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 - 2009.11.05 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 |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |