Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Saietor Blackgreen
Capital Construction Research
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 15:42:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Saietor Blackgreen on 29/09/2009 15:44:08 Edited by: Saietor Blackgreen on 29/09/2009 15:43:14 I know there's lots of talking back and forth about fixing blasters now that speed was changed and webs got nerfed. But I never heard this one articulated well properly.
For all these years I've played the game blasters were supposed to be the ultimate close range weapons. Blaster boat is supposed to be "untouchable flaming ball", meaning you can kite it, but if you get within the distance you immediately recieve huge damage. The diameter of this sphere can be adjusted somewhat with different amo types, but the initial concept has to stay - "touch-and-die".
Why not boost tracking, and, even better probably, signature resolution of the turret? Boost it REALLY high, give blasters the tracking AND signature resolution of the weapon one size below - medium for large, small for medium, OMFGBBQ for small.
Will that solve the problem? Can someone analyse how much better will be the damage within the engagement window?
I understand that there is always another major problem to this - how to keep the enemy in range. But any weapon has to have at least one problem, otherwise it becomes OP.
I also understand that this needs to be considered along with autocannons and pulses performance, but if most of us agree that the parity of effective ranges should stay, then this seems like the right way, for example:
- Reduce pulses tracking to narrow down their effective window.
- Boost blasters tracking very high to make their small window very high-quality one.
- Introduce the suggested changes to ACs to increase their versatility and overall efficiency in between lasers and blasters (ACs to be the choice where you need faster tracking that lasers but staying out of blaster ranges, as they are now, basically).
Thoughts? ---
EvE online. New game every 6 months. |
mchief117
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 15:49:00 -
[2]
to this i agree
as a owner of the supposed ultimate blaster boat the Hyperion im said to say that the basters simply dont cut it any more with people gettig there tanks as high as they are
|
JitaPriceChecker2
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 16:17:00 -
[3]
Originally by: mchief117 to this i agree
as a owner of the supposed ultimate blaster boat the Hyperion im said to say that the basters simply dont cut it any more with people gettig there tanks as high as they are
It was funny to watch on alliance tournament how 2 proteuses died to 1 tengu being unable to brake his passive tank.
I say increase dps/or tracking , their very limited range is not being compensate by better dps/tracking.
|
Gavin Darklighter
Ministry of War
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 16:18:00 -
[4]
Problem is neutron blasters with null get better damage out to warp-disruptor range than 800mm ACs with barrage, and past that range both weapons are doing terrible damage anyway. With your proposed changes I would be fitting neutrons on my Maelstroms from now on since they would both have about the same point-blank DPS but the neutrons would track FAR better.
signature picture exceeds the size limit.~WeatherMan |
Kittamaru
Gallente Democracy of Klingon Brothers Wicked Nation
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 16:20:00 -
[5]
Why not double Blasters chance to score a Critical hit in addition to better tracking?
|
Saietor Blackgreen
Capital Construction Research
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 16:45:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Gavin Darklighter Problem is neutron blasters with null get better damage out to warp-disruptor range than 800mm ACs with barrage, and past that range both weapons are doing terrible damage anyway. With your proposed changes I would be fitting neutrons on my Maelstroms from now on since they would both have about the same point-blank DPS but the neutrons would track FAR better.
This is an issue of large ACs rather than blasters really - this is also a long time discussed feature - large ACs need revisiting, and they are being looked at.
Plus, fitting neutrons on Maelstrom you will be hitting your active tank too, so its still a pretty big compromise, right? ---
EvE online. New game every 6 months. |
Don Pellegrino
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 18:52:00 -
[7]
Originally by: JitaPriceChecker2
Originally by: mchief117 to this i agree
as a owner of the supposed ultimate blaster boat the Hyperion im said to say that the basters simply dont cut it any more with people gettig there tanks as high as they are
It was funny to watch on alliance tournament how 2 proteuses died to 1 tengu being unable to brake his passive tank.
I say increase dps/or tracking , their very limited range is not being compensate by better dps/tracking.
this.
Let's NOT boost range. It makes the blasters what they are. Tracking should be at least what pulse lasers are right now and pulses tracking should be lowered a bit (current blaster level?) And boost damage.
|
Kalia Masaer
Rosa Castellum
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 21:04:00 -
[8]
Pulse laser currently have worse tracking than blasters or AC's.
