|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Chi Quan
Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.08.05 22:53:00 -
[1]
Originally by: Liang Nuren ... Mega has a 66.663860% chance to hit at 10000 meters Mega has a 20.416192% chance to hit at 11000 meters Mega has a 24.000134% chance to hit at 12000 meters ...
wth? chance to hit drops from 66% to 20% (a total of 40%! in 1km) and goes back up ?????? something broken here? ---- You don't have to like it - I don't blame you for not liking it. |
Chi Quan
Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.08.05 23:37:00 -
[2]
webs, i noticed, i was too shocked at that moment. still, the numbers stay bad. from the first moment i tested blasterboats on sisi, i had the feeling they need more tracking. the numbers just shock me. ---- You don't have to like it - I don't blame you for not liking it. |
Chi Quan
Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 19:06:00 -
[3]
you know what's sad? i wanted to make a nice chart damage-done:target-speed to have more arguments that blaster boats need some attention, but i realized that ccp already knows this but unfortunately has nothing to comment. ---- You don't have to like it - I don't blame you for not liking it. |
Chi Quan
Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.10.22 18:07:00 -
[4]
back to what needs resolving: tracking on blasters and getting in range to use them. any amarr fanboys not flying blaster ships should stay away from this thread as they have no argument against the raised topics (and i dug through the entire 29 pages of it)
raise the tracking on blasters and make mwds give an agility boost for the FIRST FEW SECONDS of activation, but still have the mass addition afterwards, thus enabling a quick getting up to speed and preventing any tight orbits. you ccp guys work out the numbers, as that's what you are here for. these are the only things that need fixing, no slots, no falloff (ridiculous, blasters an falloff) no amarr honor and no cap. ---- You don't have to like it - I don't blame you for not liking it. |
Chi Quan
Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.11.05 18:45:00 -
[5]
Originally by: sdthujfg Just reporting in that sisi is still full of whiners.
dude, your name. get at least a bit creative namewise when you post with a throw-way-alt. ---- You don't have to like it - I don't blame you for not liking it. |
Chi Quan
Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.11.08 12:52:00 -
[6]
i'm going to wait out how the game changes when QR hits TQ, but i don't have much hope.
WHY WERE BLASTERS COLLATERAL DAMAGE WHEN YOU WANTED TO BALANCE RIDICULOUS SPEED CCP ?? answer that! ---- You don't have to like it - I don't blame you for not liking it. |
Chi Quan
Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.11.08 19:47:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Cpt Branko ...
post with your main Nozh ---- You don't have to like it - I don't blame you for not liking it. |
Chi Quan
Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.11.12 19:59:00 -
[8]
nope, all blaster pilots either trained amarr or quit (and i'm not being sarcastic with this) ---- Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love |
Chi Quan
Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.11.13 19:13:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Bad Borris Dominix, ishtar, ishkur. Basically the drones boats.
i should warn you that a dev said they were looking at the ishtar as it seemed overpowered to them (some devblog, cbatliu) ---- Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love |
Chi Quan
Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.11.16 00:20:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Amarr Holymight I was long aware of this problem by merely using the DPS graph on EFT and obviously yes it's more exploitable now with webs only 60% power, I never had an argument against this. My main argument is that it isn't just blasters that are suffering it's all large turrets and this needs to be looked at. I mean you would gain more support for a fix so what I'm saying is you're doing it wrong. & before you say yes obviously I understand blasters/ac users suffer more cause we operate mainly at these ranges.
no offense here, but just leave EFT out of the equation (i'm just glad you finally realized it) this thread is for blasters because on them the effect is very pronounced. we have tried normal reason from day one when the changes were on sisi, yet to no avail. the tone gets desperate over 33+ pages saying the same things over and over again. every few pages someone comes by that is fervently claiming that blasters are fine without flying them. most blaster pilots here don't claim to know about things they don't fly hence little mentioning about ACs, yet the constant "blasters are fine, you are just whining" drives some of us mad, especially when the devs seem to not care. there were also threads about ACs, you should be able to find them further down. |
|
Chi Quan
Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.11.19 21:05:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Chi Quan on 19/11/2008 21:05:19
Originally by: Rogerano So if Null wasn't pre-nerfed by emo-rage-posters, it would provide a similar benefit, yes?
