Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
kyrieee
Brutal Deliverance Tactical Narcotics Team
|
Posted - 2009.10.03 19:40:00 -
[1]
Since Gallente and blasters sucking seems to be the the thing to talk about here on EVE-O atm I decided to take a look at it and made a few graphs. It's hardly anything conclusive but it's more than a priori blaster comments from grumpy Gallente pilots.
All the graphs were made assuming that the ships would be shooting a similarly sized ships, i.e. signature radius = signature resolution. Damage and tracking is calculated using max skills and no ship bonuses unless otherwise specified. I had more to say but forums ate my post :[
Here's a graph showing standardized DPS (meaning '1' is the max theoretical DPS of the blasters, because they do the most) as a function of range and transversal velocity. We can see that the Megapulses do roughly 85% of the blaster's damage but over a much wider range spectrum. The lasers, predictably, demonstrate a lesser ability to keep up with faster targets though. They do track worse after all. It's notable, though, that the blasters don't reach their maximum theoretical damage against any target moving at a realistic speed. It's a recurring theme
Here's the same graph but with an MWD turned on. As you can see it makes a massive difference. It also demonstrates the fact that blasterboats were hurt by the web nerf / scram chance. A strong web + mwd running yields much better damage
Here's graph showing the standardized DPS as a function of range, but with four different transversal velocities. Here we can see how, even with a transversal of 50 m/s, the tracking bonused Mega doesn't reach its peek DPS within optimal, but instead slightly into falloff. The lasers, on the other hand, have no problems tracking well inside of their optimal. Blasters still win out on damage within their intended range, but not by a significant amount.
This is the same graph but for Cruiser sized weaponry. The same observations can be made, but they're even more prominent here.
Now we move on to the small turrets. As you can see small blasters cannot get close to their theoretical damage. You can see the lasers again hitting well inside their optimal while the blasters struggle in any scenario.
Here's the pure hit percentage in the same circumstances. Doesn't look too got for those small neutrons
In my opinion the higher damage of blasters doesn't outweigh their bad tracking, poor range and limited adaptability.
|
VanNostrum
The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.10.03 19:52:00 -
[2]
interesting what ships did u use for these calculations? or are they just from raw data? since amarr ships get cap use bonus instead of double dmg or dmg+rof boni, the results of these charts could be somewhat biased
though out of curiosity i'd like to see the charts for null ammo as well
|
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
|
Posted - 2009.10.03 20:01:00 -
[3]
These are excellent graphs. However, you should really take ship bonuses into account. For example, when looking at battleships, I have found it best to examine the Armageddon vs the Megathron. They fulfill essentially the same role, and you can (as a bonus) ignore drone DPS.
The Abaddon is also an interesting case (IMO), but it's not as easy to ignore drone DPS. The graphs can be offset by drone DPS if you like.
It's worth noting that you should pick a standard ship to shoot at - such as Raven/Drake/Cerb/Crow or something. Sig res = sig rad isn't particularly useful since the ships have different sig radiuses.
-Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org |
VanNostrum
The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.10.03 20:17:00 -
[4]
I should also mention that IF lasers/pulse/scorch were nerfed to the level where they'd have equal amount of dps/range/tracking with blasters, nobody would be flying amar ships with the exception of curse/pilgrim, since -lasers us much more cap -gallente ships have superior drone bays/bonuses -gallente ships have higher total ehp -gallente ships have better bonuses
|
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
|
Posted - 2009.10.03 20:27:00 -
[5]
Originally by: VanNostrum -gallente ships have superior drone bays/bonuses
I remind you of the Arbitrator line of ships, and the Armageddon
Quote: -gallente ships have higher total ehp
I remind you of the resist bonus vs rep bonus.
Quote: -gallente ships have better bonuses
Not really?
-Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org |
The Djego
Minmatar Hellequin Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.10.03 20:30:00 -
[6]
Originally by: VanNostrum
-lasers us much more cap
Not after the 50% Cap reduction bonus, the diffrence is minor. Also blaster ships spend more cap MWDing around.
Originally by: VanNostrum
-gallente ships have superior drone bays/bonuses
Only one the dedicated drone ships. Brutix/Harb -> 50m¦ Gedon/Mega -> 125m¦
Originally by: VanNostrum
-gallente ships have higher total ehp
The oposite actualy, since amarr got more low slots -> more tank after a equal number of damagemods. Also the resistance bonus is supperior over the rep bonus, since it is more flexible(helps local tanking, buffertanks and RR).
Originally by: VanNostrum
-gallente ships have better bonuses
Explain pls. ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
Stil Harkonnen
|
Posted - 2009.10.03 20:30:00 -
[7]
Originally by: VanNostrum I should also mention that IF lasers/pulse/scorch were nerfed to the level where they'd have equal amount of dps/range/tracking with blasters, nobody would be flying amar ships with the exception of curse/pilgrim, since -lasers us much more cap -gallente ships have superior drone bays/bonuses -gallente ships have higher total ehp -gallente ships have better bonuses
But the problem right now is that people fly amarr ships and don't fly gallente because -lasers use cap, but blasters also suck down the cap -Amarr ships have decent drone bays, the second best race to use drones with, so the versatility of lasers AND decent drones makes Amarr better -Amarr ships are arguably better at armor tanking, and with the lasers which operate at almost all ranges, they can RR better and don't have to worry about mwd around too much -Amarr ships seem to have good enough bonuses since everybody uses them. The lasers' godly range and actual damage makes them more worthwhile than gallente ships
just how i see it
|
VanNostrum
The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.10.03 20:41:00 -
[8]
Edited by: VanNostrum on 03/10/2009 20:44:05
Originally by: Stil Harkonnen
Originally by: VanNostrum I should also mention that IF lasers/pulse/scorch were nerfed to the level where they'd have equal amount of dps/range/tracking with blasters, nobody would be flying amar ships with the exception of curse/pilgrim, since -lasers us much more cap -gallente ships have superior drone bays/bonuses -gallente ships have higher total ehp -gallente ships have better bonuses
But the problem right now is that people fly amarr ships and don't fly gallente because -lasers use cap, but blasters also suck down the cap -Amarr ships have decent drone bays, the second best race to use drones with, so the versatility of lasers AND decent drones makes Amarr better -Amarr ships are arguably better at armor tanking, and with the lasers which operate at almost all ranges, they can RR better and don't have to worry about mwd around too much -Amarr ships seem to have good enough bonuses since everybody uses them. The lasers' godly range and actual damage makes them more worthwhile than gallente ships
just how i see it
no, you're twisting reality. People are flying Amarr because they are superior in numbers. Since everybody is fighting in blobs these days it's not an issue that you can't tank&tackle at the same time, as you get dedicated tacklers. So not being able to fit tackle/ewar on amarr ships is no longer an issue. Nobody can convince anyone that an Amarr BS would be better solo than ANY Gallente BS. Actually, show me one person that flies any Amarr ship solo other than the recons. A gallente ship gets much higher TOTAL ehp with a single dmg control than an Amarr ship. The 1 extra low slot doesn't get Amarr ship higher EHP (do the math). Enough with this Gallente whine already!
edit: i admitted in a previous thread that blasters do need higher tracking, but nothing more. and Amarr ships don't deserve anything less since anything less will make them unplayable (welcome back 2006)
|
Cpt Branko
The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.10.03 20:55:00 -
[9]
Originally by: VanNostrum
no, you're twisting reality. People are flying Amarr because they are superior in numbers. Since everybody is fighting in blobs these days it's not an issue that you can't tank&tackle at the same time, as you get dedicated tacklers. So not being able to fit tackle/ewar on amarr ships is no longer an issue. Nobody can convince anyone that an Amarr BS would be better solo than ANY Gallente BS.
You're not seriously suggesting solo BS is viable at all? Currently, the only ones which could be deemed as 'solo-worthy' would either have dual heavy neutralizers (meaning, NOT the Mega/Hype) or even better, be full neut/droneboats.
Everyone else needs to have support.
Originally by: VanNostrum
Actually, show me one person that flies any Amarr ship solo other than the recons.
Well, I don't know. Except Punishers, Crusaders, Arbitrators, Curse & Pilgrim, Harbinger and Sacriledge I have not seen any Amarr ships solo successfully. All solid choices.
Originally by: VanNostrum
A gallente ship gets much higher TOTAL ehp with a single dmg control than an Amarr ship. The 1 extra low slot doesn't get Amarr ship higher EHP (do the math).
Have you heard about the silly thing we call modules?
Last I heard, your tank does not end with a damage control II. Oh, no! You actually tend to fit a buffer of the appropriate type. And guess what, the difference between a three slot tank and a four slot tank with more base armour + trimarks on all easily covers the hull HP difference.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
kyrieee
Brutal Deliverance Tactical Narcotics Team
|
Posted - 2009.10.03 20:59:00 -
[10]
Edited by: kyrieee on 03/10/2009 21:00:34
Originally by: Liang Nuren These are excellent graphs. However, you should really take ship bonuses into account. For example, when looking at battleships, I have found it best to examine the Armageddon vs the Megathron. They fulfill essentially the same role, and you can (as a bonus) ignore drone DPS.
The Abaddon is also an interesting case (IMO), but it's not as easy to ignore drone DPS. The graphs can be offset by drone DPS if you like.
It's worth noting that you should pick a standard ship to shoot at - such as Raven/Drake/Cerb/Crow or something. Sig res = sig rad isn't particularly useful since the ships have different sig radiuses.
-Liang
Yeah I know The reason I didn't apply ship specific bonuses other than the Mega's tracking is that there are just so many different cases to cover. Geddon vs Mega would probably just turn out even more in favour of the Geddon though since they both have a DPS bonus (RoF / Dmg bonus gives equal DPS boost) but the Geddon has a smaller sig and they're equally fast
Most of the good Amarr ships have a damage bonus. Zealot, Harbinger, Geddon, Abaddon etc.
I should probably add Null (how often do you actually change hybrid ammo in a fight though?). Drones would skew ship damage slightly in favour of Gallente but then you have to look at how many turret slots a ship has etc. I tried to just look at the guns, and they don't track well enough to hit in their optimal. It may be the way CCP wants it
The real issue is how much damage they should do though. Before you determine that you can't really say that they do too little.
|
|
The Djego
Minmatar Hellequin Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.10.03 21:01:00 -
[11]
Originally by: VanNostrum
A gallente ship gets much higher TOTAL ehp with a single dmg control than an Amarr ship. The 1 extra low slot doesn't get Amarr ship higher EHP (do the math).
So we lost the state of a reasonable discussion allready?
Ofc a gallente ship will allways have the higher EHP with a single DCU because gallente have the most structure.
This doesn¦t mean you will end up with less EHP after the extra low is used for another plate or resistance module.
For example:
Mega 97.3k EHP(3 damagemods, 2 plates, DCU, ANP) Gedon 109.1k EHP(3 damagemods, 3 plates, DCU, ANP) ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
Bernard Bolzano
|
Posted - 2009.10.03 21:22:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Bernard Bolzano on 03/10/2009 21:24:49 some nice graphs to start with. but other info you can draw from these too:
-in bs vs bs scenario the blasters outdps lasers by 20% if you orbit at 5km. -in bs vs bs scenario the blasters outdps lasers till 10km distance and are about equal till like 12km with CN antimatter.
so assuming gang warfare and the popular buffer rr fits this seems quite fair to me. group of megas vs group of geddons: -ehp is quite similar. -if both groups are below 12km and don't move at all megas deal more(same in 10-12km window) dps, if group distance is above 12km geddons deal more dps. -so during a rr fight the mega offers more dps and lower cap use if the distance is below 12km, and geddons deliver more dps but more capuse if the fight is farer away then 12km (in this scenario the megas can close range via mwd). of course if the distance between the two groups is way more then 20 that closing range does not rly work that good.
just my 2 cents
|
TimMc
Gallente Brutal Deliverance Tactical Narcotics Team
|
Posted - 2009.10.03 21:29:00 -
[13]
As if it wasn't obvious enough the difference in tracking is not enough.
|
bloodlust priest
|
Posted - 2009.10.03 21:35:00 -
[14]
you put in scorch but not null, do a graph with null pls
|
kyrieee
Brutal Deliverance Tactical Narcotics Team
|
Posted - 2009.10.03 22:40:00 -
[15]
Edited by: kyrieee on 03/10/2009 22:42:10 Here ya go
Null included. It's not that impressive. Generally it's like AN MF but will less damage
First off:
Null vs Caldari Navy Antimatter vs Amarr Navy Multifrequency on Battleships
Null vs Scorch on Battleships:
All four on BSes:
Cruisers:
Frigates:
|
Vernice Cicali
|
Posted - 2009.10.03 23:28:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Vernice Cicali on 03/10/2009 23:34:06 Edited by: Vernice Cicali on 03/10/2009 23:33:22 Edited by: Vernice Cicali on 03/10/2009 23:30:15 They're all beautiful graphs that show how well a weapon does at a specific range against a target flying at a specific speed. Comparing the two weapon types' damage does get difficult though when you normalize them both.
If you set the maximum blaster damage at 1 and use that method on the lasers too (so their max damage won't be 1, it will be slightly below it), it will be easier to compare the damage.
edit: nevermind, I just noticed you already did that, getting somewhat late here ^^ What's the point you're trying to really make though? Blasters might need some work, or not (never really used them), but why is it bad that their optimal damage lies somewhat in their falloff? Autocannons have that even worse if I'm not mistaken, it's the way tracking works at higher orbiting speeds.
|
Jack Icegaard
The Omega Project
|
Posted - 2009.10.04 00:15:00 -
[17]
Nice graphs indeed. What i also think would be interesting is normalized graphs where the dps of the blaster is subtracted from laser dps. So the negative value shows the area where blaster have the advantage and positive value for laser.
That would clearly illustrate the narrow envelope of range and transversal speed, where blasters is at advantage vs pulse lasers.
|
Don Pellegrino
|
Posted - 2009.10.04 01:15:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Vernice Cicali but why is it bad that their optimal damage lies somewhat in their falloff? Autocannons have that even worse if I'm not mistaken, it's the way tracking works at higher orbiting speeds.
The reason is that blasters get a little bit more damage at an insanely high cost. They do have a better tracking than pulses, but since they have to operate under 5k, the tracking isn't enough and diminishes the dps. Basically, they do more damage, but the slight dps advantage is not worth the bad range, bad relative tracking and having to MWD all around the place.
Yes, lasers use more cap, but they dont need to use their MWD all the time and have (in general) a better capacitor.
|
TigerWoman
Amarr The Circle
|
Posted - 2009.10.04 08:55:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Don Pellegrino The reason is that blasters get a little bit more damage at an insanely high cost. They do have a better tracking than pulses, but since they have to operate under 5k, the tracking isn't enough and diminishes the dps.
doesn't this mean that laserdamage diminishes even more in theese ranges since blasters naturaly track roughly 25% better then lasers (before any shipbonus applys) ? i know that falloff lowers hitquality but at 5km this rly is not a huge effect. another thing that the little bit more dps you speak off is 20% which is like the difference between bs lvl 1 and bs lvl 5 ?
Originally by: Don Pellegrino
Yes, lasers use more cap, but they dont need to use their MWD all the time and have (in general) a better capacitor.
what do you mean by "use their MWD all the time" ? for solo its get in range once and thats it, in rr fleet the oppsoing fleet form a bubble of ships anyway to be in range for the rr so you need it to get in range only once again. and for the capacitor, the gallente capacitors are quite close to the performance of the amarr ones. and assuming equal ammount of cap charges in cargo for both ships, cap boosters will deplete for the amarr group earlier then for the gallente one. so that can be a problem if the fight takes longer.
|
Spooks'em
|
Posted - 2009.10.04 10:10:00 -
[20]
I am going to $%^& about formatting and presentation.
-----
Grid lines would be very useful on the color gradient graphs. More conventional distance notation would also be welcome as not everybody is comfortable with scientific notation. I might also consider cutting the transversal speed by a third or so on the battleship color gradient graphs. It is pretty rare, though possible, that a battleship in the wild would maintain 400+ m/s transversal against another battleship without experiencing signature bloom.
Trends on the graph are already established by the time the transversal reaches 400 m/s anyway so relatively little would be lost from such a change. A similar treatment of the length scale might be in order.
The attempt to make the graphs big and easy to read is appreciated by those of us with poor eye sight. However, a width reduction of about 300-400 pixels of the pictures would keep the forums from being stretched on smallish but still common screen sizes. |
|
Dasalt Istgut
|
Posted - 2009.10.04 10:13:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Dasalt Istgut on 04/10/2009 10:14:07
Originally by: TigerWoman
doesn't this mean that laserdamage diminishes even more in theese ranges since blasters naturaly track roughly 25% better then lasers (before any shipbonus applys) ? i know that falloff lowers hitquality but at 5km this rly is not a huge effect.
The further something is away from you, the easier it is to track. That is to say its easier to hit something moving 1km/sec at 20km than it is at 10km. So given lazors have more than 2x the range of blasters, the 25% better tracking isn't even by far.
Range itself is an advantage, so versus blasters amarr have range advantage, real DPS advantage, tracking advantage. The blaster only wins against a heavily tackled target right inside its optimal range. Real fights never work out that way.
Offhand I can't think of any fight I'd choose a blaster over scorch fit pulses. Same can be said for barrage vs scorch as well.
|
Eli Porter
Amarr Altruism.
|
Posted - 2009.10.04 10:58:00 -
[22]
Except that your targets can escape if you're an Amarr BS in Scorch range and they're dead if you're in Blaster range. Gallente have more mid slots for a reason, and that is tackle. Scram+Web on Blaster boats is hardly a new concept, making sure your target stays put and is easily tracked. And in a scram+web situation, Gallente wins against Amarr almost every time(Almost meaning that against poorly fit shield tankers Amarr can pull ahead).
Naturally mid slots(And point blank DPS) matter less in big fleets, and Amarr excels in big fleets where Gallente excels in solo and small gangs.
|
Trigos Trilobi
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.10.04 13:03:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Trigos Trilobi on 04/10/2009 13:02:58 Nice graphs. I think you've chosen a bit inconvenient speed scale on many of them, but even at those scales it's easy to see that tracking isn't much a problem, except on pulses, which track significantly too well.
|
Arrador
|
Posted - 2009.10.04 13:58:00 -
[24]
I'd like to see a small buff to Optimal range & tracking, and/or remove the tracking nerf of t2 ammo.
|
london
Gallente Dark-Rising IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.10.04 15:10:00 -
[25]
Fantastic thread! CCP, are you listening?
|
Don Pellegrino
|
Posted - 2009.10.04 15:28:00 -
[26]
Originally by: TigerWoman
Originally by: Don Pellegrino The reason is that blasters get a little bit more damage at an insanely high cost. They do have a better tracking than pulses, but since they have to operate under 5k, the tracking isn't enough and diminishes the dps.
doesn't this mean that laserdamage diminishes even more in theese ranges since blasters naturaly track roughly 25% better then lasers (before any shipbonus applys) ? i know that falloff lowers hitquality but at 5km this rly is not a huge effect. another thing that the little bit more dps you speak off is 20% which is like the difference between bs lvl 1 and bs lvl 5 ?
No, on a medium blaster, the effective range is 3k, more than 3k and you lose your dps very quickly. Less than 3k, the tracking becomes a nightmare and you lose all the dps. Yes, lasers lose against blasters under 1k for small blasters, 3k for medium blasters and 5-6k for large blasters due to slightly lower dps and tracking. The reason blasters need a rework is because their effectiveness is extremely limited and dps doesn't compensate for the fact that they suck 85% of the time while lasers are very effective 85% of the time.
Originally by: TigerWoman
Originally by: Don Pellegrino
Yes, lasers use more cap, but they dont need to use their MWD all the time and have (in general) a better capacitor.
what do you mean by "use their MWD all the time" ? for solo its get in range once and thats it, in rr fleet the oppsoing fleet form a bubble of ships anyway to be in range for the rr so you need it to get in range only once again. and for the capacitor, the gallente capacitors are quite close to the performance of the amarr ones. and assuming equal ammount of cap charges in cargo for both ships, cap boosters will deplete for the amarr group earlier then for the gallente one. so that can be a problem if the fight takes longer.
What you're saying is right, but you forgot a couple of things. Not all BS are used in RR fleets and a blaster boat will have to MWD all around the place to get in range. Almost all the time, the (lightly) higher blaster dps won't compensate for the time you wasted to get in range. Same for solo (for those that really want to solo in a bs), when you will finally get in range and start doing some damage, it's already too late, unless you both start at zero, and that almost never happens. Finally, in RR BS fleets, having a 6-7k range means you will not be able to actually do damage all the time like other ships can (except for a little bit of drone damage). Yes, blasters are meant to have very short range and that's fine, but dps simply doesn't compensate for all the downsides.
|
Stuart Price
Caldari The Black Rabbits The Gurlstas Associates
|
Posted - 2009.10.04 15:29:00 -
[27]
As others have alluded to: More optimal, more tracking.
If we take Opt+Fall as maximum range, optimal accounts for just under 40% of that. I'd like to see it increased to around 75-80% of that with the current falloff bonus ships (Deimos, Astarte) applying their bonus to tracking OR (this will be controversial) armour. Putting the 'irate' into 'Pirate' |
arbiter reborn
|
Posted - 2009.10.04 15:49:00 -
[28]
so between the shortest and longest range close range wepon systems, a blaster with null outdamages a lazor with scorch till 20 km and trks better, im gallente i dont see the problem, if your gonna boost blaster traking ull need to boost ac traking as "they dont hit properly at there optimal"either, it would be game breaking if anything traked that well, scorch L maybe slightly op against small ships at range but its not hard for a megathron to kill small ships at close range that seems to be the difference in ethos between the races. i wouldnt argue against a drop in traking by like 20% on scorch, but id like to see any traking increses on gallente go onto null rather than a base traking increse on wepons.
any traking boost bothers me as the megathron already diposes of small ships with frightening ease and thats the biggest issue really, keep traking as it is boost damage by 20% on L blasters 10% on medium across the board imo
|
Theron Gyrow
Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.10.04 16:01:00 -
[29]
Originally by: arbiter reborn so between the shortest and longest range close range wepon systems, a blaster with null outdamages a lazor with scorch till 20 km and trks better
The problem with that is that the Amarr ship will use MF up to that 20km. Do the comparison with that in mind and you will not like the results. -- Gradient forum |
Trigos Trilobi
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.10.04 17:22:00 -
[30]
I don't quite get how anyone could suggest blasters need a tracking boost based on those graphs, unless they assume the standard combat scenario is a dead still blaster bs trying to shoot a max speed bs on perfect orbit and neither have webs.
That's why I said the speed scale is somewhat poorly chosen, 100m/s or even 50m/s transversal speed in a bs vs bs scenario inside web range is just not very relevant. The speed differences (and therefore maximum theoretical orbit speeds as well) fall somewhere in the 10-20m/s range, and at those transversals blasters hit just fine.
At cruiser level likewise, the 200m/s+ graphs, while looking ugly, aren't that meaningful. Even the 100m/s graph describes a rare situation and the most interesting graph is the 50m/s one where blasters, again, have no significant trouble.
I just don't see how any reasonable tracking boost would achieve anything useful, and a lot of the cries for more tracking sound a lot like people are just unhappy that they can't hit smaller ship classes anymore.
Optimal is another big no, considering especially on bs level acs are already pushed past point range.
Some more damage would probably be fine, 15% maybe to compensate for the upcoming ac ammo changes and then some. And, pulses obviously need a huge tracking nerf, but that's another matter.
|
|
ropnes
|
Posted - 2009.10.04 17:36:00 -
[31]
The BS weapons aren't the only weapons Look at Light Neutrons Their damage window is smaller, they barely do more damage. Against someone with an AB they're fked
With blasters you can only engage in a very small range spectrum and you're more sensitive to speed. On sub-BS ships the extra damage is far from enough. In how many situations do you have 10 seconds to change ammo types? If lasers are supposed to be so good at mid range then blasters need to be significantly better at short range, and they're not
|
Jack Icegaard
The Omega Project
|
Posted - 2009.10.04 17:40:00 -
[32]
I made some graphs to illustrate the difference in performance envelope between blasters and pulse lasers. In the graphs i compare standardized damage output of a Megathron with full rack of Neutron Blaster Cannon II vs an Armageddon with a full rack of Mega Pulse Lasers II.
The target is a Drake with 3xLSE + 3x shield rigs IE sig radius 406.
I compare with all skills at level 5.
Note that the graphs shows the envelope where either ship does more damage than the other. White areas is where both ships do equal damage. Also note that the colors does not indicate absolute damage but the difference in damage output.
This graph shows best short range faction ammo IE Caldari Navy Antimatter and Amarr Navy Multifrequency. The white border between the two colored areas is where both ships have equal damage output. The left colored area shows advantage for the Megathron and the right shows the advantage for the Armageddon.
This graph compares Null with Scorch. Note that Huge difference in advantage:
I also made a graph where i compare Null with Amarr Navy Multifrequency. The advantage here is for the Armageddon. The Megathron does some more damage at range due to greater falloff and also have a small advantage in close range/high transversal. Its just scratching the paintjob though.
|
Norris Packard
Wings of Redemption Black Flag Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.10.04 17:41:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi I don't quite get how anyone could suggest blasters need a tracking boost based on those graphs, unless they assume the standard combat scenario is a dead still blaster bs trying to shoot a max speed bs on perfect orbit and neither have webs.
That's why I said the speed scale is somewhat poorly chosen, 100m/s or even 50m/s transversal speed in a bs vs bs scenario inside web range is just not very relevant. The speed differences (and therefore maximum theoretical orbit speeds as well) fall somewhere in the 10-20m/s range, and at those transversals blasters hit just fine.
At cruiser level likewise, the 200m/s+ graphs, while looking ugly, aren't that meaningful. Even the 100m/s graph describes a rare situation and the most interesting graph is the 50m/s one where blasters, again, have no significant trouble.
I just don't see how any reasonable tracking boost would achieve anything useful, and a lot of the cries for more tracking sound a lot like people are just unhappy that they can't hit smaller ship classes anymore.
Optimal is another big no, considering especially on bs level acs are already pushed past point range.
Some more damage would probably be fine, 15% maybe to compensate for the upcoming ac ammo changes and then some. And, pulses obviously need a huge tracking nerf, but that's another matter.
I like this idea the damage boost is more what the blasters need not a tracking boost, tracking will just make the blasters overpowered agaisnt smaller targets.
|
kyrieee
Brutal Deliverance Tactical Narcotics Team
|
Posted - 2009.10.04 17:45:00 -
[34]
Nice
If you're using MatLab, try: shading interp;
(to get rid of the grid, you can add a less dense one later if you want)
and if you get glitches from the origin try:
lighting phong;
|
Jack Icegaard
The Omega Project
|
Posted - 2009.10.04 18:27:00 -
[35]
Originally by: kyrieee Nice
If you're using MatLab, try: shading interp;
(to get rid of the grid, you can add a less dense one later if you want)
and if you get glitches from the origin try:
lighting phong;
Yes, i used MatLab. I should have removed the grid but I'm too lazy to upload the images again
|
Jack Icegaard
The Omega Project
|
Posted - 2009.10.04 19:20:00 -
[36]
To sum up what can be deduced from the graphs:
ANMF have null completely covered. The advantage for the Megathron is strictly inside 10km. Nothing new there..
So the old question is if the advantage of the Megathron inside of 10km is large enough to compensate for the ability to, without delay, project damage out to 50 km.
What my first graph illustrate is that the advantage of the Megathron inside of 10 km is rather small. Only in the high transversal area does the Mega significantly more damage.
On the other hand, if there is a high probability that the Megathron can keep the target inside of web range for the duration of the fight, then the range advantage of the Armageddon is moot.
|
Spooks'em
|
Posted - 2009.10.04 19:29:00 -
[37]
Edited by: Spooks''em on 04/10/2009 19:30:00
Originally by: Jack Icegaard
Originally by: kyrieee Nice
If you're using MatLab, try: shading interp;
(to get rid of the grid, you can add a less dense one later if you want)
and if you get glitches from the origin try:
lighting phong;
Yes, i used MatLab. I should have removed the grid but I'm too lazy to upload the images again
Although, I am surprised and happy that someone seemed to have listened to some of my comments that grid is a little harsh. Also, a color gradient split more clearly along the damage advantage would be more useful. So maybe differing shades of green/blue for where the mega has the advantage, white where the difference is ~0, and yello/red for where the geddon dominates. Finally, a color scale is a must. |
Laur Khal
|
Posted - 2009.10.04 20:44:00 -
[38]
While I agree that blasters need a small damage and optimal buff, it seems pretty clear that the biggest imbalance issue here is Scorch and instant crystal switching.
|
Roemy Schneider
Vanishing Point.
|
Posted - 2009.10.04 23:34:00 -
[39]
not exactly an objective selection of graphs: either you're looking at hit chance or "standardized dps", dropping the 25% damage bonus. this gets really bad with the small turrets where the 7.5% tracking bonuses got skipped.
apart from that, the graphs still clearly show how blaster can be vastly superior; even without a tracking bonus: once they're are up close, tracking is on their side. looking at your standardized-dps-graph for 100m/s orbit, that's what? 75% for multispec pulses and 90 for blasters? again, one has to add 25% damage bonus which even the dominix has, bringing us to an effective 112.5%
then.... what about the kin/thm damage vs em/thm argument? that'd be standardized. antimatter l raw: 48 // antimatter vs non-racial t1 armor resists: 34 mutli l raw: 48 // multi vs non-racial t1 armor resists: 27 == 25.9% more effective damage [and this number only changes in favor of lasers if the gallente shoots a caldari armor tank. mhmm.]
adding that to the previous number, we now have 141.667% for blasters vs 75% multispec @ 500m orbit doing 100m/s
and that's before drones.
and yes, we have always included minnie explo damage in their dps discussions; they still sucked [and, btw, will continue to do so]
ps: i was neutral in this whole blaster discussion before the trolls joined the party. threads, or rather, interpretations like these drive me over to the other side. - putting the gist back into logistics |
ropnes
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 00:11:00 -
[40]
Edited by: ropnes on 05/10/2009 00:11:45 Geddon also has a 25% DPS bonus you know And I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'vastly superior'
|
|
Jack Icegaard
The Omega Project
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 00:34:00 -
[41]
Originally by: ropnes Edited by: ropnes on 05/10/2009 00:11:45 Geddon also has a 25% DPS bonus you know And I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'vastly superior'
I don't think he means the Mega vs Geddon comparison but some of the graphs early in this thread.
What else to say about people who by their own admission base their opinion on game balance matters, not solely on the state of the game itself, but also who they think is trolling the forum? It sounds a little juvenile to me.
|
Roemy Schneider
Vanishing Point.
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 02:02:00 -
[42]
i know, i know... tracking graphs look like they're hugging each other but by vastly superior i mean this:
for a 5km orbit
for a 1km orbit
add/substract some percents to your liking, it can't skew that picture
fine, include your geddon bonus then. still leaves the 29% advantage when using effective dps regarding armor resistances. - putting the gist back into logistics |
Etho Demerzel
Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 04:34:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Etho Demerzel on 05/10/2009 04:43:20
Originally by: Roemy Schneider
fine, include your geddon bonus then. still leaves the 29% advantage when using effective dps regarding armor resistances.
Sorry, but 29% in your head.
Open EFT, select ANY ship, make damage profiles for hybrids (60% kin, 40% thermal) and Lasers (60% EM, 40% Thermal), and check the difference in EHP. It is usually negligible, or at the best 5-10%. You forget that a LOT of the buffer comes from Shield and Hull, even if you armor tank.
Even if you consider pure Armor resists you have in average 25% and not 29%, unless you are fighting minmatar(higher EM resist). Against Caldari and Amarr it is 25% and against gallente, it is 20%.
Now if you consider SHIELD average resists, which amount for about half the ships that pvp in this game, and the majority of sub-battleship fittings, lasers have a huge damage type advantage of 35%.
And the geddon bonus to dps is a 25% RoF bonus which amounts to a 33% dps bonus btw, not 25%.
And one more thing. Yes, blasters are slightly superior at VERY close range (as in 20% more dps). Thing is they should be overwhelmingly superior at this range, to compensate for the 300% range advantage of pulse lasers.
You want to keep your 300% of additional range, fine, give blasters 300% more damage at point blank and we have a deal.
=====
"If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron... |
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 08:55:00 -
[44]
Excellent thread demonstrating the severe shortcomings (no pun intended) of blasters across all three sizes.
The people picking on the graphs and accusing the OP of making them biased are doing so simply because they can't find anything else to argue with about the data. It's too overwhelmingly obvious that blasters aren't competitive with lasers.
I fly both laser and blaster ships with max skills and can freely choose which one I use for PVP. Actually, I can fly all four races equally well, but that's not the point.
Whenever I'm out soloing or in a two man gang or so, I depend more on an MWD to get me to the target's wreck to loot, to get me back to gates and to get me out of trouble. Because of this, and the Hype's 5th mid for a sensor booster (so I can actually catch targets) I end up using Blasterthrons or Hypes, even though I'd rather use an Abaddon or Geddon.
Let me reiterate: I'm *stuck* using blaster ships even though they suck when compared to laser ships, the only reason being that I simply need that MWD and 5th mid slot for the type of fighting I typically do (solo, on the offensive, trying to ensure I get that initial tackle). If I could get a similar package like the Hype, only using lasers, I'd never use blasters, EVER. Right now blasters suck, they fail, they're crap. Most seasoned blastership pilots succeed not because blasters 'still work ok' but because they're very good pilots with max skills, implants and expensive ships and usually engage pilots with half the SP and half the ISK invested in their ship/pod. Does this make them bad pilots? Of course not, they're fighting within their limitations.
Blasters need at good 50% DPS advantage over lasers inside their optimal range. They need to do HUGE damage close up. They *already* do fail damage at medium-long range. All that's needed is a straight damage increase, leaving everything else the same. The tracking problems of blasters ensure that blaster pilots will never see the theoretical peak DPS numbers anyway.
And everyone can just stop with the drone argument. There are plenty of ships with just as much or *more* drone space than Gallente ships. It's also amusing to note that while everyone keeps comparing the Geddon and the Mega they seem to forget that the Mega is a TIER TWO BS while the Geddon is a TIER ONE BS.
Look at the armor EHP of the Navy Geddon and it's peak DPS and range with Megapulse IIs and then compare that to a Navy Mega with Neutron IIs and a comparable fit/tank. You'll see that the Geddon does 95% of the Mega's DPS, but with a 1000% increase in range, and for less ISK.
The OP is dead on with his analysis of blasters. The math and graphs simply confirm what long time blaster users have 'felt' all along; that intuitive knowledge that blasters just simply aren't as effective as they should be. -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Tier 5 Battleships
|
Isil Rahsen
Gallente Ferrum Superum
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 09:08:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus words
This. Damage boost for great justice.
|
Roemy Schneider
Vanishing Point.
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 13:43:00 -
[46]
srsly BE...?
Quote: I depend more on an MWD to get me to the target's wreck to loot, to get me back to gates and to get me out of trouble
yes, that's the other part. but if you don't use your MWD for charging at the the enemy and to get into 10.8km range, then that's hardly a reason to boost blasters.
but allow me to spam some graphs that are a little closer to reality:
[Megathron, Neutrons] Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Adaptive Nano Plating II Adaptive Nano Plating II Damage Control II
Heavy Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 800 Stasis Webifier II Warp Scrambler II 100MN MicroWarpdrive II
Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L Heavy Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Large Ancillary Current Router I Large Trimark Armor Pump I Large Trimark Armor Pump I
Ogre II x5
-- 832 turret-dps + 317 ogre-dps 100k uniform eHP, 64.3k on armor 23.4k on hull 400m sig
[Armageddon, New Setup 1] 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I Internal Force Field Array I Adaptive Nano Plating II Adaptive Nano Plating II Reactor Control Unit II Heat Sink II Heat Sink II
Quad LiF Fueled I Booster Rockets Heavy Capacitor Booster II, Cap Booster 800 Faint Warp Disruptor I
Heavy Unstable Power Fluctuator I Mega Pulse Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L Mega Pulse Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L Mega Pulse Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L Mega Pulse Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L Mega Pulse Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L Mega Pulse Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L Mega Pulse Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L
Large Trimark Armor Pump I Large Trimark Armor Pump I Large Trimark Armor Pump I
Ogre II x5
-- 760 turret-dps + 317 ogre-dps 102k uniform eHP, 73.1k on armor 18.5k on hull 370m sig
yesyes i'm sure you'll be eagerly smacking the platings
-----------------
mega's 832 turet-dps split into 485 kin and 347 thm. running that through armor resistances leaves us with 210.6+130.3=340.9 armor removed every second. call that effective dps or w/e you want... geddon's 760 split into 443 emp and 317 thm. armor resistances again result in 128.1+119.1=247.2 ogres on armor is 119dps.
yes, while hybrids vs hull make little difference, lasers do enjoy the lower em resistances there. however, once we look at the damage graph, you'll notice why it won't come to that if you know how to fly blaster ships: transv-v = 100m/s btw
i'm sure eve players have enough brains to not need my interpretations. but allow me to point out ~350dps for the mega vs ~210dps for the geddon at the marked spots. anywhere from 1500m to 2500m should still be quite a comfy superiority and will result in a win before the mega hits structure.
"butbutbut... if the webbed geddon tries to keep longer range or approaches while the mega orbits... that's more like 50m/s transversal" i agree:
- putting the gist back into logistics |
Jack Icegaard
The Omega Project
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 14:13:00 -
[47]
Edited by: Jack Icegaard on 05/10/2009 14:15:27
Originally by: Roemy Schneider graphs etc..
Funny, did you say trolling? In your first post you ramble about how the OP have skewed the comparison to make blaster look bad and how that affected your opinion in this subject.
Then you present your own graphs which are pretty much a schoolbook example of biased argumentation.
You can find any number of ship vs ship situations where one ship will have a huge advantage due to the ability to take advantage of weaker resist. Such comparison have very little bearing on the balance of the involved weapon systems.
|
Roemy Schneider
Vanishing Point.
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 14:24:00 -
[48]
i have no idea what you're talking about. could you be any cloudier?
maybe an example perhaps - putting the gist back into logistics |
Jack Icegaard
The Omega Project
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 14:29:00 -
[49]
Edited by: Jack Icegaard on 05/10/2009 14:31:04
Originally by: Roemy Schneider Edited by: Roemy Schneider on 05/10/2009 14:27:57 i have no idea what you're talking about. could you be any cloudier?
maybe an example perhaps, plz.
do you want me to use other lenses, ones with more thm damage but lower dps? other drones? i can do all that. is it the nano platings? feel free to mention any two setups
Find a ship with a large hole in explosive resist. Match it vs a artillery BS at sufficient range. Use the matchup to demonstrate the awesomeness of artillery turrets.
|
Roemy Schneider
Vanishing Point.
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 14:31:00 -
[50]
does it have to be good ole' doomsday proof? - putting the gist back into logistics |
|
Suas
Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 14:36:00 -
[51]
Edited by: Suas on 05/10/2009 14:36:29 BAD Blaster users are the biggest babies in EVE. _________________________
HELLO! My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. PREPARE TO DIE! |
Jack Icegaard
The Omega Project
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 14:57:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Roemy Schneider does it have to be good ole' doomsday proof?
The idea I'm trying to convey here is that if you want to factor in resist you have to demonstrate that one type of damage is preferable over another for a very broad spectra of probable targets. Only in that context is the resistance relevant for balance.
Arguing in detail about specific match ups and fittings is futile. Note that the Drake i used was solely for the purpose of the sig radius.
|
Petra Katell
Pator Tech School
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 15:00:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Suas Edited by: Suas on 05/10/2009 14:36:29 BAD Blaster users are the biggest babies in EVE.
ahh yes, Intigo, god's gift to PVP (lol) that doesn't fly blaster ships.
The initial graphs display the huge disadvantages blasters have. It's pretty clear the they need a DPS boost and a slight optimal increase.
|
Seriously Bored
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 15:05:00 -
[54]
Just posting to say this is an awesome treasure trove of information. Going to take me more time than I have at the moment to sift through it and form an opinion, though.
Fantastic job Kyrieee. Keep the real data comin'.
|
Roemy Schneider
Vanishing Point.
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 15:13:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Jack Icegaard
Originally by: Roemy Schneider does it have to be good ole' doomsday proof?
The idea I'm trying to convey here is that if you want to factor in resist you have to demonstrate that one type of damage is preferable over another for a very broad spectra of probable targets. Only in that context is the resistance relevant for balance.
Arguing in detail about specific match ups and fittings is futile. Note that the Drake i used was solely for the purpose of the sig radius.
ah so you're saying you want blaster to be the one ship to pwn them all...? cause i don't see how i could change the damage type on either of them, apart from drones - but if i go for berserkers, you'll be all over me with those ~10k eHP shields.
should i run both against an explo-torp spewing raven then? - putting the gist back into logistics |
The Djego
Minmatar Hellequin Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 15:47:00 -
[56]
Edited by: The Djego on 05/10/2009 15:56:47
Originally by: Roemy Schneider stuff
Orbiting doesn¦t work at all on the BS vs BS level, not even in a 1o1 if you don¦t fight someone without a web that is also this fair to leave his ship speed at 0m/s. By orbiting you will fast lose range to the ship that moves away from you and the other ship will hit as good as you do in general.
Also it is impossible to beat a skilled Gedon in a mega without droping to structure(even before QR, if he is not plated up to ****, meaning doing a low dps and you run a very haeavy active tank), since you need to get in range(even as low as starting within 20km it takes 25-30 seconds to speed up, move, slow down) and overcome the EHP advantage of the gedon first, the effective DPS advantage after this both things is basicly gone. This statement is about a 3 trimarked Mega, nobody that doesn¦t want to fit LAR + Heavy cap booster fits a ACR, you simply drop the heavy cap booster to a med one.
In any fight that involves more than 2-3 ships all this things are also compleetly meaningless, since you will have more than one web on you and one ship will die long before you will reach and hold the orbit(what you can¦t) -> no advantage at all.
The tracking diffrence between puls and blasters is far to small to create any meaningfull effect at all, most of the time. If you can¦t hit something properly with puls the same stands true for blasters. If you can hit stuff with blasters, you will be able to hit with puls to.
The only advantage is the higher mobility, but that isn¦t a advantage if it doesn¦t make sense to hunt stuff down that you can¦t hit properly(you don¦t want to have a frig or a Cruiser in web range with a Mega, because you can kill them far quicker out of it) or get compleetly imobilized by tacklers you can¦t kill quick. Having the better range and higher EHP in the start is consideralbe better in most parts of the current gameplay on the BS level.
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Blasters need at good 50% DPS advantage over lasers inside their optimal range. They need to do HUGE damage close up. They *already* do fail damage at medium-long range. All that's needed is a straight damage increase, leaving everything else the same. The tracking problems of blasters ensure that blaster pilots will never see the theoretical peak DPS numbers anyway.
I disagree. Why improve the throw away dps support blasterships or RR Mega that work with gang tackle allready? A better web would do far more good to the solo and small gang blastership in general and give it back his bite. Yes it lacks a bit dps, but it did pre QR as well, the main diffrence it was able to hold his ground against next to any possible target at close range. That is flexibilty that it lost and can¦t be fixed with DPS or a bit tracking. ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
Sinderblock
Caldari Red Federation
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 15:58:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Jack Icegaard Edited by: Jack Icegaard on 05/10/2009 14:31:04
Originally by: Roemy Schneider Edited by: Roemy Schneider on 05/10/2009 14:27:57 i have no idea what you're talking about. could you be any cloudier?
maybe an example perhaps, plz.
do you want me to use other lenses, ones with more thm damage but lower dps? other drones? i can do all that. is it the nano platings? feel free to mention any two setups
Find a ship with a large hole in explosive resist. Match it vs a artillery BS at sufficient range. Use the matchup to demonstrate the awesomeness of artillery turrets.
Maybe I'm confused but the standard armor resist package is 2x EANM, and 1xDCU II right? Thrm Kin will always be better to shoot at armor tanks then EM Thrm (except for perhaps gallente t1 resists) and most battleships field armor tanks its not like she picked some kind of special case or something, blasters hit better resist holes vs armor tanks it is just a fact.
|
Etho Demerzel
Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 16:19:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Sinderblock
Maybe I'm confused but the standard armor resist package is 2x EANM, and 1xDCU II right? Thrm Kin will always be better to shoot at armor tanks then EM Thrm (except for perhaps gallente t1 resists) and most battleships field armor tanks its not like she picked some kind of special case or something, blasters hit better resist holes vs armor tanks it is just a fact.
Your assumptions:
1) Everything is armor tanked 2) Everthing is battleship sized 3) Everything is T1 4) Shield and Hull are irrelevant in armor tanked ships
All 4 assumptions are wrong btw. =====
"If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron... |
BiggestT
Caldari Amarrian Retribution
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 16:20:00 -
[59]
Edited by: BiggestT on 05/10/2009 16:25:01
Originally by: Roemy Schneider
bias
Those graphs are so biased its ridiculous.
Looking at dps in 5km only...the blasters are the winners, what a shock!
Then you cut the other graph off before it reaches 40+km, to hide the massive advantage of scorch.
All these prove is that statistics can and always have been a tool that cater to the biased analyst. EVE Trivia EVE History
|
Ravenal
The Fated E.Y
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 16:24:00 -
[60]
... which brings us to the heart of the matter. Could you please for the love of all that is sane rename the MEDIUM lasers to their proper SIZE names.
medium pulse laser => small pulse laser heavy pulse laser => medium pulse laser mega pulse laser => large pulse laser
. |
|
el caido
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 16:25:00 -
[61]
Cheers to the OP for presenting an organized (and pretty) argument on this subject. However, I fail to see the problem. The moral of the story is that lasers are suited for more generalized fleet/blob engagements, whereas blasters are better solo or ambush weapons. If you are taking a blaster Mega, Brutix, whatever into a situation where you know you cannot dictate range/speed, you are simply making a poor choice. Don't take a sledgehammer to a gunfight.
And Bellum, stop posting.
|
Jack Icegaard
The Omega Project
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 16:31:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Sinderblock
Originally by: Jack Icegaard Edited by: Jack Icegaard on 05/10/2009 14:31:04
Originally by: Roemy Schneider Edited by: Roemy Schneider on 05/10/2009 14:27:57 i have no idea what you're talking about. could you be any cloudier?
maybe an example perhaps, plz.
do you want me to use other lenses, ones with more thm damage but lower dps? other drones? i can do all that. is it the nano platings? feel free to mention any two setups
Find a ship with a large hole in explosive resist. Match it vs a artillery BS at sufficient range. Use the matchup to demonstrate the awesomeness of artillery turrets.
Maybe I'm confused but the standard armor resist package is 2x EANM, and 1xDCU II right? Thrm Kin will always be better to shoot at armor tanks then EM Thrm (except for perhaps gallente t1 resists) and most battleships field armor tanks its not like she picked some kind of special case or something, blasters hit better resist holes vs armor tanks it is just a fact.
If we restrict the discussion to pure BS vs BS i would say you most definitely have a point. I think this thread is more about the performance envelope of blasters and pulse lasers in a broad perspective.
About resists. Have you noted the trend to slap LSEs on just about anything. Hurricanes, Brutixes (Brutix is plural?) and even Harbingers are spotted with LSEs these days. Then we have all the Hacs and recons with LSEs etc. All those ships are important parts of a balanced nutrition for a battleship.
|
Jack Icegaard
The Omega Project
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 16:40:00 -
[63]
Edited by: Jack Icegaard on 05/10/2009 16:41:31
Originally by: Roemy Schneider
ah so you're saying you want blaster to be the one ship to pwn them all...?
Clearly, I'm the guy who have to explain to Bilbo why he needs to let go of his precious.
You cant find one post where i state that blaster needs a boost or that PL needs to be nerfed. Heck, Im training pulse lasers like anybody else :)
|
Roemy Schneider
Vanishing Point.
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 17:08:00 -
[64]
Originally by: BiggestT Edited by: BiggestT on 05/10/2009 16:25:01
Originally by: Roemy Schneider
bias
Those graphs are so biased its ridiculous.
Looking at dps in 5km only...the blasters are the winners, what a shock!
Then you cut the other graph off before it reaches 40+km, to hide the massive advantage of scorch.
All these prove is that statistics can and always have been a tool that cater to the biased analyst.
wts tinfoil. but considering the thread title is "Blaster tracking with graphs", i have a clear conscience. all i did was look at (way) more stuff than just a to-hit curve. make your own interpretations then, skill lasers, w/e... once your pulse geddon gets face****d by megas all day, don't you dare flood this forum with "uuuuh, giev tracking bonus to las0rz, nao!" threads. or demanding another med slot on the geddon along with a web strength bonus... that kind of stuff... - putting the gist back into logistics |
Etho Demerzel
Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 17:50:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Roemy Schneider wts tinfoil. but considering the thread title is "Blaster tracking with graphs", i have a clear conscience. all i did was look at (way) more stuff than just a to-hit curve. make your own interpretations then, skill lasers, w/e... once your pulse geddon gets face****d by megas all day, don't you dare flood this forum with "uuuuh, giev tracking bonus to las0rz, nao!" threads. or demanding another med slot on the geddon along with a web strength bonus... that kind of stuff...
1) The conditions you present on your graphics are impossible to attain. You can't have high tranversal velocity and low range at the same time against the same size of ship, as explained. It only works when you are in a smaller and faster ship. So in a Mega vs Geddon analysis you need to either consider low transversal or MUCH higher orbits.
2) You consider only the armor resists for the damage calculation instead of the average resist against that damage type, considering Armor, Shield and Hull. The real damage type advantage (the difference in EHP against hybrids and lasers) for a double plated +DC II+2x EANM II tank is 6%. Even less if you consider drone damage.
3) You use odd fittigns like a 3 plates mega.
Basically you desperatelly want to paint a scene that isn't there.
The truth is:
- Damage type is mostly irrelevant between Hybrids and lasers, regarding battleship targets - Blasters have a very SMALL damage advantage at a distance that can't be easily maintained. - Lasers have a HUGE damage advantage in pretty much all the rest of its optimal range envelop.
Geddons SHOULD be face****d by megas all day in any solo engagement. That is the ONLY use for blasterboats. They SHOULD be king of solo and very small gang (2-3 ships). Because above that pulses will ALWAYS win, because of their superior focus fire capacity.
The problem is that this huge advantage lasers have in groups is very obvious, while the blasters' advantage in solo and small gangs is almost inexistent.
=====
"If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron... |
NightmareX
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 17:54:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus Excellent thread demonstrating the severe shortcomings (no pun intended) of blasters across all three sizes.
The people picking on the graphs and accusing the OP of making them biased are doing so simply because they can't find anything else to argue with about the data. It's too overwhelmingly obvious that blasters aren't competitive with lasers.
I fly both laser and blaster ships with max skills and can freely choose which one I use for PVP. Actually, I can fly all four races equally well, but that's not the point.
Whenever I'm out soloing or in a two man gang or so, I depend more on an MWD to get me to the target's wreck to loot, to get me back to gates and to get me out of trouble. Because of this, and the Hype's 5th mid for a sensor booster (so I can actually catch targets) I end up using Blasterthrons or Hypes, even though I'd rather use an Abaddon or Geddon.
Let me reiterate: I'm *stuck* using blaster ships even though they suck when compared to laser ships, the only reason being that I simply need that MWD and 5th mid slot for the type of fighting I typically do (solo, on the offensive, trying to ensure I get that initial tackle). If I could get a similar package like the Hype, only using lasers, I'd never use blasters, EVER. Right now blasters suck, they fail, they're crap. Most seasoned blastership pilots succeed not because blasters 'still work ok' but because they're very good pilots with max skills, implants and expensive ships and usually engage pilots with half the SP and half the ISK invested in their ship/pod. Does this make them bad pilots? Of course not, they're fighting within their limitations.
Blasters need at good 50% DPS advantage over lasers inside their optimal range. They need to do HUGE damage close up. They *already* do fail damage at medium-long range. All that's needed is a straight damage increase, leaving everything else the same. The tracking problems of blasters ensure that blaster pilots will never see the theoretical peak DPS numbers anyway.
And everyone can just stop with the drone argument. There are plenty of ships with just as much or *more* drone space than Gallente ships. It's also amusing to note that while everyone keeps comparing the Geddon and the Mega they seem to forget that the Mega is a TIER TWO BS while the Geddon is a TIER ONE BS.
Look at the armor EHP of the Navy Geddon and it's peak DPS and range with Megapulse IIs and then compare that to a Navy Mega with Neutron IIs and a comparable fit/tank. You'll see that the Geddon does 95% of the Mega's DPS, but with a 1000% increase in range, and for less ISK.
The OP is dead on with his analysis of blasters. The math and graphs simply confirm what long time blaster users have 'felt' all along; that intuitive knowledge that blasters just simply aren't as effective as they should be.
OMG, this must be the biggest Blaster noobie whining ever here.
Seriously. Are you for real?.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Etho Demerzel
Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 18:00:00 -
[67]
Originally by: NightmareX
OMG, this must be the biggest Blaster noobie whining ever here.
Seriously. Are you for real?.
Don't worry, Nightmare. Nobody can take this tittle from you. You are the biggest noobie of this game in about everything, blasters included. And that is quite impressive if you take into account the time you have been playing it... =====
"If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron... |
NightmareX
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 18:04:00 -
[68]
Edited by: NightmareX on 05/10/2009 18:05:16
Originally by: Etho Demerzel
Originally by: NightmareX
OMG, this must be the biggest Blaster noobie whining ever here.
Seriously. Are you for real?.
Don't worry, Nightmare. Nobody can take this tittle from you. You are the biggest noobie of this game in about everything, blasters included. And that is quite impressive if you take into account the time you have been playing it...
Having payed for my account for 5 years in 1 month and 4 days doesn't mean i have played the game for the same time.
You know, there is something called RL.
And no, i'm not a noobie with the Blasters at all. Because i have a fully understanding on how the PVP stuffs will be if Blasters got boosted by 50%. PVP will be seriously unbalanced and everyone will use a Blaster Mega no matter what.
And if Bellum or you doesn't know this, you shouldn't even be in this topic writing at all.
EDIT: And this is coming from an alt who doesn't have the balls to even post in Ships and Modules section with your main. Jeez man. Grow some balls and post with your main. This is not CAOD.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 18:12:00 -
[69]
****, another blaster thread about to go down the drain to trolling NMX (tee-hee, now the question is whether NMX is the troller or the trollee... and I'm not about to read enough context to find out).
-Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org |
Etho Demerzel
Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 18:15:00 -
[70]
Edited by: Etho Demerzel on 05/10/2009 18:15:57
Originally by: NightmareX
You know, there is something called RL.
And no, i'm not a noobie with the Blasters at all. Because i have a fully understanding on how the PVP stuffs will be if Blasters got boosted by 50%. PVP will be seriously unbalanced and everyone will use a Blaster Mega no matter what.
And if Bellum or you doesn't know this, you shouldn't even be in this topic writing at all.
Increasing Blaster damage by 50% will STILL make them underpowered compared to lasers. The difference is THIS ridiculous. But it would make them overpowered compared to ACs, for sure. That is why giving something like web strength to Blasterships and nerfing lasers' tracking is the better solution when you include all 3 weapon systems in the balance.
Quote:
EDIT: And this is coming from an alt who doesn't have the balls to even post in Ships and Modules section with your main. Jeez man. Grow some balls and post with your main. This is not CAOD.
Do you have to have balls to post? I fear I have to inform you you have no place here, then, my dear. You know, being horrible at this game doesn't count as "having balls". =====
"If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron... |
|
NightmareX
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 18:21:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Etho Demerzel Edited by: Etho Demerzel on 05/10/2009 18:15:57
Originally by: NightmareX
You know, there is something called RL.
And no, i'm not a noobie with the Blasters at all. Because i have a fully understanding on how the PVP stuffs will be if Blasters got boosted by 50%. PVP will be seriously unbalanced and everyone will use a Blaster Mega no matter what.
And if Bellum or you doesn't know this, you shouldn't even be in this topic writing at all.
Increasing Blaster damage by 50% will STILL make them underpowered compared to lasers. The difference is THIS ridiculous. But it would make them overpowered compared to ACs, for sure. That is why giving something like web strength to Blasterships and nerfing lasers' tracking is the better solution when you include all 3 weapon systems in the balance.
Quote:
EDIT: And this is coming from an alt who doesn't have the balls to even post in Ships and Modules section with your main. Jeez man. Grow some balls and post with your main. This is not CAOD.
Do you have to have balls to post? I fear I have to inform you you have no place here, then, my dear. You know, being horrible at this game doesn't count as "having balls".
Cool story bro.
Can i have some cheese with your whining?.
And to this as you said: Increasing Blaster damage by 50% will STILL make them underpowered compared to lasers. Oh thank god for finally giving me the proof you don't have a single clue about PVP, like with Bellum.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
VanNostrum
The Littlest Hobos Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 18:22:00 -
[72]
yeah, boost blasters make ishkur, ishtar, thorax, brutix, mega, domi stronger durrrrr
|
Arrador
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 18:23:00 -
[73]
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: Etho Demerzel Edited by: Etho Demerzel on 05/10/2009 18:15:57
Originally by: NightmareX
You know, there is something called RL.
And no, i'm not a noobie with the Blasters at all. Because i have a fully understanding on how the PVP stuffs will be if Blasters got boosted by 50%. PVP will be seriously unbalanced and everyone will use a Blaster Mega no matter what.
And if Bellum or you doesn't know this, you shouldn't even be in this topic writing at all.
Increasing Blaster damage by 50% will STILL make them underpowered compared to lasers. The difference is THIS ridiculous. But it would make them overpowered compared to ACs, for sure. That is why giving something like web strength to Blasterships and nerfing lasers' tracking is the better solution when you include all 3 weapon systems in the balance.
Quote:
EDIT: And this is coming from an alt who doesn't have the balls to even post in Ships and Modules section with your main. Jeez man. Grow some balls and post with your main. This is not CAOD.
Do you have to have balls to post? I fear I have to inform you you have no place here, then, my dear. You know, being horrible at this game doesn't count as "having balls".
Cool story bro.
Can i have some cheese with your whining?.
And to this as you said: Increasing Blaster damage by 50% will STILL make them underpowered compared to lasers. Oh thank god for finally giving me the proof you don't have a single clue about PVP, like with Bellum.
What about a minor buff to optimal and tracking?
|
NightmareX
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 18:27:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Arrador What about a minor buff to optimal and tracking?
We have to see how good the tracking on the Projectiles (Autocannons) gets first, since CCP have said they was looking into giving Projectiles some tracking buff.
So a tracking buff for Blasters might be needed later one time.
But i'm against an optimal buff to Blasters though. Blasters is born to be the closest ranged weapons in EVE, so you just have to live with it.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Arrador
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 18:39:00 -
[75]
Originally by: NightmareX Edited by: NightmareX on 05/10/2009 18:27:46
Originally by: Arrador What about a minor buff to optimal and tracking?
We have to see how good the tracking on the Projectiles (Autocannons) gets first, since CCP have said they was looking into giving Projectiles some tracking buff.
So a tracking buff for Blasters might be needed later one time.
But i'm against an optimal buff to Blasters though. Blasters is born to be the closest ranged weapons in EVE, or to be a very close range weapon, so you just have to live with it.
but... my pilot navigates like a drunken sailor. I always get shafted when trying to maintain the 1.5km range of electron blasters. :(
|
The Djego
Minmatar Hellequin Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 18:44:00 -
[76]
Edited by: The Djego on 05/10/2009 18:45:28
Originally by: NightmareX
EDIT: And when your saying you want a 50% DPS boost to Blaster, then you for sure don't have a ****ing clue on what it will do in EVE. You have no clue on how the different PVP mechanics works etc etc if you suggest such a boost for Blasters.
Can you please go away with your epic fail wall with whines please?.
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Blasters need at good 50% DPS advantage over lasers inside their optimal range.
The ability to read properly is a amazing gift, isn¦t it. Hint, there is allready a advantage so the number, it is not a request for 50% damage boost, even if it isn¦t this obvious for special people like you.
---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 18:48:00 -
[77]
Originally by: The Djego The ability to read properly is a amazing gift, isn¦t it. Hint, there is allready a advantage in DPS, so the number it is not a request for a 50% damage boost, even if it isn¦t this obvious for special people like you.
Well, it kinda is asking for a 50% damage boost, since the geddon deals so much damage. ;-)
-Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org |
The Djego
Minmatar Hellequin Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 19:01:00 -
[78]
Edited by: The Djego on 05/10/2009 19:04:00
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: The Djego The ability to read properly is a amazing gift, isn¦t it. Hint, there is allready a advantage in DPS, so the number it is not a request for a 50% damage boost, even if it isn¦t this obvious for special people like you.
Well, it kinda is asking for a 50% damage boost, since the geddon deals so much damage. ;-)
-Liang
DPS unbonused, no damage mods, high damage short range amno, without skills: Neutron Cannon II: 30 Mega Puls II: 22
Correct number for matching the request:
33 -> 10% actualy.
At least this is how I read it. ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
Etho Demerzel
Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 19:09:00 -
[79]
Originally by: NightmareX
Cool story bro.
Can i have some cheese with your whining?.
No cheese for you. You need to learn how to read first. Back to your homework!
Quote:
And to this as you said: Increasing Blaster damage by 50% will STILL make them underpowered compared to lasers. Oh thank god for finally giving me the proof you don't have a single clue about PVP, like with Bellum.
Say the test server citizen here. Whenever I want to know how how the game should be balanced to to duel with full slaves and officer gear int he test server I promise I will ask your opinion. In the meantime why don`t you go back to your cave and atleast try to learn the subtleties of the English language. =====
"If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron... |
Kail Storm
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 19:09:00 -
[80]
Originally by: Bernard Bolzano Edited by: Bernard Bolzano on 03/10/2009 21:24:49 some nice graphs to start with. but other info you can draw from these too:
-in bs vs bs scenario the blasters outdps lasers by 20% if you orbit at 5km. -in bs vs bs scenario the blasters outdps lasers till 10km distance and are about equal till like 12km with CN antimatter.
so assuming gang warfare and the popular buffer rr fits this seems quite fair to me. group of megas vs group of geddons: -ehp is quite similar. -if both groups are below 12km and don't move at all megas deal more(same in 10-12km window) dps, if group distance is above 12km geddons deal more dps. -so during a rr fight the mega offers more dps and lower cap use if the distance is below 12km, and geddons deliver more dps but more capuse if the fight is farer away then 12km (in this scenario the megas can close range via mwd). of course if the distance between the two groups is way more then 20 that closing range does not rly work that good.
just my 2 cents
This post is on the money to me, A ver yrare and fair analysis of this issue...It seems to be ofne of the hottest most Emotional arguments in eve, and I do suspect it does stem from the GAls owing before and changing after Web NErf.
I keep seeing peeps say well we cant do full dmg without webs, Well hell guys no ship IMO should do full DMg without a Web or TP hell my heavy missles against a way larger target than it was designed to hit in a Harby wil only do 90% Dmg tops without web and hell against a cruiser its ship class i twas made for You are lucky to get 60% dmg on target without a web.
Lets face it without web all ships fail I want to see not what a GAl Ship does without a web but what it does from the 90% pre nerf web till ow, I suspect it isnt to much differant, Please someone do that graph, also Do Ship vs Ship of not just Gal VS Amarr but do cald ships, I bet the Cald ships are torn apart with there big sig radii Hell my drake as a 410m sig radius lol almost the same size as a Minm BS imagine hwta the shield tanked raven or Rokh is,
TL;DR 1]Dont compare Web vs No Web as all weps need web in pvp to be truly effective Heavy missles and Hams which are best missle class`s cant hit much without TP and or WEB for full dmg, IN fact HM vs Gal Cruiser=60% Amarr cruiser=60% Minm=45-50% even cane cant be fully ht with Hm`s.
Torps Cant hit 20% of DMG on cruisers and dont do full dmg on some completely still BS`s lol without Web/TP, so...
Amarr Lasers cant hit much closer than 5km without web or TP and usinmg Beams forget about it lol Minm Arty has horrible tracking and without the races TP tendency it wouldnt hit anything.
Web is a must in pvp for all races
2]Compare ship to ship of all races
Gal Vs Cald since cald has such huge sig radius when tanked I bet it will rock it with full dmg even our drake which is supposed to be smaller faster target.
Summed up this was supposed to show that the complaints are justified and they were...
Before NERF ON WEBS Gal was way better off, So compare it to 60% vs 90% web and see if the whining about needing 2 webs now is true. But all ships need web to do 100% dmg.
If you run, You`ll only die tired :) |
|
Roemy Schneider
Vanishing Point.
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 19:12:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Etho Demerzel
Originally by: Roemy Schneider wts tinfoil. but considering the thread title is "Blaster tracking with graphs", i have a clear conscience. all i did was look at (way) more stuff than just a to-hit curve. make your own interpretations then, skill lasers, w/e... once your pulse geddon gets face****d by megas all day, don't you dare flood this forum with "uuuuh, giev tracking bonus to las0rz, nao!" threads. or demanding another med slot on the geddon along with a web strength bonus... that kind of stuff...
1) The conditions you present on your graphics are impossible to attain. You can't have high tranversal velocity and low range at the same time against the same size of ship, as explained. It only works when you are in a smaller and faster ship. So in a Mega vs Geddon analysis you need to either consider low transversal or MUCH higher orbits.
2) You consider only the armor resists for the damage calculation instead of the average resist against that damage type, considering Armor, Shield and Hull. The real damage type advantage (the difference in EHP against hybrids and lasers) for a double plated +DC II+2x EANM II tank is 6%. Even less if you consider drone damage.
3) You use odd fittigns like a 3 plates mega.
Basically you desperatelly want to paint a scene that isn't there.
The truth is:
- Damage type is mostly irrelevant between Hybrids and lasers, regarding battleship targets - Blasters have a very SMALL damage advantage at a distance that can't be easily maintained. - Lasers have a HUGE damage advantage in pretty much all the rest of its optimal range envelop.
Geddons SHOULD be face****d by megas all day in any solo engagement. That is the ONLY use for blasterboats. They SHOULD be king of solo and very small gang (2-3 ships). Because above that pulses will ALWAYS win, because of their superior focus fire capacity.
The problem is that this huge advantage lasers have in groups is very obvious, while the blasters' advantage in solo and small gangs is almost inexistent.
1) you find a 100m/s velocity unattainable at 1.5km?! 2) get your nose out of EFT and into the game pl0x. forgive me if i'm so used to RR but judging from complaints about those, everybody seems to be, too. and that's only one of the reasons i put so much focus on armor. especially when a bunch of megas heads out to sit on too of a primary and in range of all of his buddies. sure, i pasted a neut fitting but i must admit i slap RR on everything. 3) posting blatant lies with proof in the same thread...? the only place i'll ever endorse 4800mm plates would be a smartie phoon with a probe launcher -.-
i do agree on the huge range on lasers, always did. but again, this is a topic about tracking, people asking for webs, cursing speed nerf [which drone (~heavy) boats embraced warmly], advocating warp disruptors over scramblers on a short range brawler appearantly and nagging how 0.07442 mega neutron tracking is soooo little - putting the gist back into logistics |
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 19:13:00 -
[82]
Originally by: The Djego
DPS unbonused, no damage mods, high damage short range amno, without skills: Neutron Cannon II: 30 Mega Puls II: 22
Correct number for matching the request:
33 -> 10% actualy.
At least this is how I read it.
Yeah, I was being facetious a bit there. Because I'm lazy, what's the final DPS number you're looking at from a 3 MFS Blasterthron (exclude drones)?
-Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org |
Etho Demerzel
Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 19:25:00 -
[83]
Edited by: Etho Demerzel on 05/10/2009 19:26:58
Originally by: Roemy Schneider 1) you find a 100m/s velocity unattainable at 1.5km?!
If we are talking about battleships, for sure, as 100 m/s is near the MAXIMUM speed of battleships. Achieving a TRANSVERSAL velocity of 100 m/s is only possible in a battleship if the target is completely frozen in place, otherwise it will gain distance on you, and your transvesal velocity will decrease too as it moves away from you.
Quote:
2) get your nose out of EFT and into the game pl0x. forgive me if i'm so used to RR but judging from complaints about those, everybody seems to be, too. and that's only one of the reasons i put so much focus on armor. especially when a bunch of megas heads out to sit on too of a primary and in range of all of his buddies. sure, i pasted a neut fitting but i must admit i slap RR on everything.
We were talking about solo Mega x Geddon weren't we? At least your graphics are based on this. But if we go to RR, than we need to start considering the focus fire capacity of lasers, time to approach targets, the fact that your transversal in relation to the non primary ships will be always low and your distance reasonably high, etc.
Quote:
3) posting blatant lies with proof in the same thread...? the only place i'll ever endorse 4800mm plates would be a smartie phoon with a probe launcher -.-
The only one posting lies here is you.
Quote:
i do agree on the huge range on lasers, always did. but again, this is a topic about tracking, people asking for webs, cursing speed nerf [which drone (~heavy) boats embraced warmly], advocating warp disruptors over scramblers on a short range brawler appearantly and nagging how 0.07442 mega neutron tracking is soooo little
The tracking advantage is insuficient, that is what is being advocated in this thread and it is true. At close range, and by close I don't mean a ridiculous 1.5km range with an impossible transversal of 100 m/s, blasters should have a massive advantage over pulses. That is not the case. =====
"If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron... |
The Djego
Minmatar Hellequin Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 19:36:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: The Djego
DPS unbonused, no damage mods, high damage short range amno, without skills: Neutron Cannon II: 30 Mega Puls II: 22
Correct number for matching the request:
33 -> 10% actualy.
At least this is how I read it.
Yeah, I was being facetious a bit there. Because I'm lazy, what's the final DPS number you're looking at from a 3 MFS Blasterthron (exclude drones)?
-Liang
Made a small mistake the right number is 29(had still a damage rig on my Mega, should start up with clean fits for EFT whoring ).
From 29 -> 33 this would be a 13.8% DPS increase. That gives a Neutron Mega(3 damage mods) a DPS of around 1064 DPS(compared to the 935 atm) and ends up to be around 1380 DPS instead of the current 1250(130 DPS gain). ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 19:41:00 -
[85]
Originally by: The Djego
Made a small mistake the right number is 29(had still a damage rig on my Mega, should start up with clean fits for EFT whoring ).
From 29 -> 33 this would be a 13.8% DPS increase. That gives a Neutron Mega(3 damage mods) a DPS of around 1064 DPS(compared to the 935 atm) and ends up to be around 1381 DPS instead of the current 1252(129 DPS gain).
Uuuummmm, that's pretty reasonable.
-Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org |
NightmareX
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 19:51:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Etho Demerzel Say the test server citizen here. Whenever I want to know how how the game should be balanced to to duel with full slaves and officer gear in the test server I promise I will ask your opinion. In the meantime why don't you go back to your cave and at least try to learn the subtleties of the English language.
ROFL @ you for trying to prove anything.
First of all, You haven't used a single sec to even find out how much i have been on Sisi the last month.
I have probably been there for maybe 2-3 times every week and for like 1 hour max each time.
And also, check my sec status ingame on TQ now. I'm not an outlaw anylonger. I have more important things to do in empire now than being on Sisi.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Victoria Aspire
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 21:10:00 -
[87]
People stopped taking you serious *along* time ago Nightmare, I wouldn't even bother posted tbh.
|
kyrieee
Brutal Deliverance Tactical Narcotics Team
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 21:11:00 -
[88]
Edited by: kyrieee on 05/10/2009 21:13:25 You guys are just arguing about Large blasters. There are a couple of other size types and only one Gallente BS even has a tracking bonus. Hype is not supposed to be worthless with blasters. Relatively speaking though the large ones have the best parameters, small ones are much worse off.
Here's what I think: Better tracking and less falloff
The shape of the blaster diagram is too similar to the pulse laser one. It needs to me more compressed along the range-axis, as such:
The blaster at the bottom as greatly increased tracking with greatly reduced falloff. This means it actually hits, and hits very well, when it's very close, and at the same time the better tracking doesn't give it a massive advantage when distance isn't very short.
Also, that second diagram isn't supposed to be balanced or anything. It's just to illustrate what I mean, not actual values you should use to tell me I want blasters to be nber
|
The Djego
Minmatar Hellequin Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 21:14:00 -
[89]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: The Djego
Made a small mistake the right number is 29(had still a damage rig on my Mega, should start up with clean fits for EFT whoring ).
From 29 -> 33 this would be a 13.8% DPS increase. That gives a Neutron Mega(3 damage mods) a DPS of around 1064 DPS(compared to the 935 atm) and ends up to be around 1381 DPS instead of the current 1252(129 DPS gain).
Uuuummmm, that's pretty reasonable.
-Liang
Yeah it is not compleetly out of the window. I have seen bellum disagreeing with a boost blaster DPS by 50% thread this week so I figured he will no seriously bring up something like this.
As typed down one page ago, I still don¦t think it would be a compleet fix of the current situation(even if it would be a great addition). DPS didn¦t change with QR(it did 6 month before with the EM change), what mostly changed was the ability to bring your target to stop and apply full dps. Also the ability to hunt down a huge selection of ships(amarr BS never was and never will be better in this area).
I simply don¦t think this can be fixed with a tracking or damage boost(improved yes, but not realy fixed).
Im mostly aiming for a 37.5% Web strenth role bonus(Navy Exequeror, Thorax, Brutix, Mega, Hype) that would turn a 60% web into a 75% web as well as a 75% web strenth role bonus for Diemost and Astarte(90% web). In a world of the blind the one eyed is king and so would be solo/small gang blaster PVP again at short ranges, without messing up with the throw away damagedealers or the RR mega that have enught gang tackle at hand to make this change mostly meaningless.
Also before the solopawnmobile references, a lot has changed since 2006, superior small gang/solo close range gank machine is a good role and actualy a ballanced one, since it can be countered preaty easy(range, DPS, EW, heavy tanks, huge buffers). It simply gives blaster PVP back the edge at her range and make blasters leathal at web range once again(or to be more exact, more leathal than missles, lasers and aks).
---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
NightmareX
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 21:19:00 -
[90]
Edited by: NightmareX on 05/10/2009 21:21:26
Originally by: Victoria Aspire People stopped taking you serious *along* time ago Nightmare, I wouldn't even bother posted tbh.
And this had to come from an alt who didn't had the balls to say this with your main.
Your a failsauce player in EVE then.
Try better next time.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
|
TigerWoman
Amarr The Circle
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 21:20:00 -
[91]
what this graphs show is that blasters outperform lasers with antimatter till 10 and are equal till 13km. additionally that when you equip null you can compete with an multi up to 25 ish km.
all that with better tracking less cap use same rr performance.
on the other hand lasers outperform blasters at 40km - but at that range its your own fault to engage...
the real problem is at which range do you guys want amarr to shine? every race needs a valuable gun for the below 28km window.
|
Victoria Aspire
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 21:20:00 -
[92]
It's you're.
|
Etho Demerzel
Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 21:47:00 -
[93]
Originally by: TigerWoman what this graphs show is that blasters outperform lasers with antimatter till 10 and are equal till 13km. additionally that when you equip null you can compete with an multi up to 25 ish km.
all that with better tracking less cap use same rr performance.
on the other hand lasers outperform blasters at 40km - but at that range its your own fault to engage...
the real problem is at which range do you guys want amarr to shine? every race needs a valuable gun for the below 28km window.
You need to learn how to read graphics.
The graphics show that for reasonable transversal speeds for battleships blasters outperform Pulses until 3-5 km, after which when they are pretty much evenly matched until 13-15km, after which pulses outperform blasters all the way to 45 km. =====
"If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron... |
TigerWoman
Amarr The Circle
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 22:28:00 -
[94]
Originally by: Etho Demerzel
Originally by: TigerWoman what this graphs show is that blasters outperform lasers with antimatter till 10 and are equal till 13km. additionally that when you equip null you can compete with an multi up to 25 ish km.
all that with better tracking less cap use same rr performance.
on the other hand lasers outperform blasters at 40km - but at that range its your own fault to engage...
the real problem is at which range do you guys want amarr to shine? every race needs a valuable gun for the below 28km window.
You need to learn how to read graphics.
The graphics show that for reasonable transversal speeds for battleships blasters outperform Pulses until 3-5 km, after which when they are pretty much evenly matched until 13-15km, after which pulses outperform blasters all the way to 45 km.
read graphics? try again... its not a balance issue when you cant hit the "orbit at" button. in the end its about exploiting your fleet strenght - and yes if most of you are in b blaster megas you should try to land on top, if most are in scorch geddons you better land at 45km and bring dictors + webs.
if you cant do that get better warpins
|
Etho Demerzel
Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 22:42:00 -
[95]
Originally by: TigerWoman
read graphics? try again... its not a balance issue when you cant hit the "orbit at" button. in the end its about exploiting your fleet strenght - and yes if most of you are in b blaster megas you should try to land on top, if most are in scorch geddons you better land at 45km and bring dictors + webs.
if you cant do that get better warpins
Please do tell me how will you orbit at 300m/s or more in a battleship, genius. Because you know, the very best you can realistically expect to have is a transversal of 50 m/s, that IF you are not webbed. Unless, of corse, the target decides to stay put...
About the landing nonsense, even if you by chance manage to land on top, all of the Amarr ships will be focusing in one of yoru ships and instantly switching to the next one when it dies. Your blaster boats, on the other hand, will have to approach, each of their targets while being fired upon. =====
"If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron... |
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 22:53:00 -
[96]
Originally by: The Djego Edited by: The Djego on 05/10/2009 18:47:15
Originally by: NightmareX
EDIT: And when your saying you want a 50% DPS boost to Blaster, then you for sure don't have a ****ing clue on what it will do in EVE. You have no clue on how the different PVP mechanics works etc etc if you suggest such a boost for Blasters.
Can you please go away with your epic fail wall with whines please?.
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Blasters need at good 50% DPS advantage over lasers inside their optimal range.
The ability to read properly is a amazing gift, isn¦t it. Hint, there is allready a advantage in DPS, so the number it is not a request for a 50% damage boost, even if it isn¦t this obvious for special people like you.
Oh look! Someone has a grasp of the English language. Well done The Djego. Thanks for doing my work for me. -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Tier 5 Battleships
|
TigerWoman
Amarr The Circle
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 23:02:00 -
[97]
@ etho the graphs say that megas are equal or better dps till 13km even in small transversal, the null vs an multi comparision shows that null can compete up to 25km.
all that with better tracking less cap use.
|
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 23:03:00 -
[98]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 05/10/2009 23:04:04
Originally by: TigerWoman @ etho the graphs say that megas are equal or better dps till 13km even in small transversal, the null vs an multi comparision shows that null can compete up to 25km.
all that with better tracking less cap use.
That sounds roughly correct until you take ship bonuses into account. IIRC, if you include falloff hit degradation, turnover is at 11-12km, but if you include ship bonuses turnover becomes ~8km.
-Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org |
Etho Demerzel
Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 23:21:00 -
[99]
Originally by: Liang Nuren Edited by: Liang Nuren on 05/10/2009 23:04:04
Originally by: TigerWoman @ etho the graphs say that megas are equal or better dps till 13km even in small transversal, the null vs an multi comparision shows that null can compete up to 25km.
all that with better tracking less cap use.
That sounds roughly correct until you take ship bonuses into account. IIRC, if you include falloff hit degradation, turnover is at 11-12km, but if you include ship bonuses turnover becomes ~8km.
-Liang
Just adding, it is 8 km for the complete turn over. The difference is very minor much before that. It is easy to see this in the superposition in the first post of the second page. For speeds bellow 100 m/s there is only a sizeable damage difference bellow 5 km, while lasers get a similar big advantage above 13 km.
From 5-10 you get a small advantage, with blasters, while the same happens with lasers from 11-13.
This comparing AM and MF, of course.
Null against MF is much worse. Null only gainst at extremelly close range 1-2km, after this it catches on only at 27, where pulses can (instantly) swich to Scorch and totally dominate Null.
If the Pulse bot uses MF until 20-23 and then switches to Scorch, it will dominate from 10 and beyond at the very least. =====
"If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron... |
TigerWoman
Amarr The Circle
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 23:25:00 -
[100]
@liang
turnover is at 8km under combat situations you said under realistic situations. where do you see the turnover to be fair enough? short range high dmg ammo for amarr is like 15km with less tracking then blasters of course and more cap use and less ability to dictate range and with worse cap when it comes to longer engagements.
under theses circumstances at which distance do you thin amarr supremacy should start? by that try to take into consideration that amarr is the least versatile and one of the lest mobile races in the game.
|
|
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 23:40:00 -
[101]
Originally by: TigerWoman @liang
turnover is at 8km under combat situations you said under realistic situations. where do you see the turnover to be fair enough? short range high dmg ammo for amarr is like 15km with less tracking then blasters of course and more cap use and less ability to dictate range and with worse cap when it comes to longer engagements.
You make it sound like you don't have the choice to engage from 50km. I'd say it's utterly inexcusable for damage turnover to happen before 13km (which means that the target is unwebbed for both aggressors). I would also encourage you to examine the Rokh - where should damage turnover be for the Rokh?
Quote: under theses circumstances at which distance do you thin amarr supremacy should start? by that try to take into consideration that amarr is the least versatile and one of the lest mobile races in the game.
It's funny that you should think range versatility isn't versatility in some way. I'll take this moment to argue that Gallente is less versatile because they really are one trick ponies - get in your face and melt you.
-Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org |
Norris Packard
Wings of Redemption Black Flag Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.10.08 00:28:00 -
[102]
I don't think that the pulse boats should be able to have about the same DPS as blaster boats, blasters should be the heaviest hitting boats out there and yet pulse boats like the Armageddon get about the same damage but with insane ranges to top it off. I woulds not change the tracking of blasters because they would be too powerful against small targets but a boost to damage would make them more differentiated from the pulse boats. Blaster range needs to remain "in your face" but there needs to be a reason to take the risk that such a limiting engagement envelope creates.
|
Arrador
|
Posted - 2009.10.08 01:18:00 -
[103]
Originally by: Norris Packard I don't think that the pulse boats should be able to have about the same DPS as blaster boats, blasters should be the heaviest hitting boats out there and yet pulse boats like the Armageddon get about the same damage but with insane ranges to top it off. I woulds not change the tracking of blasters because they would be too powerful against small targets but a boost to damage would make them more differentiated from the pulse boats. Blaster range needs to remain "in your face" but there needs to be a reason to take the risk that such a limiting engagement envelope creates.
We either need a slight boost in tracking, or a slight boost to optimal range and leave tracking as is.
|
Durethia
Department of Defence Prismatic Refraction
|
Posted - 2009.10.09 07:27:00 -
[104]
Originally by: Norris Packard I don't think that the pulse boats should be able to have about the same DPS as blaster boats, blasters should be the heaviest hitting boats out there and yet pulse boats like the Armageddon get about the same damage but with insane ranges to top it off. I woulds not change the tracking of blasters because they would be too powerful against small targets but a boost to damage would make them more differentiated from the pulse boats. Blaster range needs to remain "in your face" but there needs to be a reason to take the risk that such a limiting engagement envelope creates.
QFT
Blasters should be a little more powerful than they are. I also agree that tracking is fine. I never had much of a problem personally with tracking. But, when the victim is there webbed stiff, and I'm pounding on him and some other amarr pulse ship is topping me in DPS (in part due to ability to hit target from further away), that's just not right.
Nothing should hit harder than blasters. We are already significantly gimped on range! I would understand the range gimp on blasters... if they inflicted significant damage! But they dont, not compared to Pulse weapons.
C'mon CCP, give blasters a little boost please.
|
Omu Negru
Caldari Legiunea ROmana
|
Posted - 2009.10.09 08:30:00 -
[105]
Originally by: Durethia
Originally by: Norris Packard I don't think that the pulse boats should be able to have about the same DPS as blaster boats, blasters should be the heaviest hitting boats out there and yet pulse boats like the Armageddon get about the same damage but with insane ranges to top it off. I woulds not change the tracking of blasters because they would be too powerful against small targets but a boost to damage would make them more differentiated from the pulse boats. Blaster range needs to remain "in your face" but there needs to be a reason to take the risk that such a limiting engagement envelope creates.
QFT
Blasters should be a little more powerful than they are. I also agree that tracking is fine. I never had much of a problem personally with tracking. But, when the victim is there webbed stiff, and I'm pounding on him and some other amarr pulse ship is topping me in DPS (in part due to ability to hit target from further away), that's just not right.
Nothing should hit harder than blasters. We are already significantly gimped on range! I would understand the range gimp on blasters... if they inflicted significant damage! But they dont, not compared to Pulse weapons.
C'mon CCP, give blasters a little boost please.
Yep, they should slightly boost the blaster.. Just a litle bit at least...
let us pray now...
|
Norris Packard
Wings of Redemption Black Flag Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.10.12 05:51:00 -
[106]
Originally by: Arrador
Originally by: Norris Packard I don't think that the pulse boats should be able to have about the same DPS as blaster boats, blasters should be the heaviest hitting boats out there and yet pulse boats like the Armageddon get about the same damage but with insane ranges to top it off. I woulds not change the tracking of blasters because they would be too powerful against small targets but a boost to damage would make them more differentiated from the pulse boats. Blaster range needs to remain "in your face" but there needs to be a reason to take the risk that such a limiting engagement envelope creates.
We either need a slight boost in tracking, or a slight boost to optimal range and leave tracking as is.
Why do you think that blasters should have a better optimal range? To me blasters are ment to be very short ranged weapons and should stay a point blank massive damage weapons.
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.10.12 08:08:00 -
[107]
Originally by: Norris Packard
Originally by: Arrador
Originally by: Norris Packard I don't think that the pulse boats should be able to have about the same DPS as blaster boats, blasters should be the heaviest hitting boats out there and yet pulse boats like the Armageddon get about the same damage but with insane ranges to top it off. I woulds not change the tracking of blasters because they would be too powerful against small targets but a boost to damage would make them more differentiated from the pulse boats. Blaster range needs to remain "in your face" but there needs to be a reason to take the risk that such a limiting engagement envelope creates.
We either need a slight boost in tracking, or a slight boost to optimal range and leave tracking as is.
Why do you think that blasters should have a better optimal range? To me blasters are ment to be very short ranged weapons and should stay a point blank massive damage weapons.
Yeah. The problem at the moment is that they don't track well enough to do anywhere near their full damage at that "point blank" range, and in any case their damage is very close to pulse lasers in any case -- and pulses have vastly better operational range. Which results in the current situation, where pulses are pretty much always better.
Blasters need (at least) better tracking, and preferrably a bit more raw dps. I'm fine with them being point-blank weapons, but they damn well need to do a ton of damage at that point-blank range (assuming you ever get there). At the moment, they don't.
|
EFT Worrier
|
Posted - 2009.10.12 09:49:00 -
[108]
Nerf scorch, nerf insta-switch crystals and 90% of the current imbalance issue is solved.
|
Derek Shmawesome
We Know Derek
|
Posted - 2009.10.12 09:56:00 -
[109]
Originally by: EFT Worrier Nerf scorch, nerf insta-switch crystals and 90% of the current imbalance issue is solved.
This.
/signed
|
Sweet Puppet
|
Posted - 2009.10.12 12:39:00 -
[110]
Originally by: EFT Worrier Nerf scorch, nerf insta-switch crystals and 90% of the current imbalance issue is solved.
Contenting gallente pilots by ****ing off amarr pilots. Brilliant !
3 months later: 'Nerf blasters !!'
|
|
london
Gallente Dark-Rising IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.10.12 15:42:00 -
[111]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
The OP is dead on with his analysis of blasters. The math and graphs simply confirm what long time blaster users have 'felt' all along; that intuitive knowledge that blasters just simply aren't as effective as they should be.
Yeah, it's a shame they are actively fixing projectiles when blasters are so screwed up. Projectiles already have superior range due to falloff, and the ships using ACs are the fastest so they can always dictate range (and stay out of your blaster range).
|
Endless Subversion
The Accursed
|
Posted - 2009.10.12 16:01:00 -
[112]
Originally by: EFT Worrier Nerf scorch, nerf insta-switch crystals and 90% of the current imbalance issue is solved.
What a stupid sentiment.
Projectiles (and missiles imo) desperately need insta-switch ammo. Basically reload time makes it pointless (in most cases) to even bother switching once combat has started making the point of having 'ammo diversity' significantly less useful.
**Fake edit** I guess it matters for Null and railguns too, I'm all for insta-swap ammo for all weapon systems.
|
Grut
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.10.12 16:33:00 -
[113]
Originally by: Endless Subversion
Originally by: EFT Worrier Nerf scorch, nerf insta-switch crystals and 90% of the current imbalance issue is solved.
What a stupid sentiment.
Projectiles (and missiles imo) desperately need insta-switch ammo. Basically reload time makes it pointless (in most cases) to even bother switching once combat has started making the point of having 'ammo diversity' significantly less useful.
**Fake edit** I guess it matters for Null and railguns too, I'm all for insta-swap ammo for all weapon systems.
You don't need insta swap just to reduce it to a more reasonable amount. Say 3 secs for close range stuff and 5 secs for long. You retain the difference, just make it less evident.
Kinsy > deadman you there? Kinsy > are either of us in pods, becase we dont know...
Mostly harmless [ 2005.12.09 19:22:50 ] (notify) You have started trying to warp scramble the Dreadnought |
EFT Worrier
|
Posted - 2009.10.17 08:51:00 -
[114]
Originally by: Grut
Originally by: Endless Subversion
Originally by: EFT Worrier Nerf scorch, nerf insta-switch crystals and 90% of the current imbalance issue is solved.
Projectiles (and missiles imo) desperately need insta-switch ammo. Basically reload time makes it pointless (in most cases) to even bother switching once combat has started making the point of having 'ammo diversity' significantly less useful.
**Fake edit** I guess it matters for Null and railguns too, I'm all for insta-swap ammo for all weapon systems.
You don't need insta swap just to reduce it to a more reasonable amount. Say 3 secs for close range stuff and 5 secs for long. You retain the difference, just make it less evident.
pretty much. the difference in 0sec swap and 10sec swap is too much i think.
|
Forge Lag
Jita Lag Preservation Fund
|
Posted - 2009.10.17 10:19:00 -
[115]
Oh look the WoW brigade wants everything to be "ballanced" aka the same, because they do not want their decisions to have any consequences.
Look, turrets are already all to similiar. Even if they make them more "ballanced" you will just produce more graphs and won't stop whining till they are different flavour of the same thing. You want uber DPS but that won't help fleets so you want range but that won't help facemelting and you don't want falloff so... so you want the/kin lasers.
Why do not you go ahead and compare pulses to heavy drones and torpedoes? Because that takes more that plugging numbers into spreadseheet?
Also, consider medium and small weapons too. Last time I checked, Legion was considered crap so pulses are not the ultimate guns you are making them to be. BS scorch may be but on BS level blaster DPS can be equalled with beams... oh my I hope I have not upset you even more.
Yes, lasers are the "best" guns. Gee, surprise, they are ment to be. If you feel your race does not get enough perks in the trade, ask for those.
|
Djerin
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.10.17 12:46:00 -
[116]
Originally by: Forge Lag You want uber DPS but that won't help fleets so you want range but that won't help facemelting and you don't want falloff so... so you want the/kin lasers.
What a pointless rant... You should at least try to understand what the fuzz is about before talking your rubbish here. Nobody is complaining about Multifrequency, Conflagration and all the other ammo. People only pointed out, that Scorch is overpowered in comparison to ALL other t2 short range ammos (this inlcudes drones and missiles btw).
Also nobody is seriously asking for more range with blasters. What makes people sad is, that lasers do not have any drawback as opposed to all other weapons. With blasters you have much shorter max range. In addition you deal less damage at medium range. Furthermore you have a 10 second delay of damage distribution as you (and/or the enemy) transition through the ranges. And what's your advantage? You can deal a tiny bit more damage if you manage to dictate range, which in turn costs more capacity than 30 lasers could consume.
We're not asking to get the same stats between lasers and blasters. We're asking for balance, that just isn't there at the moment. ---- Sarmaul's crosstrainorgtfo |
Seven Six
|
Posted - 2009.10.19 02:18:00 -
[117]
You should alsop consider the fact that gallente do thermal and kinetic damage types only from their guns - now, last I checked the 2 most tanked damage types were? Oh right kinetic and thermic.
|
Laur Khal
|
Posted - 2009.10.22 09:52:00 -
[118]
Originally by: Djerin
Originally by: Forge Lag You want uber DPS but that won't help fleets so you want range but that won't help facemelting and you don't want falloff so... so you want the/kin lasers.
What a pointless rant... You should at least try to understand what the fuzz is about before talking your rubbish here. Nobody is complaining about Multifrequency, Conflagration and all the other ammo. People only pointed out, that Scorch is overpowered in comparison to ALL other t2 short range ammos (this inlcudes drones and missiles btw).
Also nobody is seriously asking for more range with blasters. What makes people sad is, that lasers do not have any drawback as opposed to all other weapons. With blasters you have much shorter max range. In addition you deal less damage at medium range. Furthermore you have a 10 second delay of damage distribution as you (and/or the enemy) transition through the ranges. And what's your advantage? You can deal a tiny bit more damage if you manage to dictate range, which in turn costs more capacity than 30 lasers could consume.
We're not asking to get the same stats between lasers and blasters. We're asking for balance, that just isn't there at the moment.
Very well said.
|
Seishi Maru
The Black Dawn Gang
|
Posted - 2009.10.22 11:02:00 -
[119]
Originally by: Jack Icegaard To sum up what can be deduced from the graphs:
ANMF have null completely covered. The advantage for the Megathron is strictly inside 10km. Nothing new there..
So the old question is if the advantage of the Megathron inside of 10km is large enough to compensate for the ability to, without delay, project damage out to 50 km.
What my first graph illustrate is that the advantage of the Megathron inside of 10 km is rather small. Only in the high transversal area does the Mega significantly more damage.
On the other hand, if there is a high probability that the Megathron can keep the target inside of web range for the duration of the fight, then the range advantage of the Armageddon is moot.
Put the damage againdt a standard resist of 09 in 10 targets and lasers loose a lot of their OMFG factor. THey are still superior.. but the "real scenario"argument that blaster pilots are complaining must be modelled includign that for a fair view.
I still think the only thing needed is to remove the trackign boost that pulse lasers got at revelations II. Pulse lasers with scorch SHOULD really rule everything over 20 km. Also MF should be very strong at 15 km. But they should be fairly easy to outtrack close range.
An armageddon with MP II and MF should be hitting CRAP of for example a typhoon rolling at 4-5 km.
|
Pac SubCom
Stealthfield Ihatalo Cartel Navy
|
Posted - 2009.10.22 12:29:00 -
[120]
Please publish your matlab script. --------------- ∞ TQFE
|
|
Miyamoto Uroki
Caldari Black Thorne Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.10.22 12:50:00 -
[121]
Yeah, the matlab scripts would be nice.
Also lots of kudos for making this thread. They should be published more often on balancing issues, especially with mature comments.
|
marakor
Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers
|
Posted - 2009.10.22 21:27:00 -
[122]
Edited by: marakor on 22/10/2009 21:32:56
Blaster BS have been gimped for a very long time and with the overpoweredness of lasers this has been highlighted.
Blaster BS were supposed to be the 1 v 1 BS at close range but with the CCP idea of making solo BS pvp a thiong of the past they are now way under powered.
1. A poor EHP tank relative to what is available to amarr while needing to operate at way closer range than amaar ships is absurd.
2. Marginally better DPS at a absurdly small range and then being out ranged as well as out damaged for a vast amount.
Get your finger out and fix it CCP its been way too long.
|
Etho Demerzel
Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.10.22 22:50:00 -
[123]
Edited by: Etho Demerzel on 22/10/2009 22:52:14
Originally by: Seishi Maru
Put the damage againdt a standard resist of 09 in 10 targets and lasers loose a lot of their OMFG factor. THey are still superior.. but the "real scenario"argument that blaster pilots are complaining must be modelled includign that for a fair view.
Roughly half of the ships flown in pvp in this game are shield tanked. That includes 3/8 of the battleships, most Battlecruisers, HACs, Recons, Logistics, and cruisers and a lot of the AFs.
Interceptors and SBs usually are not tanked (or speed/cloak tanked as you prefer).
Against these ships, lasers are EVEN better than the graphics may make you believe.
Add that to the fact that Armor tanked battleships have a lot of shield and hull, which are a significant part of their HP and EVEN armor tanked battleships are not that good against lasers...
Therefore asking for comparisons against armor resists is not only fallacious, but stupid as well.
Quote:
I still think the only thing needed is to remove the trackign boost that pulse lasers got at revelations II. Pulse lasers with scorch SHOULD really rule everything over 20 km. Also MF should be very strong at 15 km. But they should be fairly easy to outtrack close range.
An armageddon with MP II and MF should be hitting CRAP of for example a typhoon rolling at 4-5 km.
That is a good start. But I think scorch should have a 50% trackign penalty (instead of the current 25%) in addition to that.
=====
"If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron... |
Norris Packard
Wings of Redemption Black Flag Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.10.23 04:53:00 -
[124]
Originally by: Etho Demerzel Edited by: Etho Demerzel on 22/10/2009 22:52:14
Originally by: Seishi Maru
Put the damage againdt a standard resist of 09 in 10 targets and lasers loose a lot of their OMFG factor. THey are still superior.. but the "real scenario"argument that blaster pilots are complaining must be modelled includign that for a fair view.
Roughly half of the ships flown in pvp in this game are shield tanked. That includes 3/8 of the battleships, most Battlecruisers, HACs, Recons, Logistics, and cruisers and a lot of the AFs.
Interceptors and SBs usually are not tanked (or speed/cloak tanked as you prefer).
Against these ships, lasers are EVEN better than the graphics may make you believe.
Add that to the fact that Armor tanked battleships have a lot of shield and hull, which are a significant part of their HP and EVEN armor tanked battleships are not that good against lasers...
Therefore asking for comparisons against armor resists is not only fallacious, but stupid as well.
Quote:
I still think the only thing needed is to remove the trackign boost that pulse lasers got at revelations II. Pulse lasers with scorch SHOULD really rule everything over 20 km. Also MF should be very strong at 15 km. But they should be fairly easy to outtrack close range.
An armageddon with MP II and MF should be hitting CRAP of for example a typhoon rolling at 4-5 km.
That is a good start. But I think scorch should have a 50% trackign penalty (instead of the current 25%) in addition to that.
All other long ranged ammo has a 25% tracking penalty not really fair to change that. Changing the pulse tracking for all the guns would be a better fix but I dont think thats quite the problem. The problem I have is that pulse lasers do as much as blasters in DPS.
|
Etho Demerzel
Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.10.23 05:09:00 -
[125]
Edited by: Etho Demerzel on 23/10/2009 05:08:53
Originally by: Norris Packard
All other long ranged ammo has a 25% tracking penalty not really fair to change that. Changing the pulse tracking for all the guns would be a better fix but I dont think thats quite the problem. The problem I have is that pulse lasers do as much as blasters in DPS.
25% of trackign reduction for an ammo that operates at 45km is not the same of 25% of tracking reduction for an ammo that operates at 20 km.
Ammo penalties don't need to be equal. Hail, for example has a 50% falloff reduction in addition to the 50% optimal reduction as penalty and Conflag does not. That happens because you need to apply penalties to falloff to make them meaningful in the former and you don't in the later. =====
"If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron... |
EFT Worrier
|
Posted - 2009.10.23 07:43:00 -
[126]
Maybe a large buff to Void is the way to go... and normalise/buff all ammo switching times to within a few seconds of each other instead of 0sec/10sec?
|
marakor
Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers
|
Posted - 2009.10.23 09:54:00 -
[127]
Pulse need a decrease in dmg and or range, blasters need a increase in dmg and or range its that simple and skirting the issue with irrelavant and pointless ideas is stupid.
|
Seishi Maru
The Black Dawn Gang
|
Posted - 2009.10.23 10:13:00 -
[128]
Originally by: marakor
Pulse need a decrease in dmg and or range, blasters need a increase in dmg and or range its that simple and skirting the issue with irrelavant and pointless ideas is stupid.
nope.. you are the one with a stupid approach. Giving more range to blasters and less range to pulses is the very essence of the homogenization of everything in game into the same very things. Destroy flavor! Destroys game!
What we need IS different ideas that can balance things whiel keeping each weapon system with its own flavors.
|
marakor
Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers
|
Posted - 2009.10.23 14:13:00 -
[129]
Edited by: marakor on 23/10/2009 14:15:20
Originally by: Seishi Maru
Originally by: marakor
Pulse need a decrease in dmg and or range, blasters need a increase in dmg and or range its that simple and skirting the issue with irrelavant and pointless ideas is stupid.
nope.. you are the one with a stupid approach. Giving more range to blasters and less range to pulses is the very essence of the homogenization of everything in game into the same very things. Destroy flavor! Destroys game!
As per usual one person decides that reducing the vast gap between the systems is the same are totally removing the gap and has to post a comment about "making everthing the same, destruction of eve WAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!".
Congratulation on it being you.......again.
A BS with the best EHP tank, almost equal best DMG within every other races very small optimal, a instant reload, plus a VASTLY larger optimal range is absurd and totaly unbalanced, especially when you are talking about battleships that have already been limited in target selection and combat options over the last few years.
|
NightmareX
Infinitus Odium Shadows of Light
|
Posted - 2009.10.25 17:40:00 -
[130]
Originally by: marakor Get your finger out and fix it CCP its been way too long.
No, you need to get your finger out and use a better Mega setup.
And not only that, your comparing a tier 3 ship with better stats to a Mega that is tier 2 that have worser stats.
Ok, if you really want to see why i would use a Mega over an Abaddon, then look under and use this setup.
Mega.
High-Slot:
7 x Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L 1 x Large 'Solace' I Remote Bulwark Reconstruction
Med-Slot:
1 x 100MN MicroWarpdrive II 1 x Warp Disruptor II 1 x Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I 1 x Medium Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 800
Low-Slot:
1 x Damage Control II 2 x Amarr Navy Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane 1 x Adaptive Nano Plating II 2 x 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I 1 x Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Rigs:
3 x Large Trimark Armor Pump I
Drones:
5 x Ogre II
This setup need a -3% CPU usage on turrets implant to fit. And this setup have 138739 EHP. 28594 Armor HP. 79.4% EM, 73.3% Thermal and Kinetic and 63% Explosive resists. This setup also does 995 DPS. The capacitor with the Medium Capacitor Booster lasts for 1 min and 21 secs.
The Mega with the Neutron Blaster Cannon II have those stats:
Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L: 32.2 Kinetic damage & 23 Thermal damage = 55,2 damage in total.
Activation: 13.65 Cap. Duration: 5.07465 Sec. Optimal: 4.5 km. Falloff: 12.5 km. Damage Mod: 9.13172. Tracking: 0.07422.
Now to the Abaddon.
High-Slot:
7 x Mega Pulse Laser II, Amarr Navy Multifrequency L 1 x Large 'Solace' I Remote Bulwark Reconstruction
Med-Slot:
1 x 100MN MicroWarpdrive II 1 x Warp Disruptor II 1 x Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I 1 x Heavy Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 800
Low-Slot:
1 x Damage Control II 2 x Amarr Navy Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane 2 x 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I 2 x Heat Sink II
Rigs:
3 x Large Trimark Armor Pump I
Drones:
3x Ogre II
This setup fits without any implants. This setup have 176279 EHP. 32128 Armor HP. 82.7% EM, 77.5% Thermal, 74% Kinetic and 72.3% Explosive resists. This setup does 903 DPS with 2x heat Sink II's. The Capacitor with a Heavy Capacitor Booster II lasts for 1 min and 27 secs.
The Abaddon with the Mega Pulse Laser II's have those stats:
Amarr Navy Multifrequency L: 32.2 EM damage & 23 Thermal damage = 55,2 damage in total.
Activation: 30 Cap. Duration: 4.61155 Sec. Optimal: 15 km. Falloff: 10 km. Damage Mod: 8.50746. Tracking: 0.04219.
Ok, there is the stats you need to know. Now i just need to calculate the stats with the damage mods, ROF, resists and so on to get the real stats.
Then, lets start with the Mega.
The Mega with Neutron Blaster Cannon II & Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L + drones does this.
32.2 Kinetic damage - 74% Kinetic resist the Abaddon have = 8,372 damage 23 Thermal damage - 77.5% Thermal resist the Abaddon have = 5,175 damage Rate Of Fire: 5.07465 Damage Mod: 9.13172
5 x Ogre II drones = 317 DPS. Ogre II does 48 Thermal damage. So 48 x 5 Thermal damage - 77.5% Thermal resist on the Abaddon = 54 damage.
So in total, this will get to this: 8,372 damage + 5,175 damage x 9.13172 damage mod + 54 drone damage / 5.07465 sec ROF = 35,01865366872592.
Now to the Abaddon.
The Abaddon with Mega Pulse Laser II & Amarr Navy Multifrequency L + drones does this:
32.2 EM damage - 79.4% EM resist the Mega have = 6,6332 damage 23 Thermal damage - 73.3% Thermnal resist the Mega have = 6,141 damage Rate Of Fire: 4.61155 Damage Mod: 8.50746
3x Ogre II drones = 190 DPS. Ogre II does 48 Thermal damage. So 48 x 3 Thermal damage - 73.3% Thermal resist on the Mega = 38,448 damage.
So in total, this will get to this: 6,6332 damage + 6,141 damage x 8.50746 damage mod + 38,448 drone damage / 4.61155 sec ROF = 31,90337208357277.
Will continue on next reply.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
|
NightmareX
Infinitus Odium Shadows of Light
|
Posted - 2009.10.25 17:45:00 -
[131]
Then we have to calculate this: 31,90337208357277 damage the Abaddon have + 9.76% = 35,01714119892947. That's about the same number as the damage the Mega have. So yeah, the Megathron with 1 x damage mod does 9.76% more DPS than the Abaddon with 2x damage mods after the resists.
Now, lets see how much armor both of the ships have. Abaddon have 32128 Armor HP. Then we take 32128 Armor HP - 11% = 28593,92. And that's about the same as the Megathron have in Armor HP.
So yeah, the Megathron does 9.76% more DPS than the Abaddon, while the Abaddon have 11% more Armor HP than the Mega. So it's pretty equal here tbh.
I rather say the Megathron does a fantastic job here when you compare it to a tier 3 ship with 25% more resists than the Mega.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Liang Nuren
No Salvation War.Pigs.
|
Posted - 2009.10.25 17:52:00 -
[132]
Originally by: NightmareX I rather say the Megathron does a fantastic job here when you compare it to a tier 3 ship with 25% more resists than the Mega.
The Mega does passably, but only if you assume you are shooting armor tanked battleships that magically start in your optimal. The Abaddon can be set up to get blaster tracking + damage and *STILL* have more HP, and it can be set up to deal fantastic damage at range.
The only reason it's not WTFBBQOP is because of cap issues... which are largely mitigated by cap boosters.
-Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org |
NightmareX
Infinitus Odium Shadows of Light
|
Posted - 2009.10.25 17:59:00 -
[133]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: NightmareX I rather say the Megathron does a fantastic job here when you compare it to a tier 3 ship with 25% more resists than the Mega.
The Mega does passably, but only if you assume you are shooting armor tanked battleships that magically start in your optimal. The Abaddon can be set up to get blaster tracking + damage and *STILL* have more HP, and it can be set up to deal fantastic damage at range.
The only reason it's not WTFBBQOP is because of cap issues... which are largely mitigated by cap boosters.
-Liang
Yeah that's true.
But after what i can remember from when i was in Tri, when we was out in RR BS gangs, we always warped inside 5 km range to the enemies. If we was at a gate waiting for the enemies to jump in, then most of the Megathrons had Null L fitted in the guns, because in most cases, the enemies will MWD back to the gate and jump out.
And when the enemies goes right towards the gate, then the tracking penatly on Null doesn't matter, because they are going right towards your Megathron to then.
And then eventually change to Antimatter L when they are close to the gate.
But then, a gang that is sitting at a gate in RR range to each others, will always have an advantage over the players / gangs that are jumping in on us at a gate.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
marakor
Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers
|
Posted - 2009.10.25 20:11:00 -
[134]
Edited by: marakor on 25/10/2009 20:12:02
Originally by: NightmareX
High-Slot:
7 x Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L 1 x Large 'Solace' I Remote Bulwark Reconstruction
Med-Slot:
1 x 100MN MicroWarpdrive II 1 x Warp Disruptor II 1 x Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I 1 x Medium Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 800
Low-Slot:
1 x Damage Control II 2 x Amarr Navy Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane 1 x Adaptive Nano Plating II 2 x 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I 1 x Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Rigs:
3 x Large Trimark Armor Pump I
Drones:
5 x Ogre II
Fitting a med cap injector on a blaster mega that has a mwd on it as well as RR is just stupid for a lot of reasons but il just point out the blindingly obvious one:-
The blaster mega needs to either mwd into range of each primary or use null (for crappy dmg output)or be magically always in the perfect optimal from every hostile ship.
I see you realised this in a later post and tried to make excusses for it by claiming to "always" warp into a hostile fleet or "always" be on a gate ect ect.
All in all it seems the restrictions on megas needing to be always in their awfully small optimal range or do sucky dmg with null shows just how much versatility they actually lack, coupled with their need to use faction modules as well as being limited to a med cap injector clearly shows how badly they need help.
Still it would not be a blaster thread without your absurd input and inexperianced ranting.
|
marakor
Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers
|
Posted - 2009.10.25 20:23:00 -
[135]
Edited by: marakor on 25/10/2009 20:23:07
Originally by: NightmareX So yeah, the Megathron does 9.76% more DPS than the Abaddon, while the Abaddon have 11% more Armor HP than the Mega. So it's pretty equal here tbh.
With those setups only 9.76 more dps while the abaddon has 11% more hp and much better overll resists......OH yea and that 9.76 more dps is at a range of 0-4.5km while the abaddon gets its dps at 0-15 with MF (FYI thats 300% more range).
Of course the abaddon also has the option of dropping a plate fitting a third HS and then pretty much matching the megas dmg, still having better EHP and still having 300% more range.
But hey lets ignore those inconvienient details cos in your delusions every ship in eve is always at 4.5km from a blaster mega..........
|
NightmareX
Infinitus Odium Shadows of Light
|
Posted - 2009.10.25 21:01:00 -
[136]
Edited by: NightmareX on 25/10/2009 21:04:01
Originally by: marakor Edited by: marakor on 25/10/2009 20:35:25
Originally by: NightmareX
High-Slot:
7 x Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L 1 x Large 'Solace' I Remote Bulwark Reconstruction
Med-Slot:
1 x 100MN MicroWarpdrive II 1 x Warp Disruptor II 1 x Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I 1 x Medium Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 800
Low-Slot:
1 x Damage Control II 2 x Amarr Navy Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane 1 x Adaptive Nano Plating II 2 x 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I 1 x Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Rigs:
3 x Large Trimark Armor Pump I
Drones:
5 x Ogre II
Fitting a med cap injector on a blaster mega that has a mwd on it as well as RR is just stupid for a lot of reasons but il just point out the blindingly obvious one:-
The blaster mega needs to either mwd into range of each primary or use null (for crappy dmg output that is a lot less than your claiming in you 9.76% comments)or be magically always in the perfect optimal from every hostile ship.
I see you realised this in a later post and tried to make excusses for it by claiming to "always" warp into a hostile fleet or "always" be on a gate ect ect.
All in all it seems the restrictions on megas needing to be always in their awfully small optimal range or do sucky dmg with null shows just how much versatility they actually lack, coupled with their need to use faction modules as well as being limited to a med cap injector clearly shows how badly they need help.
Still it would not be a blaster thread without your absurd input and inexperianced fitting ideas and laughable comments on pvp in a ship you have never even flown on the main server.
Wow, what a rubbish reply.
Is those kinds of replys the daily memes that are going around on this forum?.
Anyways, do you know how much Cap an Abaddon use with the guns alone within 46 seconds?
Ok, lets do some more calculation. 30 cap per MPL II on Abaddon. And 30 cap per gun x 7 guns = 210 cap usage every 4.6 sec that is the ROF on the Abaddon.
Now take 4.6 sec ROF x 10 that is 46 seconds. Then the Abaddon will use 2100 cap only by guns every 46 seconds.
Now to the Megathron. 13.65 cap usage each gun every 5 secs that is the ROF on the Mega. And 13.65 cap usage per gun x 7 guns = 95,55 cap usage every 5 seconds. And then take 95.55 x 10 = 955.5 cap usage on the Megathron every 50 secs only by guns.
Now within those 50 secs you can then MWD 2 times on top of shooting all the times, because each MWD cycle use 594 cap. And 594 x 2 = 1188. And then we take 1188 + 955.5 cap useage on the guns on the Mega = 2143,5 capacitor used within 50 secs. And this is 4 secs longer than the Abaddon usage after 46 seconds.
So after all, the Megathron use a little lesser cap than the Abaddon that way.
Now if the Abaddon have to use the MWD, the Cap goes much much faster om nom nom nom on the Abaddon LOL's.
And if you didn't know. You only use a Heavy Capacitor Booster on a Mega incase your getting neuted. If your not getting neuted, you don't have any problems to keep your cap up with a Medium Capacitor Booster.
Yes, Blasters have very short range. But does your 300% more range on your Mega Pulse Lasers helps any when the gang with lots of Mega's are sitting 3-4 km from you after they have warped in on top of your ass and are ROFL'ing at you and then enjoys the fireworks when your Abaddons goes kaboom?.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
marakor
Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers
|
Posted - 2009.10.25 21:13:00 -
[137]
Originally by: NightmareX Edited by: NightmareX on 25/10/2009 21:06:22
Originally by: marakor Edited by: marakor on 25/10/2009 20:35:25
Originally by: NightmareX
High-Slot:
7 x Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge L 1 x Large 'Solace' I Remote Bulwark Reconstruction
Med-Slot:
1 x 100MN MicroWarpdrive II 1 x Warp Disruptor II 1 x Fleeting Propulsion Inhibitor I 1 x Medium Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 800
Low-Slot:
1 x Damage Control II 2 x Amarr Navy Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane 1 x Adaptive Nano Plating II 2 x 1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I 1 x Magnetic Field Stabilizer II
Rigs:
3 x Large Trimark Armor Pump I
Drones:
5 x Ogre II
Fitting a med cap injector on a blaster mega that has a mwd on it as well as RR is just stupid for a lot of reasons but il just point out the blindingly obvious one:-
The blaster mega needs to either mwd into range of each primary or use null (for crappy dmg output that is a lot less than your claiming in you 9.76% comments)or be magically always in the perfect optimal from every hostile ship.
I see you realised this in a later post and tried to make excusses for it by claiming to "always" warp into a hostile fleet or "always" be on a gate ect ect.
All in all it seems the restrictions on megas needing to be always in their awfully small optimal range or do sucky dmg with null shows just how much versatility they actually lack, coupled with their need to use faction modules as well as being limited to a med cap injector clearly shows how badly they need help.
Still it would not be a blaster thread without your absurd input and inexperianced fitting ideas and laughable comments on pvp in a ship you have never even flown on the main server.
Anyways, do you know how much Cap an Abaddon use with the guns alone within 46 seconds?
Considering the megas have to MWD a lot and the abaddons have the range so they hardly need to move id say that i know a med cap injector is a crappy choice for a RR blaster ship, but then ive flown blaster megas with RR while you have not.
But then you always make the same mistake with your scenarios, because you have never flown one you never know just how poorly they perform asnd how much you need to move around to get into the range your claiming they seem to be born into.....
Get some experiance and you will come back agreeing with those of us who have some instead of needing to post stupid fits along with rare and limited scenarios.
|
marakor
Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers
|
Posted - 2009.10.25 21:28:00 -
[138]
Get some experiance and you will come back agreeing with those of us who have some instead of needing to post stupid fits along with rare and limited scenarios.
After all you pointed out yourself that at the blaster ships optimal they were close to equal due to the abaddons more hp vs the megas more dmg.....but you forgot to include the abaddons 300% more range and the megas MWD butchering its cap.
You use 50 seconds in your cap usage scenario but as you mentioned earlier the mega would be cap dead after another 30 or so seconds while the abaddon will not have needed to use its mwd so will have plenty of cap left over.
|
NightmareX
Infinitus Odium Shadows of Light
|
Posted - 2009.10.25 21:36:00 -
[139]
Edited by: NightmareX on 25/10/2009 21:36:25
Originally by: marakor Get some experiance and you will come back agreeing with those of us who have some instead of needing to post stupid fits along with rare and limited scenarios.
After all you pointed out yourself that at the blaster ships optimal they were close to equal due to the abaddons more hp vs the megas more dmg.....but you forgot to include the abaddons 300% more range and the megas MWD butchering its cap.
You use 50 seconds in your cap usage scenario but as you mentioned earlier the mega would be cap dead after another 30 or so seconds while the abaddon will not have needed to use its mwd so will have plenty of cap left over.
Will never happen. Because after all those 4 years i have been using a Megathron in absolutely every possible way you can imagine on Sisi, then no, a Megathon works with no problems with a Medium Capacitor Booster until you get neuted.
And no, the Mega would not be cap dead. The Abaddon would be cap dead long way before the Megathron if the Abaddon have to MWD on top of shooting.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
marakor
Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers
|
Posted - 2009.10.25 21:49:00 -
[140]
Originally by: NightmareX
Will never happen. Because after all those 4 years i have been using a Megathron in absolutely every possible way you can imagine on Sisi, then no, a Megathon works with no problems with a Medium Capacitor Booster until you get neuted.
1. If it was as good as you claim you would use it on the main server.....but you never have ever.
2. All you ever do on sissi is get your faction ship moved to FD- after every update and then try to show off in 1 v 1 fights.
3. You do not use a standard mega fit on sissi you pimp it.
4. You only learned how to fit a standard mega for RR combat on topics like this over the last 12 months or so, and you still try to dream up fits with faction mods that nobody uses on the main server.
5. You have not even come close to testing "every possable way" a mega can be used and even if you had the 4 years XP you claim to have ERVE has changed so much over the years most of it would be worthless.
And mostly the fact is that ALL the players in this thread saying that blasters/blaster BS need fixing ALL have plenty of blaster BS kills on the main server, while all you have is your usual unprovable claims about how you have "tested everything" and lets face it your a proven liar on multiple occasions.
|
|
NightmareX
Infinitus Odium Shadows of Light
|
Posted - 2009.10.25 21:54:00 -
[141]
Edited by: NightmareX on 25/10/2009 21:56:30
Originally by: marakor
Originally by: NightmareX
Will never happen. Because after all those 4 years i have been using a Megathron in absolutely every possible way you can imagine on Sisi, then no, a Megathon works with no problems with a Medium Capacitor Booster until you get neuted.
1. If it was as good as you claim you would use it on the main server.....but you never have ever.
2. All you ever do on sissi is get your faction ship moved to FD- after every update and then try to show off in 1 v 1 fights.
3. You do not use a standard mega fit on sissi you pimp it.
4. You only learned how to fit a standard mega for RR combat on topics like this over the last 12 months or so, and you still try to dream up fits with faction mods that nobody uses on the main server.
5. You have not even come close to testing "every possable way" a mega can be used and even if you had the 4 years XP you claim to have ERVE has changed so much over the years most of it would be worthless.
And mostly the fact is that ALL the players in this thread saying that blasters/blaster BS need fixing ALL have plenty of blaster BS kills on the main server, while all you have is your usual unprovable claims about how you have "tested everything" and lets face it your a proven liar on multiple occasions.
Oh here we go again, with the typical replies to idiots.
1. Do i actually need to use one Mega just to find out it's stats?.
2. What does the faction ships have to do with me using a Mega on Sisi for 4 years to do?.
3. Dude, there is a big difference between a Navy Mega and a normal Mega. ROFL, your an idiot.
4. I learned how to fit an RR Mega by trying out setups my self on Sisi and then find out what setup that works best.
5. How do you know this?. Yes i use a Megathron everytime i'm on Sisi, so saying i haven't is a lie. I know i have used it in every possible ways you can use it in on Sisi within those 4 years. Remember, some few years ago, i was living on Sisi to test out everything, including mining.
And to the last thing, that can be number 6?. Ok. now, if you haven't seen it, there is very few peoples in this topic with maxed skills for a Megathron and Blasters that says they need to be boosted. Yes i'm maxed for the Mega and Large Blasters.
So, what's your next excuses?. I'm waiting for the next funny and most idiotic excuses ever again from you now again.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
marakor
Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers
|
Posted - 2009.10.25 21:54:00 -
[142]
Originally by: NightmareX
And when you say the Megas have to MWD alot. Can i ask what kind of failure noob RR BS gang you are in if you have to MWD alot around?. Because if your out and MWD'ing around, your not gonna be in RR range. And yeah, you know what that means?.
So your saying that i need to sit still out side the small 4.5km optimal or only fight stupid noobs who let me warp in on them aty 4.5km and then sit stioll and not burn away?.....
Your scenarios = Epic inexperiance from a cluless sissi warrior with no real combat XP, but seems to expect the enemies on the main server to be as stupid as he is and sit still while he warp in and pwns em...
|
NightmareX
Infinitus Odium Shadows of Light
|
Posted - 2009.10.25 21:59:00 -
[143]
Edited by: NightmareX on 25/10/2009 22:02:49
Originally by: marakor
Originally by: NightmareX
And when you say the Megas have to MWD alot. Can i ask what kind of failure noob RR BS gang you are in if you have to MWD alot around?. Because if your out and MWD'ing around, your not gonna be in RR range. And yeah, you know what that means?.
So your saying that i need to sit still out side the small 4.5km optimal or only fight stupid noobs who let me warp in on them aty 4.5km and then sit stioll and not burn away?.....
Your scenarios = Epic inexperiance from a cluless sissi warrior with no real combat XP, but seems to expect the enemies on the main server to be as stupid as he is and sit still while he warp in and pwns em...
marakor, do you really think i'm stupid and don't know who your main is?.
It's easy to find out who you are anyways. Because there is only one in a Blaster topic that says sissi. And guess what that means, yes you are sophisticatedlimabean. And that alone explains all.
By this, your **** replies here are worser than my dogs poo. Hurray.
Now, how are you gonna explan your experience with Blasters when your the biggest Blaster whiner on earth / EVE?. You have been proved times after times that your only trolling and only makes excuses and makes lies.
So, can you please shut up and actually use a Mega before you speak?.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
marakor
Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers
|
Posted - 2009.10.25 22:02:00 -
[144]
Originally by: NightmareX
1. Do i actually need to use one Mega just to find out it's stats?.
No but you need to fly it a lot on the main server against other experianced players and FC's to know its capabilities in realistic scenarios.
You stupid scenarios always involve a enemy that sits still like a moron and lets you warp in on him and then does not even bother burning away ffs....how dumb do you think ppl are on the main server?..
Originally by: NightmareX 2. What does the faction ships have to do with me using a Mega on Sisi for 4 years to do?.
Not a lot considering you only learned how to fit a standard RR mega 12 months or so ago lol....4yrs my ass lol.
Originally by: NightmareX 3. Dude, there is a big difference between a Navy Mega and a normal Mega.
Yea you fly a navy mega on sissi to show off to noobs but have never flown a standard mega on sissi....thats the differance lol.
Originally by: NightmareX 4. I learned how to fit an RR Mega by trying out setups my self on Sisi and then find out what setup that works best.
Rubbish you made a fool out of yourself on a thread just like this one by claiming it could fit things it had nowhere near the cpu or PG to get away with.
Originally by: NightmareX 5. How do you know this?.
KNOW WHAT?, THAT YOUR A LIAR?...COS YOU ALWAYS LIE IN BLASTER THREADS...
|
NightmareX
Infinitus Odium Shadows of Light
|
Posted - 2009.10.25 22:05:00 -
[145]
Edited by: NightmareX on 25/10/2009 22:06:14
Originally by: marakor
Originally by: NightmareX
1. Do i actually need to use one Mega just to find out it's stats?.
No but you need to fly it a lot on the main server against other experianced players and FC's to know its capabilities in realistic scenarios.
You stupid scenarios always involve a enemy that sits still like a moron and lets you warp in on him and then does not even bother burning away ffs....how dumb do you think ppl are on the main server?..
Originally by: NightmareX 2. What does the faction ships have to do with me using a Mega on Sisi for 4 years to do?.
Not a lot considering you only learned how to fit a standard RR mega 12 months or so ago lol....4yrs my ass lol.
Originally by: NightmareX 3. Dude, there is a big difference between a Navy Mega and a normal Mega.
Yea you fly a navy mega on sissi to show off to noobs but have never flown a standard mega on sissi....thats the differance lol.
Originally by: NightmareX 4. I learned how to fit an RR Mega by trying out setups my self on Sisi and then find out what setup that works best.
Rubbish you made a fool out of yourself on a thread just like this one by claiming it could fit things it had nowhere near the cpu or PG to get away with.
Originally by: NightmareX 5. How do you know this?.
KNOW WHAT?, THAT YOUR A LIAR?...COS YOU ALWAYS LIE IN BLASTER THREADS...
ROFL, god your stupid.
DO I REALLY NEED TO SAY MORE WHEN THIS PLAYER IS sophisticatedlimabean?.
GUYS, THIS IS sophisticatedlimabean WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE.
Yes caps lock are for cool, because it's like cruise control.
Yes, keep spamming your rubbish crap lol. I wont care about your stupid replies.
Can someone that have experience with a Megathron please reply in this topic instead?.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
marakor
Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers
|
Posted - 2009.10.25 22:07:00 -
[146]
Edited by: marakor on 25/10/2009 22:12:50
Originally by: NightmareX
ROFL, god your stupid.
DO I REALLY NEED TO SAY MORE WHEN THIS PLAYER IS sophisticatedlimabean?.
GUYS, THIS IS sophisticatedlimabean WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE.
Yes caps lock are for cool, because it's like cruise control.
I see a LOT of ppl on here calling you stupid a clueless troll but nobody but you calling them and me it........that would tell most ppl summat but i guess you not smart enough to figure it out.
sophisticatedlimabean 2000+ kills with mostly gallente ships including blaster megas.
NoobmareX(NightmareX) = 280 kills with 0 EVER in a mega of any description....
|
NightmareX
Infinitus Odium Shadows of Light
|
Posted - 2009.10.25 22:11:00 -
[147]
Edited by: NightmareX on 25/10/2009 22:13:44
Originally by: marakor
Originally by: NightmareX
ROFL, god your stupid.
DO I REALLY NEED TO SAY MORE WHEN THIS PLAYER IS sophisticatedlimabean?.
GUYS, THIS IS sophisticatedlimabean WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE.
Yes caps lock are for cool, because it's like cruise control.
I see a LOT of ppl on here calling you stupid a clueless troll but nobody but you calling them and me it........that would tell most ppl summat but i guess you not smart enough to figure it out.
And who is those who are calling me a stupid clueless troll except for you?. I really want to see those names here.
Oh, your still sophisticatedlimabean, ROFL what a noob.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
marakor
Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers
|
Posted - 2009.10.25 22:14:00 -
[148]
Edited by: marakor on 25/10/2009 22:15:32
Originally by: NightmareX
Oh, your still sophisticatedlimabean, ROFL what a noob.
sophisticatedlimabean 2000+ kills with mostly gallente ships including blaster megas.
http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=sophisticatedlimabean
NoobmareX(NightmareX) = 280 kills with 0 EVER in a mega of any description....
http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=NightmareX
|
NightmareX
Infinitus Odium Shadows of Light
|
Posted - 2009.10.25 22:16:00 -
[149]
Originally by: marakor
Originally by: NightmareX
Oh, your still sophisticatedlimabean, ROFL what a noob.
sophisticatedlimabean 2000+ kills with mostly gallente ships including blaster megas.
NoobmareX(NightmareX) = 280 kills with 0 EVER in a mega of any description....
Cool story bro, errrrr i meant sophisticatedlimabean.
Wow, nice e-peen there bud. You must be really proud of your epic stats.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
marakor
Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers
|
Posted - 2009.10.25 22:19:00 -
[150]
Originally by: NightmareX i got pwned
sophisticatedlimabean 2000+ kills with mostly gallente ships including blaster megas.
http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=sophisticatedlimabean
NoobmareX(NightmareX) = 280 kills with 0 EVER in a mega of any description....
http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=NightmareX
PS: Post with your, stranger, friend, brother, alt.
|
|
Fatality Killer
Minmatar Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2009.10.25 22:21:00 -
[151]
Edited by: Fatality Killer on 25/10/2009 22:30:35
Originally by: marakor PS: Post with your, stranger, friend, brother, alt.
Happy now?.
Oh wait, this is not my brothers character. Sorry, we aren't sharing accounts. You know, it's against the EULA.
Anyways, looking at your stats on Battleclinic, your using ALOT of Falcon's. Now what makes you a good PVP'er / Good Blaster pilot by using a Falcon alot?.
EDIT: Wait wut, i'm still replying to an idiot that is called sophisticatedlimabean. Jesus christ what a waste of time to reply to a player like that.
|
marakor
Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers
|
Posted - 2009.10.25 22:31:00 -
[152]
Edited by: marakor on 25/10/2009 22:32:53
Originally by: Fatality Killer Edited by: Fatality Killer on 25/10/2009 22:26:22
Originally by: marakor PS: Post with your, stranger, friend, brother, alt.
Happy now?.
Oh wait, this is not my brothers character. Sorry, we aren't sharing accounts. You know, it's against the EULA.
Anyways, looking at your stats on Battleclinic, your using ALOT of Falcon's. Now what makes you a good PVP'er / Good Blaster pilot by using a Falcon alot?.
Using lots of differant ships including the falcon, the mega amoung many many others on the main server is about being a experianced pvper, but it does not supprise me that you do not understand that.
Why do you keep owning yourself with you stupidity.
I prefered this alt you used and the lies you posted tbh...post 1213 if my favorite:-
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1016708&page=41#1213
|
NightmareX
Infinitus Odium Shadows of Light
|
Posted - 2009.10.25 22:37:00 -
[153]
Edited by: NightmareX on 25/10/2009 22:42:53
Originally by: marakor Edited by: marakor on 25/10/2009 22:32:53
Originally by: Fatality Killer Edited by: Fatality Killer on 25/10/2009 22:26:22
Originally by: marakor PS: Post with your, stranger, friend, brother, alt.
Happy now?.
Oh wait, this is not my brothers character. Sorry, we aren't sharing accounts. You know, it's against the EULA.
Anyways, looking at your stats on Battleclinic, your using ALOT of Falcon's. Now what makes you a good PVP'er / Good Blaster pilot by using a Falcon alot?.
Using lots of differant ships including the falcon, the mega amoung many many others on the main server is about being a experianced pvper, but it does not supprise me that you do not understand that.
Why do you keep owning yourself with you stupidity.
I prefered this alt you used and the lies you posted tbh...post 1213 if my favorite:-
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1016708&page=41#1213
LOL, you know that i'm actually much much better PVP'er than you if i use a Velator in PVP over you for using a Falcon in PVP?.
Oh, about Electric Universe. He's taking studies outside of Norway now. So he will soon come back to EVE when he's home. I don't know when he will come back. It all depends on how much school / studies he want to take.
EDIT: Just so you know this. Yes i don't have alot of kills. Still after the kills that are missing from Battleclinic, then around 700 in total isn't much, but then, i'm doing other things than only PVP though. I'm doing missions, i can do trading and much more except for mining.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
marakor
Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers
|
Posted - 2009.10.25 22:42:00 -
[154]
Edited by: marakor on 25/10/2009 22:43:18
Originally by: NightmareX worthless rant.
Got anything else you wanna dribble on about or do you wanna tell me how me having 10x the kills you have means you are more experianced in these matters.
Maybe you should troll back on topic before you get into trouble and need your "brother" to come back from school earlier than expected and post....
|
NightmareX
Infinitus Odium Shadows of Light
|
Posted - 2009.10.25 22:45:00 -
[155]
Originally by: marakor
Originally by: NightmareX worthless rant.
Got anything else you wanna dribble on about or do you wanna tell me how having 10x the kills you have means you are more expereianced in these matters.
Maybe you should troll back on topic before you get into trouble and need your "brother" to come back from school earlier than expected and post....
Yes, i have more i want to dribble about, and it's that your posts stinks.
No Electric wont come back any faster, because he comes back when the school / studie is over and not before that.
Next whine please.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
marakor
Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers
|
Posted - 2009.10.25 22:54:00 -
[156]
Edited by: marakor on 25/10/2009 22:55:29
Originally by: NightmareX
No Electric wont come back any faster, because he comes back when the school / studie is over and not before that.
Yea im sure it just a coincedence that he appears every time you get booted from here for your pitiful trolling and disapears when you return.
Anyway now the troll has gone we can get back to the matter at hand.
In his ignorance he has shown many problems:-
1. The RR and mwd blaster ships are forced to use really butchers their cap and uttelry limits their versatility in combat.
2. To compensate the mega needs to either refit a much weaker tank or gimp its dps by not fitting its nuetron blasters.
3. Even with the silly fit noobmareX put on here the mega was only roughly matching the abaddon within the megas own optimal when just dps and EHP were taken into account. And it totally ignored the fact that the baddon also has a vast 300% range advantage that it out damages the mega
|
NightmareX
Infinitus Odium Shadows of Light
|
Posted - 2009.10.25 22:56:00 -
[157]
Edited by: NightmareX on 25/10/2009 23:00:29
Originally by: EFT Worrier Nerf scorch, nerf insta-switch crystals and 90% of the current imbalance issue is solved.
Yes, i agree to this. Except for one thing, the insta-switch crystal thing.
That can be like that only if the other weapon systems that have guns can switch ammos in like 5 secs or something like that. 5 secs makes more sense.
Scorch is the ONLY reason some things here aren't realy balanced here.
Fix / nerf Scorch a little and things will start to look more balanced.
Lasers need the range so don't touch that on Lasers. Either decrease Lasers DPS by 15% or decrease the Lasers tracking by 25%.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
marakor
Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers
|
Posted - 2009.10.25 23:01:00 -
[158]
Edited by: marakor on 25/10/2009 23:01:45
Originally by: EFT Worrier Nerf scorch, nerf insta-switch crystals and 90% of the current imbalance issue is solved.
Amarr MF can make the abaddon almost match the mega in dps (under 10% differance and less if the abad fits 3 mag stabs) within the megas own optimal but has a 15km optimal instead of 4.5km, and nerfing scorch does not solve the blaster megas fitting issues, weaker tank or cap problems with fitting a RR + mwd.
|
NightmareX
Infinitus Odium Shadows of Light
|
Posted - 2009.10.25 23:06:00 -
[159]
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi I don't quite get how anyone could suggest blasters need a tracking boost based on those graphs, unless they assume the standard combat scenario is a dead still blaster bs trying to shoot a max speed bs on perfect orbit and neither have webs.
That's why I said the speed scale is somewhat poorly chosen, 100m/s or even 50m/s transversal speed in a bs vs bs scenario inside web range is just not very relevant. The speed differences (and therefore maximum theoretical orbit speeds as well) fall somewhere in the 10-20m/s range, and at those transversals blasters hit just fine.
At cruiser level likewise, the 200m/s+ graphs, while looking ugly, aren't that meaningful. Even the 100m/s graph describes a rare situation and the most interesting graph is the 50m/s one where blasters, again, have no significant trouble.
I just don't see how any reasonable tracking boost would achieve anything useful, and a lot of the cries for more tracking sound a lot like people are just unhappy that they can't hit smaller ship classes anymore.
Optimal is another big no, considering especially on bs level acs are already pushed past point range.
Some more damage would probably be fine, 15% maybe to compensate for the upcoming ac ammo changes and then some. And, pulses obviously need a huge tracking nerf, but that's another matter.
This man speaks the truth.
Only if we could have more players like this in EVE, who can use the brain rather than the ass. It would be really nice then.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
marakor
Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers
|
Posted - 2009.10.25 23:16:00 -
[160]
Edited by: marakor on 25/10/2009 23:17:38
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi
I just don't see how any reasonable tracking boost would achieve anything useful, and a lot of the cries for more tracking sound a lot like people are just unhappy that they can't hit smaller ship classes anymore.
And, pulses obviously need a huge tracking nerf, but that's another matter.
As you mentioned above the transversal speed of a BS vs BS fight would be so slow a tracking nerf to BS pulse would be rather futile.
The optimal penalty of AM could be changed so blasters get a little better range with it, keeping it under 10km obviosly but it needs to be better than 4.5km.
That and a increase in the megas available fitting stats would help a lot.
Originally by: NightmareX Only if we could have more players like this in EVE, who can use the brain rather than the ass. It would be really nice then.
Stop posting then, anyway didnt you say it was past your bed time?.
|
|
NightmareX
Infinitus Odium Shadows of Light
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 06:00:00 -
[161]
Edited by: NightmareX on 26/10/2009 06:04:58
Originally by: marakor Edited by: marakor on 25/10/2009 23:17:38
Originally by: Trigos Trilobi
I just don't see how any reasonable tracking boost would achieve anything useful, and a lot of the cries for more tracking sound a lot like people are just unhappy that they can't hit smaller ship classes anymore.
And, pulses obviously need a huge tracking nerf, but that's another matter.
As you mentioned above the transversal speed of a BS vs BS fight would be so slow a tracking nerf to BS pulse would be rather futile.
The optimal penalty of AM could be changed so blasters get a little better range with it, keeping it under 10km obviosly but it needs to be better than 4.5km.
That and a increase in the megas available fitting stats would help a lot.
No, a better range on Blasters wont help much and Blaster is still Blaster no matter how much you want to to be like Lasers. Blasters will never get any range boost. Just forget it right now.
Blasters are the ultimate close range weapon. And it will continue to be that forever and ever.
No, Antimatter will not be changed either, it will be at -50% range like every other close range ammos are.
The only thing i can agree with is to give the Mega a little more Powergrid and CPU. That's all it need.
Also, for those who complant that you want more tracking or damage on Blasters. Well yeah, have you heard about the thing that is called damage implants that gives you 10% more damage to Large Blasters for example?. One of the implants gives you +5% damage to all turrets and the 2nd one is giving you +5% more damage to Large Hybrid Turrets.
And there is also another nice implant you can use, to improve your tracking, yes it's the 5% bonus to turret tracking speed implant. I can say it right now that +5% more tracking helps alot.
So use those implants instead of screaming 'I'm a noob and i need better tracking and damage on Blasters because i suck donkey kong'.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
marakor
Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 08:19:00 -
[162]
Originally by: NightmareX
No, a better range on Blasters wont help much and Blaster is still Blaster no matter how much you want to to be like Lasers. Blasters will never get any range boost. Just forget it right now.
Blasters are the ultimate close range weapon. And it will continue to be that forever and ever.
Blasters can get a optimal range boost ansd still be a close range weapon, nobody is asking for them to have the same range as pulse you fool.
Originally by: NightmareX The only thing i can agree with is to give the Mega a little more Powergrid and CPU. That's all it need.
What makes you think anybody cares about what you agree with troll?.
Originally by: NightmareX Also, for those who complant that you want more tracking or damage on Blasters. Well yeah, have you heard about the thing that is called damage implants that gives you 10% more damage to Large Blasters for example?. One of the implants gives you +5% damage to all turrets and the 2nd one is giving you +5% more damage to Large Hybrid Turrets.
Every race has those available you idiot how does that level the imbalance?.
The cpu and PG increases are needed so it can at least fit a reasonable cap injector system and passive tank.
A adjustment in dmg is needed as they hardly can compete with pulse ships even in their own optimals let alone at just outside that range.
You are so inexperianced you do not know the problems these ships and systems have so your certainly not qualified to begin to understand how to solve them. Just stick to waggling your pimped navy mega at noobs on sissi and leave the important stuff to those with the understanding and expereiance to deal with it.
|
EFT Worrier
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 09:29:00 -
[163]
Originally by: marakor Edited by: marakor on 22/10/2009 22:02:46
Blaster BS have been gimped for a very long time and with the overpoweredness of lasers this has been highlighted.
Blaster BS were supposed to be the 1 v 1 BS at close range but with the CCP idea of making solo BS pvp a thiong of the past they are now way under powered.
1. A poor EHP tank relative to what is available to amarr while needing to operate at way closer range than amaar ships is absurd.
2. Marginally better DPS at a absurdly small range and then being out ranged as well as out damaged for a vast amount.
Get your finger out and fix it CCP its been way too long.
I also found this little gem.
A standard mega and abaddon fit for RR ops AND HOW THEY COMPARE.
The mega starts with 7 guns and RR with 832 gun dps and 300 drone dps to be assigned.
300 thermal drone dmg from gaurd less 75.7% = 72.9 DPS. 482.56 kinetic damage from its guns less 71.9% = 135.6 DPS. 394.44 thermal damage from its guns less 75.7% = 84.9 DPS.
THE MEGA GETS A TOTAL OF 293.4 MAX DPS AT 4.5KM vs THE ABADDON.
4. The mega has 73.4 em, 65.5 thermal resists and the abaddon does 58% more EM dmg with its guns than thermal so including the drones and after the megas resists:
The abaddon starts with 7 guns and RR with 802 gun dps and 180 drone dps to be assigned.
180 thr drone dmg less 65.5% = 62.1 DPS. 465.16 gun em damage less 73.4% = 123.8 DPS. 336.84 gun th damage less 65.5% = 116.2 DPS. THE ABAD GETS A TOTAL OF 302.1 MAX DPS AT 15KM vs THE MEGA.
THE ABAD GETS A TOTAL OF 302.1 MAX DPS AFTER RESISTS OUT TO 15KM vs THE MEGA. THE MEGA GETS A TOTAL OF 293.4 MAX DPS AFTER RESISTS OUT TO 4.5KM vs THE ABAD.
The mega actually has 3% LESS DPS when each ships resists are taken into account with 300% less available range (and thats against armour dont get started on how fast shields will drop vs lasers), and the mega has a WEAK 52.2% explosive resist hole and also has 18% LESS EHP.
Unnecessary emphasis was unnecessary.
|
marakor
Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 10:24:00 -
[164]
Originally by: EFT Worrier
Originally by: marakor
Blaster BS have been gimped for a very long time and with the overpoweredness of lasers this has been highlighted.
Blaster BS were supposed to be the 1 v 1 BS at close range but with the CCP idea of making solo BS pvp a thiong of the past they are now way under powered.
1. A poor EHP tank relative to what is available to amarr while needing to operate at way closer range than amaar ships is absurd.
2. Marginally better DPS at a absurdly small range and then being out ranged as well as out damaged for a vast amount.
Get your finger out and fix it CCP its been way too long.
I also found this little gem.
A standard mega and abaddon fit for RR ops AND HOW THEY COMPARE.
The mega starts with 7 guns and RR with 832 gun dps and 300 drone dps to be assigned.
300 thermal drone dmg from gaurd less 75.7% = 72.9 DPS. 482.56 kinetic damage from its guns less 71.9% = 135.6 DPS. 394.44 thermal damage from its guns less 75.7% = 84.9 DPS.
THE MEGA GETS A TOTAL OF 293.4 MAX DPS AT 4.5KM vs THE ABADDON.
4. The mega has 73.4 em, 65.5 thermal resists and the abaddon does 58% more EM dmg with its guns than thermal so including the drones and after the megas resists:
The abaddon starts with 7 guns and RR with 802 gun dps and 180 drone dps to be assigned.
180 thr drone dmg less 65.5% = 62.1 DPS. 465.16 gun em damage less 73.4% = 123.8 DPS. 336.84 gun th damage less 65.5% = 116.2 DPS. THE ABAD GETS A TOTAL OF 302.1 MAX DPS AT 15KM vs THE MEGA.
THE ABAD GETS A TOTAL OF 302.1 MAX DPS AFTER RESISTS OUT TO 15KM vs THE MEGA. THE MEGA GETS A TOTAL OF 293.4 MAX DPS AFTER RESISTS OUT TO 4.5KM vs THE ABAD.
The mega actually has 3% LESS DPS when each ships resists are taken into account with 300% less available range (and thats against armour dont get started on how fast shields will drop vs lasers), and the mega has a WEAK 52.2% explosive resist hole and also has 18% LESS EHP.
Unnecessary emphasis was unnecessary.
And yet you chose to further emphasise it................
|
Vyktor Abyss
Gallente The Abyss Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 12:56:00 -
[165]
Pretty graphs. I like the colours as it shows "hot spots" very effectively.
I think CCP have been made aware of the blaster issues for some time, the problem is they don't acknowledge them or consider them sufficiently "unfair" to warrant any attention from the balancing team. This is what irks me personally, much more than only being able to fly blaster turret ships which have such a diminished DPS/Close Range Tracking advantage these days.
I don't like comparing one ship to another personally, because everyones fittings are different, each real PVP situation varies and pure maths and numbers dont effectively represent real PVP.
However, I do think in general the optimal DPS graphs are very valid though, and they clearly show the big advantages of Pulse Lasers currently (just in terms of total area/effectiveness under the curve) compared to Blasters.
I think it is very important to look at Beams versus Rails too since when you're talking about tracking boosts you must consider the impact on the longer range weapons too. So perhaps add that into your arguments along with Tracking module assisted graphs.
My personal feeling is that blasters do need a scaled tracking bonus (Small: +a bonus, Med: +3a bonus, L: +7a bonus for example) because the larger the blaster ship, the worse the problem of attaining correct range becomes - meaning you need a greater advantage at your sweet spot.
Blaster (and autocannon) DPS needs a small boost too, but i think either improving the ammo (and ammo varieties - especially the T2 ammo) is maybe better than boosting the blaster itself.
One other thing is Tracking Computers/Enhancers. I know these are likely to change in Dominion along with the Projectile changes. Just a feeling but I'm thinking these changes will boost Pulse Laser BS even further, compared to a "stacking nerfed" Mega for example. Pulse-Pocs use to be one of the best counters to Nano-Hacs as a result of the optimal/tracking effects of these modules, now with stuff moving slower it translates to a general DPS buff. CCP also need to consider the effect of these modules over the greater range of lasers for any changes.
|
NightmareX
Infinitus Odium Shadows of Light
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 15:14:00 -
[166]
Edited by: NightmareX on 26/10/2009 15:24:01
Originally by: marakor
Originally by: NightmareX
No, a better range on Blasters wont help much and Blaster is still Blaster no matter how much you want to to be like Lasers. Blasters will never get any range boost. Just forget it right now.
Blasters are the ultimate close range weapon. And it will continue to be that forever and ever.
Blasters can get a optimal range boost ansd still be a close range weapon, nobody is asking for them to have the same range as pulse you fool.
Originally by: NightmareX The only thing i can agree with is to give the Mega a little more Powergrid and CPU. That's all it need.
What makes you think anybody cares about what you agree with troll?.
Originally by: NightmareX Also, for those who complant that you want more tracking or damage on Blasters. Well yeah, have you heard about the thing that is called damage implants that gives you 10% more damage to Large Blasters for example?. One of the implants gives you +5% damage to all turrets and the 2nd one is giving you +5% more damage to Large Hybrid Turrets.
Every race has those available you idiot how does that level the imbalance?.
The cpu and PG increases are needed so it can at least fit a reasonable cap injector system and passive tank.
A adjustment in dmg is needed as they hardly can compete with pulse ships even in their own optimals let alone at just outside that range.
You are so inexperianced you do not know the problems these ships and systems have so your certainly not qualified to begin to understand how to solve them. Just stick to waggling your pimped navy mega at noobs on sissi and leave the important stuff to those with the understanding and expereiance to deal with it.
1. Does 2 km extra optimal extra for example helps Blasters anything at all?, no it doesn't.
2. I agree with it because your stupid and because it makes you goes emo tard here on the forum, happy now noobie troll?.
3. Yeah, every race have it, but the thing you didn't get, simply because your way to dumb is that there is not many that are using those 2 implants out there.
Like, if you have those 2 implants fitted, you will tear an Abaddon apart in a Mega. The Abaddon doesn't stand a chance. And it's the other way, if you have fitted those 2 implants, also the last implant for Laser damage, and you meet a Mega with the same setup as i used on the Mega, then you chance to kill him is pretty high. See my point?.
But hey, it's you, your way to dumb to understand things like this.
No, a DPS boost on Blasters will never happen. One of the reasons is because of the Lasers are doing way to much DPS at range, and a little to much DPS at close range.
When you take into the picture that you have insta reload, no ammo consume and so on, and thne on top have about Blaster DPS, then the Lasers need a disadvantage like Blasters have, so yeah, lower the DPS on Lasers for like 10% at close range and 15% at med range.
When this is done, then the case will be this for those weapon systems.
Blasters: DPS king in close range by far. Lasers: Great DPS and good range and still have great DPS to be on a Close range weapon like MPL II Projectiles: They get boosted and gets pretty balanced to Blasters.
So when CCP makes Lasers balanced to the other 2 weapon systems, then yeah, the all 3 weapon systems are balanced to each others.
But nooo, you don't get this at all. You just want to boost the DPS on Blasters to make them OP and overpowered and unbalanced.
Your goal is to make Blaster really noobie friendly and still make them have HUUUUUUGE DPS even for noobies. While i want them to be balanced and make them so you have to use your brain and have lots of skills / experience in Blasters before you can be good with them. Yes, Blasters is not easy mode anylonger.
Lasers on the other hand, is really easy mode atm.
Well, just because i don't want to make this topic into a flame war with an idiot, then let me know exactly how you want each weapon systems to be.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
marakor
Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 16:00:00 -
[167]
Originally by: NightmareX
1. Does 2 km extra optimal extra for example helps Blasters anything at all?, no it doesn't.
Make it 4km extra then moron.
Originally by: NightmareX
2. I agree with it because your stupid and because it makes you goes emo tard here on the forum, happy now noobie troll?.
NightmareX = 0 KILLS EVER IN A RR BLASTER MEGA, UNDER 300 KILLS EVER IN 3 YEARS AND ONLY LEARNED HOW TO FIT A MEGA FROM TROLLING THREADS LIKE THIS AND MAKING A FOOL OF HIMSELF.
Originally by: NightmareX 3. TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
STFU and go away tard you add nothing to this discussion.
|
NightmareX
Infinitus Odium Shadows of Light
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 16:03:00 -
[168]
Edited by: NightmareX on 26/10/2009 16:05:16
Originally by: marakor
Originally by: NightmareX
1. Does 2 km extra optimal extra for example helps Blasters anything at all?, no it doesn't.
Make it 4km extra then moron.
Originally by: NightmareX
2. I agree with it because your stupid and because it makes you goes emo tard here on the forum, happy now noobie troll?.
NightmareX = 0 KILLS EVER IN A RR BLASTER MEGA, UNDER 300 KILLS EVER IN 3 YEARS AND ONLY LEARNED HOW TO FIT A MEGA FROM TROLLING THREADS LIKE THIS AND MAKING A FOOL OF HIMSELF.
Originally by: NightmareX 3. TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
STFU and go away tard you add nothing to this discussion.
Look at you, you make my points about Blasters even better by this.
Please continue with your wonderfull posts. Your starting to look good now i must say.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
marakor
Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 16:08:00 -
[169]
Edited by: marakor on 26/10/2009 16:07:54
Originally by: NightmareX rabble rabble
sophisticatedlimabean 2000+ kills with mostly gallente ships including blaster megas.
http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=sophisticatedlimabean
NoobmareX(NightmareX) = 280 kills with 0 EVERin a mega of any description....
http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=NightmareX
PS: Post with your, stranger, friend, brother, alt.
|
NightmareX
Infinitus Odium Shadows of Light
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 16:29:00 -
[170]
Edited by: NightmareX on 26/10/2009 16:36:02
Originally by: marakor Edited by: marakor on 26/10/2009 16:07:54
Originally by: NightmareX rabble rabble
sophisticatedlimabean 2000+ kills with mostly gallente ships including blaster megas.
http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=sophisticatedlimabean
NoobmareX(NightmareX) = 280 kills with 0 EVERin a mega of any description....
http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=NightmareX
PS: Post with your, stranger, friend, brother, alt.
And your point is?
Oh, just to prove that your lying about that i have 0 kills in a Mega: http://triumvirate-alliance.com/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=3662935
Yes, it's only 1 kill, but lying that i have no kills in a Mega / Navy Mega is making you look even better.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
|
marakor
Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 17:12:00 -
[171]
Edited by: marakor on 26/10/2009 17:14:20
sophisticatedlimabean 2000+ kills with mostly gallente ships including blaster megas.
http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=sophisticatedlimabean
NoobmareX(NightmareX) = 280 kills with 0 EVERin a standard mega EVER....
http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=NightmareX
BUT supprise supprise about 3 months ago (thats 3 yrs and 8 or so months into the game) he has actually managed to get a kill while flying a navy mega....
The killmail has 2 abaddons on it and damage done =
1. Abaddon 1 = 4,439DMG 2. Abaddon 2 = 3,107DMG
3. NoobmareX navy mega maybe with faction fit as i see a navy webber = 1,084 DMG.
4. LOOOL BROADSWORD AT NUMBER 4 = 1,061DMG
So the uber pwnage BLASTER navy mega did pitiful damage compared to the abaddons and only 34 more damage than a HIC with a much faster lock time than the navy mega and awful dps..
How many time do you need to PWN yourself you muppet.....almost out damaged in a BLASTER navy mega by a HIC...LOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
|
NightmareX
Infinitus Odium Shadows of Light
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 17:16:00 -
[172]
Originally by: marakor BUT supprise supprise about 3 months ago (thats 3 yrs and 8 or so months into the game) he has actually managed to get a kill while flying a navy mega....
The killmail has 2 abaddons on it and damage done =
1. Abaddon 1 = 4,439DMG 2. Abaddon 2 = 3,107DMG
3. NoobmareX navy mega maybe with faction fit as i see a navy webber = 1,084 DMG.
4. LOOOL BROADSWORD AT NUMBER 4 = 1,061DMG
So the uber pwnage BLASTER navy mega did pitiful damage compared to the abaddons and only 34 more damage than a HIC with a much faster lock time than the navy mega ans awful dps..
How many time do you need to PWN yourself you muppet.
Wow, are you for real?. Do you really know that peoples can arrive late at the target. BINGO, i was late in on the kill there. I got 1 volley in on him before he died.
ROFL, you don't know PVP at all.
So, what's you next super duper smart reply with your wonderfull stories?
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Gabriel Karade
Gallente Celtic Anarchy
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 17:18:00 -
[173]
Hello,
Blaster tracking per se isn't that bad. It's the gash tracking formula that goes wrong at close ranges. Meaning that, even though you have this nice close-range weapon... you really don't want to be 'up close' as everything under the sun can get under your guns... even if it is virtually blotting out the Sun.
That and, going solo in medium and in particular, large Blasterboats is tantamount to suicide with the changes to the game over the last 2-2.5 years.
Shame really.
--------------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
marakor
Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 17:21:00 -
[174]
Originally by: NightmareX i just pwned myself yet again....
I like this as well while you are yet again making a fool of yourself....
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1190448&page=6
1 kill with a navy mega ever......and on the weapons used 1 kill with a Ion Blaster Cannon II.
You are such a tool.
|
NightmareX
Infinitus Odium Shadows of Light
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 17:22:00 -
[175]
Edited by: NightmareX on 26/10/2009 17:27:14
Originally by: Gabriel Karade Hello,
Blaster tracking per se isn't that bad. It's the gash tracking formula that goes wrong at close ranges. Meaning that, even though you have this nice close-range weapon... you really don't want to be 'up close' as everything under the sun can get under your guns... even if it is virtually blotting out the Sun.
That and, going solo in medium and in particular, large Blasterboats is tantamount to suicide with the changes to the game over the last 2-2.5 years.
Shame really.
Ding, look here everybody. This man have finally seen this now. I have seen this for like years now that the tracking on Blasters isn't the problem, the real problem is the tracking formula.
Fix the tracking formula like i have said gazzillions of times, and then the things with the tracking on guns will start to work like it should.
Originally by: marakor
Originally by: NightmareX i just pwned myself yet again....
I like this as well while you are yet again making a fool of yourself....
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1190448&page=6
1 kill with a navy mega ever......and on the weapons used 1 kill with a Ion Blaster Cannon II.
You are such a tool.
Uhm, you can't read dude, my Navy Mega used Neutrons like it always have, and not Ions. So why Ions is there is a good question.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
marakor
Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 17:30:00 -
[176]
Edited by: marakor on 26/10/2009 17:34:56
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: Gabriel Karade Hello,
Blaster tracking per se isn't that bad. It's the gash tracking formula that goes wrong at close ranges. Meaning that, even though you have this nice close-range weapon... you really don't want to be 'up close' as everything under the sun can get under your guns... even if it is virtually blotting out the Sun.
That and, going solo in medium and in particular, large Blasterboats is tantamount to suicide with the changes to the game over the last 2-2.5 years.
Shame really.
Ding, look here everybody. This man have finally seen this now. I have seen this for like years now that the tracking on Blasters isn't the problem, the real problem is the tracking formula.
You have said nothing of the sort you just hope that agreeing with others will make them agree with you. Although blaster tracking is fine as far as im concerned considering ccp wanted to gimp BS from hitting small ships.
Originally by: NightmareX
Uhm, you can't read dude, my Navy Mega used Neutrons, not Ions.
Fix your glasses so your not so blind.
1. Checks eyes....20/20 vison confirmed.
2. Checks link.
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1190448&page=6
3. Yup 1 navy mega used, 1 kill ever got, 1 ion cannon used....0 neutron cannons used ever......
Inserts LULZ.
|
NightmareX
Infinitus Odium Shadows of Light
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 17:38:00 -
[177]
Edited by: NightmareX on 26/10/2009 17:40:47
Originally by: marakor Edited by: marakor on 26/10/2009 17:30:13
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: Gabriel Karade Hello,
Blaster tracking per se isn't that bad. It's the gash tracking formula that goes wrong at close ranges. Meaning that, even though you have this nice close-range weapon... you really don't want to be 'up close' as everything under the sun can get under your guns... even if it is virtually blotting out the Sun.
That and, going solo in medium and in particular, large Blasterboats is tantamount to suicide with the changes to the game over the last 2-2.5 years.
Shame really.
Ding, look here everybody. This man have finally seen this now. I have seen this for like years now that the tracking on Blasters isn't the problem, the real problem is the tracking formula.
You have said nothing of the sort you just hope that agreeing with others will make them agree with you.
Originally by: NightmareX
Uhm, you can't read dude, my Navy Mega used Neutrons, not Ions.
Fix your glasses so your not so blind.
1. Checks eves....20/20 vison confirmed.
2. Checks link.
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1190448&page=6
3. Yup 1 navy mega used, 1 kill ever got, 1 ion cannon used....0 neutron cannons used ever......
Inserts LULZ.
If you look back at the other Blaster topics i have been in, you will find it CLEARLY that i have said the tracking on Blasters it self are totally fine. But the tracking formula is not working as it should.
If you don't want to look back at those topics to find it, then don't lie about something i have said many many times, just because your to damn lazy to find it.
By lying your self and say that i'm lying, just because you say something to me or others here and make them believe your not lying, when you really are lying, isn't going to make you look good in here. Your just gets dumber and dumber for every posts you post. Get it?. I hope you do.
About the Navy Mega. Didn't you see the topic i made in the Sell section on the forum when i sold the Navy Mega?. It clearly says the Navy Mega have Neutrons.
I don't use Ions on a passive tanked plated Navy Mega. You use Ions if you want to use any armor reps on the Navy Mega.
But hey, you was to dumb and didn't got that. ROFL, your a fking useless joke.
Anyways, when are you going to add something meaningfull and things that have with this topic to do into this topic?.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
marakor
Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 17:43:00 -
[178]
Originally by: NightmareX
By lying your self and say that i'm lying, just because you say something to me or others here and make them believe your not lying, when you really are lying, isn't going to make you look good in here. Your just gets dumber and dumber for every posts you post. Get it?. I hope you do.
You really are a ranting drooling idiot aint ya?.
Originally by: NightmareX
I don't use Ions on a passive tanked plated Navy Mega. You use Ions if you want to use any armor reps on the Navy Mega.
Its you links and your stats pal and it clearly shows you fired a ion cannon not a neutron cannon and you only did it one time that is exactly the same amount of times you flew the mega.
1. Checks eves....20/20 vison confirmed.
2. Checks link.
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1190448&page=6
3. Yup 1 navy mega used, 1 kill ever got, 1 ion cannon used....0 neutron cannons used ever......
Inserts LULZ.
|
NightmareX
Infinitus Odium Shadows of Light
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 17:52:00 -
[179]
Edited by: NightmareX on 26/10/2009 17:52:34
Originally by: marakor
Originally by: NightmareX
By lying your self and say that i'm lying, just because you say something to me or others here and make them believe your not lying, when you really are lying, isn't going to make you look good in here. Your just gets dumber and dumber for every posts you post. Get it?. I hope you do.
You really are a ranting drooling idiot aint ya?.
Originally by: NightmareX
I don't use Ions on a passive tanked plated Navy Mega. You use Ions if you want to use any armor reps on the Navy Mega.
Its you links and your stats pal and it clearly shows you fired a ion cannon not a neutron cannon and you only did it one time that is exactly the same amount of times you flew the mega.
1. Checks eves....20/20 vison confirmed.
2. Checks link.
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1190448&page=6
3. Yup 1 navy mega used, 1 kill ever got, 1 ion cannon used....0 neutron cannons used ever......
Inserts LULZ.
Your still sophisticatedlimabean. Just that alone is enough to take you as a troll.
And also: http://www.eve-search.com/thread/1188857/page/1#18
Now what's your proof now that it wasn't fitted with Neutrons?.
Anyways, just post this thing over as many times as you want, because everyone except for you knows that my Navy Mega was fitted with Neutrons II.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
NightmareX
Infinitus Odium Shadows of Light
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 17:59:00 -
[180]
Edited by: NightmareX on 26/10/2009 18:00:39
Originally by: Vyktor Abyss Blaster (and autocannon) DPS needs a small boost too, but i think either improving the ammo (and ammo varieties - especially the T2 ammo) is maybe better than boosting the blaster itself.
Yeah, atm t2 ammo aren't any good. So if CCP can fix the t2 ammos, it would be great.
A good example of why the t2 ammos are really unbalanced is Scorch against the other t2 ammos. No other t2 ammos like Null or Barrage comes close to how good Scorch is.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
|
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar Beyond Divinity Inc Beyond Virginity
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 18:02:00 -
[181]
Oh dear, battleclinic epeen waving at its best
Pilot #3085 and #31k something (), both ingame since 2005, smacking each other to no end who has more pvp knowledge and is thus entitled to decide what blasters should be like.
Let #467 give you a good advice, stop boasting with your stats and try to argue facts, battleclinic ranking shows exactly nothing.
|
marakor
Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 18:05:00 -
[182]
Originally by: NightmareX
And also: http://www.eve-search.com/thread/1188857/page/1#18
Thats a link showing you SOLD it with Neutrons.
Originally by: NightmareX Now what's your proof now that it wasn't fitted with Neutrons?.
Here is a link showing you only ever killed 1 ship with it and used ions.
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1190448&page=6
|
NightmareX
Infinitus Odium Shadows of Light
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 18:08:00 -
[183]
Edited by: NightmareX on 26/10/2009 18:13:21
Originally by: Lilith Velkor Oh dear, battleclinic epeen waving at its best
Pilot #3085 and #31k something (), both ingame since 2005, smacking each other to no end who has more pvp knowledge and is thus entitled to decide what blasters should be like.
Let #467 give you a good advice, stop boasting with your stats and try to argue facts, battleclinic ranking shows exactly nothing.
Haha yeah. I have tried to tell the noob sophisticatedlimabean that the e-peen waving of how many kills one of us have doesn't mean anything.
And not only that, it's not me that are doing this e-peen'ing of the killmails, it's sophisticatedlimabean that does that. He just thinks he's sooooo pr0 at PVP only because of his 2k kills that is nothing compared to others i know that only use Gallente ships and have like 3-4 times more kills than him.
The thing that means anything is what's a good way to balance the things with the weapon systems so every of the weapon systems gets balanced to each others. And this is what i have been trying to tell here.
Originally by: marakor
Originally by: NightmareX
And also: http://www.eve-search.com/thread/1188857/page/1#18
Thats a link showing you SOLD it with Neutrons.
Originally by: NightmareX Now what's your proof now that it wasn't fitted with Neutrons?.
Here is a link showing you only ever killed 1 ship with it and used ions.
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1190448&page=6
It was sold with Neutron and have always had Neutrons. Why use Ions when i can use Neutrons on the Navy Mega?. Hey i have alot of powergrid left if i use Ions on a passive tanked plated Navy Mega. So why use Ions?. Dude i'm not dumb.
I know how to fit my ships properly and really good.
Again, that link is showing that there is a bug with the killboard. Yeah, i have used a Energized Reflective Membrane II Blueprint more as a weapon as i have done with 800mm Repeating Artillery II on my RR Tempest, lol yeah, some bugs are really true, riiiiiight?.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
marakor
Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 18:12:00 -
[184]
Edited by: marakor on 26/10/2009 18:13:09
Originally by: Lilith Velkor Oh dear, battleclinic epeen waving at its best
Pilot #3085 and #31k something (), both ingame since 2005, smacking each other to no end who has more pvp knowledge and is thus entitled to decide what blasters should be like.
Let #467 give you a good advice, stop boasting with your stats and try to argue facts, battleclinic ranking shows exactly nothing.
Who is talking about ranking, im talking about expeeriance in the ships and systems in question and if you think the number of kills a player has and how they got them means nothing your a idiot.
|
NightmareX
Infinitus Odium Shadows of Light
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 18:16:00 -
[185]
Originally by: marakor Edited by: marakor on 26/10/2009 18:13:09
Originally by: Lilith Velkor Oh dear, battleclinic epeen waving at its best
Pilot #3085 and #31k something (), both ingame since 2005, smacking each other to no end who has more pvp knowledge and is thus entitled to decide what blasters should be like.
Let #467 give you a good advice, stop boasting with your stats and try to argue facts, battleclinic ranking shows exactly nothing.
Who is talking about ranking, im talking about expeeriance in the ships and systems in question and if you think the number of kills a player has and how they got them means nothing your a idiot.
Cool story bro, and keep poasting.
This topic can only go one way with you here.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
marakor
Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 18:23:00 -
[186]
Edited by: marakor on 26/10/2009 18:23:48
Originally by: NightmareX
This topic can only go one way with you here.
I joined the thread late but you had already set the tone of it as per usual just go away and stop posting.
Heres a few of your fans...
Originally by: Etho Demerzel
Don't worry, Nightmare. Nobody can take this tittle from you. You are the biggest noobie of this game in about everything, blasters included. And that is quite impressive if you take into account the time you have been playing it...
Originally by: Liang Nuren ****, another blaster thread about to go down the drain to trolling NMX (tee-hee, now the question is whether NMX is the troller or the trollee... and I'm not about to read enough context to find out).
-Liang
NoobmareX trolls again....
|
NightmareX
Infinitus Odium Shadows of Light
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 18:24:00 -
[187]
Edited by: NightmareX on 26/10/2009 18:26:40
Originally by: marakor NoobmareX trolls again....
Yey, cool story bro.
Keep poasting.
Oh btw, nice, 3 players that doesn't agree with me out of like 50. Nice dude, that's an epic amount of players that doesn't agree with me.
But actually no, Liang does agree with me to some point that the real problem isn't Blasters, but Lasers / Scorch mainly. So after all, it's more like 2 players out of 50 that doesn't agree with me.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
marakor
Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 18:28:00 -
[188]
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: marakor NoobmareX trolls again....
Yey, cool story bro.
Keep poasting.
Weak troll.
Stop posting.
|
NightmareX
Infinitus Odium Shadows of Light
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 18:29:00 -
[189]
Originally by: marakor
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: marakor NoobmareX trolls again....
Yey, cool story bro.
Keep poasting.
Weak troll.
Stop posting.
I can stop posting when you stop poasting, deal?.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
marakor
Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 18:33:00 -
[190]
Originally by: NightmareX
Oh btw, nice, 3 players that doesn't agree with me out of like 50. Nice dude, that's an epic amount of players that doesn't agree with me.
Actually thats 3 players pointing out what a clueless noob troll you are i could post more but i cannot be bothered, theres many many many more that know theres a problem with blasters and close range BS game balance.
|
|
NightmareX
Infinitus Odium Shadows of Light
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 18:36:00 -
[191]
Originally by: marakor
Originally by: NightmareX
Oh btw, nice, 3 players that doesn't agree with me out of like 50. Nice dude, that's an epic amount of players that doesn't agree with me.
Actually thats 3 players pointing out what a clueless noob troll you are i could post more but i cannot be bothered, theres many many many more that know theres a problem with blasters and close range BS game balance.
Explain in DETAILS what kind of problem Blasters have please.
Let me see if i can find out where your problem is so you have so much problems with Blasters.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
marakor
Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 18:38:00 -
[192]
Edited by: marakor on 26/10/2009 18:39:23
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: marakor
Originally by: NightmareX
Oh btw, nice, 3 players that doesn't agree with me out of like 50. Nice dude, that's an epic amount of players that doesn't agree with me.
Actually thats 3 players pointing out what a clueless noob troll you are i could post more but i cannot be bothered, theres many many many more that know theres a problem with blasters and close range BS game balance.
Explain in DETAILS what kind of problem Blasters have please.
Let me see if i can find out where your problem is so you have so much problems with Blasters.
Its easy to say you have no problems with blasters when you never fly them..
So if i was just like you id have no problems with blaster BS either............cos then neither of us would fly them...
|
NightmareX
Infinitus Odium Shadows of Light
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 18:42:00 -
[193]
Edited by: NightmareX on 26/10/2009 18:44:33
Originally by: marakor Edited by: marakor on 26/10/2009 18:39:23
Originally by: NightmareX
Originally by: marakor
Originally by: NightmareX
Oh btw, nice, 3 players that doesn't agree with me out of like 50. Nice dude, that's an epic amount of players that doesn't agree with me.
Actually thats 3 players pointing out what a clueless noob troll you are i could post more but i cannot be bothered, theres many many many more that know theres a problem with blasters and close range BS game balance.
Explain in DETAILS what kind of problem Blasters have please.
Let me see if i can find out where your problem is so you have so much problems with Blasters.
Its easy to say you have no problems with blasters when you never fly them..
So if i was just like you id have no problems with blaster BS either............cos then neither of us would fly them...
So you say 4 years of flying a Megathron on Sisi is never flying a Mega?. Yeah, nice way of proving your only trying to make your self look bad. And i like that tbh.
I still use the Blasters and i still use the Megathron no matter what, it doesn't matter if it's used on Sisi, because used is used.
But i'm still waiting for your reply with really good facts / details on what kind of problems Blasters have. You don't need to post it just to me. Post it so others in this topic can see if your a lying troll or if your talking true.
It's up to you now to let the peoples believe you or takes you as an idiot. The choice is your.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar Beyond Divinity Inc Beyond Virginity
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 18:43:00 -
[194]
Originally by: NightmareX
Anyways, just to make a point here. So here is a question to you Lilith Velkor. Who is right about the Blasters between me and sophisticatedlimabean aka marakor here?.
Uhm, you didnt really get what I was talking about I think, its not which of you both is right or wrong (not that I could be arsed to read through that stupid flamefest anyway), my point was that debate between you two is utterly pointless and of no use to the thread.
I dont intend to get dragged into something like that either, and I'd suggest either you or him just let it go, its not leading anywhere.
Blasters much like autocannons have a hard time to compete in a gang situation against pulse lasers, and its a combination of poor focus in the platforms, issues with ammunition, and to a large part also the way bigger engagements prefer dps@range vs EHP so much (aka excellence of amarr BSs in this respect to a huge degree).
Against each other they compare pretty good actually (imo blasters a bit better still, but that might be a case of me being minmatar mainly and the grass being greener on the other side), but could use a boost to close the gap to pulses. Still, a good solution to even out things needs to take all three short-range turrets as well as the short-ranged missile variants in consideration, the simple "boost this, nerf that" approach will just flip a coin imo.
|
NightmareX
Infinitus Odium Shadows of Light
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 18:47:00 -
[195]
Edited by: NightmareX on 26/10/2009 18:56:42
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
Originally by: NightmareX
Anyways, just to make a point here. So here is a question to you Lilith Velkor. Who is right about the Blasters between me and sophisticatedlimabean aka marakor here?.
Uhm, you didnt really get what I was talking about I think, its not which of you both is right or wrong (not that I could be arsed to read through that stupid flamefest anyway), my point was that debate between you two is utterly pointless and of no use to the thread.
I dont intend to get dragged into something like that either, and I'd suggest either you or him just let it go, its not leading anywhere.
Blasters much like autocannons have a hard time to compete in a gang situation against pulse lasers, and its a combination of poor focus in the platforms, issues with ammunition, and to a large part also the way bigger engagements prefer dps@range vs EHP so much (aka excellence of amarr BSs in this respect to a huge degree).
Against each other they compare pretty good actually (imo blasters a bit better still, but that might be a case of me being minmatar mainly and the grass being greener on the other side), but could use a boost to close the gap to pulses. Still, a good solution to even out things needs to take all three short-range turrets as well as the short-ranged missile variants in consideration, the simple "boost this, nerf that" approach will just flip a coin imo.
Alright, i get your point.
Yeah, can't we just say that, before marakor makes a reply and explains why Blasters have issues, then lets just ignore the fool?. Personally, i have ingored him from now on, and i mean it this time.
I'm sure he's going to post something just to try and get me to reply more, but if he do that, it only means one thing. He's an idiot.
Because so far, he have just replied with really poor calculations and really ****ty setups on a Megathron and an Abaddon that makes no sense. And just to make the Megathron looks bad in every possible ways. That's typical Laser FOTY bois to do.
Like me, i only reply with facts when someone is lying about something that isn't true, so i just make a reply then and fix what they did wrong in the topic and explain to them what they are doing wrong. Other than that, i'm not replying here much anyways.
I at least made a nice calculation on why a Megathron is working really nice in RR BS gangs even to a tier 3 BS. I didn't include tracking in my calculations earlier even when i listed them down, because in RR BS fight, the tracking doesn't mean much. It's only in really really small gangs the tracking means something, up to like 3-4 max vs the same.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
marakor
Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 18:54:00 -
[196]
Originally by: NightmareX So you say 4 years of flying a Megathron on Sisi is never flying a Mega?.
1. You have not been flying blaster ships on sissi for 4 years your a liar.
2. I have been flying them on TQ and sissi for longer than 4 years.
3. Because i have i know that the changes in eve over the years make a lot of the knowledge i gained flying them worthless in todays eve. A fact you utterly miss cos your a bragging liar.
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
Blasters much like autocannons have a hard time to compete in a gang situation against pulse lasers, and its a combination of poor focus in the platforms, issues with ammunition, and to a large part also the way bigger engagements prefer dps@range vs EHP so much (aka excellence of amarr BSs in this respect to a huge degree).
They could use a boost to close the gap to pulses.
I agree although these 2 NMX solutions are rather pitiful...
1. Buy extra implants for dmg and tracking.
2. "Magically" be at 4.5km from every ship you ever fight without butchering your cap by using your mwd.
|
NightmareX
Infinitus Odium Shadows of Light
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 18:59:00 -
[197]
Edited by: NightmareX on 26/10/2009 18:59:09
Originally by: marakor
Originally by: NightmareX So you say 4 years of flying a Megathron on Sisi is never flying a Mega?.
1. You have not been flying blaster ships on sissi for 4 years your a liar.
2. I have been flying them on TQ and sissi for longer than 4 years.
3. Because i have i know that the changes in eve over the years make a lot of the knowledge i gained flying them worthless in todays eve. A fact you utterly miss cos your a bragging liar.
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
Blasters much like autocannons have a hard time to compete in a gang situation against pulse lasers, and its a combination of poor focus in the platforms, issues with ammunition, and to a large part also the way bigger engagements prefer dps@range vs EHP so much (aka excellence of amarr BSs in this respect to a huge degree).
They could use a boost to close the gap to pulses.
I agree although these 2 NMX solutions are rather pitiful...
1. Buy extra implants for dmg and tracking.
2. "Magically" be at 4.5km from every ship you ever fight without butchering your cap by using your mwd.
sophisticatedlimabean
Alright, my last reply to this troll.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
marakor
Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 19:00:00 -
[198]
Edited by: marakor on 26/10/2009 19:02:49 Edited by: marakor on 26/10/2009 19:01:30
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
Uhm, you didnt really get what I was talking about I think, its not which of you both is right or wrong (not that I could be arsed to read through that stupid flamefest anyway), my point was that debate between you two is utterly pointless and of no use to the thread.
I dont intend to get dragged into something like that either, and I'd suggest either you or him just let it go, its not leading anywhere.
Blasters much like autocannons have a hard time to compete in a gang situation against pulse lasers, and its a combination of poor focus in the platforms, issues with ammunition, and to a large part also the way bigger engagements prefer dps@range vs EHP so much (aka excellence of amarr BSs in this respect to a huge degree).
Against each other they compare pretty good actually (imo blasters a bit better still, but that might be a case of me being minmatar mainly and the grass being greener on the other side), but could use a boost to close the gap to pulses. Still, a good solution to even out things needs to take all three short-range turrets as well as the short-ranged missile variants in consideration, the simple "boost this, nerf that" approach will just flip a coin imo.
Originally by: NightmareX Crying to what he thinks is a new mommy....
Dear god you are a weak whiney pitiful excuse for a human being.....
Originally by: NightmareX
Alright, my last reply to this troll.
There is a god...
|
Dabljuh
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 19:02:00 -
[199]
Edited by: Dabljuh on 26/10/2009 19:05:36 Back to blasters...
Two basic paths of fixing them have now been provided, neither of which are exclusive or rule the other path out:
a) buff blasters / nerf pulses. Basically obvious, the question is how much blasters should be buffed.
For example: double the tracking and 25% more dps for blasters, 20% tracking nerf for pulses.
b) fix the tracking formulas which make sure that no turret can ever hit _anything_ ever orbiting inside a radius of a few kms, which is what inherently gimps any turret weapon with a few kms range. I find this a rather interesting interpretation.
For example: add a bit to the formula like this: effectiveTargetSig = (10km*(absolutetargetSig/r)) (r=distance in km) formula for hitting stuff. I.e. the closer something is the easier it is to hit it because of its increased apparent signature, and conversely, the further away something is, the smaller its relative signature.
That would mean that a frig at 1km distance has the relative signature radius of a battleship, and conversely, at 100km a battleship has the relative signature radius of a frig.
|
NightmareX
Infinitus Odium Shadows of Light
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 19:04:00 -
[200]
Originally by: marakor Edited by: marakor on 26/10/2009 19:01:30
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
Uhm, you didnt really get what I was talking about I think, its not which of you both is right or wrong (not that I could be arsed to read through that stupid flamefest anyway), my point was that debate between you two is utterly pointless and of no use to the thread.
I dont intend to get dragged into something like that either, and I'd suggest either you or him just let it go, its not leading anywhere.
Blasters much like autocannons have a hard time to compete in a gang situation against pulse lasers, and its a combination of poor focus in the platforms, issues with ammunition, and to a large part also the way bigger engagements prefer dps@range vs EHP so much (aka excellence of amarr BSs in this respect to a huge degree).
Against each other they compare pretty good actually (imo blasters a bit better still, but that might be a case of me being minmatar mainly and the grass being greener on the other side), but could use a boost to close the gap to pulses. Still, a good solution to even out things needs to take all three short-range turrets as well as the short-ranged missile variants in consideration, the simple "boost this, nerf that" approach will just flip a coin imo.
Originally by: NightmareX Crying to what he thinks is a new mommy....
Dear god you are a weak whiney pitiful excuse for a human being.....
Originally by: NightmareX Yeah, can't we just say that, before marakor makes a reply and explains why Blasters have issues, then lets just ignore the fool?. Personally, i have ingored him from now on, and i mean it this time.
I'm sure he's going to post something just to try and get me to reply more, but if he do that, it only means one thing. He's an idiot.
Because so far, he have just replied with really poor calculations and really ****ty setups on a Megathron and an Abaddon that makes no sense. And just to make the Megathron looks bad in every possible ways. That's typical Laser FOTY bois to do.
In case you didn't get that.
So please continue to poast you wall of crap that doesn't make your points about Blasters any valid AT ALL.
KTNXBAI.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
|
marakor
Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 19:07:00 -
[201]
Edited by: marakor on 26/10/2009 19:08:05
Originally by: Dabljuh Back to blasters...
Two basic paths of fixing them have now been provided, neither of which are exclusive or rule the other path out:
a) buff blasters / nerf pulses. Basically obvious, the question is how much blasters should be buffed.
For example: double the tracking and 25% more dps for blasters, 20% tracking nerf for pulses.
Tracking is rather unimportant tbh dude but more dmg could not hurt things.
Originally by: Dabljuh b) fix the tracking formulas which make sure that no turret can ever hit _anything_ ever orbiting inside a radius of a few kms, which is what inherently gimps any turret weapon with a few kms range. I find this a rather interesting interpretation.
This may help a little and not just blaster BS.
How about C as well.
You may want to include a buff to cpu and grid to the mega so it can at least fit a reasonable tank without using faction mods and a large injector in stead of a medium when it uses neutrons.
PS: Originally by: NightmareX
KTNXBAI.
Good bloody riddance.
|
NightmareX
Infinitus Odium Shadows of Light
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 19:10:00 -
[202]
Edited by: NightmareX on 26/10/2009 19:11:19
Originally by: Dabljuh Back to blasters...
Two basic paths of fixing them have now been provided, neither of which are exclusive or rule the other path out:
a) buff blasters / nerf pulses. Basically obvious, the question is how much blasters should be buffed.
For example: double the tracking and 25% more dps for blasters, 20% tracking nerf for pulses.
b) fix the tracking formulas which make sure that no turret can ever hit _anything_ ever orbiting inside a radius of a few kms, which is what inherently gimps any turret weapon with a few kms range. I find this a rather interesting interpretation.
For example: add a bit to the formula like this: effectiveTargetSig = (10km*(absolutetargetSig/r)) (r=distance in km) formula for hitting stuff. I.e. the closer something is the easier it is to hit it because of its increased apparent signature, and conversely, the further away something is, the smaller its relative signature.
That would mean that a frig at 1km distance has the relative signature radius of a battleship.
I don't think that's going to work good. It will rather makes 3805738 times more problems instead of fixing the few issues that are with the tracking formula now.
I would to begin with fix the tracking formula and then lets see how good Blasters for example are against other ships in Blasters optimal range. Or very very close like 100m or something.
If that doesn't work any better, then we can start to look at other options.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Dabljuh
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 19:22:00 -
[203]
Edited by: Dabljuh on 26/10/2009 19:25:56
Originally by: marakor How about C as well.
You may want to include a buff to cpu and grid to the mega so it can at least fit a reasonable tank without using faction mods and a large injector in stead of a medium when it uses neutrons.
I'll be the first to agree that gallente ships in general have way too little grid for their stated purposes. But this is sort of offset by them having way more drone bandwidth and bay for their stated purpose as well. That's not a blaster issue, that's a much larger and more complex "racial ship balance" issue.
Considering the geddon has about 30% more grid than the thron, while lasers only eat about 10% more grid for the same 'class' I do wonder what the rationale behind this is. But I am in no way experienced enough with BS combat to make any meaningful statements on that topic, and to be honest, I do not find that they belong in this thread.
Originally by: NightmareX I don't think that's going to work good. It will rather makes 3805738 times more problems instead of fixing the few issues that are with the tracking formula now.
OMG, GTFO Troll. Stupid, stupid Troll.
|
NightmareX
Infinitus Odium Shadows of Light
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 19:31:00 -
[204]
Edited by: NightmareX on 26/10/2009 19:32:52
Originally by: Dabljuh OMG, GTFO Troll. Stupid, stupid Troll.
OMG OMG chill dude.
I just told you that the change you wrote down over is not fixing much when it makes more problems than it fixes. Nothing wrong to say that when that's the fact.
Anyways, yes i also agree that the Megathron need a little more Powergrid and CPU. That's something i have been saying for ages now. And by doing that, it might fix some few things on the Megathron that might be a problem for some.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
marakor
Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 19:31:00 -
[205]
Edited by: marakor on 26/10/2009 19:34:30
Originally by: Dabljuh
Originally by: marakor How about C as well.
You may want to include a buff to cpu and grid to the mega so it can at least fit a reasonable tank without using faction mods and a large injector in stead of a medium when it uses neutrons.
I'll be the first to agree that gallente ships in general have way too little grid for their stated purposes. But this is sort of offset by them having way more drone bandwidth and bay for their stated purpose as well. That's not a blaster issue, that's a much larger and more complex "racial ship balance" issue.
The issues cannot really be separated due to the fact that blasters need to be fitted onto ships and that the extra drones ect are always calculated into the dps figures and is in fact a much larger and more complicated issue that it seems.
In actual fact the "blaster issue" is in actual fact a much larger issue to do with all close range BS combat that involves multiple battleships and most of their relative stats (not just turrets), and its been a problem since the web nerf along with several other seemingly unrelated game changes.
|
Dabljuh
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 19:39:00 -
[206]
Originally by: marakor In actual fact the "blaster issue" is in actual fact a much larger issue to do with all close range BS combat that involves multiple battleships and most of their relative stats (not just turrets), and its been a problem since the web nerf along with several other seemingly unrelated game changes.
Here's the thing: Does the Mega really have to fit neutrons? Ions do virtually the same damage, the real difference is their lower range.
|
NightmareX
Infinitus Odium Shadows of Light
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 19:43:00 -
[207]
Edited by: NightmareX on 26/10/2009 19:45:57 And just to have this said to. The ONLY reason why someone takes Blasters for crap atm is because Lasers is to overpowered atm, and then finds the Blasters to be crap.
But the thing isn't that the Blasters are crap,the thing is that the Lasers with Scorch is waaaay way to good.
So, the best way is not to boost Blaster to get it to how an overpowered weapon type is, because when something is overpowered, then the overpowered thing need to be nerfed.
There is 3 options. 1. Nerf the DPS on Lasers in general. 2. Nerf the DPS by 10% on Close range ammos like Multis for Lasers and nerf the DPS by 15% on med range for med range ammo like Scorch. 3. Nerf the tracking on Lasers in whole by 25%.
One of those things needs to be done.
You know, Lasers need to have a bit more disadvantage than just a bit of cap usage.
Doesn't matter if Blasters will get 15% DPS boost, because Lasers is still going to be better because you have insta reload of ammos, no ammo usage, good range and good tracking and so on.
Peoples will still find that to be much much better than a 15% DPS boost to Blasters. So they will still use Lasers no matter what. So i find the DPS boost thingie on Blasters to be invalid.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Dabljuh
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 19:50:00 -
[208]
Originally by: NightmareX Edited by: NightmareX on 26/10/2009 19:47:58So, the best way is not to boost Blaster to get it to how an overpowered weapon type is, because when something is overpowered, then the overpowered thing need to be nerfed.
Shouldn't blasters be vastly overpowered inside their range? Given that their range is by far the lowest in the game?
|
marakor
Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 19:52:00 -
[209]
Originally by: Dabljuh
Originally by: marakor In actual fact the "blaster issue" is in actual fact a much larger issue to do with all close range BS combat that involves multiple battleships and most of their relative stats (not just turrets), and its been a problem since the web nerf along with several other seemingly unrelated game changes.
Here's the thing: Does the Mega really have to fit neutrons? Ions do virtually the same damage, the real difference is their lower range.
The RR setup with a single mag stab drops the turret dps by around 6.1% and considering how narrow the damage gap is between blasters and other systems like pulse already narrowing it even furthar while also reducing their available range is not the best way to go in my opinion.
If blasters are supposed to be the in your face and destroy you weapons then they need a considerable boost in DPS and a tank + cap that allows that sort of capability.
|
NightmareX
Infinitus Odium Shadows of Light
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 19:54:00 -
[210]
Edited by: NightmareX on 26/10/2009 19:55:43
Originally by: Dabljuh
Originally by: NightmareX Edited by: NightmareX on 26/10/2009 19:47:58So, the best way is not to boost Blaster to get it to how an overpowered weapon type is, because when something is overpowered, then the overpowered thing need to be nerfed.
Shouldn't blasters be vastly overpowered inside their range? Given that their range is by far the lowest in the game?
Yeah, it's what i'm saying. Blasters already have HUGE DPS inside 5 km. And that's good enough DPS by miles.
The only problem like i said over is that the DPS on Lasers are way to high inside 5 km where Blasters is supposed to be the king.
So that's why i'm saying, nerf the Lasers DPS inside 5 km by at least 10% and 15% at med range.
Then the Blasters will be the absolute DPS monster inside 5-6 km and then Lasers still be the king at range and still have good tracking. Because Lasers are supposed to be good at range and hit ships quite good at range because Amarr ship or ships that use Lasers aren't really ships that are fast, so they need the range and the tracking so they can make up for the low speed and poor agility etc etc.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
|
Liang Nuren
No Salvation War.Pigs.
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 20:09:00 -
[211]
Can you two get a room instead of ruining a mildly informative topic?
-Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org |
marakor
Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 20:11:00 -
[212]
Originally by: Liang Nuren Can you two get a room instead of ruining a mildly informative topic?
-Liang
Only you opinions and insults are vailid then?.....
Originally by: Liang Nuren ****, another blaster thread about to go down the drain to trolling NMX (tee-hee, now the question is whether NMX is the troller or the trollee... and I'm not about to read enough context to find out).
-Liang
Get a room.
|
NightmareX
Infinitus Odium Shadows of Light
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 20:14:00 -
[213]
Edited by: NightmareX on 26/10/2009 20:15:13
Originally by: Liang Nuren Can you two get a room instead of ruining a mildly informative topic?
-Liang
sophisticatedlimabean aka marakor need to bugger off from this topic first of all, it's he that makes this topic into a flame war.
And if you see my post before your post here, you can see that i'm not flaming or trolling at all. I'm just telling what i think will makes the weapons pretty balanced like i would like to see. Because i wouldn't like to see one weapon system totally ruined because another weapon type just get to much boosted and gets OP'ed and FOTY again.
I want no weapons types to be FOTM / FOTY, because i want to have every weapons really balanced so we can use the weapon types after what your gonna do and not after what weapon type that is FOTY.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Liang Nuren
No Salvation War.Pigs.
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 20:18:00 -
[214]
Your opinions are welcome - both of you. But your constant flaming is utterly ******ed. Besides, NMX has changed his tune to be much more reasonable regarding blasters. Where traditionally he's insisted that they are the end-all be-all of PVP combat, we see that he now is putting more emphasis on range. I think we can all agree that when Dominion rolls around, blasters may need some examining.
But, then again, maybe they won't. The TC/TE buff is probably more beneficial to my blaster ships than my AC ships, so I'm really looking forward to seeing how that turns out for blasters before I go saying that blasters need some really huge buff.
-Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org |
marakor
Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 20:23:00 -
[215]
Edited by: marakor on 26/10/2009 20:23:46
Originally by: Liang Nuren Your opinions are welcome - both of you. But your constant flaming is utterly ******ed. Besides, NMX has changed his tune to be much more reasonable regarding blasters. Where traditionally he's insisted that they are the end-all be-all of PVP combat, we see that he now is putting more emphasis on range.
Yea well he has gone from jumping into threads making stupid claims and having no idea how to fit a blaster ship let alone how to fly one to still jumping into threads and making stupid claims but at least its been hammered into his r****ded brain that theres at least a problem now....and it only took a year or so to get the moron clued up.
|
NightmareX
Infinitus Odium Shadows of Light
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 20:24:00 -
[216]
Originally by: Liang Nuren Your opinions are welcome - both of you. But your constant flaming is utterly ******ed. Besides, NMX has changed his tune to be much more reasonable regarding blasters. Where traditionally he's insisted that they are the end-all be-all of PVP combat, we see that he now is putting more emphasis on range. I think we can all agree that when Dominion rolls around, blasters may need some examining.
But, then again, maybe they won't. The TC/TE buff is probably more beneficial to my blaster ships than my AC ships, so I'm really looking forward to seeing how that turns out for blasters before I go saying that blasters need some really huge buff.
-Liang
Yes, this is exactly what i want to see. I want to see how Projectiles and Blasters will perform in Dominion before we looks on the next thing. You never know if there is some stealth boosts in Dominion that can make some things with Blasters better. Stealth boosts have happened before and it might happen again.
The tracking formula is also a thing that i really want to see fixed, because we all knows that the tracking formula is crap today.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
marakor
Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 20:36:00 -
[217]
Edited by: marakor on 26/10/2009 20:36:57
Originally by: NightmareX
And ROFL, and you still don't get into your dumb head that the problem i'm talking about is NOT BLASTERS even when the real problem does affect Blasters. How many times do i have to tell you that the real problem is the tracking formula?.
You have not said it to anybody "many times" you just jumped on somebody elses band wagon yet again and are acting like it was your idea all along.
You are such a tosser.
I don't know how small your head is, but it's starting to looks really tiny when you don't get it what both me and Liang are talking about is not about Blasters it self.
You change what you talking about everytime you get proven wrong and make a fool of yourself and that has been a LOT since the close range BS issues have been going.
Stop acting like pl are opn your side cos they aint you delusional idiot.
|
NightmareX
Infinitus Odium Shadows of Light
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 20:38:00 -
[218]
Edited by: NightmareX on 26/10/2009 20:43:33
Originally by: marakor Edited by: marakor on 26/10/2009 20:36:57
Originally by: NightmareX
And ROFL, and you still don't get into your dumb head that the problem i'm talking about is NOT BLASTERS even when the real problem does affect Blasters. How many times do i have to tell you that the real problem is the tracking formula?.
You have not said it to anybody "many times" you just jumped on somebody elses band wagon yet again and are acting like it was your idea all along.
You are such a tosser.
I don't know how small your head is, but it's starting to looks really tiny when you don't get it what both me and Liang are talking about is not about Blasters it self.
You change what you talking about everytime you get proven wrong and make a fool of yourself and that has been a LOT since the close range BS issues have been going.
Stop acting like pl are opn your side cos they aint you delusional idiot.
Cool story bro.
I really like your excuses, those are pretty funny because it just proves your nothing more than a troll.
Keep poasing.
And also, when Liang isn't on your side, your not right about Blasters AT ALL. Just to make it that clear. Liang on the other hand is saying to me that i'm making more meaningfull replies now and that i'm taking the important things into consideration when i'm talking about balancing things. Simply because i know what i'm talking about.
What are you saying to that. Do you still think i'm wrong?.
Well your so wrong as you can get before you give us a reply with some facts and why Blasters are like you see them now.
Reply with facts and good details on why Blasters are crap now or STFU please.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
marakor
Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 20:41:00 -
[219]
Edited by: marakor on 26/10/2009 20:43:58
Read again, comprehend and STFU.
Originally by: NightmareX
And ROFL, and you still don't get into your dumb head that the problem i'm talking about is NOT BLASTERS even when the real problem does affect Blasters. How many times do i have to tell you that the real problem is the tracking formula?.
You have not said it to anybody "many times" you just jumped on somebody elses band wagon yet again and are acting like it was your idea all along.
You are such a tosser.
You change what you talking about everytime you get proven wrong and make a fool of yourself and that has been a LOT since the close range BS issues have been going.
|
NightmareX
Infinitus Odium Shadows of Light
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 20:44:00 -
[220]
Edited by: NightmareX on 26/10/2009 20:46:13
Originally by: marakor
Read again, comprehend and STFU.
Originally by: NightmareX
And ROFL, and you still don't get into your dumb head that the problem i'm talking about is NOT BLASTERS even when the real problem does affect Blasters. How many times do i have to tell you that the real problem is the tracking formula?.
You have not said it to anybody "many times" you just jumped on somebody elses band wagon yet again and are acting like it was your idea all along.
You are such a tosser.
I don't know how small your head is, but it's starting to looks really tiny when you don't get it what both me and Liang are talking about is not about Blasters it self.
You change what you talking about everytime you get proven wrong and make a fool of yourself and that has been a LOT since the close range BS issues have been going.
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1190448&page=8#218
I'm still waiting for you to actually give a reply that we all here in this topic can believe.
Even Liang can confirm that i have always been talking about the tracking formula problem when someone have been whining about Blasters tracking.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
|
marakor
Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 20:46:00 -
[221]
Read again, comprehend and STFU.
Originally by: NightmareX
And ROFL, and you still don't get into your dumb head that the problem i'm talking about is NOT BLASTERS even when the real problem does affect Blasters. How many times do i have to tell you that the real problem is the tracking formula?.
You have not said it to anybody "many times" you just jumped on somebody elses band wagon yet again and are acting like it was your idea all along.
You are such a tosser.
You change what you talking about everytime you get proven wrong and make a fool of yourself and that has been a LOT since the close range BS issues have been going.
|
NightmareX
Infinitus Odium Shadows of Light
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 20:54:00 -
[222]
Edited by: NightmareX on 26/10/2009 20:58:37 Alright, some guy in this topic is reported here now FYI. And i hope you have reported marakor to Liang. Because this guy isn't for real here. Seriously.
Because flaming like you do now marakor, is not acceptable. If you want to flame, go to CAOD and make useless posts there.
It's impossible to have a discussion here with you here marakor. This topic will end up by getting locked BECAUSE OF YOU AGAIN marakor if this continues.
Can we please get on topic without marakor here making a flame war / troll reply?.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
marakor
Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 20:59:00 -
[223]
Edited by: marakor on 26/10/2009 20:59:28
Originally by: NightmareX Edited by: NightmareX on 26/10/2009 20:56:56 Alright, some guy in this topic is reported here now FYI. And i hope you have reported marakor to Liang. Because this guy isn't for real here.
Because flaming like you do now marakor, is not acceptable. If you want to flame, go to CAOD and make useless posts there.
It's impossible to have a discussion here with you here marakor. This topic will end up by getting locked BECAUSE OF YOU AGAIN marakor if this continues.
Go to page 3.
Look at yopu first post including the abusive and FOUL language and the utter lack of constructive comments.
STFU and go away troll.
|
NightmareX
Infinitus Odium Shadows of Light
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 21:01:00 -
[224]
Edited by: NightmareX on 26/10/2009 21:03:55
Originally by: marakor Edited by: marakor on 26/10/2009 20:59:28
Originally by: NightmareX Edited by: NightmareX on 26/10/2009 20:56:56 Alright, some guy in this topic is reported here now FYI. And i hope you have reported marakor to Liang. Because this guy isn't for real here.
Because flaming like you do now marakor, is not acceptable. If you want to flame, go to CAOD and make useless posts there.
It's impossible to have a discussion here with you here marakor. This topic will end up by getting locked BECAUSE OF YOU AGAIN marakor if this continues.
Go to page 3.
Look at yopu first post including the abusive and FOUL language and the utter lack of constructive comments.
STFU and go away troll.
Quote me on what i said on page 3 here instead. Because i can't see anywhere on page 3 where i have been using my mouth.
But this isn't about who is using the mouth here, it's about who is taking a topic off topic and makes it into a flame war.
I can say for sure that i'm not going to go away before you, because after how many reports that are going into CCP now because of you, your not going to last for long here. I hope your aware of that.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Akiyl
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 21:04:00 -
[225]
i was really enjoying reading this thread - it started out as an interesting, informative debate, with some nice ideas coming through.
the last 3 to 4 pages of nightmareX having a slagging match with marakor was not.
thanks for hijacking a good thread and lowering it to your level.
and this is just an observation - nightmarex and marakor, your the same. equally arrogant, equally pompous, equally immature.
|
marakor
Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 21:07:00 -
[226]
Originally by: NightmareX
Quote me on what i said on page 3 here instead. Because i can't see anywhere on page 3 where i have been using my mouth.
But this isn't about who is using the mouth here, it's about who is taking a topic off topic and makes it into a flame war.
I can say for sure that i'm not going to go away before you, because after how many reports that are going into CCP now because of you, your not going to last for long here. I hope your aware of that.
So if you cannoty beat em ban em huh?...your so pathetic....oh and aybody can report so i guess were both gonna be busy.....maybeyour bro will end up coming back from school early.
|
NightmareX
Infinitus Odium Shadows of Light
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 21:10:00 -
[227]
Edited by: NightmareX on 26/10/2009 21:14:49
Originally by: Akiyl i was really enjoying reading this thread - it started out as an interesting, informative debate, with some nice ideas coming through.
the last 3 to 4 pages of nightmareX having a slagging match with marakor was not.
thanks for hijacking a good thread and lowering it to your level.
and this is just an observation - nightmarex and marakor, your the same. equally arrogant, equally pompous, equally immature.
Look at the posts from marakor, and look at my posts in this topic. Who have quality posts between me and him?. Yes you can see some posts from me against marakro that doesn't really have anything to do with this topic. But look at my calculation between the Mega and the Abaddon, and the post like this: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1190448&page=7#194 and this: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1190448&page=7#194. Here i made a reply to what they sais in this topic that have with this topic to do.
Here is another reason why i'm making sense in this topic: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1190448&page=7#194. Just told what the real problem is. Nothing wrong with that. And this one: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1190448&page=7#194.
And to the last one: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1190448&page=8#213.
See why my posts here are much much better than marakor's posts. marakor's posts are only flaming and trolls.
Originally by: marakor
Originally by: NightmareX
Quote me on what i said on page 3 here instead. Because i can't see anywhere on page 3 where i have been using my mouth.
But this isn't about who is using the mouth here, it's about who is taking a topic off topic and makes it into a flame war.
I can say for sure that i'm not going to go away before you, because after how many reports that are going into CCP now because of you, your not going to last for long here. I hope your aware of that.
So if you cannoty beat em ban em huh?...your so pathetic....oh and aybody can report so i guess were both gonna be busy.....maybeyour bro will end up coming back from school early.
It's not about who can beat who, it's about who are older than 8 years old and can post like me and Liang in this topic. And like the other players i have been replying to, because they actually are discussing what the topic is about.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
Bigpimping
Pimp Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 21:12:00 -
[228]
Guys, seriously, you are just making yourselves look silly. Blaster fix is an important topic with pwetty graphs and you are making it cry. ________________________________________ He who pimps, is God... |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 21:12:00 -
[229]
Originally by: Liang Nuren I think we can all agree that when Dominion rolls around, blasters may need some examining.
But, then again, maybe they won't. The TC/TE buff is probably more beneficial to my blaster ships than my AC ships, so I'm really looking forward to seeing how that turns out for blasters before I go saying that blasters need some really huge buff.
-Liang
The problems caused because the tracking formula misses at 0km needs sorting although most ships i know of in any game or reality cannot hit a ship or are unwilling to fire on one that is docked/parked against its hull lol so its not as "unrealistic" as ppl claim.
Im not sure i see it as much of a benifit to any ships really although i know a lot of drone ship pilots that will be crying as it was a great way to reduce incoming fire from as larger ship by sitting on its hull while your drones orbited and chewed it up.....
The patch may change things but its definatly wise to wait until its done its not like we have not waited long enough already for things to be fixed.
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
marakor
Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 21:22:00 -
[230]
Edited by: marakor on 26/10/2009 21:25:28
Originally by: NightmareX
See why my posts here are much much better than marakor's posts. marakor's posts are only flaming and trolls.
Your first posts in this thread.......before you had it removed...a good job it was quoted by ETHO dude but hey i already reported it before you had it deleted.
Originally by: NightmareX
OMG, this must be the biggest Blaster noobie whining ever here.
Seriously. Are you for real?.
Originally by: NightmareX
Cool story bro.
Can i have some cheese with your whining?.
Oh thank god for finally giving me the proof you don't have a single clue about PVP, like with Bellum.
Very constructive btw...
MY first post:
Blaster BS have been gimped for a very long time and with the overpoweredness of lasers this has been highlighted.
Blaster BS were supposed to be the 1 v 1 BS at close range but with the CCP idea of making solo BS pvp a thiong of the past they are now way under powered.
1. A poor EHP tank relative to what is available to amarr while needing to operate at way closer range than amaar ships is absurd.
2. Marginally better DPS at a absurdly small range and then being out ranged as well as out damaged for a vast amount.
Get your finger out and fix it CCP its been way too long.
I also found this little gem.
A standard mega and abaddon fit for RR ops AND HOW THEY COMPARE.
The mega starts with 7 guns and RR with 832 gun dps and 300 drone dps to be assigned.
300 thermal drone dmg from gaurd less 75.7% = 72.9 DPS. 482.56 kinetic damage from its guns less 71.9% = 135.6 DPS. 394.44 thermal damage from its guns less 75.7% = 84.9 DPS.
THE MEGA GETS A TOTAL OF 293.4 MAX DPS AT 4.5KM vs THE ABADDON.
4. The mega has 73.4 em, 65.5 thermal resists and the abaddon does 58% more EM dmg with its guns than thermal so including the drones and after the megas resists:
The abaddon starts with 7 guns and RR with 802 gun dps and 180 drone dps to be assigned.
180 thr drone dmg less 65.5% = 62.1 DPS. 465.16 gun em damage less 73.4% = 123.8 DPS. 336.84 gun th damage less 65.5% = 116.2 DPS. THE ABAD GETS A TOTAL OF 302.1 MAX DPS AT 15KM vs THE MEGA.
THE ABAD GETS A TOTAL OF 302.1 MAX DPS AFTER RESISTS OUT TO 15KM vs THE MEGA. THE MEGA GETS A TOTAL OF 293.4 MAX DPS AFTER RESISTS OUT TO 4.5KM vs THE ABAD.
The mega actually has 3% LESS DPS when each ships resists are taken into account with 300% less available range (and thats against armour dont get started on how fast shields will drop vs lasers), and the mega has a WEAK 52.2% explosive resist hole and also has 18% LESS EHP.
|
|
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar Beyond Divinity Inc Beyond Virginity
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 21:35:00 -
[231]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
The problems caused because the tracking formula misses at 0km needs sorting although most ships i know of in any game or reality cannot hit a ship or are unwilling to fire on one that is docked/parked against its hull lol so its not as "unrealistic" as ppl claim.
The 0m problem has been fixed already.
Originally by: Apocrypha 1.5.1 patchnotes It is now possible to shoot objects that are 0 meters away with turrets, and hit them (this is still subject to tracking.)
While its nice to have it sorted out, I dont see that much changed there tbh, tracking becomes a real issue at the 500m range already for all BS turrets at minimal transversal (and for none of them it makes sense to go that close), so its a rather cosmetic change anyway.
Saves you some trouble in PVE though I guess with those pesky structures :P
|
marakor
Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 21:36:00 -
[232]
Originally by: NightmareX The setup you used there are really ****ty fitted. It's the poor mans fit. Learn how to fit a Mega AND an Abaddon. And fit them like i have done. My 2 setups are good setups to use on those 2 ships.
You can see the setups i used?...please go ahead and show me cos i never posted the exact fits you fool.
BTW your amarr navy eanm fit and med cap injector for the mega is the joke fit on this thread and many ppl have said so and that the mega needs more PG and CPU so it can fit a good tank and use a large injector.
You only put it together so it made blaster BS look like they have a better tank than they actually do.....you failed btw as most ppl dont use faction eanms on megas you fool.
|
NightmareX
Infinitus Odium Shadows of Light
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 21:38:00 -
[233]
Edited by: NightmareX on 26/10/2009 21:39:32
Originally by: marakor
Originally by: NightmareX The setup you used there are really ****ty fitted. It's the poor mans fit. Learn how to fit a Mega AND an Abaddon. And fit them like i have done. My 2 setups are good setups to use on those 2 ships.
You can see the setups i used?...please go ahead and show me cos i never posted the exact fits you fool.
BTW your amarr navy eanm fit and med cap injector for the mega is the joke fit on this thread and many ppl have said so and that the mega needs more PG and CPU so it can fit a good tank and use a large injector.
You only put it together so it made blaster BS look like they have a better tank than they actually do.....you failed btw as most ppl dont use faction eanms on megas you fool.
ROFL, i can easily find out what kind of setups your using by your armor resists and the other stats you have posted. I'm not a noob with EFT dude.
Ohhh, matter in fact that most Mega pilots use cheap faction mods on their Megas so they can be a little more effective for some few mill extra isk.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
grl pwr
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 21:43:00 -
[234]
Originally by: NightmareX
Ohhh, matter in fact that most Mega pilots use cheap faction mods on their Megas so they can be a little more effective for some few mill extra isk.
I have used megas for a long time in gang combat and ive neveer used them.
Link to proof of multiple blaster mega mails with amaar navy eanms fitted or stfu.
|
NightmareX
Infinitus Odium Shadows of Light
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 21:47:00 -
[235]
Originally by: grl pwr
Originally by: NightmareX
Ohhh, matter in fact that most Mega pilots use cheap faction mods on their Megas so they can be a little more effective for some few mill extra isk.
I have used megas for a long time in gang combat and ive neveer used them.
Link to proof of multiple blaster mega mails with amaar navy eanms fitted or stfu.
You really did fail to read what i wrote there.
First of all, i didn't mention any Amarr Navy EANM's in that quote. And 2ndly, i said that most Mega pilots would use CHEAP FACTION mods on their Mega's so the Mega can be a LITTLE MORE EFFECTIVE.
Making the Mega better for some few extra mill isk is something i would do to.
Check out my new flash web page: Dark Paradise |
|
CCP Zymurgist
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 21:58:00 -
[236]
Thread cleaned. Remember to post constructively and on topic.
PS: Blasters rock!
Zymurgist Community Representative CCP Hf, EVE Online Contact us |
|
honey bunchetta
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 21:59:00 -
[237]
Edited by: honey bunchetta on 26/10/2009 22:01:27
Originally by: NightmareX
You really did fail to read what i wrote there.
First of all, i didn't mention any Amarr Navy EANM's in that quote.
You used amarr navy eanm's in the figures and links to fits you posted above are you now retracting those fits and stats and saying that they are wrong?.
Originally by: NightmareX Making the Mega better for some few extra mill isk is something i would do to.
Saying its something you "would do" clearly shows its something you have never done, you really should not post things in threads about fixing problems saying what others would or would not do when you have not done them yourself.
PS: WOW the thread shrunk 2 pages while i was typing.
|
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar Beyond Divinity Inc Beyond Virginity
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 22:03:00 -
[238]
Originally by: grl pwr
Originally by: NightmareX
Ohhh, matter in fact that most Mega pilots use cheap faction mods on their Megas so they can be a little more effective for some few mill extra isk.
I have used megas for a long time in gang combat and ive neveer used them.
Link to proof of multiple blaster mega mails with amaar navy eanms fitted or stfu.
Well to be fair, I've seen quite a few people resort to faction and deadspace mods, but thats more because they need to work around the extremely tight fitting on a RR Mega, i.e. regain some lost effectiveness rather than improve in the first place.
The 6 cpu you can save on the AN EANM are kind of a big deal actually depending on the fit, and the little extra EHP isnt horrible either.
|
Liang Nuren
No Salvation War.Pigs.
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 22:12:00 -
[239]
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
Well to be fair, I've seen quite a few people resort to faction and deadspace mods, but thats more because they need to work around the extremely tight fitting on a RR Mega, i.e. regain some lost effectiveness rather than improve in the first place.
The 6 cpu you can save on the AN EANM are kind of a big deal actually depending on the fit, and the little extra EHP isnt horrible either.
IIRC C-Type ANPs do roughly the same job as an EANM II and save thirty CPU over a AN EANM... ;-)
-Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org |
honey bunchetta
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 22:13:00 -
[240]
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
Originally by: grl pwr
Originally by: NightmareX
Ohhh, matter in fact that most Mega pilots use cheap faction mods on their Megas so they can be a little more effective for some few mill extra isk.
I have used megas for a long time in gang combat and ive neveer used them.
Link to proof of multiple blaster mega mails with amaar navy eanms fitted or stfu.
Well to be fair, I've seen quite a few people resort to faction and deadspace mods, but thats more because they need to work around the extremely tight fitting on a RR Mega, i.e. regain some lost effectiveness rather than improve in the first place.
The 6 cpu you can save on the AN EANM are kind of a big deal actually depending on the fit, and the little extra EHP isnt horrible either.
I use a ANP fit to save a little cpu but i never resorted to using faction mods apart from on the sniper mega doing very specialised hit and run ops with other slightly pimped sniper ships.
standard RR ops in BS just never seem worth the expense when a simular sized gang can still melt you if your primary, the extra second or two of life was never worth the cost imho.
|
|
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar Beyond Divinity Inc Beyond Virginity
|
Posted - 2009.10.26 22:24:00 -
[241]
Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 26/10/2009 22:25:01
Originally by: Liang Nuren
IIRC C-Type ANPs do roughly the same job as an EANM II and save thirty CPU over a AN EANM... ;-)
Yea, note I did mention deadspace mods ;)
Dont know the prices out of the top of my head, but arent the c-type ANPs around 2/3rd of the AN EANMs?
|
Dabljuh
|
Posted - 2009.10.27 02:42:00 -
[242]
Originally by: CCP Zymurgist PS: Blasters rock!
Running the danger of crossing a line here: On what basis do you argue this? I mean, is there some scientific foundation for this statement?
What I'd like to see is a statistic in real world terms, indexed maybe for BB/CC/DD sizes, that shows how many people have been killed in the last n months by Energy weapons / Hybrids / Projectile weapons and further keyed for each short range weapon, i.e. blasters / autocannons / pulses.
This will give some ratios, those ratios would further have to be corrected for factors such as number of pilots in each race, number of ships that do the killings etc.
If blasters are actually underperforming, signs might be: low ratio of megas killing vs killed, high ratio of megas killing with nonblasters vs blasterthrons when compared to ratios of geddons with nonpulses and pulses, etc.
Statistics are a complicated story and usually you only find the really interesting tidbits once you've started to play around with the metrics.
However, I can't do something like that. The first of many reasons being that I don't have access to a complete and representative set of data.
It just feels unsatisfying, when competent (if synthetic) calculations on the subject show blasters underperforming in most real life scenarios and it's countered with (apparently a dogmatic and unreflected) "no, blasters rock"
|
Gabriel Karade
Gallente Celtic Anarchy
|
Posted - 2009.10.27 06:29:00 -
[243]
Originally by: Vyktor Abyss Just wanted to say that CCP claimed to have fixed the zero error on the tracking formula.
They claimed that the centre of the ball-like object is now being used as the zero point meaning the "size" of your ships ball radius means you'll never actually have a 0km target, because it will really be the ball radius as minimum range - even though it may display 0m on the overview.
Proof that "ball size" does indeed matter. Though no matter how big your balls, blasters still need a stiff examining.
The zero error and the 'gash tracking formula' I referred to are separate. The latter comprises the inability of the current formula to account for changing target aspect - a Megathron at 1km distance for example, would fill half your view - which causes huge issues in the range Blasters are supposed to operate at. This has been discussed at length in the past along with possible modifications.
Though, now we know the size of ones balls count, there may be other potential modifications.
--------------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.10.27 08:22:00 -
[244]
Originally by: Dabljuh
Originally by: CCP Zymurgist PS: Blasters rock!
Running the danger of crossing a line here: On what basis do you argue this? I mean, is there some scientific foundation for this statement?
I belive its general idea is based in the minds of those who brought us:
Multi mwd era multi heat sink era nano era
shall i go on......
|
Vyktor Abyss
Gallente The Abyss Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.10.27 13:45:00 -
[245]
I get what you're saying Gabrial with regards the perspective in that a 300m long ship 1m away from you should be unmissable with a gun, but the reality of trying to mathmatically code this part into the tracking formula would be a nightmare for even the best mathmatician.
The additional radians taken up by an object at close range would also depend on the "frontage" aspect of what direction it is facing since a 5km long needle face on will have a different "frontage" to a 5km diameter sphere at the same distance.
Claims like "fix the formula" to include this stuff are unfeasible if you ask me, especially since they you're talking about model "frontage", which software isn't inherantly clever enough yet to incorporate. We're all flying spheres even though they dont look like it until the model design software improves.
If you propose a new forumla to CCP that works better than the current one taking into account the "perspective" radians at close range then I'm sure they'd consider it. So dust off your Trigonometry books and get cracking.
|
honey bunchetta
|
Posted - 2009.10.27 15:36:00 -
[246]
Originally by: Vyktor Abyss I get what you're saying Gabrial with regards the perspective in that a 300m long ship 1m away from you should be unmissable with a gun, but the reality of trying to mathmatically code this part into the tracking formula would be a nightmare for even the best mathmatician.
Actually it would depend on what side of the ship the target is on and how many guns it has facing it.
After all you can hardly shoot through your own ship, admittedly the guns facing the oposing ship could not miss but the others could equally not hit or even fire.
Also there are many examples of a relativly smaller ship hugging the hull of a larger one, the defiant vs the neg'var class in the DS9 episode about the mirror universe is a good example of this.
|
Liang Nuren
No Salvation War.Pigs.
|
Posted - 2009.10.27 16:44:00 -
[247]
Originally by: Vyktor Abyss I get what you're saying Gabrial with regards the perspective in that a 300m long ship 1m away from you should be unmissable with a gun, but the reality of trying to mathmatically code this part into the tracking formula would be a nightmare for even the best mathmatician.
The additional radians taken up by an object at close range would also depend on the "frontage" aspect of what direction it is facing since a 5km long needle face on will have a different "frontage" to a 5km diameter sphere at the same distance.
Claims like "fix the formula" to include this stuff are unfeasible if you ask me, especially since they you're talking about model "frontage", which software isn't inherantly clever enough yet to incorporate. We're all flying spheres even though they dont look like it until the model design software improves.
If you propose a new forumla to CCP that works better than the current one taking into account the "perspective" radians at close range then I'm sure they'd consider it. So dust off your Trigonometry books and get cracking.
It's been done before... and it wasn't terribly hard.
-Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire www.kwikdeath.org |
Dabljuh
|
Posted - 2009.10.27 17:33:00 -
[248]
Here's a link for all you math-noobs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_diameter
Basically it's very simple. If we assume the signature radius of a ship is effectively the angular diameter at a certain range (3km, 20km, 100km, it doesn't matter) then we have the simple formula that the effective signature of a ship doubles as the distance is halved.
Now this is veeeery simple stuff and doesn't take a math degree to understand. It's
relativesig = normaldistance * absolutesig / realdistance
The question that I'm wondering is: what does (effective) sig actually do to the hit probability in the current turret formula?
Lets say it *should* be like this: if the angular velocity is 10x tracking, but the relative sig is 10x the signature size of the gun, you still get 100% hit chance.
Or in other words: if we choose the normal point for signatures to be 10km, a 40m sig frig 1 km away at an angular velocity of 0.1 (That's a transversal of 100m/s) will still be hit 100% if the tracking of the gun is at least 0.01 and the guns signature range is maximally 400m.
Changing the formula is a very interesting subject. Right now it's frickin impossible to hit anything that's close due to hilarious angular velocities that can be achieved, and that's whats gimping blasters. Being right in someones face currently protects you from all turret damage. Why should it be like that? And who's surprised that blasters are gimped?
Any formula change that would incorporate the fact that the angular diameter increases as distances become smaller, would invariable result in massively higher hit probability of smaller ships at closer ranges. That means, speed tanking would become much more dangerous. All tracking speeds and signature sizes on the guns would have to be reevaluated. But in the end, blasters would be excellent in-your-face weapons.
|
ropnes
|
Posted - 2009.10.27 18:32:00 -
[249]
The tracking formula already accounts for 'relative signature radius' - your chance to hit decreases with range. At optimal you will hit a ship with the signature the gun was intended for assuming it's moving at a trackable speed. You won't hit it any better inside optimal because you can already hit it perfectly.
|
Gabriel Karade
Gallente Celtic Anarchy
|
Posted - 2009.10.28 06:23:00 -
[250]
Originally by: ropnes The tracking formula already accounts for 'relative signature radius' - your chance to hit decreases with range. At optimal you will hit a ship with the signature the gun was intended for assuming it's moving at a trackable speed. You won't hit it any better inside optimal because you can already hit it perfectly.
That's a rather naive view, firstly because the formula isn't that linear; you have a basic 50% hit chance at optimal if you're target is moving at a track-able speed (where angular velocity = gun tracking speed). Secondly, the formula simulates the effect of decreasing target size at long range with "falloff", but it fails to do the opposite up close. The closer you get, the larger the target, and "falloff" should be adding a positive multiplier to the hit chance.
Or in simple terms, even if you are shooting at say, a Cruiser with a Battleship gun ("signature" of 125m vs. "signature resolution" of 400m); eventually if you get close enough to the thing, it will still blot out the sun...
--------------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
|
honey bunchetta
|
Posted - 2009.10.28 07:45:00 -
[251]
Originally by: Gabriel Karade
Or in simple terms, even if you are shooting at say, a Cruiser with a Battleship gun ("signature" of 125m vs. "signature resolution" of 400m); eventually if you get close enough to the thing, it will still blot out the sun...
But then in "REALITY" opnly a small percentage of your weapons will be on the side of your ship that is facing the target so the others would not be able to see it or hit it without firing directly through your own ship.
|
ropnes
|
Posted - 2009.10.28 08:02:00 -
[252]
I see what you're saying, but no It would effectively cancel out transversal velocity and tracking (since the angular velocity increases linearly with decreasing distance and the effective sig does too)
You shouldn't motivate changes to the tracking formula with realism
|
James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2009.10.28 08:35:00 -
[253]
Originally by: Vyktor Abyss Just wanted to say that CCP claimed to have fixed the zero error on the tracking formula.
They claimed that the centre of the ball-like object is now being used as the zero point meaning the "size" of your ships ball radius means you'll never actually have a 0km target, because it will really be the ball radius as minimum range - even though it may display 0m on the overview.
Proof that "ball size" does indeed matter. Though no matter how big your balls, blasters still need a stiff examining.
Hmm, I wonder if that makes some ships impossible to get in optimal, on something like light neutrons?
|
Gabriel Karade
Gallente Celtic Anarchy
|
Posted - 2009.10.28 17:20:00 -
[254]
Originally by: ropnes Edited by: ropnes on 28/10/2009 08:08:29 I see what you're saying, but no
You shouldn't motivate changes to the tracking formula with realism
If realism were the only goal, I'd bin the whole thing and start from scratch; bin 'tracking as is, bin falloff, have accuracy in terms of angle of arc determining hits vs target size e.t.c e.t.c...
I still maintain close-range weapons (i.e. Blasters and Autocannons) are not hitting well enough inside their optimals (of the order 5km for Large blasters for example). I don't believe you should see any damage reduction (i.e. misses) against BS/BC sized targets considering the size of the targets and the maximum transversal velocities involved in BS vs BS, or BS vs BC engagments, and I see tweaking the tracking formula to work better "up close" as being one of the more desirable ways to go about it. --------------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
Polinus
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.10.28 19:21:00 -
[255]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Vyktor Abyss I get what you're saying Gabrial with regards the perspective in that a 300m long ship 1m away from you should be unmissable with a gun, but the reality of trying to mathmatically code this part into the tracking formula would be a nightmare for even the best mathmatician.
The additional radians taken up by an object at close range would also depend on the "frontage" aspect of what direction it is facing since a 5km long needle face on will have a different "frontage" to a 5km diameter sphere at the same distance.
Claims like "fix the formula" to include this stuff are unfeasible if you ask me, especially since they you're talking about model "frontage", which software isn't inherantly clever enough yet to incorporate. We're all flying spheres even though they dont look like it until the model design software improves.
If you propose a new forumla to CCP that works better than the current one taking into account the "perspective" radians at close range then I'm sure they'd consider it. So dust off your Trigonometry books and get cracking.
It's been done before... and it wasn't terribly hard.
-Liang
makign a perfect one would be hard (keeping it efficient)... but making something very close is not hard I must agree.
For starters, something taking into account the ratio between distance and the signature of target (as a simplified approach of the ship size), capped at for example 2 would help a lot.
Incredbly simplified example. Add component to formula * min(1,target_signature/range). That would (very very roughly make very very easy to hit a large ship closer than its own size. Obviously this simple formula has HUGE issues like being stupidly easy to hit anything at point blank. But just illustrate how its easy to add some new aspects to the formula.
|
Dabljuh
|
Posted - 2009.10.28 20:53:00 -
[256]
Edited by: Dabljuh on 28/10/2009 20:54:47 Edited by: Dabljuh on 28/10/2009 20:54:13 Turned img into link due to size Ok so I played around in OpenOffice Excel for a bit. Entered all the base guns, and calculated the maximal transversal that they'd hit at their optimal range and optimal+falloff. This is surprisingly easy to calculate, tracking * distance = transversal.
Yeah, as it turns out, it's not just that pulses are massively OP, but beams too and blasters are gimped. Pulses' tracking need to be nerfed by a whopping 35% to be brought in line with the other guns.
Linkage
|
Aalu Aullard
|
Posted - 2009.10.28 22:17:00 -
[257]
IMO, the biggest problem that Hybrid weapons have is the Antimatter Charge. Basicly all Hybrid weapons come with inbuild -50% range penalty.
Minmatar have their different damage types and Amarr have instant ammo switch. And missiles are different story. For Hybrids theres no really reason having 8 ammotypes.
Since one of the blaster boosts that people have been asking is slight buff for optimal... Soo, how would blasters and rails work if the range penalty were switched into turret signature resolution penalty? Ammos having range bonus would keep it as it is.
Good/bad idea?
|
Dabljuh
|
Posted - 2009.10.28 23:05:00 -
[258]
Originally by: Aalu Aullard Good/bad idea?
Not gonna answer that, I'm just going to point out that CCP has the whole Damage=1/Range formula built into every weapon system in the game.
The first problem of blasters is that that the Damage=1/Range formula doesn't work at the range of blasters because of tracking issues. Changing the tracking formula is one venue.
The other thing is that we have weapon systems that do similiar damage as blasters (even Tachyon Beams only do about 20% less DPS than Neutron Cannons) have a vast range advantage.
So given that for blaster+AM optimal you will necessarily need to be within unoverloaded scram/web/bumping range, blasters simply aren't worth fitting. With ACs, Torps and Pulses you can stay out of that. Not with blasters.
CCPs own formula isn't working.
|
Deziel Sma
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 01:39:00 -
[259]
I don't know if this is way off topic or not. It covers hybrids anyway. Props to all for the figures.
If you also compare power grid requirements to fit rails versus lasers in order to match the DPS at range of scorch, things become ....
Grab a Moa and put focused medium pulse II on it with scorch, now try 200mm rails with Anti-Matter. I can only shudder to think what Gallente boats would need to do to match DPS at range, but .... drones. Probably impossible.
Blasters with null can compete with Amarr Navy Multi Freq. Scorch is just crazily OP due to the range.
|
The Djego
Minmatar Hellequin Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 08:34:00 -
[260]
Originally by: Aalu Aullard
Since one of the blaster boosts that people have been asking is slight buff for optimal... Soo, how would blasters and rails work if the range penalty were switched into turret signature resolution penalty? Ammos having range bonus would keep it as it is.
Good/bad idea?
Signature resolution penalty would be a tracking penalty what is pretty much a bad idea if you put tracking penalties on close range high damage ammo, what diminishing any kind of range gain with worse tracking(at still very close ranges). In general this don¦t works very well, there is void ammo to prove this.
---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
|
Seishi Maru
The Black Dawn Gang
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 10:28:00 -
[261]
CCP could just change void ammo. Drop the extra damage. MAke it equal to AM. But give a 40% tracking bonus.
|
Aalu Aullard
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 12:44:00 -
[262]
Originally by: The Djego
Originally by: Aalu Aullard
Since one of the blaster boosts that people have been asking is slight buff for optimal... Soo, how would blasters and rails work if the range penalty were switched into turret signature resolution penalty? Ammos having range bonus would keep it as it is.
Good/bad idea?
Signature resolution penalty would be a tracking penalty what is pretty much a bad idea if you put tracking penalties on close range high damage ammo, what diminishing any kind of range gain with worse tracking(at still very close ranges). In general this don¦t works very well, there is void ammo to prove this.
I dont see how it would be comparable to tracking penalty Wouldnt it be more like tracking boost if the higher damage hybrid charges had optimals set same as Lead?
RPwise it would make sense, since the Gallentes opposing faction, Caldari, has the largest sig radiuses. Scorp 480m, Raven 460m and Rokh 500m. These radiuses get bigger due shield mods, so a standard Raven with LSEs/rigs is nearly 600m. Which would be the resolution for large hybrids if the antimatter range penalty was resolution penalty instead.
|
Seishi Maru
The Black Dawn Gang
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 12:47:00 -
[263]
Do you realize how pathetically weak a megatron would be against a hurricane for example?
|
Aalu Aullard
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 13:26:00 -
[264]
Originally by: Seishi Maru Do you realize how pathetically weak a megatron would be against a hurricane for example?
My real point was trying to get away from the "default as antimatter"-way of thinking. And you seem to assume that Megathron uses Antimatter in all cases. But yea, mid damage ammos are some what pathetic, so they could use slight damage buff.
So i was thinking that this idea could cover what people have been asking for: Small optimal buff for high damage ammo without it becoming too powerful and slight damage buff for mid damage ammo to make other hybrid charges more viable option.
But if no one likes the idea, then im going to assume it was bad idea all along
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 13:48:00 -
[265]
Edited by: Murina on 29/10/2009 13:53:57
Originally by: Aalu Aullard
My real point was trying to get away from the "default as antimatter"-way of thinking. And you seem to assume that Megathron uses Antimatter in all cases. But yea, mid damage ammos are some what pathetic, so they could use slight damage buff.
PPL use AM as blaster default ammo because it justifies their idea of close range being at 5km or so instead of under 15km as it should be.
Its a interesting fact that a mega with 7 guns and a single mag stab and faction AM does 695dps from 0-4.5km while the geddon with faction MF and a single HS does 636dps from 0-15km so only 10% less dps for 300% more range.
If you want neutron blasters to reach even 14km they need to fit faction iron ammo and they get a 0-14km optimal but the dmg is reduced to a pitiful 290dps.
So still less optimal than the lasers by 1km but now well under 50% of the DPS.
SHORT RANGE starts at 15km and blasters and the ammo they use should be adjusted accordingly.
|
Seishi Maru
The Black Dawn Gang
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 14:28:00 -
[266]
Just make Neutrons in a megatron track at 5 km exaclty the same as Pulses track with MF at 10-12 km (no .. not 15 because you msut remember that blasters have quite more falloff than lasers).
Do it by boosting a bit blasters and nerfign a bit pulses... pretty logical? Then make adjustments from there.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 14:37:00 -
[267]
Originally by: Seishi Maru Just make Neutrons in a megatron track at 5 km exaclty the same as Pulses track with MF at 10-12 km (no .. not 15 because you msut remember that blasters have quite more falloff than lasers).
That still makes blaster BS worthless compared to laser BS at any range apart from 5isk km, blaster BS should not be limited to using only AM ammo and operating at 5ish km.
Fix the other faction blaster ammo so they are at least as useful at 14km or so as pulse lasers.
|
Seishi Maru
The Black Dawn Gang
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 14:51:00 -
[268]
That is nonsense. IF blasters can deal damage at pulse MF range as well as PUlse then PUlses become worthless. REmember that game is Not ONLY t2 ammo!
Blasters CANNOT match pulses at 14 km.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.10.29 14:58:00 -
[269]
Edited by: Murina on 29/10/2009 15:09:31
Originally by: Seishi Maru That is nonsense. IF blasters can deal damage at pulse MF range as well as PUlse then PUlses become worthless.
WTF are you smoking?.
Have you heard of scorch?....and noticed that pulse can hit out to way over 45km?.
That is far from being made worthless.
Originally by: Seishi Maru Blasters CANNOT match pulses at 14 km.
Blasters should match pulse in dmg at 14km cos thats blasters max optimal and pulses minimum it the cross over point that they should be equal, they should also gain dmg from 13km down to 4.5km as the ammo type range decreases.
While pulse gain range for a drop in dmg from the cross over point of 14km blasters gain dmg for a drop in range....its called balance and how things should work, but blasters do not get better dmg until about 6km while lasers get a huge boost in range....and that is called broken.
At the moment blasters get matched or bent over by pulse at every range from 6km onwards and matched or out damaged by pulse with MF in every ammo type apart from AM...and that is broken big time.
And THAT is what is making blasters worthless compared to lasers.
|
Dabljuh
|
Posted - 2009.10.30 00:16:00 -
[270]
Edited by: Dabljuh on 30/10/2009 00:23:15 So yeah.
Blasters: 25% more Falloff, 50% more tracking, 10% more dps Pulses: -40% tracking Beams: -25% tracking, -10% dps
Fixed?
|
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.10.30 09:10:00 -
[271]
Originally by: Dabljuh Edited by: Dabljuh on 30/10/2009 00:27:16 So yeah.
Blasters: 25% more Falloff, 50% more tracking Pulses: -40% tracking Beams: -25% tracking, -10% dps
Fixed?
nope.
When a single ammo choice for pulse out ranges and out damages every ammo choice for blasters apart from antimatter that only has about 10% more dmg for 300% LESS range theres a big problem.
Oh and tracking is mostly irrelavant in BS turrets unless your gonna make it so blasters can hit frigs and ceptors at speed again...
|
Chi Quan
Bibkor Enterprises
|
Posted - 2009.10.30 09:40:00 -
[272]
while blasters indeed suffer from low tracking, it is my perception that lasers need a worse sig res, not worse tracking. (lolrp: amarr relying on the gods/holy water to help them aim) or a flat damage reduction. and scorch needs a long, hard and thorough look-into. ---- Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love |
Seishi Maru
The Black Dawn Gang
|
Posted - 2009.10.30 10:09:00 -
[273]
Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 29/10/2009 15:09:31
Originally by: Seishi Maru That is nonsense. IF blasters can deal damage at pulse MF range as well as PUlse then PUlses become worthless.
WTF are you smoking?.
Have you heard of scorch?....and noticed that pulse can hit out to way over 45km?.
That is far from being made worthless.
Originally by: Seishi Maru Blasters CANNOT match pulses at 14 km.
Blasters should match pulse in dmg at 14km cos thats blasters max optimal and pulses minimum it the cross over point that they should be equal, they should also gain dmg from 13km down to 4.5km as the ammo type range decreases.
While pulse gain range for a drop in dmg from the cross over point of 14km blasters gain dmg for a drop in range....its called balance and how things should work, but blasters do not get better dmg until about 6km while lasers get a huge boost in range....and that is called broken.
At the moment blasters get matched or bent over by pulse at every range from 6km onwards and matched or out damaged by pulse with MF in every ammo type apart from AM...and that is broken big time.
And THAT is what is making blasters worthless compared to lasers.
NO you cannot have blasters with LOW damage t1 ammo match pulses with HIGH damage t1 ammo. That is completely NONSENSE! It makes Pulses Qorthless while using anything but scorch.
Your view is completely NONSESE!
The weapon systems must be balanced t1 vs t1 ammo and then scale in simmilar way into T2 ammo!!!
15 km is PULSE laser perfect range. THey should rule there.
ALso if Blasters could match them at that range then they will outdamage ( even the new boosted) projectiles up to 25 km!!! Not short range at all!
Large Blasters need to dominate inside web range.. PERIOD. You should need NUll to do anything outside that.
If you want an option to shoot even further you must give up damage. You cannot expect blasters to stay ahead of everything up to 15 km and ahead of projectiles up to 25 km!
|
Chi Quan
Bibkor Enterprises
|
Posted - 2009.10.30 10:48:00 -
[274]
Edited by: Chi Quan on 30/10/2009 10:50:00 there is no reason to use lower damage/higher range ammo on blasters, except if it is indeed t2. http://eve-files.com/dl/209197
edit: and the ARTIES were boosed in ALPHA, not dps or range or autocannons.
---- Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.10.30 12:17:00 -
[275]
Edited by: Murina on 30/10/2009 12:25:21
Originally by: Seishi Maru
NO you cannot have blasters with LOW damage t1 ammo match pulses with HIGH damage t1 ammo.
You are a lunatic. ALL blaster ammo has loads LESS optimal than MF but it also does a LOADS less damage apart from AM that gives slightly more dmg but for 300% less range...how the hell do you justify that?.
ITS lasers with MF that makes ALL blaster ammo worthless, you just want the best of both worlds, best dmg down to around 6km and almost matching down to 1km and also uber range and good damage with no opposition all from 30km.
GO AWAY.....PERIOD.
Originally by: Seishi Maru
Large Blasters need to dominate inside web range.. PERIOD.
Max web range is 13.3km ish.....iron ammo has a optimal of 14km so by your comment it should be boosted to the point that it is close to or better than MF the other ammos are well inside web range so they should do better damage than MF.....thanks for agreeing with me.
GO AWAY.....PERIOD.
Originally by: Seishi Maru If you want an option to shoot even further you must give up damage.
Are you blind or stupid?.
I did not say more range i said better dmg in the optimal ranges the other ammo's give, it is utterly stupid that these ammos have lower dmg AND less range than MF when blasters and their ammo are supposed to be low range high dmg.
Originally by: Seishi Maru You cannot expect blasters to stay ahead of everything up to 15 km and ahead of projectiles up to 25 km!
And yet you happily accept that lasers do just that while also having the option of a 45km optimal with good damage.
Just go away yoyr way too biased.
|
Rastigan
Caldari Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.10.30 13:18:00 -
[276]
Originally by: Chi Quan Edited by: Chi Quan on 30/10/2009 10:50:00 there is no reason to use lower damage/higher range ammo on blasters, except if it is indeed t2. http://eve-files.com/dl/209197
edit: and the ARTIES were boosed in ALPHA, not dps or range or autocannons.
Actually autocannons got a boost since EMP ammo has a 20% increase in its EM damage component, that and a BIG falloff boost, so much that a Tempest is going to have a 41km falloff with Barrage L and no falloff mods or rigs.
Its stupid, Blasters are the only short range weapon of all the short range weapons.
|
Razor Blue
|
Posted - 2009.10.30 14:52:00 -
[277]
I messed around for awhile with the EFT dps graph and i finally realized how much Amarr is overpowered. I knew Amarr was good but this good . No one shouldnt touch blaster ships until the laser reign ends.
Atm Scorch is just screaming NERF ME. Second thing that needs fixing is t1 hybrid charges. The damage output of Antimatter is big enough to keep it above rest of the ammos at nearly all ranges. Around 16km it finally deals less damage than low damage-high range ammos, but theres no point shooting that far anything other than Null.
NERF AMARR.... BECAUSE OF THE FALCORCH !!
|
Merbusent
|
Posted - 2009.10.30 14:57:00 -
[278]
WHAT DOES IT MEAN! AARRGH
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.10.30 16:18:00 -
[279]
Originally by: Razor Blue Second thing that needs fixing is t1 hybrid charges. The damage output of Antimatter is big enough to keep it above rest of the ammos at nearly all ranges. Around 16km it finally deals less damage than low damage-high range ammos.
And from 6km onwards MF out damages AM as well as every other blaster ammo.
|
ropnes
|
Posted - 2009.10.30 17:00:00 -
[280]
Not true CN AM out damages AN MF until about 10 km
|
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.10.30 17:22:00 -
[281]
Originally by: ropnes Not true CN AM out damages AN MF until about 10 km
Wrong.
Its way below 10km.
A geddon with 7 guns does 517dps from 0-15km with AN MF. A mega with 7 guns does 566dps from 0-4.5km with CN AM.
So for starters its only 10% dps differance for 300% + more range.
And the pulse lasers start doing more damage than the blasters at around 8km but the differance between both is actually very slight from 6km because of how fast blaster DPS drops outside optimal.
|
kyrieee
Brutal Deliverance Extreme Prejudice.
|
Posted - 2009.10.30 18:37:00 -
[282]
With transversal = 0 an Armageddon with AN MF out damages a Megathron with CN AM at 8km. That number grows (slightly) with higher transversal because the blasters track better. At 100 m/s it's about 9km. But you're right that anything other than CN AM is more or less useless. The damage penalty on the other ammo types is so huge that CN AM out damages them very far into falloff, even with hit quality taken into consideration.
The difference between the damage output of a geddon and mega is closer than the raw damage difference on the guns with max skills, so the geddon outperforms the mega quite a bit more than what the previous graphs I posted might have you believe. Those damage stats weren't for specific ships and the 25% RoF bonus on the geddon is actually a 33% DPS increase (DPS is damage / duration. The duration on the geddon is reduced to 75% which means that the DPS increase is 1 / 0.75 = 4/3 = 1.3333...)
|
Dabljuh
|
Posted - 2009.10.31 16:57:00 -
[283]
Originally by: Razor Blue I messed around for awhile with the EFT dps graph and i finally realized how much Amarr is overpowered. I knew Amarr was good but this good . No one shouldnt touch blaster ships until the laser reign ends.
This. Vouch.
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Gallente Aliastra
|
Posted - 2009.10.31 17:11:00 -
[284]
Great graphs, kyrieee.
If only CCP would allow us to make modifications to our client programs, I would love to incorporate your graph generator.
Are those graphs coming from spread sheets? Excel?
Perhaps something EFT-like that can generate graphs like that dynamically would be a useful tool. Drop the output from the fit into it, and then drop other fits in and you know exactly what your fit does against the other, or between them. I could play with such a program all day.
|
Dabljuh
|
Posted - 2009.10.31 19:50:00 -
[285]
Originally by: Herzog Wolfhammer Are those graphs coming from spread sheets? Excel?
Matlab. And you definitely and positively do not want that beast as part of the EVE ui.
|
Kopaczek1
|
Posted - 2009.11.02 19:16:00 -
[286]
HIT CHANCE
ChanceToHit = 0.5 ^ ((((Transversal speed/(Range to target * Turret Tracking))*(Turret Signature Resolution / Target Signature Radius))^2) + ((max(0, Range to target - Turret Optimal Range))/Turret Falloff)^2)
http://eve666.100webspace.net/
donations and suggestions are welcome |
Hiroshima Jita
|
Posted - 2009.11.02 20:07:00 -
[287]
I'm a bit ****ed off that the initial set of graphs compares lasers to blasters without a mention of projectiles.
Yes projectiles are getting buffed. Use the new stats then.
You can even make a simular graph for missiles. Change angular to just pure speed. The vertical portion of the graph would be a scalling off striped bit as speed incresed beyond a missile's ability to deal with it and the graph would have a sharp cutoff on its optimal range.
I think in that case you would have a much better case for arguing for a blaster buff or whatever. Or you might find that lasors are really good compared to everything. Im pretty sure AC vs Blaster graphs make blasters look pretty good.
|
lecrotta
Minmatar lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2009.11.02 21:06:00 -
[288]
Originally by: Hiroshima Jita I'm a bit ****ed off that the initial set of graphs compares lasers to blasters without a mention of projectiles.
Yes projectiles are getting buffed. Use the new stats then.
If you have them add them.
Originally by: Hiroshima Jita You can even make a simular graph for missiles. Change angular to just pure speed. The vertical portion of the graph would be a scalling off striped bit as speed incresed beyond a missile's ability to deal with it and the graph would have a sharp cutoff on its optimal range.
If its that easy get on with it.
Originally by: Hiroshima Jita I think in that case you would have a much better case for arguing for a blaster buff or whatever. Or you might find that lasors are really good compared to everything.
They are the best BS turret system in eve so of course they will look good against everything.
Originally by: Hiroshima Jita Im pretty sure AC vs Blaster graphs make blasters look pretty good.
Make one and find out.
|
Rudian0s
|
Posted - 2009.11.02 23:55:00 -
[289]
So basically i can see a definite amount of evidence to support this statement...
BUFF GALLENTE
|
lecrotta
Minmatar lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2009.11.03 12:07:00 -
[290]
Originally by: Rudian0s So basically i can see a definite amount of evidence to support this statement...
BUFF GALLENTE
Any unbiased and experianced player will agree with you.....but that does not mean anything will be done about it.
Train amarr i did.
|
|
pHenomena1337
|
Posted - 2009.11.03 15:00:00 -
[291]
Now this is a thread. Nice graphs kyrieee, seriously.
Boost my hybrids with tracking
---------------------------------------------
|
Kopaczek1
|
Posted - 2009.11.03 17:37:00 -
[292]
Originally by: Hiroshima Jita Im pretty sure AC vs Blaster graphs make blasters look pretty good.
check my tool few posts earlier... |
Cpt Branko
The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.11.03 17:51:00 -
[293]
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 03/11/2009 17:51:12 The easiest (and most sensible, tbh) fix is to make blasters have a more massive advantage up close. Just boost their DPS, essentially. Tracking is largely a marginal concern.
Helps to slightly extend the zone of AM superiority over MF, makes the advantage within that zone of superiority larger, helps with their disadvantages compared to torps, and helps vs new projectiles which will be doing gobs of DPS on T1 armour now when fitted to any non-idiotic ship (meaning, Tempest doesn't count).
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.11.03 18:02:00 -
[294]
Edited by: Murina on 03/11/2009 18:04:45
Originally by: Cpt Branko
Helps to slightly extend the zone of AM superiority over MF, makes the advantage within that zone of superiority larger, helps with their disadvantages compared to torps, and helps vs new projectiles which will be doing gobs of DPS on T1 armour now when fitted to any non-idiotic ship (meaning, Tempest doesn't count).
Why is it that even those who understand the problems with blaster BS think that they only have one ammo....Antimatter..?
Make the iron ammo do roughly the same dmg as MF (as it still has a lower optimal) then slightly increase that dmg for each lower range ammo until you get down to AM that does either the same dmg as it does now or maybe a little more.
This way amarr BS will still have:
1. insta reload 2. much greater range 3. better EHP 4. 45km available optimal
But at least blaster ships will no longer be a utterly limited and rather worthless one trick pony compared to lasers and have a slight DPS advantage below MF optimal unlike now where MF has the advantage down to 6-8km.
|
Stil Harkonnen
|
Posted - 2009.11.03 22:34:00 -
[295]
Murina you are my hero.
|
kyrieee
Brutal Deliverance Extreme Prejudice.
|
Posted - 2009.11.04 19:26:00 -
[296]
Edited by: kyrieee on 04/11/2009 19:33:22 Edited by: kyrieee on 04/11/2009 19:30:54 Hey guys I made two more graphs in response to the discussion
First off, here's a damage comparison between the Megathron and the Armageddon. Max skills + Drones (no damage mods, but the result is the same if you're wondering). Close range faction ammo, ofc
At its lowest the Armageddon does 95% of the damage on the Megathron ( transversal = 0 )
Link
Here's transversal = 50 m / s Link 3
Secondly, here's a comparison of the different blaster ammo types. It speaks for itself
Link 2
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.11.04 19:53:00 -
[297]
Edited by: Murina on 04/11/2009 19:55:55
Originally by: kyrieee
Secondly, here's a comparison of the different blaster ammo types. It speaks for itself
Link 2
Clearly a MF fitted geddon matches or out damages every one of those blaster ammos in their own optimal ranges apart from AM that it almost matches, while also VASTLY outranging them.....just a little broken then.
|
Seriously Bored
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.11.04 20:09:00 -
[298]
Originally by: Murina
Why is it that even those who understand the problems with blaster BS think that they only have one ammo....Antimatter..?
Make the iron ammo do roughly the same dmg as MF (as it still has a lower optimal) then slightly increase that dmg for each lower range ammo until you get down to AM that does either the same dmg as it does now or maybe a little more.
Why is it that you think blasters are the only weapon to use hybrid ammo?
If Iron did the same damage as MF, it would have 12 base damage at the small level. That is a +140% increase in damage for blasters AND rails at the longest range.
Following your logic: If you increased the damage from Iron at 12 as the optimal modifier drops, and leave AM at the same damage it does now... EVERY small hybrid ammo would do 12 damage. Regardless of range.
Now isn't that a little ridiculous?
|
ropnes
|
Posted - 2009.11.04 20:26:00 -
[299]
Just change the damage modifier on rails then?
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.11.04 20:40:00 -
[300]
Edited by: Murina on 04/11/2009 20:44:20
Originally by: Seriously Bored
Originally by: Murina
Why is it that even those who understand the problems with blaster BS think that they only have one ammo....Antimatter..?
Make the iron ammo do roughly the same dmg as MF (as it still has a lower optimal) then slightly increase that dmg for each lower range ammo until you get down to AM that does either the same dmg as it does now or maybe a little more.
Why is it that you think blasters are the only weapon to use hybrid ammo?
If Iron did the same damage as MF, it would have 12 base damage at the small level. That is a +140% increase in damage for blasters AND rails at the longest range.
1. We are discussing BS blasters and ammo.
2. How does that 140% increase in dmg in frig sized blasters compare to pulse lasers....never mind il check myself.
A single T2 small pulse with faction AM on a retribution does 39dps with a 5.6km optimal and 2.5km falloff.
A single small neutron blaster on a enyo does 19dps (adding 12dps = 21dps) with a 5.4km optimal and 3.1km falloff.
So even if we were talking about frigs and with a increase of 12dps pulse would still be the better option.
Originally by: Seriously Bored Now isn't that a little ridiculous?
Yes i think its absurd that pulse totally out dmg blasters at close range while also having the option for longer range AND insta reload.....will there be anything else?..
PS: i added 12dps not just 12 dmg and considering that blasters have a ROF of 2.52 seconds with max skills that is a actual ammo dmg increase of only 4.76 giving plenty of room for increasing the other ammos.
|
|
Seriously Bored
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.11.04 20:56:00 -
[301]
Edited by: Seriously Bored on 04/11/2009 20:56:52
Originally by: Murina
1. We are discussing BS blasters and ammo.
Ammo is perfectly scalable. Multiply by 2 for Medium, by 4 for Large. You are asking for Large Iron ammo to have 48 base damage.
Quote: 2. How does that 140% increase in dmg in frig sized blasters compare to pulse lasers....never mind il check myself.
A single T2 small pulse with faction AM on a retribution does 39dps with a 5.6km optimal and 2.5km falloff.
A single small neutron blaster on a enyo does 19dps (adding 12dps = 21dps) with a 5.4km optimal and 3.1km falloff.
You misunderstand how ammunition works. It is not adding 12 DPS. It is adding 12 damage before any modifiers are taken into account. If your small blaster does 19DPS with Iron loaded, it would do 45.6DPS with your suggestion.
And according to your suggestion, your Enyo would do 45.6DPS with AM loaded as well. So we've gone from just using AM to just using Iron?
Quote: Yes i think its absurd that pulse totally out dmg blasters at close range while also having the option for longer range AND insta reload.....will there be anything else?
I think laser dominance is absurd as well, but your suggestion would obsolete Projectiles, even AFTER the buff train gets done running through with them. It would obsolete all ammo but Iron at every size. It would even obsolete Tachyon Apocs, which would look like they had pathetic DPS at any range compared to a Rail Mega, not even mentioning a Rokh.
Quote:
PS: i added 12dps not just 12 dmg and considering that blasters have a ROF of 2.52 seconds with max skills that is a actual ammo dmg increase of only 4.76 giving plenty of room for increasing the other ammos.
That's all fine and good, but be careful what you are talking about then. What you really want is a damage modifier increase to blasters, which adds DPS, not an increase in ammo damage value. Messing with the ammo itself as you suggested screws up absolutely everything else in the game.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.11.04 21:07:00 -
[302]
Edited by: Murina on 04/11/2009 21:11:09
Originally by: Seriously Bored
You misunderstand how ammunition works. It is not adding 12 DPS. It is adding 12 damage before any modifiers are taken into account. If your small blaster does 19DPS with Iron loaded, it would do 45.6DPS with your suggestion.
And according to your suggestion, your Enyo would do 45.6DPS with AM loaded as well. So we've gone from just using AM to just using Iron?
If blasters fitted with iron did 39dps (like pulse with MF do) and each lower ranged blaster ammo (AFTER BEING FITTED) had increased slightly dmg as the range decreases down to AM that could be doing around or maybe a little more then it does now (after all 45dps with 1.7km optimal vs 39dps with 5.6km optimal is hardly much of a differance).
Originally by: Seriously Bored
EDIT: Toned the language down a little. I'm not trying to insult you, I just want to show how that suggestion would be very, very imbalancing.
Actually it was your interpretation and slight misreading of the idea that is at fault as the increases i was discussing are AFTER the ammo is fitted obviously and if you had read the posts thoroughly you would see that.
|
Seriously Bored
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.11.04 21:11:00 -
[303]
Originally by: Murina
The increases i was discussing are AFTER the ammo is fitted obviously if you had read the posts thoroughly you would see that.
That's cool, that's fine. But to affect DPS after ammo is fitted, you change a gun's damage modifier or lower it's ROF. Which = straight DPS buff for blasters. We should stop mentioning ammo then.
We're going through this issue in the Projectile balancing thread right now, where messing with the ammo is causing some very big side effects. Ammo is touchy, touchy, touchy. Small changes in its value equal very large changes elsewhere.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.11.04 21:15:00 -
[304]
Originally by: Seriously Bored
Originally by: Murina
The increases i was discussing are AFTER the ammo is fitted obviously if you had read the posts thoroughly you would see that.
That's cool, that's fine. But to affect DPS after ammo is fitted, you change a gun's damage modifier or lower it's ROF. Which = straight DPS buff for blasters. We should stop mentioning ammo then.
The effect is what is needed how it is achieved can be implemented by whatever way is the best.
But the fact is that MF should not almosty match or out dmg all blaster ammo while vastly out ranging ALL of them while amaar also have the option of other insta reload ammos that give vastly larger ranges and very good dps as well.
|
Razor Blue
|
Posted - 2009.11.04 22:10:00 -
[305]
I havent been reading about the projectile buff threads, but i think i¦ve read somewhere that Tracking Comps and Tracking Enchancers are going to get slightly buffed? Like adding some falloff? If so, how they will affect blasters?
|
Seriously Bored
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.11.04 22:24:00 -
[306]
Edited by: Seriously Bored on 04/11/2009 22:24:42
Originally by: Razor Blue I havent been reading about the projectile buff threads, but i think i¦ve read somewhere that Tracking Comps and Tracking Enchancers are going to get slightly buffed? Like adding some falloff? If so, how they will affect blasters?
It's very, very, up in the air... but according the latest proposal (should be on Sisi now):
TCs will add +15% Falloff base, +30% with the range script, and TEs will have +30% falloff base. By all accounts, this is a buff for Projectiles as well as Hybrids, and only a moderate one for lasers.
Some Minmatar players want the big falloff addition to TCs and TEs removed, and the large falloff built into ACs instead. I'm not one of these people, because I think blasters (as well as artillery) could use the help as well.
Falloff gets 2x the modifier of optimal because it takes twice as much falloff to get the same amount of effectiveness as optimal.
|
Cpt Branko
The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 02:08:00 -
[307]
Well, the problem I see with boosting iron is what it does to rail fits and so on.
I think it might be more sensible to boost blaster damage a bit (base turret DPS) and boost Null specifically (after all, it gets less of a range increase percentage wise with 1.25x on both optimal and falloff then Scorch or even Barrage do, both affecting a single parameter with a 50% boost).
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Theron Gyrow
Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 08:36:00 -
[308]
Originally by: Cpt Branko and boost Null specifically (after all, it gets less of a range increase percentage wise with 1.25x on both optimal and falloff then Scorch or even Barrage do, both affecting a single parameter with a 50% boost).
Yeah. All long-range ammo should be +50% (or +40% or something) to optimal and falloff both so that the only weapons (blasters) which need both don't get in effect halved bonuses. -- Gradient forum |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 09:52:00 -
[309]
Originally by: Cpt Branko Well, the problem I see with boosting iron is what it does to rail fits and so on.
You would need to adjust both the turret systems and the ammo:
A single turret on a blaster mega gets 34dps using faction iron(14+13 OPTIMAL/FALLOFF).
A single turret on a pulse geddon gets 74dps using faction MF(15+10 OPTIMAL/FALLOFF).
If you just adjust the turret so they match you will be giving a blaster BS with AM fitted a 200+ % boost in dps lol.
Of course CCP could not be lazy gits and just introduce a seperate T1/T1 faction rail ammo as tbh trying to fit 1 ammo into 2 vastly differant systems is what is causing the problems in the first place.
|
Laur Khal
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 09:54:00 -
[310]
Yeah more than anything, the biggest imbalance lies in the Scorch-Null comparison and the instant-switch ammo.
If I were CCP, I'd focus on correcting the imbalance there before modifying blasters themselves any further.
|
|
wallenbergaren
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 10:54:00 -
[311]
Yeah The ammo is really designed around rails blasters aren't like rails at all. The small optimal bonus means nothing when you're mostly into falloff anyway
|
Dr Fighter
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 11:16:00 -
[312]
introducing a new set of ammo for close range weapons, while drastic does intrigue me alot. Long range ammos get more range for less dps, perhaps close range ammos should have a small amount of range modification (instead of minus 50% to +60%, say minus 20% to plus 20%) but with less dmg the further out you go, the tracking INCREASES with the range.
This would mean somthing thats hard to hit reuires faster tracking lighter ammo that does less dps.
Radical and extreme but, worth considering for the sake of ballance.
|
Seriously Bored
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 16:06:00 -
[313]
Edited by: Seriously Bored on 05/11/2009 16:06:57
Originally by: Murina
You would need to adjust both the turret systems and the ammo:
A single turret on a blaster mega gets 34dps using faction iron(14+13 OPTIMAL/FALLOFF).
A single turret on a pulse geddon gets 74dps using faction MF(15+10 OPTIMAL/FALLOFF).
And that is how it is supposed to be. You are comparing the lowest damage ammunition of one weapon to the highest of another, which is a horrific example.
Your desire to do the same damage as pulses at range and more damage up close would break the game, can't you see that? If blasters need a boost to anything, it's close range damage.
Quote:
At the moment T1 ammo is pretty much set to be used in rail guns so it sucks sweaty donkey balls in blasters, but as we see if we fix it to work in blasterrs it ferks up rails....so a seperate ammo for each system is needed.
Murina, ALL ammo for ALL turret systems is supposed to be comparable. The differences in DPS and range between blasters, rails, beams, and pulses has absolutely nothing to do with T1 ammunition. Projectiles are the only outlier, and beside damage type, they really aren't all that different on TQ at the moment.
Asking for separate hybrid ammunition is as ridiculous as asking for an entirely new weapon system. The problem is with the weapons themselves, or the ships those weapons are fit on. You're showing a startling lack of understanding about how ammunition works. STOP talking about ammo.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 17:50:00 -
[314]
Edited by: Murina on 05/11/2009 17:51:50
Originally by: Seriously Bored
And that is how it is supposed to be. You are comparing the lowest damage ammunition of one weapon to the highest of another, which is a horrific example.
Your desire to do the same damage as pulses at range and more damage up close would break the game, can't you see that? If blasters need a boost to anything, it's close range damage.
WTF are you smoking?.
When one systems ammo (MF) out ranges AND out damages at close range EVERY ammo from another system apart from one (AM) and also vastly out ranges ALL of them things are BROKEN.
The normal rule for eve weapons is that the lower the range of a ammo the higher the DMG and the longer the range the lower the dmg, but MF breaks this rule cos it has loads more dmg than all but blaster ammo AM while also out ramnging them.
Originally by: Seriously Bored Your desire to do the same damage as pulses at range and more damage up close would break the game, can't you see that?
Are you blind it would fix the problem, the cross over point for the two systems (blasters and pulse) is around 14-15km, this is the point of blasters maximum optimal and lasers minimum optimal so the dps should roughly match.
Then as the range decreases blasters should do more dmg than pulse as they are for closer ranges, and as the range increases pulse should do more dmg than blasters as they are longer range.
But as things are now lasers out damage all blaster ammo apart from AM while also vastly out ranging them with a single ammo (MF), and not only that lasers also have the option of scorch that also out damages a lot of blaster ammo but also has a 45km optimal ffs.
THAT IS BROKEN.
Originally by: Seriously Bored Asking for separate hybrid ammunition is as ridiculous as asking for an entirely new weapon system.
1. Rails and blasters ARE differant weapon systems you clown lol, they have totally differant modifiers and that is why they need seperate T1 ammos just like they do T2. Its the reason why all T1 ammo in blasters apart from maybe AM sucks cos its setup to be used for rails,.
Originally by: Seriously Bored You're showing a startling lack of understanding about how ammunition works. STOP talking about ammo.
You are way to cluelesss to understand this so stfu and let ppl who have a clue discuss it.
|
Etho Demerzel
Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 18:05:00 -
[315]
Personally I think that the best fix for blaster would be to make their damage considerably higher at close range.
As it is now lasers have 25% less damage for 300% more range. increasing blasters damage in 60% would make blasters have twice the laser damage at close range. Which is a fair trade off for the much lower range. To avoid shifting the damage at larger ranges to silly values, blasters' falloffs could be cut considerably to make them really short range, and Null damage can be adjusted to decrease this damage bonus.
Blasters would still suck at larger gangs, because of their extremely close range, but at least in solo and small gangs they would be the best, as they should.
=====
"If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron... |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 18:30:00 -
[316]
Originally by: Etho Demerzel Personally I think that the best fix for blaster would be to make their damage considerably higher at close range.
The problem is that a lot of ppl consider "close range" to be 4.5km when the truth is that close range starts at around 13-14km as that is where standard webs take effect and its well within point range and as such blasters should at least match or out damage with its various ammos every other system within that range the closer to 0 you get.
So neutron blasters on a mega:
With iron matches the dmg of MF with a 14km optimal.
Then:
With tungson 3% more dmg than MF with a 13km optimal. With iridium 6% more dmg than MF with a 11km optimal. With lead 9% more dmg than MF with a 9km optimal. With thorium 12% more dmg than MF with a 7.9km optimal. With urainium 15% more dmg than MF with a 6.8km optimal. With plutonium 18% more dmg than MF with a 5.6km optimal.
And at the lowest range AM out damaging MF by 21% at 4.5km optimal.
Blaster falloff would need to be reduced or adjusted and these figures may need to be altered slightly as they are just rough but at least they will give ppl with a clue the basic idea of a fix that would make blasters the best close range weapon system again instead of pulse ruling long and short range.
|
Etho Demerzel
Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 18:47:00 -
[317]
Originally by: Murina
The problem is that a lot of ppl consider "close range" to be 4.5km when the truth is that close range starts at around 13-14km as that is where standard webs take effect and its well within point range and as such blasters should at least match or out damage with its various ammos every other system within that range the closer to 0 you get.
So neutron blasters on a mega:
With iron matches the dmg of MF with a 14km optimal.
Then:
With tungson 3% more dmg than MF with a 13km optimal. With iridium 6% more dmg than MF with a 11km optimal. With lead 9% more dmg than MF with a 9km optimal. With thorium 12% more dmg than MF with a 7.9km optimal. With urainium 15% more dmg than MF with a 6.8km optimal. With plutonium 18% more dmg than MF with a 5.6km optimal.
And at the lowest range AM out damaging MF by 21% at 4.5km optimal.
Blaster falloff would need to be reduced or adjusted and these figures may need to be altered slightly as they are just rough but at least they will give ppl with a clue the basic idea of a fix that would make blasters the best close range weapon system again instead of pulse ruling long and short range.
If these figures are about large blasters, and blasters's falloff would be reduced to pretty much nothing that seems perfectly sensible, and easily achievable by just changing blasters damage multipliers and falloff.
Still I think ammo damage should scale better. At the closest range AM should be devastating. 21% more raw damage than MF just doesn't cut it.
=====
"If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron... |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 19:00:00 -
[318]
Edited by: Murina on 05/11/2009 19:00:33 Edited by: Murina on 05/11/2009 19:00:01
Originally by: Etho Demerzel
If these figures are about large blasters, and blasters's falloff would be reduced to pretty much nothing that seems perfectly sensible, and easily achievable by just changing blasters damage multipliers and falloff.
1. I dont think falloff is gonna be a problem really after all they are supposed to be close range, maybe a adjustment to null could keep ppl happy with that though.
For iron to match MF it would need to be doimng over DOUBLE dmg than it is now so adjusting only the guns will not work cos DOUBLE dmg increase to AM..
Originally by: Etho Demerzel Still I think ammo damage should scale better. At the closest range AM should be devastating. 21% more raw damage than MF just doesn't cut it.
Maybe but with the other blaster ammo finally being scaled correctly it maybe enough.
|
ropnes
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 19:06:00 -
[319]
Edited by: ropnes on 05/11/2009 19:06:06
Originally by: Etho Demerzel Still I think ammo damage should scale better. At the closest range AM should be devastating. 21% more raw damage than MF just doesn't cut it.
How about the 6% with which a Mega out-DPSes a Geddon then? (in EFT)
|
Etho Demerzel
Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 19:25:00 -
[320]
Originally by: Murina
1. I dont think falloff is gonna be a problem really after all they are supposed to be close range, maybe a adjustment to null could keep ppl happy with that though.
For iron to match MF it would need to be doimng over DOUBLE dmg than it is now so adjusting only the guns will not work cos DOUBLE dmg increase to AM..
Blasters with a damage modifier 60% greater than now and 50% less falloff would be a good compromise, in my opinion. Null could be adjusted to have 70% of its current damage and a +50%/+50% modifier to optimal range and falloff values.
Iron would have lower damage than MF at 15, but damage would scale quickly as distances get shorter and you used higher damage ammo. The break even point would be at 12 or so, and from there on the damage would increase rapidly. =====
"If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron... |
|
Captainplankface
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 20:06:00 -
[321]
How about simply switching blaster optimal and falloff ranges? Perhaps having something like 9-10km optimal and 7-8km falloff.
This would make them king of dps in thier optimals while not leaning too heavily into the other weapon system's ranges. Projectiles would still be able to kite somewhat and lasers would still out range everything.
Obviously this would require a complete redesign of hybrid ammo, especially the range bonuses. But this is not a bad thing since most hybrid ammo is redundant anyways.
|
Etho Demerzel
Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 20:14:00 -
[322]
Originally by: Captainplankface How about simply switching blaster optimal and falloff ranges? Perhaps having something like 9-10km optimal and 7-8km falloff.
This would make them king of dps in thier optimals while not leaning too heavily into the other weapon system's ranges. Projectiles would still be able to kite somewhat and lasers would still out range everything.
Obviously this would require a complete redesign of hybrid ammo, especially the range bonuses. But this is not a bad thing since most hybrid ammo is redundant anyways.
Unfortunately that does not cut it. It would make very little difference as both ranges are very similar.
Anything that increases blasters range sufficiently to be of consequence would just make them more like lasers. In my opinion that is the wrong direction to go. Blasters are supposed to be a "get on your face and melt you down" weapon type. Current damage is underwhelming for this task, especially after all the tank improvements that came into the game. =====
"If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron... |
Seriously Bored
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 20:35:00 -
[323]
Originally by: Murina
When one systems ammo (MF) out ranges AND out damages at close range EVERY ammo from another system apart from one (AM) and also vastly out ranges ALL of them things are BROKEN.
It means that the weapon systems are broken (specifically, lasers). Antimatter and Multifrequency are exactly the same. Each has 48 base damage at the large level, with a 0.5x range modifier. One does not out range or out damage the other based on anything having to do with the ammunition.
Quote: The normal rule for eve weapons is that the lower the range of a ammo the higher the DMG and the longer the range the lower the dmg, but MF breaks this rule cos it has loads more dmg than all blaster ammo but AM (that it almost matches) while also out ranging ALL of them.
I'll say it again, because it might need to sink in. Multifrequency does not break any rules. It has the same damage and same range modifier as Antimatter, NOT more. The same is exactly true of EVERY step of Hybrid and Laser ammo. What "breaks the rules" are pulse lasers themselves, and their ridiculous damage/range stats.
Quote: Its the reason why all T1 ammo in blasters apart from maybe AM sucks cos its setup to be used for rails.
Hybrid ammo is not "setup" for rails any more than Laser Crystals are "setup" for beams or Projectile shells are "setup" for artillery. They all have comparable stats. I suggest you check the EVE wiki. Or would you like to split all three ammo types up into six?
Quote:
You are way to cluelesss to understand this so stfu and let ppl who have a clue discuss it.
You can do math. But you show very little understanding for how the game works, or in what situations the various ammo types are used. But yes, let's have people with an understanding of all of the above have a go at it, hey?
Originally by: Etho Demerzel
If these figures are about large blasters, and blasters's falloff would be reduced to pretty much nothing that seems perfectly sensible, and easily achievable by just changing blasters damage multipliers and falloff.
That sounds good to me.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 21:09:00 -
[324]
Originally by: Seriously Bored
It means that the weapon systems are broken (specifically, lasers). Antimatter and Multifrequency are exactly the same. Each has 48 base damage at the large level, with a 0.5x range modifier. One does not out range or out damage the other based on anything having to do with the ammunition.
I'll say it again, because it might need to sink in. Multifrequency does not break any rules. It has the same damage and same range modifier as Antimatter, NOT more. The same is exactly true of EVERY step of Hybrid and Laser ammo. What "breaks the rules" are pulse lasers themselves, and their ridiculous damage/range stats.
OMG you are totally clueless and its you that needs to comprehend ffs.
If just you increase the dmg modifier of blasters so that while they are fitted with iron they match the dps of MF fitted pulse just how much dps do you think they will be getting when they are with AntiMatter????...you NEED to adjust the ammo as well or it screws things up ffs.
You cannot just double the dmg modifyer of blasters to make iron match MF cos if you do it will also double the dps blasters do with AM ammo and that would make AM fitted blasters way too powerful...DO YOU COMPREHEND?.
Originally by: Seriously Bored You can do math. But you show very little understanding for how the game works, or in what situations the various ammo types are used.
I suppose my roughly 2000-3000 pvp kills in a vast variety of ships and setups compared to your 7 kills make you the expert huh?...stfu you have no idea of what is being discussed here and your niave posts show that clearly.
|
Etho Demerzel
Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 21:17:00 -
[325]
Originally by: Murina
OMG you are totally clueless and its you that needs to comprehend ffs.
If just you increase the dmg modifier of blasters so that while they are fitted with iron they match the dps of MF fitted pulse just how much dps do you think they will be getting when they are with AntiMatter????...you NEED to adjust the ammo as well or it screws things up ffs.
You cannot just double the dmg modifyer of blasters to make iron match MF cos if you do it will also double the dps blasters do with AM ammo and that would make AM fitted blasters way too powerful...DO YOU COMPREHEND?.
Sorry, but you don't NEED to adjust the damage modifiers so Iron get the same damage as MF at 15 km. It is quite goos enough if Tungsten gets the same damage as MF at 11-12.
Having 60% more damage than the current value at point blank range more than makes for the bad performance beyond 12 km.
So no, you don't need to adjust the ammo too. =====
"If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron... |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 21:23:00 -
[326]
Originally by: Etho Demerzel
Originally by: Murina
OMG you are totally clueless and its you that needs to comprehend ffs.
If just you increase the dmg modifier of blasters so that while they are fitted with iron they match the dps of MF fitted pulse just how much dps do you think they will be getting when they are with AntiMatter????...you NEED to adjust the ammo as well or it screws things up ffs.
You cannot just double the dmg modifyer of blasters to make iron match MF cos if you do it will also double the dps blasters do with AM ammo and that would make AM fitted blasters way too powerful...DO YOU COMPREHEND?.
Sorry, but you don't NEED to adjust the damage modifiers so Iron get the same damage as MF at 15 km. It is quite goos enough if Tungsten gets the same damage as MF at 11-12.
Having 60% more damage than the current value at point blank range more than makes for the bad performance beyond 12 km.
So no, you don't need to adjust the ammo too.
Maybe if you do it that way you do not but thats not what the argument was about ffs.
The fact is that IF you wanted iron to be a worthwhile ammo instead of being worthless just increasing the blasters dmg mod to get it to match pulse fitted with MF would boost blasters fitted with AM to a point that it would be doing way too much damage.
Why move the goal posts?..
|
Seriously Bored
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 21:25:00 -
[327]
Edited by: Seriously Bored on 05/11/2009 21:26:07
Originally by: Murina
If just you increase the dmg modifier of blasters so that while they are fitted with iron they match the dps of MF fitted pulse just how much dps do you think they will be getting when they are with AntiMatter????...you NEED to adjust the ammo as well or it screws things up ffs.
I never said anything about Iron. I never said anything about balancing around ammo. I actually specifically said DO NOT balance around ammo, and leave ammo alone.
Etho's suggestion to shorten falloff and increase the blaster damage modifier is a sensible one, and has nothing to do with Iron or rebalancing ammunition. I would actually prefer to see a less extreme DPS increase (maybe +25%-+30% of current damage? Would have to run the numbers) and a slight falloff increase. Either would be good, IMO.
Quote: I suppose my roughly 2000-3000 pvp kills in a vast variety of ships and setups compared to your 7 kills make you the expert huh?...stfu you have no idea of what is being discussed here and your niave posts show that clearly.
Oh look, you know the URL for Battle Clinic.
I don't care about your kills, and I don't care for anyone's ego. Your arguments must stand on their own weight, and demonstrate a proper understanding of their ultimate effects on the game.
Your ideas are extreme and have far-reaching effects that you don't account for. There are much simpler solutions to the problem.
|
Etho Demerzel
Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 21:27:00 -
[328]
Originally by: Murina
Why move the goal posts?..
For starters, because, as you said, the goal is unachievable, without changing ammo too.
Also, because it is not a good solution either. Lasers would still have too much advantage for too little disadvantage at close range.
It is much better to have the intervals of advantage clearly distinguished. =====
"If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron... |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 21:40:00 -
[329]
Originally by: Seriously Bored words
You have added nothing to this discussion apart from irrelavant argumentative trolls.
The shorter falloff and higher dmg idea was one i mentioned but you seemed to ignore.... try reading post 258 a little better, especially the beginning of last paragraph.
|
Soft Love
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 21:44:00 -
[330]
amarr have asshat bonus to lolzorz cap use, wanna dmg changed to same bonus on blasterboats ? me dont think so
|
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 21:46:00 -
[331]
Edited by: Murina on 05/11/2009 21:47:32
Originally by: Soft Love amarr have asshat bonus to lolzorz cap use, wanna dmg changed to same bonus on blasterboats ? me dont think so
Oh joy..just what the thread needs another idiot quoting one line pointless idiocy.
Originally by: Etho Demerzel
Originally by: Murina
Why move the goal posts?..
For starters, because, as you said, the goal is unachievable, without changing ammo too.
If you wanna keep iron ammo worthwhile in the game i was right, your idea makes it utterly worthless and redundant.
PS: A 60% increase to the neutron blaster dmg mod only gives a neutron blaster with tungston on a megathron 64dps at 13km, compared to a MF fitted pulse on a geddon that has 74dps at 15km.
|
Seriously Bored
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 21:48:00 -
[332]
Edited by: Seriously Bored on 05/11/2009 21:51:06
Originally by: Murina
You have added nothing to this discussion apart from irrelavant argumentative trolls.
The shorter falloff and higher dmg idea was one i mentioned but you seemed to ignore.... try reading post 258 a little better, especially the beginning of last paragraph.
I did reread it. Your ideas for falloff sound sensible, but your idea of higher damage was still based on ammunition.
Look, it's obvious that you care about every step of ammunition meaning something. There isn't anything wrong with that, and it's something worth thinking about. But completely changing the balance between the turrets based on your desire to have a useful Iron in Blasters is where it becomes extreme.
As the game currently is, T1 long-range ammo just isn't useful in close-range guns of any kind. Maybe something has to change about that, but it is a completely separate issue.
EDIT:
And for the record, Iron is not worthless. It is used in very long-range sniper fits for better tracking and cap use than Spike. It is, however, worthless in Blasters. We can agree on that. But how often is Antimatter used in Rail fits? (Honest question.)
|
Etho Demerzel
Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 21:53:00 -
[333]
Originally by: Murina
If you wanna keep iron ammo worthwhile in the game i was right, your idea makes it utterly worthless and redundant.
Iron is about as worthless for blasters as Radio is for pulse lasers, or carbonized lead is for ACs. I see exactly ZERO problem with this.
Quote:
PS: A 60% increase to the neutron blaster dmg mod only gives a neutron blaster with tungston on a megathron 64dps at 13km, compared to a MF fitted pulse on a geddon that has 74dps at 15km.
And 75.2 dps with Iridium at 11 km, and 86.4 dps at 9 km with Lead, and 97.6 at 8 km with Thorium, until 129.6 at 4.5 km with AM. Seems good to me.
=====
"If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron... |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 21:54:00 -
[334]
Edited by: Murina on 05/11/2009 21:55:09
Originally by: Seriously Bored
Originally by: Murina
You have added nothing to this discussion apart from irrelavant argumentative trolls.
The shorter falloff and higher dmg idea was one i mentioned but you seemed to ignore.... try reading post 258 a little better, especially the beginning of last paragraph.
I did reread it. Your ideas for falloff sound sensible, but your idea of higher damage was still based on ammunition.
Its based on ammo loaded into neutron blasters fitted to a megathron.
How the goal in post 258 is achieved along with the exact stat/dps results would involve detailed working out but the basic pricipal of it was what was being conveyed as the last paragraph clearly states.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 22:00:00 -
[335]
Edited by: Murina on 05/11/2009 22:06:35
Originally by: Seriously Bored But how often is Antimatter used in Rail fits? (Honest question.)
If you had pvp'd more and been more concerned with those BC stats you dismissed earlier you would know that gallente BS + rails with AM are a very well used and documented fit for RR BS gangs....oh and FYI that is because blaster ammo has god awful dmg/range ratios and is all but worthless apart from AM that is also underpowered tbh....
|
Seriously Bored
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 22:08:00 -
[336]
Originally by: Murina
If you had pvp'd more and been more concerned with those BC stats you dismissed earlier you would know that gallente BS + rails with AM are a very well used and documented fit for RR BS gangs....oh and FYI that is because blaster ammo has god awful dmg/range ratios...
Fair enough, that makes plenty of sense. But let's focus on increasing those Damage/Range ratios for Blasters in sensible ways that account for possible unintended side-effects, hey?
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.11.05 22:26:00 -
[337]
Edited by: Murina on 05/11/2009 22:34:43
Originally by: Seriously Bored
Originally by: Murina
If you had pvp'd more and been more concerned with those BC stats you dismissed earlier you would know that gallente BS + rails with AM are a very well used and documented fit for RR BS gangs....oh and FYI that is because blaster ammo has god awful dmg/range ratios...
Fair enough, that makes plenty of sense. But let's focus on increasing those Damage/Range ratios for Blasters in sensible ways that account for possible unintended side-effects, hey?
As i mentioned once or twice blaster dmg/falloff AND ammo dmg amount needs to be adjusted to fully balance things OR as etho says we make iron and maybe tungston redundant and just alter blaster dmg mod and falloff.
Oh and i personally still think that going to the effort of making a T1/T1 faction ammo for each races long and short range system will solve a lot of problems that may arise in the future as the game continues to change.
Range/tracking/dmg/cap use ect ect have been problems many times over the years as things got altered and one of the main issues was adjusting things while having to keep in mind that their ammos are used in both long range and short range weapon systems.
Doing so will help reduce or even remove any future "unintentended side effects".
|
Etho Demerzel
Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.11.06 04:24:00 -
[338]
Edited by: Etho Demerzel on 06/11/2009 04:27:50
Originally by: Murina
As i mentioned once or twice blaster dmg/falloff AND ammo dmg amount needs to be adjusted to fully balance things OR as etho says we make iron and maybe tungston redundant and just alter blaster dmg mod and falloff.
As Etho says and you conveniently ignore, Iron and Tungsten won't be MORE redundant than Radio or Carbonized lead for pulses and ACs. Short range weapons have little use for high optimal, low damage ammo. That is how it is. That happens mainly because of the tech 2 range ammo. And it is about the same in long range weapon systems, for exactly the same motive.
There is very little point in using anything but Aurora, Tremor or Spike, if you are using long range weapons.
Quote:
Oh and i personally still think that going to the effort of making a T1/T1 faction ammo for each races long and short range system will solve a lot of problems that may arise in the future as the game continues to change.
Won't happen.
Quote:
Range/tracking/dmg/cap use ect ect have been problems many times over the years as things got altered and one of the main issues was adjusting things while having to keep in mind that their ammos are used in both long range and short range weapon systems.
There are no problems besides those you are creating in your head. Really. There is no point in fixing what is not broken.
=====
"If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron... |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.11.06 09:44:00 -
[339]
Edited by: Murina on 06/11/2009 09:47:17
THIS...
Originally by: Etho Demerzel
As Etho says and you conveniently ignore, Iron and Tungsten won't be MORE redundant than Radio or Carbonized lead for pulses and ACs. Short range weapons have little use for high optimal, low damage ammo. That is how it is. That happens mainly because of the tech 2 range ammo. And it is about the same in long range weapon systems, for exactly the same motive.
There is very little point in using anything but Aurora, Tremor or Spike, if you are using long range weapons.
Oh and i did not ignore it i just think that comments like "ALL long range low dps T1 ammo is broken so why bother fixing them" belong in the reta*d section of the forum.
THEN THIS...
Originally by: Etho Demerzel There are no problems besides those you are creating in your head. Really. There is no point in fixing what is not broken.
So all long range low dps ammo is gimped but also nothing about it is broken and needs fixing?.......make your mind up.
PS: while we are on the subject of "things that will never happen" please go on about your idea of a 60% DPS BOOST to blasters i need a laugh...
|
The Newface
|
Posted - 2009.11.06 12:55:00 -
[340]
Just want to point out that even "just" changing a weapon group will have larger consecuenses then it may first seem.
In the blaster/Pulse discussion one has to remember that ships are balanced around the current weapons, that's why many amarr ship has the "useless" bonus of less cap use for lasers. Blasters already has better DPS then Pulses but less range, if they got the same range, pulses (and beams) have to get there cap use lowered and amarr ships have to have damage bonuses added to be even close to comparable to Galante DPS.
Just using Abaddon and Megathron with the highest t2 weapons and best possible drones give the Meg 768 dps and the Abadd 652 dps, changing ammo to conflagration on the abadd gives it a dps of 772 with the same range as the Meg. Difference being that the Meg is stable and the Abadd will drain itself in 3.31.
|
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.11.06 13:53:00 -
[341]
Edited by: Murina on 06/11/2009 13:53:29
Originally by: The Newface Just want to point out that even "just" changing a weapon group will have larger consecuenses then it may first seem.
In the blaster/Pulse discussion one has to remember that ships are balanced around the current weapons, that's why many amarr ship has the "useless" bonus of less cap use for lasers.
im not even gonna comment on this.
Originally by: The Newface Blasters already has better DPS then Pulses but less range, if they got the same range, pulses (and beams) have to get there cap use lowered and amarr ships have to have damage bonuses added to be even close to comparable to Galante DPS.
A little better DPS with AM only and 1000% less range....that is not balanced.
Originally by: The Newface Just using Abaddon and Megathron with the highest t2 weapons and best possible drones give the Meg 768 dps and the Abadd 652 dps, changing ammo to conflagration on the abadd gives it a dps of 772 with the same range as the Meg.
Are you on drugs?.
Pulse with faction MF or conflag fitted have a 15km optimal, blasters with AM fitted have a 4.5km optimal and with void a 6.8km optimal....how is that "the same range lol".
Its actually over 300% less range ffs.
|
Etho Demerzel
Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.11.06 15:20:00 -
[342]
Edited by: Etho Demerzel on 06/11/2009 15:20:45
Originally by: Murina
So all long range low dps ammo is gimped but also nothing about it is broken and needs fixing?.......make your mind up.
There are situational, albeit rare, uses for long range T1 ammunition. Mainly hitting small stuff from far away with long range weapons.
T2 short range, high damage ammunition is in a much worse position, though. It is totally useless. If we are going to fix ammo, there is where it should start.
In any case, improving either T2 high damage ammo or T1 long range ammo for ALL weapon system, does not solve blaster problems. even if by magic blasters had similar damage to lasers at 15 km with Iron, they would still be incredibly underpowered compared to pulses if the damage difference as they close wasn't very significant.
Unless you intend to stretch blaster effectiveness to much farther, which would completely alter the theme of this weapon system, the only way to fix it is to greatly improve its damage in the short range it has.
Quote:
PS: while we are on the subject of "things that will never happen" please go on about your idea of a 60% DPS BOOST to blasters i need a laugh...
I also thought they would never fix ACs. I was wrong. Lets see what happens...
=====
"If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron... |
Etho Demerzel
Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.11.06 15:29:00 -
[343]
Originally by: The Newface
Just using Abaddon and Megathron with the highest t2 weapons and best possible drones give the Meg 768 dps and the Abadd 652 dps, changing ammo to conflagration on the abadd gives it a dps of 772 with the same range as the Meg. Difference being that the Meg is stable and the Abadd will drain itself in 3.31.
That is just a LIE!
The Abaddon with mega pulses II and ANMF has 815 dps of turret damage at 15 km, the Megathron with neutron blaster cannons II and FNAM has 832 dps of turret damage at 5 km.
And there is a novel invention called the cap booster. I don't know if you are aware. =====
"If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron... |
The Newface
|
Posted - 2009.11.06 15:33:00 -
[344]
Should have been more specific,
Abadd with Pulses and Conflagration has 15 + 10 optimal and 772 DPS (with drones) Mega with Blasters and NULL has 11 + 16 optimal and 768 DPS (with drones) ig goes up to 891 DPS with void but range droping to 6.8 + 6.3.
Im using Abadd and Mega since both have a +5% damage mod.
|
Etho Demerzel
Gallente Holy Clan of the Cone
|
Posted - 2009.11.06 16:23:00 -
[345]
Edited by: Etho Demerzel on 06/11/2009 16:24:27
Originally by: The Newface Should have been more specific,
Abadd with Pulses and Conflagration has 15 + 10 optimal and 772 DPS (with drones) Mega with Blasters and NULL has 11 + 16 optimal and 768 DPS (with drones) ig goes up to 891 DPS with void but range droping to 6.8 + 6.3.
Im using Abadd and Mega since both have a +5% damage mod.
Again it is a lie.
With 2 damage modules the Abaddon has 1036 dps at 15+10 with conflag. While the mega also with 2 damage modules has 980 dps at 11+16. You conveniently forgot to add damage modules, clearly to make it appear that the drone bandwidth is more relevant than it truly is.
On the other hand, if you want comparable EHP in the Mega than you have in the Abaddon, you need to either add a 3rd damage module in the Abaddon (thus decreasing its EHP) or take one from the Mega (thus increasing its EHP). The Abaddon can fit 3 heat sinks against the 2 MFS of the mega and will still have 10% more EHP. That means 1139 dps @ 15+10 against 980 dps at 11+16.
And lets not forget that 11+16 is considerably worse than 15+10, especially when you can switch to scorch above 18 km or so. =====
"If a member of the EVE community finds he or she cannot accept our current level of transparency, we bid you good luck in finding a company that meets your needs." - CCP kieron... |
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.11.06 16:32:00 -
[346]
Also:
the statndard fit on a mega is with one mag stab due to its fitting constraints while the abaddon can comfortably fit 3 heat sinks and still have a better EHP tank than the mega with only one mag stab.
So better range, better dps, better ehp....oh and its shiny.
|
Chi Quan
Bibkor Enterprises
|
Posted - 2009.11.10 10:12:00 -
[347]
you know, we should stop worrying about blasters and rails being fixed. it wont happen because hybrids look bad in promotion videos. a while back, sisi had some interesting blaster graphics, but they were discarded. untill the hybrids look somehow beamy, there won't be a fix. they'll rather fix rockets first due to the badass black amarr hulls that use them.
there you have it, it has nothing to do with stats or (im)balance, it's the pesetas from ooh-want-shiny-mmo new customers. ---- Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love |
honey bunchetta
|
Posted - 2009.11.10 10:21:00 -
[348]
Edited by: honey bunchetta on 10/11/2009 10:21:47
Originally by: Chi Quan you know, we should stop worrying about blasters and rails being fixed. it wont happen because hybrids look bad in promotion videos. a while back, sisi had some interesting blaster graphics, but they were discarded. untill the hybrids look somehow beamy, there won't be a fix. they'll rather fix rockets first due to the badass black amarr hulls that use them.
there you have it, it has nothing to do with stats or (im)balance, it's the pesetas from ooh-want-shiny-mmo new customers.
You are forgetting that if they fix them too quickly ppl will not need to cross train thinking that things may be better using another race and may stop playing/paying instead......
|
Lenartowicz
Hive Bound Technologies
|
Posted - 2009.11.10 10:21:00 -
[349]
blasters need their own ammo set, not sharing with rails.
|
Murina
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.11.10 10:32:00 -
[350]
Originally by: Lenartowicz blasters need their own ammo set, not sharing with rails.
Theres a reason why theres a seperate T2 ammo for long and short range systems and the same reason aplies to T1 ammo.
Having seperate T1 ammo for all short and long range systems would solve a lot of problems now and those that will arise in the future.
|
|
EFT Worrier
|
Posted - 2009.11.15 10:03:00 -
[351]
I saw someone saying that Dominion comes with a Scorch nerf, T/F?
|
Chi Quan
Bibkor Enterprises
|
Posted - 2009.11.15 15:02:00 -
[352]
if it does, they hid it quite well ---- Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love |
Gwydion Telcontar
Gallente Ixion Defence Systems
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 16:31:00 -
[353]
I can't begin to express my frustration with reading all 10 pages of this thread and seeing CCP's only response is "blasters rock".
|
Trader20
|
Posted - 2009.11.20 20:02:00 -
[354]
Edited by: Trader20 on 20/11/2009 20:05:11
Blasters and tracking issue, wtf? Your using blaster wrong if your running into tracking issue. Just web (sometimes dual web), approach, and blast. Why would you be orbiting a target or letting a target orbit you going anything faster then 100m/s in web range? Fighting smaller/faster ships (sub bc) is a problem but it should be.
Edit: But since were improving blaster maybe look at T2 ammo ccp?
|
Dabljuh
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 19:43:00 -
[355]
Originally by: Trader20 Edited by: Trader20 on 20/11/2009 20:06:39
Blasters and tracking issue, wtf? Your using blaster wrong if your running into tracking issue. Just web (sometimes dual web), approach, and blast. Why would you be orbiting a target or letting a target orbit you going anything faster then 100m/s in web range? Fighting smaller/faster ships (sub bc) is a problem but it should be. YOU NEED MORE WEBS!!!
Last time I checked, blasters didn't come with built in webs. Meaning: when you want to use blasters, you have to use webs too, and that's a disadvantage. If you use enough webs and target painters, you can also use artillery at close range if you like. Fact of the matter is that pulses don't need webs because it's hard to get that kind of transversal going at this much increased range.
|
Diomidis
Amarr Mythos Corp RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 19:47:00 -
[356]
Originally by: Dabljuh
Originally by: Trader20 Edited by: Trader20 on 20/11/2009 20:06:39
Blasters and tracking issue, wtf? Your using blaster wrong if your running into tracking issue. Just web (sometimes dual web), approach, and blast. Why would you be orbiting a target or letting a target orbit you going anything faster then 100m/s in web range? Fighting smaller/faster ships (sub bc) is a problem but it should be. YOU NEED MORE WEBS!!!
Last time I checked, blasters didn't come with built in webs. Meaning: when you want to use blasters, you have to use webs too, and that's a disadvantage. If you use enough webs and target painters, you can also use artillery at close range if you like. Fact of the matter is that pulses don't need webs because it's hard to get that kind of transversal going at this much increased range.
Dah... You mean that's why ppl try do get under the gunfire of pulses and arties (and rails and beam/tachyons) but do not try close orbit blasterthrons? Pff...I know I needed Matlab to beat eve, knowledge is power, and I know now! Join the Biggest Greek Corp! www.Mythos-eve.com - Join Mythos Channel in game! |
Cpt Branko
The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 20:08:00 -
[357]
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 22/11/2009 20:09:15 The problems of blasters and the ships they're fitted on in short: - lack of large enough damage advantage up close over competition to make up for huge range differences - idiotic fitting requirements of blasters & fitting of sub-BS ships (HI Myrmidon/Brutix/Thorax/Incursus/Diemost/etc/everything which is not a BS) - lolworthy bonuses on some sub-BS ships (rep bonus on gank oriented closerange ships? Interesting idea, please do tell how doing DPS without damage mods works!)
Tracking is only a problem if: (a) you fail (b) you're trying to fire on smaller sized ships up close
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Undertow Latheus
Minmatar Monolithic. Dead Terrorists
|
Posted - 2009.11.22 20:38:00 -
[358]
You fail hard.
Can you guess why?
YOU ONLY COMPARE BLASTERS TO LASERS. derp. Why don't you put 800mm AC's in the large gun graph so we can see how awesome they are?
And also, I'm not really seeing the big problem with those graphs... Obviously the pulses will do more damage at long range, but once you close the distance the blasters will do more damage with much better tracking. It's simply that blaster's domain of specialty is close range, and lasers long range.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: [one page] |