| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Shereza
   |
Posted - 2008.02.10 01:29:00 -
[1]
With the upcoming change to tracking disruptors so that they affect falloff one has to wonder whether or not there needs to be a booster for falloff to compensate. The other day while I was pondering that I decided that it was past time I trained my main for trajectory analysis 4 so she could use T2 tracking computers, and then it occurred to me.
Tracking computers, which boost tracking and optimal range require training in the skill that boosts falloff. Sharpshooting (otpimal) and motion prediction (tracking) have no bearing/effect at all on modules that affect the same properties they do but a skill that has no bearing at all on the properties the tracking computers modify, trajectory analysis (falloff) does.
Just an idle curiousity.
____________________
Behold the universal power of duct tape. |
goodby4u
Logistic Technologies Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 01:30:00 -
[2]
I think its because ccp wants to sway away from anti ewar mods and ewar mods having 3 bonuses,the only reason they gave TD's 3 is they arent used enough/they want to nerf ships like the vagabond.
This is what happens when a kestrel with thermal missiles declares war on earth |
hellwarrior
Caldari
Spartan Industries
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 01:31:00 -
[3]
Not that I know alot about the upcoming patch however I am going to gues...
NO.
zomgz hw but wai.
megas vagas and the sort live on falloff. Why would they boost falloff all around for a single mod that is doing its job rather than letting optimal based guns only get shafted?
However yes, boost falloff I want 30km hitting zone with antimatter on my mega.
|
Karyuudo Tydraad
Caldari
Whiskey Pete's Drycleaning Services
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 01:45:00 -
[4]
 Originally by: Shereza
With the upcoming change to tracking disruptors so that they affect falloff one has to wonder whether or not there needs to be a booster for falloff to compensate.
You mean like the falloff rigs everybody fits when they want increased range with autocannons?
|
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr
Dark-Rising
The Dawn of Darkness
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 02:03:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Shereza
With the upcoming change to tracking disruptors so that they affect falloff one has to wonder whether or not there needs to be a booster for falloff to compensate.
No, and it has already been discussed in billions of threads by now why its a bad idea.
--------------------------------------
The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation |
Dianeces
Minmatar
Repo Industries
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 05:07:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Originally by: Shereza
With the upcoming change to tracking disruptors so that they affect falloff one has to wonder whether or not there needs to be a booster for falloff to compensate.
No, and it has already been discussed in billions of threads by now why its a bad idea.
No. It's been discussed in billions of threads why you think it is a bad idea.
|
Shereza
|
Posted - 2008.02.11 08:37:00 -
[7]
Originally by: hellwarrior
However yes, boost falloff I want 30km hitting zone with antimatter on my mega.
But you already get 24km falloff with null, max skills, 2 T2 ambit extensions, and 1 T1 ambit extension. 
Personally, I don't see a falloff bonus going higher than half the optimal bonus on comparable modules, maybe 75% tops, so even with rigs it'd take a lot of modules to get 30km falloff with null ammo and should be outright impossible with antimatter.
Incidentally, you'd need 5 falloff boosting modules with a 30% boost and no stacking penalty to get antimatter to 35.6km falloff while 4 would get you 27.42 hence my comment on the impossibility of getting it to 30km.
Originally by: Karyuudo Tydraad
Originally by: Shereza
With the upcoming change to tracking disruptors so that they affect falloff one has to wonder whether or not there needs to be a booster for falloff to compensate.
You mean like the falloff rigs everybody fits when they want increased range with autocannons?
Yeah, and increased range with any gun once they've got something like 2 tracking computers and 2 or 3 tracking enhancers and can't boost optimal by a useful amount yet still need more range.
A shame that with mods like tracking computers and enhancers there's little reason, in my opinion, to fit optimal range rigs. Well, if you're in a harpy and need your lows for damage mods and your mids for sensor gear and/or other modules than tracking computers and you're sniping with spike then I suppose optimal rigs make sense.
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
No, and it has already been discussed in billions of threads by now why its a bad idea.
While I personally would be leery of assuming there are billions of threads in the entire database for the forums I have no compunction against assuming that your claim that there are billions of threads on "why it's a bad idea" is exaggeration of the grossest kind.
I'm perfectly open to realistic, and hopefully remotely close to accurate, numbers if you wish to post them, though I'd also appreciate it if you'd include the number of posts as to "why it's a good idea" just to be fair about it.
_________________
I should probably apologize at this point.
It wasn't the intent of my original post to try to propose falloff-boosting modules. I was simply pointing out the incongruity/oddity involved in having falloff skill training unlock items that boost optimal and tracking while the skills that boost optimal and tracking have no bearing on that module and, in fact, only have a bearing on the training of weapon specialization skills and do not affect modules directly at all.
While the single skill idea is in line with many other modules in EVE it, to me, would seem more appropriate if, as an example, T2 tracking computers required motion prediction level 4 and sharpshooting 3 while T2 tracking enhancers required sharpshooting 4 and motion prediction 3.
