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?
Akyla Bears Inc	Posted - 2008.12.18 16:33:00 - [31] Originally by: sdthujfg Maybe because that would seriously imbalance some minmatar ships? That's not an answer to the question. Also, you could at least add what kind of imbalance you mean so we can look for another solution. ________________________________ All your honey are belong to us!
Captin Corsair	Posted - 2008.12.18 16:43:00 - [32] Originally by: sdthujfg Maybe because that would seriously imbalance some minmatar ships? Imagine lasers with there insane optimals and instant switching crystals had some form of med AND low slot that boosted their insane opt even more! oh yeah they already do, and the lowest opt, highest falloff weapons get the least out of a TC or TE - adding falloff to the attributes just means they will have slightly better (but still very low compared wiht high opt weapons) better dmg. so if i increase the falloff by 15% i only increase my dmg in that extra zone by a few%. not a big deal to 3 quarters of eve, but everything to the last remianing slice - the minmatar.
Derek Sigres	Posted - 2008.12.18 16:47:00 - [33] Originally by: Akyla Originally by: sdthujfg Maybe because that would seriously imbalance some minmatar ships? That's not an answer to the question. Also, you could at least add what kind of imbalance you mean so we can look for another solution. Well, it's interesting that in the entire game there are really only two TRUE short ranged weapon systems - autocannons and blasters. Both systems have relatively long falloff areas, meaning it's incredibly difficult to boost their range significantly without continuing to fight in falloff. Much of the game seems to be balanced around the principle that there ought to be strict differentiation between short ranged weapons and fighting styles and longer ranged weapons and fighting styles but in reality we find that's more or less a bunch of crap. Scorch crystals for example give pulse laser users the ability to dramatically extend their weapon's optimal range without sacrificing much in the way of theoritical DPS. Missile users get the benefit of javelin missiles that substantially increase the effective range of the weapon systems at a relatively small loss in DPS (over normal T1 munitions). Out of the close range weapons you'll find that only two of them are forced to be entirely based around short ranged combat. The other two can certainly fight at medium and longer ranges quite effeciently. I don't see how it's going to provide an imbalance if you allow the tracking enhancers/computers to extend falloff range. Afterall, the Zealot delivers brutal DPS out to medium range without doing anything but swapping crystals - saying that the Vagabond would suddenly become all powerful when it's going to be fighting in falloff at the same range (AND doing less on paper dps to boot) is kinda silly.
sdthujfg	Posted - 2008.12.18 17:59:00 - [34] Edited by: sdthujfg on 18/12/2008 17:59:14 Originally by: Akyla Originally by: sdthujfg Maybe because that would seriously imbalance some minmatar ships? That's not an answer to the question. Also, you could at least add what kind of imbalance you mean so we can look for another solution. Vagabond for example right now is balancing on the edge of extreme power already. You want to boost it further? It won't happen.
sdthujfg	Posted - 2008.12.18 18:00:00 - [35] Originally by: Captin Corsair Originally by: sdthujfg Maybe because that would seriously imbalance some minmatar ships? Imagine lasers with there insane optimals and instant switching crystals had some form of med AND low slot that boosted their insane opt even more! oh yeah they already do, and the lowest opt, highest falloff weapons get the least out of a TC or TE - adding falloff to the attributes just means they will have slightly better (but still very low compared wiht high opt weapons) better dmg. so if i increase the falloff by 15% i only increase my dmg in that extra zone by a few%. not a big deal to 3 quarters of eve, but everything to the last remianing slice - the minmatar. Minmatar have the fastest ships of all races! That's imbalanced! This is pretty much your way of logic when it comes to balancing...
Letifer Deus A Astroid Belt Lotto Syndicate	Posted - 2008.12.18 18:05:00 - [36] Originally by: sdthujfg Vagabond for example right now is balancing on the edge of extreme power already. You want to boost it further? It won't happen. The funny thing is, if TC/TEs currently boosted only falloff and this thread were about adding optimal, someone would say exactly what you are saying, but about the zealot. And it would probably be posted with a random letter alt, like you. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Brought to you by the letter ARRR!"
sdthujfg	Posted - 2008.12.18 18:51:00 - [37] Originally by: Letifer Deus Originally by: sdthujfg Vagabond for example right now is balancing on the edge of extreme power already. You want to boost it further? It won't happen. The funny thing is, if TC/TEs currently boosted only falloff and this thread were about adding optimal, someone would say exactly what you are saying, but about the zealot. And it would probably be posted with a random letter alt, like you. You think zealot right now without TEs/TCs affecting fall-off is as powerful as a vagabond right now? It's not.
Captator Universal Securities Pirate Coalition	Posted - 2008.12.18 19:19:00 - [38] Originally by: sdthujfg Originally by: Letifer Deus Originally by: sdthujfg Vagabond for example right now is balancing on the edge of extreme power already. You want to boost it further? It won't happen. The funny thing is, if TC/TEs currently boosted only falloff and this thread were about adding optimal, someone would say exactly what you are saying, but about the zealot. And it would probably be posted with a random letter alt, like you. You think zealot right now without TEs/TCs affecting fall-off is as powerful as a vagabond right now? It's not. Because falloff is so uber that it cannot be boosted right? This would be the equivalent of an ambit rig, but as a midslot module, ambit rigs are wildly overpowered right now aren't they, what with the massive decreases of dps into falloff, and the range at which your dps ceases to matter being massively further away.... I have flown both ships, 1v1 the zealot against a standard vaga cannot lose, in gang the zealot is better at delivering anti-support dps, better buffer, better whatever you fit it for, vaga can run away faster, and can shoot under neuting, almost overpowered isn't it ....
sdthujfg	Posted - 2008.12.18 19:26:00 - [39] Originally by: Captator Because falloff is so uber that it cannot be boosted right? This would be the equivalent of an ambit rig, but as a midslot module, ambit rigs are wildly overpowered right now aren't they, what with the massive decreases of dps into falloff, and the range at which your dps ceases to matter being massively further away.... I have flown both ships, 1v1 the zealot against a standard vaga cannot lose, in gang the zealot is better at delivering anti-support dps, better buffer, better whatever you fit it for, vaga can run away faster, and can shoot under neuting, almost overpowered isn't it .... Sorry but you are utterly retrded if you can't beat a zealot in a vaga. (Hint, 5xEC300 vs a zealot is a dead zealot.) Bravo you fail at eve. Besides you really avoided the issue here. The vaga right now is a REALLY REALLY good ship. Any boost will make it overpowered. The zealot today WITHOUT any TEs/TCs would not be anything near as poweful as a vaga today. Get it yet? What you did in your fail post is that you totally ignored EVERYTHING that makes a ship good and ONLY commented on ONE particular thing the ship has as a downside: Fall off. Bravo, you fail.
Captator Universal Securities Pirate Coalition	Posted - 2008.12.18 19:35:00 - [40] Originally by: sdthujfg Sorry but you are utterly retrded if you can't beat a zealot in a vaga. (Hint, 5xEC300 vs a zealot is a dead zealot.) Bravo you fail at eve. Besides you really avoided the issue here. The vaga right now is a REALLY REALLY good ship. Any boost will make it overpowered. The zealot today WITHOUT any TEs/TCs would not be anything near as poweful as a vaga today. Get it yet? What you did in your fail post is that you totally ignored EVERYTHING that makes a ship good and ONLY commented on ONE particular thing the ship has as a downside: Fall off. Bravo, you fail. My zealot can survive a vaga long enough to kill it even with ecm drones, but that is besides the point somewhat; you ignored that this change would give you the choice of dropping an LSE for an effective ambit rig (which will stack with any actual ambit rigs you fit), so the actual change in effectiveness is miniscule. It certainly doesn't grant it any more role niches than it already has, and arguably wouldn't ever be fit due to the premium on midslots. You fail I think.
Enkimdu	Posted - 2008.12.18 22:30:00 - [41] Originally by: sdthujfg Vagabond for example right now is balancing on the edge of extreme power already. You want to boost it further? It won't happen. Have you ever flown the vagabond? Any minmatar pilot I have ever talked to say that the vagabond is utter **** now, and I have to agree with them. It doesnt do that much dps, its range is ridiculous, and it cant outrun anything anymore. Where is the "edge of extreme power"? It might have been good before nano nerf, but it isnt now
sdthujfg	Posted - 2008.12.18 22:35:00 - [42] Originally by: Captator My zealot can survive a vaga long enough to kill it even with ecm drones, but that is besides the point somewhat; y Yes, if the vagabond is a noob and doesn't use ecm drones on you. A well fit pvp vaga with ecm drones will rip a zealot apart any day. AND YES HE CAN GET UNDER YOUR GUNS. You fail. Ganking vaga noobs in your zealot doesn't count. You just have no clue.
