Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 .. 26 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Doctor Aibolit
|
Posted - 2010.08.31 07:01:00 -
[451]
I guess CCP will not return old web effect (-90% webbed ship) CCP will not implement crazy ideas about adding special effects to blasters like shield penetration, stunning effect, webbing effect and other CCP will not give more range to blasters it will blur advantage of laser optimal and AC falloff The more logical is to increase DAMAGE and TRACKING. Make blasters outstanding in extremely short-range engagements if you do not want to change range. As for now I do not see advantage of blasters. Pulses do almost the same damage as blasters (85%) at 300% optimal (400% comparing Scorch VS Null)
P.S. Do not send me EFT fits of 1000 DPS Brutix and 1450 DPS Hyperion.
|
Naomi Knight
Amarr
|
Posted - 2010.08.31 07:09:00 -
[452]
Originally by: Doctor Aibolit I guess CCP will not return old web effect (-90% webbed ship) CCP will not implement crazy ideas about adding special effects to blasters like shield penetration, stunning effect, webbing effect and other CCP will not give more range to blasters it will blur advantage of laser optimal and AC falloff The more logical is to increase DAMAGE and TRACKING. Make blasters outstanding in extremely short-range engagements if you do not want to change range. As for now I do not see advantage of blasters. Pulses do almost the same damage as blasters (85%) at 300% optimal (400% comparing Scorch VS Null)
P.S. Do not send me EFT fits of 1000 DPS Brutix and 1450 DPS Hyperion.
Well they could boost ships too and balance out fitting reqs(insane atm:( ) also they could redesing the whole hybrid ammo/gun line just like projectiles imho best is to do both
|
Uriel Winston
|
Posted - 2010.09.01 00:29:00 -
[453]
blaster brutix is FAIL, it will die fast once locked
~ active tank is pretty crap unless you solo 1v1 ~ ~ a cane will orbit a brutix even when scrammed ~ ~ a harb will simply demolish the brutix no need to move around, it can kill it before it flies away ~ ~ if you solo in a brutix you failed, use a myrmidon with acs/pulse next time ~
so yes blasters sucks ass, they have hard time tracking an orbiting bs in optimal. Railguns (or Failguns) will prolly hit for 36.6 damage something moving at 40-50km.... again a pulse can do the same with just more damage.
make blaster Shotgun like weapon, ofc Not aoe, just MASSIVE DAMAGE thats whats supposed to be...
also "railguns" is lame to deal thermal damage.. explosive is more likely since RAILGUNS USE PROJECTILE AMMO (in reallity that is).
|
Arnold Predator
|
Posted - 2010.09.04 05:09:00 -
[454]
I had to buy a T3 just to use blasters. It gets better dps and tracking do to subsystem layout.
To Fix blasters: More damage, same range, much better tracking. Make hybrid guns reload in 5 seconds not 10. A blaster or rail gun has to use ammo, thats just how they work. The ablity to change damage types should be possable too. They are infact half way between normal guns and lazers.
T2 ammo is pointless right now so that could use a look into as well. maybe make a ammo that does good damage (80% max) but has + to optmal and falloff.
nerf scorch so its got the end all of ammo to shut people up. Not much but just enough to bring the range down a little bit.
The above changes would make me happy. My t3 would shoot for over 1000dps, be able to shot anything that flys at it and really be able to dish out the dps, not just say it can...for once.
|
Grut
The Protei
|
Posted - 2010.09.04 09:51:00 -
[455]
Originally by: Arnold Predator I had to buy a T3 just to use blasters. It gets better dps and tracking do to subsystem layout.
To Fix blasters:
I posted a similar solution in another thread.
Increase medium / large rail damage by 10% Increase medium / large blaster damage by 15% Reduce reload to 5 seconds Reduce charge size to 1/2 that of projectiles (reducing gun cap accordingly)
Devide the ammo into two types at each range;
"Gal ammo" One 4:1 thermal to kinetic damage + tracking ( tracking bonus starts around 10% and increases as the ammo range increases)
"Caldari ammo" One 4:1 kinetic to thermal damage - cap use ( cap bonus starts around 15% and increases as the ammo range increases)
^^ that puts hybrids inbetween projectiles and rails, they get their own unqiue identity without being worst of both, and they take a little more thought to use.