This sort of split would properly reflect the dual nature of the modules as well as keeping them comparable to each other as tracking enhancers provide better optimal boosts than tracking and tracking computers provide better tracking than optimal boosts.
It would also, incidentally, allow the trajectory analysis skill to be left open to be used as a basis for other modules for which it would be an appropriate skill.
____________________
Behold the universal power of duct tape. |
Dristra
Amarr
Shadows of the Dead
The Dawn of Darkness
|
Posted - 2008.02.11 10:49:00 -
[8]
Falloff bonuses would not really hurt, just another reason to remove the 50% cap use "bonus" on amarr ships
with falloff computers the range advantage of pulses whould not be as happy
Support the introduction of well thought out Amarr solutions!
I believe rats should avoid you if you have high standing with them. |
Blutreiter
Amarr
Digital Fury Corporation
Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2008.02.11 11:05:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Dianeces
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Originally by: Shereza
With the upcoming change to tracking disruptors so that they affect falloff one has to wonder whether or not there needs to be a booster for falloff to compensate.
No, and it has already been discussed in billions of threads by now why its a bad idea.
No. It's been discussed in billions of threads why you think it is a bad idea.
No. It's been discussed in billions of threads with considerably more people thinking that it's a bad idea.
Cogito ergo boom
- I think i'll blow sh*t up
Originally by: CCP Explorer
I know we have said this before, but this time we really mean itÖ
|
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar
Oyster Colors
|
Posted - 2008.02.11 11:26:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Blutreiter
Quote:
No. It's been discussed in billions of threads why you think it is a bad idea.
No. It's been discussed in billions of threads with considerably more people thinking that it's a bad idea.
Funny thing is the people thinking it's a bad idea are those that get the most range bonus from those modules, so I won't consider that any proof, it's in the human nature to preserve any advantage one has over the other.
I still would like to see a valid argument why those modules shouldn't work equally well for anyone.
|
Diomidis
Amarr
Mythos Corp
RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.02.11 12:05:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
Originally by: Blutreiter
Quote:
No. It's been discussed in billions of threads why you think it is a bad idea.
No. It's been discussed in billions of threads with considerably more people thinking that it's a bad idea.
Funny thing is the people thinking it's a bad idea are those that get the most range bonus from those modules, so I won't consider that any proof, it's in the human nature to preserve any advantage one has over the other.
I still would like to see a valid argument why those modules shouldn't work equally well for anyone.
-- What's really funny is that nobody jumps the "uber-range-wagon" you discribe Amarr to be. Why?
Cause apart from the Large Pulses with T2 ammo, there is no real range advantage for them compaired to other weapon systems.
-- What's really funny is the range and effective dmg Minmatar sniping BSs get using TCs/TEs with "half-a-bonus", as you imply it to be.
-- But you are right and it's not funny: you want to preserve two advantages Minmatar have over other races:
* Speed, that in nano-ranges can cause trouble with turret tracking in both you and your target.
* The immunity ACs have for TD's optimal range reduction scripts, and range reduction in general before scripts.
Now uber-speeds can work as a double edged sword cause potentially a Vaga under TD effects won't be able to track as well and will have to risk more into losing "speed tank" itself by going slower
OR, get closer, lose some orbiting speed and risk more.
All these hurt, cause Vagas risk few things as they are now, acting as both very fast and agile heavy tacklers and effective gunships. You want no compromises, but that's no way to balance things. TDs might ruing some of you effective turret DPS, but that means nothing as the Vaga will remain the best heavy tackler, will remain gifted with a nice for it's role drone bay and a missile hardpoint that at last might be utilized more.
|
Saietor Blackgreen
|
Posted - 2008.02.11 12:47:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
I still would like to see a valid argument why those modules shouldn't work equally well for anyone.
They probably should, but if you add falloff bonus to them they wont be affecting everyone equally still.
The whole idea with falloff-relying weapons is insensivity to optimal range penalty of high-damage ammo.
You cant increase AC workrange with lowdamage-longoptimal ammo or TC/TE, but you hardly lose anything if you stick EMP into it. You DO losa a lot (a lot!) if you stick high-damage lenses into pulses, but you can somewhat compensate that with TC/TE. If you want.
If you add falloff bonus to TE/TC, you'll boost ACs and, to less extent, blasters, but will not provide virtually any boost to lasers. Which have a lot of underbalance issues already.
Does that sound more logical?
|
Julius Romanus
Blood Corsair's
Blood Blind
|
Posted - 2008.02.11 16:19:00 -
[13]
The big push against falloff on tracking mods is that a lot of people do not want AC's getting a boost. Low fitting reqs, great tracking, no cap use, and ships with a good bonus setup make it hard for people who dont fly min to think AC's need any lovin at the moment.
I've already said I'm not going to oppose it, and I'm not. But you asked what the reasoning was.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |