| 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 - 2008.07.30 01:55:00 -
[91]
As I have said in just about every post in this thread, I feel they need to do something about the agility of blaster ships. Bellum, please don't get mad at me, I'm not trying to be hostile, or ruin anything ... just trying to keep people honest. You yourself will admit that most people tend to exagerate when it comes to "their prefered ship builds." Many of the posts in this thread lead the reader to believe that the tracking issues are associated to BS tracking a smaller ship, and/or the target ship simply not staying in range. I'm glad to hear that you tested within your optimal, and based on that, I would agree that at least BS blasters need a tracking boost. I wouldn't want to see it so that you could easily hit crusier type ships, but you should be able to hit a bc decently well if you have it webbed with 1 web.
My concern comes from the fact that while you won't fit a scram, there are going to be people that do, especially if they aren't flying solo. With a scram fitted, and in conjunction with a web, i don't want to see blasterboats boosted in such a way that if a blasterthron got a hold of a crusier, that it's insta pop of said crusier -- which is realistic if tracking is improved too much (I know all too well how much dps a blasterboat puts out).
________________________
No Trademark -- Mes Ren, Mes Builder --
-- CEO --
|
Kirex
Vale Heavy Industries
Molotov Coalition
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 02:11:00 -
[92]
Edited by: Kirex on 30/07/2008 02:12:46
 Originally by: Titan Pilot
Give me an example of another BS that does exactly what the Battleship class blasterships cannot do, without gimping them?
-Torp raven can hit out to 30km with faction ammo for 950+ DPS with no tracking issues AND the ability to change damage type, 726 HP/sec shield tank, WITH warp disrupter.
-Armageddon can hit over 25km doing 1.1k DPS, no need to even move. Over 115k effective HP.
-Abaddon can hit at 20km with 800mm ACs doing 745 DPS plus the ability to change damage types, uses virtually no cap, over 163 thousand effective HP. (Can fit laz0rs too ofc :P)
-Maelstrom can hit from 20km doing 1k DPS with the ability to change damage type and a stable 830 hp/sec shield tank. with scram.
-Tempest can hit from 20km doing 840 dps and fast enough to KITE a blaster ship, and 2 utility high slots for remote reps (very good for gangs)
-Typhoon can be gank fitted to get over 1.1k DPS, torps always hit, 96k effective HP, MWD/WEB/DIS
-Rokh is basicly the Caldari version of a blasterthron with a bit more range for a bit less DPS.
Megathron: 1k DPS, problems hitting outside of web range, 120k effective HP, cap intensive
Enough evefit warrior for me today. Can you leave us alone now? :(
 |
Sgt Napalm
Synergy Evolved
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 03:15:00 -
[93]
We have been unsticked 
|
Markas Crais
House of Dying Laggers
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 03:50:00 -
[94]
Originally by: Xyleya
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.
I noticed that as well. My Mega goes 777 m/s with MWD on. The problem is that it takes me 25+ seconds to even reach 600 m/s. By that time I have already burned through 3/4s of my cap.
So even though we do receive more cap from MWDs, we have to run them for longer periods of time to get any real thrust out of them, and we end up with even less cap than what we get on TQ.
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente
Death of Virtue
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 04:20:00 -
[95]
Originally by: Mes Ren
<stuff>
Sorry about getting snippy. 
Your concern about easy cruiser kills is justified, but please allow me to add some info and then tell me what you think:
Please tell me if I'm understanding you correctly: You're worried that in a small-medium gang that Blasterthrons/Hypes specifically, and in lesser cases ships likt the Astarte will be running 9km scrams and will just shut down cruiser sized ships too effectively and kill them too fast. Right?
IMO that combo isn't the main thing cruiser pilots should be worried about in small gang combat. That will be the least of their problems if they encounter BS.
If I were in a small gang, I'd be in a Domi fitting a few heavy neuts, or a Tempest with two heavy neuts, and *just because* of these new changes, I have made a specially modified Blasterthron setup which is basically my tried and true Neutron II setup, but downgraded to Ion IIs, but I've added guess what? A Heavy Neutralizer to the setup. I've had to sacrifice a lot of my tank to do so (CPU issues, I've had to downgrade from 36 CPU EANM2s to 0 CPU ANP2s) but the end result is that I can crush small ship's cap and then try and kill them.
The point I'm trying to make is that adding tracking back into the blasters isn't going to make them into a death ray for smaller ships. Everyone should be worried about heavvy neutralizers, not blasters.
With my Ishtar in an armor tanked configuration, if the BS didn't have a heavy neut then I was fine, and could solo anyone pretty much. One heavy neut and I was pretty much dead. Couldn't even cap boost and mwd out to run, as I'd run out of cap once the second cycle hit. Quite frankly it was pretty eye opening for me.
BTW, I've designed a single rep dual 1600 RT plate Dominix setup that mounts 3x heavy neutralizers, still fits an MWD and has plenty of cap to run the neuts. It's a bad mofo for gang fights. 25km range with the neuts, no tracking issues, just crushes any active tank, and I can tune my damage type via drones. Or use sentries on long range stuff.
Too bad the Domi is too ugly to fly. 
There are far worse ships than blasterships that small craft should fear: Typhoon, Tempest, Dominix, Rokh (cruise/neut rokh = OUCH), Raven, Scorp (tank scorp with cruise/neuts), etc. etc. etc.
And getting back on the subject of blaster ships... the speed nerf is just omg. All blaster ships are just dead slow now. An agility buff would be HUGE in helping them out. The Vindicator has always been an amazing blaster ship because of it's increased agility/reduced mass. Not only for starting to move, but also for stopping once you're in range to reduce/eliminate transverse velocity.
Blaster ships and their targets have to be dead still or you'll miss. I look forward to continuing this conversation. 
Bellum Eternus
[Vid] L E G E N D A R Y COLLECTION
Inveniam viam aut faciam. |
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 04:27:00 -
[96]
I just want to bring up a simple point to you guys :)
don't forget chances are this will be tested mostly likely for at least 4 months.
so while I included are panicking at some things, don't forget they are in no way dumping this all on us at once. in fact we should think of SiSi as a dream world that is just a bad dream :P
but don't worry we'll wake up, ships won't be going 12,000 km, and yet everything will feel like it use to with vagas outrunning heavy missiles until weramed and such.
but yeah good stuff here CCP is listening /i think :)
it's just it's going through to matter what just not this nightmare version of it :P
Originally by: Dapanman1
Terrible idea, you're an idiot
|
Mes Ren
No Trademark
Obsidian Empire
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 06:40:00 -
[97]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Originally by: Mes Ren
<stuff>
Sorry about getting snippy.
Your concern about easy cruiser kills is justified, but please allow me to add some info and then tell me what you think:
Please tell me if I'm understanding you correctly: You're worried that in a small-medium gang that Blasterthrons/Hypes specifically, and in lesser cases ships likt the Astarte will be running 9km scrams and will just shut down cruiser sized ships too effectively and kill them too fast. Right?
IMO that combo isn't the main thing cruiser pilots should be worried about in small gang combat. That will be the least of their problems if they encounter BS.
If I were in a small gang, I'd be in a Domi fitting a few heavy neuts, or a Tempest with two heavy neuts, and *just because* of these new changes, I have made a specially modified Blasterthron setup which is basically my tried and true Neutron II setup, but downgraded to Ion IIs, but I've added guess what? A Heavy Neutralizer to the setup. I've had to sacrifice a lot of my tank to do so (CPU issues, I've had to downgrade from 36 CPU EANM2s to 0 CPU ANP2s) but the end result is that I can crush small ship's cap and then try and kill them.
The point I'm trying to make is that adding tracking back into the blasters isn't going to make them into a death ray for smaller ships. Everyone should be worried about heavvy neutralizers, not blasters.
With my Ishtar in an armor tanked configuration, if the BS didn't have a heavy neut then I was fine, and could solo anyone pretty much. One heavy neut and I was pretty much dead. Couldn't even cap boost and mwd out to run, as I'd run out of cap once the second cycle hit. Quite frankly it was pretty eye opening for me.
BTW, I've designed a single rep dual 1600 RT plate Dominix setup that mounts 3x heavy neutralizers, still fits an MWD and has plenty of cap to run the neuts. It's a bad mofo for gang fights. 25km range with the neuts, no tracking issues, just crushes any active tank, and I can tune my damage type via drones. Or use sentries on long range stuff.
Too bad the Domi is too ugly to fly.
There are far worse ships than blasterships that small craft should fear: Typhoon, Tempest, Dominix, Rokh (cruise/neut rokh = OUCH), Raven, Scorp (tank scorp with cruise/neuts), etc. etc. etc.
And getting back on the subject of blaster ships... the speed nerf is just omg. All blaster ships are just dead slow now. An agility buff would be HUGE in helping them out. The Vindicator has always been an amazing blaster ship because of it's increased agility/reduced mass. Not only for starting to move, but also for stopping once you're in range to reduce/eliminate transverse velocity.
Blaster ships and their targets have to be dead still or you'll miss. I look forward to continuing this conversation.
It's not so much as the 9km scram, it just makes it worse. I just want to make sure that if they boost tracking, you all of a sudden aren't able to easily hit crusiers with your BS blasters, which equals insta pop. I know there are a lot of other nasty bs's out there, but none can pop a crusier as fast as a blasterthron (what is really funny is that I've never been concerned about blasterboats - and still not, just like seeing things in balance as long as they are making changes). Again, the agility issue really needs to be addressed ... that solves a lot of issues.
________________________
No Trademark -- Mes Ren, Mes Builder --
-- CEO --
|
Markas Crais
House of Dying Laggers
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 06:56:00 -
[98]
Originally by: Mes Ren
It's not so much as the 9km scram, it just makes it worse. I just want to make sure that if they boost tracking, you all of a sudden aren't able to easily hit crusiers with your BS blasters, which equals insta pop. I know there are a lot of other nasty bs's out there, but none can pop a crusier as fast as a blasterthron (what is really funny is that I've never been concerned about blasterboats - and still not, just like seeing things in balance as long as they are making changes). Again, the agility issue really needs to be addressed ... that solves a lot of issues.
I agree, the agility is horrendous at the moment (Gallente and Minmatar). While testing my friend's Raven was out turning and kiting me around that by the time I managed to get in range I was out of cap boosters. One MWD burst had me going about 400 m/s (which is a bit slower than an AB), top speed being 777 m/s. So the thrust from MWDs on bigger ships is really messed up right now in my opinion. What really made it worse was I couldn't continually boost because of the MWD delay, so I lost a lot of speed and cap to boot.
Tracking doesn't need to be boosted immensely. I was still able to kill a Caracal with just Electron IIs + Void that was orbiting 10km with AB and with MWD once I had it webbed. I didn't instapop it by a long shot. The problem I was having was that when it was out of my web range I was screwed if I didn't have drones because my guns couldn't track. If I switched to faction ammo (none available) I'm sure I would have hit it, but then again, I can't confirm that. However, I didn't have time to test this with Neutron IIs but since the tracking on those is a lot worse I'm sure I would have had a difficult time.
|
Alkeena
Gallente
Unitas Nusquam Est
FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 07:04:00 -
[99]
Originally by: Neleva
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Respectable commentary
It is simple mate, MWD gets shut down YES, BUT you dont use it to fly fast, only to get into combat range, and with the new web nerf, youll eaven get there when your MWD is shut down at 9 KM. Ever thought about fitting MWD and AB ? =) gL trying fittings on SiSi
I'm ashamed that you're in my alliance. GTFO.
|
Sweet Rosella
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 07:39:00 -
[100]
Originally by: Titan Pilot
A couple of points of mention
1. 1100 to 800 m/s is hardly a nerf. Big whoopie do. Your slow ass BS is a slow ass BS...
2. Blaster ships have always had tracking problems. Tracking links, tracking computers are your friends...shesh, large guns, 5k range, what did you expect?
3. Fitting cap injectors are common in many setups. If it means fitting one on your Deimos so you can use it, then I guess you should fit one 
4. Congratulations on telling CCP that HAMs are overpowered. Enjoy your HAM Cerb until the next patch 
Noob
 |
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente
Death of Virtue
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 08:02:00 -
[101]
Originally by: Markas Crais
Originally by: Mes Ren
It's not so much as the 9km scram, it just makes it worse. I just want to make sure that if they boost tracking, you all of a sudden aren't able to easily hit crusiers with your BS blasters, which equals insta pop. I know there are a lot of other nasty bs's out there, but none can pop a crusier as fast as a blasterthron (what is really funny is that I've never been concerned about blasterboats - and still not, just like seeing things in balance as long as they are making changes). Again, the agility issue really needs to be addressed ... that solves a lot of issues.
I agree, the agility is horrendous at the moment (Gallente and Minmatar). While testing my friend's Raven was out turning and kiting me around that by the time I managed to get in range I was out of cap boosters. One MWD burst had me going about 400 m/s (which is a bit slower than an AB), top speed being 777 m/s. So the thrust from MWDs on bigger ships is really messed up right now in my opinion. What really made it worse was I couldn't continually boost because of the MWD delay, so I lost a lot of speed and cap to boot.
Tracking doesn't need to be boosted immensely. I was still able to kill a Caracal with just Electron IIs + Void that was orbiting 10km with AB and with MWD once I had it webbed. I didn't instapop it by a long shot. The problem I was having was that when it was out of my web range I was screwed if I didn't have drones because my guns couldn't track. If I switched to faction ammo (none available) I'm sure I would have hit it, but then again, I can't confirm that. However, I didn't have time to test this with Neutron IIs but since the tracking on those is a lot worse I'm sure I would have had a difficult time.
My main issue is this: all blaster ships need to be put back to TQ balance with respect to how effective they are vs. all ship types. The only thing that needed nerfing was nano ships, and now blaster ships are taking a hit as collateral damage.
Three basic areas: tracking, top speed/agility and the 2 point scram issue.
The 2 point scram issue I can ignore for now. The agility/speed issue is a problem, but IMO more easily fixed. The tracking issue is a huge problem, and while I'm all *for* small ships like AFs getting in under a BS's guns, I don't think that it's right for BS and BCs to be able to avoid BS guns so easily. Furthermore, I don't think there's any problem at all with BS guns killing cruisers either, but I do agree that blasters shouldn't be buffed above current TQ performance vs. a webbed Cruiser either.
Frankly, I think that the answer might be buffing the best webs to 70% or 75% effectiveness, with the rest of the named/T1 slightly lower, and then improving tracking on the blasters slightly. Currently a T1 web is -75%, making the new limit 70% seems pretty reasonable to me. Maybe even adding just 5% more to all webs might help quite a lot with the overall reduced speeds. Thoughts?
Bellum Eternus
[Vid] L E G E N D A R Y COLLECTION
Inveniam viam aut faciam. |
Keitaro Baka
Babylon Scientific and Industrial Enterprises
Babylon Project
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 08:13:00 -
[102]
I know it sucks to do this but has anyone tried not bringing ogre/zerker IIs and bringing web drones in a scrambler normal fit neut mega?
I also know this doesn't help the smaller ships and yes it is quite easy to keep blaster ship at range in this version of the test patch if you know what you're doing, but sadly this is only a solo problem. Bring friends to tackle the enemy good and you're doing your full damage again.
That's how torp ravens have had to do it for ages.. But if you want to fly a solo blaster ship in this setting there is only one thing for it atm: learn caldari BS and shield tanking and fly a rokh. At this point in time the rokh is the supreme blaster boat. I really hope CCP doesn't intend that to remain that way.
On the other hand, I do believe most gank fitted plated megathron were too fast to begin with, but the combination of the nerfs/buffs for scrambler and web make it's damage radius just a bit too small.
Boosting that radius yourself is really hard, since everything is percentage based and 10% of range nothing is still nothing. Boosting it so that heavy blasters (cruiser sized) could reach 10km is also too much.. but with scramblers and webs as they are now 5km is a bit low again. It's really a tough one tbh..
The thing is, if blaster boats gets boosted ceterus paribus then any small gang with jamming power and blaster ships will be easily ott since 70% of the problems are when people use mods on you. The other 30% is people whining about tracking. Blasters track badly, we all know that, been like that for a long while.. Blasters not tracking a pointed webbed cruiser within optimal would be a problem. Targets getting out of optimal + falloff pretty easily while webbed&scrambled would be an issue, but like people have already mentioned, that's why you fit a heavy unstable energy neut.
So yeah the heavy neut has become an almost mandatory module on the blasterthron. It makes the ship a lot less viable because cap will be a very big issue, but a lot of people will try to do that before they switch drones to 3x web, 2x target painter ..
The frigs are ok, blasteranis is now a much better choice. (Battle)Cruisers will have issues indeed, but to be fair, AC (B)C are hit by this nerf pretty badly too. It is when you compare them to the no cap using missile (B)C that a real unbalanced picture is shown: HAM/HM caracals and drakes, not the mention those command ships.. And yes as for the BS comparisons it's sad that turrets are so easily diminished in their abilities while missiles are not (no ammount of transversal will keep your BS from being hit, pick damage type, FoF). Nor are drones to some extent, but everybody can fight drones and at least those can be kited, killed and there is only so many of them..
Don't get me wrong, blasterships still can work, their abilities have just been nerfed about as much as the rapier/vagabonds.. Luckily most blasterthrons won't have the wrong implants/rigs fitted should the nerf hit like this.
All the stuff above does not necessarily reflect my corp, my alliance or even me..
Drone guide.. |
Alex Harumichi
Gallente
Gradient
Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 08:17:00 -
[103]
Blaster ships need some help, yes. The two main problems are:
- Speed. Especially after this upcoming change, you'll be out or cap and deep into armor before you even start to do damage. With missiles and lasers (at least) offering near-equivalent or equivalent dps at vastly better range, there is little reason to fly a blasterboat unless you like doing zero dps for most of the fight.