sdthujfg	Posted - 2008.12.18 22:37:00 - [43] Originally by: Enkimdu Have you ever flown the vagabond? Any minmatar pilot I have ever talked to say that the vagabond is utter ** now, and I have to agree with them. It doesnt do that much dps, its range is ridiculous, and it cant outrun anything anymore. Where is the "edge of extreme power"? It might have been good before nano nerf, but it isnt now Are you friggin kidding me? The vagabond is extremly good right now. Your buddies must be failing epically or are a bunch of noob whine tards incapable of fitting good pvp ships. People who say vaga is utter ** right now should uninstall eve and go play something more simple like mariocart.
fuxinos Caldari Guys 0f Sarcasm	Posted - 2008.12.18 22:50:00 - [44] Originally by: SecHaul 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. You should read properly before you post, neither did i say that falloff enhancer is a bad idea, nor did i turn this into a missile whine thread. I just stated that i would like to have a module like this for missiles before you get a falloff enhancer and that it would be unfair if not (if you get one), then someoneelse argued with me about missiles being ok. I just reacted on his post. And btw, missiles have a counter, maybe you should start playing eve too, before you post.
Suitonia Gallente interimo	Posted - 2008.12.19 00:00:00 - [45] This would be a good change in my opinion. It would also be quite handy to Gallente blaster pilots as well.
Nian Banks Minmatar Berserkers of Aesir	Posted - 2008.12.19 00:24:00 - [46] As a reminder to all you EFT WarriorZ, when fighting in falloff, hit quality is also affected, its not just the chance to hit unlike what was believed only a few short months ago. Because of that, what was considered to be a reduction in dps to 50% actually is a reduction to 33% dps. When all you EFT lamers look at the theoretical DPS you look at it when your at optimal, now try and argue that any blaster or AC is overpowered if you drop your numbers to 33%. I doubt you can, to be fair I doubt you can do maths but try anyway. The addition of a falloff bonus to Tracking Enhancers, Tracking Computers and Tracking Links is only fair. Its not imbalanced and it sure as heck is not going to implode your little petty world.
Cyrus Brown	Posted - 2008.12.19 00:36:00 - [47] I would like to see tracking computers & enhancers affect optimal & falloff.
Captator Universal Securities Pirate Coalition	Posted - 2008.12.19 01:00:00 - [48] Originally by: sdthujfg Originally by: Captator My zealot can survive a vaga long enough to kill it even with ecm drones, but that is besides the point somewhat; y Yes, if the vagabond is a noob and doesn't use ecm drones on you. A well fit pvp vaga with ecm drones will rip a zealot apart any day. AND YES HE CAN GET UNDER YOUR GUNS. You fail. Ganking vaga noobs in your zealot doesn't count. You just have no clue. Bolded the bit you didn't seem to read, and yes, an AB fit scram fit vaga could get under my guns, but an AB fit scram fit vaga couldn't a) catch me, or b) prevent me from warping off easily before he got into scram range. If you are referring to an MWD disruptor vaga you are wrong.
Enkimdu	Posted - 2008.12.19 11:51:00 - [49] Originally by: fuxinos You should read properly before you post, neither did i say that falloff enhancer is a bad idea, nor did i turn this into a missile whine thread. I just stated that i would like to have a module like this for missiles before you get a falloff enhancer and that it would be unfair if not (if you get one), then someoneelse argued with me about missiles being ok. I just reacted on his post. And btw, missiles have a counter, maybe you should start playing eve too, before you post. You want fallof range for missiles too? Lets say, 50% of your missile range = fallof and then 50% of the missiles miss and detonate on their own. I would like too see that one. I really dont understand the people whining about ":ZOMG missiles are so nerfed, they are useless", talk about AC's or blasters. That is what is nerfed. Im pretty sure gankraven will kick gankmega in the teeth and there is nothing the mega can do.
fkingfurious	Posted - 2008.12.19 12:38:00 - [50] If you go by EFT DPS graphs and the tracking guide thingy on the Eve-O site (and using some good eyesight) at 70% Falloff you do 23% (ish) more DPS than you would at your maximum Falloff range. As a result fitting a 30% Falloff mod (which is the same bonus as TE/TC's give to optimal) should result in a 23% DPS increase at your former max optimal+falloff range.(Add 30% to your falloff and your current range is now 30% closer to your optimal than previously).In the case of an unrigged Vagabond for example that range would be about 23-25KM depending on skills. At that range fitting a Falloff mod would give you a 23% increase to DPS. If you take EFT DPS graphs as gospel (they might not be but I sure as **** cba to test it) the damage degradation between Optimal range and Optimal + Falloff range is linear (more or less) so that 23% DPS increase should apply across all ranges inside Optimal+Falloff. Therefore, if my maths is reasonably accurate (it may not be) a 30% Falloff mod is equal to a 23% damage boost in your first order Falloff range, which would actually make it exceedingly desirable on AC ships. If my memory of the stacking formula is accurate that would actually make a TE a better module for a damage boost than a 3rd Gyrostab. Ergo, any AC ship running 3 gyros would by default fit 2x Gyro and a TE. HOWEVER, beyond those AC ships that are running 3 Gyrostabs I can only think of one ship, the Tempest with it's 5th mid, that could actually find space on a setup for a Tracking comp. A Vaga wouldn't fit one (it would of course load 2xgyro 1xTE), nor would a Sleipnir, Muninn/Rupture couldn't spare the mid in an AC config, nor probably could the Stabber, tho a Stabber fitting purely for DPS with Gyro's and TC's might work. Frigs are so short ranged anyway they're not really worth cinsidering. As for Artillery, meh, I really can't be bothered to think about it.
Captator Universal Securities Pirate Coalition	Posted - 2008.12.19 13:59:00 - [51] Originally by: fkingfurious If you go by EFT DPS graphs and the tracking guide thingy on the Eve-O site (and using some good eyesight) at 70% Falloff you do 23% (ish) more DPS than you would at your maximum Falloff range. As a result fitting a 30% Falloff mod (which is the same bonus as TE/TC's give to optimal) should result in a 23% DPS increase at your former max optimal+falloff range.(Add 30% to your falloff and your current range is now 30% closer to your optimal than previously).In the case of an unrigged Vagabond for example that range would be about 23-25KM depending on skills. At that range fitting a Falloff mod would give you a 23% increase to DPS. If you take EFT DPS graphs as gospel (they might not be but I sure as ** cba to test it) the damage degradation between Optimal range and Optimal + Falloff range is linear (more or less) so that 23% DPS increase should apply across all ranges inside Optimal+Falloff. Therefore, if my maths is reasonably accurate (it may not be) a 30% Falloff mod is equal to a 23% damage boost in your first order Falloff range, which would actually make it exceedingly desirable on AC ships. If my memory of the stacking formula is accurate that would actually make a TE a better module for a damage boost than a 3rd Gyrostab. Ergo, any AC ship running 3 gyros would by default fit 2x Gyro and a TE. HOWEVER, beyond those AC ships that are running 3 Gyrostabs I can only think of one ship, the Tempest with it's 5th mid, that could actually find space on a setup for a Tracking comp. A Vaga wouldn't fit one (it would of course load 2xgyro 1xTE), nor would a Sleipnir, Muninn/Rupture couldn't spare the mid in an AC config, nor probably could the Stabber, tho a Stabber fitting purely for DPS with Gyro's and TC's might work. Frigs are so short ranged anyway they're not really worth cinsidering. As for Artillery, meh, I really can't be bothered to think about it. Having looked at the dps graphs in eft, of a vaga with 2 gyro 1 TE and 1 ambit rig (15% gain not 30% gain to optimal, so 15% gain to falloff) to simulate the extra falloff, compared to a 3 gyro vaga without ambit rigs (both without damage drones), the 3 gyro vaga does more damage till 20km**, at which point the 2 gyro/TE/ambit vaga takes over and has a 15->50% dps advantage (increasing as distance increases), corresponding to a 40->10 dps advantage out to 60km (at which point I don't think the 30 dps generated is going to be much of a threat. So it would be pointless to fit a TE with falloff gains to a vaga instead of a 3rd gyro, even more so if you consider the stacking with any ambit rigs you might fit, as in most of your fighting range you lose damage, and in raw damage terms, you don't gain much beyond 20km. It would be even less effective to fit a tracking computer, as you don't gain a boost to both tracking and optimal (or if you do the gain is halved over a tracking enhancer) and you lose a LSE. Ships this would benefit with AC fits include the sleipnir (now that it isn't nanoed as much), the tempest and maelstrom (spare mid and low respectively), and a shield buffered hurricane. TEs that gave a falloff bonus would benefit artillery at all ranges, tracking computers with falloff script would only bonus closer ranged ammos such as quake and RF EMP, as falloff comprises such a large part of their range, but that is hardly a bad thing, as they currently suck, not getting anywhere near the damage of the other sniper battleships at a given range, due to them having lower dps and then entering falloff.

Pages: 1 2 :: [one 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.