... Originally by: Cpt Branko ALL of them? Rifter,Stabber,Rupture,Cyclone,Hurricane,Typhoon and Tempest. Wait, the Maelstorm only does better range-wise. I mean, LOL. I cannot believe anyone doesn't actually know this sort of thing. Did you ever ever fly Minmatar in combat? Is any of these ships unfavoured range-wise while fitting ACs versus a blaster boat? With or without TDs? And why blaster boats are in favour fitting TDs while minmatar ships don't? Originally by: Cpt Branko WTF? Do you ever fly Minmatar? Adequate drone bays? You mean, less then Gallente in every case WTF? Do you comprehend english at all mate? Cause I know it ain't my mother-language still... Adequate = enough to make the difference in providing substantial DPS, unlike most amarrian or caldari ships in the same class. Did I said the "best"? No I didn't. Selective quoting and interpretations proves nothing. Originally by: Cpt Branko Effect on blasterboats: now you want to stick at 1.5km instead of 3km (if you're going to get to 3km, you'll get to 1.5km easy) to achieve your max DPS. Effect on AC ships: you need to stick at 8km (webrange!) instead of 16km to get 50% of your DPS. Hmmm, who is hit harder? Another assumption that Gallente Blaster boats have room for both webs and TDs, while Minmatar AC platforms don't. Fact #1: if they can make room for them, so can you. Fact #2: even if they pack a TD, your superior speed and still superior range can be easily utilized if you fit a webber. Since you are faster, if both ships are webbed in a dogfight, the faster dominates range - as always. Myrmidon vs. Hurricane and every-other-ship-solo: YOU SHOULD ALWAYS GO FOR THE DRONES FFS! TD's range reduction changes nothing on that aspect.... Guess you've never won a fight vs. a myrm solo Perhaps you are right after all...we are playing a different game...
Lilith Velkor Minmatar Oyster Colors	Posted - 2008.02.12 13:51:00 - [525] Originally by: Goumindong Read the second paragraph of the quoted section which claims that the hurricane doesnt want to get into web range of the Myrm. It wont matter when the myrms drones are killed. Yes, I did read that. Given I'm running the double MAR2 setup on the hurricane (which looks tempting in EFT but is not really the best choice except for when taking sentry fire), he won't push out enough dps to place me in real danger, correct.
Lilith Velkor Minmatar Oyster Colors	Posted - 2008.02.12 14:00:00 - [526] Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 12/02/2008 14:00:46 Originally by: Diomidis Myrmidon vs. Hurricane and every-other-ship-solo: YOU SHOULD ALWAYS GO FOR THE DRONES FFS! TD's range reduction changes nothing on that aspect.... Guess you've never won a fight vs. a myrm solo Perhaps you are right after all...we are playing a different game... When both myrm and hurricane loose their drones (yes, my drones can die too), they are more or less in the same boat in respect of damage dealt / tanked, hurricane deals more damage while the myrm tanks better. The idea is he has to run out of cap charges before I do. This is considering the Hurricane runs in fact a dual MAR2 setup, which isnt necessarily a good choice.
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.12 14:57:00 - [527] Originally by: Goumindong Only if lasers operate a significant amount of time in falloff. When they typicially do not. E.G. lets take an extreme. A ship with 20km optimal and 0km falloff. At 15km a 15% range boost is not a damage boost. At 21km that 15% range boost is an immeasurable damage boost. Quote: At 15km, a tracking disruptor is a 100% reduction in dps for the lasers. Inside web range, a tracking disruptor is a 0% reduction in dps for the lasers. Quote: The farther you get to high optimal/low falloff the more an optimal increase does not produce a damage increase[with sufficiently long ranged ammo at high damage levels] and the more a TD produces a damage decrease. That just makes no sense at all. If -range = -dmg then it is inevitably true that +range = +dmg, unless we're getting close to the limiting value of max lock range. Quote: Pulse lasers, with scorch [22 base damage vs 24 on multifrequency with +50% range verus -50% range on MF meaning that only conflag, faction MF, Xray, and Gamma deal more DPS than scorch], fulfill all of these situations with high optimal, low falloff[even worse when downgrading], and high damage long range ammo that more or less obsoletes downgrading crystals to increase DPS with optimal increases. Still, a +optimal mod (for HPL) is an overall damage increase between 8.5km and 14km and beyond 26km, provided that you have enough tracking. If you have trouble tracking (or if you don't have t2 guns), scorch is not going to be useful and the +optimal mod is going to be an overall damage increase at all ranges beyond 8.5km.
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.02.12 18:12:00 - [528] Originally by: Diomidis Originally by: Cpt Branko ....!!! Do we even play the same game? No Vagabond pilot will ever, ever go near a Curse if he can help it. Reason? Capdeath followed by a very rapid actual death. I think you have no clue what you're talking about really. So it flees...I Don't see any contradictions...train up your reading skills a bit... You were suggesting it flees due to TDs, which is just lol. It runs for the hills due to neuts. Originally by: Diomidis Originally by: Cpt Branko ALL of them? Rifter,Stabber,Rupture,Cyclone,Hurricane,Typhoon and Tempest. Wait, the Maelstorm only does better range-wise. I mean, LOL. I cannot believe anyone doesn't actually know this sort of thing. Did you ever ever fly Minmatar in combat? Is any of these ships unfavoured range-wise while fitting ACs versus a blaster boat? With or without TDs? And why blaster boats are in favour fitting TDs while minmatar ships don't? You said "Even without TDs, which not-range-bonused AC boat is realistically favored range and speed wise vs. a blaster boat of the same class and/or tier?" I said all of them are favored range and speed wise vs a blaster boat of the same class and/or tier, and suddenly you're saying "is any of these ships unfavoured range-wise while fitting ACs versus a blaster boat". Make up your mind what you're saying. Whenever you get refuted, you switch the record, fine way to make a discussion. Originally by: Diomidis Originally by: Cpt Branko WTF? Do you ever fly Minmatar? Adequate drone bays? You mean, less then Gallente in every case WTF? Do you comprehend english at all mate? Cause I know it ain't my mother-language still... Adequate = enough to make the difference in providing substantial DPS, unlike most amarrian or caldari ships in the same class. Did I said the "best"? No I didn't. Selective quoting and interpretations proves nothing. Superior to Amarr only in the T1 cruiser class, really (if we ignore the Arbitrator). However, the Harbringer has actually more dronebay then the Hurricane (and 5 mediums vs 1 medium and four lights is a significant difference). Spewing *****s doesn't prove anything. Originally by:** Diomidis Originally by: Cpt Branko Effect on blasterboats: now you want to stick at 1.5km instead of 3km (if you're going to get to 3km, you'll get to 1.5km easy) to achieve your max DPS. Effect on AC ships: you need to stick at 8km (webrange!) instead of 16km to get 50% of your DPS. Hmmm, who is hit harder? Another assumption that Gallente Blaster boats have room for both webs and TDs, while Minmatar AC platforms don't. Yes, because both the Hurricane/Typhoon and the Myrmidon/Dominix happen to have five midslots. Oh, wait Originally by: Diomidis Fact #1: if they can make room for them, so can you. You should give up what? Distruptor? MWD? Web? Cap booster? Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.12 18:12:00 - [529] Edited by: Goumindong on 12/02/2008 18:15:02 Originally by: Trigos Trilobi ... Yes. I am not sure why you are saying these things if you are attempting to refute my posts. The range at which an optimal boost becomes a damage bonus for lasers and the range at which an optimal boost becomes a damage bonus for autocannons is vastly different. So for medium lasers the range at which you gain a damage bonus is from 7.5km to 11km And from 22km to 27km.[how you got 14km, i am not sure. And most of that isnt applicable anyway since you would be changing crystals every second]. All of these areas where a boost exists are far far under 1/2 fallof, so a TE is never better than a third damage mod until you are outside of 25km. For autocannons, the range at which you get a damage boost is far higher,[from about 1.5 to 24km] and the range at which you gain a significant damage boost is also far higher[from about 4-6km and above 10km] surely you can see the difference between "never gets a damage boost within typical engagement range over an other mod, and only gets a damage boost within a 5km area" and "Gets a damage boost within the majority of typical engagement range over an other mod"
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.02.12 18:18:00 - [530] Originally by: Goumindong For autocannons, the range at which you get a damage boost is far higher,[from about 1.5 to 24km] and the range at which you gain a significant damage boost is also far higher[from about 4-6km and above 10km] surely you can see the difference between "never gets a damage boost within typical engagement range over an other mod, and only gets a damage boost within a 5km area" and "Gets a damage boost within the majority of typical engagement range over an other mod" This is exactly the point. A point that has been mentioned 1000 times but conveniently ignored by the whine squad. Im pretty sure they see the difference goumindong, they just dont want to. How else would they justifi their OP wishes? -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation

Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.12 19:12:00 - [531] Originally by: Goumindong Yes. I am not sure why you are saying these things if you are attempting to refute my posts. The thing I was trying to point out in my reply to Lyria was that if you're going to argue that +falloff mod on acs is more powerful than +optimal mod on lasers, then that inevitably means that -falloff mod is more detrimental to acs than -optimal is for lasers. So the more you try to prove that adding +falloff on TC/TE is a Bad Thing, the more you prove that neither is -falloff mod on TDs exactly on even footing compared to -optimal. Quote: surely you can see the difference between "never gets a damage boost within typical engagement range over an other mod, and only gets a damage boost within a 5km area" and "Gets a damage boost within the majority of typical engagement range over an other mod" surely you can see the difference between "damage reduced within the majority of typical engagement range" and "damage reduced on the far end of typical engagement range".
Lilith Velkor Minmatar Oyster Colors	Posted - 2008.02.12 19:21:00 - [532] Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 12/02/2008 19:23:23 Originally by: Lyria Skydancer This is exactly the point. A point that has been mentioned 1000 times but conveniently ignored by the whine squad. Im pretty sure they see the difference goumindong, they just dont want to. How else would they justifi their OP wishes? This is indeed a point, unfortunately you are conveniently ignoring the other side of the coin... either both are valid or none, not just the side you favour.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.12 19:38:00 - [533] Originally by: Trigos Trilobi surely you can see the difference between "damage reduced within the majority of typical engagement range" and "damage reduced on the far end of typical engagement range". That would only be true if TD's did not also reduce optimal. There are pretty much two ranges for pulse lasers. MF range, which is between 0km and 10km. And Scorch range which is between 10km and 26km. Now, the ranges at which a 40% reduction in optimal and falloff reduce DPS for lasers is from 4.5km to 10km. And from 13km to 26km. So there are two areas, one below 4.5km and one between 10 and 13km where damage is not reduced. The profile for where it does not reduce DPS is sufficiently small to not be noticeable in comparison to ACs and blasters.
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.12 20:46:00 - [534] Originally by: Goumindong That would only be true if TD's did not also reduce optimal. There are pretty much two ranges for pulse lasers. MF range, which is between 0km and 10km. And Scorch range which is between 10km and 26km. Now, the ranges at which a 40% reduction in optimal and falloff reduce DPS for lasers is from 4.5km to 10km. And from 13km to 26km. So there are two areas, one below 4.5km and one between 10 and 13km where damage is not reduced. The profile for where it does not reduce DPS is sufficiently small to not be noticeable in comparison to ACs and blasters. You're talking about what, ~20% max reduction between 4.5km and 10? ACs reach 20% reduction at 6km or so and only more reduction beyond that. Yep you could say the 'profile is not noticeable' if you think it in terms of wether there is a reduction or not, but if you think about real dps values there suddenly is quite a noticeable difference in profiles.
Dianeces Minmatar Repo Industries	Posted - 2008.02.12 20:56:00 - [535] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 12/02/2008 19:27:18 Originally by: Goumindong For autocannons, the range at which you get a damage boost is far higher,[from about 1.5 to 24km] and the range at which you gain a significant damage boost is also far higher[from about 4-6km and above 10km] surely you can see the difference between "never gets a damage boost within typical engagement range over an other mod, and only gets a damage boost within a 5km area" and "Gets a damage boost within the majority of typical engagement range over an other mod" The same way you and your whine squad are trying to keep your preposterously overbalanced EWar. Ignoring anything that doesn't agree with your views of how things should be. Shame you haven't learned to troll better, you're too obvious to get the best responses. This is exactly the point. A point that has been mentioned 1000 times but conveniently ignored by the whine squad. Im pretty sure they see the difference goumindong, they just dont want to. How else would they justify their OP wishes?
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.12 22:18:00 - [536] Originally by: Trigos Trilobi You're talking about what, ~20% max reduction between 4.5km and 10? ACs reach 20% reduction at 6km or so and only more reduction beyond that. Yep you could say the 'profile is not noticeable' if you think it in terms of wether there is a reduction or not, but if you think about real dps values there suddenly is quite a noticeable difference in profiles. About that yea, and then huge damage reductions after 13km.[which is were laser users want to be] The fact of the matter is that now all ships are affected by TD's equally, they all lose precicely 40% of their range. But not all ships are affected by +falloff and +optimal boosts equally, due to the nature of falloff. And if you dont want to use the counters available[getting close, fitting falloff rigs, drones and missiles], then too bad.
Alek Row Minmatar Silent Step	Posted - 2008.02.12 23:25:00 - [537] Originally by: Goumindong The fact of the matter is that now all ships are affected by TD's equally, they all lose precicely 40% of their range. But not all ships are affected by +falloff and +optimal boosts equally, due to the nature of falloff. And if you dont want to use the counters available[getting close, fitting falloff rigs, drones and missiles], then too bad. Of course people will use drones or missiles, there are not much other options are they? And certain ships with a certain fight style that could use other rigs, you know, the irreplaceable stuff you attach to the hull forever, will have to use falloff rigs if they wish to maintain the ship bonus at a semi-satisfactory level when disrupted by other ship. Paint it as you want, the number and quality of counters to TDs are not the same when you compare the TD effects to optimal/falloff. I still don't see where would be the problem if TC/TEs had the property to add a falloff bonus when the weapons were disrupted to reduce that same disruption, I'm not even talking about an active bonus to falloff. At least we would have a module that could act as counter to reduce the effect. Maybe nobody would use it, if a mid maybe ppl would install a TD instead, but at least we would have that choice. I respect and like some of your ideias Goum, but you're a brickhead. The sad part is, sometimes you have so much ideias about balance, othertimes nill, zip, nada. The number of counters is not the same and you still didn't gave an ideia of a module that could act as a counter balanced at your own eyes.
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.12 23:30:00 - [538] Edited by: Trigos Trilobi on 12/02/2008 23:32:11 Originally by: Goumindong About that yea, and then huge damage reductions after 13km.[which is were laser users want to be] It is also where laser boat is not going to be due to generally being the slowest brick on the grid and everybody else preferring shorter range against a laser boat. So basically laserboat doesn't lose anything much due to -optimal script. It is not a whole lot different than a laserboat using a -tracking script against an ac boat either. Each is robbed of their advantage. Where did we need that -falloff mod again? Quote: The fact of the matter is that now all ships are affected by TD's equally, they all lose precicely 40% of their range. But not all ships are affected by +falloff and +optimal boosts equally, due to the nature of falloff. If both acs and lasers lose precisely 40% of range due to tds, then they would also gain precisely 15% range from a falloff modded TE/TC. If +falloff mod is somehow 'better' than +optimal mod, then logically -falloff mod is also 'worse' than -optimal. No matter how many times you repeat it, it is not possible for -falloff&-optimal be perfectly comparable if +falloff&+optimal is not. Hence, it's either going to be "TD's affect all ships equally" OR "TC/TE with falloff mods don't affect all ships equally". You can't have both.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.12 23:47:00 - [539] Originally by: Trigos Trilobi It is also where laser boat is not going to be due to generally being the slowest brick on the grid and everybody else preferring shorter range against a laser boat. So basically laserboat doesn't lose anything much due to -optimal script. It is not a whole lot different than a laserboat using a -tracking script against an ac boat either. Each is robbed of their advantage. Where did we need that -falloff mod again? Range is an advantage of ACs'. Its their advantage against blasters along with damage type. Tracking and damage type are the advantage against lasers. If you have a laser ship that far under its optimal then what do you care of the TD isnt reducing its optimal range, change to tracking, you've won already. Quote: If both acs and lasers lose precisely 40% of range due to tds, then they would also gain precisely 15% range from a falloff modded TE/TC. If +falloff mod is somehow 'better' than +optimal mod, then logically -falloff mod is also 'worse' than -optimal. No matter how many times you repeat it, it is not possible for -falloff&-optimal be perfectly comparable if +falloff&+optimal is not. Hence, it's either going to be "TD's affect all ships equally" OR "TC/TE with falloff mods don't affect all ships equally". You can't have both. Are you familiar with "Venn Diagrams". Just because all A's are B doesnt mean all B's are A. Falloff mods allow AC's to gain both a damage boost and a range boost over their entire specturm. I.E you get a damage mod and a tracking mod. Falloff disruption reduces range and forces all participants to do the same thing, reduce range by 40%, and maintains the same dynamics between the weapons.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.12 23:54:00 - [540] Originally by: Alek Row Paint it as you want, the number and quality of counters to TDs are not the same when you compare the TD effects to optimal/falloff. The numver of counters is irrelevent when you consider the quality of the counters. P.S. +falloff rigs and +optimal rigs are not options for laser ships or blaster ships. For blaster ships its because with 1/2 of their range in falloff and 1/2 in optimal they gain half from either and because the downsizing requires cuts the range of those weapons by at least as much as the rigs add. For lasers its the same except they also lose a staggering amount of DPS.

Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.13 01:12:00 - [541] Originally by: Goumindong Are you familiar with "Venn Diagrams". Just because all A's are B doesnt mean all B's are A. I don't think Venn has much relevance here. I'm arguing that increasing falloff has exactly the opposite effect of decreasing falloff. I'd be interested to hear how you're going to prove it doesn't. Quote: Falloff mods allow AC's to gain both a damage boost and a range boost over their entire specturm. I.E you get a damage mod and a tracking mod. Falloff disruption reduces range and forces all participants to do the same thing, reduce range by 40%, and maintains the same dynamics between the weapons. Falloff mods don't allow AC's to gain both a damage boost and a range boost, you're just deliberately trying to muddy to waters. You can either say that +falloff increases the damage you're able to do at a specific range, or you can say that it allows you to project a specific amount of damage further. That doesn't mean you get a damage boost AND a range boost, it just means that there's two different ways to look at how your range bonus manifests itself. Works identically for +optimal too.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.13 01:40:00 - [542] I literally just explained why it wasnt. +optimal = damage boost from 26-30km for lasers +falloff boost = damage boost from 10-25km for ACs. - optimal = damage loss for near entirety of range - falloff = damage loss for near entirety of range
Lilith Velkor Minmatar Oyster Colors	Posted - 2008.02.13 01:52:00 - [543] Originally by: Trigos Trilobi I don't think Venn has much relevance here. I'm arguing that increasing falloff has exactly the opposite effect of decreasing falloff. I'd be interested to hear how you're going to prove it doesn't. He won't be able to prove it since it lies in the nature of the curve that both effects act exactly opposite to each other. And the relevance of Venn tends strongly against 0. Quote: Falloff mods don't allow AC's to gain both a damage boost and a range boost, you're just deliberately trying to muddy to waters. You can either say that +falloff increases the damage you're able to do at a specific range, or you can say that it allows you to project a specific amount of damage further. That doesn't mean you get a damage boost AND a range boost, it just means that there's two different ways to look at how your range bonus manifests itself. Works identically for +optimal too. This. Some people won't accept it tho since that would mean The Enemy could gain more range or do more damage at the same range. On a side note, did anyone bother to check how optimal heavy turrets behave in falloff until they reach maximum falloff range? Check it yourself and you might discover shocking things
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.13 02:36:00 - [544] Originally by: Goumindong I literally just explained why it wasnt. +optimal = damage boost from 26-30km for lasers +falloff boost = damage boost from 10-25km for ACs. - optimal = damage loss for near entirety of range - falloff = damage loss for near entirety of range That's incorrect. If we forget crystals for a moment, there's one fundamental difference between reducing optimal and reducing falloff. Reducing falloff is indeed a damage loss for entirety of that range. Reducing optimal is on the other hand a damage reduction only between the old range and new reduced range. Just like adding optimal can be seen as a damage increase between the old optimal and the new increased optimal, and like increasing falloff can be seen as a damage increase over range. While crystals make this a bit more complicated, you still do end up with certain range bands where laser damage is not reduced, and where it is certainly reduced a lot less than ac damage is, for the aforementioned reason. If lasers would be stuck with only scorch, the difference would be really obvious. Now lasers can compensate at short ranges with short range ammo, and you turn it around and make it sound like a penalty.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.13 02:47:00 - [545] Only in situations where the target ship has no optimal and if falloff is a linear decrease in hit chance[it is not].
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.13 10:20:00 - [546] Originally by: Goumindong Only in situations where the target ship has no optimal and if falloff is a linear decrease in hit chance[it is not]. Wrong. We already established last page the damage over range envelope change of an optimal based gun hit by TD is quite different from a falloff based gun. Eg. For a TD'd HPL, the damage is not reduced at all until 4.5km after which it is reduced due to switching ammo by a static ~20% for next 5.5km, then not reduced at all for next 3km and then start rapidly tapering off. Compared to AC gun which will have damage reduced starting from the new reduced optimal, hitting ~20% reduction at around 6km and only getting worse after that. Pray tell me what causes this if not the fundamental difference I tried to illustrate above.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.13 11:18:00 - [547] And, at the same time, you have also claimed that the damage increase from +falloff mods is not significant until you are fairly deep into falloff. So which is it?
Lilith Velkor Minmatar Oyster Colors	Posted - 2008.02.13 18:50:00 - [548] Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 13/02/2008 18:55:12 Originally by: Goumindong And, at the same time, you have also claimed that the damage increase from +falloff mods is not significant until you are fairly deep into falloff. So which is it? This is essentially true, due to the nature of the curve, if we compare at a fixed range (pretty pointless imho since we're talking about range extension here), the damage increase is not noticeable at the beginning of falloff, and increases until we reach falloff range, where it starts to move against insignificant again until we reach falloff x2. Furthermore, also due to the nature of the curve, if we apply a penalty to falloff, and compare at the same range (pointless again since we are talking about range decrease), we notice that the damage loss is a lot bigger than the damage gain at the same range we had when increasing falloff (we apply the same penalty and increase factor, lets say both 15%), and further increases once we approach falloff range, at which point it starts to decrease again and move against insignificant until we reach falloff x2. So, in short words, the damage penalty from a falloff penalty is always much bigger than the damage increase we gain from falloff bonus. Conclusion: Due to this mechanic, either TDs are unfairly affecting falloff-heavy turrets, or TC/TE affecting falloff are fair as well (remind you the damage gain is much smaller than the damage loss applying same bonus/penalty factor). However, we should really stop comparing apples to oranges and start to realize that we are talking about range modification here, so give TC/TE the missing falloff modifier and every turret gets the same benefit in range.
Liang Nuren The Avalon Foundation	Posted - 2008.02.13 19:04:00 - [549] Wow, I'm really surprised that this thread is still going on. The answer is obvious that TC's and TE's must affect falloff as well - otherwise TD's are unnecessarily imbalanced against projectiles (in the same way that projectiles are currently imbalanced against TD's). It's even more true because ranged AC ammo does not really affect Autocannons... (and Scorch/Null is far less affected by this change than Barrage). There are no ways around this fact. -Liang -- If it appears that my typing is lazy, I apologize. My hands/wrists hurt. Update: I bought a Datahand for RSI, and I now suck at typing (so I don't post as much)
Aramendel Amarr North Face Force	Posted - 2008.02.14 01:44:00 - [550] Originally by: Trigos Trilobi It's so blatantly obvious that balancing two types of EW on a ship where the EW don't share same slots is different than on a ship where the two types of ew compete for same 2-3 slots isn't the same thing, I frankly find it laughable that you bother to claim the opposite.... So, let me get it clear: you claim that the curse cap warfare ability will work just fine without cap injector or cap recharge modules? Quote: I think the fact that last few posts have been mostly about Huginn is a testament to me not ignoring the context of your comments. Tryin to evade again, are we? Again you ignore what is written and try to steer the discussion away. I simply brought up - amongst other things - the fact that while TPs are gimp it does not effect the recon ship balance for already obvious reasons. After which all you kept talking about was that single subdiscussion. Quote: I sincerely hope you don't work in game design. I sincerely hope you do not work anywhere were you ignoring facts and trying to evade having to admit you are wrong is causing damage for other people.

Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.14 02:44:00 - [551] Originally by: Aramendel Originally by: Trigos Trilobi It's so blatantly obvious that balancing two types of EW on a ship where the EW don't share same slots is different than on a ship where the two types of ew compete for same 2-3 slots isn't the same thing, I frankly find it laughable that you bother to claim the opposite.... So, let me get it clear: you claim that the curse cap warfare ability will work just fine without cap injector or cap recharge modules? I can't quite comprehend how you can translate that quote into "the curse cap warfare ability will work just fine without cap injector or cap recharge modules". Do you read the stuff you're replying to at all? Now, since you actually totally neglected the three questions I wrote to better illustrate the point in that same post you quoted from, I'll quote them here again, just in case you're actually interested in attacking the point I make, instead of coming up with yet another strawman. Originally by: Trigos Trilobi If you fit a maximum amout of TDs on curse, are you still able to fit nos? If you fit a maximum amount of TPs on a huginn, are you still able to fit webs? Is there a difference and is it possible that this difference needs to be taken into consideration when balancing the ships in question and/or the ew types in question? Just for clarity, I'm not talking about the relative power of curse, huginn, or any of the ew's in question and I'm definitely not talking about cap mods. Quote: I sincerely hope you do not work anywhere were you ignoring facts and trying to evade having to admit you are wrong is causing damage for other people. You'll have more luck convincing someone he is wrong if you actually attack his arguments instead of strawmen of your own design.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.14 03:03:00 - [552] Edited by: Goumindong on 14/02/2008 03:03:13 Originally by: Trigos Trilobi I can't quite comprehend how you can translate that quote into "the curse cap warfare ability will work just fine without cap injector or cap recharge modules". Do you read the stuff you're replying to at all? Cap mods go in the med slots you dummy. If you need cap mods to run the ew, then the ew is competing for med slots with the TD's
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.14 13:01:00 - [553] Originally by: Goumindong Edited by: Goumindong on 14/02/2008 03:03:13 Originally by: Trigos Trilobi I can't quite comprehend how you can translate that quote into "the curse cap warfare ability will work just fine without cap injector or cap recharge modules". Do you read the stuff you're replying to at all? Cap mods go in the med slots you dummy. If you need cap mods to run the ew, then the ew is competing for med slots with the TD's So you too decided to ignore the point I was trying to make and hop on the straw man train and even top it with a personal insult, way to go! I'm actually a bit surprised considering I've got quite a few good, constructive and pretty much on the point arguments from you before with enough poking. I'm not arguing that cap mods don't limit the amount of TDs that is practical to fit on a curse. My argument was way more general than that, although I did mention the cap mods as an example of a way that a dev could go around limiting the advantage fitting the two ew types in two different racks has over the two ew types sharing a rack. So the cap mod issue really is tangentual at best for the point I tried to make. Which was that boosting target painters is only relevant to huginn once they are better than webs, or provide some unique benefit that is worth losing a web for. Unlike for curse, where target disruptors only compete with nos/neut support modules, not the nos/neuts themselves. The easiest way to see why this is different, and what I tried to illustrate with my three questions which you too decided to totally ignore, is to consider a situation where the benefits from a target disruptor would completely overshadow the utility from nos/neuts. At this point curse would still be able to fit nos/neuts (without cap mods, obviously), while in a similar situation a huginn would fit no webs at all. So I am not saying cap mods are useless for a curse, I'm not saying curse is useless, I am not commenting on curse / huginn performance at all, the only point I tried to make was that due to the ew slot requirements there is a difference that needs to be taken in account when you consider balancing the ships in question and their respective ews/bonuses. The cap mods you and aramendel bring up are an example of how to limit the advantage of having your ew fit in two racks instead of one, it is not a proof that there isn't an advantage.
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.02.14 13:04:00 - [554] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 14/02/2008 13:04:53 Can we at least agree on that TDs only need to be really effective on Amarr recons/Arbitrator/EAFs? If it's a Amarr EW boost, then making it a Amarr-only EW boost, not a boost to all the five-midslot armour tankers which Amarr has none of. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.14 13:11:00 - [555] Originally by: Cpt Branko Edited by: Cpt Branko on 14/02/2008 13:04:53 Can we at least agree on that TDs only need to be really effective on Amarr recons/Arbitrator/EAFs? If it's a Amarr EW boost, then making it a Amarr-only EW boost, not a boost to all the five-midslot armour tankers which Amarr has none of. I tend to agree that this TD boost is kinda ill-conceived for an amarr boost. Minmatar/gallente will be the ones reaping the benefits while amarr just gets to be on the receiving end a lot more than before.
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.02.14 13:31:00 - [556] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 14/02/2008 13:32:29 Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Originally by: Cpt Branko Edited by: Cpt Branko on 14/02/2008 13:04:53 Can we at least agree on that TDs only need to be really effective on Amarr recons/Arbitrator/EAFs? If it's a Amarr EW boost, then making it a Amarr-only EW boost, not a boost to all the five-midslot armour tankers which Amarr has none of. I tend to agree that this TD boost is kinda ill-conceived for an amarr boost. Minmatar/gallente will be the ones reaping the benefits while amarr just gets to be on the receiving end a lot more than before. Really, the only Minmatar ship which gets significant benefit out of using TDs itself is the Tempest, where it will become standard procedure to fit it; it happens to have that extra slot to use it. Other then that, a Huggin/Rapier could use it to try to solo ships it previously couldn't (such as Minmatar/Amarr BCs). This effectively makes them better solo ships with a wider array of possible targets (which they quite definitely do not need). On the other hand, given how often turret ships are used in PvP, the new TD is generally the best thing to fit to a the final midslot in the Myrmidon/Eos/Hyperion/Dominix/Ishtar. Four midslot armour-tankers are typically best with a cap injector in the fourth midslot, and the falloff-reducing TD is undisputably the best possible addition for a fifth midslot. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Magazaki	Posted - 2008.02.14 13:48:00 - [557] Originally by: Cpt Branko Can we at least agree on that TDs only need to be really effective on Amarr recons/Arbitrator/EAFs? Personally, I do not. Because I like strong EW that can conceivably take the place of your tank if you so choose. But that is kind of a personal opinion, no? Each person playing here would like a different kind of relative balance between tank/gank/EW, and actually noone is more correct than the next... So I'd say let's keep the argument at "since TD's are boosted shout TC/TE's be as well" which actually has more practical merit... -----sig----- Originally by: Kaemonn:Signature Originally by: kieron: off duty You dont have to swallow! Win...
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.14 15:38:00 - [558] Originally by: Cpt Branko Edited by: Cpt Branko on 14/02/2008 13:04:53 Can we at least agree on that TDs only need to be really effective on Amarr recons/Arbitrator/EAFs? If it's a Amarr EW boost, then making it a Amarr-only EW boost, not a boost to all the five-midslot armour tankers which Amarr has none of. Why? Do you want a minmatar nerf? Strong TD's are a minmitar buff, since they have the most med slots
Dromidas Shadowmoon Minmatar 54th Knights Templar Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2008.02.16 14:06:00 - [559] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Cpt Branko Edited by: Cpt Branko on 14/02/2008 13:04:53 Can we at least agree on that TDs only need to be really effective on Amarr recons/Arbitrator/EAFs? If it's a Amarr EW boost, then making it a Amarr-only EW boost, not a boost to all the five-midslot armour tankers which Amarr has none of. Why? Do you want a minmatar nerf? Strong TD's are a minmitar buff, since they have the most med slots Only a buff of our t1 ships then. T2 ships are all shield tank, which means no medium slots if they're planning on tackling. _______________________________________________ Minmatar will always go faster than you, get over it.
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2008.02.16 14:27:00 - [560] Edited by: Amira Shadowsong on 16/02/2008 14:27:43 Originally by: Goumindong And, at the same time, you have also claimed that the damage increase from +falloff mods is not significant until you are fairly deep into falloff. So which is it? Haha owned. Seriously dont argue with gomindong, he knows what hes talking about and has prolly twice the iq of most eve players.

Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2008.02.16 15:14:00 - [561] Edited by: Nian Banks on 16/02/2008 15:14:57 Originally by: Amira Shadowsong Edited by: Amira Shadowsong on 16/02/2008 14:27:43 Originally by: Goumindong And, at the same time, you have also claimed that the damage increase from +falloff mods is not significant until you are fairly deep into falloff. So which is it? Haha owned. Seriously dont argue with gomindong, he knows what hes talking about and has prolly twice the iq of most eve players. That can be taken two ways mate! Either your full of it and so is Guo, which Gou has proven a few times over the months to be a possibility yet I am not too sure about yourself, Or the majority of EvE players have low IQ's. Given the options I would say they are both likely and probably not mutually exclusive of each other. As for the part about Gou, well I do believe we all have the same disease that Gou has. Tho on this thread Gou has exceeded most in his "Full-of-it-O'Meter" tm Given that Minmatar are meant to be the brute strength, not so crash hot at the electronics Race. Is it so wrong that they had the option to shoot a little harder than before? With the rebalance a while back that increased all ships hitpoints, minmatar weapons took a heavy indirect nerf and now artillery is all but relegated to PvE, So yes AC's could do with a little improvement. Just to make it fair as Minmatar have been left out in the cold when it comes to Snipers. Oh and the Sniper nerf just recently didn't help either... Give us some more options to increase falloff. Its not exactly a game breaking request, its actually quite modest.
Eaterof Children	Posted - 2008.02.16 16:21:00 - [562] Originally by: Nian Banks Given that Minmatar are meant to be the brute strength Minmatar are the WHAAAATTTT??????
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2008.02.16 16:53:00 - [563] Edited by: Amira Shadowsong on 16/02/2008 16:53:07 Originally by: Nian Banks With the rebalance a while back that increased all ships hitpoints, minmatar weapons took a heavy indirect nerf and now artillery is all but relegated to PvE, So yes AC's could do with a little improvement. Uhm amarr still havent seen any cap boosts across the board for the increased hit points of all ships. Minmatar ACs are getting a huge boost to EMP ammo with the tank nerf. I think minmatar just wanna hop on the amarr-boost train without any real justification. Its incredible how minmatar that are gaining boosts with the next patch are whining more then gallente whined when ccp just months ago aoe-nerf batted their whole race.
Dromidas Shadowmoon Minmatar 54th Knights Templar Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2008.02.17 11:46:00 - [564] Edited by: Dromidas Shadowmoon on 17/02/2008 11:46:58 Originally by: Amira Shadowsong Edited by: Amira Shadowsong on 16/02/2008 16:53:07 Originally by: Nian Banks With the rebalance a while back that increased all ships hitpoints, minmatar weapons took a heavy indirect nerf and now artillery is all but relegated to PvE, So yes AC's could do with a little improvement. Uhm amarr still havent seen any cap boosts across the board for the increased hit points of all ships. Minmatar ACs are getting a huge boost to EMP ammo with the tank nerf. I think minmatar just wanna hop on the amarr-boost train without any real justification. Its incredible how minmatar that are gaining boosts with the next patch are whining more then gallente whined when ccp just months ago aoe-nerf batted their whole race. How is arguing that a game balance issue will arise after modifying a module considered "more whining than gallente" ? The only ammo that is getting a boost for minmatar is the t1 ammo, our t2 ammo (which is pretty much what everyone uses) is exp and kinetic. The slowboating crapships that people fly with 1600 plates are the only ones that actually use emp regularily. Amarr is getting the em boost on ALL of their ammo, t1 and t2. You can't really compare the two. Not to mention the em boost is a GAME BALANCE boost, not a race boost. This is also going to help caldari and anyone that uses missiles, as well. The only one NOT benefiting is perhaps gallente. It would be more accurate to say its a gallente nerf. _______________________________________________ Minmatar will always go faster than you, get over it.
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.02.17 11:56:00 - [565] EMP (M and S, don't fly BS) is used by lazy people, so it's a boost to the bad/T1 minmatar pilot. I use it for shooting haulers, drakes and feroxes, frigs and such junk, simply because Barrage M is too expensive for killing crapships. If you have to shoot armour tanks, Fusion>EMP. If you have to shoot shield tanks, PP>EMP typically (except if shooting caldari T2 frigs which don't have slotspace for fixing their EM resist). Post-patch, EMP will compete slightly better with PP for shooting shield tanks. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Magazaki	Posted - 2008.02.17 13:54:00 - [566] Edited by: Magazaki on 17/02/2008 13:55:22 Originally by: Dromidas Shadowmoon This is also going to help caldari and anyone that uses missiles, as well. I keep hearing this over and over, and it wasn't true the first time I did. The ONLY, and I do mean the ONLY damage type flexible Caldari ship is the Raven, all the others missileships lose at least a 25% bonus to switch to something other than kinetic, and fully half of the ships are gunships anyway. A 25% penalty for a 10% bonus? Right... In fact, only the Raven, Khanid and a few minnies are damage-neutral. Wanna count and see which race benefits the most? That's right, the one the boost was intended for. -----sig----- Originally by: Kaemonn:Signature Originally by: kieron: off duty You dont have to swallow! Win...
Msobe	Posted - 2008.02.17 14:51:00 - [567] They boosted the damage type, not the weapon system that suffers for using it. Do the math - a 10% drop in resists is not at all the same as a 10% increase in damage. Think about untanked armor resists going from 60% to 50%. A hit for 100 was doing 40 damage, now its doing 50. Thats not a 10% increase, its a 25% increase. Which matches your ships damage bonus. You may (just may) find using EM missiles makes sense sometimes now. They hope it does - they specifically made a broad change like that to fix the damage type itself instead of fixing lasers as was commonly being requested. They want to see us using EM missiles, drones, and smartbombs. This change helps anyone who can use EM damage - and Caldari certainly can.
Magazaki	Posted - 2008.02.17 19:21:00 - [568] Originally by: Msobe You may (just may) find using EM missiles makes sense sometimes now... ...This change helps anyone who can use EM damage - and Caldari certainly can. You are correct 100%. But in this case, Gallente droneships are gettin the same boost as Caldari (maybe bigger? Can't be arsed to check drone damage difference). The point was mainly against the opinion that said EM lowered resist is a bigger boost to caldari than to anyone else, while in fact EVERYONE benefits from it. Amarr first (lasers), minmatar second (faction emp on guns), caldari missiles and gallente drones next (can switch damage to EM if they want), then gallente gunships (guns but have a meaningful amount of drones tha just COULD be EM), and Caldari gunships the last (neither enough drones nor missiles) of the train as far as boosting is concerned. I.e. the main point was that someone that argues that this was a Caldari boost is plain wrong. -----sig----- Originally by: Kaemonn:Signature Originally by: kieron: off duty You dont have to swallow! Win...
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.17 20:33:00 - [569] Originally by: Magazaki Edited by: Magazaki on 17/02/2008 13:55:22 Originally by: Dromidas Shadowmoon This is also going to help caldari and anyone that uses missiles, as well. I keep hearing this over and over, and it wasn't true the first time I did. The ONLY, and I do mean the ONLY damage type flexible Caldari ship is the Raven, all the others missileships lose at least a 25% bonus to switch to something other than kinetic, and fully half of the ships are gunships anyway. A 25% penalty for a 10% bonus? Right... In fact, only the Raven, Khanid and a few minnies are damage-neutral. Wanna count and see which race benefits the most? That's right, the one the boost was intended for. Other ships than the raven lose between 15-20% of missile dps dpending on the skill level of the character yes. Minmitar are unable to change damage types in the entirety. Amarr drop 30-40% of their gun DPS and have to refit their ship. Gallente have to do the same with guns and its about similar with drones.
Daelin Blackleaf	Posted - 2008.02.17 22:42:00 - [570] Admittedly-Biased Thread Summary: Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Cpt Branko Using TDs is going to be extremely popular on unbonused short-range ships with a spare midslot, I can already tell you that one. And since most, if not all of these ships are minmitar, what is the problem? Your range adantage against blasters has been extended. Your range deficiency against Amarr has been reduced. The sole reason any minmitar are against this change is because it just might force them into web range and they just might have to risk their ship. Boo hoo. Originally by: Gamesguy 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. About 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. And 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: Goumindong TD's cant lock down any ships but ships that have no supplimentary DPS either. And the ships most likely to be entirely turret based with little or no supplimentary DPS are Amarr. Furthermore, it doesnt prevent the activation of other modules such as ewar, nor can it in any way prevent a ship from closing futher to counteract the effect of the TD's. Originally by: Ruah Piskonit I really fail to see the problem here, even after reading every post. I've yet to see any of these points realistically refuted. I'd like to add that my only concern regarding TD's is that they will be overused much as damps and ECM were in their day, and of course the race seeing the greatest advantage from this will be Minmatar. If they are overused (compared to other forms of EW on non-specialized ships) this will lead to CCP realizing 6 months later and nerfing them to the point of uselessness so that even Amarr Recons don't bother with them (again). I don't fancy watching TD's go through the whole process ECM went through.

Dromidas Shadowmoon Minmatar 54th Knights Templar Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2008.02.18 00:09:00 - [571] Originally by: Magazaki Edited by: Magazaki on 17/02/2008 13:55:22 Originally by: Dromidas Shadowmoon This is also going to help caldari and anyone that uses missiles, as well. I keep hearing this over and over, and it wasn't true the first time I did. The ONLY, and I do mean the ONLY damage type flexible Caldari ship is the Raven, all the others missileships lose at least a 25% bonus to switch to something other than kinetic, and fully half of the ships are gunships anyway. A 25% penalty for a 10% bonus? Right... In fact, only the Raven, Khanid and a few minnies are damage-neutral. Wanna count and see which race benefits the most? That's right, the one the boost was intended for. I think you're looking at it the wrong way. With EM being nerfed, people will have to compensate and boost em by going omni tank. This lowers all of their other resists as well. Either that or they will leave EM at 50% and boost their others to 70ish, which in that case, EM missiles probably WOULD be a better choice. _______________________________________________ Minmatar will always go faster than you, get over it.


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 20 :: [one page]

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