| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Topic |
Mes Ren
No Trademark
Obsidian Empire
    |
Posted - 2008.07.29 23:01:00 -
[61]
Personally, I don't think a BS should be able to hit anything under the sun without being setup to do it (which means sacrificing effectiveness to do it). I've always thought it was silly that you could go out in a Blastertron and kill anything you wanted (the proliferation of nano made blaster ships pointless though). Personally, I think solo PvP'ing in a BS should be VERY dangerous and you should have problems with hitting frigs and even crusiers with a BS type weapon. A potential solution in conjunction to other things I'm going to post is to simply fit a Scram yourself. Yes, I understand that it will be MUCH more difficult to catch people because you don't have a 24km point, but it means you will be able to hit stuff more easily. Before the argument is brought up about ships kiting you from range .... you have always had that problem ... fit a heavy neut.
Having said this, I absolutely think something needs to be down about the reduced agility due to the mass increase ... this is an issue across the board, but particularly for bs's and blasterships.
As far as other blaster ships, I think if they fixed the agility issue, you would be able to get within range. Again it means that you will need to use a scram (which again makes it harder to solo) but otherwise you have very few issues that you didn't already have.
To the person who was complaining about running out of cap .... that is simply a bunch of crap. The new changes increases your cap and cap regen to far better than on TQ. IF you use a scram instead of a disruptor, then you don't need to run that mwd once you have them tackled. Again, the agility issue (a result of the mass increase, and thus severely effecting acceleration) needs to be dealth with though.
To the people who are complaining about tracking disruptors .... if you are having issues now, you are having issues on TQ. A skilled pilot in a bonused ship can bring your total optimal+falloff to way below what you might have thought. You seem to think the issue is that your tracking SPEED is being disrupted, when in fact your OPTIMAL RANGE and FALLOFF are being disrupted. Combine that with having issues staying close to the target (combination of an agility issue that needs fixing and a refusable to use a scram instead of a disruptor) and you get what it is you are complaining about.
Right now on TQ, you point the target, burn at them, get in web range, and then you are on them like white on rice. IF you were able to do this on TQ, it was because they were ratting fit and have no ability to counter, or they were not nanofit, and think they are prepared for you. If agility is fixed, and you fit a scram you will still be able to do the same thing .... if they are AB fit, well they will get away or kill you ... but as I have read it ... AB's suck, so why would anyone fit it.
In reference to the frig that runs up and tackles you with the scram ... if you are also using a scram instead of a disruptor - in conjunction to your web ... the frig will die (unless you are a blasterthron, in which case you better have drones to deal with it - assuming solo play).
Talking about Scrams again: Right now you are testing on SISI, where people RARELY fit pvp fits they would use on TQ. In particular, the thing that gets omited is a point. What you see right now is a bunch of people testing scrams, which is giving you an unrealistic testing ground. The reality is that they would not be fitting a scram in most cases due simply to the fact that they need to 24km point. In the instance that they fit a 24km and 9km, they will more than likely be sacrificing a web for that. In that instance (assuming the agility fix), you will Scram back and web ... inertia will carry you closer, and web will give you the advantage. Then they die.
________________________
No Trademark -- Mes Ren, Mes Builder --
-- CEO --
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar
Infinity Enterprises
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 23:03:00 -
[62]
 Originally by: DruzidelCastro
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
I 've been playing on sis for hours and web changes have damaged in NOTHING the blaster ships! You web your enemies less but they wab you less also
Were you shooting only battleships and battlecruisers or frigates and cruisers too? I fail to see how them webbing you back while you're webbing them helps with tracking a smaller ship if you're in a battleship. Also, what ships were you using in your hours of testing?
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
The HP boost was also a BOOSt to blaster ships, sine now they have more time to get close to target.
...Uh, not necessarily.
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
The blaster ships that may have problem are the small ones. but not even close to same ammount of issues the minmatar cruisers now wil have.
Right, because vagabond pilots get into scrambler (also web) range already...
OK and since when its supposed to be easy to hit smaller ships? Always the primary balance is among ships of same class and tier... then you move in to other levels. This problem exist for ALL ships in game not only blaster ships. Did you ever tried to hit a cruiser that with an armageddon that don't even have space to fit the web? Or tryign to hit a cruiser with a torp raven ? So this is an issue that everybody has. It should not be easy for a BS to hit cruisers, and should be very hard to hit frigates.
You cannot focus too much on fighting more than 1 size scale away from your own ship. You cannot expect BS to ever hit a frigate sized ship except by sheer luck. Simple. Blasterthron pilots are spoiled with the fact that they were able to. No other BS pilot is complainign because they never expected to be able to do it.
Answering to your question I am usign mostly Tempest, HUrricane and vagabons with 1 char and zealot and aarmageddon on other character. And once in a while I get lucky to get a friend to get in with a blaster ship. Unfortunately only blaster ship I can fly with the chars I currently have is a thorax.
On the Hyperion vs Tempest tests.. simply the change was sooo heavy in hyperion favor that is simply impossible to discuss. The mega is a bit less skewed but as of now is stil easier for a mega to kil a tempest in SISI than in TQ. On overall on the BS class the blaster ships suffered NOTHING!
As I said earlier, I believe this relation might not be kept on the smaller ships altough. Even so no one can deny that no other ship in game have been hurt more than the vagabond and sleipnir.
On the HP boost, I was just pointing that the HP boost was not a nerf to blaster ships since it also gave something in return while taking somethign else away. You take longer to kill. At end your "surprise, I am big and hit hard before you can react" factor have been mitigated when of the HP boost, but also the ammount of HP you lost while trying to reach your enemy that had logner range became proportionaly MUCH less relevant.
Minmatar ships are recieving NOTHING in return this time. See the difference?
-------------------------------------------------
If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
|
Mes Ren
No Trademark
Obsidian Empire
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 23:05:00 -
[63]
Originally by: oniplE
Edited by: oniplE on 29/07/2008 22:51:21
So now that the cap penalties on MWDs have changed, how does the Deimos MWD bonus work?
Does it just remove the MWD cap penalty @ lvl 5? Or does it actually create more cap when you use a low cap penalty MWD (anything but t1) with a lvl 5 MWD deimos bonus? (its always lvl 5 due to gallente cruiser 5)
For example, a t2 mwd now has a -17% max cap bonus. Does this mean the deimos will have 8% more cap when fitting an mwd?
The description is very unclear if not incorrect, i hope CCP can shed some light on this now that the cap penalties have changed.
Also, can i suggest a bonus for the deimos that removes the mwd reactivation feature? It needs its mwd to stay in range and these new features are not making its job easier, it can use some help.
I have observed the following: Your ship has a certain amount of base cap determined by the ship and skills, then modules modify it. So int he instance of the MWD changes, yes I have more cap and thereby more cap regen. I've atually been able to lose a cap booster on one of my ship builds.
________________________
No Trademark -- Mes Ren, Mes Builder --
-- CEO --
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente
Death of Virtue
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 23:29:00 -
[64]
Originally by: CCP Nozh
Blue bars.
Keep discussing.
Nozh: *THANK YOU* for showing players in general and blaster pilots in particular that the devs (you) are actually reading our feedback threads. It *really* makes people feel a lot better that their discussion isn't in vain.
The crux of the matter as it currently is on SISI:
I fly a maxed out HG Slave clone on TQ with the following additional implants: 5% tracking all turrets, 5% Med Hybrid Damage, 5% Large Hybrid Damage, 5% All Turret Damage. I use the same clone on SISI for testing to keep everything as 'real' as possible.
Tracking issues with blasters: even with the 5% tracking implant and maxed associated skills for tracking, falloff, optimal and ship skills blasters still have an extremely hard time tracking anything if the target is the same size or smaller than the ship you're in.
If I'm in an Astarte and I'm shooting a BS with a 60% web on it, I can hit just about as well as I can on SISI as I can on TQ with a 90% web. If I shoot at anything BC sized or smaller my targets can very quickly/easily run their transversal up high enough to where my on-target DPS is reduced by 50% or more.
Blaster ships are very knife-edge in performance. 3-5% difference in peak DPS means the difference between failure or success. A 50% reduction in real DPS due to tracking issues equals a dead blaster boat.
Blaster ships can't afford to fit a 2 point scram and AB, as you'll never ever catch anyone with that setup. Conversely, they can't afford to fit a traditional MWD and 24km disruptor now either. I think that the MWD reactivation delay is a novel and neat idea. It allows for the MWD to be used as a quick sprint "get into range" module which suits blaster ships quite well.
The issue with the webs isn't as much the range keeping as it is the tracking, but on the other hand, blasters have such tiny optimal (3750m for BS Ion IIs and faction AM, only 2250m for medium Neutron IIs) that even at 6km from the target your range is double or triple your optimal very quickly.
Void and Null simply isn't an option right now. The tracking penalties exacerbate the tracking issues, and Void's cap issues and Nulls lack of DPS just make both of them unworkable for the current balance of peak tank/static HP and peak blaster ship DPS.
Tracking has always been very binary: the reason everyone uses 90% webs on TQ is testament to that. Even an X5 80% web is deemed unacceptable because it *doubled* the target speed compared to a 90% and allowed too many rounds to miss.
<continued next post>
Bellum Eternus
[Vid] L E G E N D A R Y COLLECTION
Inveniam viam aut faciam. |
Bellum Eternus
Gallente
Death of Virtue
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 23:30:00 -
[65]
..
Bellum Eternus
[Vid] L E G E N D A R Y COLLECTION
Inveniam viam aut faciam. |
Markas Crais
House of Dying Laggers
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 23:32:00 -
[66]
Edited by: Markas Crais on 29/07/2008 23:36:49
Edited by: Markas Crais on 29/07/2008 23:34:54
Originally by: Mes Ren
Personally, I don't think a BS should be able to hit anything under the sun without being setup to do it (which means sacrificing effectiveness to do it). I've always thought it was silly that you could go out in a Blastertron and kill anything you wanted (the proliferation of nano made blaster ships pointless though). Personally, I think solo PvP'ing in a BS should be VERY dangerous and you should have problems with hitting frigs and even crusiers with a BS type weapon.
The problem is a blaster boat has a hell of a lot more difficult time hitting anything smaller compared to say... oh I don't know... Amarr ships, or Caldari ships. A Megathron with perfect skills and T2 ammo is still going to have hard time tracking compared to an Armageddon, and that's with the Mega's bonus to tracking. The difference is that the Armageddon can be hitting from 10km away to begin with, whereas on a Blasterthron you need to be switching ammo constantly which leads to greatly reduced dps.
Soloing in a BS is very dangerous, if it wasn't then people would be out in them more often don't you think? But they choose nano instead because it's less dangerous than running around in a slow BS trying to catch anything. And I don't know about you, but even fitting a Heavy Neut on a passive tanked Mega is still a tight fit because of the low CPU, that requires even more compromises. How are blasterboats so overpowered that they need a nerf as well?
Also Mes Ren you're obviously an Amarr pilot, so why are you saying Blasters are fine when you're not using them? Kiting has always been a potential problem and now it's even more so. However, I thought this patch was supposed to address the ludicrous speed issue and not be a Blaster nerf as well?
With your whole argument you make it seem like Disruptors are completely useless now compared to Scrams, and indeed they are because of the dual function that mod now has, it now acts as a web and a point. Why bother fitting a web if you know your target (blasterboat) is going to be using a MWD? And if you're flying a blasterboat and you're using an AB then something is seriously wrong because the aren't nearly as effective as they should be in pvp situations.
|
DruzidelCastro
Vale Heavy Industries
Molotov Coalition
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 00:02:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Mes Ren
To the people who are complaining about tracking disruptors .... if you are having issues now, you are having issues on TQ. A skilled pilot in a bonused ship can bring your total optimal+falloff to way below what you might have thought. You seem to think the issue is that your tracking SPEED is being disrupted, when in fact your OPTIMAL RANGE and FALLOFF are being disrupted. Combine that with having issues staying close to the target (combination of an agility issue that needs fixing and a refusable to use a scram instead of a disruptor) and you get what it is you are complaining about.
I never once said anything about optimal range being an issue. With a 60% web your target can orbit you faster and your turrets will have a pretty hard time tracking it. I have a feeling that adding even an unbonused tracking disruptor with the tracking disruption script will royally screw you. If anyone could do some testing on that I'm a little interested in what the results might be.
I'll have to see about getting sisi set up again...
|
KiIIBiII
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 00:02:00 -
[68]
Edited by: KiIIBiII on 30/07/2008 00:01:56
Och you all whiners, take raven, fit it with mwd, scramble, web, trash your shield slots, then try to hit anything with cruise missiles and pray it won't outrun your missiles and even if hit your silly explosion velocity won't **** your dps, and after that all compare it to any other blaster boat witch is armor tank.
|
ArmyOfMe
hirr
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 00:03:00 -
[69]
Edited by: ArmyOfMe on 30/07/2008 00:11:07
Did a few tests on sisi with my neutron mega, and with my standard setup i have a top speed of 733ms. it took me 59sec to reach 700ms and another 57sec to reach max speed.
another major issue is that those time i actually got in good range they waited until i had deactivated my mwd and simply ran out of range again.
tracking anything smaller then a bs is also a major pain in the ass tbh.
I would also like to point out that imo the best way to nerf speed would be to just put a speed cap on what different size ship can reach.
it would not cause nearly as many problems as all these changes does
 |
The Djego
Minmatar
merovinger inc
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 00:05:00 -
[70]
Edited by: The Djego on 30/07/2008 00:15:06
Edited by: The Djego on 30/07/2008 00:11:47
OK after quite a bit testing on Frigs, Ceptors and AFs I have to say the Blaster problem here aperes quite less than on Cruiser and BS sized ships. This is simply the fact because it is mutch easyer to maintain range even without a web and the Scrambler makes realy sense, giver her good speed(even AFs) it is not that hard to get into range. In fact atm Afs **** any Hac close range a bit to good, exept the Ishtar and Missle speced Hacs they are preaty defenceles after shuting down the MWD with the Scrambler.
Giving Blaster based Ships a role Bonus for webbing is the idea that actualy is on my mind, shure you take longer to get into range, but that keeps the solo ability of Blaster ships intact aswell as it gives them a new role as haevy tacklers, since they are extrem close range Ships after all, no big deal. By this it might actualy makes sense to use a Deimos in a bigger Gang(and not a Ishtar) for tackling smaller targets.
Acualy this culd be a very interesting concept, think about the role of a Deimos with a Bonus to Web stregth in a Gang consisting of Damage dealers. Since Blasterships in a bigger Gang are a bit useless, this would bring a bit of a change giving them a role(since they get in close after all) not only providing damage but also boost the Gang intself by better hitting abilty of smaller Targets.
So in the end Blaster ship would stay deadly in Web Range(and this is very important for the Blaster style PVP) but also getting a new role in Gang Combat over her damage support. 
Edit: Active Tank Deimos and Thorax work better than before because of the even smaller MWD penalty and the fact that you are mostly dead before you run out of Cap(even with a overlaoded Med Rep). Tanked 11-20k Damage with a Med Rep + 800mm and DC II, quite a good score atm for a semi Active setup.
----
Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus
Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar
Infinity Enterprises
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 00:13:00 -
[71]
Originally by: ArmyOfMe
Did a few tests on sisi with my neutron mega, and with my standard setup i have a top speed of 733ms. it took me 59sec to reach 700ms and another 57sec to reach max speed.
another major issue is that those time i actually got in good range they waited until i had deactivated my mwd and simply ran out of range again.
tracking anything smaller then a bs is also a major pain in the ass tbh.
as it shoudl . In fact shoudl not be so easy to track a fast BS with AB orbitign very close also. OTherwise there is no reason to have trakin on the guns.
Example MEga with null and common setup deals more dps than temepst with barrage and normal setup.. up to 24 km... (YES it does, run the numbers before using the old bla bla about stayign out of range, tempest damage only passes over mega when outside disruptor range) so.. How in hell is a tempest supposed to fight? The only way we coudl have right nwo is gettign very close and orbitting at very close while using its 5th slot as trackking disruption. It should be imune of the balster damage? HELL NO! it should be able to avoid a BIT of the damage (let say 30%).. HELL YES! Should a vaga with AB runnign around a mega avoid MOST of its damage? Hell YES! Should a cruiser with no AB and webbed avoid most of the damage? hell NO!
Bot how to make that possible without making it unfair to blaster ships? Well its not easy! You need to balance Blaster ships so that they are balanced alogn AC ships and pulse ships. .and taht is not trivial.
But no BS should be able to easily kill frigates. It's not their role.
On the approaching speed.....what blaster boats need are another type of MWD. An MWD with Greater acceleration but HUGE loss on agility (so you can use it for the focused straight line burst into target).
-------------------------------------------------
If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
|
Markas Crais
House of Dying Laggers
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 00:14:00 -
[72]
Originally by: KiIIBiII
Edited by: KiIIBiII on 30/07/2008 00:01:56
Och you all whiners, take raven, fit it with mwd, scramble, web, trash your shield slots, then try to hit anything with cruise missiles and pray it won't outrun your missiles and even if hit your silly explosion velocity won't **** your dps, and after that all compare it to any other blaster boat witch is armor tank.
Wtf are you talking about? Seriously now. Why would you even bother putting a MWD on a Raven to begin with? You're already hitting from 200+ km with cruise missiles. And now that speed has been fixed there's less ships that can outrun your missiles. The problem us blaster people are encountering is its almost a requirement to fit a MWD (Deimos MWD bonus anyone?) to get in range and stay there because ABs are still rubbish. However, The acceleration on MWD, especially on a BS is incredibly slow, that if you don't have a Disruptor anything that sees you coming is going to run away. With missiles you can be 3 km away or 200 km away and it really doesn't matter as long as they can't outrun your missiles. You don't need to worry about being kited around but turret ships do, especially blasters because of the low optimal.
|
ArmyOfMe
hirr
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 00:17:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
Bot how to make that possible without making it unfair to blaster ships? Well its not easy! You need to balance Blaster ships so that they are balanced alogn AC ships and pulse ships. .and taht is not trivial.
But no BS should be able to easily kill frigates. It's not their role.
quote]Blasterthrons are pretty balanced on tq atm and never needed to be changed, and killing frigs is something a mega has never been good at in the first place
what does need change on tq though is that the tempest badly needs a boost of some sorts, but exactly what im not sure
|
Markas Crais
House of Dying Laggers
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 00:19:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
On the approaching speed.....what blaster boats need are another type of MWD. An MWD with Greater acceleration but HUGE loss on agility (so you can use it for the focused straight line burst into target).
I like the idea but that just seems like too much of a change to fix a problem that wasn't a problem before this speed nerf, don't you think?
|
KiIIBiII
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 00:36:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Markas Crais
Wtf are you talking about? Seriously now. Why would you even bother putting a MWD on a Raven to begin with? You're already hitting from 200+ km with cruise missiles. And now that speed has been fixed there's less ships that can outrun your missiles. The problem us blaster people are encountering is its almost a requirement to fit a MWD (Deimos MWD bonus anyone?) to get in range and stay there because ABs are still rubbish. However, The acceleration on MWD, especially on a BS is incredibly slow, that if you don't have a Disruptor anything that sees you coming is going to run away. With missiles you can be 3 km away or 200 km away and it really doesn't matter as long as they can't outrun your missiles. You don't need to worry about being kited around but turret ships do, especially blasters because of the low optimal.
About glass ship witch get even worser with 2 sensor boosters in mid except for 1 mid mwd, and about blasters, start using rails, you won't have to worry about range, i fit torps when i want dps, but hey its one or another not both at once.
|
doctorstupid2
The Accursed
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 00:42:00 -
[76]
Put down the nerfbat, CCP, if the problem is "A" you don't need to nerf the rest of the alphabet.
I said it before and I'll say it again, I don't want to have to blob a target to hold it still and eat it.
