These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Readjust trackings mods?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Wacktopia
Fleet-Up.com
Keep It Simple Software Group
#21 - 2011-11-23 16:56:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Wacktopia
Liang Nuren wrote:
I am beginning to warm to the idea that TEs (specifically) are just doing too much... but I really don't want to nerf blasters in the process of hitting that particular nail.-Liang


I can go along with this. You nerf TE's to hit Winmattar and end up hurting Gallente too.

I fit "optimal" (although it buffs falloff too) scripts in TC's on blaster bloats for exact reason that I can load Null in to them and start hitting things at range.

My Ion-Domi with 2x TC's + Optimal (aka Falloff) scripts with Null has 12+20 range on the Ions.
(^ Edit: In Crucible will fit without the RCU so more Magstab 4 me Smile )

Kitchen sink? Seriousy, get your ship together -  Fleet-Up.com
Lili Lu
#22 - 2011-11-23 17:17:49 UTC
Nalha Saldana wrote:
Lets make this simple

http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/5421/trackingdiff.jpg

One pic is with a TE, one is without.
425mm vs heavy pulse laser.
Do you see a difference in the shape between the two? no? And thats why its balanced.


Songbird wrote:
******* forum ate my post again.

TE's replace damage mods - it's why they do not do "too much"
TC's are better than TE's since when the situation requires it they can give you 30% better tracking.
AC's advantage over pulse lazors - no cap usage , low fitting reqs. Damage is less, tracking is similar.


Even though I think some of the fall-off range with projectile ships is a little too far, these two posts have me thinking things are ok as it is. The extreme edge of that range is afterall the extreme edge of falloff.

I'm now thinking of it as "heh dodged that fastball aimed at my head" v "oops miscalculated the curve on that curveball"
Naomi Knight
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#23 - 2011-11-23 17:24:50 UTC
buff TC , lower cpu need cap use and give more optimal-> problem solved
Lili Lu
#24 - 2011-11-23 17:27:09 UTC
Naomi Knight wrote:
buff TC , lower cpu need cap use and give more optimal-> problem solved


Shocked Naomi, are you arguing for a pulse laser, Zealot, Apoc buff?
Naomi Knight
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#25 - 2011-11-23 17:35:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Naomi Knight
Lili Lu wrote:
Naomi Knight wrote:
buff TC , lower cpu need cap use and give more optimal-> problem solved


Shocked Naomi, are you arguing for a pulse laser, Zealot, Apoc buff?

did i write that? no
just fix TC , compared to TE , tc nowhere near gives as much for the extra costs

or just nerf TE so maybe it will be useless and noone will want to use them ...

btw **** this new **** forum:
"We were ganked
We'll counter-attack as soon as
we properly outnumber them
Go back to the previous page"
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#26 - 2011-11-23 18:04:29 UTC
Naomi Knight wrote:
buff TC , lower cpu need cap use and give more optimal-> problem solved


Yeah, I can get behind this at least a little bit.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Aamrr
#27 - 2011-11-23 18:13:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Aamrr
Edit: With respect to that ludicrously stupid pulse laser vs. 425mm AC graph

Sure -- now try adding tracking to that graph. Or fitting requirements. Or capacitor consumption. Or damage type selection. Or range dictation.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#28 - 2011-11-23 18:17:13 UTC
Aamrr wrote:
Edit: With respect to that ludicrously stupid pulse laser vs. 425mm AC graph

Sure -- now try adding tracking to that graph. Or fitting requirements. Or capacitor consumption. Or damage type selection. Or range dictation.


Are you aware of just how foaming at the mouth for a nerf you are becoming? You're letting it cloud your judgment around situations that are actually reasonably balanced.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Aamrr
#29 - 2011-11-23 18:33:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Aamrr
So then do you dispute the fact that the graph reflects none of those very important concerns regarding weapon systems? Because I consider them all valid points in the discussion of turret balance.

Edit: And for the record, I also think that scorch should be nerfed.
Lili Lu
#30 - 2011-11-23 18:46:19 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Naomi Knight wrote:
buff TC , lower cpu need cap use and give more optimal-> problem solved


Yeah, I can get behind this at least a little bit.

-Liang

Can't hide your laugh from me P
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#31 - 2011-11-23 18:48:08 UTC
Aamrr wrote:
So then do you dispute the fact that the graph reflects none of those very important concerns regarding weapon systems? Because I consider them all valid points in the discussion of turret balance.

Edit: And for the record, I also think that scorch should be nerfed.


I'm simply pointing out that you are incapable of seeing a situation in which Minmatar is actually balanced and not raving that they're overpowered.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Aamrr
#32 - 2011-11-23 19:18:52 UTC
So rather than respond to any of the five supporting arguments I brought up, you resort to ad hominems. And yet I'm the irrational one.

Um...okay?
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#33 - 2011-11-23 19:23:18 UTC
Aamrr wrote:
So rather than respond to any of the five supporting arguments I brought up, you resort to ad hominems. And yet I'm the irrational one.

Um...okay?


Your supporting arguments have nothing, at all, to do with tracking enhancers or the situation in question.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Aamrr
#34 - 2011-11-23 19:30:05 UTC
When the adjustments in question relate to the balance between lasers and autocannons? I'd say they're perfectly relevant. After all, you are the one accusing me of "raving that [Minmatar] are overpowered."

You can't accuse me of wanting nothing but to nerf Minmatar, then dismiss all the points relevant to that discussion simply because they don't support your arguments. Debate doesn't work that way.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#35 - 2011-11-23 19:39:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Liang Nuren
Aamrr wrote:
When the adjustments in question relate to the balance between lasers and autocannons? I'd say they're perfectly relevant. After all, you are the one accusing me of "raving that [Minmatar] are overpowered."

You can't accuse me of wanting nothing but to nerf Minmatar, then dismiss all the points relevant to that discussion simply because they don't support your arguments. Debate doesn't work that way.


The discussion here is about tracking enhancers. The claim was that they help high optimal ships as much as they do high falloff ships. Then they provided a picture to show it. Just in case you missed it.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Dr Cedric
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#36 - 2011-11-23 20:04:09 UTC
Liang and others, without getting too far into the argument situation I'll offer an idea I've had for a while.

That idea being: if each weapon type (hybrid, Projectile and Laser) gets their own damage mod (MFS, Gyro's and Sinks), why not also give each weapon system their own range modification modules.

As far as the RP side goes, there would have to be different computers operating the diff systems, so it would take specialized modules to work with the different systems.

On the balance side of things, it would let CCP (and forum warriors) be able to offer tweaks to each weapon system without (purposefully/accidentally?) affecting another system.

This might also fall into the OP's idea that TC/TE's affect weapon systems with more or less weight depending on the system.

Surely, this kind of a change would only work for better balance, or better performance in each systems "niche" than the current module(s).

Thoughts?

Ced

Cedric
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#37 - 2011-11-23 20:28:54 UTC
Dr Cedric wrote:
Liang and others, without getting too far into the argument situation I'll offer an idea I've had for a while.

That idea being: if each weapon type (hybrid, Projectile and Laser) gets their own damage mod (MFS, Gyro's and Sinks), why not also give each weapon system their own range modification modules.

As far as the RP side goes, there would have to be different computers operating the diff systems, so it would take specialized modules to work with the different systems.

On the balance side of things, it would let CCP (and forum warriors) be able to offer tweaks to each weapon system without (purposefully/accidentally?) affecting another system.

This might also fall into the OP's idea that TC/TE's affect weapon systems with more or less weight depending on the system.

Surely, this kind of a change would only work for better balance, or better performance in each systems "niche" than the current module(s).

Thoughts?

Ced


My gut reaction is that I'd be fine with it but I'm not sure if that's really true. In a lot of ways, having racial mods like that would further emulate the class systems of other MMOs. I think that for me the lack of a real class system is one of the endearing aspects of Eve - but more than that, its one of the stabilizing forces in the Eve community. As bitter as the "Nerf Minmatar" crowd is, they don't compare at all to the vitriol spewed by class specific communities that I found abroad in other MMOs.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Dr Cedric
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#38 - 2011-11-23 20:38:00 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:


My gut reaction is that I'd be fine with it but I'm not sure if that's really true. In a lot of ways, having racial mods like that would further emulate the class systems of other MMOs. I think that for me the lack of a real class system is one of the endearing aspects of Eve - but more than that, its one of the stabilizing forces in the Eve community. As bitter as the "Nerf Minmatar" crowd is, they don't compare at all to the vitriol spewed by class specific communities that I found abroad in other MMOs.

-Liang


Whether or not that would happen is beside the point that it might be a viable way to finally "balance" the Race's pros and cons against each other. Blaster-based ships would have a niche to excel in, as would each of the other races. Fleet composition (which, this is and MMO...everything should be based on the fleet, right?) would therefore have to mature away from the OP-blob and into actual Fleets designed to counteract another Fleet's fitting/ship/race style.

This, of course, if we, CCP and the Dev's could ever find real common ground. To that I won't hold my breath!! Lol

Cedric
m0cking bird
Doomheim
#39 - 2011-11-23 20:38:49 UTC
@least someone has focused on something that is in fact what might be imbalance or causing imbalance. Honestly, if CCP did reduce falloff on tracking enhancers. Wouldn't a shield-Harbinger replace a shield-Hurricane? Also, you're already able to use tracking computers on Gallente and Amarr ships. Evoke has been using them on Megathrons for awhile, with Null ammunition.

[Megathron, New Setup 1]
1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I
Armor Explosive Hardener II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Internal Force Field Array I
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Magnetic Field Stabilizer II

Medium Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 25
Quad LiF Fueled I Booster Rockets
Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range
Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range

Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Null L
Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Null L
Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Null L
Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Null L
Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Null L
Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Null L
Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Null L
[empty high slot]

Large Anti-Kinetic Pump I
Large Anti-Thermic Pump I
Large Trimark Armor Pump I
Metal Icarus
Star Frontiers
Brotherhood of Spacers
#40 - 2011-11-23 21:12:04 UTC
Dr Cedric wrote:
Liang and others, without getting too far into the argument situation I'll offer an idea I've had for a while.

That idea being: if each weapon type (hybrid, Projectile and Laser) gets their own damage mod (MFS, Gyro's and Sinks), why not also give each weapon system their own range modification modules.

As far as the RP side goes, there would have to be different computers operating the diff systems, so it would take specialized modules to work with the different systems.

On the balance side of things, it would let CCP (and forum warriors) be able to offer tweaks to each weapon system without (purposefully/accidentally?) affecting another system.

This might also fall into the OP's idea that TC/TE's affect weapon systems with more or less weight depending on the system.

Surely, this kind of a change would only work for better balance, or better performance in each systems "niche" than the current module(s).

Thoughts?

Ced


I like this idea because then it would take away cross benefits. From one module, one race benefits far more than others, but if you nerf it because of that massive benefit, other races will be nerfed hard.

Seperate them, not racially, but by weapon system.

-or- (massive brain poo coming out)

Use scripts on the tracking computer that makes them benefit a certain weapon system. Someone earlier in the thread mentioned modules that have different combination of optimal, falloff, and tracking that could be made into scripts.