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 [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Suga H Gallente Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2008.02.16 03:18:00 - [1] Edited by: Suga H on 16/02/2008 03:20:58 So I really like this idea of Tracking Disruptors affecting falloff. It seems a nice little boost to the modules. Now, since falloff can be disrupted... how about boosted? Can we get the Tracking Enhancers, Computers, and maybe even Links to boost falloff to compensate?
Suga H Gallente Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2008.02.16 03:18:00 - [2] Edited by: Suga H on 16/02/2008 03:20:58 So I really like this idea of Tracking Disruptors affecting falloff. It seems a nice little boost to the modules. Now, since falloff can be disrupted... how about boosted? Can we get the Tracking Enhancers, Computers, and maybe even Links to boost falloff to compensate?
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.02.16 03:24:00 - [3] Originally by: Suga H Edited by: Suga H on 16/02/2008 03:20:58 So I really like this idea of Tracking Disruptors affecting falloff. It seems a nice little boost to the modules. Now, since falloff can be disrupted... how about boosted? Can we get the Tracking Enhancers, Computers, and maybe even Links to boost falloff to compensate? LoL -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.02.16 03:24:00 - [4] Originally by: Suga H Edited by: Suga H on 16/02/2008 03:20:58 So I really like this idea of Tracking Disruptors affecting falloff. It seems a nice little boost to the modules. Now, since falloff can be disrupted... how about boosted? Can we get the Tracking Enhancers, Computers, and maybe even Links to boost falloff to compensate? LoL -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation
Suga H Gallente Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2008.02.16 03:27:00 - [5] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer LoL I don't see what's so LoL about it. There's no modules that boost falloff, and since it can be disrupted, why not boostable too?
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.16 03:36:00 - [6] There are, they are called falloff rigs. Projectile Ambit Extension I.
Mila Prestoc	Posted - 2008.02.16 04:16:00 - [7] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer LoL And you call other people trolls... Originally by: Goumindong There are, they are called falloff rigs. Projectile Ambit Extension I. 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". ------------------------- Originally by: "Lord Violent" EvE is slowly becoming a game for the stupid, catered to by devs as they lack ability to kill/survive anything.
Suga H Gallente Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2008.02.16 04:46:00 - [8] Originally by: Goumindong There are, they are called falloff rigs. Projectile Ambit Extension I. Er, yeah, sorry my bad there. I guess rigs are still modules :/ There are the rigs for falloff for each weapon type, as well as an implant for all of them.. I was more just comparing the disruptors to the enhancers/computers/links.
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Dark-Rising The Dawn of Darkness	Posted - 2008.02.16 05:17:00 - [9] Minmatar shouldnt have damage mods in mids and lows. Thats why. This has been discussed in several threads with craploads of replies and thats why its lol that you posted the thing that people have been arguing about for a long time now. -------------------------------------- The Inquisition III - Relentless Retaliation
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.16 06:55:00 - [10] 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.
Vaal Erit	Posted - 2008.02.16 07:27:00 - [11] I am interested in the long explanation as well. Is +15% falloff really going to make minmatar ships LOL overpowered? I went back 5 pages and didn't see any falloff TC threads and eve-search is not very good. I don't think minmatar ships are going to using a mid slot on a TC falloff mod if one was created, I mean a TD or SB or web or whatever will almost always be more useful. Right now Curse/Arby TDs don't really hurt ACs on a Vaga enough to stop it from killing you. I fly minmatar 100% and I don't feel that threatened by TD falloff ships.
Mila Prestoc	Posted - 2008.02.16 13:29:00 - [12] 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 ------------------------- Originally by: "Lord Violent" EvE is slowly becoming a game for the stupid, catered to by devs as they lack ability to kill/survive anything.
Captain Agemman Minmatar Legio Ultra	Posted - 2008.02.16 17:38:00 - [13] Originally by: Goumindong There are, they are called falloff rigs. Projectile Ambit Extension I. Let's make falloff disruption a rig too. Same not-anymore flexibility on both sides.
Kagura Nikon Minmatar Infinity Enterprises Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.02.16 18:42:00 - [14] 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 brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2008.02.16 19:03:00 - [15] Originally by: Goumindong There are, they are called falloff rigs. Projectile Ambit Extension I. Every time I see you post this dribble you call an intelligent reply, I have the strange desire to flame. But sadly flaming wouldn't be constructive so I would just have to say what every other normal intelligent and somewhat capable person would say. Rigs are not viable counters to Ewar, they cost too much and can not be removed without the module been lost. That makes them an unacceptable counter to Ewar.
Arkady Sadik Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2008.02.16 19:35:00 - [16] I guess it's time to sum up the arguments. I personally favor giving TCs the ability to boost falloff, so take my summary from this point of view. The people who think that would be bad might want to improve my summary of their arguments. The initial (pro) argument is: So far, there have been modules and rigs that affect optimal: TCs, TEs, and rigs to boost optimal; TDs to reduce optimal. For falloff, there has been rigs that boost falloff, but no modules. Now that TDs are going to reduce falloff, it would seem fair that falloff should be affected by the other modules affecting optimal as well. Actually, I have seen people mostly ask for TCs to affect falloff, though by extension, one could ask for TEs to do so, too. In effect, with the new TDs, there are more "counters" to them for optimal than there are for falloff. The counter-arguments are (from what I could see so far): 1) You can already increase falloff with rigs, so there is a counter to TDs available already, and so no need to change TCs. 2) Fighting in falloff reduces DPS by reducing the hit chance, any bonus to falloff increases their dps. A bonus to optimal only increases the range, not the damage within that range. So a TC that improves falloff is basically a damage mod in the mid slots, which would boost AC boat dps considerably, thus making them overpowered. The reply to these then are: 1) As noted in the initial argument, optimal has the same "counters" available as falloff, in addition to TCs. The argument is asking for equal abilities to counter, not some abilities to counter (even if many proponents phrase this badly). 2) Optimal bonus mainly helps pulse laser boats. By increasing optimal, it makes it possible for them to use a "better" crystal, thus increasing their damage just as well. This means a TC is already a "mid slot damage mod" for pulse laser boats. (This is not so much true for blasters, but due to the small but equally-sized optimal and falloff they have, they are about equally affected by the changes as both pulses and ACs, so they're generally ignored in the discussion) Did I miss anything?
Patri Andari Caldari	Posted - 2008.02.16 21:24:00 - [17] A little help from you experienced players please. I was under the impression that falloff is calculated as a distance from optimal range. Although different weapons have different optimal and falloff ranges, is not a boost or a reduction in the optimal automatically an indirect boost or reduction to falloff? If so, why must TD effect falloff specifically? It would seem the actual falloff is already reduced once optimal is reduced, so TD reduce it once more? It would also seem that TC already increase falloff indirectly when the optimal is increased. I must be missing something. Anyone care to clear this up? Peace
Sleepkevert Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.02.16 21:37:00 - [18] Originally by: Patri Andari A little help from you experienced players please. I was under the impression that falloff is calculated as a distance from optimal range. Although different weapons have different optimal and falloff ranges, is not a boost or a reduction in the optimal automatically an indirect boost or reduction to falloff? Fallof is just another attribute. It's not calculated from range. That said, the OP has a point, every EW should have it's counter, or else this will be overpowerd to begin with. For instance, if you put one or two tracking range disruptor on a blaster pilot, it would effectively be making his guns useless. Without him being able to counter it. Perhaps an extra script for tracking mods so that they moddify fallof? _ Sign my sig!
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.16 22:31:00 - [19] 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...
Arkady Sadik Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2008.02.16 23:31:00 - [20] Originally by: Patri Andari A little help from you experienced players please. I was under the impression that falloff is calculated as a distance from optimal range. Although different weapons have different optimal and falloff ranges, is not a boost or a reduction in the optimal automatically an indirect boost or reduction to falloff? Because falloff and optimal have different values. As an example, 220mm Vulcan IIs have 2.7km optimal and 10km falloff with best skills. If you have a module reduce falloff by 50%, you lose 5km range. The perfect counter to this would be a bonus of 100% to falloff, getting it up by 5km back to 10km. 100% bonus to optimal would give only 2.7km range, thus a good deal less. (Before anyone starts crying, no one asked for a module with 100% falloff bonus, this was just for easier calculation and to show the point) Similarly, compensating an optimal reduction to a pulse laser by giving it a falloff bonus won't work :-)
Vaal Erit	Posted - 2008.02.17 00:39:00 - [21] Originally by: Arkady Sadik 2) Optimal bonus mainly helps pulse laser boats. By increasing optimal, it makes it possible for them to use a "better" crystal, thus increasing their damage just as well. This means a TC is already a "mid slot damage mod" for pulse laser boats. (This is not so much true for blasters, but due to the small but equally-sized optimal and falloff they have, they are about equally affected by the changes as both pulses and ACs, so they're generally ignored in the discussion) This is a point that I would like to see the counter to yet. Optimal bonus really applies to sniper boats as well. The Rohk's range bonus is considered either range or a smaller damage bonus. I assume that thread got heated and locked so it's in the pit of doom and we can't search the forums and eve-search gives me SQL database errors forever so do I skip to step 3 and profit?
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.17 01:04:00 - [22] 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
Eaterof Children	Posted - 2008.02.17 01:05:00 - [23] There is one single set of reasons I believe TC's/TE's should not boost falloff, and it has nothing to do with TD's. On the guns Amarr Caldari and Gallente use, your range suffers when upgrading ammo and downgrading guns. Strangely enough, Minmatar autocannons suffer NO range penalty for their max-damage ammo, and NO range penalty for their lowest-tier guns (along with their not-even-measurable decrease in dps by downgrading) Allowing TC/TE's to boost falloff, which is unstacknerfed with rigs to boot would enable a minmatar pilot to use: Vagabond: with smallest turrets: 8km falloff1.50(ship)1.25(skill)1.1(rig)1.1(rig)1.15(module)1.15(module), if for example, he fit 2 TC's... That's (scratches head)... 24km falloff WITH HIS MAX DAMAGE ammo on the LOWEST TIER gun. With barrage that's... 36km. Am I the only one to think that it MIGHT be just a tad too much??? Or, even better, Maelstrom, 48km falloff, with his MAX DAMAGE ammo on the LOWEST TIER gun. That a ROFLMAOastic 64km falloff. So am I the only one that believes that having a close range capless gun that fires max damage ammo at 48km falloff, or easily reaches 64 km!!!!! is just a tad to much???
Arkady Sadik Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2008.02.17 01:47:00 - [24] Originally by: Eaterof Children Or, even better, Maelstrom, 48km falloff, with his MAX DAMAGE ammo on the LOWEST TIER gun. Falloff rigs give 15% bonus, by the way. So Maelstrom is 16km (falloff) * 1.25 (skill) * 1.15^3 (rigs) * 1.15^2 (TC) = 40km (60km with Barrage) Compare Abaddon with Dual Heavy Pulse Laser II (the smallest-tier pulse lasers): 21km (optimal) * 1.25 (skill) * 1.15^3 (rig) * 1.15^2 (TC) * 0.5 (ammo) = 26km (79km with Scorch) Now consider that a single Dual 425mm II will do about 25 dps at 40km range with EMP L (which I think you mean with "MAX DAMAGE ammo", as Hail reduces falloff). To get the same kind of dps on a single gun on the Abaddon, you can actually use microwave crystals: 21km (optimal) * 1.25 (skill) * 1.15^3 (rig) * 1.15^2 (TC) * 1.4 (ammo) = 74km And the Maelstrom can not upgrade to a longer-range weapon. Add the new Apocalypse. 100km pulse laser range, anyone? Quote: So am I the only one that believes that having a close range *capless gun* that fires its max damage ammo or any other kind that exploits a resist hole at 48km falloff, or easily reaches 64 km!!!!! for half its damage is just a tad too much? No, you are not the only one. You might be the only one who didn't know that pulse lasers can do this already (except for the "capless" part, which is a nice advantage of ACs, but also not the enormous overpowered thing that it sounds like here). How many Amarrian battleships do you see shooting at that range with their pulse lasers these days? Yeah, those ranges are not that useful. Note I'm not saying that a 62km AC Maelstrom would be a grandiose idea. I just don't think it's such a totally unbalanced idea like some people here claim it is. And I do think that the main problem here is still the idea that TDs affect falloff just as much as optimal. Optimal and falloff are very different concepts, and this just shows that you can't just treat them the same.
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.02.17 01:55:00 - [25] Originally by: Eaterof Children Strangely enough, Minmatar autocannons suffer NO range penalty for their max-damage ammo, and NO range penalty for their lowest-tier guns (along with their not-even-measurable decrease in dps by downgrading) The first part is totally untrue (our max damage ammo is Hail, nothing else compares, and it does drastically cut your range). Second part is mostly true (tbh, decrease in DPS when downgrading is noticeable but not very drastic, but fitting differences aren't very drastic either). Originally by: Eaterof Children Allowing TC/TE's to boost falloff, which is unstacknerfed with rigs to boot Was stack-nerfed pre-trinity, and I know falloff rigs stack themselves (unless they changed it). Originally by: Eaterof Children would enable a minmatar pilot to use: Vagabond: with smallest turrets: 8km Smallest turrets? You mean small turrets? Anyway, stop using falloff-bonused ships as comparisons. Try it with a Hurricane. Not everyone flies or wants to fly a stupid Vagabond. Originally by: Eaterof Children falloff1.50(ship)1.25(skill)1.1(rig)1.1(rig)1.15(module)1.15(module), if for example, he fit 2 TC's... That's (scratches head)... 24km falloff WITH HIS MAX DAMAGE ammo on the LOWEST TIER gun. With barrage that's... 36km. Am I the only one to think that it MIGHT be just a tad too much??? Well, first off, rigs/modules are stacking nerfed between themselves (unless they changed it), second, 'MAX DAMAGE AMMO' is Hail (-50% falloff). Furthermore, a Vagabond with two TCs is a lol example, it'd get melted by a pack of warrior IIs really. If you look at it, the best a Minmatar ship would realistically fit is either a single TC on ships which could spare a mid somehow (Tempest could easily do it really, Maelstorm could do it but with a sacrifice to tank) and a TE on other ships (where you'll only really fit it on the shield-tanks, can't spare the slots on the armour tank given Gyrostabs are better anyway). Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Eaterof Children	Posted - 2008.02.17 02:24:00 - [26] Clarifications: Faction EMP was what I was thinking about, hail is crap IMO. Max T1 damage, faction I think is by far the best choice. By smallest guns I meant smallest tier Sorry about the Mael mistake. The Vaga was wrong too, but in the other direction. It's not 81.51.251.11.11.151.15=24 or 36, it's 81.51.251.151.151.151.15=26km with EMP, ~40 with Barrage. Something to think about. I know pulses reach far, but they are a different matter entirelly. Because they reach that far not with Multifrequency but with their T2 crystals, and with their High tier guns. It's quite different from reaching 26 km on a cruiser with low tier guns and EMP ammo than with high tier guns and second/third crystal (Microwave most likely, but whatever, enough database for today). And, they have the biggest cap consumption, that amounts for a lot (it is another thing to consider when you balance what a gun should/should not be able to do, together with range, damage and fitting). In fact, I would have not problem if the Minnieguns could pull all of the above off with their high tier guns only (even then, the EMP advantage cannot be emphasized enough). But low tier? Come on...
Arkady Sadik Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2008.02.17 02:38:00 - [27] Originally by: Eaterof Children The Vaga was wrong too, but in the other direction. It's not 81.51.251.11.11.151.15=24 or 36, it's 81.51.251.151.151.15*1.15=26km with EMP, ~40 with Barrage. Something to think about. FMPL IIs have a base optimal of 21km, or 10.5km with best damage ammo. Vagabond with the bonus is at 12km. The resulting range difference of less than 4km is not too impressive. (Note again, this is not a "this is how it should be", but a "the numbers you quote are not totally unheard of") Btw, I've heard different things now (and don't have a SiSi client to test easily) - are TCs stacking penaltized with optimal range rigs at the moment?
Patri Andari Caldari	Posted - 2008.02.17 02:41:00 - [28] Originally by: Arkady Sadik Originally by: Patri Andari A little help from you experienced players please. I was under the impression that falloff is calculated as a distance from optimal range. Although different weapons have different optimal and falloff ranges, is not a boost or a reduction in the optimal automatically an indirect boost or reduction to falloff? Because falloff and optimal have different values. As an example, 220mm Vulcan IIs have 2.7km optimal and 10km falloff with best skills. If you have a module reduce falloff by 50%, you lose 5km range. The perfect counter to this would be a bonus of 100% to falloff, getting it up by 5km back to 10km. 100% bonus to optimal would give only 2.7km range, thus a good deal less. (Before anyone starts crying, no one asked for a module with 100% falloff bonus, this was just for easier calculation and to show the point) Similarly, compensating an optimal reduction to a pulse laser by giving it a falloff bonus won't work :-) If i read your answer correctly, then falloff starts where optimal ends so that the mythical boat you listed above has a range of 12.7? (optimal plus falloff) As such, the two values are not independent despite seeming as such (less so on hybrid and laser boats as they have less falloff) This seems to suggest that it is not a matter of applying TD penalties to falloff or to adding a falloff increasing module. It seems to suggest that the falloff of some weapons (namely projectiles) is too great to start with. Example: If it were determined that missile dps was too high on all boats and it lead to a missile DPS nerf, one would hope all boats with a missile hard point to have a new dps value in line with expectations. If it was later determined that all Caldari Boats were still over powered and in need of an additional nerf because their missiles still did imba damage (stop laughing), what would that say? I think it means either: 1. missiles need to be nerfed even more or, 2. damage modifiers on Caldari missile boats is too high. So by that same logic, why does not a nerf or boost to optimal range of turrets (current TD and TC values) do enough to boost or lessen falloff of projectiles to an acceptable level without need of a new module or script? Could it be that the falloff variable is to high to begin with? Why not lessen the falloff of projectiles so that a reduction in Optimal effects falloff to an appropriate level? Again I am just asking. Peace
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.02.17 02:47:00 - [29] Originally by: Eaterof Children The Vaga was wrong too, but in the other direction. It's not 81.51.251.11.11.151.15=24 or 36, it's 81.51.251.151.151.15*1.15=26km with EMP, ~40 with Barrage. Something to think about. -Vagabond is a falloff bonused ship. Try T1. -25449M/38KM with EMP/Barrage at max skills (TCs are stack-nerfed between themselves) since the last multiplier is approx 1.135 Furthermore, when rig/module stacking do get fixed, you'd have much less. Same on a T1 ship results in 15.79km at max skills with EMP and 23km with Barrage M- would be quite fine if rigs/modules were penalized in the same way basically all of them are, given that the third module+rig would already be heavily penalized and the fourth effectively useless. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Yargo Metash Minmatar Heimatar Services Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.02.17 02:58:00 - [30] Originally by: Patri Andari If i read your answer correctly, then falloff starts where optimal ends so that the mythical boat you listed above has a range of 12.7? (optimal plus falloff) As such, the two values are not independent despite seeming as such (less so on hybrid and laser boats as they have less falloff) The main difference is that it does 50% damage at that 12.7, take mythical amarr boat that also has optimal+falloff of 12.7, only the falloff is 1.7 while the optimal is 11. Hence mythical amarr boat only has to move that 1.7 distance to do 100% damage, while the minmatar boat has to move a greater distance to get full damage. ... Huh, looking at it like this, seems to me this is just a general buff to TD's, that now also includes Min's. A little scaling back on total effectiveness of the Optimal+Falloff script would be a good tweak, but I don't mind these changes now. Lasers get their range hacked, railguns are far out of range, blaster still have to get in your face, and min also get their range hacked off... Now if only webrange wasn't such a killer.

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.