EVE Search - Falloff disruptable, but not boostable?

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Falloff disruptable, but not boostable?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.16 03:36:00 - [1] There are, they are called falloff rigs. Projectile Ambit Extension I.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.16 06:55:00 - [2] Originally by: Mila Prestoc Use the full explanation, otherwise its way to easy to just reply with "remove tracking computers and enhancers as you can use optimal and tracking rigs". Ive had to remind people i dont know how many times. Next time ill start a repository so i can go and get a canned answer and copy/paste it. But it grates to explain the same things over and over again.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.16 22:31:00 - [3] Edited by: Goumindong on 16/02/2008 22:33:50 Originally by: Kagura Nikon Originally by: Goumindong There are, they are called falloff rigs. Projectile Ambit Extension I. the same way that there are range rigs (that btw sicne trinity are NOT stack nerfed). Soo your point is...??? INVALID! If lasers or blasters didnt lose both optimal and falloff when downgrading this would be a valid point. But they arent, and so range rigs are not reasonable on said ships. If they were you would see people fitting them, but you do not, and for good reason. A bug[that range rigs are not stacking nerfed] is a reason to fix the bug, not to do anything else. Originally by: Mila Prestoc Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Mila Prestoc Use the full explanation, otherwise its way to easy to just reply with "remove tracking computers and enhancers as you can use optimal and tracking rigs". Ive had to remind people i dont know how many times. Next time ill start a repository so i can go and get a canned answer and copy/paste it. But it grates to explain the same things over and over again. Could of linked the topics Its 19 pages long...
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.17 01:04:00 - [4] Scorch is the counter to the arugment. There is no shorter range crystal except Factoin MF, Xray and Gamma, and once those hit falloff they lose out to scorch very fast. The area in which lasers can gain such an advantage by changing crystals are between 7.5km and 11.25km, But it would require changing crystals so much and for so thin an advantage its not valuable, so the real range where you get any advantage is between 7.5km and 10km
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.17 04:49:00 - [5] Optimal rigs and TE/TCs not stacking is almost certianly a bug. It makes no sense otherwise and enables many to many ridiculous things[like the 125km 600 DPS Sisi tanked Pulse Apoc] that it could be intentional and not just a side effect of scripting that wasnt caught because people werent fitting them.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.17 21:00:00 - [6] Originally by: Cpt Branko The things Arkady describes are precisely why I'm suggesting that TDs should only be really effective on bonused ships (so fitting just one midslot doesn't trivially kill a Minmatar T1 (so no falloff bonuses to begin with) ship's range). Else I'm afraid we're going to see a new must have spare midslot module. You realize that the ships with the most med slots to be able to do this are minimtar right?
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.17 23:56:00 - [7] Originally by: Ariel Dawn Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Cpt Branko The things Arkady describes are precisely why I'm suggesting that TDs should only be really effective on bonused ships (so fitting just one midslot doesn't trivially kill a Minmatar T1 (so no falloff bonuses to begin with) ship's range). Else I'm afraid we're going to see a new must have spare midslot module. You realize that the ships with the most med slots to be able to do this are minimtar right? Only when your definition of a ship-setup does not extend beyond throwing plates on everything, allowing a midslot to be saved over a cap booster due to capless weaponry. Standard active tanked Minmatar ships rarely have a free midslot (usually 1-2 free highslots though). The Tempest is really the only one that comes to mind, the rest relying on mids to tank (T2 ships mostly) or not having any extra. Gallente ships tend to have more extra midslots (Eos, Myrmidon, Dominix, Hyperion, Ishtar, etc), Caldari using them for Tank/ECM, and Amarr having a similar amount as Minmatar. So then Minmtiar are no worse off than anyone else unless they choose to be better off? P.S. Eos has 4 meds, Ishtar tanks with its meds, Dominix, Hyperion, and Myrmidon are the only Gallente ships with more than 4 meds that tank in the lows that are combat vessels.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.18 22:45:00 - [8] Originally by: Trigos Trilobi ... For cruiser sized pulses you are talking 15.714% DPS, 20% optimal range, and 25% falloff For ACs you are talking 11.9% DPS, irrelevant optimal range, 0% falloff Breakpoint for the TE is about 1/2->3/4 falloff. so about 7.5-10km on fusion, 10-12km on barrage and 15-17km on a vagabond. There pretty much is no breakpoint on a Maelstrom. If you aren't going to fit them, why bother having the mod on there
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.19 00:59:00 - [9] Edited by: Goumindong on 19/02/2008 00:59:51 Originally by: Trigos Trilobi Interesting, I can't quite figure out what I'm doing wrong to arrive at ~86.4% damage done with low tier guns instead of 84.3%, are you sure your 15.7% figure isn't the extra damage you gain from upgrading instead of the damage you lose from downgrading? In any case the difference isn't significant considering my point was that acs actually lose a lot more than 3% damage and are atleast in the same ballpark as lasers. It is. I am using the same number you are, you would notice that the other way around the DPS drop from 425's to d180s is 10.7%, not anywhere near 12%[where the upgrade number is 11.9%] as you claimed. So either you were lying, or you were using the same criteria and just got the number for lasers wrong. Quote: As I said my vaga example was with 1 falloff rig already besides the 3 gyros, since that's pretty typical. Hence past 20km to break even. No, it increases it by 15%. 15% of 15km is not over 3km. Quote: More fitting options. I'm not arguing the TE's would be totally useless after all, just that they'd probably not be that universally useful and certainly not game-breakingly overpowered like some people imply. And then there's the principle, if we're going to bring out new falloff affecting mods like TDs, then there's no reason not to add the mod on TE/TCs too. Except the change to the fits that DO fit TEs and TCs.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.19 02:44:00 - [10] Not everyone is within optimal by choice. A general increase in falloff decreases the differences between the snipers as they are cropped by the the 250km cap. And you rounded 10.7% to 12%? How in the world did you do that? Not to mention that you can drop from 425 to 220s without running over powergrid[about 4.5% difference] You cannot do the same with blasters which lose 20% falloff and then 25% falloff have a higher damage drop per teir and are roughly half in falloff and half in optimal and so benefit half as much from each rig. And you cannot do the same with pulse lasers which lose 16% optimal[20% increase the other way], 20% falloff, and have no middle ground option while losing a greater amount of DPS than either the drop from neutrons to electrons or 425s to d180s.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.21 01:53:00 - [11] You almost never have to reload in the space of normal combat. Gangs have to be large enough that you will be better off fitting artillery and going range than autocannons at the point where you will be reloading in combat.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.21 16:05:00 - [12] Originally by: Eaterof Children Originally by: Goumindong You almost never have to reload in the space of normal combat. Gangs have to be large enough that you will be better off fitting artillery and going range than autocannons at the point where you will be reloading in combat. How did you figure the bold part? I come to the exact opposite conclusion. I find it much more probable to need to reload when solo than when shooting a gang, because while the ratio of damage/hitpoints remains the same, active tanks and shield recharge are negated so that the gang needs a lot less time to kill the same ships than if the same ships that are in the gangs were one on one. But anyway, it doesn't matter all that much does it? It just emphasizes a point that is already known - AC's lose too little damage when downsizing to make a difference, so everyone downsizes. Because what is important is the number of targets and total hit points. It takes minutes for these guns to run out of ammo, if the fight isn't over by then someone is doing something wrong.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.28 04:35:00 - [13] Originally by: Cpt Branko Er. 650mm arties: 220 PG 720mm arties: 275 PG Quad lights: 99 PG Focused medium beams: 165 PG Heavy beams: 275 PG Lasers aren't any harder to fit, and given the increased PG of Amarr ships, are, in fact, easier to fit. Quad lights are also useless with so little range and the inability to use scorch crystals there is no reason to ever fit them. Focused medium beams are also terrible, with a full 20% DPS difference compared to heavy beams, and 50% alpha. Compared to a 5% dps and 30% alpha between 720s and 650s. As well, regarding their specific fittings, Minmatar artillery ships either have similar powergrid compared to their amarr competitors, or fewer turrets to fit and an extra damage bonus making up for said turret reduction. There isnt any minmatar ship where it is harder to fit artillery on it than it is to fit lasers on the comparable amarr ship.[that is, where artillery is reasonably expected to be fitted, arty-phoons and arty-bonds need not apply]

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.