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 |
Jahpahjay
|
Posted - 2010.09.04 15:17:00 -
[456]
Supported
I've read some really good ideas in here. Not sure I'm even picky about which ideas to go with--hybrids just need help, period.
|
Arnold Predator
|
Posted - 2010.09.05 03:12:00 -
[457]
Originally by: Grut
I posted a similar solution in another thread.
Increase medium / large rail damage by 20% Increase medium / large blaster damage by 25% Reduce reload to 5 seconds Reduce charge size to 1/2 that of projectiles (reducing gun cap accordingly)
Devide the ammo into two types at each range;
"Gal ammo" One 4:1 thermal to kinetic damage + tracking ( tracking bonus starts around 25% and increases as the ammo range Decreases)
"Caldari ammo" One 4:1 kinetic to thermal damage - cap use ( cap bonus starts around 15% and increases as the ammo range increases)
^^ that puts hybrids inbetween projectiles and rails, they get their own unqiue identity without being worst of both, and they take a little more thought to use.
There I fixed it for you.
|
Arnold Predator
|
Posted - 2010.09.05 07:39:00 -
[458]
I'm going to use a common pvp scenario. 1v1 Hybrids vs Lasers.
The combatants this time are Neutron Blasters vs Pulse Lasers both tech 2
(D X H / F) * (O+A) = W
D = Dmg mod, H = Highest dmg ammo, F = fire rate in seconds, O = Optimal and A = fAlloff, W= Weapon score
Heavy Neutron Blaster II: (4.2 x 24 / 5.25)(1800+5000)=W 1800 because thatÆs half of the guns normal optimal. Have to take into account the -50% optimal you get with antimatter. (100.8/5.25) (6800) = W (19.2)(6800)=W 130560 Weapon score. Tracking of .1 With Null M t2 ammo the weapon Score goes to 167200 [for those who like math thatÆs (4.2 x 22 / 5.25)(4500+5000)
Heavy Pulse Laser II: (3.6 x 24 / 5.25) (6000+4000) again 6000 not 12000 due to the -50% you get from multi. (86.4 / 5.25) (10000) (16.4)(10000) 164000 Weapon score Tracking of 0.08125
With Scorch M t2 ammo the weapon score goes up too 332200 [for those who like math thatÆs (3.6 x 22 / 5.25)(18000+4000)
So in this match up the guy flying the pulse laser would be 25.6% better of then the guy flying the Heavy Neutron Blaster. (164000/130560)
According to these numbers taken from (http://wiki.eveonline.com) heavy pulse lasers put out 85.4% of the damage that neutron blasters do. (16.4/19.2) However Lasers have a 333% longer optimal and a 47% longer over all range then blasters. Now I know blasters are meant as extreme close range weapons but the damage output of lasers compared to there range clearly indicates that lasers are FAR better then blasters. The heavy pulse laser only gives up 14.6% the damage of blasters but can put that dps 333% further then the heavy blaster can. Sound to me like Blasters need to do more damage or have a longer range. Or both.
For those who say that lasers have bad tracking, your right they do. Were your arguments about lasers having bad tracking falls apart is that with the range of lasers optimal youÆre less likely to miss due to tracking problems then hybrids. Hybrids need much more tracking then lasers due to there extreme close range nature.
The lasers have 81.25% the tracking of hybrid turrets but 47% more range and a 333% better optimal and so tracking is not as big of an issue. (.08125/.1) This indicates to me that hybrid turrets also need a bonus to tracking.
DonÆt even get me started about Scorch ammo. A heavy pulse laser with scorch has 10 times the optimal of blasters (18000 vs 1800) shoot for 78% of blasters and has a total range of 323% more then blasters with fall off. (assuming normal antimatter vs scorch)
|
Arnold Predator
|
Posted - 2010.09.05 07:45:00 -
[459]
K so we determined that Blasters are a joke for pvp as you will never be able to make it to optimal before youÆre blown up. Well I want to pvp and all I have is Hybrid weapons left. LetÆs see how Railguns fare in pvp as itÆs our only other option.