Abusive | Deadspace | Deadspace2 |
Markas Crais
House of Dying Laggers
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 00:46:00 -
[77]
Originally by: KiIIBiII
Originally by: Markas Crais
Wtf are you talking about? Seriously now. Why would you even bother putting a MWD on a Raven to begin with? You're already hitting from 200+ km with cruise missiles. And now that speed has been fixed there's less ships that can outrun your missiles. The problem us blaster people are encountering is its almost a requirement to fit a MWD (Deimos MWD bonus anyone?) to get in range and stay there because ABs are still rubbish. However, The acceleration on MWD, especially on a BS is incredibly slow, that if you don't have a Disruptor anything that sees you coming is going to run away. With missiles you can be 3 km away or 200 km away and it really doesn't matter as long as they can't outrun your missiles. You don't need to worry about being kited around but turret ships do, especially blasters because of the low optimal.
About glass ship witch get even worser with 2 sensor boosters in mid except for 1 mid mwd, and about blasters, start using rails, you won't have to worry about range, i fit torps when i want dps, but hey its one or another not both at once.
Fit rails so I have even less of a chance hitting anything? No thank you. I don't know about you but I think Evil Pookie is pretty damn successful in his Raven.
How can you argue that a Raven is gimped compared to a Blasterthron on SiSi atm? Your Torps don't need to worry about tracking a target, your torps can STILL hit from 30km.
Now, I don't believe a Mega should be able to track a frig, of course they shouldn't. But you're not able to on TQ right now, you're not able to on SiSi right now. The problem with SiSi and blasters is that you're left even more vulnerable to other ships exploiting the fact that they can kite you around.
Why did Blasterboats need a nerf to begin with? They're already balanced on TQ as it is from what most people think. The issue was nano ships, not blasters, so why are we getting the nerfbat as well? That's the issue and point of this thread.
|
Titan Pilot
Amarr
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 00:48:00 -
[78]
someone once said the Battleship is not a solo pwn mobile...
Give me an example of another BS that does exactly what the Battleship class blasterships cannot do, without gimping them?
Do you really expect CCP to say:
Ah gosh, Bellum cannot solo gate camp in Gallente space to kill hauler noobs, we better boost blastership tracking? 
This thread simply complains that the ship doesnt work solo. But does it work in a gang? Hell yeah, it sure does...
|
Mes Ren
No Trademark
Obsidian Empire
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 00:56:00 -
[79]
To Bellum:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the test you just outlined, isn't that BC your shooting at sitting right at the edge of your falloff? IF it is, then yes, you would see a large amount of misses ... first and foremost, to the fact that you are at the edge of your falloff, and the compounded by the transversal. If I'm wrong about this, please let me know.
To Markus:
Yes, it is true that this character is an Amarr pilot, and furthermore I primarily fly Amarr, that doesn't diminish my understanding of the game mechanics though. I do agree that the agility issue has created a problem. I think that I was not clear when talking about Scrams vs. Disruptors. I don't think the 24km point is useless, infact, I believe it will continue to be the defacto standard. My point was that you are seeing a lot of them on test, in an environment that people frequently don't fit a point at all. When it comes to TQ, not many people are going to sacrifice their 24km point for a 9km point. People are already hard pressed to catch someone with a 9km point on TQ - and this with massively more speed available to them - , it will be even more difficult to catch someone with a 9km point with the speed changes that are taking place. Only specialty ships or in gangs will you come across the 9km point. It's not that often that people get to custom fit their ship to deal with a specific enemy (yes this is in reference to the comment of "if you know your enemy is a blasterboat, why fit a web), in mot cases people will still use webs because they work on all ships, not just MWD ships. After these changes, there will be a lot less MWD ships. If they do however fit a Scram instead of a web, then if you are using a scram and web yourself, you will still be able to get on top of them (unless of course they are using an AB, in which case you will have more issues, -- which is how it should be, that is the boost to making AB's viable in PvP (note: not viable on all ships or builds)).
Please do this for me, make sure in your tests that the hostile ship is at your optimal when conducting your tracking test. As it stands, it seems to me that most people have been contducting these test where the hostile is orbiting outside of (or right at) the edge of falloff range. When you had a 90% web, you were definately going to hit more, as you can hit a practically stationary target outside your falloff. But with the 60% web, you aren't hitting as much, but it's seems it's more an issue of the fact you are at/or outside of your falloff.
And to post evidence. I had a fight with a demios with my pilgram. The demios got on top of me, and webbed me. I tracking disrupted him, and it did absoluted nothing, he continued to rip me a new one while he was within 1,000m of me. Fortunately, I was setup with an AB, 9km Scram, and Web. even then, it was not an instant thing for me to get out of range of is guns. As soon as I was outside of his optimal and fallout though, he couldn't do anything in the way of dmg. The point of the story was the fact that it had nothing to do with my transversal, and everything to do with optimal and falloff. I had a similar thing happen with me flying a curse, and a demios got on top of me. The only thing that saved me was the neuts and the fact he didn't have a scram. Now, we all know that a demios will have a hard time killing a competent curse or pilgrim pilot (just a bad match) but it doesn't change the tracking facts.
Now after having said all this: I'm not opposed to given a boost to blaster, I personally think they are currently underpowered on TQ (my arguements have thus far been based around the idea that everyone thinks blasters are balanced on TQ). I don't think tracking is what is needed, blasters need a little more range, or better long range ammo. Other than fixing agility, I think the other problems are dealt with by simply not trying to do everything.
________________________
No Trademark -- Mes Ren, Mes Builder --
-- CEO --
|
Mes Ren
No Trademark
Obsidian Empire
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 00:58:00 -
[80]
Originally by: DruzidelCastro
Originally by: Mes Ren
To the people who are complaining about tracking disruptors .... if you are having issues now, you are having issues on TQ. A skilled pilot in a bonused ship can bring your total optimal+falloff to way below what you might have thought. You seem to think the issue is that your tracking SPEED is being disrupted, when in fact your OPTIMAL RANGE and FALLOFF are being disrupted. Combine that with having issues staying close to the target (combination of an agility issue that needs fixing and a refusable to use a scram instead of a disruptor) and you get what it is you are complaining about.
I never once said anything about optimal range being an issue. With a 60% web your target can orbit you faster and your turrets will have a pretty hard time tracking it. I have a feeling that adding even an unbonused tracking disruptor with the tracking disruption script will royally screw you. If anyone could do some testing on that I'm a little interested in what the results might be.
I'll have to see about getting sisi set up again...
What I meant was that you probably weren't being tracking speed disrupted, but were being optimal and falloff range disrupted. IF they are able to stay outside of your minscule optimal+falloff (especially if that has been reduced by tracking disruptor) you are going to hit crap, even if you get the tracking speed of a small autocannon.
________________________
No Trademark -- Mes Ren, Mes Builder --
-- CEO --
|
|
Markas Crais
House of Dying Laggers
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 00:59:00 -
[81]
Edited by: Markas Crais on 30/07/2008 01:03:33
Originally by: Titan Pilot
someone once said the Battleship is not a solo pwn mobile...
Give me an example of another BS that does exactly what the Battleship class blasterships cannot do, without gimping them?
Do you really expect CCP to say:
Ah gosh, Bellum cannot solo gate camp in Gallente space to kill hauler noobs, we better boost blastership tracking?
This thread simply complains that the ship doesnt work solo. But does it work in a gang? Hell yeah, it sure does...
Have you even done any testing on SiSi to see what changes have been made? I thought this nerf was about nanos, not about nerfing other ships. It's not just the blasterships that are suffering, it's the Minmatar BSes as well (minus the Typhoon).
Saying a BS is a solo pwn mobile is a gross overstatement. But it shouldn't mean you need to be in huge groups to be effective in pvp either.
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente
Death of Virtue
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 01:02:00 -
[82]
Mes Ren-
You're totally off the mark. Blaster pilots arn't asking to be able to track 'anything and everything'. We just want to be able to track same-sized targets reasonably well and be competitive with the rest of the three races.
Running out of cap? It takes my Hype approximately *four times* as long to cover the same 20km sprint to the target as it does on TQ due to the reduced acceleration and top speed compounding the problem. I have to cycle my MWD four times as much to get there. That's a 400% increase in cap use. And no, a little extra cap and regen doesn't make up for that.
Tracking disruptors. Optimal range/fall off penalties isn't what is hurting blaster ships. It's the fact that the ship speeds have been increased by FOUR HUNDRED PERCENT when compared to TQ when they're webbed and orbiting. 90% web, 10% speed, 60% web, 40% base speed, plus this actually makes people more likely to run their AB/MWD in hopes of escaping, because now they actaully have a chance.
SISI doesn't represent TQ? Bullshit. I go out of my way to test on SISI exactly how I fly on TQ. I also get friends to set ships up exactly how I want to test so that way I'm ensured that I'm testing against realistic targets that represent what I encounter on TQ. Their skillpoints are also realistic and representative.
You say that blaster pilots 'just need to start fitting 2 point scrams'. Unacceptable. If I said that to all the rest of the pilots they'd tell me the same.
SISI pilots fitting 2 point scrams isn't unrealistic. Ishtar, Myrmidon, Tempest, Hyperion, Sacrilige and lots of others can easily fit all their 'required' mids and still have room for both 24km and 9km scrams. As a blaster pilot I'm also expert in fighting blaster ships and killing them with dissimilar setups. The current change is very binary: blaster ships lose, everything else wins when properly flown and set up.
Due to the crippled top speeds of blaster ships, there will be no 'coasting back into range' after targets are > 9km. You'll slowly accelerate, get back into 9km range and then have your MWD turn off. Presto, you're still at 9km range, and webbed, and no MWD. Again.
*None* of what you have said has any basis in reality. Further more, why all the effort to keep blaster ships down? How many blaster ships have killed you in the past six months? Any? Or do you just not want to see anything that you don't personally use ruined just for the hell of it? What are you getting out of arguing the point like this?
Bellum Eternus
[Vid] L E G E N D A R Y COLLECTION
Inveniam viam aut faciam. |
doctorstupid2
The Accursed
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 01:05:00 -
[83]
Originally by: Titan Pilot
someone once said the Battleship is not a solo pwn mobile...
Give me an example of another BS that does exactly what the Battleship class blasterships cannot do, without gimping them?
Do you really expect CCP to say:
Ah gosh, Bellum cannot solo gate camp in Gallente space to kill hauler noobs, we better boost blastership tracking?
This thread simply complains that the ship doesnt work solo. But does it work in a gang? Hell yeah, it sure does...
Good point, forcing people to blob, and make less ISK by splitting loot in an already crashed T2 market, fixes the issue of... wait, what?
Abusive | Deadspace | Deadspace2 |
Bellum Eternus
Gallente
Death of Virtue
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 01:12:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Mes Ren
To Bellum:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the test you just outlined, isn't that BC your shooting at sitting right at the edge of your falloff? IF it is, then yes, you would see a large amount of misses ... first and foremost, to the fact that you are at the edge of your falloff, and the compounded by the transversal. If I'm wrong about this, please let me know.
Indeed, I had my friend orbiting at my precise optimal: 4km, and 3750 is my max skilled optimal with no TC/TE, so with that included my real optimal was around 5.5km.
I would never test something like this without making it as easy as possible for the guns to track, and keeping the blasters deep in falloff would be an idiotic and unthinkable mistake in a test like this.
What you *should* have asked was this: did I test the same setup while orbiting at various ranges while within optimal? And the answer is yes. I tested it at 500m orbit, 1km, 2km etc. out to 7km to see if there was a DPS difference. There wasn't. The answer was clear: 60% webs are wholly unacceptable for the current level of blaster tracking in order for the guns to connect with their target.
Also note: I did some manual piloting tests where as the BS pilot I tried to manually minimize the transverse velocity as much as possible. The BS was too slow and it was pointless to do so, I could always be out manouvered by the target ship.
If you're really interested in fixing the problem, then think about the first five hundred or so solutions to the issue, throw all those out, as those are all the obvious ones, and then start the real problem solving.
Bellum Eternus
[Vid] L E G E N D A R Y COLLECTION
Inveniam viam aut faciam. |
Markas Crais
House of Dying Laggers
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 01:15:00 -
[85]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Originally by: Mes Ren
To Bellum:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the test you just outlined, isn't that BC your shooting at sitting right at the edge of your falloff? IF it is, then yes, you would see a large amount of misses ... first and foremost, to the fact that you are at the edge of your falloff, and the compounded by the transversal. If I'm wrong about this, please let me know.
Indeed, I had my friend orbiting at my precise optimal: 4km, and 3750 is my max skilled optimal with no TC/TE, so with that included my real optimal was around 5.5km.
I would never test something like this without making it as easy as possible for the guns to track, and keeping the blasters deep in falloff would be an idiotic and unthinkable mistake in a test like this.
What you *should* have asked was this: did I test the same setup while orbiting at various ranges while within optimal? And the answer is yes. I tested it at 500m orbit, 1km, 2km etc. out to 7km to see if there was a DPS difference. There wasn't. The answer was clear: 60% webs are wholly unacceptable for the current level of blaster tracking in order for the guns to connect with their target.
Also note: I did some manual piloting tests where as the BS pilot I tried to manually minimize the transverse velocity as much as possible. The BS was too slow and it was pointless to do so, I could always be out manouvered by the target ship.
If you're really interested in fixing the problem, then think about the first five hundred or so solutions to the issue, throw all those out, as those are all the obvious ones, and then start the real problem solving.
/signed
I noticed this problem as well.
|
KiIIBiII
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 01:16:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Markas Crais
Originally by: KiIIBiII
Originally by: Markas Crais
Wtf are you talking about? Seriously now. Why would you even bother putting a MWD on a Raven to begin with? You're already hitting from 200+ km with cruise missiles. And now that speed has been fixed there's less ships that can outrun your missiles. The problem us blaster people are encountering is its almost a requirement to fit a MWD (Deimos MWD bonus anyone?) to get in range and stay there because ABs are still rubbish. However, The acceleration on MWD, especially on a BS is incredibly slow, that if you don't have a Disruptor anything that sees you coming is going to run away. With missiles you can be 3 km away or 200 km away and it really doesn't matter as long as they can't outrun your missiles. You don't need to worry about being kited around but turret ships do, especially blasters because of the low optimal.
About glass ship witch get even worser with 2 sensor boosters in mid except for 1 mid mwd, and about blasters, start using rails, you won't have to worry about range, i fit torps when i want dps, but hey its one or another not both at once.
Fit rails so I have even less of a chance hitting anything? No thank you. I don't know about you but I think Evil Pookie is pretty damn successful in his Raven.
How can you argue that a Raven is gimped compared to a Blasterthron on SiSi atm? Your Torps don't need to worry about tracking a target, your torps can STILL hit from 30km.
Now, I don't believe a Mega should be able to track a frig, of course they shouldn't. But you're not able to on TQ right now, you're not able to on SiSi right now. The problem with SiSi and blasters is that you're left even more vulnerable to other ships exploiting the fact that they can kite you around.
Why did Blasterboats need a nerf to begin with? They're already balanced on TQ as it is from what most people think. The issue was nano ships, not blasters, so why are we getting the nerfbat as well? That's the issue and point of this thread.
Easy because we talk about changes witch will go on live, and I'm happy that at last on test server raven become anything usefully in pvp. But thats still test not live, and as it were told somewhere else, its still going to be decided what goes live and what don't.
|
The Djego
Minmatar
merovinger inc
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 01:17:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Titan Pilot
someone once said the Battleship is not a solo pwn mobile...
Give me an example of another BS that does exactly what the Battleship class blasterships cannot do, without gimping them?
Do you really expect CCP to say:
Ah gosh, Bellum cannot solo gate camp in Gallente space to kill hauler noobs, we better boost blastership tracking?
This thread simply complains that the ship doesnt work solo. But does it work in a gang? Hell yeah, it sure does...
Wow here speekes the powerfull Alt.
Solo and beeing powerfull in Web range is the only thing left for Blaster ships. In a Gang with 5+ People, bring a Raven or Abaddon/Gedon, fare more effective. In a bigger Gang, well Blaster Ships are compleetly useless, since the Target is dead before you are in Range.
Removing the extra tackling/DPS role of Blasterships remove Blaster Ships at all.
You are absoluty clueless about what a Blaster ship can do solo(and yes it is a special role) and this is why people using Blaster Ships. Not all people PVP in 0.0 and not all People like Blobs.
----
Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus
Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
Xyleya
moon7empler
Ev0ke
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 01:18:00 -
[88]
Tested for some hours since yesterday with this char using AC-boats and a Sacrilege and with my second char using Blaster- and Droneboats.
Megathron:
First of all it's slow like a brick now and accellerates even slower. To reach max-speed (around 750m/sec) it takes so lang, that my Cap runs out before I can get there, even with the now reduced Cap-penalty.
If I finally reach the target then at optimal (5km!) I turn on the Scram and the Web to hold the target down, but if the target does not stand still even my Ion II with AM do not hit very well on a battleship. It feels like the main-damage is coming from my 5x Ogre II instead of my 7x Ion II.
The time it takes to close a gap of 20km against an Armageddon, Raven or even a Tempest leaves me without shields and in armor allready before I can finally start to apply damage. So, as the tank of those ships is somewhat comparable, we look at a difference of 6-8k HP allready.
The Ravens I engaged did have no problems to hit full force with their torps and I went down, before I got them anywhere near armor. The Armageddons did have no problem hitting me with Mega Pulses II and MF aswell and again, I went down, before the Armageddons got into deeper troubles.
The Tempests did not have superior firepower, and I managed to do good damage to them, but as a Tempest has no problems of fitting atleast 1x Heavy Neutralizer I ran out of cap too fast and again, I died.
If you try to buffer-tank the Megathron with 2x 1600mm Plates... yeah... look at 670m/sec Topspeed and even worse agility and acceleration then. You'll not get into range at all here.
Deimos:
Same as the Megathron, but if you sacrifice damage and use EC-600 instead of Hammerheads or Valkyres, then you might get two or three lucky cycles on your target, if you've managed to close in fast enough that is.
Ishtar or Dominix have basically the same trouble, as they need to get into close range, to make use of their Heavy Drones. They simply don't work that well, if you've to send them 20km to your target.
As the Ishtar is not viable as a nanoHac with the changes made to speed, you'll have a hard time fitting it with a tank (against other HACs!) but it's better then a Deimos atleast and a little bit faster and more agile.
Enyo... yeah sure 
Taranis:
The Taranis is quite nice, as you usually don't fit it for speed, so you don't loose anything here. As a ceptor-killer 1vs1 it's still decent, but you wanna make sure to fit a Scrambler instead of a Disruptor now.
AC-Pest:
Low damage as usual and why they needed to add mass and make it slower is something I don't understand. You need that little bit of more agility and speed to outmanouver other battleships.
In all there hasn't changed very much tho, but I've lost the fear for Megathrons as described above
Sacrilege:
Yep. Tanked and not fitted for Speed. MWD, CapBooster, Web + Scram are what you're looking for in combination with HAMs. Get close, very close... hug your opponent that have turrets fitted and slug it out. At very close distance turrets won't harm you and your HAMs don't have tracking nor need cap. You can tank like a ***** with all resistances over 80% and a Med Rep + 800mm Plate and that 600m¦ full of Cap charges :p
The utility-slot for a Neutralizer is very wellcome aswell.
Definately a ship I'll look forward to fly much more often, if the changes hit TQ.
So yeah... text of Wall. Sorry 
tldr; Mega, Deimos, Astarte sucks now, as they can't close in fast enough and can't pin their target with a 60% Web, to hit it with bad-tracking Blasters.
.
 |
DruzidelCastro
Vale Heavy Industries
Molotov Coalition
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 01:34:00 -
[89]
Originally by: Mes Ren
What I meant was that you probably weren't being tracking speed disrupted, but were being optimal and falloff range disrupted. IF they are able to stay outside of your minscule optimal+falloff (especially if that has been reduced by tracking disruptor) you are going to hit crap, even if you get the tracking speed of a small autocannon.
I'm not talking about a past experience or fight or anything, I'm talking about a hypothetical situation where a tracking disruptor will be used with a tracking speed disruption script. I'm quite aware of what optimal range scripts do, the only reason nobody complains about them is that they aren't widely used and they don't affect launchers.
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 01:35:00 -
[90]
/signed
I was really hoping to have some fun with my old blaster setups now that I don't have to worry about dying to a nano gang every other fight. CCP, please re-think the effects of trying to do so much all at once. Nerf snakes and polycarbons, do NOT nerf blaster ships now that they're finally going to have a role again!
 |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |