|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
Ravoc
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 14:21:00 -
[1]
A zealot with tank, mwd, web, scram and 5 Heavy Beams or 5 Heavy Pulse is perfectly fitable and viable in use. |
Ravoc
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 14:41:00 -
[2]
As for the TD changes, I have to agree with strive nails.
A tracking disruptor is the counterpart of a tracking computer. The former lowers tracking and/or optimal, the latter raises them. The addition of a 3rd factor (falloff) should be done to both modules, for the sake of balance.
Also, if such changes are made, it would be in line with their current versions to foresee another ARM script for the falloff factor.
Put simple: - If you focus on range and you face/play amarr, you load the optimal script - If you focus on range and you face/play minmatar, you load the falloff script - If you focus on range and you face/play gallente, you keep the module unloaded. - If you focus on tracking, you load the tracking script.
|
Ravoc
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 15:02:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Takeshi Yamato Disagree with that. The optimal script is supposed to reduce the range of turrets, and it does just that when it lowers optimal and falloff. Nothing more nothing less. The fact that it affects two stats of is simply because turret range derives from the combination of two stats, optimal and falloff.
You're right. Didn't think of the joint effect. But in that case the optimal script in a tracking computer must also boost falloff as well as optimal.
|
Ravoc
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 17:58:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Nope, and do you know why? ACs arent balanced around their dps at their optimal. To put that short: we dont want AC boats sticking dmg mods in mids and lows that dont stack nerf with gyros.
Have you even once compared ACs, Blasters and Pulses?
You'll find that ACs are easily the weakest of all because they never make full damage due to having to fight in falloff. The only thing a minmatar pilot can play out is a bit better tracking. Blasters on the other hand are pretty much overpowered entirely as their higher damage modifier more than compensates the partial falloff zone.
If anything, a tracking computer should even boost falloff more than optimal, to at least keep the damage loss due to falloff on par with laser's optimals.
And if you are concerned with tracking computers being used as damage mods, an Amarr ship usually has much more low slots anyway, which can be used for real damage mods. |
Ravoc
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 20:41:00 -
[5]
Stats of the large heavy short range turrets: 800mm Repeating Artillery II optimal: 4800m / 3000m with skills & EMP L (20em, 16ex, 8ki - 44 total) falloff: 16000m / 20000m with skills tracking: 0.0432 dam mod: 3.234
Neutron Blaster Cannon II optimal: 7200m / 4500m with skills & Antimatter Charge L (28ki, 20th - 48 total) falloff: 10000m / 12500m with skills tracking: 0.0433 dam mod: 4.2
Mega Pulse Laser II optimal: 24000m / 15000m with skills & Multifrequency L (28em, 20th - 48 total) falloff: 8000m / 10000m with skills tracking: 0.03375 dam mod: 3.6
Now, let's add 2 tracking disruptors (-40% optimal & falloff each) and 2 tracking computers (+15% optimal each), disregarding stacking penalties: 800mm Repeating Artillery II optimal: 1428m with skills & EMP L falloff: 7200m with skills
Neutron Blaster Cannon II optimal: 2142m with skills & Antimatter Charge L falloff: 4500m with skills
Mega Pulse Laser II optimal: 7142m with skills & Multifrequency L falloff: 3600m with skills
Not counting any skills or modifiers on tracking and damage modifier, an amarrian boat can do full damage up to 7km, whereas a minmatar boat already loses 1/3 of his already inferior damage. A gallente boat is loses even more, but has a higher damage modifier to compensate. Both end up with an effective dam mod of around 2.1 while the amarrian stays unchanged at 3.6, that's 70% more damage, for only 20% less tracking!!
Now tell me how that is balanced?
|
Ravoc
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.02.09 23:36:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Ravoc on 09/02/2008 23:37:20 Let me give a practical example: Maelstrom vs Hyperion vs Abaddon, 2 disruptors (-40% optimal & falloff each), (edit) full skills
Maelstrom Optimal: 3000m / old disruptor: 1080m / new disruptor: 1080m Falloff: 20000m / old disruptor: 20000m / new disruptor: 7200m Tracking: 0.054 RoF: 4.253 Dam Mod: 5.114 DPS: 423 DPS @ 10km: old disruptor: 351 / new disruptor: 152
Hyperion Optimal 4500m / old disruptor: 1620m / new disruptor: 1620m Falloff 12500m / old disruptor: 12500m / new disruptor: 4500m Tracking 0.054 RoF 5.670 Dam Mod 8.302 DPS: 562 DPS @ 10km: old disruptor: 313 / new disruptor: 56
Abaddon Optimal: 15000m / old disruptor: 5400m / new disruptor: 5400m Falloff: 10000m / old disruptor: 10000m / new disruptor: 3600m Tracking: 0.042 RoF: 5.670 Dam Mod: 7.116 DPS: 482 DPS @ 10km: old disruptor: 410 / new disruptor: 241
Clearly the entire falloff factor on tracking disruptors is a very bad idea, and looking at the above, it pretty much kills gallente blaster ships.
|
Ravoc
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 01:50:00 -
[7]
I assumed a bs vs bs scenario, not bs vs recon. A Rook can easily beat all 3 either. Besides, a Pilgrim is prolly better of disrupting the tracking instead of the range. |
Ravoc
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 02:13:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Goumindong It is. But what Amarr or Gallente battleship can run 2 tracking disruptors with an mwd, web, and scram while not needing cap to fire its guns or run its tank?
A: The tempest
The Tempest is prolly the ****tiest bs ingame, despite its 5 med slots. :)
Why 2 tracking disruptors you wonder? To clearly illustrate the effects on a ship. I never said it has to be a true solo bs vs bs, if that kind of PvP still exists even. PvP is getting reduced to blob and alt wars anyway. A simple cov-ops or even something like a Sentinel can already be enough. |
Ravoc
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 02:43:00 -
[9]
The Sentinel doesn't matter. The point is that under the same conditions, Amarr becomes overpowered and Gallente underpowered. |
Ravoc
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 12:36:00 -
[10]
Sorry, but I can't take your word on that. Your holy love for the new I-win button doesn't make you that credible. |
|
Ravoc
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 14:00:00 -
[11]
No you didn't.
ACs against blasters? yes ACs/blasters against pulses? hardly |
Ravoc
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 14:09:00 -
[12]
ECM got nerfed in general strength for the sake of balance. Sensor Dampening got nerfed in general strength for the sake of balance. Now it's time to nerf Tracking Disruption in general strength too.
|
Ravoc
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.02.10 18:53:00 -
[13]
Fine, stay blind and expect a bunch more whine threads later on.
Anyway, I guess the dominix and amarr recons are going to be the new FOTM ...again! DTja vu anyone? |
Ravoc
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.02.11 20:26:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Wu Jiun Td's were nerfed with script introduction in the same way as damps. So get your facts straight before you come here crying.
Edit: Up to now pulses were the only close range weapons that suffered from range reduction in any noticeable way. That wasn't a balance problem now was it? But hey if poor minnies get ewared we need a nerf asap.
Not enough as you only need one effect (which is at full strength with the script), unlike the sensor boosters/dampeners.
Lasers do pretty much full damage over their whole range due to high optimal. Reducing that optimal will limit your target area but it will STILL allow you to do FULL damage at that shortened range. But both Blasters & ACs already LOSE damage after a few km due to lower optimals and higher falloffs. Blasters lose it more quickly then ACs, but ACs do least damage overall. Reducing that falloff will completely CRIPPLE both!
To put it yet again very simple for you all: optimal > falloff
Oh, and I fly mainly Gallente.
Originally by: Del Narveux All in all, good changes, pretty common sense and hopefully it will make combat a bit more interesting than gallente drone*****vs minmatar nanolame.
Expect to see more drones, missiles & nano coming...
|
Ravoc
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.02.12 18:44:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer You forgetting that total range is opti+2xfall off?
ROFL, do you even fly anything else than laserboats?
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Thats why AC dps is balanced IN FALL-OFF. If ACs would have largely optimal and less fall off ccp would REDUCE their dps. Why? Because its a balance issue to have ACs work just as well as other weaponry when they have high tracking, all damage types and NO CAP USE. Thats why you cant whine about "loss of dps" in fall off. Its intended AND CALCULATED.
1. Laser tracking stopped being an issue a long time ago when it received a global 25% tracking boost. 2. Minmatar boats already have lowest cap (even less with the default mwd) while amarr have highest and further cap bonuses. But that's off topic. 3. Give me 1 example of an AC battleship doing more damage than a pulse battleship, at whatever range you want. |
Ravoc
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.02.12 22:11:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer ACs stay at range when facing blasters. Blasters cant reach em, but ACs still do dps outside blaster range.
True, I pointed that out myself. But the AC damage will be crappy and not enough to beat the blasterboat's stronger tank. Add drones and the AC boat is outmatched.
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer WTH are you on about ACs??? Youre first mentioning about tracking and then totally ignoring it 2 rows below that. An AC boat that is going in at 500m against a pulse boat will win the dps race.
Point 1 was a response to your post, where you mentioned tracking first. And even at point blank (0m), a pulse bs will do more dps than an AC bs. |
Ravoc
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.02.12 23:52:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer If you count tracking a maelstr and an abaddon do the same damage to eachother when they are up close. Mael has cap less weapons. Its a fair trade.
Fair enough. Now add the tracking disruptors (range) to both equally. Which will weaken more? :) |
|
|
|