|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.17 03:18:00 -
[1]
Originally by: Gavin Darklighter If this web nerf goes live and solo-bs piloting dies, it will be the end of my subscriptions. I don't like camping. I don't like nano-***ging. I don't like blobbing. I like solo and small gang combat in low-sec, and if I can't tackle anything by myself there is no reason for me to play anymore.
Wait, what can't you tackle by yourself solo?
1. Your blaster mega attacks a geddon. Wait if he can get under your guns then you're WAY below his guns. If he wants to kill you, he has to slow down aswell. Besides, generally the BS speeds are too low while webbed even with the changes to make blasters miss a BS.
2. Oh you want to kill smaller stuff? Ok what you want is that only blaster megas should be viable BS to solo in? I mean its not like blaster mega will be missing webbed targets solo while geddons are blasting cruisers to bits solo.
3. If you want to make BS turrets hit everything down to cruisers while webbed then make it so for all turret battleships. Why should the raven and blaster megas be the only ones being able to solo stuff smaller then battleships?
4. Or we can just agree on that BS shouldnt be THE solopwnmobiles they have been for a long time. Maybe some people will bring out their commandships and cruisers instead for soloing. Ships that can get under the guns of battleships but still able to hit cruisers.
5. If there is a huge problem with blasters in particular ccp will look at it. Its not like they totally ignored missiles velocity with the new changes. They have been tweaking that for weeks now, why should they totally ignore blasters if there was a HUGE problem making your whole race obsolete?
6. Calm down, less emo is good. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.17 04:27:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 17/10/2008 04:36:23
Originally by: Strill
You might also wanna look at the posts which show how pulse lasers can track targets traveling at up to 810m/s at their optimal range while blasters can only track targets traveling at up to 311m/s at their optimal.
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=834365&page=11#313
Actually that is totally wrong. Large pulses with multifrequency has the same max hit chance on a cruiser as a large blaster with antimatter at their respective "optimal" (its not the optimal because the best hit chance is slightly above always.) ranges. Oh let me hint you on a secret why that link is utter bull. Because it ignores the large fall off blasters have compared to pulses. Wrong math. Fail.
You want me to give you the numbers or you want to check it out one more time in tracking guide before making this claim? ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.17 04:50:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 17/10/2008 04:53:09
Originally by: Strill
I checked it on my own spreadsheet and on the tracking guide and I consistently get results supporting the idea that pulse lasers hit cruisers better at both optimal and optimal+falloff.
But you're still calculating it wrong! You don't understand the hit formula just like the guy in the link. What is important is not comparing guns hit chance at their respective optimals or optimal+fall off but to determine WHAT the MAX HIT chance on a target is. If that chance is the same for both turrets they are range vs tracking balanced.
Comparing turrets in their optimal or optimal+falloff will NOT give you a fair comparison in range vs tracking balance.
What you do is this:
1. Fit a standard blaster mega with neutrons. Fit antimatter. (yes it is fair to fit a mega because blasters get tracking that is their racial bonus, just like you would add the cap bonus of amarr ships to their guns obviously when comparing cap use of lasers.) 2. Fit a standard geddon with mega pulses. Fit multifrq. 3. Put both guns in tracking guide. 4. Let them shoot at a cruiser, with standard sig rad and speed. 5. Observe their max hit chance. 6. Is it close? Then they are balanced 7. Even at same max hit chance the blasters have slight advantage because the speed at tighter orbit is less then the speed at higher, generally. 8. Collect insight of this thread being way more emo then it needs to be.
The only justified whine is that ravens can hit BS without problems. On the other hand if you have tried the missiles on sisi you'd know that a ravens torps wont do shit against stuff smaller then a BS if they have their mwd turned off. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.17 05:24:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 17/10/2008 05:25:14
Originally by: Strill Edited by: Strill on 17/10/2008 04:59:33 Oh ok I see what you did. They're the same if you take into account the Megathron's tracking bonus. I was just comparing the pulse lasers and blasters with no bonuses in which case the pulse lasers are way ahead.
Yeah, question is how to look at the problem. Gun + ships or only guns. Then I'd have to say that blasters are way ahead of pulses when it comes to cap use if you look at the numbers.
Nevertheless, ccp will look into it if there are serious issues. They adjusted missiles to the new patch. They have even said they will be looking at it. Have some faith. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.17 05:41:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Gavin Darklighter
I fly a maelstrom solo, not a mega. My problem isn't with blasters sucking in the upcoming patch, but ALL short range large turrets.
And yes, I think a short range battleship should have no problem hitting a webbed cruiser. If the cruiser doesn't want me to track him, he can, you know, NOT get webbed; or maybe fit a tracking disruptor?
THE SINGLE BIGGEST ISSUE I have with this web nerf is that it does NOTHING to the ability of a battleship gang to hit a small target, it only nerfs the ability of the INDIVIDUAL. I don't want to fly in a gang, I want to fight a gang; this web nerf will hurt people who enjoy a little 1 vs X.
And as for battleships being WTFPWN, well, thats their role. They have all kinds of drawbacks like cost, SP requirements, size, scan res, speed, agility, ect.... A battleship can be chased and caught easily by anything smaller than it, and a battleship has little ability to catch things smaller than it. The BS has no contempt of engagement. If you ask me, it should be the king within web range. There are PLENTY of ways smaller stuff can kill a BS, we don't need to add a complete lack of tracking cruisers to the list.
Yes there are issues with turrets if it is not carefully balanced obviously. But I think we are moving in the right direction where web are not ON/OFF switches. Right now they are and many of us would like to see a more dynamic pewpew even within web range. I think they should definately go ahead with the nerfs but ofcourse adjust tracking as needed compared to how missiles work for example. If a raven can bbq a cruiser then so should a turret bs with web. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.17 06:00:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Gavin Darklighter Webs aren't an on/off switch when you are only hit by one. A tempest with the 90% webs can get under neutrons with an afterburner and a TD. Cruisers can do this much easier and without the AB. If you are dual webbed however, you aren't going anywhere.
90% webs = pre web/nano nerf = no one uses AB in pvp = tempests arent getting under neutrons. A single web is pretty much an on off switch. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.17 14:45:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Gavin Darklighter Edited by: Gavin Darklighter on 17/10/2008 06:17:38
A tempest fit for it can get under a mega's guns for the kill, but in a gang environment the megas will win. That is why no one fits AB, they work in one role but will get you killed in real eve combat.
Yes and we are talking about real eve combat right? It is quite pointless to discuss situations that never occur. So your AB example is quite a useless example and doesn't make a point at all. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.17 19:58:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Gabriel Karade There is nothing wrong with Grytok's 'math'. He posted the velocity at which 50% hit chance occurs at optimal (Neutrons 311/Pulses 810), optimal plus falloff (Neutrons 745/Pulses 1080) and the numbers are spot on for base tracking/optimal range/falloff range for Neutron Blaster II's vs Megapulse II's.
Uhm what? Did you even READ what I said? YOU CAN NOT COMPARE TURRETS TRACKING_VS_RANGE BALANCE BY COMPARING THEIR HIT CHANCE IN OPTIMALS. YOU CAN ONLY DO THIS COMPARISON IF BOTH GUNS HAVE SAME FALL OFF. THEY DONT. THEREFOR ALL THOSE CALCULATIONS ARE FAIL. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.18 10:50:00 -
[9]
Blaster mega/Pulse geddon
Sig rad: 400/400 Optimal: 4500/15000 Fall off: 12500/10000 Tracking: 0.07442/0.04219
Target is a Abing BC 265 sig 400m/s speed
Result is:
1. The maximum hit chance occurs at 11.45km range for the blaster and is 57%. 2. The maximum hit chance occurs at 18.36km range for the pulse and is 61% 3. As you can clearly see the max hit chance on a weapon that has high fall off occurs much farther away from its optimal. 4. Now if you look at the graph and apply your faulty logic by comparing the hit chances in respective optimal, ie 4500m for the blaster and 15000m for the pulse, you can obviously see why this gives a totally wrong picture of the blaster performance. 5. Also take into consideration that a BC will have to have a slower transversal in a tighter orbit wich will favor the graph towards the blaster. Wich means approximately that they have the same max performance according to their range and are range_vs_tracking balanced. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.18 13:56:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Gabriel Karade
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 18/10/2008 11:06:22 Blaster mega/Pulse geddon (both using t1 short range ammo)
Sig rad: 400/400 Optimal: 4500/15000 Fall off: 12500/10000 Tracking: 0.07442/0.04219
Target is a Abing BC 265 sig 400m/s speed
Result is:
1. The maximum hit chance occurs at 11.45km range for the blaster and is 57%. 2. The maximum hit chance occurs at 18.36km range for the pulse and is 61% 3. As you can clearly see the max hit chance on a weapon that has high fall off occurs much farther away from its optimal. 4. Now if you look at the graph and apply your faulty logic by comparing the hit chances in respective optimal, ie 4500m for the blaster and 15000m for the pulse, you can obviously see why this gives a totally wrong picture of the blaster performance. 5. Also take into consideration that a BC will have to have a slower transversal in a tighter orbit wich will favor the graph towards the blaster. Wich means approximately that they have the same max performance according to their range and are range_vs_tracking balanced.
a) If you are going to use the Megathron as the example for Blasters, use the Apoc for Pulses, as the other two Blaster Battleships don't have a tracking bonus, just as the other two laser boats don't have a range bonus.
b) You are only looking at two points, if you look at the complete hit chance curve for A Neutron Blaster vs a Megapulse laser the disparity is blindingly obvious for all to see. you also refer to the falloff between the too as if there is some massive disparity, there isn't it is 25%, compared to the 330% optimal range advantage of pulse lasers.
c) There is no faulty logic, this is exactly how tracking works, and blaster performance is dire post speed changes (Pulse and Torpedos already perform too well on TQ compared to Blasters).
You're still doing it! You're still bending the truth by using faulty methods of comparison. You're saying 25% vs 330% optimal range advantage but totally ignore fall off.
When you look at the graph you linked you need to compare the AREA below each gun graph. That AREA is the turret range+tracking performance. You see that the pulses in that graph approximately have twice the area. That means that pulses in that specific case are around double overall performance compared to blasters. Not 1000+% diff like you are trying to claim. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
|
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.18 20:36:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 18/10/2008 20:42:46 Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 18/10/2008 20:41:54
Originally by: Gabriel Karade This is drifting way off again, but the short of it is, blasters are well and truly stuffed with the changes, yet pulses will still be knocking cruisers down well at their operating ranges, especially on the OTT Apocalypse. The numbers are there, the plots are there whether you choose to ignore them or not. Torpedo boats vs. cruisers? Well we'll see what the missile damage changes bring.
The only real advantage Blasters had (on TQ) over the aforementioned was solo'ing ability, that's gone, now what?...
1. You compared a 25% advantage with a 330% advantage. How many % does that make between them? ALOT.
2. Blasters go on blaster ships, ships that do not waste their mids to fit tank nor have lack of mids. Solo boats. Don't exaggerate the problem of your race and make up stuff and charts that are completely faulty to get an overpowered boost. I know this might be hard when you have been THE fotm pvp race for so long.
3. To sum up. You like your blaster ships to have perfect amounts of mids (wich they have for full tackle), and want armor tank in lows and want blasters performing just as well overall as pulses totally ignoring that pulses go on mid slot gimped ships, use up a whole ship bonus, use cap and are hard to fit. Yes that will be balanced. It's a good thing that people like you don't make "balance" graphs and decisions. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.18 22:23:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Cpt Branko Edited by: Cpt Branko on 18/10/2008 21:44:27
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
3. To sum up. You like your blaster ships to have perfect amounts of mids (wich they have for full tackle), and want armor tank in lows and want blasters performing just as well overall as pulses totally ignoring that pulses go on mid slot gimped ships, use up a whole ship bonus, use cap and are hard to fit. Yes that will be balanced. It's a good thing that people like you don't make "balance" graphs and decisions.
You mean, like a Abbadon, which can fit MWD/web/point/cap booster, just like a Mega (which fits its mids in the same order), while being 100% better?
Or, should we restrict our comparison to the geddon - which has to drop a mid (agreed) to be the premier RR BS in EVE? So, yeah, geddon drops a mid. In any gang numbering more then one person it's not important for the added awesomeness you get from it. Solo, Abbadon is infinitely better really.
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
2. Blasters go on blaster ships, ships that do not waste their mids to fit tank nor have lack of mids. Solo boats. Don't exaggerate the problem of your race and make up stuff and charts that are completely faulty to get an overpowered boost. I know this might be hard when you have been THE fotm pvp race for so long.
(a) Amarr have been FOTM PvP race for quite a while, ever since the last series of Amarr boosts. Which was quite a bit ago. (b) Gallente were FOTM only for solo combat. Since CCP decided to kill larger ship solo combat, that leaves them with what?
You're just a 'boost Amarr' troll, which is championing for boosting the most overpowered race of EVE and nerfing everything else.
1. Ok both have same mids you say. Who is more cap stable? Who has a utility high for a neut or remote rep? Who is a tier THREE BS. Right I got you: Mega needs to have same range, damage, tank as abaddon while having better cap, utility high and being a tier two BS...There is nothing wrong with the mega.
2. Just because abaddon has 4 mids doesn't mean there are other ship that have gimped midslots in the amarr fleet.
3. You're the one trolling. I just pointed out how redicilously faulty all those calculations were above. If you don't have anything to add to that then you obviously can't argue against it except saying "your face is stupid and you're a troll". ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.18 23:59:00 -
[13]
Originally by: lecrotta
Who cares both need booster to work properly.
Both have the 8/4/7 slot layout.
Meh ppl are talking about roles and actually making ships useful and balanced and your still playing word games. Fine screw the mega switch the slot layout over with the Hyperion and lets go from their ok?.
1. Yeah but even with booster + guns + reppers guess who caps out fastest.
2. Mega has SEVEN guns and 1 empty high where you can fit a neut or a remote rep without losing dps. That is a significant advantage.
3. I'd say just scrap the tier system instead. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.19 00:20:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Murkon Salesgirl
Can we move onto the real issue here. LEts not hijack this thread any further and keep on debating which ships are better.. obviously the metagame was different from when gallente was ftm. Work on boosting blasters.
I agree, but let's look at the right graphs and use correct methods of comparison, not failed and faulty ones. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.19 13:00:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 19/10/2008 13:01:44
Originally by: Gabriel Karade Quit being dense. These are the correct plots based on the exact tracking formula, nothing 'faulty' FFS.
P.S Since when the hell have blasters been FoTM?
Cute. You're the one that is dense. I have explained to you why you are reading the data wrong but it simply won't get into that brain of yours. Either you can't read or you're too dumb to see the obvious faulty ways of your analysis. If your data was correct, wich it isn't, blasters are so broken compared to lasers that ccp would have obviously adressed it way sooner. They haven't, because they are not as broken as you claim/think because of faulty ways of analysing graphs and data. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.19 15:45:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Gabriel Karade
Megapulse lasers have 85% of the Dps, for 330% optimal range and 80% of the falloff (8km as opposed to 10km, whoop de do..) of Neutron Blasters. Look in the item database if you don't believe me.
Megapulse lasers have a 50% hit chance on a 810 m/sec Battleship target at Optimal range (24km). Neutron Blasters have a 50% hit chance on a 311 m/sec Battleship target at Optimal range (7.2km)
The above comes straight from the database, it is 100% correct.
Ok one more time: You are ignoring fall off. Max hit chances occur somewhere between optimal and optimal+fall off on all guns, this means that fall off does matter. The calculations are wrong and I'm glad people like that don't work on the balancing team.
----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.19 16:43:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Gabriel Karade
Oh and once again you demonstrate you don't understand how the formula works. Maximum hit chance occurs at optimal range, falloff reduces your hit chance to a maximum of 50% at Optimal plus falloff. But then you're trying to use just one example to skew the results...
P.s Grytok never even mentioned 'maximum hit chance' he gave you the 50% hit chance at optimal, and optimal plus falloff vs a Battleship sized target.
Don't make a fool out of yourself. Maximum hit chance for a certain target with a certain transversal is NOT at optimal. It is somewhere betweem optimal and optimal+fall off.
If you have a [insert any gun ship] firing at a [insert any ship] with a certain transversal your hitchance as a function of distance will have a maximum BETWEEN your guns optimal range and optimal+fall off. Why? Because the hit chance reduction past optimal is only slight to begin with, wich means that you benefit more from the reduced angular velocity of your target then you lose tracking by being in fall off. If you do not understand this you should really LOOK at the graphs available in the tracking guide. You obviously STILL are oblivious of tracking mechanics. Read up and then come back. Kthxbai. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.19 20:38:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 19/10/2008 20:39:03 Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 19/10/2008 20:38:51
Originally by: Weetabix Kedgeree
If everyone is stupid... bloody well prove it. If you are not willing to prove it, and yes, that means data, then your argument lacks any strength.
Ok quick question: Did you read/understand this passage below (I quote myself)
"If you have a [insert any gun ship] firing at a [insert any ship] with a certain transversal your hitchance as a function of distance will have a maximum BETWEEN your guns optimal range and optimal+fall off. Why? Because the hit chance reduction past optimal is only slight to begin with, wich means that you benefit more from the reduced angular velocity of your target then you lose tracking by being in fall off. If you do not understand this you should really LOOK at the graphs available in the tracking guide. You obviously STILL are oblivious of tracking mechanics. Read up and then come back. Kthxbai"
Do you understand that? If yes, then you obviously see why their calculations are bogus. The issue about me using ship bonuses is irrelevant. Disregard my calculations. Theirs are WRONG because they ignore fall off. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.19 23:15:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Weetabix Kedgeree
So, if you are right... then give me proof, otherwise, unfortunately, I will have to quote one of the interweb axioms... proof or stfu. personally I hope you do give me proof, I would like to see both sides of the discussion in more detail.
You find the proof in your high school math book, what can I say. This is math. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.19 23:17:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Kopkiller
So you are taking a detail that finally is compensated by the very same argument, to say a calculation is TOTALLY FAULTY and should go to trashcan, when in reality it does not change any****.
Yes hit quality goes down. But it goes down for both and yes slightly more for the blaster. but on the other hand the blaster is subject to lower transversals because of tighter orbits wich in turn totally cancels that little difference out aswell. In the end it DOES matter and you cant simply ignore fall off when comparing guns, wich all of the oblivious posters above have and still do not understand. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
|
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 16:52:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Gabriel Karade Edited by: Gabriel Karade on 20/10/2008 11:22:30
IÆll explain this one more time, and one time only.
Grytok and I used the base numbers for Neutrons/Pulse vs. a Battleship (400m sig radius) showing at what target speeds generate a 50% hit chance. These arenÆt æfaulty numbersÆ these come straight from the database, simply put it is the tracking ænumberÆ expressed in terms of target velocity (v=r*w).
Lyria on the other hand, used: [Best case Blaster] vs. [Worst case Pulse] against an absurd target [ABÆing Battlecruiser] to try and ædisproveÆ the basic case (turret vs. Battleship) where maximum hit chance occurs at optimal range.
Well, duh... if you manufacture an example like that of course you can show maximum hit chance being comparable in falloff. If Lyria had used an Apocalypse in that same skewed example, you would see the hit chance is 75% for the pulse boat.
ThatÆs all IÆm going to say.
The truth is that the mega with its tracking bonus and the hyperion that can fit 2 webs and the domi that uses drones are all going to be just fine with this nerf compared to the other battleships. The others will struggle to hit and ravens get their explosion radius gimped. I don't see why there is so much fuss around the gallente ships. Maybe because there aint... ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 18:01:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf General reactions to the impact of changes currently on SiSi on their BS class weapon systems:
Pilots who prefer Caldari: Pilots who prefer Gallente: Pilots who prefer Minmatar: Pilots who prefer Amarr: Everything is fine, nothing to see here.
Because amarr are the race that has been forced to adapt for years now? We are used to this and cope with it alot better it seems. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 19:05:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 20/10/2008 19:06:01
Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf and that the general community (myself included) had underestimated lasers without having using them.
Then go complain to the general community then. Because it is the same general community that is whining the most right now and it serves them well tbh. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 21:43:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Then go complain to the general community then. Because it is the same general community that is whining the most right now and it serves them well tbh.
I don't care who else is whining about what. I also don't care for being told to take my points elsewhere by someone who disagrees with them. There are better ways to deal with those you don't see eye to eye with, and your always welcome to ignore me if all else fails.
...and if the general community were whining there would be fifty or more threads with a vast number of pages and a huge number of people flaunting idiotic signatures like "Boost Blasters" or "Blasters '08 - Blah, blah, blah". Though I imagine we'll see just that kind of drama after release probably followed by a "fix" six months later.
I'll give you a heads up then. It took 2 years for amarr to get a couple of fixes with whole first page filled with huge mega threads. Funny thing the biggest one pilgrim is still not fixed. GL. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 23:28:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Mag's Glad to see you provide us with your in depth calculations and graphs Lyria Skydancer, oh wait.....
Both you and Stab Wounds are trolls tbh, you know it wouldn't surprise me if you are infact one and the same.
The guys in this thread, have used the actually formula that eve uses, and I for one hope someone in CCP takes note.
I did provide data above, sorry you missed it. I also pointed out why the majority of the calculations showing blasters being emo are exaggerated and done in a wrong way. It is not my fault that you do not understand and haven't even read the whole discussion even. Who is the troll? Have a nice day cutie. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.20 23:36:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Originally by: Mag's Glad to see you provide us with your in depth calculations and graphs Lyria Skydancer, oh wait.....
Both you and Stab Wounds are trolls tbh, you know it wouldn't surprise me if you are infact one and the same.
The guys in this thread, have used the actually formula that eve uses, and I for one hope someone in CCP takes note.
I did provide data above, sorry you missed it. I also pointed out why the majority of the calculations showing blasters being emo are exaggerated and done in a wrong way. It is not my fault that you do not understand and haven't even read the whole discussion even. Who is the troll? Have a nice day cutie.
I think I still have some fraps of you jumping an Abaddon into high sec to avoid giving my gang a killmail. In game fail = out of game fail? We have a winner!
LoL, wasn't my area. I forgot it was high sec on other side. So emo more because of one death. I think we all know wich of us is involved in "lame" pvp. Have a nice day, belly boy. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.21 17:06:00 -
[27]
Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 21/10/2008 17:06:27
Originally by: Cpt Branko
Yeah, I just posted that as a example of what'd be balanced with Amarr range-wise (balancing damage and range with roughly the same ratio as it is balanced for ammos), but more I look at it, more it actually makes sense as a fix enabling blasters to be viable again.
Terribly imbalanced and it also totally changes the weapon system into a mid ranged one. The idea would make blasters hit superb within typical engagement ranges within say 24km, do more damage then pulses, have higher tracking in closer orbit, have less cap use, have ships that have alot of mids for tackle. All at once. GJ back to old OP gallente solopwn mobiles AND excellent gang ships. No thanks. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.21 18:21:00 -
[28]
Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 21/10/2008 18:21:34
Originally by: Cpt Branko
Don't like it? Those are the facts. 10% DPS exchanged for 300-400% range? Yeah, balanced, like hell.
Nope, those aren't facts. Most of it is propaganda and false data that is exaggerated. Good thing we know ccp has better methods of balancing. This patch will be awsome and evolve eve into something better no matter what you say and you can't stop the progress. THAT is a fact. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.22 00:35:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Cpt Branko
You very well know that the immense amount of range you gain at expense of very little to no DPS loss is totally unbalanced. You just like the imbalance.
You also know very well that the immense amount of grid you gain by fitting lower tier ACs at the expense of little to no DPS loss is totally unbalanced aswell. You just like the imbalance. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.22 00:39:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Strill
fixed that for you.
By the way, it's kinda hard to tell whether you're really trolling or not. On one hand you made a reasonable argument a while back, but since then you've done nothing but tell other people they're stupid and their ideas are wrong without giving any factual evidence to support your claims. I'm tired of hearing about how stupid everyone else's ideas are based only on your opinion. So far the only stats I've heard from you are turret accuracy curves showing that a blaster with +25% tracking can hit a cruiser just as well as a stock pulse laser. Either present some stats to support your statements or stfu.
I made the calculations above. People didn't understand it or didn't want to. A mega will have the same max hit chance on a cruiser as a pulse geddon. A hyperion will have no trouble hitting either because he will be able to fit dual webs. A domi uses drones. There is no HUGE gallente BS problem because of the web nerf. It is exaggerated and you all know it. There are slight tweaks needed, not overpowered ammo that reach pulse ranges or crazy amounts of extra dps nor tracking. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
|
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.22 00:41:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Murkon Salesgirl Null), isn't that what its meant for?
I'm maxed out on Amarr BS and pulse. And no, i don't feel threatened if Null were boosted to ~30km + 15km falloff. It has ~10% better dps than Megapulse Scorch, while Scorch retains ~33% range advantage.
You think boosting null to 30km + 15km with 10% more dps then mega pulse on gallente BS is balanced? I don't think I even need to comment this. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.22 01:17:00 -
[32]
Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 22/10/2008 01:17:37
Originally by: Murkon Salesgirl
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Originally by: Murkon Salesgirl Null), isn't that what its meant for?
I'm maxed out on Amarr BS and pulse. And no, i don't feel threatened if Null were boosted to ~30km + 15km falloff. It has ~10% better dps than Megapulse Scorch, while Scorch retains ~33% range advantage.
You think boosting null to 30km + 15km with 10% more dps then mega pulse on gallente BS is balanced? I don't think I even need to comment this.
Care to explain why it isn't balanced? Scorch gets a huge range advantage at a loss of 10% dps compared to blasters.
You can argue the fitting reqs and cap use all you like. Those aren't defining factors as the ships that use these weapons operate fine with those factors as they are.
Who in their right mind would ever fly a geddon when they can fly a mega that can blast the crap out of stuff at 30+15 range, have 125m3 drones like geddon, utility high slot like the geddon, high tracking even at close range that outtracks all other racial guns, less cap use, less fitting and FOUR mid slots. That is just one example of why its redicilously overpowered. Do I really need to go on? Giving blasters redicilous op range is not a solution and will never ever be. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.22 01:30:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Deva Blackfire Even tho i fly geddon i have to ask:
who in their mind would fly mega when they can fly geddon(abaddon) and start dealing almost same damage at 5x higher range w/o needing to spend 1-2 minutes and most of cap to MWD towards target?
Because when you solo in low sec repper is nice because of gate fire etc, 4 mids is nice for tackle and range on guns don't matter, only the dps.
The whole thing with long range weapons getting higher on killmails on damage is only of importance in fleets and not in smaller gang/solo warfare. DPS is more important there because it is about breaking tanks. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.22 01:36:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Murkon Salesgirl
So the question is, why would anyone use a MEGA over a geddon in a gang?? For 10% extra dps at utterly crap range as it is now?
¦
No question about it. Mega >>> geddon solo and geddon >>> mega for gangs. Amarr ships in general have always been good in fleets but horrid solo. Gallente are known for excellent solo ships and why many trained gallente to solopwnmobilage. Now you trained gallente but you want the gang ownage of amarr. Sorry but then you trained the wrong race. These racial perks have been this way for years now. Welcome to 2005. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.22 01:38:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Zana Kito
Whats low sec repper have to do with it?
Because its nice to rep sentry gun dps instead of passive buffer tank it and then either rep half an hour or pay at station. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.22 01:44:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Deva Blackfire why you managed to ignore part about abaddon?
exactly same slot layout as mega, better tank, implanted has similiar gank (pashans, which give 7% rof and 7% energy turret damage)
so... overpowered?
Because abaddon is one ship? Its also alot more expensive then a geddon. Lets go on comparing cruisers aswell eh? I mean this is not just about battleships. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.22 02:48:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Murkon Salesgirl
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Because abaddon is one ship? Its also alot more expensive then a geddon. Lets go on comparing cruisers aswell eh? I mean this is not just about battleships.
Kinda like how the Mega is just one ship.. and its a lot more expensive than the geddon too.
It's a silly comparison, you know it. There's no need to be so anti-buff when it comes to blasters. Their solo viability has long faded, and so has Amarr's perceived solo weakness. A lot of the low sec stuff now happens with plated abaddons and a falcon alt anyhow, with less mega and hype than before.
It's just time to buff blasters so they become effective for gang situations. Its silly to have gangs these days and you see 8 out of 10 BS are Amarrian.
CCP knew amarr were hurting because of mid slots that is the reason they gave harbinger and abaddon 4 mids. That is the ONLY reason.
The solution, if anything, is to give ONE of gallente BS and ONE of gallente BC a range bonus to solve the gang problem. This is the way they solved amarr and I can imagine they can solve this little problem like that too. A little range bonus would give brutix and say mega good gang application. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.22 02:49:00 -
[38]
Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 22/10/2008 02:49:32
Originally by: Strill
Not after insurance.
This is where you are wrong. Abaddon needs mega pulse, the general solo geddon (to have heavy neut) and the generaly gang geddon (will have remote rep) will use DHP. Its VERY cheap to fit a geddon compared to abaddon. I know, I fly these ships quite often. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.22 03:24:00 -
[39]
Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 22/10/2008 03:24:52
Originally by: Murkon Salesgirl
Then you'd have to fix the thorax, the deimos (and god knows this one needs a fix bad), vigilant, and all the other blaster boat. Just simpler to buff Null ammo range.
Sure, if you simply fix the mid slot gimpage on zealot, retribution, prophecy, absolution, geddon, omen, maller, augoror, punisher, crusader, coercer just like they fixed the ships like abaddon and harbinger before releasing them. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.22 05:23:00 -
[40]
Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 22/10/2008 05:23:24 Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 22/10/2008 05:22:52
Originally by: Praxis1452
You are just the hugest amarr troll.
Amarr need midslot fixing eh? I'm sure that so many amarr pilots would be happy if they just took 1 low away eh? Take 1 low away from the geddon add 1 mid, it'd be a better megathron.
You complain about others not choosing their races wisely. Why do you whine about gimp slots? Amarr were known to have less mid and more low, and in fact today more low-slots are easily more useful overall.
You whined your way to an amarr buff, and you just want to keep that way. It's pathetic to see how many excuses you can bring up for the gimpness of amarr and it's simply not true anymore.
It's seriously pathetic how much you can troll for amarr. When arguing about blasters you keep mentioning amarr ships. It just never ends.
Ohhh so much anger in this one. It leads to the dark side you know.
I only said that IF you're going to range boost gallente blasters across the board (wich is the racial downside of gallente) you need to boost mid slots for amarr across the board by either taking a high or low to a mid on half of the amarr ships. Yeah, that is EXACTLY the same thing.
Also, less emo is good for the soul. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
|
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.22 05:25:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Murkon Salesgirl
Now you are just arguing for argument sake. Its not even the same issue. Out of all the ships you list, the only ones that are crap would be prohp, maller and coercer.. and its not even relating to their mid slots.
The question is why are you so against a buff to NULL giving blasters an option of further range? It's not like they have a huge superiority in terms of dps compared with torps and scorch.
No one would fly geddon if you boosted the mega with a null range like that. If you're going to do something like that to the mega then you need to move a low slot of the geddon into a mid and then we are talking, also add some cpu. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.22 05:53:00 -
[42]
Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 22/10/2008 05:52:59
Originally by: Strill
What would that do other than make the geddon weaker?
Uhm what? I'd never fly an abaddon if I had a 4 mid geddon. It has good passive tank, utility high or neut/rr, as much dps and is cheap as heck. That's why. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Tempest of Change |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.23 01:18:00 -
[43]
Originally by: The Djego
3. Increasing Range on Blasters just making them simlar to AKs or Lasers, and they should not be this way, because Blasters represent her own preaty mutch uniqe PVP style and this is why people still use and love them.
That is exactly my point. I do not want blasters to change as a weaponsystem but many think that is the solution. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Tempest of Change |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.23 21:28:00 -
[44]
Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 23/10/2008 21:29:42 I guess this is where I say "I told you so, there was no major problem with blasters as I tried to explain".
Let's just see what happens first. It's not like blasters are only getting downsides from this patch, blasters weren't doing jack **** in the age of nano. It can only go up from there tbh and wich is why ccp isn't doing anything about blasters until it is apparent that there is an issue after deployment. I'm guessing as a summary, blasters won't be worse off after patch. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Tempest of Change |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.23 21:43:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
I guess this is where I say "I told you so, there was no major problem with blasters as I tried to explain".
No, Lyria, this is where you crow victory as you realize that Amarr quite literally has no competition in the game.
Quote: Let's just see what happens first. It's not like blasters are only getting downsides from this patch, blasters weren't doing jack **** in the age of nano. It can only go up from there tbh and wich is why ccp isn't doing anything about blasters until it is apparent that there is an issue after deployment. I'm guessing as a summary, blasters won't be worse off after patch.
Except for the places that they were actually used... like lowsec. **** it, I don't give a damn about arguing with you anymore. Take your ****ing trolling elsewhere.
-Liang
Funny how everyone points out how wrong I am for pages and pages and then it turns out they are wrong.
Was funny back when I said amarr had huge issues for 2 years and everyone on the forums was on about how I needed to learn to play, get skills and stfu. Hmm ccp then nerfed em resists across the board on all ships, THAT is how broken it was.
Same here, for pages I've tried to give you data about how blasters are not hilariously screwed as you people claim with exaggerated and faulty data. I'm the noob, I'm the one that can't count, right? Nothing is even being CONSIDERED being done. That is how right I was again.
I told you so....
see you next discussion, please come again. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Tempest of Change |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.24 04:04:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Gabriel Karade There's ample evidence in this thread to the contrary.
Not really. I already showed you that the a megas max hit chance is around the same as a pulse geddons. Hyperion will also have no trouble hitting because it can fit dual webs and domi uses drones. Result: No huge gallente BS issue like claimed in this thread. |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.24 05:04:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Murkon Salesgirl
You did, your maths is fine.
Try again with Null vs Scorch.
Also list their respective dps at those ranges.
It will clearly show the inferiority of Null compared to Scorch.
But don't you see? That is the downside of your weponry. That it has shorter range when loaded with long range ammo. It's like me saying "we'll now go compare cap use and fitting of lasers!". It's fine. Different weapons but balanced. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Tempest of Change |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.25 19:10:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Akilum
So far I can't complain about the tracking vs the ships themselves. However I wasn't able to hit medium sized drones while having them webbed (1x T2). Might want to change the tracking of the guns a bit so that they're able to have a better chance at hitting them. Not 100% and not 0% (which it is currently on SISI) I would say.
Large sized turrets can't hit medium sized drones? How game breaking! As long as large turrets can hit webbed large drones everything is just fine. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Tempest of Change |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Home 0f Bored Occultists
|
Posted - 2008.11.27 14:18:00 -
[49]
Originally by: dojocan81 k, after reading most of this **** b/c we have a downtime of more than 2 hours ....
Can someone work on some graphs and put them here to show ccp/us/your neightbour what exactly is wrong with blasters ?
common ... speaking of "blasters are dead" isnt the best way to show ccp blaster are bad
What about this?
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 18/10/2008 11:06:22 Blaster mega/Pulse geddon (both using t1 short range ammo)
Sig rad: 400/400 Optimal: 4500/15000 Fall off: 12500/10000 Tracking: 0.07442/0.04219
Target is a Abing BC 265 sig 400m/s speed
Result is:
1. The maximum hit chance occurs at 11.45km range for the blaster and is 57%. 2. The maximum hit chance occurs at 18.36km range for the pulse and is 61% 3. As you can clearly see the max hit chance on a weapon that has high fall off occurs much farther away from its optimal. 4. Now if you look at the graph and apply your faulty logic by comparing the hit chances in respective optimal, ie 4500m for the blaster and 15000m for the pulse, you can obviously see why this gives a totally wrong picture of the blaster performance. 5. Also take into consideration that a BC will have to have a slower transversal in a tighter orbit wich will favor the graph towards the blaster. Wich means approximately that they have the same max performance according to their range and are range_vs_tracking balanced.
Looks fine to me. I can make another comparison with dual web hyperions aswell. ----------------------------------------- [Video] The Cruise |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Home 0f Bored Occultists
|
Posted - 2008.11.28 17:55:00 -
[50]
I'm fitting blasters on my vengeance, even trained t2, and it works quite fine.
Just to put it out there. ----------------------------------------- [Video] The Cruise |
|
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Home 0f Bored Occultists
|
Posted - 2008.11.28 23:39:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Ess Erbe Goum is the least likely troll in all of EVE, provide counterarguments or shut up instead of resorting to "hurr troll".
QFT. He puts more numbers on the table then anyone else on these forums. ----------------------------------------- [Video] The Cruise |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Home 0f Bored Occultists
|
Posted - 2008.11.29 09:55:00 -
[52]
Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 29/11/2008 09:56:10
Originally by: The Djego Edited by: The Djego on 29/11/2008 00:35:37
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Originally by: Ess Erbe Goum is the least likely troll in all of EVE, provide counterarguments or shut up instead of resorting to "hurr troll".
QFT. He puts more numbers on the table then anyone else on these forums.
But numbers aren¦t allways right, he was even against the Optimal Bonus for the Apoc.
Uhm yes he was against the optimal bonus. Has he changed his mind or why is that relevant.
His calculations are way more accurate then the bogus, faulty and exaggerated ones found in this thread, posted by the whiners. I've myself proven many of the comparisons wrong a couple of pages back.
What you want is blaster ships of all sizes to have exclusive rights on heads up close range encounters. You want them to be able to kill anything close range no matter size so you can once again shine in your blaster BS glory while no one else can. Well right now ccp has nerfed solo BS. Live with it. It is not something that just gallente had. In fact web nerf, nerfed amarr solo BS the MOST because static and op webs are most useful for the lowest tracking guns, wich are large pulses in sub 10km ranges.
The gap between blastership and pulseship performance on larger guns is LARGER now in favor of blasters. Yes blasters are not as good as before because they cant hit EVERYTHING but pulses got a bigger nerf.
Just adapt and get on with it. If you're not happy with your racial traits then you chose the wrong race. Train something else, there are lots of people still utilizing blasters today and will continue. Why? Because it is still one of the best solo close range platforms. Yap all you like. Nothing is going to change it. ----------------------------------------- [Video] The Cruise |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Home 0f Bored Occultists
|
Posted - 2008.11.29 12:35:00 -
[53]
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. ----------------------------------------- [Video] The Cruise |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Home 0f Bored Occultists
|
Posted - 2008.11.29 15:59:00 -
[54]
Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 29/11/2008 16:01:48 Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 29/11/2008 16:00:02
Originally by: The Djego
I don¦t want to be able to kill anything no matter what size.
No? That's strange because all posts and posts you also support are whining about not being able to hit BCs and cruisers with blaster BS guns. So wich is it? You would have to pretty much disregard all the lol-data people have flooded this thread with BS vs BC stuff. So what data is left?
Originally by: The Djego
I want to be able to project my Damage Advantage fast and precise on a ship of the same size if I don¦t run into a counter fitting
You can, on other battleships. You can get under the guns of amarr BS EASILY. What are you whining about then?
Originally by: The Djego
A smaller ship that tryes to orbit a Laser ship at 20km gets melted by Lasers(med and Large), a smaller ship that gets close don¦t. A smaller ship that orbits a Blaster ship at 20 km is unhitable(expet of BS Neutrons with Null) and yet it still comes closer where even the Blaster ship can¦t hit simlar to the Laser ship. You see the diffrence?
You're making up situations that don't happen. You're mixing pre patch warfare with post patch to suit your argument. I see what you're doing there.
So here is the thing if you did this unintentionally...
A frig that wants to tackle a larger amarr ship will now simply go below its guns, why the hell would it stay at 20km orbit? You¦'re applying pre patch logic to this. Fail. Same with larger blaster ships. Frigs will get under your guns. Difference? None.
Oh I might add that a MWD AF like jaguar can get under the guns of a gank and ranged pulse zealot without even hitting into armor when starting off at 50km. All bigger ships are pretty much in the same situations. Dont make a martyr out of yourself, it's not justified.
Originally by: The Djego
A 400% boost of speed in Web Range don¦t favour the ship that is forced to fight next to all his fights in a Range, that is well under web Range, to win, something the Laser ship is not forced to
No? Wich amarr BS can force fight at its optimal without friends? None.
Originally by: The Djego
The bigger Tracking advantage is infact useless if It don¦t leads to a serious advantage because it is coupeld with a much closer Range where the Tracking is still not enught
IT IS NOT USELESS. How hard is it to understand that you can get under the guns of an abaddon and totally wreck him? How is your blaster tracking not helping? How is this hard to understand?
Yes, in GANGS amarr BS can use their optimals at greater advantage but in GANGS blasters ships have their role as dps to punch through tanks and close heavy tackle. There is nothing wrong with ships having different roles.
You are saying that blasters are useless if you cant force the engagement to be in your optimal and tracking. Well guess what, other ships can't either. You think all other ships can force engagements alone at their optimals in all kinds of situations? Very few can...
----------------------------------------- [Video] The Cruise |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Home 0f Bored Occultists
|
Posted - 2008.11.29 16:03:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Theron Gyrow
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.
So, your answer is "If you are planning to fly solo and you can count on your targets flying small gangs of T1 cruisers/BCs"? Note that I'm not commenting on the correctness of your assertion.
You need to scout for solo pvp nowadays and preferrably also have a falcon incase they decide to blob you or decloak a falcon. So yeah, fly accordingly. I can't find many better ships to solo and fly into a gang of t1 cruiser ships. You have a better idea? ----------------------------------------- [Video] The Cruise |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Home 0f Bored Occultists
|
Posted - 2008.11.29 17:09:00 -
[56]
Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 29/11/2008 17:09:47
Originally by: lecrotta Edited by: lecrotta on 29/11/2008 16:12:50
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer I am pro nerf for anything not amaar that is effective and will actively try to block and oppose any fix's to other races even if they are required and even when i know nothing about them or the combat style....., while also making excuses and justifications for anything overpowered that is amaar.
fixed
Your really rather transparent tbh, every post you make is either for a nerf against virtually every other race apart from amaar or attempting to stop a fix to a obviously broken mechanic unless its amaar.
Oh I see. You ran out of arguments and now degraded to "your face is stupid". *clap*
It's actually you people that want redicilous boosts that would overpower your race. You just dont see it or are lying about it. ----------------------------------------- [Video] The Cruise |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Home 0f Bored Occultists
|
Posted - 2008.11.29 17:28:00 -
[57]
Originally by: lecrotta Edited by: lecrotta on 29/11/2008 17:22:11
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Oh I see. You ran out of arguments and now degraded to "your face is stupid". *clap*
As per usual your exaggerating and misrepresenting a clear point and accurate observation to comic proportions to try and discredit it.
What boost was The Djego or myself asking for btw?, did you bother to read or just argue instinctively because it's not an amarr buff?.
Best troll trick ever: Accuse the other person of doing what you are doing yourself before him so he can't accuse you of it. ----------------------------------------- [Video] The Cruise |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Home 0f Bored Occultists
|
Posted - 2008.11.30 20:39:00 -
[58]
Originally by: The Djego
ECM Drones and Warriors die within a single Sentry cycle(that are only seconds), Smartbombs on cap hungry Blasterships don¦t work and the Frigs simply put on the Scram again after getting Neuted(since they regain cap quick) all this is far to ineffective or takes to long under Sentry fire. Also putting your Web\Scambler\Drones on a new Target under sentry aggro while the main Target(that kills you with DPS) allready leave your Range is mostly a knock out situation where you would toy around with another ship while you are allready in a hurry to reduce incomming DPS to survive.
Fit ecm burst? ----------------------------------------- [Video] The Cruise |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Gunship Diplomacy
|
Posted - 2008.12.11 00:53:00 -
[59]
Originally by: maralt Edited by: maralt on 05/12/2008 11:14:15
As with the other thread i think that the ranges of all BS platforms need adjusting to be more effective in their supposed "roles". And this can only be done by defining what we consider to be short, medium and long range for our "close" range weapon setups.
As i said max dmg for each race at certain ranges with a healthy fall off for going way outside those ranges.
Gallente 5-20 as nobody hits at 0 or even close, but still close range superiority, with a heavy fall off out to 35km and being unable to reach at all with blasters past 35km to the 50km mark.
Minimatar 20-35 superiority between the relative close and mid ranges and high reduction in dmg for mini at 5-20 using tracking penalties and 35-50 using ammo penalties.
Amaar 35-50 superiority a adjustment to tracking so it gets a reduction in dmg relative to the others at 20-35km and a virtually total reduction at 0-20.
Obviously amaar would still be at a bit of a advantage due to the fact that with webs lowering transversal speeds of targets and other items they would still be able to hit at the closer ranges while blasters relying on ammo for their range would not hit at the longer ranges at all.
Mini would be a interesting race due to its ability to do steady but lowish dmg at both extreme ranges and high in the center.
And blasters would go back to being king of close range and as they always have been useless at the longer ranges.
I personally think this is a very promising and balanced idea as it give each race their role back and fixes not only the big blaster issue but also the major imbalance and massively overpowered abilities of lasers.
Are you serious with those ranges? You seem to be forgetting that gate decloak ranges are 12km and disruptor ranges 24km.
The BS gun ranges are just fine as they are at the moment considering tackling distances. You're also totally ignoring the lack of mid slots for tackle on amarr ships.
Your idea is pretty much one of the most redicilous make-gallente-BS-the-best-one-ideas yet. ----------------------------------------- [Video] The Neverending Story |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Gunship Diplomacy
|
Posted - 2008.12.11 00:55:00 -
[60]
Originally by: maralt
Originally by: The Djego
Your design would only lead to worse small Scale\Solo gameplay, and this is what allready is gimped in QR with more handycaps for a single ship or a small group of more general fitted ships, leading to bigger Gangs. We already got all the tools in game for bigger gangs, small gang and solo players need hers back again.
I do not see how having each race of ship able to be more effective at its specific ranges would reduce solo or small gang pvp as the guys flying solo or in those gangs would be looking to engage or be fitted to get the most out of their optimum ranges allowing and encouraging them fly solo as they would be be more effective solo or in small groups.
Bigger gangs and blobs will always exist and ppl will always want to use them to win more than enjoy the actual combat, but the introduction of definitive and effective ranges per race would encourage small gang and solo combat more than reduce it i think.
So you will allows the 40km operating geddon to have a 40km point? Otherwise your statement doesn't add up. ----------------------------------------- [Video] The Neverending Story |
|
|
|
|