250mm Railgun II (3.3 x 24 / 6.375) (14400+12000) (79.2/6.375) (26400) (12.42)(26400) 327888 Weapon score Tracking 0.023
Heavy Beam Laser II (3.6 x 24 / 6.00)(12000+8000) (86.4/6.00)(20000) (14.4)(20000) 288000 weapons score. Tracking 0.033
So again the lasers are a better choice then blasters all around. Shorter optimal, less damage, and worse trackingà. No wonder railguns are called failguns.
|
Frank Madox
Solarwind Interstellar Mining and Production Ltd
|
Posted - 2010.09.07 09:30:00 -
[460]
Supported. Hybrids really need some love and perhaps Gallente ship bonuses as well, but thats another topic.
|
|
TheWarpGhost
|
Posted - 2010.09.07 13:39:00 -
[461]
Im relatively new to the game and even Ive given up on hybrids already. I support a change.
* * *
Death is it's own reward, but so is chocolate. |
Arnold Predator
|
Posted - 2010.09.08 12:13:00 -
[462]
Originally by: TheWarpGhost Im relatively new to the game and even Ive given up on hybrids already. I support a change.
Hybrids work... on a tech 3.... in pvE... and that's about it.
|
William Archer
|
Posted - 2010.09.08 16:48:00 -
[463]
/ support
|
Gewrixlera
|
Posted - 2010.09.08 17:49:00 -
[464]
Mmmm Blasters. In your face ultraviolence, at arms length they tickle. Or at least, that's how I would like to believe in them. Currently they do tickle, at arms length...
|
Lemmy Kravitz
|
Posted - 2010.09.09 13:44:00 -
[465]
Edited by: Lemmy Kravitz on 09/09/2010 13:44:26 meh.. I will support to making rails most longest range I will also support boosting blaster damage.
I really would like to see lock on range beyond 250 without remote boost. I think that would help railguns alot.
|
Jahpahjay
|
Posted - 2010.09.09 13:49:00 -
[466]
Supported
|
mazzilliu
|
Posted - 2010.09.10 06:01:00 -
[467]
i honestly dont remember if this has been raised yet by a csm but i raised this anyways for the next meeting, and if it's a duplicate i can just cancel it.
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Fix_blasters_%28CSM%29
|
Fettered Soul
|
Posted - 2010.09.10 06:57:00 -
[468]
Edited by: Fettered Soul on 10/09/2010 06:59:48 Edited by: Fettered Soul on 10/09/2010 06:58:26
Originally by: mazzilliu i honestly dont remember if this has been raised yet by a csm but i raised this anyways for the next meeting, and if it's a duplicate i can just cancel it.
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Fix_blasters_%28CSM%29
Could you change "Potential Solution". Increasing range for blasters brake its tactical distinction. Please add second Potential Solution: "Increasing DPS and tracking" Pulse Lasers = good DPS at insane range AC = good DPS (using adjustable damage type) at medium range. Good tracking. Blasters = should have EXTREME DPS with EXTREME tracking at VERY CLOSE range (leave range as is).
Increasing range for blasters is creating second "Pulse Blaser" P.S. as for now Blasters does not have EXTREME DPS (Lasers do 85% blaster damage at 300% range) and EXTREME tracking (AC have almost the same)
|
knobber Jobbler
Executive Intervention Controlled Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.09.10 22:34:00 -
[469]
+1
|
Arnold Predator
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.09.11 04:57:00 -
[470]
Edited by: Arnold Predator on 11/09/2010 05:03:16 A way to fix medium blasters By Arnold Predator
Very long but has a fix I hope people can agree on.
In a previous post I worked some numbers that scored weapons based on damage output and range. In this post I'm going to expand on that a little more and include projectile weapons as well as try to find a way to balance all three turret types we each other.
Here are the best of the medium sized turrets. Each is using there highest damage type ammo.
425MM Autocannon II: (3.465 x 24 / 5.625)(1200+9600)=W 1200 not 2400 due to the -50% optimal you get with Phased Plasma ammo. (14.784) (10800) = W (83.16/5.25) (10800) = W (14.784) (10800) = 159667.2 Tracking of .1056
Heavy Neutron Blaster II: (4.2 x 24 / 5.25)(1800+5000)=W 1800 not 3600 due to the -50% optimal you get with antimatter ammo. (100.8/5.25) (6800) = W (19.2)(6800)= 130560 Weapon score. Tracking of .1
Heavy Pulse Laser II: (3.6 x 24 / 5.25) (6000+4000) again 6000 not 12000 due to the -50% you get from multispectral ammo. (86.4 / 5.25) (10000) (16.4)(10000) = 164000 Weapon score Tracking of 0.08125
DPS: 19.2, 16.4, and 14.784 blasters have more DPS over pulse lasers by 17%, and 31% over auto cannons. Blasters should have much more damage over any other weapon type.
