EVE Search - Why dont tracking comps/enhancers affect falloff?

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Why dont tracking comps/enhancers affect falloff?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Captin Corsair	Posted - 2008.12.16 14:37:00 - [1] tracking disrupters got falloff added at an equal strength as long falloff ships could still hit effectivly (auto cannons) while webbed and tracking disrupted. Yet there is no way other than rigs, to boost falloff. Thus there is no counter. So how come tracking comps didnt get falloff modifiers when disrupters did?
Akyla Bears Inc	Posted - 2008.12.16 14:43:00 - [2] Actually... you have a valid point there. I mean, I can see why disruptors were given the ability to reduce falloff. That's only fair. But it leaves anyone using falloff without an option to counter that. ________________________________ All your honey are belong to us!
Ravenal The Fated	Posted - 2008.12.16 14:59:00 - [3] Start the bandwagon! .
SecHaul	Posted - 2008.12.16 15:23:00 - [4] There was a thread about this when the change was made to TDs. To put it bluntly, people argued that increasing falloff provides too large an advantage to autocannons, however apparently it's completely balanced that lasers get this massive buff to already huge optimal windows. Tracking disruptor thread
Akyla Bears Inc	Posted - 2008.12.17 16:33:00 - [5] So basically something is needed to restore the balance, right? ________________________________ All your honey are belong to us!
Captin Corsair	Posted - 2008.12.17 16:41:00 - [6] unfortunatly: people dont really care. Yes there is an imballence, like there is with faction modules, various ship classes etc. unlike the generation game, pionts dont win prizes. (i have a piont, but without 7346596596 whiners to back you up), you go home empty handed ;p
SecHaul	Posted - 2008.12.17 16:46:00 - [7] I personally think the TC's and TE's should impact optimal and falloff, just as TD's impact optimal and falloff. But that is my opinion. From what I recall, 3x gyro has more impact than 2x gyro + 1x TE under 20km odd, and 2x gyro make more sense than 1x gyro and 1x TE. I also do not see it unbalancing snipers, it's not like Minmatar could use some help with their snipers, we all know how arty is the preferred sniping fit...
Ghoest	Posted - 2008.12.17 19:16:00 - [8] ccp hates minmatar If you think corp is different than a guild or clan you have some insecurity issues.
Naomi Knight Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2008.12.17 19:19:00 - [9] Minmatar is already too powerfull. Most ammo dont change falloff too.
Karl Luckner	Posted - 2008.12.17 19:23:00 - [10] Yes, said modules should increase falloff. Btw, falloff is useful for Blasters, too.
Naomi Knight Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2008.12.17 19:40:00 - [11] Originally by: Karl Luckner Yes, said modules should increase falloff. Btw, falloff is useful for Blasters, too. no blaster ship pilot would fit these mods for better falloff...
Elhina Novae Ginnungagaps Rymdfarargille Blade.	Posted - 2008.12.17 19:52:00 - [12] Edited by: Elhina Novae on 17/12/2008 19:54:38 Why not script Tracking Enhancers / Tracking Computers?? Tracking Enhancer II -No Script: 7.5% Fall-Off Range Bonus 7.5% Optimal Range Bonus 9.5% Tracking Speed Bonus -Fall-off Script: 15% Fall-Off Range Bonus 9.5% Tracking Speed Bonus *-Optimal Script:* 15% Optimal Range Bonus 9.5% Tracking Speed Bonus ------------------------- Tracking Computer II -No Script: 10% Tracking Speed Bonus 5% Optimal Range Bonus 5% Fall-Off Range Bonus -Fall-Off Script: 15% Fall-Off Range Bonus -Optimal Range Script: 15% Optimal Range Bonus *-Tracking Bonus Script:* 30% Tracking Speed Bonus For people who relies on optimal range, nothing is changed, but Fall-Off people can actually use these modules and get benefit from them! Thoughts, ideas? ------------ Originally by: Boz Well Originally by: SurrenderMonkey ... There's an Amarr problem? Nothing that can't be solved by more Minmatar nerfs.
PsychoBones Project Nemesis	Posted - 2008.12.17 20:09:00 - [13] Edited by: PsychoBones on 17/12/2008 20:09:02 It's the price Minmatar pay for being so goddamn sexy. That's the only logical explanation.
Elhina Novae Ginnungagaps Rymdfarargille Blade.	Posted - 2008.12.17 21:18:00 - [14] Originally by: PsychoBones Edited by: PsychoBones on 17/12/2008 20:09:02 It's the price Minmatar pay for being so goddamn sexy. That's the only logical explanation. Has got to be your sunglasses ------------ Originally by: Boz Well Originally by: SurrenderMonkey ... There's an Amarr problem? Nothing that can't be solved by more Minmatar nerfs.
Karl Luckner	Posted - 2008.12.17 21:24:00 - [15] Edited by: Karl Luckner on 17/12/2008 21:24:28 Originally by: PsychoBones Edited by: PsychoBones on 17/12/2008 20:09:02 It's the price Minmatar pay for being so goddamn sexy. That's the only logical explanation. Sexy ? A look at Brutor women, and one understands why the Minmatar Gay Rights League exists in the first place.
Vaal Erit Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2008.12.17 21:27:00 - [16] I dunno, people started saying how a falloff TC would be a mid slot damage mod for autocannon ships, while it is completely balanced for optimal ships even though optimal >>>>>falloff. No clue in how that makes any sense. Basically it is a non-issue for TCs as who wants to put a TC falloff on a minmatar ship, mid slots are better used with other mods. A falloff TE would be not awesome, but only fair. Us matars are used to getting the short end of the stick. -- http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html
Lego Maniac Minmatar	Posted - 2008.12.17 21:59:00 - [17] I've started my own thread on this issue previously, but matar haters like naomi and ccp apparently don't care falloff needs to be rebalanced
TimMc Gallente Brutal Deliverance OWN Alliance	Posted - 2008.12.17 22:04:00 - [18] Originally by: Ghoest ccp hates minmatar This tbh.
SecHaul	Posted - 2008.12.18 01:37:00 - [19] Originally by: Vaal Erit I dunno, people started saying how a falloff TC would be a mid slot damage mod for autocannon ships, while it is completely balanced for optimal ships even though optimal >>>>>falloff. No clue in how that makes any sense. Basically it is a non-issue for TCs as who wants to put a TC falloff on a minmatar ship, mid slots are better used with other mods. A falloff TE would be not awesome, but only fair. Us matars are used to getting the short end of the stick. I agree with all points here. * The argument that an increase in falloff is a direct damage increase is because Minmatar fight in falloff. So in other words, when we are fighting in falloff with 50% of EFT DPS, and we get a 10% increase to falloff and therefore damage to get back up to 60%, that is apparently unbalanced. * The argument that boosted falloff will allow us to use higher ammo types is also flawed, lasers have the exact same ability, however can change crystals instantaneously, and they benefit the most from current TE's / TC's * Fitting a mid-slot mod isn't going to happen except on specialized fits. I see more use for the TE's, however more on Artillery boats. I don't know, but I think Minmatar need a boost to our sniping platforms. I would love to see this change, it would definitely help out ships that fight deep in falloff (stabber, vaga) and our artillery boats.
fuxinos Caldari Guys 0f Sarcasm	Posted - 2008.12.18 03:23:00 - [20] Edited by: fuxinos on 18/12/2008 03:25:30 Edited by: fuxinos on 18/12/2008 03:24:44 Originally by: Akyla Actually... you have a valid point there. I mean, I can see why disruptors were given the ability to reduce falloff. That's only fair. But it leaves anyone using falloff without an option to counter that. Missiles dont have a module like tracking enhancers for explovelocity or missilespeed either, so stop talking about fairness. Before you get a falloff enhancer, i want a counterpart for missiles first!
SecHaul	Posted - 2008.12.18 04:45:00 - [21] Originally by: fuxinos Edited by: fuxinos on 18/12/2008 03:25:30 Edited by: fuxinos on 18/12/2008 03:24:44 Originally by: Akyla Actually... you have a valid point there. I mean, I can see why disruptors were given the ability to reduce falloff. That's only fair. But it leaves anyone using falloff without an option to counter that. Missiles dont have a module like tracking enhancers for explovelocity or missilespeed either, so stop talking about fairness. Before you get a falloff enhancer, i want a counterpart for missiles first! Hmm... * Webs will reduce speed, therefore helping the effectiveness of explosive velocity against a slower target * Target painters increase sig radius, therefore helping explosion radius against a bigger target * Missile speed doesn't do anything except help missiles fly further, and they already fire a very, very long way. There are no modules to counter missiles except speed and sig radius, since defenders don't work. Since there are no mods to reduce missile effectiveness, I'm not sure what more ewar you want than above to make them more effective?
Lego Maniac Minmatar	Posted - 2008.12.18 05:09:00 - [22] Originally by: fuxinos Edited by: fuxinos on 18/12/2008 03:25:30 Edited by: fuxinos on 18/12/2008 03:24:44 Originally by: Akyla Actually... you have a valid point there. I mean, I can see why disruptors were given the ability to reduce falloff. That's only fair. But it leaves anyone using falloff without an option to counter that. Missiles dont have a module like tracking enhancers for explovelocity or missilespeed either, so stop talking about fairness. Before you get a falloff enhancer, i want a counterpart for missiles first! then you shall also get a missile velocity/max flight time negation module too, so stfu
fuxinos Caldari Guys 0f Sarcasm	Posted - 2008.12.18 05:17:00 - [23] Edited by: fuxinos on 18/12/2008 05:23:36 Originally by: SecHaul Originally by: fuxinos Edited by: fuxinos on 18/12/2008 03:25:30 Edited by: fuxinos on 18/12/2008 03:24:44 Originally by: Akyla Actually... you have a valid point there. I mean, I can see why disruptors were given the ability to reduce falloff. That's only fair. But it leaves anyone using falloff without an option to counter that. Missiles dont have a module like tracking enhancers for explovelocity or missilespeed either, so stop talking about fairness. Before you get a falloff enhancer, i want a counterpart for missiles first! Hmm... * Webs will reduce speed, therefore helping the effectiveness of explosive velocity against a slower target * Target painters increase sig radius, therefore helping explosion radius against a bigger target * Missile speed doesn't do anything except help missiles fly further, and they already fire a very, very long way. There are no modules to counter missiles except speed and sig radius, since defenders don't work. Since there are no mods to reduce missile effectiveness, I'm not sure what more ewar you want than above to make them more effective? * Webs help turrets to track their target better. * Target Painter helps turrets to track their target better as well. * t1 torps have less range then Mega Pulse II. So, if you go by that, there is no need for a Tracking Enhancer either. Ç: Im not saying that they shouldnt boost Defenders, thats out of question, but to nerf missiles instead of boosting Defenders, IS stupid. In my opinion, missiles always been in line with turrets, just their counter wasnt.
goodby4u Valor Inc.	Posted - 2008.12.18 07:39:00 - [24] This was something brought up when the idea of TDs bashing falloff was put in place and ccp did nothing about it. Personally I never fly minmatar now do I use TDs often so I have no say in the matter past the above.
Aeo IV Amarr Xomic OmniCorporation	Posted - 2008.12.18 08:55:00 - [25] Well, other then the pure balance arguments here, a falloff is suppose to repersent the range in which the ammo stops being accurate, a TD could in theory disrupt the ammo faster, but most ammo is probably at a max anyways. While I wouldn't mind seeing a module to decrease the effects of TD's effect on the falloff, I doubt a fall off increasing module would be of any use.
Typhado3 Minmatar Ashen Lion Mining and Production Consortium Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.12.18 09:55:00 - [26] Edited by: Typhado3 on 18/12/2008 09:58:50 Originally by: PsychoBones Edited by: PsychoBones on 17/12/2008 20:09:02 It's the price Minmatar pay for being so goddamn sexy. That's the only logical explanation. well **** I screwed up character selection then also /signed ccp fix mining agent missions % pls
SecHaul	Posted - 2008.12.18 14:06:00 - [27] Edited by: SecHaul on 18/12/2008 14:07:32 Originally by: fuxinos * Webs help turrets to track their target better. * Target Painter helps turrets to track their target better as well. * t1 torps have less range then Mega Pulse II. So, if you go by that, there is no need for a Tracking Enhancer either. Ç: Im not saying that they shouldnt boost Defenders, thats out of question, but to nerf missiles instead of boosting Defenders, IS stupid. In my opinion, missiles always been in line with turrets, just their counter wasnt. The issue is not about tracking, hence webs and target painters do not help the issue at hand at all. The issue is about autocannons have 6km of optimal when using the biggest AC turret available, and 1km when the smallest, unlike missiles which can fire over 150km with no penalty due to falloff. Secondly, the issue is about autocannons, and blasters, not lasers. Lasers have 90% optimal, and 10% falloff. They already hugely benefit from TC's and TE's which only impact optimal. So your comparison of torps (short range) vs. Mega Pulse is only appropriate if you are attempting to agree with us. Further, we have a module which reduces both optimal and falloff, what module disrupts missiles again? Oh that's right, there isn't one. I understand you are unhappy about missile changes, however you are attempting to input a Caldari whine here and are making statements that are not linked to the issue at hand. If you do not think TC's / TE's impacting falloff is a good idea, give a reason why.
BiggestT Caldari Resurrection Skunk-Works	Posted - 2008.12.18 14:45:00 - [28] Originally by: Naomi Knight Minmatar is already too powerfull. Most ammo dont change falloff too. But their guns are capless!!11! EVE history t2 precisions
BiggestT Caldari Resurrection Skunk-Works	Posted - 2008.12.18 14:48:00 - [29] Originally by: Ghoest ccp hates minmatar Well, they used to hate caldari, and that situation was much worse. Were still the bastard children of EVE, but I think a ccp employee got yelled out by his wife who just so happens to play eve with a minmi toon.. Lets jsut say the focus has left us a little :D (And yes I just said bastard child) EVE history t2 precisions
sdthujfg	Posted - 2008.12.18 15:36:00 - [30] Maybe because that would seriously imbalance some minmatar ships?

Pages: [1] 2 :: 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.