|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
TigerWoman
Amarr The Circle
|
Posted - 2009.10.04 08:55:00 -
[1]
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.
|
TigerWoman
Amarr The Circle
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 21:20:00 -
[2]
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.
|
TigerWoman
Amarr The Circle
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 22:28:00 -
[3]
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
|
TigerWoman
Amarr The Circle
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 23:02:00 -
[4]
@ 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.
|
TigerWoman
Amarr The Circle
|
Posted - 2009.10.05 23:25:00 -
[5]
@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.
|
|
|
|