- Tracking. With the new changes, large and med blaster tracking is a bit lacking.
Some boosts to both of those, either via direct module/ship stats or via ship bonuses, might fix things.
The bigger ships (Mega, Hyp, Astarte, etc) are the ones with the biggest problems here, since they are so slow and cumbersome now. Slow + ultrasmall weapon range is not a good combo, especially when your dps isn't much higher than competing weapon systems even if you do make it to range.
|
WillageGirl
Advanced Tactics and Maneuvers
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 08:31:00 -
[104]
Edited by: WillageGirl on 30/07/2008 08:32:05
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Frankly, I think that the answer might be buffing the best webs to 70% or 75% effectiveness, with the rest of the named/T1 slightly lower, and then improving tracking on the blasters slightly. Currently a T1 web is -75%, making the new limit 70% seems pretty reasonable to me. Maybe even adding just 5% more to all webs might help quite a lot with the overall reduced speeds. Thoughts?
I would be happy if overall blaster tracking got boosted a bit (just to bring them in line with other turrets) and tracking bonus / MWD bonus on blaster spec.ed ships would be changed to webifier bonus, since being able to get and stay close while webed is the only thing allowing blaster ships to stay in the game, not to mention the need for web to help with tracking (even if turrets woudl get boosted).
Since one cant rely on MWD to maneuver in 9k anymore, having upper hand with webifier is about the only option I can think of at the moment. (hopefully I can think of something else after few cups of coffee)
Fighting for Our right to Cloak since 2004 |
Bellum Eternus
Gallente
Death of Virtue
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 08:51:00 -
[105]
Keitaro-
Excellent points.
Some observations on web drones: I've tried both web and TP drones, even neut drones in various combinations. The main issue with web (and damp drones for that matter) is that they're stacking nerfed. So 5x web drones and you're not webbed that much.
Additionally, not everyone has the drone space for 5x web drones. On top of that, they are destroyed quite readily, plus there is the issue of not being able to use drones at all while pirating on low sec gates (which is pretty much all I do these days lol).
If they removed the stacking nerf from web drones it would help a lot, but it still wouldn't be workable when pirating. Additionally, if you go with web drones, you're seriously nerfing the existing capability of carrying ECM or combat heavy drones that you would otherwise normally be able to employ. So we're trying to prop up a broken situation by putting bandaids on it rather than actually adressing the problem.
Bellum Eternus
[Vid] L E G E N D A R Y COLLECTION
Inveniam viam aut faciam. |
Sellyna
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 08:59:00 -
[106]
Edited by: Sellyna on 30/07/2008 09:03:07
Originally by: Xyleya
Lots uf stuff
You can fitt ac's to do 900 dps with drones have a tank + range!
all "close range" wepons hitt at ranges whel above 10k, but no the Galente ones,
Dps vice the other close range wepons are realy realy close to the Power of a neutron mega,
But the RANGE the other "close range" systems have is a lot bether becuse they can hitt at range, (especaily torp ravens)
|
Mes Ren
No Trademark
Obsidian Empire
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 09:03:00 -
[107]
Edited by: Mes Ren on 30/07/2008 09:06:44
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Originally by: Markas Crais
Originally by: Mes Ren
Content
More Content
My main issue is this: all blaster ships need to be put back to TQ balance with respect to how effective they are vs. all ship types. The only thing that needed nerfing was nano ships, and now blaster ships are taking a hit as collateral damage.
Three basic areas: tracking, top speed/agility and the 2 point scram issue.
The 2 point scram issue I can ignore for now. The agility/speed issue is a problem, but IMO more easily fixed. The tracking issue is a huge problem, and while I'm all *for* small ships like AFs getting in under a BS's guns, I don't think that it's right for BS and BCs to be able to avoid BS guns so easily. Furthermore, I don't think there's any problem at all with BS guns killing cruisers either, but I do agree that blasters shouldn't be buffed above current TQ performance vs. a webbed Cruiser either.
Frankly, I think that the answer might be buffing the best webs to 70% or 75% effectiveness, with the rest of the named/T1 slightly lower, and then improving tracking on the blasters slightly. Currently a T1 web is -75%, making the new limit 70% seems pretty reasonable to me. Maybe even adding just 5% more to all webs might help quite a lot with the overall reduced speeds. Thoughts?
Well, I think everyone agrees that if they aren't going to adjust the mass of the blaster ships, that they need to do a huge adjustment to the agility of blaster boats so they accelerate faster. The tops speed may need to be improved too, but honestly, we won't know that until after they improve the acceleration. I would much prefer to see the tracking increased on the BS blasters than to see any improvement to web strength. A web strength buff would hurt the new usefulness of AB's across the board, rather than fixing the BS blasterboat. For Crusier size blasters and below, so far, I haven't really seen anyone provide any clear test data that a tracking improvement is needed. My own experience is that they are able to track fine, and I know a few others have mentioned that. It would be nice if we could get some more test data on that. Some other considerations that came to mind as to why not to buff the web strength any is webber drone. In the past, people have not bothered with webbing drones for 2 reasons, 1) a 90% web was so effective that it was a waste to use webber drones. 2) webber drones were too slow to catch anything that you needed webbed (such as any ship that you couldn't keep up with and that was out of web range) in the first place. With the changes to speed, most ships are now slow enough that you can't outrun the webber drones. We should make an effort to test webber drones in the context of the new patch and the proposed changes we are discussing here to see what that accomplishes.
Edit: Didn't see the other posts beyond this quote, so some of this is repetitious.
________________________
No Trademark -- Mes Ren, Mes Builder --
-- CEO --
|
Mes Ren
No Trademark
Obsidian Empire
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 09:17:00 -
[108]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Keitaro-
Excellent points.
Some observations on web drones: I've tried both web and TP drones, even neut drones in various combinations. The main issue with web (and damp drones for that matter) is that they're stacking nerfed. So 5x web drones and you're not webbed that much.
Additionally, not everyone has the drone space for 5x web drones. On top of that, they are destroyed quite readily, plus there is the issue of not being able to use drones at all while pirating on low sec gates (which is pretty much all I do these days lol).
If they removed the stacking nerf from web drones it would help a lot, but it still wouldn't be workable when pirating. Additionally, if you go with web drones, you're seriously nerfing the existing capability of carrying ECM or combat heavy drones that you would otherwise normally be able to employ. So we're trying to prop up a broken situation by putting bandaids on it rather than actually adressing the problem.
We should still test them again. Due to stacking issues, you wouldn't want to be using more than 2 - 3 webber drones in combination with your web, but those 2 or 3 webber drones I'm fairly certain would give you at least the equivelent 5% boost to the web effect you were looking for (I really need to look at the numbers from SISI, and it is very late right now). You are definately right about the issue with the gate guns, though I can't have as much sympthy for that, because there are quite a few ships you can't use on the gates to pirate with (unless you like spending isk on drones). -- I'm not bitter at all that Amarr's best solo ship is practically useless for lowsec pirating on the gates .
________________________
No Trademark -- Mes Ren, Mes Builder --
-- CEO --
|
Maeltstome
Minmatar
Suicidal Office Clerks
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 09:22:00 -
[109]
I'm going to be a git here, but fly a tempest so forgive me for not being sympathetic to other BS pilots who think they have it hard off.
Mega/Hyp are lighter than minnie BS now if im right, meaning they can get decent MWD speed. Without teh changes going live a tempest can outpace a mega (especially if its plated) - but now it seems the different is not huge.
If a scrambler is fitted insead of a disruptor, along with a web - wouldn't this level the playing field again regardless? Also with the larger drone bay on the gallente ships, can't webber drones be used to nullify more speed?
The raven currently is complimented well by using TP drones instead of DPS drones, and a blaster mega/Hyp will still outdamage most BS without the heavy drones.
P.s.
Whats wrong with using null?
Slap down my argument please, cause im missing the point... other than the Blaster-plate-mega isn't the best solo bs in the game by a factor of 3 anymore.
-------
[12:07] w33Daz: a trained 1 skill fur 24 mins n it took 2 days aff drones lvl 5
[12:07] w33Daz: A WIS LIKE WTF |
Arana Tellen
Gallente
Mercenary Forces
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 10:14:00 -
[110]
Maybe integrate the cap bonus on blaster ships and give them a small webbing bonus or tracking bonus perhaps?
---------------------------------
Oh noes!
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
*moderated - mother abuse - Mitnal*
|
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente
Death of Virtue
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 10:20:00 -
[111]
Originally by: Maeltstome
I'm going to be a git here, but fly a tempest so forgive me for not being sympathetic to other BS pilots who think they have it hard off.
Mega/Hyp are lighter than minnie BS now if im right, meaning they can get decent MWD speed. Without teh changes going live a tempest can outpace a mega (especially if its plated) - but now it seems the different is not huge.
If a scrambler is fitted insead of a disruptor, along with a web - wouldn't this level the playing field again regardless? Also with the larger drone bay on the gallente ships, can't webber drones be used to nullify more speed?
The raven currently is complimented well by using TP drones instead of DPS drones, and a blaster mega/Hyp will still outdamage most BS without the heavy drones.
P.s.
Whats wrong with using null?
Slap down my argument please, cause im missing the point... other than the Blaster-plate-mega isn't the best solo bs in the game by a factor of 3 anymore.
Meh. I fly a dual neut AC Temp and I can kill blaster ships just fine. Null has crap tracking *and* the DPS reduction is such a huge difference that you just won't kill a target before you either cap out or run out of HP.
Bellum Eternus
[Vid] L E G E N D A R Y COLLECTION
Inveniam viam aut faciam. |
Tixxie Lix
Outer Heaven
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 10:22:00 -
[112]
Originally by: Maeltstome
I'm going to be a git here, but fly a tempest so forgive me for not being sympathetic to other BS pilots who think they have it hard off.
Mega/Hyp are lighter than minnie BS now if im right, meaning they can get decent MWD speed. Without teh changes going live a tempest can outpace a mega (especially if its plated) - but now it seems the different is not huge.
If a scrambler is fitted insead of a disruptor, along with a web - wouldn't this level the playing field again regardless? Also with the larger drone bay on the gallente ships, can't webber drones be used to nullify more speed?
The raven currently is complimented well by using TP drones instead of DPS drones, and a blaster mega/Hyp will still outdamage most BS without the heavy drones.
P.s.
Whats wrong with using null?
Slap down my argument please, cause im missing the point... other than the Blaster-plate-mega isn't the best solo bs in the game by a factor of 3 anymore.
I sorta agree with you but I think you're missing the point of the thread. Minmatar and Gallente have both been heavily nerfed by this patch while Amarr and Caldari have gotten a boost (though other Caldari pilots will tell you differently, because they know it too). I don't think anyone is saying your Tempest doesn't need love, but I don't think we should be comparing a nerfed ship to another nerfed ship. What you're doing is playing down problems with blasters and saying "hey you guys don't have it rough, look at me!" when in actuallity there's problems with both of these races' ships now.
The way I saw the game designed originally (the devs at one point had an idea of the races having specialities) Caldari and Amarr have huge tanks and good dps (I think great dps) while Gallente and Minmatar have more solo/gank options; Gallente relying on heavy dps and meh tank while Minmatar have great alphastrike (not so much anymore after all previous the nerfs) and a speed tank advantage.
However, as the years have progressed people (I'll blame it on the bears) have been complaining that their Caldari ship that they've trained for to rat/mission can't do the same as a Gallente ship, so CCP made changes and brought the two races closer together, same thing with Amarr and Minmatar and all the different combinations you can think of. This, in my humble opinion, was STUPID, especially since the bonuses for the ship haven't really changed to reflect the new roles CCP tries to give them to make them more equal to their counter race's equivalent ship.
|
Tixxie Lix
Outer Heaven
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 10:27:00 -
[113]
Originally by: Arana Tellen
Maybe integrate the cap bonus on blaster ships and give them a small webbing bonus or tracking bonus perhaps?
Originally by: Markas Crais
I agree, the agility is horrendous at the moment (Gallente and Minmatar). While testing my friend's Raven was out turning and kiting me around that by the time I managed to get in range I was out of cap boosters. One MWD burst had me going about 400 m/s (which is a bit faster than an AB), top speed being 777 m/s. So the thrust from MWDs on bigger ships is really messed up right now in my opinion. What really made it worse was I couldn't continually boost because of the MWD delay, so I lost a lot of speed and cap to boot.
I was that Raven pilot. From what I saw and what Markas told me, the cap bonus would need to be quite a lot. You're already getting more cap on SiSi than you do on TQ, the problem is like what Markas said, it takes you at least twice as long to cover the same distance because you accelerate too damn slow and you can't burst the MWD to save on cap. Once you turn off that MWD you can't activate it again before you begin losing all your speed.
|
Gabriel Karade
Nulli-Secundus
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 10:58:00 -
[114]
Originally by: CCP Nozh
Blue bars.
Keep discussing.
The fundamental question is: Where do you the developers, intend for Blaster ships particularly Blaster Battleships, to fit in?
The Megathron with blasters was the solo pirate ship. That was its niche.
It's pretty useless inside fleets due to the range issues. In a typical 10 vs. 10 on a gate, roughly a 30km sphere of engagement, 10 pulse Armageddon/Apocalypses (for example) can focus on primary targets without having to move, it's simply a case of 'lock' 'fire' 'lock' 'fire'...
...10 Blasterthrons however, have to either all charge to get within 10km of the nearest primary, kill it then move onto the next, or all go for individual targets, all the while nuking their cap and getting picked off on the way in.
Onto the issue of vs. smaller targets, why shouldn't they be at high risk inside the 10km zone of death? A long range railgun boat has (obviously) a sweet spot at long range for swatting down smaller ships, and itÆs only if they get under its guns it's in trouble. Which these changes a Blaster boat has complete vulnerability at all ranges, it can't track well enough at it's optimal to hit even when using tracking computers, painters or now webs, and doesn't have the range to engage targets on the way in (particularly with Battleship locking times). Oh and youÆre one utility slot wonÆt help, since smartbombs have been left behind with each successive HP boost.
So what role do you intend for them? A Neutron blaster II does 54% more damage than a 425mm II railgun for 12% of the optimal range, and now, severe vulnerability at all ranges to smaller targets. It simply isnÆt worth it.
If you intend on going down this route you need to fundamentally fix how blasters work, they need to either have more tracking/damage to fulfil their niche, or you need to give them a hefty range boost to make them into proper medium range æfleetÆ weapons.
--------------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
Gabriel Karade
Nulli-Secundus
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 11:10:00 -
[115]
P.s Are you guys going to look at the tracking formula at some point? It should take into account effective target size with range, and acceleration (read: rotation) of the ship.
Simply put, it should be pretty difficult to swat down small targets at huge range (opposite is true at the moment), and at close range you should be missing targets less unless they are very small and very fast (you can miss other Battleships at point blank with Battleship weapons).
--------------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
Carniflex
Caldari
StarHunt
Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 11:13:00 -
[116]
Hm. I think some change was needed to how speed is in EVE and the one proposed by dev's is relatively good direction to look for that.
That out of the way if short range ship is unable to reach engagement range then it's ofc problematic. It is however 'short range' by definition meaning it's trading higher damage in exhancge of 'more universal' approach so it is needed to maintain situation where 'something' counters that 'short range'.
Why not change warp core stabs a bit or add some new specific module that counters the short range scrammer disabling the mwd. Good direction would be perhaps script for warp core stabs, so each of those counters one warp scrammer (not the points themselves but it's effect of disabling MWD). That way blaster pilots would have option to reach it's engagement range in small scale fight even if someone drops warp scrammer on them.
Or just some module that uses charges and generates quick 'pulse' of speed (and has reasonable reactivation delay) allowing short range ships the speedboost needed to get into engagement range while avoiding the issue of insane speeds for the duration of entire fight.
 |
Bellum Eternus
Gallente
Death of Virtue
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 11:15:00 -
[117]
Some quick options, just thinking out loud:
Double the optimal and the falloff for all blasters? What would this do for the Rokh?
Tracking increase for blasters vs. web increase would be more specific to blasters.
Maybe the DPS of Blasters needs to be looked at vs. peak tank numbers ships are now capable of?
Torp Raven can out-DPS most blaster fits, while also out-tanking most if not all blaster BS, with a range of 30km with max skills. Note that this is just guns vs. missiles, no TP or combat drones, no weapon specific damage implants.
Bellum Eternus
[Vid] L E G E N D A R Y COLLECTION
Inveniam viam aut faciam. |
Alex Harumichi
Gallente
Gradient
Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 11:23:00 -
[118]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Double the optimal and the falloff for all blasters?
Might work (though the Rokh might become an issue, as you note).
Currently, if you compare pulse lasers to blasters, you'll notice that pulse laser dps is only about 1/7 less than blaster dps, with 3.5x (or some such) the range. A typical pulse Geddon outdamages or does the same dps as a typical neutron blaster Mega, while having vastly better weapon range. Something is not quite right here.
|
Crae Matreki
Sten Industries
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 11:30:00 -
[119]
I was a supporter of the changes until I read this.
Dropping the top speeds is one thing, but nerfing the time it takes to get to that speed is a bit harsh. It sounds like the death of short-range weapons, as any long range boat will just tear you a new one while you're wheelspinning your MWD. 
|
Dzajic
Gallente
Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 11:42:00 -
[120]
It is not the nerf of short ranged weapons. It allows poor Ravens with nerfed Torps to be useful again. If anything it is a boost to short ranged weapons. Remeber all those, "Boost Amarr", it would seem CCP has finally caught up to those requests.
[/sarcasm]
|
|
| 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 |