But onto the original subject I agree that blasters need a boost but dropping the sig radius and tracking one size down would mean that tracking against cruisers wouldn't be an issue and you would be unleashing full DPS even against a cruiser. Can you say WTF pawn mobile especially since you could run an AB and maintain traversal on another BS so it couldn't track you. This change would throw them ahead of lasers and only create a nightmare to balance out.
The most probably solution is to solely to boost blaster tracking and that of AC's to maintain current balance between them. Along with that the brutix should recieve a boost to 150 m/s as really is a blaster boat.
|
Sunset Rogue
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 23:05:00 -
[9]
Blaster idea: 25% tracking boost, 5% rof increase. I like the sig reduction idea, but bs sized guns having cruiser sig is heavy overkill. Keeps with the "weapons must be unique" idea CCP has been constantly repeating.
Originally by: Saietor Blackgreen
- Reduce pulses tracking to narrow down their effective window.
I was with you until this part. Why do the WoW players have such massive erections for nerfs? Pulse lasers already have the lowest tracking and CCP just fixed them. Stop calling for nerfs.
|
Duchess Starbuckington
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 23:30:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Sunset Rogue Blaster idea: 25% tracking boost, 5% rof increase. I like the sig reduction idea, but bs sized guns having cruiser sig is heavy overkill. Keeps with the "weapons must be unique" idea CCP has been constantly repeating.
Originally by: Saietor Blackgreen
- Reduce pulses tracking to narrow down their effective window.
I was with you until this part. Why do the people with a speck of intelligence have such massive erections for not having their weapon systems obsoleted by lasers? Pulse lasers already have the lowest tracking at point blank range and CCP just overpowered them. Stop calling for nerfs.
Fixed.
|
|
Sunset Rogue
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 23:36:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Duchess Starbuckington
Why do the people with a speck of intelligence have such massive erections for not having their weapon systems obsoleted by lasers? Pulse lasers already have the lowest tracking at point blank range and CCP just overpowered them. Stop calling for nerfs.
Fixed.
Captain we are reading a butthurt overload! CCP just buffed lasers. No matter how much you about the overpowered shama... amarr, CCP will not nerf them.
Blasters currently have better tracking and higher damage output over pulse lasers. Stop crying for a nerf.
|
The Djego
Minmatar Hellequin Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.09.30 00:02:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Gavin Darklighter Problem is neutron blasters with null get better damage out to warp-disruptor range than 800mm ACs with barrage, and past that range both weapons are doing terrible damage anyway. With your proposed changes I would be fitting neutrons on my Maelstroms from now on since they would both have about the same point-blank DPS but the neutrons would track FAR better.
I also agree that this is more a problem with AKs than with blasters(what might be fixed with the incomming changes). Then again the problem is only on the neutron blaster, and the ship gives up most of his abilitys to fit a real tank with it(yes I know you use a ST neutron hype).
In general the problem is mostly on the web change, the damage of a blastership looked bigger than it actualy was by the simple concept how a blaster ship workes. Get close, force both ships to close to zero movement, do 102% of your DPS on the target(also reciving this at the same time by this tactic). Im not realy see a fix in a tracking boost(yes it would help) but it is still not a real compensation for the web nerf(since range became a bigger issue with the introducion of mwd death by scrams). It also donŠt increases the power of Neutrons out of web range, what is quite a lot and enught to finish off most of the medium ships that try to kite mostly without bit issues.
In general real blaster ships need more powerfull webs to work right. This donŠt need to be 90%, even a 75% would help a lot. By this the blaster ship would regain his advantage at close range, also cosideralbe better performance than other ship types at close range and the more flexible target selection at point blank. Shure more damage would help but by regaining the old advantages I see a lot more reason to field them again outside of the RR bs gang or the throw away gang damage dealer.
---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank!
Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS
|
Posted - 2009.09.30 00:40:00 -
[13]
The issue here is peak DPS. Better tracking is good/needed, but better sig res? Blasters don't need to be better vs. smaller ships. They need to be better vs. the same class of ships they're fit to.
The limitation of blasters is range. Their optimal sucks. And don't talk to me about falloff. It's not an option. Neutron Blaster Cannon IIs have an optimal with max skills of about 4.75km using Fed Navy AM and no TC/TE. This is the most any blaster has in Eve. Everything else is considerably less. This is half of effective web range. Hold a blaster ship at 8-9km and it's DPS drops by 40-50%. Hold it at 13-14km and it's DPS drops by 80-85%. And this is if you're looking at a best case scenario for the blaster ship. It only gets worse from there.
That being said, blasters don't do very much peak DPS when compared to lasers, and while ACs aren't shining examples of performance, they're getting fixed in the next patch, along with Minmatar BS, so that's a non issue at this point IMO.
Blasters need more peak DPS. As an example, on test my Navy Geddon does 95% of the DPS of my Navy Megathron, but it has five times the range, and that's not even taking into account the wunderammo that is Scorch. All other stats are comparable with respect to tank and speed etc. Blasters should have a good 15-20% advantage in peak DPS over it's next highest competitor (lasers) inside of it's optimal range. 5% just doesn't cut it.
Blasters still need a slight tracking buff to fix the horrid tracking issues that were uncovered by the web nerf, but above all they need a massive damage increase in order to put them where they need to be DPS wise- on top, with a bullet. -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Tier 5 Battleships
|
Don Pellegrino
|
Posted - 2009.09.30 02:28:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus The issue here is peak DPS. Better tracking is good/needed, but better sig res? Blasters don't need to be better vs. smaller ships. They need to be better vs. the same class of ships they're fit to.
The limitation of blasters is range. Their optimal sucks. And don't talk to me about falloff. It's not an option. Neutron Blaster Cannon IIs have an optimal with max skills of about 4.75km using Fed Navy AM and no TC/TE. This is the most any blaster has in Eve. Everything else is considerably less. This is half of effective web range. Hold a blaster ship at 8-9km and it's DPS drops by 40-50%. Hold it at 13-14km and it's DPS drops by 80-85%. And this is if you're looking at a best case scenario for the blaster ship. It only gets worse from there.
That being said, blasters don't do very much peak DPS when compared to lasers, and while ACs aren't shining examples of performance, they're getting fixed in the next patch, along with Minmatar BS, so that's a non issue at this point IMO.
Blasters need more peak DPS. As an example, on test my Navy Geddon does 95% of the DPS of my Navy Megathron, but it has five times the range, and that's not even taking into account the wunderammo that is Scorch. All other stats are comparable with respect to tank and speed etc. Blasters should have a good 15-20% advantage in peak DPS over it's next highest competitor (lasers) inside of it's optimal range. 5% just doesn't cut it.
Blasters still need a slight tracking buff to fix the horrid tracking issues that were uncovered by the web nerf, but above all they need a massive damage increase in order to put them where they need to be DPS wise- on top, with a bullet.
I couldn't have said it in a better way.
|
Saietor Blackgreen
Capital Construction Research
|
Posted - 2009.09.30 04:16:00 -
[15]
Thanks for answers! Several ntes on this:
1) I see some objections to sigres change, saying "they are not supposed to hit smaller ships" - you do realise that decreasing sigres and increasing tracking is exactly the same for turrets? Just 100% the same, no difference. OTOH I guess sigres doesnt need changing really, just changing tracking will make it easier to compare turrets :)
2) Regarding "lasers have lows tracking dont nerf them" issue. Yes they do, but tracking by itself is meaningless, it matters only together with optimal. Simple geometry:
If you decrease weapon optimal 2-fold you have to increase its tracking 4 times (square) to keep the same chance to hit! Now, compare the ratio of optimals of pulses and blasters, and then compare their trackings. Now you see why pulses are sow mega-awesome? Their effective window is HUGE, way too huge. I totally agree it has to be big by their role, but should not extend THAT far into closerange.
So it doesnt matter that lasers have worse tracking VALUE, it matters that they have WAY too big value of [optimal/cos(tracking)] compared to other turrets.
***
So, to recap my idea, each of the close-range turrets should have equal or comparable [optimal/cos(tracking)] value to be on par.
ACs will thus have even batter value in their engagement range (optimal+1/2falloff to faloff), which will somewhat make sure that at least their faloff damage drop is not made even worse by tracking, AND compensate for high speed of Matari ships. ---
EvE online. New game every 6 months. |
Kittamaru
Gallente Democracy of Klingon Brothers Wicked Nation
|
Posted - 2009.09.30 04:18:00 -
[16]
Well, why not give it a 10% damage increase via damage mod AND double it's crit rate?
|
R Mika
|
Posted - 2009.09.30 04:41:00 -
[17]
Edited by: R Mika on 30/09/2009 04:42:57 Yep, OP is absolutley correct. Its been agreed upon by every person I have ever spoken in game with on this topic. The majority of experienced players know it, I believe many CSM candidates do, too. Moreover, all guns need to be revisited (and missles too).
Amazingly these changes are some of the simplest because they just require adjustment to Eve's database values... The fundemental theorems behind damage dealing in Eve are good. The implementation needs adjusting.
|
Saietor Blackgreen
Capital Construction Research
|
Posted - 2009.09.30 07:03:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Saietor Blackgreen on 30/09/2009 07:04:56
Originally by: Kittamaru Well, why not give it a 10% damage increase via damage mod AND double it's crit rate?
1) You cant adjust crit rate for selected turret in EVE - its hardcoded into tracking formula. I.e. it is not the attribute of turret. Wrecking is 2% of the shots or less if chance to hit is less.
2) Increasing damage mod will also increase blasters damage on stationary target - that is not the essense of the problem. Problem is that currently blasters cannot deliver their theoretical DPS on targets in their optimal ranges.
Saying that, MAYBE blasters need an increase to raw DPS too, but its not the issue I'm talking about currently. ---
EvE online. New game every 6 months. |
Saietor Blackgreen
Capital Construction Research
|
Posted - 2009.09.30 07:09:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Kalia Masaer dropping the sig radius and tracking one size down would mean that tracking against cruisers wouldn't be an issue and you would be unleashing full DPS even against a cruiser. Can you say WTF pawn mobile especially since you could run an AB and maintain traversal on another BS so it couldn't track you. This change would throw them ahead of lasers and only create a nightmare to balance out.
Right, one size down is over the top. But I think I delivered the idea right - to be able to deliver their damage at close range blasters need theur tracking boosted RALLY HIGH. How much exactly is a matter of playing around with transversals/ranges and DPS graphs a little. ---
EvE online. New game every 6 months. |
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS
|
Posted - 2009.09.30 07:36:00 -
[20]
I'm not disagreeing that blaster tracking needs to be increased rather drastically, but my point is that even when both ships are at 0m/sec relative velocity the theoretical peak DPS is STILL too low. It needs to be increased by an additional 15-20%. -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Tier 5 Battleships
|
|
Saietor Blackgreen
Capital Construction Research
|
Posted - 2009.09.30 16:08:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus I'm not disagreeing that blaster tracking needs to be increased rather drastically, but my point is that even when both ships are at 0m/sec relative velocity the theoretical peak DPS is STILL too low. It needs to be increased by an additional 15-20%.
Quite possible. But all the blaster boats will have to get anti-whine shielding to protect them from the AC users then :) ---
EvE online. New game every 6 months. |
Kittamaru
Gallente Democracy of Klingon Brothers Wicked Nation
|
Posted - 2009.09.30 16:16:00 -
[22]
What about increasing the speed of blaster boats a little? Say, 10%?
Imagine the Deimos, Hyperion, Megathron, Thorax, Incursis, Enyo... all actually able to GET into range before dying. Add the 5% damage bonus on top of that PLUS a 10% tracking bonus, and now you have a knife-ranged ball of death.
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS
|
Posted - 2009.09.30 16:27:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Saietor Blackgreen
Originally by: Bellum Eternus I'm not disagreeing that blaster tracking needs to be increased rather drastically, but my point is that even when both ships are at 0m/sec relative velocity the theoretical peak DPS is STILL too low. It needs to be increased by an additional 15-20%.
Quite possible. But all the blaster boats will have to get anti-whine shielding to protect them from the AC users then :)
The upcoming projectile fixes should make ACs work just fine. ACs should be doing more damage at longer range than blasters to allow AC boats to kite blaster ships with AC's lack of cap use promoting easy MWD operation by the AC ships. -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Tier 5 Battleships
|
Xahara
StarFleet Enterprises Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2009.09.30 17:44:00 -
[24]
Yes, it's time CCP improves blasters. Us gallente peeps are sick and tired of not having the firepower that we're supposed to have. If blasters have the most horrible optimal/falloff of all weapons and CCP still wants to keep it as it is, at least boost the damage output dramatically.
/Whine
|
Saietor Blackgreen
Capital Construction Research
|
Posted - 2009.09.30 19:01:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Kittamaru What about increasing the speed of blaster boats a little? Say, 10%?
Imagine the Deimos, Hyperion, Megathron, Thorax, Incursis, Enyo... all actually able to GET into range before dying. Add the 5% damage bonus on top of that PLUS a 10% tracking bonus, and now you have a knife-ranged ball of death.
This wont help to track the fast targets at closerange, AND will create additional tracking problems due to high speed of the ship itself. Pleus, where did all these values came from? Why 10% tracking? That is not even remotely enough to fix them. ---
EvE online. New game every 6 months. |
fab24
Gallente Order of Anarchy The Laughing Men
|
Posted - 2009.09.30 19:20:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Saietor Blackgreen Edited by: Saietor Blackgreen on 29/09/2009 15:44:08 Edited by: Saietor Blackgreen on 29/09/2009 15:43:14 I know there's lots of talking back and forth about fixing blasters now that speed was changed and webs got nerfed. But I never heard this one articulated well properly.
For all these years I've played the game blasters were supposed to be the ultimate close range weapons. Blaster boat is supposed to be "untouchable flaming ball", meaning you can kite it, but if you get within the distance you immediately recieve huge damage. The diameter of this sphere can be adjusted somewhat with different amo types, but the initial concept has to stay - "touch-and-die".
Why not boost tracking, and, even better probably, signature resolution of the turret? Boost it REALLY high, give blasters the tracking AND signature resolution of the weapon one size below - medium for large, small for medium, OMFGBBQ for small.
Will that solve the problem? Can someone analyse how much better will be the damage within the engagement window?
I understand that there is always another major problem to this - how to keep the enemy in range. But any weapon has to have at least one problem, otherwise it becomes OP.
I also understand that this needs to be considered along with autocannons and pulses performance, but if most of us agree that the parity of effective ranges should stay, then this seems like the right way, for example:
- Reduce pulses tracking to narrow down their effective window.
- Boost blasters tracking very high to make their small window very high-quality one.
- Introduce the suggested changes to ACs to increase their versatility and overall efficiency in between lasers and blasters (ACs to be the choice where you need faster tracking that lasers but staying out of blaster ranges, as they are now, basically).
Thoughts?
When will you stfu with ur ****** whines about blaster boost and nerf pulses ? Trolling is not permitted on the forum - we encourage threads that discuss issues in a constructive and spirited atmosphere. < lmfao... |
Saietor Blackgreen
Capital Construction Research
|
Posted - 2009.09.30 19:33:00 -
[27]
Originally by: fab24 When will you stfu with ur ****** whines about blaster boost and nerf pulses ?
When 2 conditions will be fulfilled: 1) When close-range turret tracking will be balanced against their intended engagement range 2) When people will respond in constructive way instead of just overquoting and swearing at people discussing the game mechanics
Considdering the second condition being impossible to fulfill - I guess never :) ---
EvE online. New game every 6 months. |
Saietor Blackgreen
Capital Construction Research
|
Posted - 2009.09.30 19:55:00 -
[28]
Updated OP with graphs comparing standard blasters with the ones with dramatically higher tracking (enough to reshape the curve the way I believe its meant to look) ---
EvE online. New game every 6 months. |
Sunset Rogue
|
Posted - 2009.09.30 21:31:00 -
[29]
CCP just buffed laser tracking. You can give up now because it is where they intend it to be.
Perhaps you should encourage CCP to fix the broken weapons instead of crying about lasers; a weapon system that was just brought up to par after several years of being vastly inferior.
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS
|
Posted - 2009.09.30 21:56:00 -
[30]
The graphs do make it much easier to understand your point. I agree that tracking needs to be increased, but I also suggest that peak DPS needs to be increased as well. -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Tier 5 Battleships
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |