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