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)
Ariel Dawn Beets and Gravy Syndicate	Posted - 2008.02.17 04:24:00 - [31] Originally by: Arkady Sadik 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? Optimal Rigs and TCs/TEs are currently not stacking penalized unless they just changed it (may have been a bug). Falloff rigs are stacking nerfed. Also, it is best to compare falloff increases on Tech 1 ships with no falloff bonus built in. The Vagabond/Sleipnir/Vargur/Wolf do not have the spare midslots needed for a TC. They would be able to take advantage of falloff on Tracking Enhancers though, although most people would still be fitting a Gyro over them due to the significant close-range advantage.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.17 04:49:00 - [32] 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.
Skyr ECP Rogues The Reckoning.	Posted - 2008.02.17 08:25:00 - [33] Add "Fall off Range" script for TCs, done. Add small, 10% perhaps, maybe less (5% may be just right) fall off range bonus to TEs.
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2008.02.17 08:26:00 - [34] Originally by: Cpt Branko (tbh, decrease in DPS when downgrading is noticeable but not very drastic, but fitting differences aren't very drastic either). This is not really true. Fitting goes down noticable when down sizing ACs and there are minmatar pilots even claiming 220mm is outdamaging 425mm because of higher tracking in your average situation. Minmatar have HUGE fitting advantages ontop of their guns being capless. Now add falloff gained range/damage to a ship like vagabond and it gets really friggin stupid. Its overpowered and every minmatar player that actually plays this game knows this.
Amira Shadowsong Caldari	Posted - 2008.02.17 08:29:00 - [35] Originally by: Skyr Add "Fall off Range" script for TCs, done. Add small, 10% perhaps, maybe less (5% may be just right) fall off range bonus to TEs. Or maybe we should add stacking penalty to falloff boost + gyro combos? Wich would mean you gain range with falloff boosts coming from rigs or TEs BUT it would compensate the damage boost average by lowering your damage mod. How about that?
Arkady Sadik Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2008.02.17 10:37:00 - [36] 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) At optimal, you have 100% hit chance from range (reduced by transversal). At optimal + falloff, you have 50% hit chance. At optimal + 2x falloff, you have (close to) 0% hit chance. Hit chance directly affects DPS. As the curve is not linear, hit chance drops quite quickly after the 50% of optimal + falloff, so generally, people use "optimal + falloff" as a rough idea of range. Quote: It seems to suggest that the falloff of some weapons (namely projectiles) is too great to start with. That's the concept of projectile weapons. They have an optimal comparable to blasters, but much less dps than them even in optimal range. They are supposed to fight in falloff, thus reducing their dps - one of the things that makes Minmatar combat so challenging is that you need to use your speed advantage to get in as close as possible to a target to do some useful dps, but usually, you do not want to get too close because of webs and higher dps of blasters at closer range. It's quite a nice concept. Against pulse lasers, projectiles do not have a range advantage (pulse lasers do more dps than projectiles at range, even considering their damage type). Here, they do have a tracking advantage, which you use by getting in very, very close and "abuse" the very drastic drop in hit chance at very close ranges (<500m). ACs and their falloff are fine as they are. Enter the latest changes. So far, TD optimal range disruption only really affected pulse lasers, as all other weapons had very little optimal to begin with (stealing 1km optimal isn't really a problem for either ACs or blasters). This was fine in so far as that TDs on pulse laser boats vs. ACs should use tracking disruption, as that is the main advantage of ACs against lasers. It got problematic because a single TD can reduce a pulse laser boat below AC range (-48% optimal), which means suddenly ACs have a range advantage over pulse lasers if the AC boat can spare a mid (which many minnie boats can) - and ACs shouldn't have a range advantage over pulses. The solution picked was now not to make TDs less effective so that the unbonused AC boats can't use them too well, which was the option picked for say ECM and damps, but to make TDs also affect falloff so that pulse laser boats can "fight back" that effect (not that most pulse laser boats safe maybe the Harbinger can really spare mid slots). This results in a problem for AC boats. As noted above, ACs need to be as close as possible but not too close against blasters. A single TD now reduces their range with effective dps below the usual "death zones" (usually, web range). TDs with optimal range disruption against blasters have barely any effect, as blasters have a minuscle range to begin with, so the absolute range difference is small there. So AC users are asking for a way to boost their falloff in the same ways that others can boost their optimal. The problem with that of course is that it would affect many fights that do not have a TD involved. As noted above, AC boats have this challenge of having to go close to do useful dps. A mid-slot module upping their falloff will allow them to stay further out to do the same dps. Which reduces the challenge. Here, one could argue that falloff rigs barely compensated for the Minmatar nerfs introduced with Heat (13km webs and MWDs that are only counterable on a 10 second timer), and another support module would be nice to have. I hope I could give a rough overview of the situation. :-)
Jurgen Cartis Caldari Interstellar Corporation of Exploration	Posted - 2008.02.17 11:39:00 - [37] I can see myself supporting TEs with a falloff bonus (as these compete directly with damage mods), but I don't really think TCs should get a falloff bonus. They would on many boats end up being midslot damage mods, which we would like to avoid. On the other hand, very few ships have spare midslots, once they fit tackle and something resembling a tank. However, some ships in gangs can probably skimp on tackle gear enough to fit TCs. Nice post by Arkady, a very level-headed analysis of this. Not a single comparison to on/off switches, 0% damage, or any of the crap that's plagued most of the TD/TC/TE discussion so far. Nice to see there are still civil posters on these forums. -------------------- ICE Blueprint Sales FIRST!! -Yipsilanti Pfft. Never such a thing as a "last chance". ;) -Rauth
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2008.02.17 11:49:00 - [38] Originally by: Arkady Sadik 2) Fighting in falloff reduces DPS by reducing the hit chance, any bonus to falloff increases their dps. I think there is a extra point to add there: -increasing optimal move some of the fallof range into the optimal area, so it increase damage as it move some of the range from decreased hit chance and decreased damage to full hit chance and full damage. So if the argument is that increasing falloff range give a damage increase, it is a even stronger argument against optimal increase, as optimal increase give a even stronger increase in damage at some specific range.
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.02.17 11:51:00 - [39] 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. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2008.02.17 11:53:00 - [40] 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? 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 Some weapons (matary projectile weapons and some blasters) have a way larger percentage of the range in falloff than in optimal. So a reduction in optimal cut very little from the actual fighting range, while a same percentage reduction in falloff will hurt them a lot.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.17 21:00:00 - [41] 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?
Ariel Dawn Beets and Gravy Syndicate	Posted - 2008.02.17 23:12:00 - [42] 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.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.17 23:56:00 - [43] 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.
Vaal Erit	Posted - 2008.02.18 06:45:00 - [44] Good thread so far. I wouldn't call a TC falloff mod a "medium slot damage mod" Does it increase dps? Sure does.......sometimes. On a 1600mm rupture boat the difference between using 3x gyros and 3x TC falloff mods are going to be pretty huge. I dunno I think a Tempest with 1 million TC falloff mods in the mid slots will still die to a megathron so meh. So let's say we have a megathron, armageddon and maelstrom (pure short range turret boats). Enemy whatever puts 2x unbonused TDs on the above ships using the most effective scripts. Which ship ends up worse? Bonus question: would TCs or a TC falloff mod help at all?
Julius Romanus Blood Corsair's Blood Blind	Posted - 2008.02.18 06:56:00 - [45] Originally by: Vaal Erit Good thread so far. I wouldn't call a TC falloff mod a "medium slot damage mod" Does it increase dps? Sure does.......sometimes. On a 1600mm rupture boat the difference between using 3x gyros and 3x TC falloff mods are going to be pretty huge. I dunno I think a Tempest with 1 million TC falloff mods in the mid slots will still die to a megathron so meh. So let's say we have a megathron, armageddon and maelstrom (pure short range turret boats). Enemy whatever puts 2x unbonused TDs on the above ships using the most effective scripts. Which ship ends up worse? Bonus question: would TCs or a TC falloff mod help at all? Using current mechanics the amrmageddon is fighting in falloff for the first time in his life, the mega has trouble getting any use out of null(either too far out, or close enough to just get a little closer and use antimatter), the maelstrom is laughing because he thinks the TD sound effect is cute =P Under new mechanics the Armageddon is boned, the mega is boned until he's actually hugging the guy, and the maelstrom doesnt think TD's are 'cute' anymore.
bldyannoyed Un4seen Development	Posted - 2008.02.18 10:16:00 - [46] TC's SHOULD boost Falloff, it really is as simple as that. That they would function as mid-slot damage module is true, but it is also true atm for Amarr, and to a lesser extent Gallente. Take for example a MP II with MF. It hits around 15km Optimal with about 9km Falloff, meaning its DPS is cut by Approx 50% at 24km Warp Disrupt range. With a TCII its optimal goes up to 17KM, meaning it now does MORE DPS at 24KM, or indeed any range over its old optimal of 15KM. According to Goumindong's argument that same scenario is what would make Falloff on TC's overpowering to Minmatar. As usual though its a totally ***** moot point cos off the top of my head i can think of MAYBE TWO Minnie ships that would be able to fit them. A Tempest in its 5th mid or a Cane if it had a passive setup and didnt need an injector ( MWD, Web, Scram, TC ). NOT ONE of the tech 2 ships has the mid slot space to fit even one. You could maybe make a sacrifice on a Vargur to shoe-horn one in but thats it. So really, who the cares. You'd need ***** THREE of them to counter just ONE bonused TD anyway so Falloff boosting or not Tracking comps arent a viable counter to TD's anyway.
Gamesguy Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.02.18 10:49:00 - [47] Originally by: bldyannoyed TC's SHOULD boost Falloff, it really is as simple as that. That they would function as mid-slot damage module is true, but it is also true atm for Amarr, and to a lesser extent Gallente. Take for example a MP II with MF. It hits around 15km Optimal with about 9km Falloff, meaning its DPS is cut by Approx 50% at 24km Warp Disrupt range. With a TCII its optimal goes up to 17KM, meaning it now does MORE DPS at 24KM, or indeed any range over its old optimal of 15KM. According to Goumindong's argument that same scenario is what would make Falloff on TC's overpowering to Minmatar. As usual though its a totally ***** moot point cos off the top of my head i can think of MAYBE TWO Minnie ships that would be able to fit them. A Tempest in its 5th mid or a Cane if it had a passive setup and didnt need an injector ( MWD, Web, Scram, TC ). NOT ONE of the tech 2 ships has the mid slot space to fit even one. You could maybe make a sacrifice on a Vargur to shoe-horn one in but thats it. So really, who the cares. You'd need ***** THREE of them to counter just ONE bonused TD anyway so Falloff boosting or not Tracking comps arent a viable counter to TD's anyway. TC should boost falloff(as a script) as soon as downgrading autocannons give a meaningful reduction in dps and range. Because right now downgrading ACs is like getting free grid/cpu for a 3% dps decrease, while everyone else gets less range AND less dps(and more of both).
bldyannoyed Un4seen Development	Posted - 2008.02.18 10:54:00 - [48] Originally by: Gamesguy TC should boost falloff(as a script) as soon as downgrading autocannons give a meaningful reduction in dps and range. Because right now downgrading ACs is like getting free grid/cpu for a 3% dps decrease, while everyone else gets less range AND less dps(and more of both). And downgrading turret size should give a meaningful decrease in DPS as soon as downgrading ammo gives a meaningful increase in range. And i assume of course that you would take the largest tier AC as the baseline and simply nerf all the others? Cos tahts all balancing is right?
Gamesguy Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.02.18 10:59:00 - [49] Originally by: bldyannoyed And downgrading turret size should give a meaningful decrease in DPS as soon as downgrading ammo gives a meaningful increase in range. Its called barrage. What, you act like lasers and blasters dont only use AM/null and mf/scorch. Quote: And i assume of course that you would take the largest tier AC as the baseline and simply nerf all the others? Cos tahts all balancing is right? Of course.
bldyannoyed Un4seen Development	Posted - 2008.02.18 11:10:00 - [50] Edited by: bldyannoyed on 18/02/2008 11:11:11 Originally by: Gamesguy Originally by: bldyannoyed And downgrading turret size should give a meaningful decrease in DPS as soon as downgrading ammo gives a meaningful increase in range. Its called barrage. What, you act like lasers and blasters dont only use AM/null and mf/scorch. Quote: And i assume of course that you would take the largest tier AC as the baseline and simply nerf all the others? Cos tahts all balancing is right? Of course. Well thank ** you're not a dev. It's not even worth getting into an argument about how ** Minnie AC boats would be with everything under largest tier AC's nerfed. Actually, what am i saying? Sounds like exactly the sort of thing we should be expecting to go live on sisi any day now. Makes me glad i had training ADHD when i first started playing and trained EVERYTHING cos i thought it would be clever.
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.02.18 11:12:00 - [51] Just make it so that one stupid unbonused TD doesn't completely kill the engagement range of a AC ship, because I so see it as standard fittings on, in fact, non-Amarr ships. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
bldyannoyed Un4seen Development	Posted - 2008.02.18 11:24:00 - [52] Originally by: Cpt Branko Just make it so that one stupid unbonused TD doesn't completely kill the engagement range of a AC ship, because I so see it as standard fittings on, in fact, non-Amarr ships. To be fair 1 unbonused TD pretty much cripples Lasers and Hybrids, so AC's won't be unique in that respect. The major difference is that currently 1 TE/TC can go someway to countering an UNBONUSED TD as far as lasers and Hybrids are concerned, but after TD's affect Falloff AC's basically have no counter. Even a pair of Falloff rigs will be barely adequate as a counter. Once you start looking at bonused TD's turrets are completely screwed pretty much regardless of what you fit, but i have no major problem with that.
Vanessa Vale	Posted - 2008.02.18 12:16:00 - [53] Indeed. Since a tracking computer boosts ships that fight in optimal, then they should boost ships that fight in falloff in the same way. Either that, or they boost none and just give a tracking boost and you can "counter" the TD with rigs. Nerf TCs!
Cpt Branko Surge. Night's Dawn	Posted - 2008.02.18 12:30:00 - [54] Originally by: bldyannoyed Originally by: Cpt Branko Just make it so that one stupid unbonused TD doesn't completely kill the engagement range of a AC ship, because I so see it as standard fittings on, in fact, non-Amarr ships. To be fair 1 unbonused TD pretty much cripples Lasers and Hybrids, so AC's won't be unique in that respect. The major difference is that currently 1 TE/TC can go someway to countering an UNBONUSED TD as far as lasers and Hybrids are concerned, but after TD's affect Falloff AC's basically have no counter. Even a pair of Falloff rigs will be barely adequate as a counter. This is a issue. Many ships can, in fact, afford to fit a TD and suddenly it will force a falloff-unbonused Minmatar ship to fight in webrange (which is a huge deal) by fitting just one unbonused module. On the other hand, 3 (!) falloff rigs are required to counter it, and without at least two falloff rigs your DPS at 13km range (or, out of webrange) is utterly horrible once tracking-distrupted. The things which used to be possible (such as defending from nano-ships, fighting blasterboats out of webrange) with medium ACs are no longer possible by virtue of one unbonused module which will be FOTM (and mostly on non-amarr ships, at that). Does it suck? Hell yes. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Kaben	Posted - 2008.02.18 20:55:00 - [55] This is actually funny. Before TD's really only effected amarr. Strange how a race that specifically trains for that ewar can only really use it against themselves. But OMG it can now effect amarr, gallente and minmatar. Who would have thought that a TD would mess up turret based ships. I mean a web only effects minmatar right.... or ecm only effects caldari..... /sarcasm off For the longest time td's where worthless cause they only affected amarr ships, now they have a purpose in the game. They still effect amarr ships the worst probably, strange how amarr ships don't really have the mid slot to utilize this nifty device. Minmatar probably take second place all because they don't want to sacrafice one of there LSE II's to take advantage of this new mod....shame on you, and really only effect null ammo for gallente. A question though, don't td's have low falloff with high opt, doesn't that mean it's less effective the closer you are to the target? Just curious on this. I fly gallente mostly and yes this hurts, but I can adapt. Just means if I'm hit with one null is pretty useless.
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.18 22:08:00 - [56] Originally by: Gamesguy TC should boost falloff(as a script) as soon as downgrading autocannons give a meaningful reduction in dps and range. Because right now downgrading ACs is like getting free grid/cpu for a 3% dps decrease, while everyone else gets less range AND less dps(and more of both). Downsizing from 425 to 220 is 6% less damage, downsizing from 220 to 180 is bit over 6% less damage. 12% damage loss from top tier to bottom. For cruiser sized pulses we're talking about ~14% loss from the higher tier to the lower. Sure ACs have it better but if 12% is not 'meaningful' damage loss, then 14% isn't either. Furthermore I think many in this thread think adding falloff mod on TE/TC would also mean some mystery extra slots on the ships, while in reality you should be comparing the tradeoff between fitting a +falloff TE vs a gyro. For 3 gyro non falloff bonused ship fitting the TE instead of 3rd gyro would mean less dps until 13-14km. For a 1 falloff rig, 3 gyro vagabond fit replacing that 3rd gyro with a TE would mean less dps until 23km or something. Considering even 3 gyros is often a considerable tradeoff in the tanking department and the fact that comparing the TE to 2nd gyro is even worse, the falloff mod on TE suddenly looks a lot less attractive, and certainly not game-breakingly overpowered. And for TC it's even harder to think a fit that would benefit spending a slot, considering mid slots are in short supply and the new TDs are going to give a lot bigger relative benefit.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.18 22:45:00 - [57] 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
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.19 00:04:00 - [58] Originally by: Goumindong 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 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. Quote: 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 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. Quote: If you aren't going to fit them, why bother having the mod on there 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.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.02.19 00:59:00 - [59] 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.
Trigos Trilobi Man-Eating Village Idiots	Posted - 2008.02.19 02:27:00 - [60] Originally by: Goumindong 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. Ah yep, you're absolutely correct. The problem was the 12%, it got skewed with the lazy rounding. So 10.7% reduction vs 13.6% reduction then. Still slightly above 3% Quote: 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. According to the hit quality formula, 220mm acs 3gyro+1rig is still ahead of 2gyro1rig1te at 20km assuming max skills. And frankly, wether the breaking point is 19km or 21km it still means you're at the outer reaches of your typical engagement range so I think it is fair to say that the benefit of a TE over a gyro for a vaga is iffy at best. You gain tracking, lose raw dps in the ranges where the tracking would be most beneficial and gain some dps at near max scramble range. Wether it's worth it depends on the situation. Quote: Except the change to the fits that DO fit TEs and TCs. Sniper fits? Anyone sniping in their falloff should change the fit for more optimal anyway, I don't see few 15% falloff mods changing that.

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.