And yeah, I didn't mean "if the ishkur was at the hpl optimal", I meant "if the ishkur was orbiting at 500m".
Blasters aren't dead, they just smell bad on account of all the bull**** in this thread.
dude, your sense of reality... |
Chi Quan
Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 23:19:00 -
[12]
come on ccp say something more than just "personally i think blaster ships would be better in QR" what should the role of such ships be? do they need further looking into to fulfill this role?
come on! |
Chi Quan
Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.11.21 18:01:00 -
[13]
Originally by: sdthujfg Sorry, you're just wrong.
A heavy neut does disrupt even an injected BC. You obviously have never faced a single BS neut in a BC. Don't talk about things you have no clue about.
1-2 mwd pulses to get to 500m? Ok you are not making a fair comparison (why am I not surprised, all the other data is exaggerated and faulty as well). You assume the BC fits a scram while the BS fits a disruptor? Sorry but if you're going to compare them either fit both with disruptor or both with scram. Neither will fit an AB realistically either.
Are you even remotely familiar with the hp of ogre IIs with high skills?
I'd be glad to face your BC in a mega on tranq and steamroll over your face to shut you up.
mega != domi mega != curse/pilgrim
that 4. mid you so want to put your cap booster into is already fitted with a 2. web (or tracking comp) -- whoops what about the blaster ships that don't have a 4. mid and can't use heavy drones? like the thorax and the deimos?
if the BS fits a neut and both fit scrams/disruptors, why shouldn't the BC fit a nos or neut itself as well? it would be all the more effective.
why is it so hard to believe that if you are fighting at the terms of the mega and still win (often and by a big margin i should add), it's broken? how about an arazu being able to own a curse with neuts/nos? still fine?
why is a web mandatory for blasters to be even half way usable? i see nothing like that for pulses or short range missiles, not to mention long range guns. ---- Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love |
Chi Quan
Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.11.23 19:08:00 -
[14]
that BC vs mega example is so laughable. do you talk about a Brutix? because i cant figure out another BC that would willingly enter large blaster range and still STAY THERE. |
Chi Quan
Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 19:16:00 -
[15]
Originally by: van Uber All short-range BS share the disadvantage that blasters have, ie they trade range for dps. It they may not share the exact same statistics, but they share the same concept.
And yes of course you will lose dps if you remove a turret, but it is traded for something else. It's not like the dps vanishes in thin air and you do not get anything else for it. A Hyperion comes worse of than a Mega in this case, it has to trade more dps than the Mega for dual Neuts, granted. But focusing on the Mega, it has still a very respectable dps, even with two neuts AND the ability to suck 1200 cap per cycle.
Relative to other, close range BS, that is not sucky.
the _concept_ is not flawed, none here argued about the concept. on the contrary we say in order to fit into this concept, certain changes are necessary, because as of now blasters don't live up to the concept. fitting a nos(or 5 of them) won't help blasters track better or reduce the targets speed to make a difference. in case you need proof, somewhere in the first 8 pages of this thread a fully skilled mega pilot + traking implant (that's _3_ unstacked bonuses: skills, ship, implant) could not hit a _WEBBED CRUISER WITHOUT FITTING_.
let me point it out once again: FULL SKILLS, SHIP BONUSES, IMPLANT, WEBBED + NO FITTING ON TARGET => ZERO HITS
what good do those noses/neuts do in such a situation? ---- Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love |
Chi Quan
Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 22:02:00 -
[16]
Originally by: van Uber
Originally by: Chi Quan
what good do those noses/neuts do in such a situation?
Shutting down Afterburner/MWD, active tank and any weapon system running on cap, to name a few. I would consider that helpful.
1. reading skills not trained up i guess... that cruiser had NO FITTING, so NO AFTERBURNER/MWD to shut down 2. a nos/neut domi is _much_ better at this 3. 50% of all close range weapons systems in this game need no cap 4. no blaster ship attribute makes ANY suggestion that it is meant to be used with nos/neuts ---- Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love |
Chi Quan
Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.11.26 21:37:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Chi Quan on 26/11/2008 21:40:26
Originally by: Goumindong ...
really Goumindong, i expected better from you. it was you who said "range is damage". the context was pulse lasers vs blasters.
- "Orbit" produces the highest possible transverse velocities over an entire fight.
very true, now tell me how is a bs supposed to orbit a cruiser (or any ship class against the next smaller one)? or even dictate range against one. the answer is simple: dualweb + scram. it means simply that those 3 modules are mandatory for a blasterboat. put the MWD/Ab in there and you have 4 mandatory modules just to make those guns work (note: not excel), ...the cruisers only have 3 mids.
- Its learning to fly your ship like everyone else has had to forever.
we did, until someppl used nano. now, AFTER nano has been fixed our blasters are still in the same situation. further, you may agree that it should be harder to kill a close range fit at close range. generally you want to outtrack long range guns and outrange close range ones. against blasters, BOTH things work.
- Then again, you should not be approaching ships that are smaller than you. it's stupid, don't do it.
so a provided warpin is mandatory as well? wow, how am i going to fit that one, it takes a lot of cpu, you know... sarcasm aside, you can't dictate range against a smaller ship. you just realisically can't. you can also assume everybody who fits t2 large blasters to have enough experience in flying blaster boats. it takes a long time to train for them, so there's plenty of time for practice. we know exactly that we HAVE to close in order to apply our drones and damage properly.
- The other day, I was on Sisi...
how far away was the Zealot when it aggressed?(in other words, how much time or distance did it have to travel to get to you?) what is this example supposed to show? that medium lases can hit medium targets? that you know how to reduce tracking? that you could have switched ammo in an instant if you wanted? what does that have to do with blasters?
- 1. No, they do not tank better than you - 2. They are typically fitting passive tanks rather than active tanks.
so according to this entire thread i am supposed to fit a (large) repper in the low, nos in my highs and 5 to 6 mids. i also have to rely on the enemy being utterly stupid, on my drones getting the domi's bonus to hp and on my gangmates. come again? ---- Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love |
Chi Quan
Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.11.30 20:58:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Goumindong I would recommend blaster battleships for solo/small gang combat in empire and low-sec.
could you be a bit more specific? small mega gang vs 1 XXX ? 1 mega vs small gang of XXX? small mega gang vs small mega gang? 1 mega vs XXX ?
Originally by: amarr faction ...there are no numbers in this thread...
fine, what numbers do you miss? i will try to provide them (if the ones here are not enough). do you want a specific combat situation? sure, name it. as long as you except gamelogs, EFT numbers and naughtyboy's spreadsheet, i will try to provide it as far as my RL schedule allows it.
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Originally by: Theron Gyrow Ok, I'll bite. Goumindong, in which case would you recommend that people train for a blaster BS? What should that pilot want to do that that would make sense?
A well flown hype or mega can rip a small gang of T1 cruisers/BCs apart. They are also excellent low sec pirate ships with good active tank.
that is definitely something we can work on. can we however agree that we should NOT put blasterships against each other as it would be not representative for faulty blasters? ---- Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love |
Chi Quan
Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.11.30 21:03:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Chi Quan on 30/11/2008 21:04:25
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Fit ecm burst?
contrary to common belief, non-amarr ships also have a limited ammount of med slots.
Edit: dam Djego beat me on this. ---- Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love |
Chi Quan
Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 22:08:00 -
[20]
so the discussion has moved to the other thread ? how sad. fixing lasers won't make blasters suck less. ---- Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love |
|
Chi Quan
Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 18:41:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Maybe if larger ships are workable solo/small gang in 0.0 I might just give up pirating all together. Getting really sick of being told what my PVP experience is/should be like by people who don't do it themselves. CCP obviously doesn't give a f#ck about lowsec pilots.
'all a secret plan to boost low sec |
Chi Quan
Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.12.15 20:04:00 -
[22]
sure, it's called wingman in a hic. ---- Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love |
Chi Quan
Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.01.24 15:16:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Chi Quan on 24/01/2009 15:19:57
Originally by: fuxinos Large Blasters are meant not to PWN Cruisers or Frigits all the way.
A Torpraven can't hit a Cruiser for much damage either with 1 TP, so......., why should Blaster?
The only issue I can see with Blasters is the small range, maybe a little damage/range trade would help.
1) large blasters can't hit AT ALL against frigates and only marginally against cruisers (if you have a mega with it's tracking bonus, your target is webbed and you are using higher tracking blasters) 2) a cruiser or frigate can still maneuver very well even if webbed, if the pilot cant outmaneuver a close range bs in a frig/cruiser than he should die (which currently is not the case) 3) you can apply your wonderful torp damage with only _1_ painter (a blaster ship needs a web[sometimes 2], mwd and a cap booster[except the thorax maybe], that's 3 mods) 4) a weapon system designed for solo combat should stand out in solo combat, so it SHOULD indeed deal better with smaller sized stuff (i'm so waiting for Goum to come and tell me about drones here) 5) pure eft-dps is nothing if you get to gang combat. take this exemple: a pure small size blaster bs fleet lands on top of a similarly sized cruiser fleet(which btw requires a warpin, but we will just pretend the bs are always lucky with the warpin), if those cruisers spread out, there is no way for the blaster bs to kill off more than one or two, before the cruisers get out of range and start to rangetank the bs, slowly killing them off (hey, they are bs, don't expect them to pop in one volley). this still stands true if you increase blaster tracking by 100% (except when the the cruisers are blasterships themselves), because due to the limited range of blasters, they won't be able to bring their dps to the target. now replace the blaster bs fleet with a pulse laser bs fleet. said fleet would own the cruisers. period. no way to get out of range, no way to outtrack multiple ships. the larger the numbers, the more devastating for the cruisers.
i'll leave the conclusions to you. edit: spelling |
Chi Quan
Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.01.28 19:29:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Chi Quan on 28/01/2009 19:37:47 don't forget the ships in the tournament all have one mid free, because they don't need to fit against warping out. those megas WERE ALREADY SITTING ON TOP of their enemy (what equals a wtz). plus idle empire, lived up to their name and were just plain idle, no maneuvering.
edit: Pulse lasers in action |
Chi Quan
Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.02.02 16:11:00 -
[25]
to offset the web changes, they'd need to boost tracking by about 100-200% at least. (mathematically, since the 90% webs are now 60%, they would need to boost tracking by 400%) ---- Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love |
Chi Quan
Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.02.04 20:23:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Haniblecter Teg VOID??
Void?
void?
Yea, you're a newb, a newb with T2 larges.
Faction ammo homeboy. Use it.
well maybe he/she is like most of us: a little concerned about burning isk. seriously, bunkerbusting is the ONE AND ONLY eligible instance for void to exist. using navy ammo for a bunker is seriously just casting pearls before swine. |
Chi Quan
Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.02.07 12:19:00 -
[27]
hmmm.... what if every fitted blaster gave a bonus to web strength? say (numbers totally pulled out of my behind) 2% per blaster (non stacking) as long as they are online and active? |
Chi Quan
Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.02.12 19:13:00 -
[28]
fear not, i just wanted the whole tq craziness to pass before further pushing the issue. no sense in keeping it up atm since it drowns in the t3-flood. ---- Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love |
Chi Quan
Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.03.11 19:10:00 -
[29]
now back to the original issues ---- Ceterum censeo blasters need some tracking love |
|
|
|