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)
Sionide Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2008.03.12 02:15:00 - [151] Well nothing to be done now, since the patch is going live, but this will be a big hit to matar ships. I wish they made TD basically increase rof on all weapon types. It would have made the ew useful and effect all race ships, not mainly matar. Oh well...
Butzewutze	Posted - 2008.03.12 02:15:00 - [152] Originally by: Mara Kell 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? You are right... its not a good counter but it is one. And beside of that u could counter the tracking disruption just with not going so fast. Thats not possible anymore after the patch.
Tarron Sarek	Posted - 2008.03.12 02:20:00 - [153] In totally non related news, players were complaining that the shield Exp and armor EM resistance reduction would boost Minmatar.. ___________________________________ - 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
Butzewutze	Posted - 2008.03.12 02:22:00 - [154] Originally by: Tarron Sarek In totally non related news, players were complaining that the shield Exp and armor EM resistance reduction would boost Minmatar.. Thats stupid. EMP will be better all around ammo after the patch but u will be still better with Phased Plasma for shields and Fusion for armor.
Butzewutze	Posted - 2008.03.13 15:34:00 - [155] stillnotothiscrap
Butzewutze	Posted - 2008.03.13 18:39:00 - [156] bump
Abrazzar	Posted - 2008.03.13 18:43:00 - [157] That this thread exists is the one thing showing that tracking disruption is now finally useful. Props to ccp for this. No one would create a threadnaught with such vehemence if it wasn't. Butzewutze, stop spamming. -------- Ideas for: Mining Clouds
Butzewutze	Posted - 2008.03.13 18:48:00 - [158] Edited by: Butzewutze on 13/03/2008 18:52:23 Edited by: Butzewutze on 13/03/2008 18:49:44 Thanks for your post. I just want to know what the developer thought about that stuff. Now after this patch Tracking disruptor are killing the falloff too, but the problem is that -50% falloff hits Minmatar more than anybody else with -50% optimal range. It is unfair that everybody has a chance to counter but minmatar havent. And btw. this tread will be bumped until i get an answer or a moderator will lock it.
Dingi223	Posted - 2008.03.13 20:06:00 - [159] I agree with the OP. Tracking Computers and Tracking Enhancers improve optimal range. Tracking Disruptors used to decrease optimal range only. As a result, prior to this patch you had a counter, and TC / TE's had a purpose (which benefit all races although Minmatar the least due to our weapons using falloff). The patch then changes TD's to impact falloff, however there are no changes to the TC's / TE's. As a result, the impact of TC's and TE's continue to mitigate the TD change for the other races to a certain extent, but leave a huge hole for Minmatar that play in falloff. It's an uncounterable action short of rigs. Additionally, numbers have been run to show that running 3 gyro's is more effective than running 2 gyro's and a TE, so the argument that updating TC's and TE's over-powering Minmatar (and if that is the argument, their current use over-power the other races since it impacts Optimal) has clear numbers to show it doesn't. A ton of people argue that you must simply get 'closer' to reduce the TD, however, when that change of range brings you into webbing range Minmatar effectively lose their racial bonuses of speed and dictating range. I think it's a perfectly fair question, and it's disappointing that the devs show interest in at least responding. I would be happy if our racial ewar (target painters) had some loving to give us effective ewar, however, right now we have an uncounterable ewar module to be used against us, and no effective alternative ewar for ourselves. Sure, we can web from 40km's. Yeah, let's all fly around at 40 km's not shooting.
Atomos Darksun	Posted - 2008.03.13 20:11:00 - [160] The reason why TD's were given the ability to nuke falloff is because minmatar have more falloff than they do optimal-so nuking their optimal did nothing. CRY MORE NOOB if you can't shoot somebody whith your whittle nanoship, go run away pansy. Originally by: Atomos Darksun What's the difference between an alt poster and a leech? One is a blood sucking parasite, the other is a leech.

Butzewutze	Posted - 2008.03.13 21:11:00 - [161] Originally by: Atomos Darksun CRY MORE NOOB if you can't shoot somebody whith your whittle nanoship, go run away pansy. U really hit me with ur excellent logic.
Dingi223 University of Caille	Posted - 2008.03.14 19:38:00 - [162] Originally by: Atomos Darksun The reason why TD's were given the ability to nuke falloff is because minmatar have more falloff than they do optimal-so nuking their optimal did nothing. CRY MORE NOOB if you can't shoot somebody whith your whittle nanoship, go run away pansy. I have no problem with TDs affecting falloff, since TD's clearly indicate that it affects range which is a combination of optimal and falloff. However, why then don't TC's and TE's affect falloff, since they also affect range? I.E., why do Amarr that play in optimal, which TDs impact, have TCs and TEs as counters, and Minmatar don't? I think your logic is rather shocking, noob. Sorry you get frustrated at those nanoships.
Butzewutze Imperial Academy	Posted - 2008.03.14 20:23:00 - [163] stillwaiting for a dev. answer
Zeba Pator Tech School	Posted - 2008.03.14 21:10:00 - [164] Before the patch Minmatar were very resistant to TD making it an effectively useless mod to use vs them. Now they are not. Balance good. --------------------- Q: WTF! Why?! A: Because I can. ---------------------
Butzewutze Imperial Academy	Posted - 2008.03.14 21:16:00 - [165] Originally by: Zeba Before the patch Minmatar were very resistant to TD making it an effectively useless mod to use vs them. Now they are not. Balance good. Yeah before they were useless against minmatar. Now they are "to good" and minmatar cant counter them... thats not what i would call balance.
Alz Shado Ever Flow	Posted - 2008.03.14 21:19:00 - [166] Originally by: Zeba Before the patch Minmatar were very resistant to TD making it an effectively useless mod to use vs them. Now they are not. Balance good. After the patch, Minmatar are helpess to TD making them hosed. Imbalance bad. ------------------- "Kill a man one is a murderer; kill a million, a conqueror; kill them all, a God." -- Jean Rostand
Clone 231B School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.03.14 21:29:00 - [167] Edited by: Clone 231B on 14/03/2008 21:30:55 Originally by: Butzewutze Originally by: Zeba Before the patch Minmatar were very resistant to TD making it an effectively useless mod to use vs them. Now they are not. Balance good. Yeah before they were useless against minmatar. Now they are "to good" and minmatar cant counter them... thats not what i would call balance. So for 4 years it was no biggie, and you did not mention this imbalance once. Now that TDs actually do something to ACs, its the worst imbalance ever in the history of eve........ Hello Mr. Hypocrit, enjoy being on the other side of the fence. stealth edit OH, did you even once stop to consider how powerful fall-off mods would be on minnie ships like the vaga?
RigelKentaurus Flying Tartiflette Caldari Deep Space Industral	Posted - 2008.03.14 21:56:00 - [168] Originally by: Butzewutze There is a rig like i mention allready before... but do you really think that u have to install rigs to counter an ewar module in eve? A rig that cannot be removed intact? And dont u think that a 5 million(15 millions for 3) rig is a bit to expensive to counter a 1 million E.War-Module? Originally by: Butzewutze 1. Target Painter is increasing Signature. This item decreases signature -> clicky ( It is expensive i know ) And you complained about a cheap rig... _________ Someday, EVE may look like this.
Badhbh Terra Incognita Vanguard.	Posted - 2008.03.14 22:00:00 - [169] Edited by: Badhbh on 14/03/2008 22:00:20 always good to whine before you saw anything in action. Lets wait 8 weeks and then complain :o
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.03.14 22:45:00 - [170] Originally by: Butzewutze Originally by: Atomos Darksun CRY MORE NOOB if you can't shoot somebody whith your whittle nanoship, go run away pansy. U really hit me with ur excellent logic. There are five counters to TD's. More so for ACs than for blasters or lasers. These are Falloff rigs Getting closer Damps ECM non-turret dps Getting closer negates the effect. Falloff rigs increase falloff and therefor range. Rigs are not an option for lasers and blasters because down fitting loses more range than can be regained in the well by using the rigs Med/low slot items are not an option either since rig slot tanking and utility options are weaker than all med and low slot tanking and utility options. Damps break locks break TD'ing ECM breaks locks breaks TD'ing They are not counters to each other because they break locks, but they are counters to ewar which does not break a lock. Damps especially because any ship using TD's is going to be med slot short[no sensor boosters], or will likely want to use its newfound range advantage to its logical conclusion. Non-turret DPS, which minmatar have the most of out of all non-caldari ships[with the slight exception to gallente drone ships, but those are more vulnerable to having that DPS shot] Minmatar also have the most spare meds with which to fit TD's. All in all its very hard to construe this as a minmatar nerf.

Zeba Pator Tech School	Posted - 2008.03.15 02:34:00 - [171] Originally by: Clone 231B Edited by: Clone 231B on 14/03/2008 21:30:55 Originally by: Butzewutze Originally by: Zeba Before the patch Minmatar were very resistant to TD making it an effectively useless mod to use vs them. Now they are not. Balance good. Yeah before they were useless against minmatar. Now they are "to good" and minmatar cant counter them... thats not what i would call balance. So for 4 years it was no biggie, and you did not mention this imbalance once. Now that TDs actually do something to ACs, its the worst imbalance ever in the history of eve........ Hello Mr. Hypocrit, enjoy being on the other side of the fence. stealth edit OH, did you even once stop to consider how powerful fall-off mods would be on minnie ships like the vaga? roflmmfao.. <3 --------------------- Q: WTF! Why?! A: Because I can. ---------------------
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N. Black-Out	Posted - 2008.03.15 04:08:00 - [172] Edited by: Malcanis on 15/03/2008 04:08:08 Originally by: Alz Shado Originally by: Zeba Before the patch Minmatar were very resistant to TD making it an effectively useless mod to use vs them. Now they are not. Balance good. After the patch, Minmatar are helpess to TD making them hosed. Imbalance bad. How much does a single unbonused TD actually reduce damage when you're orbiting outside web range? I'm seeing about a 40% reduction in range/falloff assuming average skills. That's quite a big reduction, I guess, although it only affects turrets. Does that translate linearly to an equivalent reduction in DPS? CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Norwood Franskly Fleet of the Damned United Freemen Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.15 06:22:00 - [173] I blame the Amarr whiners and CCP for listening to them, I hope us Matari people have more dignity then to ***** and moan so much. Some people posting in this thread have no clue, read the bonus's the Stabber and Vagabond get before suggesting it's not supposed to go fast Projectile rigs are a waste because without agility rigs your just going to get WTF bbq'ed by other ships like the Nano Ishtar (which imo is the most over-powered of the nano ships). There are Boosters that increase falloff but I can't remember their name and I've never used them. I suspect people may start using these or more likely just ditch vagabonds. I think the purely Matari speced player will switch to hurricanes, which, unlike the Vaga can fight in web range (with a dual armor rep tank). I think it's pretty clear that the falloff disrupting changes were a Autocannon Nerf as no other weapon system in the game relies so heavily on falloff. While we are in a Minmatar whine thread when are we going to get our EW cruiser boosted. The Arbitrator gets some love with this patch, the Blackbird is still a good choice and you see less nowadays but the Celestis isn't completely useless so Boost Bellicose!1!1!11!one!!! Seriously, I've always wondered from an RP point of view why minmatar get target painting shouldn't our EW be designed to counter the Amarr, presumably tracking disruptors are the amarrians counter to minmatar. Wouldn't some type of cap warfare be more suited rp wise as Amarr lasers use most cap of the weapon systems.
Karn Mithralia Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.03.15 06:41:00 - [174] Thought: I suspect ships carrying warp disrupters, tracking disrupters and webs will be rare. Load hail and charge! (That said, as a pure Minmatar player who likes to solo a lot I find myself increasingly nerfed out my preferred style of play. Many people in this thread do not appear to understand how speed tanks + fighting in fall-off works. I guess we should all train ships with uber-fat tanks and just sit still and slug it out? ) -----------------------------------------
Octaviun Slacker Industries Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2008.03.15 06:50:00 - [175] Originally by: Clone 231B Edited by: Clone 231B on 14/03/2008 21:30:55 Originally by: Butzewutze Originally by: Zeba Before the patch Minmatar were very resistant to TD making it an effectively useless mod to use vs them. Now they are not. Balance good. stuff stealth edit OH, did you even once stop to consider how powerful fall-off mods would be on minnie ships like the vaga? If my vaga could shoot any farther i wouldn't be able to hold a point on targets ;) Now from doing **** poor DPS ill have to get closer to do the same DPS and get face raped, Sounds like FOTM when it comes in to fight vagabonds (other then more effective huggin/rapier dictor combo already out. I'll just adapt same way like every patch. _________________________________________________
Dingi223 University of Caille	Posted - 2008.03.15 07:01:00 - [176] Originally by: Goumindong There are five counters to TD's. More so for ACs than for blasters or lasers. These are Falloff rigs Getting closer Damps ECM non-turret dps These are all good points, but let's see: Requiring rigs to counter a single unbonused mod is not balanced. In addition, even after fitting 3 rigs (which stack), you still don't counter the single mod. Let alone the cost. Out of interest, if a mod were to do what these rigs do, why would they be unbalanced? Does that make the current rigs unbalanced, or is the ISK the balancing factor to you? Getting closer. Here I agree, but when that requires Minmatar to negate their racial bonuses by getting into web range (speed which you have posted many times in other threads, i.e. speed, not agility), then you effectively render certain ships useless. The worst affected are the ships that do not tank as well as the Gal / Amarr that are built to tank. The vaga is an extreme example that is often thrown about - I think nano ships like that are a problem, but breaking all turrets to fix a single ship seems flawed. Damps / ECM. I agree, using standard EWAR is an effective counter however all races have this option. All other races have TCs and TEs as a counter as well, with different results of success (Minmatar is affected most). Why should that exist? You have been shown numbers than 3x gyro is more effective than 2x gyro and TE, but you still think this change will be over-powered? You have yet to show numbers, even in the 22 page marathon thread. And yes, I've read all 22 pages. Non-turret dps. You're kidding. Minmatar, which use projectile turrents (ACs and Art), have a solution to use missiles and drones instead, or even lasers. Wow, that's balanced. I don't understand why you are so against TCs and TEs countering the TDs, especially when as Amarr, TCs and TEs are currently an effective counter. Changes to TCs and TEs have not been proved to over-power Minmatar beyond you saying so, and if one wishes to cry that TDs were overlooked before for not impacting falloff, then it's a valid cry that TCs and TEs right now are overlooked for the exact same reason. TDs description: Disrupts the turret range and tracking speed of the target ship. TCs description: By predicting the trajectory of targets, it helps to boost the tracking speed and range of turrets. Pray tell why you think one should impact falloff, and the other not?
Goumindong Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.03.15 07:14:00 - [177] Originally by: Dingi223 ... lasers and blasters dont even have the option of rigs. Its really not a huge deal, this coming from someone who almost exclusively uses lasers. Minmatar racial advantage is not speed, its versatility. Speed is only a component of that. Not all minmatar ships want to stay out of web range all the time, and the ones that do only want do so, only want to do so because doing so means they have near zero risk of dieing. If the ship is then rendered useless i would wonder what you consider the ability of the vagabond to be faster than the deimos does to the deimos, except redners it useless because it cannot deal damage to the vagabond. Actually the numbers showed the opposite, that the 1te+2gryo outperformed the 3gyro setups in most instances. Quote: I don't understand why you are so against TCs and TEs countering the TDs, especially when as Amarr, TCs and TEs are currently an effective counter If med slots and low slots are worth more than rig slots[and make no mistake, they are]. And lasers are able to "effectivly counter" TD's with tracking enhancers and computers. How in the world is minmatar not able to counter TD's with rig slots when the tradeoffs for the rig slots are explicitly a better trade off than the med or low slots? A: They aren't and you are wrong. Non turret DPS: Minmatar have the most of this and it is the least vulnerable to types of damage reduction like killing drones. I would point you to the fit-able launcher slots on the rifter, rupture, hurricane, cyclone, phoon, pest, rapier, huginn, vagabond, muninn, bellicose and stabber. Quote: Pray tell why you think one should impact falloff, and the other not? Because they are fundamentally different modules doing fundamentally different jobs.
Vaal Erit Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2008.03.15 08:26:00 - [178] Don't kid anyone, Goumindoug, if you are in a minmatar falloff boat and you are hit with bonused TDs, then you are just done. You also are probably going to have a hard time for example killing anything with 30 m3 of drones and 2 unbonused HMLs (a cane with all turrets TD'd to nothing) But, this is completely fine and balanced! If amarr ships get wtf jacked by optimal TDs, then minmatar falloff boats should get wtf jacked by falloff TDs. I've had my Vaga TD'd to 400 optimal and below 2000m falloff and that is completely fine. TCs with a falloff script isn't going to help s*#^, if you are in a falloff boat and you are hit by bonused TD, welp you need your friends to take that out asap. just like vs any other ewar ship.
Norwood Franskly Fleet of the Damned United Freemen Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.15 08:51:00 - [179] The hurricane is ok because you can fit a decent armor tank on it and come into web range to fight, although something like a Brutix is still much better at this as it does more damage up close. The Stabber and vagabond are whats being hurt as these need the falloff range, since it's almost impossible to mount an effective tank on them and doing so means your ignoring the ships bonus anyway. Serious pilots will start carrying These I think...
Dingi223 University of Caille	Posted - 2008.03.15 18:14:00 - [180] Originally by: Goumindong lasers and blasters dont even have the option of rigs. Its really not a huge deal, this coming from someone who almost exclusively uses lasers. So TCs and TEs counter TDs for Amarr, then there is no need for such a rig is there? In addition, these are cheaper. Originally by: Goumindong Minmatar racial advantage is not speed, its versatility. Speed is only a component of that. Gounindong, are you schizo? Here is your post from another Minmatar thread contradicting yourselfHere is the link to that thread if you wish, post #321. Versatility is not a strength, unless there is something in versatility that provides such. http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=722122&page=11 Originally by: haq aan ... 7. Minmatar MUST have the most agile ships in game. Originally by: Goumindong ... 7. No, they must have the fastest Originally by: Goumindong Actually the numbers showed the opposite, that the 1te+2gryo outperformed the 3gyro setups in most instances. Not true again. You seem to have a rather selective memory, here are the numbers from the 22 page post, post #346 if you wish to read. http://www.eve-search.com/thread/697098/page/12 To quote: "At normal engagement ranges @ 18-20km, the Tracking Enhancer/2 Gyrostabilizer Vagabond (should it provide 15% falloff) is doing around 9 DPS more than the 3 Gyrostabilizer Vaga. Under web range, the 3 Gyrostabilizer Vagabond is doing 43 more DPS than TE/2Gyro against most targets, and about the same as the TE/2Gyro against speedy frigates due to tracking." I hardly see this as unbalanced. Instead, the TC / TE combination provides a reasonable option that is balanced with the current gyro. Please provide examples of your statement of where the 2/1 combination provided benefit in "most" examples, because "most" examples provided to you showed the opposite. Since a Vaga will fight @ the 18-20 km range, I fail to see a single example of your statement. You continue to make statements without any support or data. Quote: How in the world is minmatar not able to counter TD's with rig slots when the tradeoffs for the rig slots are explicitly a better trade off than the med or low slots? So wait, the other races can use TEs / TCs to counter, however Minmatar must use rigs? According to you, rig slots are worth less to a fit than mids or lows. Ok, so by your opinion, we have our counter in a rig (that costs several million) to counter a single unbonused module (that costs less than a million). Sorry, my opinion is different. Quote: Non turret DPS: Minmatar have the most of this and it is the least vulnerable to types of damage reduction like killing drones. I'm sorry, what are you trying to say here? We have the most "non-turret DPS"? Surely Caldari do since they have missile boats? Or Gallente since they have drones. Or wait... what are you saying? That we have different ammo types that allow us to have improved PvE? Quote: I would point you to the fit-able launcher slots on the rifter, rupture, hurricane, cyclone, phoon, pest, rapier, huginn, vagabond, muninn, bellicose and stabber. OK, now you have lost credibility: Rifter: 3 turrets, 2 launchers (4 highs). So 50% launcher. Bonus = Projecticle Rupture: 4 turrets, 3 launchers (6 highs). So 50% launcher. Bonus = Projecticle Hurricane: 6 turrents, 3 launchers (8 highs). So 38% launcher. Bonus = Projecticle I stopped after the first 3, since it's clear that once you lose 50% of your firepower, and all your bonuses to this TD, you clearly miss "balance" Quote: Because they are fundamentally different modules doing fundamentally different jobs. Not according to CCPs description in my above thread. They are different modules that counter one another. Stop providing your opinion when the facts show otherwise. Read the description, both impact RANGE, both should impact falloff



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.