EVE Search - No to tracking disruptor affecting falloff !

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

No to tracking disruptor affecting falloff !

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Liang Nuren Black Sea Industries Insurgency	Posted - 2008.03.11 16:57:00 - [121] Originally by: Malcanis Out of interest, how many times have you ignored the point that the majority of ships will still not fit TDs even after this change? I make it 4 now, but I might have missed a couple. The moment people stop fitting tackle in their 2nd and third mid slots, or they bring a speed rifter with TDs, etc. We will see a strong uptick in TDs... for instance, I know I'll be fitting one on my Ishtar. -Liang -- Naturally, I do not in any way speak for my corp or alliance.
Aem White-Noise	Posted - 2008.03.11 16:57:00 - [122] Originally by: Butzewutze Originally by: Aem unqualified blabla Really, u should see the game as it is now not how u want it too. There are nanoships ingame because there are modules for speed. Overdrives, inertia's, Nano's, Polycarbon-rigs, auxilary truster-rigs... and u want to tell me that ccp never wanted this nanoships? U fail. They don't you fruitcake, and learn to spell. It's you, not u. Secondly, yes, speed modifcations, to increase speed. Interceptors, AF's, HAC's to catch, web, scram and pwn. NOT AS A WHOLE BASIS FOR A TANK. Speed was never meant to be a tank, and CCP are going to nerf this. ZULUPARK clearly stated, that perhaps. ALL SPEED MODS STACK. Istabs, ODs, Nanos, Polycarbs. If CCP really wanted nano's would that comment have appeared.
Butzewutze	Posted - 2008.03.11 17:01:00 - [123] Edited by: Butzewutze on 11/03/2008 17:01:39 Originally by: Aem Originally by: Butzewutze Originally by: Aem unqualified blabla Really, u should see the game as it is now not how u want it too. There are nanoships ingame because there are modules for speed. Overdrives, inertia's, Nano's, Polycarbon-rigs, auxilary truster-rigs... and u want to tell me that ccp never wanted this nanoships? U fail. They don't you fruitcake, and learn to spell. It's you, not u. Secondly, yes, speed modifcations, to increase speed. Interceptors, AF's, HAC's to catch, web, scram and pwn. NOT AS A WHOLE BASIS FOR A TANK. Speed was never meant to be a tank, and CCP are going to nerf this. ZULUPARK clearly stated, that perhaps. ALL SPEED MODS STACK. Istabs, ODs, Nanos, Polycarbs. If CCP really wanted nano's would that comment have appeared. U know what? CCP are the game designer... they decided to put rigs, modules and speed-implants to the game. And because of the fact that everybody and his mommy flys nanoships in 0.0 and ccp didnt do anything against them, i think you are horrible wrong. Zulupark told that they will nerf them... they told that desync and lag doenst exist. Do u believe everything what u get told or do u just see the actual situation? Think about who is the fruitcake here.
Drykor Minmatar Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.03.11 17:06:00 - [124] Originally by: Aem Originally by: Butzewutze Originally by: Aem unqualified blabla Really, u should see the game as it is now not how u want it too. There are nanoships ingame because there are modules for speed. Overdrives, inertia's, Nano's, Polycarbon-rigs, auxilary truster-rigs... and u want to tell me that ccp never wanted this nanoships? U fail. They don't you fruitcake, and learn to spell. It's you, not u. Secondly, yes, speed modifcations, to increase speed. Interceptors, AF's, HAC's to catch, web, scram and pwn. NOT AS A WHOLE BASIS FOR A TANK. Speed was never meant to be a tank, and CCP are going to nerf this. ZULUPARK clearly stated, that perhaps. ALL SPEED MODS STACK. Istabs, ODs, Nanos, Polycarbs. If CCP really wanted nano's would that comment have appeared. You are out of your mind. If CCP didn't want speedtanking, why do turrets even have a tracking stat? Why is there an explosion velocity stat on missiles? Think before you speak. And ZULUPARK can talk all day long as far as I'm concerned.
Butzewutze	Posted - 2008.03.11 17:07:00 - [125] just ignore him... another guy resistant against logic. Not very uncommon in here tbh.
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N. Black-Out	Posted - 2008.03.11 17:11:00 - [126] Originally by: Butzewutze 1. Are u a fortune-teller? 2. But they can! If you dont want to fit TD's feel free to do so... thats not the point. 3. The point is there will be a module that cannot be countered without high costs ISk-wise or tank/speed wise for minmatar. And thats fact. 1. Just as much as you are. 2. But they wont! 3. Oh, you mean just like nanoships in general? It's hilarious how the arguments you're using are pretty much identical to the anti-nano whines. It's equally hilarious that you're complaining that TDs will mean that you're unable to damage ships that fit them (although a cursory glance at the stats of the T2 220mm AC shows that you can still do damage, just not as much). If you think it's horrible and game breaking that you can't damage a ship fitted with a TD in your Vaga, surely you agree that it's equally horrible and game-breaking that I can't damage a ship fitted with a t2 MWD in my Raven, even though MWDs are hugely more often fitted than TDs? (I'm going to do my fortune-telling thing again and predict that no, you don't). And before you say anything stupid, I don't want nanoships taken out of the game, and I never have (I want to fly one one day), but it's long been evident that they need a counter other than "train minmatar recons". So the TD boost means nothing more than that once in a while you're going to have to get out of your polycarbed pwnmobile and use a different ship. Less tears, more adapting. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N. Black-Out	Posted - 2008.03.11 17:14:00 - [127] Originally by: Butzewutze U know what? CCP are the game designer... they decided to put rigs, modules and speed-implants to the game. And because of the fact that everybody and his mommy flys nanoships in 0.0 and ccp didnt do anything against them, i think you are horrible wrong. Zulupark told that they will nerf them... they told that desync and lag doenst exist. Do u believe everything what u get told or do u just see the actual situation? Think about who is the fruitcake here. Hey and you know what? CCP are the game designer and they changed the Tracking Disruptor. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Butzewutze	Posted - 2008.03.11 17:17:00 - [128] Originally by: Malcanis If you think it's horrible and game breaking that you can't damage a ship fitted with a TD in your Vaga, surely you agree that it's equally horrible and game-breaking that I can't damage a ship fitted with a t2 MWD in my Raven, even though MWDs are hugely more often fitted than TDs? So u break ur own argumentation... u can fit a neutralizer, neutralize the target, wait until it has no cap anymore( = no mwd ) and then destroy it. So u "have" a counter. The rest of ur post is just nonsense.
Natalie Jax Battlestars GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.03.11 17:25:00 - [129] Good grief. Every other weapon system had an effective counter, something that rendered the other's weapon system near useless. Except high-falloff projectile weapons, which would still be useful even with tracking speeds dampened. A ship orbiting out of web-range at high enough speed is nigh immune to most missiles and (to some extent) drones. Now the TD's work to cripple your weapon systems, with no module counter, and it's the end of the world? They finally make TD's useful, to the point where they can do what they're supposed to for all turrets. Yay. If, and it's a big if, it turns out that this change is as crippling as you expect it to be, then CCP will come back with something as a reasonable counter. The TD's will be seriously detrimental to a couple very specific ship fittings. Against others they might be marginally useful, but not overpowered. Personally, I wouldn't go out of my way to fit a module on the off chance I come across a nano-autoturret ship, but that's me.
Aem White-Noise	Posted - 2008.03.11 17:27:00 - [130] Originally by: Butzewutze Whine.... I'm superior, I created this topic and I don't care what anyone says. What I say is always right.. blah blah blah. I shouldn't post anymore, as what I say is right, therefore no argument needed. Grow up, dont post topics if you aren't going to listen to anyone. TD's will nerf your Vaga, not everyones going to fit them some might, and long live the day of the Pilgrim; being a viable solo-gank machine, and the Curse TDing every Vaga to death. Just LOL.

Butzewutze	Posted - 2008.03.11 17:29:00 - [131] Edited by: Butzewutze on 11/03/2008 17:34:59 Originally by: Natalie Jax Every other weapon system had an effective counter, something that rendered the other's weapon system near useless. Exactly... and every module can be countered: ECM - ECCM Damp - Sensor Booster Tracking disruptor - Tracking enhancer / computer Falloff disruptor - ???? U dont see any problem here at all? Quote: A ship orbiting out of web-range at high enough speed is nigh immune to most missiles and (to some extent) drones. Now the TD's work to cripple your weapon systems, with no module counter, and it's the end of the world? Wrong! If he is tracking disrupted then he cant damage you while orbitting you at high speed... he has to decrease its speed to around 500ms to hit again... and now u hit too. But with disrupted falloff he almost "never" can hit you. No module exist against that.
Aem White-Noise	Posted - 2008.03.11 17:30:00 - [132] Originally by: Drykor You are out of your mind. If CCP didn't want speedtanking, why do turrets even have a tracking stat? Why is there an explosion velocity stat on missiles? Think before you speak. And ZULUPARK can talk all day long as far as I'm concerned. Perhaps, against all your infinite wisdom. Ships aren't meant to be shot going 0m/s, the invention of Webs, AB's and MWD's. General common sense. No one said speeds the problem, or can't you read? Basing a tank on speed should be nerfed. Crawl back under your hole, or read posts clearer next time. Ok?
Lithel Amarr The Soviet Galactic Union	Posted - 2008.03.11 17:32:00 - [133] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Solution: Nerf TDs by large amount but boost the bonus on bonusd ships by large amount to keep it same. Result: Only amarr EW ships kill turret ships = everything in order. I agree very much! - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Frug Repo Industries R.E.P.O.	Posted - 2008.03.11 17:34:00 - [134] Missiles :D :\ - - - - - - - - - Do not use dotted lines - - - - - - - If you think I'm awesome, say BOOO BOOO!! - Ductoris Neat look what I found - Kreul Hey, my marbles
Jade190	Posted - 2008.03.11 17:40:00 - [135] Originally by: Aem Perhaps, against all your infinite wisdom. Ships aren't meant to be shot going 0m/s, the invention of Webs, AB's and MWD's. General common sense. No one said speeds the problem, or can't you read? Basing a tank on speed should be nerfed. Crawl back under your hole, or read posts clearer next time. Ok? You're a moron, if there wasn't meant to be speed tanking, then there would be no need for ANYTHING other than battleships. Who needs tacklers? They would die as soon as they got locked because they would have to tank 40k dps with 1k shield and armor. YOU GO BACK TO YOUR HOLE, YOU CLOSE MINDED, EMPTY HEADED FREAK! ------ Fighting stupidity since before you were stupid.
Butzewutze	Posted - 2008.03.11 17:40:00 - [136] Edited by: Butzewutze on 11/03/2008 17:43:45 Originally by: Lithel Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Solution: Nerf TDs by large amount but boost the bonus on bonusd ships by large amount to keep it same. Result: Only amarr EW ships kill turret ships = everything in order. I agree very much! me 2. And btw. dont let this thread turn into a flamewar, please. Maybe i was a bit upset too because fighting against stupidity is always hard. :P Ignore posts of dumb *****s so we can have a conversation here.
El Mauru Amarr Nexus Analytics Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.03.11 17:48:00 - [137] Meh, the op is pretty much whining about his vaga being "nerfed" against a fraction of available ships (like every ship even has a chance to fit "that extra mid-slot"). Because he himself knows that crying about "THEY NURFFZ ME VAGA" would be stupid, he sends in the "THEY NURFFZ MINMATARR"-argument Quit whining and actually test out a vaga (or any other Minmatar AC ship) vs an unbonused TD ship on SISI- you'll find out that you just went on a 3+page rampage for practically nothing :-P -
Butzewutze	Posted - 2008.03.11 17:51:00 - [138] Edited by: Butzewutze on 11/03/2008 17:56:30 Originally by: El Mauru Meh, the op is pretty much whining about his vaga being "nerfed" against a fraction of available ships (like every ship even has a chance to fit "that extra mid-slot"). Because he himself knows that crying about "THEY NURFFZ ME VAGA" would be stupid, he sends in the "THEY NURFFZ MINMATARR"-argument Quit whining and actually test out a vaga (or any other Minmatar AC ship) vs an unbonused TD ship on SISI- you'll find out that you just went on a 3+page rampage for practically nothing :-P Maybe u didnt noticed it yet... but i am amarr too. I can fly both races Hacs/recons and such stuff so this patch never will be a nerf for me. I cant lose :P Its not about my solopwnmobile gets nerfed... its because i think this is a major design failure... another small "i-win" button and i guess CCP dont want this stuff in game. And beside of that: I guess i am totaly right and CCP doenst thought about that very well or do u see any information from a developer here telling us how this should work ingame and should get countered from minmatar? This thread is getting ignored because they dont know what to tell, but maybe i am wrong too. If this will be on Tranquility and if it works fine, then i will get back here and tell everyone that i was wrong at all -> but i dont think that this will happen.
El Mauru Amarr Nexus Analytics Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.03.11 17:53:00 - [139] Dude- test out your "I-win"-button before declaring it as such -
Butzewutze	Posted - 2008.03.11 18:04:00 - [140] Originally by: El Mauru Dude- test out your "I-win"-button before declaring it as such I will. Ever fighted against a dominix with a single unbonused tracking disruptor in a vagabond? Try it.

Malcanis R.E.C.O.N. Black-Out	Posted - 2008.03.11 18:19:00 - [141] Originally by: Butzewutze Edited by: Butzewutze on 11/03/2008 17:19:22 Originally by: Malcanis If you think it's horrible and game breaking that you can't damage a ship fitted with a TD in your Vaga, surely you agree that it's equally horrible and game-breaking that I can't damage a ship fitted with a t2 MWD in my Raven, even though MWDs are hugely more often fitted than TDs? Impressive. U break ur own argumentation better than i ever could... u can fit a neutralizer, neutralize the target, wait until it has no cap anymore( = no mwd ) and then destroy it. So u "have" a counter. Minmatar dont have this chance. The rest of ur post is just nonsense and will not get answered. Think before post! Wow, if only there was some way to fit a heavy neut on anything other than battleships. Come to that if only there was some mod that somehow magically gave you more cap. Listen, I'm gonna stop talking to you now, because I just realised I'm winning the special olympics here. Anyway good luck in your search for a new FoTM. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Butzewutze	Posted - 2008.03.11 18:22:00 - [142] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Butzewutze Edited by: Butzewutze on 11/03/2008 17:19:22 Originally by: Malcanis If you think it's horrible and game breaking that you can't damage a ship fitted with a TD in your Vaga, surely you agree that it's equally horrible and game-breaking that I can't damage a ship fitted with a t2 MWD in my Raven, even though MWDs are hugely more often fitted than TDs? Impressive. U break ur own argumentation better than i ever could... u can fit a neutralizer, neutralize the target, wait until it has no cap anymore( = no mwd ) and then destroy it. So u "have" a counter. Minmatar dont have this chance. The rest of ur post is just nonsense and will not get answered. Think before post! Wow, if only there was some way to fit a heavy neut on anything other than battleships. Come to that if only there was some mod that somehow magically gave you more cap. Listen, I'm gonna stop talking to you now, because I just realised I'm winning the special olympics here. Anyway good luck in your search for a new FoTM. Thanks for ur posting.
Gort Storm Guard Elite	Posted - 2008.03.11 18:38:00 - [143] Well, back to training anything but Matari.... -- When in doubt, empty the magazine.
Butzewutze	Posted - 2008.03.11 19:05:00 - [144] bump
Kahega Amielden	Posted - 2008.03.11 19:15:00 - [145] Quote: Exactly... and every module can be countered: ECM - ECCM Damp - Sensor Booster Tracking disruptor - Tracking enhancer / computer Falloff disruptor - ???? U dont see any problem here at all? 1) Learn to spell 2) The target painter has no counter. 3) There are falloff increasing rigs. Maybe there should be some module to increase falloff...but there is no huge issue here.
Butzewutze	Posted - 2008.03.11 19:33:00 - [146] Edited by: Butzewutze on 11/03/2008 19:34:23 Edited by: Butzewutze on 11/03/2008 19:33:51 Originally by: Kahega Amielden 1) Learn to spell 2) The target painter has no counter. 3) There are falloff increasing rigs. Maybe there should be some module to increase falloff...but there is no huge issue here. 1. Target Painter is increasing Signature. This item decreases signature -> clicky ( It is expensive i know ) 2. We allready know that there are falloff rigs like mentioned 5 times in this thread so: 3. Learn to read a thread completely so u may notice that ur information already has been posted 5 times. Thx
Butzewutze	Posted - 2008.03.12 01:53:00 - [147] uselessbumpbecausepatchisallreadyincoming
Butzewutze	Posted - 2008.03.12 01:59:00 - [148] Quote: Trinity 1.1: Boost Patch has launched, filled with helpful and thrilling modifications, and not a single 'nerf'. LoL, i am the only one who think this is funny?
Mara Kell	Posted - 2008.03.12 02:13:00 - [149] Originally by: Butzewutze Edited by: Butzewutze on 11/03/2008 17:36:14 Originally by: Natalie Jax Every other weapon system had an effective counter, something that rendered the other's weapon system near useless. Exactly... and every module can be countered: ECM - ECCM Damp - Sensor Booster Tracking disruptor - Tracking enhancer / computer Falloff disruptor - ???? U dont see any problem here at all? Do you really see a tracking enhancer/computer as a counter to tracking disrupor? I mean you need like 3 or more of them to counter a single tracking disruptor. I somehow doubt you would install 3 tracking computer on lets say a vagabond just to counter tracking disruptors. I would more expect you to install them as nice med slot damage boosters if they increase falloff. And while we are at countering, how do i counter the webber and warp disruptor of the recons?
Tarron Sarek Gallente Cadien Cybernetics	Posted - 2008.03.12 02:13:00 - [150] Oh my god, tracking disruptors might become useful.. this can't happen! ___________________________________ - Balance is power, guard it well - Please stop using the word 'nerf' Nothing spells 'incompetence' or 'don't take me serious' like those four letters



Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 :: 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.