Range: (optimal + falloff) Auto cannons have the best range over all but itÆs not by much. The range advantage is only 800m longer then lasers and a whopping 4000m longer then blasters. Optimal: Pulse Lasers have a huge advantage on optimal. Pulse lasers have a 6000m optimal apposed to the 1800m of blasters and the 1200m of auto cannons.
Optimal: Pulse Lasers have a huge advantage on optimal. Pulse lasers have a 6000m optimal apposed to the 1800m of blasters and the 1200m of auto cannons. Fall off: No surprise here as Auto cannons have the best fall with 9600m, thatÆs 4600m better then blasters and 5600 better then lasers.
Tracking: Right now Projectiles have the longest range with the best tracking. (nerf?) Blasters have the lest range but place second in tracking. Blasters need as much tracking as they can get due to there extremely limited range. Lasers have almost the same range as projectiles but the worst tracking. Bump blasters to have better tracking then all there better ranged counterparts to make up for there low range. As range goes down tracking should go up. Not the other way round like projectiles have now.
Tech 2 ammo: Right now Scorch is the king of tech two ammo. A Medium Pulse Laser with scorch ammo has a weapons score of 331885. The closest any other turret can get to that score using tech two ammo is the 425mm auto cannon loaded with barrage. Even with barrage the Autocannon is only at 196504 for a score. The best blasters can do is 184800. All tech two turret ammo makes you take a hit on tracking but that hit effects lasers the worst and blasters the most. Scorch gives a 50% bonus to range. The longer the range the less you need to track things do to there slower transverse velocity. Tech two ammo in blasters make not since what so ever as you will never hit anything up closeà there up close weapons. I have some ideas to fix this but I donÆt want to do the maths.
So Hybrids have the worst score when compared with Tech 1 or tech 2 ammo. Here are a few examples of why blasters need a buff. The Optimal of lasers is almost longer then the optimal+ fall off of blasters. The 425mm guns have the longest range over all and the best tracking of the entire group there for will almost always hit. In pvp all other weapon types would be able to hit a blaster boat for at least 4K before it was in range. Then once it is finaly in range the blaster boat might not be able to hit anything as its tracking is bad. (This makes for a ship that canÆt hit what it shots at even after itÆs flown though being shot at for 8-9k :(
|
|
Arnold Predator
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.09.11 05:11:00 -
[471]
Edited by: Arnold Predator on 11/09/2010 05:12:46 Here is my solution to bring medium blasters in line with the other turret types. This is just some thoughts I have had on the subject and the maths I have used.
In order to find out whatÆs needed to fix blasters lets look at the numbers. Blasters have the worst score of 130560, pulse lasers the best of 164000. A hybrid turret is a mix of laser (all power) and projectile (only bullet) weapon. A laser weapon is more advanced then a hybrid turret and much more advanced then a projectile one. It would make since to me at least that lasers would have the most advantages over the other two so it makes since that it have the highest over all score. A Projectile weapon should have the lowest score due to its simplistic nature. There for a Hybrid weapon should be right between both.
Right now it stands that projectiles have a weapons score of 159667.2, hybrids have a score of 130560 and lasers are at 164000. I see a problem with that hybrid hole.
So if my logic is right the new numbers should be more along the lines of 159667.2 for projectiles, 162000 for Hybrids, and 164000 for lasers.
In order to bring hybrids (in this case blasters) up to the that new number lets work the equations a little bit. In order to get a score of 162000 we need to decide what we want to change in order to bring that number up. Seeing as most of the people on the forums say that the range needs to stay the same and damage just needs to go up so lets us that. The damage out put needs to be adjusted.
So to find the new damage a neutron blaster needs to have to reach our goal we need to take that goal and divide it by the range. So 162000/6800= 23.823529411 so lets call it 23.825 because everyone likes round numbers.
Now 23.825 is the new base DPS a neutron blaster does after the buff. That 145% more then the 16.4dps of lasers not the 117% it was before. This is more inline with there lack of range and fixes the problem of lasers giving most of the benefit of blasters but with 3 times the optimal + extra range to boot. Blasters would now be extremely deadly at there extremely close range as they were intended.
How does that extra DPS turn into an easy buff for ccp to implement? Well there are a few options to pick from. Either buff the ammo so that it hurts more, or buff the guns themselves. A buff to ammo would have to include all the ammo types and not just one. That would mean changing each ammo type to do more damage.
This makes more work then needed. A better, easier way would be to buff the guns themselves. Change the damage modifier on blasters to give them the extra damage they need and all you have to do is adjust the numbers in there description.
To find out how much of a change needs to happen lets do some more maths. We have the DPS we want them to shot for (pun not intended) of 23.825. We know that DPS is damage modifier times (D) by highest ammo damage (h) then divided by rate of fire. (R) So: (D x H) / R = DPS
So that turns into: (D x 24)/5.25 = 23.825
Or to rework that to what we need it for
(23.825 x 5.25)/ 24 = D 125.08125/24=D
5.21171875= D or to round that 5.2114 (I worked the numbers and 5.2114 works best if you round)
So we now have all the numbers to re-run the weapons score equation.
(5.2114x24)/5.25) x (1800+5000) = Weapons score (23.824)(6800)= W
The new weapons score would be 162003.2 not bad for all the rounding I did.
What needs to happen to fix blasters is the damage modifier gets adjusted from 4.2 TO 5.2114 and add a little bit to trackingà say 25% more to go with the 25%ish more damage. Blasters would now be useful again as they would have the best damage, the shortest range, and the tracking to (for once) hit something. How hard was that?
As I type this as my character is cross training for lasers and amarr ships to fit them too. Untill Blasters get fixedà I donÆt have much choice if I want to pvp.
|
Spugg Galdon
|
Posted - 2010.09.11 10:17:00 -
[472]
I think we need to be careful about giving blasters a massive damage boost. Although this may work and balance out the disparity between the weapons systems, the problem of fights becoming very short due to massive dps is likely to occur.
There needs to be a rebalance of effective DPS amongst the weapons systems. This may mean a slight nerf to the effective dps of both lasers and projectiles along with a slight buff to blaster dps. Also, the fix probably needs to have something more than just damage and tracking. How about a rework of the current ammo
The current ammo for hybrids offers little choice. You either have lots of damage at close range or not much damage at long range. All the ammo inbetween offers is slight changes in range and the odd bonus to capacitor usage. Meaning they have no real value and is the reason why almost everyone just uses antimatter and iron.
What if, like projectiles, we give hybrids some variation in ammo. I don't mean changing damage types but I mean to give hybrids some real options for ammo types to use. For example, a damage type that offers a tracking bonus but has a drawback of range reduction and low damage output. One type of high damage ammo that does massive shield damage but low armour damage and a one that does the opposite (base shield/armour damage). I'll set some examples up in another post so that this doesn't become a wall of text.
|
Scandal Caulker
|
Posted - 2010.09.11 11:13:00 -
[473]
Edited by: Scandal Caulker on 11/09/2010 11:16:25 Proposal for ammo changes (1st draft)
Antimatter currently: offers high damage and -50% range. very similar base shield/armour damage Change: increase base shield damage and lower base armour damage to a ratio of 4:1
Plutonium Currently: offers slightly less DPS than AM but with a -37.5% range bonus & -5% cap usage Change: Increase damage out put to the same as AM but have much higher base armour damage than shields. Ratio of 4:1 again. Increase range drawback to -50% & remove 5% cap bonus
Uranium Currently: offers slightly less DPS than plutonium with a -25% range bonus and -8% cap usage Change: Remove range bonus. Add -50% damage bonus with a +50% ROF Bonus
Thorium Currently: offers slightly less DPS than Uranium with a -12.5% range and -40% cap usage. Change: remove -40% cap usage bonus. Add 50% tracking bonus. Add -75% range bonus.
Lead Currently: offers less DPS than thorium but with no range bonus but a 50% cap usage bonus. Change: Increase Cap usage bonus to -75% (maybe even higher)
Iridium Currently: offers less damage than lead with +20% range bonus and -24% cap usage Change: 25% range bonus -25% cap usage
Tungsten Currently: offers less damage than iridium with +40% range and -27% cap usage bonuses Change: Remove cap bonus. Add +50% damage bonus with -50% ROF. Keep +40% range
Iron Currently: offers less dps than tungston with +60% range and -30% cap Change: no change
Void Currently: offers heavy (Blaster) damage with -25% optimal -50% falloff -50% tracking +25% cap usage Change: Remove -50% tracking add +20% ROF and +100% cap usage
Javelin Currently: offers Heavy (Failgun) damage with -75% optimal -75% tracking -10% ship velocity Change: remove -10% ship velocity. Add +75% damage -75% ROF. Lower optimal and tracking penalty to -50%
Null Currently: offers 75% the damage of Void with +25% optimal and +25% falloff and -25% tracking Change: Increase optimal bonus to +30% and falloff to +40% with +25% cap usage and keep -25% tracking
Spike Currently: offers +80% optimal with -75% tracking Change: add +20% falloff
How does that sound? Any suggestions?
|
Arnold Predator
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.09.11 11:46:00 -
[474]
Edited by: Arnold Predator on 11/09/2010 11:48:17 My concern is that blasters would just feel like auto cannons but with even less range if you could switch damage types. That's a very big projectile trait to be giving to hybrids. Fail guns would just be faster firing artillery canons. Yes the idea is sound that it would re balance hybrids and make them better but to me it sounds like I would be trading my hybrid weapons for projectile ones that now require cap to use. No thanks.
By giving a dps and tracking bump the ranges stay the same as b4 and hybrids can now hit other people. The trick that keeps the balance is the range of both lasers and auto cannons. yes a blaster boat will have way more damage then the other two types but the other two types will be able to shot said blaster boat way before he can shoot back. If your dumb enough to get in close to a blaster boat... your dead, end of story. you also have to take into account that most other ships are faster then gellente ships. So not only do they have longer firing range but they can also keep there target at that range better. look at the numbers for scorch ammo.. they get a 50% range bonus.... a blaster boat would get hit from way, way beyond he range and would have to burn though the incoming fire just to get to range. I think that once he gets there he should get to ****face for all the work he did just to get there.... don't you.
Lets say i have to micro at 1000ms for 15k to a target to get him in my range. (optimal+falloff) If the other guy is shooting me for 500 dps during that 15 seconds that means i get hit for 15000 dps before i get in range and can even start to fight back. Thats 15000 dps advantage over when i start shooting back... that's huge. That's also assuming the other guy is at a stand still. If he is flying away from me even a little bit the dps advantage just gets bigger. If he is faster then me... i can never get him unless i get help to slow him down...
By giving blasters such a huge boost in dmg and tracking they become great in a fleet. they are the guys that keep frigs at bay when there not being used as the big in your face damage dealer of the gang once they get tackle on the target. if you ran into a blaster boat all by him self it would still be easy to kill him as all you would have to do is pound him from beyond his range.
|
Scandal Caulker
|
Posted - 2010.09.11 14:17:00 -
[475]
I wasn't suggesting a change in damage types. I was suggesting a change in how the ammo could give very different bonuses. Hybrids would still only deal thermal and kinetic damage but for example, antimatter would deal alot more damage to shields and plutonium a lot more damage to armour. A different ammo type can offer very high tracking and another very high ROF or high alpha with low ROF. One could offer very high falloff where another could offer very high optimal.
|
Jack Icegaard
The Omega Project
|
Posted - 2010.09.11 14:47:00 -
[476]
Originally by: Arnold Predator
(D X H / F) * (O+A) = W
D = Dmg mod, H = Highest dmg ammo, F = fire rate in seconds, O = Optimal and A = fAlloff, W= Weapon score ...
While I agree with the sentiment that Hybrids needs a boost, I have to point out that your weapon score formula have some major flaws.
1.DPS have the same weight as (optimal + falloff). 2.Optimal have the same weight as falloff. 3.Tracking speed is not a part of the formula 4.Other utilities of the turrets such as reload time and cap-drainage are not accounted for.
When the highest tier medium railgun scores 250% higher than the medium blaster perhaps that should give you a hint that your formula is not a very accurate tool to evaluate weapons? Or could we perhaps just give railgun-stats to blasters and all of a sudden they are very good?
Posting stuff like this to try to promote a Hybrids buff will likely just be contra productive.
|
Astroka
|
Posted - 2010.09.11 18:55:00 -
[477]
Originally by: Arnold Predator Edited by: Arnold Predator on 11/09/2010 11:48:17 Lets say i have to micro at 1000ms for 15k to a target to get him in my range. (optimal+falloff) If the other guy is shooting me for 500 dps during that 15 seconds that means i get hit for 15000 dps before i get in range and can even start to fight back.
You would have been hit for 7500 damage, not 15000 dps.
|
Arnold Predator
Special Situations
|
Posted - 2010.09.12 02:18:00 -
[478]
Edited by: Arnold Predator on 12/09/2010 02:18:57
Originally by: Jack Icegaard Edited by: Jack Icegaard on 11/09/2010 15:31:36
Originally by: Arnold Predator
(D X H / F) * (O+A) = W
D = Dmg mod, H = Highest dmg ammo, F = fire rate in seconds, O = Optimal and A = fAlloff, W= Weapon score ...
While I agree with the sentiment that Hybrids needs a boost, I have to point out that your weapon score formula have some major flaws.
1.DPS have the same weight as (optimal + falloff). 2.Optimal have the same weight as falloff. 3.Tracking speed is not a part of the formula 4.Other utilities of the turrets such as reload time and cap-drainage are not accounted for.
When the highest tier medium railgun scores 150% higher than the medium blaster perhaps that should give you a hint that your formula is not a very accurate tool to evaluate weapons? Or could we perhaps just give railgun-stats to blasters and all of a sudden they are very good?
Posting stuff like this to try to promote a Hybrids buff will likely just be contra productive.
Got a better way of ranking weapons then? If so please post it. I agree that the way I was using is not absolutly the best or only way to rank stuff in eve... I just don't know of any other way.
Please if someone else has a better way to rank weapons...post it.
About changing ammo. i agree with you now.. that does sound like a good idea... I thought you were also talking about changing damage types as well. My bad... I was real tired when reading your post.
|
Kvo Vadis
|
Posted - 2010.09.12 10:26:00 -
[479]
Originally by: Jack Icegaard
... the weapon score formula have some major flaws.
1.DPS have the same weight as (optimal + falloff). 2.Optimal have the same weight as falloff. 3.Tracking speed is not a part of the formula 4.Other utilities of the turrets such as reload time and cap-drainage are not accounted for. ... Posting stuff like this to try to promote a Hybrids buff will likely just be contra productive.
It is very difficult to count all factors. For example how can we consider damage type in a formula? Projectiles can adjust damage according a target. It means that real DPS is much higher. How can we consider fitting requirements in a formula? For example AC has tiny PG requirements. It gives big advantage in fitting. The formula does not consider all factors. It is simplified model. But it illustrates common blaster problems very clearly P.S. +1
|
The Djego
Minmatar Hellequin Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.09.12 13:11:00 -
[480]
Edited by: The Djego on 12/09/2010 13:14:51
Originally by: Fettered Soul
Originally by: mazzilliu i honestly dont remember if this has been raised yet by a csm but i raised this anyways for the next meeting, and if it's a duplicate i can just cancel it.
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Fix_blasters_%28CSM%29
Could you change "Potential Solution". Increasing range for blasters brake its tactical distinction. Please add second Potential Solution: "Increasing DPS and tracking" Pulse Lasers = good DPS at insane range AC = good DPS (using adjustable damage type) at medium range. Good tracking. Blasters = should have EXTREME DPS with EXTREME tracking at VERY CLOSE range (leave range as is).
Increasing range for blasters is creating second "Pulse Blaser" P.S. as for now Blasters does not have EXTREME DPS (Lasers do 85% blaster damage at 300% range) and EXTREME tracking (AC have almost the same)
+1 here
In general I miss the old days and ways to engage in blaster combat. Where working with a platform that forces a target to point blank pvp did mean something else than flying a slow brick and running into tracking issues, just to perform as bad as anything else at this range.
I don't see a huge need of yet another med range gun, however I feel the lack of a true heavy hitter at point blank that is a lot less effected by the "lets make web range less deadly" mindset that was introduced with QR.
---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 .. 26 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |