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) |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |